Informazione
International Crisis Group: un Think Tank nel cuore dell'Europa
Infoguerre, 2003-08-01
L'International Crisis Group (ICG) è un Think Tank ("serbatoio di idee)
la cui vocazione è la "prevenzione e la risoluzione dei
conflitti". Une delle sue particolarità è quella di aver scelto per
sede Bruxelles, capitale europea. Tenendo conto della qualità del
lavoro fornito da questo organismo e dell'esperienza degli uomini che
lo compongono, ciò dovrebbe, senza dubbio, inorgoglire.
Ma, ci interroghiamo, perché Bruxelles? È una scelta pertinente o
semplicemente interessata?
Dopo una riflessione, bisogna riconoscere che questa città belga non ha
nulla da invidiare a Washington o a Londra: accoglie molte istituzioni
europee, la sede della Nato, gli uffici dei gruppi di pressione e
diverse ONG, e, personale diplomatico. E perché la nostra capitale
europea non potrebbe ospitare anche le sedi sociali delle imprese,
degli uffici degli
avvocati e... dell’ICG ?
A Bruxelles, il “serbatoio di idee” è certo di toccare un largo
pubblico in cui si trovano uomini le cui decisioni influenzano le
nostre vite di europei e di francesi.
Pertanto, la ICG é un Think Tank europeo? Ha la vocazione di appoggiare
la politica diplomatica europea?
Alcuni elementi proposti qui di seguito dovrebbero permetterci di
rispondere ai nostri dubbi:
1. ICG é una "organizzazione multinazionale indipendente e senza scopi
di lucro". Cioè, l'International Crisis Group non da conto a nessuno.
La sua indipendenza di operazione è garantita grazie ai fondi di
diversa provenienza. Dei fondi governativi in particolare: tedeschi,
australiani, austriaci, canadesi, danesi, statunitensi, finlandesi,
francesi, irlandesi,
giapponesi, lussemburghesi, norvegesi, olandesi, taiwanesi, inglesi,
svedesi, svizzeri e turchi.
Fondazioni e donatori del settore privato sono: The Atlantic
Philanthropies, la Carnegie Corporation of New York, la Fondation Ford
et la Fondation Bill et Melinda Gates, la Fondation William et Flora
Hewlett, la Fondation Henry Luce, Inc., la Fondation John D. et
Catherine T. MacArthur, l'Open Society Institute, la Fondation pour la
Paix Sasakawa, la Sarlo Foundation of the Jewish Community Endowment
Fund, la United States Institute of Peace...
Le risorse dell'ICG sono considerevoli. Lo dimostra la capacità di
Impiegare 90 persone e di disporre di rappresentanti a Mosca, Parigi,
Londra, New York e Washington.
Inoltre, l'organizzazione possiede abbastanza fondi per inviare i suoi
analisti in Asia centrale, Africa australe, America Latina e ancora in
Medio oriente.
Gestisce ugualmente 11 uffici a Amman, Belgrado, Bogota, Nairobi, Osh,
Islamabad...
Infine, l'ICG può permettersi di avere un sito internet di qualità, di
pubblicare le proprie analisi sotto forma di rapporti o di libri e di
assicurarne una distribuzione a grande scala.
Notiamo che poche ONG, centri di ricerca, "serbatoi di idee"... possono
permettersi di operare come l'ICG.
Notiamo anche che la ricerca dei fondi per l'ICG è discreta: niente
aderenti, né campagne pubblicitarie...
2. Il consiglio d'amministrazione dell'ICG raggruppa "eminenti membri
del mondo politico, diplomatico, così come degli affari e dei media"
che si impegnano "direttamente a promuovere i rapporti e le
raccomandazioni dell'ICG presso i politici di tutto il
mondo". Cioè, questo consiglio d'amministrazione è la rete con la quale
l'International Crisis Group può trasmettere i suoi messaggi. L’ICG
farà conoscere tanto più le sue analisi e raccomandazioni quanto più i
membri del suo consiglio sono influenti.
Citiamo, a mò d'esempio, qualcuno di essi:
Zbigniew Brzezinski, ex-consigliere democratico della sicurezza
nazionale del presidente Carter e autore de “La grande scacchiera.
L'America e il resto del mondo" (Bayard, Paris 1977).
George Soros, miliardario statunitense di origine ungherese, l'origine
della cui fortuna resta sorprendente rispetto alla sua concezione della
filantropia (La sua fondazione, la Fondazione George Soros, cesserà di
esistere nel 2010).
Wesley Clark, vecchio patrocinatore statunitense della Nato (e generale
USA, NdC)
Fidel V. Ramos, Morton Abramowitz, William Schowcross,
Christine Ockrent, Simone Veil...
Notiamo una composizione del consiglio d'amministrazione che fa
sognare: vecchi presidenti o ministri, giornalisti noti, alti
funzionari, uomini d'affari...
Si capisce, l’ICG é animato da una rete densa, influente e attiva, che
possiede, privilegio raro, i mezzi per realizzare i propri obiettivi.
Bisogna ben dire che è l’immagine di un Think Tank efficace, come si
desidera avere in Europa.
E poi, perché non ispirarsi al suo esempio per creare un "serbatoio di
idee" la cui équipe, composta di europei, abbia per scopo la difesa e
la promozione degli interessi dell'Unione Europea?
S.A.
Fonte: http://www.infoguerre.com/article.php?sid=618
Traduzione di Alessandro Lattanzio
Email: alexlattanzio@...
Sito: http://members.xoom.it/sitoaurora
Infoguerre, 2003-08-01
L'International Crisis Group (ICG) è un Think Tank ("serbatoio di idee)
la cui vocazione è la "prevenzione e la risoluzione dei
conflitti". Une delle sue particolarità è quella di aver scelto per
sede Bruxelles, capitale europea. Tenendo conto della qualità del
lavoro fornito da questo organismo e dell'esperienza degli uomini che
lo compongono, ciò dovrebbe, senza dubbio, inorgoglire.
Ma, ci interroghiamo, perché Bruxelles? È una scelta pertinente o
semplicemente interessata?
Dopo una riflessione, bisogna riconoscere che questa città belga non ha
nulla da invidiare a Washington o a Londra: accoglie molte istituzioni
europee, la sede della Nato, gli uffici dei gruppi di pressione e
diverse ONG, e, personale diplomatico. E perché la nostra capitale
europea non potrebbe ospitare anche le sedi sociali delle imprese,
degli uffici degli
avvocati e... dell’ICG ?
A Bruxelles, il “serbatoio di idee” è certo di toccare un largo
pubblico in cui si trovano uomini le cui decisioni influenzano le
nostre vite di europei e di francesi.
Pertanto, la ICG é un Think Tank europeo? Ha la vocazione di appoggiare
la politica diplomatica europea?
Alcuni elementi proposti qui di seguito dovrebbero permetterci di
rispondere ai nostri dubbi:
1. ICG é una "organizzazione multinazionale indipendente e senza scopi
di lucro". Cioè, l'International Crisis Group non da conto a nessuno.
La sua indipendenza di operazione è garantita grazie ai fondi di
diversa provenienza. Dei fondi governativi in particolare: tedeschi,
australiani, austriaci, canadesi, danesi, statunitensi, finlandesi,
francesi, irlandesi,
giapponesi, lussemburghesi, norvegesi, olandesi, taiwanesi, inglesi,
svedesi, svizzeri e turchi.
Fondazioni e donatori del settore privato sono: The Atlantic
Philanthropies, la Carnegie Corporation of New York, la Fondation Ford
et la Fondation Bill et Melinda Gates, la Fondation William et Flora
Hewlett, la Fondation Henry Luce, Inc., la Fondation John D. et
Catherine T. MacArthur, l'Open Society Institute, la Fondation pour la
Paix Sasakawa, la Sarlo Foundation of the Jewish Community Endowment
Fund, la United States Institute of Peace...
Le risorse dell'ICG sono considerevoli. Lo dimostra la capacità di
Impiegare 90 persone e di disporre di rappresentanti a Mosca, Parigi,
Londra, New York e Washington.
Inoltre, l'organizzazione possiede abbastanza fondi per inviare i suoi
analisti in Asia centrale, Africa australe, America Latina e ancora in
Medio oriente.
Gestisce ugualmente 11 uffici a Amman, Belgrado, Bogota, Nairobi, Osh,
Islamabad...
Infine, l'ICG può permettersi di avere un sito internet di qualità, di
pubblicare le proprie analisi sotto forma di rapporti o di libri e di
assicurarne una distribuzione a grande scala.
Notiamo che poche ONG, centri di ricerca, "serbatoi di idee"... possono
permettersi di operare come l'ICG.
Notiamo anche che la ricerca dei fondi per l'ICG è discreta: niente
aderenti, né campagne pubblicitarie...
2. Il consiglio d'amministrazione dell'ICG raggruppa "eminenti membri
del mondo politico, diplomatico, così come degli affari e dei media"
che si impegnano "direttamente a promuovere i rapporti e le
raccomandazioni dell'ICG presso i politici di tutto il
mondo". Cioè, questo consiglio d'amministrazione è la rete con la quale
l'International Crisis Group può trasmettere i suoi messaggi. L’ICG
farà conoscere tanto più le sue analisi e raccomandazioni quanto più i
membri del suo consiglio sono influenti.
Citiamo, a mò d'esempio, qualcuno di essi:
Zbigniew Brzezinski, ex-consigliere democratico della sicurezza
nazionale del presidente Carter e autore de “La grande scacchiera.
L'America e il resto del mondo" (Bayard, Paris 1977).
George Soros, miliardario statunitense di origine ungherese, l'origine
della cui fortuna resta sorprendente rispetto alla sua concezione della
filantropia (La sua fondazione, la Fondazione George Soros, cesserà di
esistere nel 2010).
Wesley Clark, vecchio patrocinatore statunitense della Nato (e generale
USA, NdC)
Fidel V. Ramos, Morton Abramowitz, William Schowcross,
Christine Ockrent, Simone Veil...
Notiamo una composizione del consiglio d'amministrazione che fa
sognare: vecchi presidenti o ministri, giornalisti noti, alti
funzionari, uomini d'affari...
Si capisce, l’ICG é animato da una rete densa, influente e attiva, che
possiede, privilegio raro, i mezzi per realizzare i propri obiettivi.
Bisogna ben dire che è l’immagine di un Think Tank efficace, come si
desidera avere in Europa.
E poi, perché non ispirarsi al suo esempio per creare un "serbatoio di
idee" la cui équipe, composta di europei, abbia per scopo la difesa e
la promozione degli interessi dell'Unione Europea?
S.A.
Fonte: http://www.infoguerre.com/article.php?sid=618
Traduzione di Alessandro Lattanzio
Email: alexlattanzio@...
Sito: http://members.xoom.it/sitoaurora
The ethnic cleansing of Dubrovnik, 12 years ago
1. On 1 October 1991 the biggest ethnic cleansing of a city in modern
Europe began / 1 oktobra 1991 pocelo je najvece etnicko ciscenje jednog
grada, u savremenoj Evropi
2. On ethnic Serbs in Croatia and their property rights (on the
situation of Zadar Serbs)
=== 1 ===
Da: "minja m."
Data: Gio 2 Ott 2003 05:18:14 Europe/Rome
Oggetto: On 1 October 1991 the biggest ethnic cleansing of a city in
modern Europe began
------------- Forwarded Massage ---------------------------------
Date: 1 Oct 2003 01:54:08 EDT
From: SCofSAvasko
On 1 October 1991 the biggest ethnic cleansing of a city in modern
Europe began. Of about 10 000 Serbs living in Dubrovnik, 90% were
friven out in a couple days, forever.
Today, twelve years later, none have returned. Illustrious Dubrovnik
families –– Apolonio, Reljic, Pejovic,Lucic, Elakovic, Zecevic,
Boskovic (descendants of the glorious Rudjer Boskovic), Kovac, Bazdar,
Simic, Krivokuca, Vukasinovic, Segrt, Ciganovic, Markovic, Puljizevic,
Groseta and many others, all expelled in a genocidal war.
Lawyers, professors, medical doctors, philosophers, journalists and
other intellectuals “vacated” their job spots for rabid west
Herzegovinian extremists, the pre–eminent Croatian Nazis –– the
Ustashas.
Today they rule the once multi–ethnic city, which had been an oasis of
freedom for centuries.
Serbs and other Dubrovnikers again this year, on the day of the
expulsion, implore all of you who can to relay this letter to European
and world organizations, to make possible our return to our own houses,
now occupied by thieves, and resume life in their native city.
(signed)
Dubrovniker in Exile
=======
1 oktobra 1991 pocelo je najvece etnicko ciscenje jednog grada, u
savremenoj Evropi.
Od oko 10 hiljada Srba, za par dana, zauvijek je iz Dubrovnika
protjerano preko 90%, a dvanaest godina kasnije, nema povratnika.
Ugledne stoljetne dubrovacke familije, Apolonio, Reljic, Pejovic,Lucic,
Elakovic, Zecevic, Boskovic (nasljednici slavnog Rudjera), Kovac,
Bazdar, Simic, Krivokuca, Vukasinovic, Segrt, Ciganovic, Markovic,
Puljizevic, Groseta i mnoge druge, protjerane su iz Dubrovnika u
genocidnom ratu.
Advokati, profesori, doktori, filozofi, novinari i drugi intelektualci
"otvorili" su radna mjesta za ekstremne zapadne Hercegovce, poznate kao
ustase, koji danas vladaju nekada visenacionalnim gradom, oazom
stoljetne slobode.
Srbi i ostali Dubrovcani, i ove godine, na dan progona, mole sve Vas
koji mozete, da ovo pismo dostavite svim nadleznim evropksim i
svjetskim organizacijam, kako bi se vratili u svoje okupirane kuce i
kako bi nastavili zivot u rodnom Gradu.
Dubrovcanin u egzilu
=== 2 ===
Da: Predrag Tosic
Data: Gio 19 Giu 2003 03:15:53 Europe/Rome
A: yugoslaviainfo <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Oggetto: [yugoslaviainfo] On ethnic Serbs in Croatia and their property
rights
[ Zadar is in the north-west of Croatia, perhaps the third largest
city along Croatia's Adriatic coast (after Split and Rijeka). Prior to
1991, Zadar had a sizable Serb population. Most of those Serbs have
fled. Now, some of the Zadar Serbs are trying to re-claim their
property rights to apartments and houses that they (used to) live in,
and still (de jure) own in the city. "Feral Tribune" is a leading
daily in Split, Croatia. This newspaper is well-known for its
anti-fascist, anti-chauvinist and anti-Tudjman stance throughout the
1990s. Viktor Ivancic is one of the editors and leading columnists of
"Feral Tribune". -- PT ]
Feral Tribune, Split, Croatia
December 14, 2001
Why no one reacted to the scandalous list of "Serbs from Zadar who are
demanding restitution of their houses and publicly owned apartments",
published in Zadarski List
TOP-LIST OF HYPERREALISTS
If we can talk about ideology as far as Racan's administration is
concerned - or at least retarded form of missionary zeal - then its
common
thread is symbolically represented as a role of a savior that separates
two
warring sides in a staged civil war
by Viktor IVANCIC
Late last month Zadarski list published an interesting serial. In two
installments, the newspaper published a list of "Serbs from Zadar who
are
demanding restitution of their houses and publicly owned apartments".
The
structure of the article is also interesting: number, name and surname,
address, and so on over several pages. Thus, Zadarski list managed to
find
and unmask as many as 450 "Serbs from Zadar" who, what an outrage, are
"demanding restitution of their houses and publicly owned apartments".
This
reading material, with names, addresses and criminal demands of "Serbs
from Zadar" was included in the section named "Events".
Until today, not one of the competent or incompetent individuals or
institutions in Croatia has reacted to this shameful public call for
lynching that imitates the best traditions of the Croat journalism in
the
early 90's or, if you prefer, German journalism in the late 30's. The
black
list simply rolled off the presses into the Zadar public without a
peep, as
something that is totally natural and reasonable, just like it totally
made
sense to declare a war crimes suspect for a citizen of honor without a
single local councelor casting, including those that belong to Racan's
party, a no vote.
If Croatia were a country that upholds at least minimal democratic
standards, the journalistic endeavor of Zadarski list would have been
suppressed with highly undemocratic methods. For example, the newspaper
would have been banned, the remaining copies confiscated and destroyed,
while the editor-in-chief would have been banned from working in the
media
long enough to make sure he gets plenty of time to write righteous
protests
against "suppression of free speech". However, Croatia is not such a
country. Here democratic conventions are respected mostly when it comes
to
those who advocate "dialogue" regarding freedom of execution and similar
modes of plural killing fields.
In that sense the black list with 450 names, addresses and criminal
demands,
is only a logical consequence of the cry of Ms Zeljka Antunovic, deputy
prime minister, about how the executive authorities would never
restitute
denied tenancy rights to "Serbs from Zadar", or any Serbs for that
matter.
Naturally, Ms Antunovic is not a person who would stoop to compiling
lists
for execution or differentiating between people based on ethnicity, God
forbid - she only cares about ideas, she does not care about people and
numbers. Tomorrow, if there are physical assaults on "Serbs from Zadar"
- or
any other Serbs - who, look, screw it, keep demanding restitution of
their
tenancy rights, Ms Antunovic would be the first one to demand that
Police be
sent to the location of the incident "to separate warring sides". That
is
the true position that the ruling political elite has reserved for
itself:
that of a cheap hypocritical buffer-zone. On duty 24 hours a day.
Last Monday, on the Day of Human Rights about ten activists headed for
Slunj wanting to appeal for the removal of a monument commemorating
Ustashe warrior Jure Francetic - standing on Franjo Tudman Square. They
were greeted by about two hundred rabid local "Jure-fans" with curses,
baseball bats, and fists. The Croatian authorities made an appearance
embodied as a police cordon which, at the last moment, prevented the
hosts from festively massacring the guests.
It was an explicit realization of Racan's political mission. On the one
side
a handful of fringe elements who are uncritically aghast that a
democratic
country allows building of monuments commemorating Ustashe butchers, on
the other side another handful of fringe elements that uncritically
adulates
Ustashe and plastic arts, and in between these two groups - people's
government! Concerned expression of the political will that with
corrective
baton in the right hand and rubber bullets held in reserve, prevents
social
"extremes" from killing each other.
If we can talk about ideology as far as Racan's administration is
concerned - or at least a retarded form of missionary zeal - then its
"common thread" is symbolically represented as a role of a savior that
separates two warring sides in a staged civil war. In order to cement
that
position, it is necessary to place the two opposing "extremist" groups
at
the same level, and that is usually done with a regular portion of
ideological slaps for the "left", and a pile of practical compromise and
para-patriotic understanding for the "right". An honest Croat
intellectual,
after receiving a salary from the state, put together the phrase
"leftists
terrorists". Thus, stage is being set (namely, a front line is being
prepared) for the appearance of a defective party Messiah whose
self-image,
unfortunately, is that of a hygienic tampon for the nation that keeps
bleeding.
One of the public supporters of the government on duty - otherwise a
prosecution witness in the trial of the student leaders in 1971, who now
ejaculates euphoric outbursts of repentance daily - has for months been
systematically developing a model of "balance of power" that equates
outbursts of fascist violence with struggle against it. "Is there any
difference between arrest warrants printed in Feral and those plastered
on
walls in Karlovac?" he wandered at a time. Let us remind our readers
that
"posters plastered on walls in Karlovac" included photographs of 130
Serbs
in uniforms of former Krajina police with the headline "Our neighbors".
The
posters were made, printed and distributed by the man who organized
ritual
pissing in Veljun on the monument commemorating Serbs shot by Ustashe in
1941 and revealed that he was behind both endeavors at the ceremony
marking the setting up of a monument commemorating warrior Jure
Francetic in Slunj.
The technique, practiced for decades in Communist and ideological
commissions, is always the same. For example, our government supporter
does not react to the publishing of a shameful execution list in
Zadarski List,
but will only pipe up after someone else criticizes the list (as Feral
is
yet again doing), only to righteously and wisely slap on the wrist both
"warring sides". He is the comrade-institution, with police baton in his
right hand, who always watches over us preventing the looming bloodbath
while secretly hoping it actually happens.
However, the ejaculator from Slobodna Dalmacija, who is here mentioned
only as an illustration that is supposed to make the article more
amusing - is
only a loudspeaker for Racan's ideological muddle. The real truth is
that
the current Croat authorities did not compile lists of "Serbs from
Zadar" -
or any other Serbs - nor did they build monuments commemorating Ustashe
officers. They only did nothing to prevent, or appropriately sanction
both.
They only preventively stopped application of the existing law and
emptied
the tanks of bulldozers that were supposed to demolish illegally
constructed
objects, even though these objects are merely monuments commemorating
achievements of notorious fascists. In that diligent inaction the
authorities found the saving formula for their efficiency and
self-preservation. Hyperactive inaction is the only way to occupy the
space
of its imaginary purpose, namely the illusion that it is continuously
"bringing to order" those that it has indirectly set on each other.
This planned recklessness, planned excommunication of its own political
role
from the creation of the current Croat nightmare and its boiling down
to the
purported "fixing" of the effect of the incited reality - besides being
contrary to all the achievements and principles of the civilization - is
pushing the ruling elite in the trap of a grotesque paradox. "We cannot
be
responsible for somebody else's crap," Racan's administration tells us,
"because we act only when we have to".
Translated on March 14, 2003
--- End forwarded message ---
1. On 1 October 1991 the biggest ethnic cleansing of a city in modern
Europe began / 1 oktobra 1991 pocelo je najvece etnicko ciscenje jednog
grada, u savremenoj Evropi
2. On ethnic Serbs in Croatia and their property rights (on the
situation of Zadar Serbs)
=== 1 ===
Da: "minja m."
Data: Gio 2 Ott 2003 05:18:14 Europe/Rome
Oggetto: On 1 October 1991 the biggest ethnic cleansing of a city in
modern Europe began
------------- Forwarded Massage ---------------------------------
Date: 1 Oct 2003 01:54:08 EDT
From: SCofSAvasko
On 1 October 1991 the biggest ethnic cleansing of a city in modern
Europe began. Of about 10 000 Serbs living in Dubrovnik, 90% were
friven out in a couple days, forever.
Today, twelve years later, none have returned. Illustrious Dubrovnik
families –– Apolonio, Reljic, Pejovic,Lucic, Elakovic, Zecevic,
Boskovic (descendants of the glorious Rudjer Boskovic), Kovac, Bazdar,
Simic, Krivokuca, Vukasinovic, Segrt, Ciganovic, Markovic, Puljizevic,
Groseta and many others, all expelled in a genocidal war.
Lawyers, professors, medical doctors, philosophers, journalists and
other intellectuals “vacated” their job spots for rabid west
Herzegovinian extremists, the pre–eminent Croatian Nazis –– the
Ustashas.
Today they rule the once multi–ethnic city, which had been an oasis of
freedom for centuries.
Serbs and other Dubrovnikers again this year, on the day of the
expulsion, implore all of you who can to relay this letter to European
and world organizations, to make possible our return to our own houses,
now occupied by thieves, and resume life in their native city.
(signed)
Dubrovniker in Exile
=======
1 oktobra 1991 pocelo je najvece etnicko ciscenje jednog grada, u
savremenoj Evropi.
Od oko 10 hiljada Srba, za par dana, zauvijek je iz Dubrovnika
protjerano preko 90%, a dvanaest godina kasnije, nema povratnika.
Ugledne stoljetne dubrovacke familije, Apolonio, Reljic, Pejovic,Lucic,
Elakovic, Zecevic, Boskovic (nasljednici slavnog Rudjera), Kovac,
Bazdar, Simic, Krivokuca, Vukasinovic, Segrt, Ciganovic, Markovic,
Puljizevic, Groseta i mnoge druge, protjerane su iz Dubrovnika u
genocidnom ratu.
Advokati, profesori, doktori, filozofi, novinari i drugi intelektualci
"otvorili" su radna mjesta za ekstremne zapadne Hercegovce, poznate kao
ustase, koji danas vladaju nekada visenacionalnim gradom, oazom
stoljetne slobode.
Srbi i ostali Dubrovcani, i ove godine, na dan progona, mole sve Vas
koji mozete, da ovo pismo dostavite svim nadleznim evropksim i
svjetskim organizacijam, kako bi se vratili u svoje okupirane kuce i
kako bi nastavili zivot u rodnom Gradu.
Dubrovcanin u egzilu
=== 2 ===
Da: Predrag Tosic
Data: Gio 19 Giu 2003 03:15:53 Europe/Rome
A: yugoslaviainfo <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Oggetto: [yugoslaviainfo] On ethnic Serbs in Croatia and their property
rights
[ Zadar is in the north-west of Croatia, perhaps the third largest
city along Croatia's Adriatic coast (after Split and Rijeka). Prior to
1991, Zadar had a sizable Serb population. Most of those Serbs have
fled. Now, some of the Zadar Serbs are trying to re-claim their
property rights to apartments and houses that they (used to) live in,
and still (de jure) own in the city. "Feral Tribune" is a leading
daily in Split, Croatia. This newspaper is well-known for its
anti-fascist, anti-chauvinist and anti-Tudjman stance throughout the
1990s. Viktor Ivancic is one of the editors and leading columnists of
"Feral Tribune". -- PT ]
Feral Tribune, Split, Croatia
December 14, 2001
Why no one reacted to the scandalous list of "Serbs from Zadar who are
demanding restitution of their houses and publicly owned apartments",
published in Zadarski List
TOP-LIST OF HYPERREALISTS
If we can talk about ideology as far as Racan's administration is
concerned - or at least retarded form of missionary zeal - then its
common
thread is symbolically represented as a role of a savior that separates
two
warring sides in a staged civil war
by Viktor IVANCIC
Late last month Zadarski list published an interesting serial. In two
installments, the newspaper published a list of "Serbs from Zadar who
are
demanding restitution of their houses and publicly owned apartments".
The
structure of the article is also interesting: number, name and surname,
address, and so on over several pages. Thus, Zadarski list managed to
find
and unmask as many as 450 "Serbs from Zadar" who, what an outrage, are
"demanding restitution of their houses and publicly owned apartments".
This
reading material, with names, addresses and criminal demands of "Serbs
from Zadar" was included in the section named "Events".
Until today, not one of the competent or incompetent individuals or
institutions in Croatia has reacted to this shameful public call for
lynching that imitates the best traditions of the Croat journalism in
the
early 90's or, if you prefer, German journalism in the late 30's. The
black
list simply rolled off the presses into the Zadar public without a
peep, as
something that is totally natural and reasonable, just like it totally
made
sense to declare a war crimes suspect for a citizen of honor without a
single local councelor casting, including those that belong to Racan's
party, a no vote.
If Croatia were a country that upholds at least minimal democratic
standards, the journalistic endeavor of Zadarski list would have been
suppressed with highly undemocratic methods. For example, the newspaper
would have been banned, the remaining copies confiscated and destroyed,
while the editor-in-chief would have been banned from working in the
media
long enough to make sure he gets plenty of time to write righteous
protests
against "suppression of free speech". However, Croatia is not such a
country. Here democratic conventions are respected mostly when it comes
to
those who advocate "dialogue" regarding freedom of execution and similar
modes of plural killing fields.
In that sense the black list with 450 names, addresses and criminal
demands,
is only a logical consequence of the cry of Ms Zeljka Antunovic, deputy
prime minister, about how the executive authorities would never
restitute
denied tenancy rights to "Serbs from Zadar", or any Serbs for that
matter.
Naturally, Ms Antunovic is not a person who would stoop to compiling
lists
for execution or differentiating between people based on ethnicity, God
forbid - she only cares about ideas, she does not care about people and
numbers. Tomorrow, if there are physical assaults on "Serbs from Zadar"
- or
any other Serbs - who, look, screw it, keep demanding restitution of
their
tenancy rights, Ms Antunovic would be the first one to demand that
Police be
sent to the location of the incident "to separate warring sides". That
is
the true position that the ruling political elite has reserved for
itself:
that of a cheap hypocritical buffer-zone. On duty 24 hours a day.
Last Monday, on the Day of Human Rights about ten activists headed for
Slunj wanting to appeal for the removal of a monument commemorating
Ustashe warrior Jure Francetic - standing on Franjo Tudman Square. They
were greeted by about two hundred rabid local "Jure-fans" with curses,
baseball bats, and fists. The Croatian authorities made an appearance
embodied as a police cordon which, at the last moment, prevented the
hosts from festively massacring the guests.
It was an explicit realization of Racan's political mission. On the one
side
a handful of fringe elements who are uncritically aghast that a
democratic
country allows building of monuments commemorating Ustashe butchers, on
the other side another handful of fringe elements that uncritically
adulates
Ustashe and plastic arts, and in between these two groups - people's
government! Concerned expression of the political will that with
corrective
baton in the right hand and rubber bullets held in reserve, prevents
social
"extremes" from killing each other.
If we can talk about ideology as far as Racan's administration is
concerned - or at least a retarded form of missionary zeal - then its
"common thread" is symbolically represented as a role of a savior that
separates two warring sides in a staged civil war. In order to cement
that
position, it is necessary to place the two opposing "extremist" groups
at
the same level, and that is usually done with a regular portion of
ideological slaps for the "left", and a pile of practical compromise and
para-patriotic understanding for the "right". An honest Croat
intellectual,
after receiving a salary from the state, put together the phrase
"leftists
terrorists". Thus, stage is being set (namely, a front line is being
prepared) for the appearance of a defective party Messiah whose
self-image,
unfortunately, is that of a hygienic tampon for the nation that keeps
bleeding.
One of the public supporters of the government on duty - otherwise a
prosecution witness in the trial of the student leaders in 1971, who now
ejaculates euphoric outbursts of repentance daily - has for months been
systematically developing a model of "balance of power" that equates
outbursts of fascist violence with struggle against it. "Is there any
difference between arrest warrants printed in Feral and those plastered
on
walls in Karlovac?" he wandered at a time. Let us remind our readers
that
"posters plastered on walls in Karlovac" included photographs of 130
Serbs
in uniforms of former Krajina police with the headline "Our neighbors".
The
posters were made, printed and distributed by the man who organized
ritual
pissing in Veljun on the monument commemorating Serbs shot by Ustashe in
1941 and revealed that he was behind both endeavors at the ceremony
marking the setting up of a monument commemorating warrior Jure
Francetic in Slunj.
The technique, practiced for decades in Communist and ideological
commissions, is always the same. For example, our government supporter
does not react to the publishing of a shameful execution list in
Zadarski List,
but will only pipe up after someone else criticizes the list (as Feral
is
yet again doing), only to righteously and wisely slap on the wrist both
"warring sides". He is the comrade-institution, with police baton in his
right hand, who always watches over us preventing the looming bloodbath
while secretly hoping it actually happens.
However, the ejaculator from Slobodna Dalmacija, who is here mentioned
only as an illustration that is supposed to make the article more
amusing - is
only a loudspeaker for Racan's ideological muddle. The real truth is
that
the current Croat authorities did not compile lists of "Serbs from
Zadar" -
or any other Serbs - nor did they build monuments commemorating Ustashe
officers. They only did nothing to prevent, or appropriately sanction
both.
They only preventively stopped application of the existing law and
emptied
the tanks of bulldozers that were supposed to demolish illegally
constructed
objects, even though these objects are merely monuments commemorating
achievements of notorious fascists. In that diligent inaction the
authorities found the saving formula for their efficiency and
self-preservation. Hyperactive inaction is the only way to occupy the
space
of its imaginary purpose, namely the illusion that it is continuously
"bringing to order" those that it has indirectly set on each other.
This planned recklessness, planned excommunication of its own political
role
from the creation of the current Croat nightmare and its boiling down
to the
purported "fixing" of the effect of the incited reality - besides being
contrary to all the achievements and principles of the civilization - is
pushing the ruling elite in the trap of a grotesque paradox. "We cannot
be
responsible for somebody else's crap," Racan's administration tells us,
"because we act only when we have to".
Translated on March 14, 2003
--- End forwarded message ---
Milosevic "trial", end September, 2003
1. Key Srebrenica Witness Admits Lying
2. ICTY in criminal compliance with NATO
(ICDSM press statement and intervention - 30.09.2003, The Hague)
3. September 30, 2003: Milosevic "Trial" Synopsis
LINKS:
Dutch TV documentary on the Hague process, in two parts
http://info.vpro.nl/info/tegenlicht/index.shtml?7738514+7738518+8048024
"Trial of the century": An attempt to silence the truth
http://www.icdsm.org/more/canada2909.htm
ICTY judges as NATO defense counsels!
http://www.icdsm.org/press300903.htm
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.icdsmireland.org/ (ICDSM Ireland)
http://www.wpc-in.org/ (world peace council)
http://www.geocities.com/b_antinato/ (Balkan antiNATO center)
=== 1 ===
http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/tri/tri_327_1_eng.txt
Key Srebrenica Witness Admits Lying
Momir Nikolic's fictional account of massacre raises questions about
plea-bargain system.
By Chris Stephen in The Hague (TU 327, 29 September 2003)
The Hague prosecution's star witness in the Srebrenica case has
admitted in court that he lied in testimony when he said he ordered one
of the biggest single massacres of Bosnian Muslims.
Former Bosnian Serb army captain Momir Nikolic's admission in a
courtroom appearance this week will undermine confidence in other
details he has supplied about the Srebrenica killings in July 1995, and
raises questions about how plea-bargain agreements are negotiated with
those accused of war crimes.
Nikolic, an army intelligence officer who was present during the
massacres and was indicted by The Hague for playing a major role in
them, made history as the first Serb officer to give evidence against
his colleagues.
But now doubts about his reliability as a witness have arisen after he
admitted that a statement he gave to prosecutors earlier this year
contained a lie.
In a courtroom appearance on September 29, he admitted he did not give
the orders to gun down more than 1,000 Bosnian Muslims inside a
warehouse at Kravica. He was not even present when it happened, on July
13, 1995. Kravica was one of the single biggest massacres carried out
by Serb forces around Srebrenica.
In recent days, Nikolic has been in court as part of a plea-bargain
deal with prosecutors, giving evidence against Vidoje Blagojevic and
Dragan Jokic, Bosnian Serb officers indicted for war crimes alongside
him. In May, prosecutors agreed to drop a genocide charge against him
and seek a lesser sentence of 15 to 20 years, and in return he changed
his not guilty plea to an admission that he committed crimes against
humanity.
But now, Nikolic has renounced his original statement that he had
personally supervised the Kravica killings.
"You needed to give him [the prosecutor] something he did not have,
right?" said Michael Karnavas, defending. "You wanted to limit your
time of imprisonment to 20 years, that was part of the arrangement,
yes? Quid pro quo?"
Nikolic admitted he had lied, "I did not tell the truth when I said
that. Afterwards I said I had made a mistake, I had lied.
"I apologise. All I can do is confess and say that discussing the crime
is a very difficult situation to be in."
"I think we should call it for what it is, a bald faced lie," said
Karnavas.
"I'm still a little bit confused," the American lawyer continued. "How
is it that you thought by admitting to one of the most horrendous
executions in this area, that this would help you in getting the kind
of sentence that you are hoping and praying for?"
"I wanted the agreement to succeed," responded Nikolic.
His original statement to prosecutors included testimony that while at
Kravica, he had observed the involvement of another war crimes suspect,
former army officer Ljubomir Borovcanin, in the killing.
He has now told the court that although he was not present, he was
certain that Borovcanin had been there.
"You implicated Borovcanin in your falsehood in order to make your
story more convincing, so that the prosecutor would buy it?" said
Karnavas. "You needed to give him [the prosecutor] some more facts to
sweeten the deal - that's why you provided false information about
Kravica?"
He went on to ask Nikolic whether he had lied so as to make his story
impressive enough for prosecutors to offer him a plea-bargain deal.
"Your lawyers had a laundry list of factors that the prosecutor was
expected to agree to," said Karnavas.
"The prosecution did not exert any influence on me," responded Nikolic.
"What I did is my own mistake."
Karnavas continued to press him, saying, "Did you think that by falsely
admitting to having ordered this execution that you were solving a
question-mark in the prosecutor's case as to who had ordered that
murder?"
Nikolic's admission could have serious implications for the prosecution
strategy of using plea bargains.
In recent weeks, prosecutors have persuaded several former Bosnian Serb
commanders to give evidence against their former comrades by offering
to cut their sentences.
Nikolic's plea-bargain negotiations took six months, starting last
November. It now seems he was so desperate to get a deal with
prosecutors that he was willing to lie to them.
The prosecutors are in a difficult position. They will only offer
plea-bargain arrangements to people who can give high-quality evidence.
But this case suggests that some defendants could be tempted to
embroider the facts to make their crimes more "worthy" of a deal.
Chris Stephen is IWPR's tribunal project manager.
=== 2 ===
From: Vladimir Krsljanin
ICTY in criminal compliance with NATO
The ICTY, in absence of ill President Milosevic and in presence of
Carla Del Ponte discussed this morning (30.09.2003) the initiative of
the prosecution to impose a counsel to President Milosevic and to
examine prosecution witnesses in his absence. The session ended with
the only decision that the process will continue in new rhythm: three
days of session, four days of rest for President Milosevic, which was
the recomendation of the doctors. The decision on the prosecution
initiative will be made after President Milosevic expresses his opinion.
After the session, member of ICDSM Board and Coordinator of its British
Section Ian Johnson delivered to the press the statement below and
answered journalists' questions.
The International Committee to Defend Slobodan Milosevic
The Hague, September 30, 2003, 11 a.m.
PRESS RELEASE
TWO YEARS FREEDOM FOR SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC
· TO PROTECT HIS LIFE, HISTORICAL TRUTH AND JUSTICE FOR THE
PEOPLE OF THE BALKANS!
· ICTY JUDGES AS NATO DEFENSE COUNSELS!
ICTY put the life of President Milosevic at stake. Why?
Already at the beginning of the Hague process, President Milosevic
announced that he will demand that people such as Bill Clinton,
Madeleine Albright and Wesley Clark appear as witnesses.
The logical and legitimate course of his presentation is to
prove the guilt of those who were killing Yugoslavia and its people by
endorsing separatists, terrorists, paramilitaries and traffickers, by
imposing genocidal sanctions, by bombings, by regime change and finally
by imposing a pro-NATO dictatorship which is associated with the mafia.
If their obvious guilt is shown, Slobodan Milosevic and the Serbian
people are innocent!
After the Prosecution failed to prove the NATO propaganda
fabrications, due to President Milosevic’s magnificent struggle, the
ICTY Judges have appeared and are assisting NATO.
They decided that the ill and imprisoned President Milosevic
should provide them and the Prosecution (!) with all details of his
defense within six weeks! After that the Judges will decide what can
and what cannot be included! Certainly not Bill Clinton and his buddy
Wesley Clark. Certainly not the children that died under the bombs.
Apparently they are irrelevant!
This way, after being deprived of medical care, President
Milosevic is deprived of his right to defense.
As an additional guarantee that the truth will be silenced,
torture is being used against President Milosevic. He cannot meet his
family. He cannot meet his friends. Hundreds of thousands of members of
the Socialist Party of Serbia and of Freedom Association are banned
from visiting their president. He cannot meet his doctors from
Belgrade. Furthermore, even the ICTY doctors admitted that the
magnitude of the proceedings and the prison conditions threaten his
life. Confined in his prison cell he has to confront everything that
took the whole tribunal apparatus ten years to elaborate. (Only in the
“Milosevic trial” does the tribunal put everything!) With its 1248
employees and a UN budget of 694828400 dollars, the ICTY has spent 75%
of that sum, half a billion dollars, in the last five years alone,
since the NATO aggression and the first indictment against President
Milosevic. Moreover they have been assisted by Western governments and
their secret services, and recently by the Belgrade puppets as well. In
contrast to that, to prepare his defense President Milosevic will have
only three months, or more precisely six weeks, in his prison cell,
assisted only by a small group of volunteers, with no funds, no
infrastructure and no access to the state archives. Is this a way to
treat a person in a life-threatening situation? Yes, if he is a leader
of the people that opposed NATO.
The ICDSM accuses ICTY of criminal misconduct and criminal
compliance with NATO.
Today’s attempt to impose a counsel for President Milosevic
against his will and to conduct the trial in the absence of the ill
President is further proof of that. The ICTY violates international
norms of judiciary and of human rights protection. The ICTY violates
its own Statute.
Two years in freedom, requested by President Milosevic, is a
minimum guarantee that his life will be protected and that the truth
will be heard. It is a generous, gentleman’s proposal. The response
of the ICTY is an outrage.
The Russian Duma requested action from the Russian
Government to protect International Law and to prevent this outrage and
crime.
Ten medical doctors from Germany have sent a petition to the
ICTY stating that President Milosevic’s illness requires his release.
The ICDSM is receiving support from doctors of other countries, who
condemn the treatment of President Milosevic and express their
readiness to take part in his examination and therapy.
President Milosevic has to be released immediately!
Many parties and organizations from different countries
endorse our position. The ICDSM and its national branches in Russia,
USA, Germany, Canada, Italy, Britain, Ireland and other countries have
launched a campaign aimed towards responsible UN bodies and member
states governments in order to stop the dangerous farce at The Hague.
The international demonstrations on November 8, called by a committee
of Diaspora Serbs and endorsed by the ICDSM shall be a peak of the
campaign.
ICDSM: INTERVENTION AT THE HAGUE.
On Tuesday 30th September 2003 The Hague Tribunal heard a submission
from the Prosecution that if accepted would mean the imposition of
Defence Counsel on President Milosevic against his will, and would
enable the trial to proceed without the presence of the accused.
This basic denial of the right of the accused to conduct his own
defence is yet further proof of the political nature of the ICTY.
The arguments for the Prosecution, presented by Mr Nice, would be
comical if they were not so tragic. To an outbreak of derisory laughter
from the public gallery, Nice tried to suggest that the President’s
health problems would be eliminated if he gave up smoking cigarettes!
He further proposed that on his ‘rest days’ Mr Milosevic could study
Court documents and watch hours of witness videos to save time and
expedite the trial proceedings. Moreover, according to Mr Nice, the
accused brought his ill health upon himself because he would insist on
cross-examining the Prosecution’s witnesses. How very inconsiderate of
Mr Milosevic!
In contrast to the Prosecution’s absurd arguments, which follow the
equally absurd ruling that Mr Milosevic provide the Court and the
Prosecution with his defence details and list of defence witnesses
within six weeks, Mr Milosevic has proposed that their be a two-year
recess in the trial in order to prepare his defence and that he be
released from custody where his medical condition can be treated by
doctors of his own choice.
It was these two key demands that gained an interest from journalists
at Tuesday’s hearing when members and supporters of the ICDSM
distributed their Press Release and gave interviews outside the
Tribunal building. Such was the impact of the ICDSM intervention that
the Tribunal’s security staff felt obliged to harass the journalists
and demand to see their passports and credentials. It was to the credit
of the ICDSM supporters that all copies of the Committee’s literature
were distributed even in the face of such intimidation.
The only ruling given by the Court on the day was that from next Monday
(6th October), following the advice of the Court appointed doctors, Mr
Milosevic should attend trial for three days and rest for the next four.
A decision regarding the Prosecution’s latest submission would be
announced shortly, though it is worth noting that to accept this
submission would mean yet a further rewriting of the Tribunal’s
existing rules.
Objective observers of the ‘trial’ cannot fail to note the sheer
desperation of both the Court and Prosecution at their inability to
break the resistance of President Milosevic and their inability to
prevent the development and growth of his Defence Committee.
ICDSM. The Hague. 30th September 2003.
Copy the Press Release at:
http://www.icdsm.org/press300903.htm
=== 3 ===
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg093003.htm
September 30, 2003: Milosevic "Trial" Synopsis
www.slobodan-milosevic.org - September 30, 2003
Written by: Andy Wilcoxson
President Milosevic was not present at the proceedings today. He is
still out sick. No witnesses were called today was only a status
conference. A cardiologist issued a report on the status of President
Milosevic's health. According to the medical report Milosevic is
suffering from extreme exhaustion, fatigue, and high blood pressure
caused by stress.
The cardiologist made a recommendation that the "trial" should go on
for 3 days a week, and that the other 4 days should be set aside for
President Milosevic to rest. The "tribunal" accepted these
recommendations and has pledged to alter the hearing schedule
accordingly.
The medical report is proof that President Milosevic is really sick.
He is not pretending to be sick as has been suggested by some
anti-Milosevic propagandists. His medical condition is genuine. There
is no doubt on this score since even the tribunal's own medical staff
confirms this.
Being the weasel that he is, prosecutor Geoffrey Nice suggested that
President Milosevic was inflicting his ill health on himself. Nice
suggested that because Milosevic had taken on the task of defending
himself that he was the only one to blame for the stress he is under.
Nice also suggested that the "court" should ban President Milosevic
from smoking. Nice even went so far as to compare Milosevic to a
drunkard who is unfit for trial because he has a hangover.
First of all, the "tribunal" has no right to ban President Milosevic
from smoking. If he wants to smoke then by God he should be allowed to
smoke. Other prisoners can smoke. As any smoker knows forcing somebody
to quit smoking would only inflict more stress on them, and Nice knows
this damn well. He could just ask his chain-smoking comrade Carla del
Ponte and she could tell him how difficult it is to quit.
Secondly, it is absurd for Nice to suggest that Milosevic is smoking
in order to make himself sick and force a delay of the "trial."
Slobodan Milosevic is a Serb, anybody who has been to Serbia know that
everybody in Serbia smokes. Smoking is something that most Serbs do.
As far as stress is concerned, it is Nice and the OTP that are causing
unnecessary stress on Milosevic. They are the ones who are always
changing the order in which the witnesses are scheduled to testify.
This farce of a "trial" has gone on for 250 days already. The
prosecution only has 36 more days to present its case and they still
have not submitted a final witness list. President Milosevic still
doesn't know who is going to testify against him, because not all of
the witnesses have been identified, and this makes it difficult for
Milosevic prepare his defense and cross-examination.
Another practice employed by the prosecution is that when witnesses
are on the schedule the prosecution will drop them, thus wasting any
time that Milosevic and his associates may have spent preparing for
them.
In an effort to "expedite the trial" Nice suggested that the
examination in chief of certain witnesses should be videotaped and that
Milosevic could watch the tape while resting. This is the height of
stupid ideas. First of all this would cause more stress and not less
for Milosevic, although I suspect this is the idea.
First of all, you can not raise an objection to a videotape that you
are watching on your TV set. If Milosevic has an objection he will
have to hash that out after the fact in order to get parts of the tape
excluded. This will take more time, not less. Not to mention the fact
that the witness would have to be recalled anyway in order to be
cross-examined.
Secondly, the "trial" can be hard to follow. The participants
frequently lose track of what the line of questioning is about, or
which document is being referred to. If Milosevic finds himself in that
situation while watching a tape locked in his cell, then he will have
no way to ascertain what is being referred to, whereas if he is
present for the questioning he can simply ask. This type of thing can
only cause him stress.
Thirdly, Milosevic wouldn't be resting if he had to watch a tape of
that nature. He would be working, and this would totally defeat the
recommendation of the doctors.
Another bright idea that Mr. Nice came up with was to impose legal
assistance onto President Milosevic against his will. Slobodan
Milosevic has repeatedly rejected the imposition of counsel on him.
When asked by Mr. Robinson what legal basis Nice had for suggesting
all of this; Nice suggested, without even blinking, that a legal basis
could be established if the judges would simply consent to altering the
rules in the middle of the "trial."
This is a useful opportunity to expose just what sort of "legal
institution" that the Hague Tribunal really is. The rules are
worthless. According to Rule 6 the rules can be changed by the judges
in mid-trial. In this case, Mr. Nice wanted Article 21 of the Statute
of the Tribunal to be altered since that article gives an accused the
right to be tried in his own presence, and the right to defend
himself. Both of which are rights that Mr. Nice is scheming to take
away from Milosevic.
It is obvious that the prosecution does not want Milosevic to defend
himself. Why you ask? Because Milosevic is doing such a spectacular
job of destroying the prosecution's case that's why. Not one witness
has gotten the better of Milosevic. President Milosevic has
successfully compelled all of them to either tell the truth, or else
he has exposed them as liars. The prosecution knows that no lawyer
could possibly do such a spectacular job as Milosevic is doing, and so
they are desperate to find any way they can to deny, even if only in
part, President Milosevic's legitimate right to defend himself.
The problems with an imposed lawyer are obvious. First of all, the
lawyer can't possibly know what Milosevic knows, and therefore can't
possibly mount a defense as effectively as Milosevic can. Moreover, the
lawyer could get the defense strategy wrong all together. Such
attempts to impose legal assistance on Milosevic can only been seen as
an attempt to sabotage the brilliant defense that he is putting
forward on behalf of the Serbian people, who are as a group the real
"accused" at this so-called "trial."
The most important reason not to impose a lawyer on Milosevic is that
he doesn't want one. I will leave you now with President Milosevic's
previous remarks on this topic, because afterall he can explain his
position better than anybody.
On page 2, line 3 of the transcript at his first appearance at the
"tribunal" President Milosevic said, "I consider this Tribunal a false
Tribunal and the indictment a false indictment. It is illegal being not
appointed by the UN General Assembly, so I have no need to appoint
counsel to illegal organ." In spite of numerous pleas from the
so-called "judges" and the so-called "prosecution" to change his mind
an accept a lawyer, President Milosevic's position has not changed one
iota.
On December 11, 2001 the tribunal attempted to foist Ramsey Clark and
John Livingston off onto Milosevic as his "legal advisors" which was
rejected flatly by Milosevic here is that exchange:
[BEGIN EXCERPT]
SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC: I have been informed in the meantime that without
my request, you have assigned certain advice that I did not ask for,
interpreting my agreement to receive visits by certain individuals as a
request for legal advice. My response to that has been addressed to
the registry that I do not consider that whoever visits me and has a
law degree should be appointed as my legal counsel, and I don't think
it would be permissible for visits to continue to be restricted,
visits by persons who wish to visit me in accordance with the Rules
that you have established and on a nondiscriminatory basis, since
other people in that prison are allowed such visits.
RICHARD MAY: Mr. Milosevic, if you don't want advice from Mr. Clark
and Mr. Livingston, which we understood you did, who do you want it
from?
SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] No, I'm not asking for any advice
from anybody.
[END EXCERPT]
The next time this issue came up was on November 11, 2002 here is what
Milosevic said on that occasion:
[BEGIN EXCERPT]
SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] Well, first and foremost, I would
like to say that I know very little about these ideas of yours, but as
far as I was able to gather, that side over there, the opposite side,
is trying to take away my right to speak here and to impose some sort
of lawyers, counsel on me, and it has no right to do so. So I should
like to remind you that according to the International Pact on
Civilian and Political Rights, it is Article 14.3(D), and pursuant to
the American Convention, chapter 8.2(D), Article 8.2(D), and the
European Convention Article 6.3(C), and according to the Statute of the
Court of Rome Article 68.1(D), nobody can be refused the right of
defending themselves. And you yourselves have provided for that
possibility in your Rules and regulations, although I don't consider
this Tribunal of yours to be legal. But as you yourselves do, then I
assume you adhere to the Rules you laid down yourselves.
Therefore, this position on the part of the opposite party I consider
to be completely illegal, absurd, and ill-intentioned, and I don't
think it deserves any further explanations at all, nor can anything
along the lines of what they have proposed be acceptable.
And as far as the position goes, a position that I just briefly saw
contained in the letter signed by Mr. Kay, the amicus, I said earlier
on, gentlemen, at no price whatsoever would I leave the fight I'm
fighting here and from this political process -- trial. Therefore, I
think that they have rightly stressed that you ought to set me at
liberty, set me free, that you ought to give me time, lege artis, to
see to my health and to be given sufficient time to take a look at the
200.000 pages that have been amassed and all the tapes alongside the
documents, and you yourselves know full well that I would not run away.
Therefore, if you want to speak of any kind of fair treatment, fair
play, then I think that that is the approach that should be taken,
because without a doubt, the existing conditions do not allow me in
any respect to take care of all these things in the proper manner. And
I shall take a closer look at what I have here, and if I consider that
I wish to make some more comments, I shall do so in due course.
MR. MAY: We will consider what's already been said, but meanwhile,
Judge Kwon wishes to add something.
MR. KWON: Mr. Milosevic, there may come a time when you have to prepare
your Defence case. You have to prepare the examinations, and you have
to present your witnesses to the Court. How are you going to manage
without the assistance of lawyers in the court? It will be very
difficult for you to meet the witnesses in advance and to prepare the
examinations.
SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] Well, it is you who are placing me
in that position, gentlemen, to make it difficult for me. It's not up
to me. It's up to you.
If the circumstances were such that I would be able to function
normally, to take care of my health normally and to prepare myself for
all those piles and piles -- well, look at what they've just brought
me for the coming witness. Look at all those binders. There are seven
of them, these books, the covers. So if the right conditions existed
and the circumstances to give me sufficient time, then this would be
no problem for me at all. No health problems or the problems of the
documents. This is not something that the lawyers can do, because they
know far less about it all than I do. So nobody treated their health
with the help of lawyers, nor was anybody able to place what he knows
into the heads of lawyers.
And there's another matter of principle. In view of the fact that I
don't recognise this Tribunal, I do not wish to have an appointed
Defence counsel before this Tribunal which I do not recognise, and I
have explained that on several occasions previously.
MR. KWON: What do you think about the idea that your associates sit in
the court and assist you in preparing the examinations or sorting out
the documents, et cetera?
SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] I don't need them. I don't need my
associates sitting up here with me.
MR. MAY: Mr. Milosevic, you should reflect on that. You are undertaking
the conduct of a very lengthy and very complex case. Your health is
not good, as we now know, and you should consider carefully in your
own interests and the interests of your health, whether you wouldn't
be assisted, as Judge Kwon says, by having somebody to help you in the
court.
It's not only the difficulty which you have, naturally, in conducting a
cross-examination in a case of this sort with the amount of material
which you have to deal with, it is the number of witnesses which
remain to be cross-examined. And then as the Judge says, there's the
question of your own case. You need to be thinking about that. If you
wish to call evidence, you've got to consider how that's to be done in
a practical way.
And so the suggestion simply is -- we will, of course, consider the
proposal of the Prosecution that Defence counsel is ordered but you
have said you object to that and we will consider that too, but the
suggestion is that you merely have somebody in court to help you with
the papers and anything else that you need help with.
Now, we don't expect you to deal with that now, but you may like to
consider it as a way forward in your own interests. Not in the
interests of anybody else, but in your own interests in helping you
conduct your case as effectively as you can and also in conserving
your health.
MR. ROBINSON: Can I just say that the magnitude of the task that you
have undertaken, Mr. Milosevic, can be illustrated by a look at the
team that the Prosecutor has -- is using. By my count, and Mr. Nice
can correct me, the Prosecutor has so far used, I think, seven or
eight counsel in the conduct of its case, and you are by yourself. For
that reason, I endorse the comments made by my brothers and hope you
will take them to heart.
MR. NICE: In light of His Honour Judge Kwon's observation, it may be of
assistance if I make available to the Chamber and also to the accused
and the amici the fairly well-known case of McKenzie which gave rise
to the acceptance of the appropriateness of using something called a
McKenzie friend. That's the second judgement of Lord Justice Sachs
which is perhaps most helpful on the point. If I can just make that
available.
MR. MAY: Yes. If the usher would be kind enough to hand that round,
we'll all have a look at it and we can reflect on it. Mr. Milosevic,
it's for you to think about it. We don't need a -- yes, a copy to the
amicus, a copy to the accused, please.
SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. May --
MR. MAY: You can have a read of this case -- yes?
SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] As -- despite my referring to all
these international pacts and covenants, European, American, Roman, et
cetera, the opposing party is now once again referring to court
practice and is offering up McKenzie versus McKenzie. I am also going
to provide you with something. It is a copy from a court case, and it
is Faretta versus California, the United States Court, where quite
clearly once again it excludes the possibility of having anybody
impose a Defence counsel or lawyer to anybody unless the accused wishes
to appoint one himself. So I think it is useless to carry on a
discussion of this kind.
[END EXCERPT]
1. Key Srebrenica Witness Admits Lying
2. ICTY in criminal compliance with NATO
(ICDSM press statement and intervention - 30.09.2003, The Hague)
3. September 30, 2003: Milosevic "Trial" Synopsis
LINKS:
Dutch TV documentary on the Hague process, in two parts
http://info.vpro.nl/info/tegenlicht/index.shtml?7738514+7738518+8048024
"Trial of the century": An attempt to silence the truth
http://www.icdsm.org/more/canada2909.htm
ICTY judges as NATO defense counsels!
http://www.icdsm.org/press300903.htm
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.icdsmireland.org/ (ICDSM Ireland)
http://www.wpc-in.org/ (world peace council)
http://www.geocities.com/b_antinato/ (Balkan antiNATO center)
=== 1 ===
http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/tri/tri_327_1_eng.txt
Key Srebrenica Witness Admits Lying
Momir Nikolic's fictional account of massacre raises questions about
plea-bargain system.
By Chris Stephen in The Hague (TU 327, 29 September 2003)
The Hague prosecution's star witness in the Srebrenica case has
admitted in court that he lied in testimony when he said he ordered one
of the biggest single massacres of Bosnian Muslims.
Former Bosnian Serb army captain Momir Nikolic's admission in a
courtroom appearance this week will undermine confidence in other
details he has supplied about the Srebrenica killings in July 1995, and
raises questions about how plea-bargain agreements are negotiated with
those accused of war crimes.
Nikolic, an army intelligence officer who was present during the
massacres and was indicted by The Hague for playing a major role in
them, made history as the first Serb officer to give evidence against
his colleagues.
But now doubts about his reliability as a witness have arisen after he
admitted that a statement he gave to prosecutors earlier this year
contained a lie.
In a courtroom appearance on September 29, he admitted he did not give
the orders to gun down more than 1,000 Bosnian Muslims inside a
warehouse at Kravica. He was not even present when it happened, on July
13, 1995. Kravica was one of the single biggest massacres carried out
by Serb forces around Srebrenica.
In recent days, Nikolic has been in court as part of a plea-bargain
deal with prosecutors, giving evidence against Vidoje Blagojevic and
Dragan Jokic, Bosnian Serb officers indicted for war crimes alongside
him. In May, prosecutors agreed to drop a genocide charge against him
and seek a lesser sentence of 15 to 20 years, and in return he changed
his not guilty plea to an admission that he committed crimes against
humanity.
But now, Nikolic has renounced his original statement that he had
personally supervised the Kravica killings.
"You needed to give him [the prosecutor] something he did not have,
right?" said Michael Karnavas, defending. "You wanted to limit your
time of imprisonment to 20 years, that was part of the arrangement,
yes? Quid pro quo?"
Nikolic admitted he had lied, "I did not tell the truth when I said
that. Afterwards I said I had made a mistake, I had lied.
"I apologise. All I can do is confess and say that discussing the crime
is a very difficult situation to be in."
"I think we should call it for what it is, a bald faced lie," said
Karnavas.
"I'm still a little bit confused," the American lawyer continued. "How
is it that you thought by admitting to one of the most horrendous
executions in this area, that this would help you in getting the kind
of sentence that you are hoping and praying for?"
"I wanted the agreement to succeed," responded Nikolic.
His original statement to prosecutors included testimony that while at
Kravica, he had observed the involvement of another war crimes suspect,
former army officer Ljubomir Borovcanin, in the killing.
He has now told the court that although he was not present, he was
certain that Borovcanin had been there.
"You implicated Borovcanin in your falsehood in order to make your
story more convincing, so that the prosecutor would buy it?" said
Karnavas. "You needed to give him [the prosecutor] some more facts to
sweeten the deal - that's why you provided false information about
Kravica?"
He went on to ask Nikolic whether he had lied so as to make his story
impressive enough for prosecutors to offer him a plea-bargain deal.
"Your lawyers had a laundry list of factors that the prosecutor was
expected to agree to," said Karnavas.
"The prosecution did not exert any influence on me," responded Nikolic.
"What I did is my own mistake."
Karnavas continued to press him, saying, "Did you think that by falsely
admitting to having ordered this execution that you were solving a
question-mark in the prosecutor's case as to who had ordered that
murder?"
Nikolic's admission could have serious implications for the prosecution
strategy of using plea bargains.
In recent weeks, prosecutors have persuaded several former Bosnian Serb
commanders to give evidence against their former comrades by offering
to cut their sentences.
Nikolic's plea-bargain negotiations took six months, starting last
November. It now seems he was so desperate to get a deal with
prosecutors that he was willing to lie to them.
The prosecutors are in a difficult position. They will only offer
plea-bargain arrangements to people who can give high-quality evidence.
But this case suggests that some defendants could be tempted to
embroider the facts to make their crimes more "worthy" of a deal.
Chris Stephen is IWPR's tribunal project manager.
=== 2 ===
From: Vladimir Krsljanin
ICTY in criminal compliance with NATO
The ICTY, in absence of ill President Milosevic and in presence of
Carla Del Ponte discussed this morning (30.09.2003) the initiative of
the prosecution to impose a counsel to President Milosevic and to
examine prosecution witnesses in his absence. The session ended with
the only decision that the process will continue in new rhythm: three
days of session, four days of rest for President Milosevic, which was
the recomendation of the doctors. The decision on the prosecution
initiative will be made after President Milosevic expresses his opinion.
After the session, member of ICDSM Board and Coordinator of its British
Section Ian Johnson delivered to the press the statement below and
answered journalists' questions.
The International Committee to Defend Slobodan Milosevic
The Hague, September 30, 2003, 11 a.m.
PRESS RELEASE
TWO YEARS FREEDOM FOR SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC
· TO PROTECT HIS LIFE, HISTORICAL TRUTH AND JUSTICE FOR THE
PEOPLE OF THE BALKANS!
· ICTY JUDGES AS NATO DEFENSE COUNSELS!
ICTY put the life of President Milosevic at stake. Why?
Already at the beginning of the Hague process, President Milosevic
announced that he will demand that people such as Bill Clinton,
Madeleine Albright and Wesley Clark appear as witnesses.
The logical and legitimate course of his presentation is to
prove the guilt of those who were killing Yugoslavia and its people by
endorsing separatists, terrorists, paramilitaries and traffickers, by
imposing genocidal sanctions, by bombings, by regime change and finally
by imposing a pro-NATO dictatorship which is associated with the mafia.
If their obvious guilt is shown, Slobodan Milosevic and the Serbian
people are innocent!
After the Prosecution failed to prove the NATO propaganda
fabrications, due to President Milosevic’s magnificent struggle, the
ICTY Judges have appeared and are assisting NATO.
They decided that the ill and imprisoned President Milosevic
should provide them and the Prosecution (!) with all details of his
defense within six weeks! After that the Judges will decide what can
and what cannot be included! Certainly not Bill Clinton and his buddy
Wesley Clark. Certainly not the children that died under the bombs.
Apparently they are irrelevant!
This way, after being deprived of medical care, President
Milosevic is deprived of his right to defense.
As an additional guarantee that the truth will be silenced,
torture is being used against President Milosevic. He cannot meet his
family. He cannot meet his friends. Hundreds of thousands of members of
the Socialist Party of Serbia and of Freedom Association are banned
from visiting their president. He cannot meet his doctors from
Belgrade. Furthermore, even the ICTY doctors admitted that the
magnitude of the proceedings and the prison conditions threaten his
life. Confined in his prison cell he has to confront everything that
took the whole tribunal apparatus ten years to elaborate. (Only in the
“Milosevic trial” does the tribunal put everything!) With its 1248
employees and a UN budget of 694828400 dollars, the ICTY has spent 75%
of that sum, half a billion dollars, in the last five years alone,
since the NATO aggression and the first indictment against President
Milosevic. Moreover they have been assisted by Western governments and
their secret services, and recently by the Belgrade puppets as well. In
contrast to that, to prepare his defense President Milosevic will have
only three months, or more precisely six weeks, in his prison cell,
assisted only by a small group of volunteers, with no funds, no
infrastructure and no access to the state archives. Is this a way to
treat a person in a life-threatening situation? Yes, if he is a leader
of the people that opposed NATO.
The ICDSM accuses ICTY of criminal misconduct and criminal
compliance with NATO.
Today’s attempt to impose a counsel for President Milosevic
against his will and to conduct the trial in the absence of the ill
President is further proof of that. The ICTY violates international
norms of judiciary and of human rights protection. The ICTY violates
its own Statute.
Two years in freedom, requested by President Milosevic, is a
minimum guarantee that his life will be protected and that the truth
will be heard. It is a generous, gentleman’s proposal. The response
of the ICTY is an outrage.
The Russian Duma requested action from the Russian
Government to protect International Law and to prevent this outrage and
crime.
Ten medical doctors from Germany have sent a petition to the
ICTY stating that President Milosevic’s illness requires his release.
The ICDSM is receiving support from doctors of other countries, who
condemn the treatment of President Milosevic and express their
readiness to take part in his examination and therapy.
President Milosevic has to be released immediately!
Many parties and organizations from different countries
endorse our position. The ICDSM and its national branches in Russia,
USA, Germany, Canada, Italy, Britain, Ireland and other countries have
launched a campaign aimed towards responsible UN bodies and member
states governments in order to stop the dangerous farce at The Hague.
The international demonstrations on November 8, called by a committee
of Diaspora Serbs and endorsed by the ICDSM shall be a peak of the
campaign.
ICDSM: INTERVENTION AT THE HAGUE.
On Tuesday 30th September 2003 The Hague Tribunal heard a submission
from the Prosecution that if accepted would mean the imposition of
Defence Counsel on President Milosevic against his will, and would
enable the trial to proceed without the presence of the accused.
This basic denial of the right of the accused to conduct his own
defence is yet further proof of the political nature of the ICTY.
The arguments for the Prosecution, presented by Mr Nice, would be
comical if they were not so tragic. To an outbreak of derisory laughter
from the public gallery, Nice tried to suggest that the President’s
health problems would be eliminated if he gave up smoking cigarettes!
He further proposed that on his ‘rest days’ Mr Milosevic could study
Court documents and watch hours of witness videos to save time and
expedite the trial proceedings. Moreover, according to Mr Nice, the
accused brought his ill health upon himself because he would insist on
cross-examining the Prosecution’s witnesses. How very inconsiderate of
Mr Milosevic!
In contrast to the Prosecution’s absurd arguments, which follow the
equally absurd ruling that Mr Milosevic provide the Court and the
Prosecution with his defence details and list of defence witnesses
within six weeks, Mr Milosevic has proposed that their be a two-year
recess in the trial in order to prepare his defence and that he be
released from custody where his medical condition can be treated by
doctors of his own choice.
It was these two key demands that gained an interest from journalists
at Tuesday’s hearing when members and supporters of the ICDSM
distributed their Press Release and gave interviews outside the
Tribunal building. Such was the impact of the ICDSM intervention that
the Tribunal’s security staff felt obliged to harass the journalists
and demand to see their passports and credentials. It was to the credit
of the ICDSM supporters that all copies of the Committee’s literature
were distributed even in the face of such intimidation.
The only ruling given by the Court on the day was that from next Monday
(6th October), following the advice of the Court appointed doctors, Mr
Milosevic should attend trial for three days and rest for the next four.
A decision regarding the Prosecution’s latest submission would be
announced shortly, though it is worth noting that to accept this
submission would mean yet a further rewriting of the Tribunal’s
existing rules.
Objective observers of the ‘trial’ cannot fail to note the sheer
desperation of both the Court and Prosecution at their inability to
break the resistance of President Milosevic and their inability to
prevent the development and growth of his Defence Committee.
ICDSM. The Hague. 30th September 2003.
Copy the Press Release at:
http://www.icdsm.org/press300903.htm
=== 3 ===
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg093003.htm
September 30, 2003: Milosevic "Trial" Synopsis
www.slobodan-milosevic.org - September 30, 2003
Written by: Andy Wilcoxson
President Milosevic was not present at the proceedings today. He is
still out sick. No witnesses were called today was only a status
conference. A cardiologist issued a report on the status of President
Milosevic's health. According to the medical report Milosevic is
suffering from extreme exhaustion, fatigue, and high blood pressure
caused by stress.
The cardiologist made a recommendation that the "trial" should go on
for 3 days a week, and that the other 4 days should be set aside for
President Milosevic to rest. The "tribunal" accepted these
recommendations and has pledged to alter the hearing schedule
accordingly.
The medical report is proof that President Milosevic is really sick.
He is not pretending to be sick as has been suggested by some
anti-Milosevic propagandists. His medical condition is genuine. There
is no doubt on this score since even the tribunal's own medical staff
confirms this.
Being the weasel that he is, prosecutor Geoffrey Nice suggested that
President Milosevic was inflicting his ill health on himself. Nice
suggested that because Milosevic had taken on the task of defending
himself that he was the only one to blame for the stress he is under.
Nice also suggested that the "court" should ban President Milosevic
from smoking. Nice even went so far as to compare Milosevic to a
drunkard who is unfit for trial because he has a hangover.
First of all, the "tribunal" has no right to ban President Milosevic
from smoking. If he wants to smoke then by God he should be allowed to
smoke. Other prisoners can smoke. As any smoker knows forcing somebody
to quit smoking would only inflict more stress on them, and Nice knows
this damn well. He could just ask his chain-smoking comrade Carla del
Ponte and she could tell him how difficult it is to quit.
Secondly, it is absurd for Nice to suggest that Milosevic is smoking
in order to make himself sick and force a delay of the "trial."
Slobodan Milosevic is a Serb, anybody who has been to Serbia know that
everybody in Serbia smokes. Smoking is something that most Serbs do.
As far as stress is concerned, it is Nice and the OTP that are causing
unnecessary stress on Milosevic. They are the ones who are always
changing the order in which the witnesses are scheduled to testify.
This farce of a "trial" has gone on for 250 days already. The
prosecution only has 36 more days to present its case and they still
have not submitted a final witness list. President Milosevic still
doesn't know who is going to testify against him, because not all of
the witnesses have been identified, and this makes it difficult for
Milosevic prepare his defense and cross-examination.
Another practice employed by the prosecution is that when witnesses
are on the schedule the prosecution will drop them, thus wasting any
time that Milosevic and his associates may have spent preparing for
them.
In an effort to "expedite the trial" Nice suggested that the
examination in chief of certain witnesses should be videotaped and that
Milosevic could watch the tape while resting. This is the height of
stupid ideas. First of all this would cause more stress and not less
for Milosevic, although I suspect this is the idea.
First of all, you can not raise an objection to a videotape that you
are watching on your TV set. If Milosevic has an objection he will
have to hash that out after the fact in order to get parts of the tape
excluded. This will take more time, not less. Not to mention the fact
that the witness would have to be recalled anyway in order to be
cross-examined.
Secondly, the "trial" can be hard to follow. The participants
frequently lose track of what the line of questioning is about, or
which document is being referred to. If Milosevic finds himself in that
situation while watching a tape locked in his cell, then he will have
no way to ascertain what is being referred to, whereas if he is
present for the questioning he can simply ask. This type of thing can
only cause him stress.
Thirdly, Milosevic wouldn't be resting if he had to watch a tape of
that nature. He would be working, and this would totally defeat the
recommendation of the doctors.
Another bright idea that Mr. Nice came up with was to impose legal
assistance onto President Milosevic against his will. Slobodan
Milosevic has repeatedly rejected the imposition of counsel on him.
When asked by Mr. Robinson what legal basis Nice had for suggesting
all of this; Nice suggested, without even blinking, that a legal basis
could be established if the judges would simply consent to altering the
rules in the middle of the "trial."
This is a useful opportunity to expose just what sort of "legal
institution" that the Hague Tribunal really is. The rules are
worthless. According to Rule 6 the rules can be changed by the judges
in mid-trial. In this case, Mr. Nice wanted Article 21 of the Statute
of the Tribunal to be altered since that article gives an accused the
right to be tried in his own presence, and the right to defend
himself. Both of which are rights that Mr. Nice is scheming to take
away from Milosevic.
It is obvious that the prosecution does not want Milosevic to defend
himself. Why you ask? Because Milosevic is doing such a spectacular
job of destroying the prosecution's case that's why. Not one witness
has gotten the better of Milosevic. President Milosevic has
successfully compelled all of them to either tell the truth, or else
he has exposed them as liars. The prosecution knows that no lawyer
could possibly do such a spectacular job as Milosevic is doing, and so
they are desperate to find any way they can to deny, even if only in
part, President Milosevic's legitimate right to defend himself.
The problems with an imposed lawyer are obvious. First of all, the
lawyer can't possibly know what Milosevic knows, and therefore can't
possibly mount a defense as effectively as Milosevic can. Moreover, the
lawyer could get the defense strategy wrong all together. Such
attempts to impose legal assistance on Milosevic can only been seen as
an attempt to sabotage the brilliant defense that he is putting
forward on behalf of the Serbian people, who are as a group the real
"accused" at this so-called "trial."
The most important reason not to impose a lawyer on Milosevic is that
he doesn't want one. I will leave you now with President Milosevic's
previous remarks on this topic, because afterall he can explain his
position better than anybody.
On page 2, line 3 of the transcript at his first appearance at the
"tribunal" President Milosevic said, "I consider this Tribunal a false
Tribunal and the indictment a false indictment. It is illegal being not
appointed by the UN General Assembly, so I have no need to appoint
counsel to illegal organ." In spite of numerous pleas from the
so-called "judges" and the so-called "prosecution" to change his mind
an accept a lawyer, President Milosevic's position has not changed one
iota.
On December 11, 2001 the tribunal attempted to foist Ramsey Clark and
John Livingston off onto Milosevic as his "legal advisors" which was
rejected flatly by Milosevic here is that exchange:
[BEGIN EXCERPT]
SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC: I have been informed in the meantime that without
my request, you have assigned certain advice that I did not ask for,
interpreting my agreement to receive visits by certain individuals as a
request for legal advice. My response to that has been addressed to
the registry that I do not consider that whoever visits me and has a
law degree should be appointed as my legal counsel, and I don't think
it would be permissible for visits to continue to be restricted,
visits by persons who wish to visit me in accordance with the Rules
that you have established and on a nondiscriminatory basis, since
other people in that prison are allowed such visits.
RICHARD MAY: Mr. Milosevic, if you don't want advice from Mr. Clark
and Mr. Livingston, which we understood you did, who do you want it
from?
SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] No, I'm not asking for any advice
from anybody.
[END EXCERPT]
The next time this issue came up was on November 11, 2002 here is what
Milosevic said on that occasion:
[BEGIN EXCERPT]
SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] Well, first and foremost, I would
like to say that I know very little about these ideas of yours, but as
far as I was able to gather, that side over there, the opposite side,
is trying to take away my right to speak here and to impose some sort
of lawyers, counsel on me, and it has no right to do so. So I should
like to remind you that according to the International Pact on
Civilian and Political Rights, it is Article 14.3(D), and pursuant to
the American Convention, chapter 8.2(D), Article 8.2(D), and the
European Convention Article 6.3(C), and according to the Statute of the
Court of Rome Article 68.1(D), nobody can be refused the right of
defending themselves. And you yourselves have provided for that
possibility in your Rules and regulations, although I don't consider
this Tribunal of yours to be legal. But as you yourselves do, then I
assume you adhere to the Rules you laid down yourselves.
Therefore, this position on the part of the opposite party I consider
to be completely illegal, absurd, and ill-intentioned, and I don't
think it deserves any further explanations at all, nor can anything
along the lines of what they have proposed be acceptable.
And as far as the position goes, a position that I just briefly saw
contained in the letter signed by Mr. Kay, the amicus, I said earlier
on, gentlemen, at no price whatsoever would I leave the fight I'm
fighting here and from this political process -- trial. Therefore, I
think that they have rightly stressed that you ought to set me at
liberty, set me free, that you ought to give me time, lege artis, to
see to my health and to be given sufficient time to take a look at the
200.000 pages that have been amassed and all the tapes alongside the
documents, and you yourselves know full well that I would not run away.
Therefore, if you want to speak of any kind of fair treatment, fair
play, then I think that that is the approach that should be taken,
because without a doubt, the existing conditions do not allow me in
any respect to take care of all these things in the proper manner. And
I shall take a closer look at what I have here, and if I consider that
I wish to make some more comments, I shall do so in due course.
MR. MAY: We will consider what's already been said, but meanwhile,
Judge Kwon wishes to add something.
MR. KWON: Mr. Milosevic, there may come a time when you have to prepare
your Defence case. You have to prepare the examinations, and you have
to present your witnesses to the Court. How are you going to manage
without the assistance of lawyers in the court? It will be very
difficult for you to meet the witnesses in advance and to prepare the
examinations.
SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] Well, it is you who are placing me
in that position, gentlemen, to make it difficult for me. It's not up
to me. It's up to you.
If the circumstances were such that I would be able to function
normally, to take care of my health normally and to prepare myself for
all those piles and piles -- well, look at what they've just brought
me for the coming witness. Look at all those binders. There are seven
of them, these books, the covers. So if the right conditions existed
and the circumstances to give me sufficient time, then this would be
no problem for me at all. No health problems or the problems of the
documents. This is not something that the lawyers can do, because they
know far less about it all than I do. So nobody treated their health
with the help of lawyers, nor was anybody able to place what he knows
into the heads of lawyers.
And there's another matter of principle. In view of the fact that I
don't recognise this Tribunal, I do not wish to have an appointed
Defence counsel before this Tribunal which I do not recognise, and I
have explained that on several occasions previously.
MR. KWON: What do you think about the idea that your associates sit in
the court and assist you in preparing the examinations or sorting out
the documents, et cetera?
SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] I don't need them. I don't need my
associates sitting up here with me.
MR. MAY: Mr. Milosevic, you should reflect on that. You are undertaking
the conduct of a very lengthy and very complex case. Your health is
not good, as we now know, and you should consider carefully in your
own interests and the interests of your health, whether you wouldn't
be assisted, as Judge Kwon says, by having somebody to help you in the
court.
It's not only the difficulty which you have, naturally, in conducting a
cross-examination in a case of this sort with the amount of material
which you have to deal with, it is the number of witnesses which
remain to be cross-examined. And then as the Judge says, there's the
question of your own case. You need to be thinking about that. If you
wish to call evidence, you've got to consider how that's to be done in
a practical way.
And so the suggestion simply is -- we will, of course, consider the
proposal of the Prosecution that Defence counsel is ordered but you
have said you object to that and we will consider that too, but the
suggestion is that you merely have somebody in court to help you with
the papers and anything else that you need help with.
Now, we don't expect you to deal with that now, but you may like to
consider it as a way forward in your own interests. Not in the
interests of anybody else, but in your own interests in helping you
conduct your case as effectively as you can and also in conserving
your health.
MR. ROBINSON: Can I just say that the magnitude of the task that you
have undertaken, Mr. Milosevic, can be illustrated by a look at the
team that the Prosecutor has -- is using. By my count, and Mr. Nice
can correct me, the Prosecutor has so far used, I think, seven or
eight counsel in the conduct of its case, and you are by yourself. For
that reason, I endorse the comments made by my brothers and hope you
will take them to heart.
MR. NICE: In light of His Honour Judge Kwon's observation, it may be of
assistance if I make available to the Chamber and also to the accused
and the amici the fairly well-known case of McKenzie which gave rise
to the acceptance of the appropriateness of using something called a
McKenzie friend. That's the second judgement of Lord Justice Sachs
which is perhaps most helpful on the point. If I can just make that
available.
MR. MAY: Yes. If the usher would be kind enough to hand that round,
we'll all have a look at it and we can reflect on it. Mr. Milosevic,
it's for you to think about it. We don't need a -- yes, a copy to the
amicus, a copy to the accused, please.
SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. May --
MR. MAY: You can have a read of this case -- yes?
SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] As -- despite my referring to all
these international pacts and covenants, European, American, Roman, et
cetera, the opposing party is now once again referring to court
practice and is offering up McKenzie versus McKenzie. I am also going
to provide you with something. It is a copy from a court case, and it
is Faretta versus California, the United States Court, where quite
clearly once again it excludes the possibility of having anybody
impose a Defence counsel or lawyer to anybody unless the accused wishes
to appoint one himself. So I think it is useless to carry on a
discussion of this kind.
[END EXCERPT]
A US-Croat Alliance to Destroy Bosnia Once Forever
After supporting Croat and Muslim secessionists to kill Yugoslavia and
Bosnia itself, will the US finally turn the back to the Muslims and
destroy everything once forever? (i.s.)
---
> http://dynamic.washtimes.com/print_story.cfm?StoryID=20030930-084113-
> 1005r
Redrawing Bosnian borders
By Jeffrey T. Kuhner
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published October 1, 2003
From 1992-1995, Bosnia was the site of some of the bloodiest fighting
in Europe since the Second World War. Yet since the signing of the
Dayton peace accords, the country remains divided along ethnic lines.
Despite massive Western foreign aid and the presence of American
peacekeeping forces, Bosnia's Serbs, Croats and Muslims are no closer
to genuine reconciliation and peaceful co-existence. The country's
Serbs who live in the Bosnian Serb Republic seek to eventually become
part of Serbia. The Bosnian Croats, most of whom live in the country's
second political entity, the Muslim-Croat federation, also would like
nothing more than to join Croatia.
The country's Muslims, however, remain wedded to the notion of a
united, multinational Bosnia based on a strong centralized government
in Sarajevo. The international community also is committed to keeping
the country's borders intact. Yet the problem with that approach is
that it overlooks the reality of what is occurring on the ground.
Bosnia remains an economic basket case, where the unemployment rate
is 40 percent. Foreign investment is practically nonexistent.
Corruption and crime remain rampant. Despite nearly a decade of
nation-building, Western governments have failed to forge viable
economic and political institutions.
More ominously, the greatest threat to peace and stability stems
from the resurgence of Islamic fundamentalism in Bosnia, which seeks to
either wipe out or convert all Christians in the region. The country
now serves as a base for al Qaeda operatives, where numerous terrorist
cells are active and plotting attacks on targets throughout Europe. In
the past, Saudi Arabia has sent millions of dollars in aid to
"humanitarian" agencies that encourage Bosnian Muslims to promote the
doctrines of Wahhabism, a particularly intolerant and puritanical
version of Islam. Mosques have been established throughout the
Muslim-Croat federation, many of whom preach the need for "jihad"
against the country's Catholic Croats and Orthodox Christian Serbs.
The result has been numerous acts of terror perpetrated upon
civilians — especially the Croats. During the past several years,
Catholic churches in and around Sarajevo have been vandalized by
Islamic extremists. Cemeteries where Croats were buried have been
desecrated. Many ordinary Catholics are afraid of walking on the
streets of Sarajevo with a cross around their neck for fear of being
attacked.
The most notorious incident occurred on Christmas Eve, when three
Croats — a father and his two daughters — were gunned down in their
home by an Islamic militant near the town of Konjic. Their crime:
celebrating Christmas.
The rise of radical Islam threatens to destabilize the Balkans,
plunging the region once again into bloodshed and religious conflict.
Rather than forcing the three constituent peoples of Bosnia to live
together against their wishes, the Bush administration would be wise to
develop a realistic and coherent strategy toward the region.
Washington needs to realize that synthetic states such as
Bosnia-Herzegovina are destined to fail. Recent European history is
littered with examples of multinational countries such as
Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union that disintegrated
because they denied the fundamental human aspirations for democracy and
national self-determination. Bosnia is another case in point. The
Bosnian Serbs should be allowed to form a state with Serbia; the Croat
territories — especially those centered around their stronghold of
Mostar in Western Herzegovina — should be incorporated into Croatia.
The Bosnian Muslims would have their own state, with Sarajevo as the
capital.
More importantly, the Bush administration needs to foster closer
ties with the Croats in Bosnia-Herzegovina for one simple reason: They
are on the front-lines in the war against Islamic terrorism in the
Balkans. The Bosnian Serbs, meanwhile, are unreliable allies. Many of
them are still seething with resentment against the United States for
its decision to use military force to end the Serbs' campaign of ethnic
cleansing and mass murder during the Balkan wars of the 1990s.
The Croats, on the other hand, view Washington as their strategic
partner. As one high-ranking Bosnian Croat government official told me:
"We can act as the eyes and ears for the West in the Balkans and
monitor the activities of al Qaeda in Bosnia."
The United States should not only support the Bosnian Croats' right
to self-determination, but also provide them with intelligence and
military assistance to contain the growth of radical Islam in the
region.
It is ironic that the West should now have to depend upon the
Croats in Herzegovina as a pivotal ally in the war on terrorism.
Throughout the 1990s, the Herzegovinian Croats were demonized in the
Western liberal press for their "nationalism" and passionate attachment
to the Croatian cause. They have always been the most patriotic and
courageous of all the Croats, producing some of Europe's finest
fighters. Herzegovina was primarily the site where the Croats for
centuries fought off the invading Ottoman armies. For their ceaseless
resistance to the Turks, Pope Leo X referred to the Croats as "the
ramparts of Christendom."
The Croats in Bosnia can again take up their historic role as a
strategic bulwark against Islamic expansionism on the Continent.
However, this can only happen after Washington realizes Bosnia is not a
Balkan Switzerland, but a smoldering cauldron of ethnic strife where
the followers of Osama bin Laden have found a home to preach their
message of hate and religious fanaticism. As an experiment in
nation-building, Bosnia has been a noble failure. The Bush
administration should take heed.
Jeffrey T. Kuhner is an assistant national editor at The Washington
Times.
Copyright © 2003 News World Communications, Inc.
All rights reserved.
After supporting Croat and Muslim secessionists to kill Yugoslavia and
Bosnia itself, will the US finally turn the back to the Muslims and
destroy everything once forever? (i.s.)
---
> http://dynamic.washtimes.com/print_story.cfm?StoryID=20030930-084113-
> 1005r
Redrawing Bosnian borders
By Jeffrey T. Kuhner
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published October 1, 2003
From 1992-1995, Bosnia was the site of some of the bloodiest fighting
in Europe since the Second World War. Yet since the signing of the
Dayton peace accords, the country remains divided along ethnic lines.
Despite massive Western foreign aid and the presence of American
peacekeeping forces, Bosnia's Serbs, Croats and Muslims are no closer
to genuine reconciliation and peaceful co-existence. The country's
Serbs who live in the Bosnian Serb Republic seek to eventually become
part of Serbia. The Bosnian Croats, most of whom live in the country's
second political entity, the Muslim-Croat federation, also would like
nothing more than to join Croatia.
The country's Muslims, however, remain wedded to the notion of a
united, multinational Bosnia based on a strong centralized government
in Sarajevo. The international community also is committed to keeping
the country's borders intact. Yet the problem with that approach is
that it overlooks the reality of what is occurring on the ground.
Bosnia remains an economic basket case, where the unemployment rate
is 40 percent. Foreign investment is practically nonexistent.
Corruption and crime remain rampant. Despite nearly a decade of
nation-building, Western governments have failed to forge viable
economic and political institutions.
More ominously, the greatest threat to peace and stability stems
from the resurgence of Islamic fundamentalism in Bosnia, which seeks to
either wipe out or convert all Christians in the region. The country
now serves as a base for al Qaeda operatives, where numerous terrorist
cells are active and plotting attacks on targets throughout Europe. In
the past, Saudi Arabia has sent millions of dollars in aid to
"humanitarian" agencies that encourage Bosnian Muslims to promote the
doctrines of Wahhabism, a particularly intolerant and puritanical
version of Islam. Mosques have been established throughout the
Muslim-Croat federation, many of whom preach the need for "jihad"
against the country's Catholic Croats and Orthodox Christian Serbs.
The result has been numerous acts of terror perpetrated upon
civilians — especially the Croats. During the past several years,
Catholic churches in and around Sarajevo have been vandalized by
Islamic extremists. Cemeteries where Croats were buried have been
desecrated. Many ordinary Catholics are afraid of walking on the
streets of Sarajevo with a cross around their neck for fear of being
attacked.
The most notorious incident occurred on Christmas Eve, when three
Croats — a father and his two daughters — were gunned down in their
home by an Islamic militant near the town of Konjic. Their crime:
celebrating Christmas.
The rise of radical Islam threatens to destabilize the Balkans,
plunging the region once again into bloodshed and religious conflict.
Rather than forcing the three constituent peoples of Bosnia to live
together against their wishes, the Bush administration would be wise to
develop a realistic and coherent strategy toward the region.
Washington needs to realize that synthetic states such as
Bosnia-Herzegovina are destined to fail. Recent European history is
littered with examples of multinational countries such as
Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union that disintegrated
because they denied the fundamental human aspirations for democracy and
national self-determination. Bosnia is another case in point. The
Bosnian Serbs should be allowed to form a state with Serbia; the Croat
territories — especially those centered around their stronghold of
Mostar in Western Herzegovina — should be incorporated into Croatia.
The Bosnian Muslims would have their own state, with Sarajevo as the
capital.
More importantly, the Bush administration needs to foster closer
ties with the Croats in Bosnia-Herzegovina for one simple reason: They
are on the front-lines in the war against Islamic terrorism in the
Balkans. The Bosnian Serbs, meanwhile, are unreliable allies. Many of
them are still seething with resentment against the United States for
its decision to use military force to end the Serbs' campaign of ethnic
cleansing and mass murder during the Balkan wars of the 1990s.
The Croats, on the other hand, view Washington as their strategic
partner. As one high-ranking Bosnian Croat government official told me:
"We can act as the eyes and ears for the West in the Balkans and
monitor the activities of al Qaeda in Bosnia."
The United States should not only support the Bosnian Croats' right
to self-determination, but also provide them with intelligence and
military assistance to contain the growth of radical Islam in the
region.
It is ironic that the West should now have to depend upon the
Croats in Herzegovina as a pivotal ally in the war on terrorism.
Throughout the 1990s, the Herzegovinian Croats were demonized in the
Western liberal press for their "nationalism" and passionate attachment
to the Croatian cause. They have always been the most patriotic and
courageous of all the Croats, producing some of Europe's finest
fighters. Herzegovina was primarily the site where the Croats for
centuries fought off the invading Ottoman armies. For their ceaseless
resistance to the Turks, Pope Leo X referred to the Croats as "the
ramparts of Christendom."
The Croats in Bosnia can again take up their historic role as a
strategic bulwark against Islamic expansionism on the Continent.
However, this can only happen after Washington realizes Bosnia is not a
Balkan Switzerland, but a smoldering cauldron of ethnic strife where
the followers of Osama bin Laden have found a home to preach their
message of hate and religious fanaticism. As an experiment in
nation-building, Bosnia has been a noble failure. The Bush
administration should take heed.
Jeffrey T. Kuhner is an assistant national editor at The Washington
Times.
Copyright © 2003 News World Communications, Inc.
All rights reserved.
