Informazione
From: Vladimir Krsljanin (30/7/2003)
SLOBODA today addressed the media in Belgrade with the following
statement:
Sloboda/Freedom Association – Yugoslav Committee for the Release of
Slobodan Milosevic warns the public at home and abroad that the state
of health of President Slobodan Milosevic is continuously getting
worse, due to the dangerous and malicious disrespect of the
international standards of the human right protection by the illegal
tribunal at The Hague.
President Milosevic is triumphant in his struggle for truth in the
process without a precedent in history, in spite he faces everyday
burden exceeding the human abilities as well as the inhuman prison
conditions. And it lasts more than two years already. Few specialist
medical examinations and analyses have undoubtedly proven that the
conditions he faces are a dangerous factor of cardiovascular risk. But
the tribunal refuses even to secure regular check-ups of the
President’s health condition.
Sloboda/Freedom Association demands that President Milosevic should be
at least provided with the necessary examinations and recuperation in
his own country and to be allowed to continue his participation in the
process from freedom. That would be the only way to protect his life
and health.
Belgrade, July 30, 2003
NOTE: Since last Friday, President Milosevic has kidney pains. On
Friday, the court session started with delay, since he was waiting to
get a pill against pain. This week, there was no trial. Tribunal’s
doctors have been examining him today. Results are still expected.
President Milosevic was examined by the specialists’ medical team from
Belgrade in February. On that occasion, Belgrade doctors agreed with
their Dutch colleagues appointed by the tribunal that President
Milosevic needs regular health monitoring, including specialists’
examination at least once in a month. Since then, there were no
specialists’ examinations. In June, Sloboda demanded in strongest terms
that Belgrade medical team goes to The Hague again, referring to the
February agreement. This demand was sent to the person in charge,
tribunal’s Registrar and to all “judges” of the “Trial Chamber III”.
Until now, Sloboda got no response from the tribunal. When we were
urging a response by phone, persons from the Registry replied that for
another visit of Belgrade doctors, according to the tribunal’s “Rules”,
‘a written request of the accused is needed’. Now we are facing another
dramatic turn in President Milosevic’s health due to another tribunal’s
deliberate disregard of the medical conclusions. And President
Milosevic is not willing to ask his inquisitors for anything.
Sloboda calls upon the national committees, jurists and medical doctors
to react. Address the tribunal and UN Security Council members (find
their contacts at
http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_members.html )
---
When light of truth or light of public attention falls on the illegal
tribunal’s building made of immoral and criminal ‘right of might’, the
building starts to be ruined.
Look at the two excerpts from today’s tribunal’s weekly press briefing
(last before the three weeks summer recess). First, about the President
Milosevic’s health:
<<Asked for more information concerning Milosevic’s health, [spokesman
for Registry and Chambers Jim] Landale replied that he could not really
go much further than what Judge May had said in court this morning
during the administrative session, which was that the Trial Chamber
understood that Milosevic was suffering from problems with his blood
pressure and that was the reason he was not able to attend court this
week and why the trial would now adjourn until 25 August 2003. He could
not go further than that, he concluded.
A journalist stated that everyone had become used to interruptions of
the Milosevic trial due to reasons of blood pressure, flu or
exhaustion, but that Milosevic, during the public hearing on Friday,
had mentioned that he had asked for a pain killer and that it was the
first time he did so. Asked whether this indicated that there was a new
ailment, or new symptoms, Landale replied that he would not go any
further than what Judge May had said in court today. He added that it
was not for him to disclose confidential medical information and that
he would not do so.>>
And second, about Carla del Ponte:
<<Asked what the position of the Prosecutor was concerning
recommendations made by the UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, not to
extend her mandate as Prosecutor of the ICTR, [spokeswoman for the
Office of the Prosecutor Florence] Hartmann replied that the next step,
following the recommendation of the Secretary-General, was for the
Security Council to issue a resolution. It was up to the Security
Council to decide on such matters. She concluded that the Prosecutor
would make no comment until a decision had been made.
According to a journalist, Carla Del Ponte had told a Swiss newspaper a
few days ago that if her mandate for the ICTR was not extended, she
would not stay at the ICTY. Hartmann replied that she had no further
comment to make on this issue except that she was waiting to see what
the Security Council decided. She would comment after that, but not at
the moment as it was too early.>>
WHY SHOULD SUCH A PERSON KEEP ANY POST IN UN SYSTEM?
(we remind you of one of our earlier posts, which is just a piece of
numerous dirty stories about the criminal NATO executor)
TRANSLATION OF INTERVIEW BY JURGEN ELSAESSER WITH FELIPE TUROVER ON
CARLA DEL PONTE
(source: Konkret, December 2002)
Translated by Colin Meade
[quotation]
Felipe Turover: "Carla del Ponte told the hit-men where to find me".
[Introduction]
"Justice is a woman", said UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan about Carla
del Ponte, currently Chief Prosecutor in the Hague trial of Slobodan
Milosevic. Felipe Turover's experience of the Swiss jurist is very
different. 37-year old Felipe comes from a Spanish Republican family
whose parents fled with him from Franco to the Soviet Union. After the
death of the dictator, Felipe returned to his native land before going
back at the end of the 1980s to Moscow as a financial expert. From 1992
to 1999 he worked for the Yeltsin government managing debts with
Western creditor banks.
[Interview]
Elsässer: You are the chief witness in the Mabetex case, also known as
Russiagate. What is it about and how does Carla del Ponte come into it?
Turover: Mabetex is a construction company based in Lugano in Italian
Switzerland. It belongs to the Kosovo Albanian Beghijet Pacolli who now
has a Swiss passport. In the 1990s Pacolli and his business partner
Viktor Stolpovskich won some two billion euros-worth of orders from the
Kremlin, supposedly for building and restoration work in the government
and presidential complex. It has been proved that billions of dollars
vanished from Russia through this operation, with millions being spent
on bribes in Moscow in return. Pacolli acted as guarantor for credit
cards for Yeltsin and both his daughters, according to the Banca del
Gottardo which issued the cards. Carla del Ponte, at that time a Swiss
public prosecutor contacted me in 1997 and asked me to be ready to
testify in the case. Later she invited the Russian investigating
prosecutor Yuri Skuratov to Switzerland and put me in touch with
him. At that time she already had a reputation as a great fighter for
justice and I therefore did as she asked. That was an almost fatal
error.
Elsässer: Why?
Turover: I was dependent on her honesty and had made it clear to her
from the start that my testimony placed my life in danger. I was still
at the time working as an advisor to the Russian authorities, i.e. for
the very people I was incriminating with these documents. So what did
Ms del Ponte do? She gave my full name and job to the press. This was
as if I had given information to the US Drug Enforcement Agency about
the Escobar Clan out of Medellin and then, while still in the lions'
den, read in the New York Times that I was the chief witness against
Escobar. In my case, it was Moscow rather than Medellin and the
newspaper was the Corriere della Sera but the effect was the same. I
was in big trouble and saved my life by hurriedly getting out of
Moscow. Since then, for the past three years, I have been living
undercover. I have Carla del Ponte to thank for this. She told the
hit-men where to find me.
Elsässer: Isn't that an exaggeration? How is a Swiss Federal Prosecutor
responsible for an article in an Italian newspaper?
Turover: Both the Corriere journalists got all their information from
del Ponte, including my mobile phone number. They told me so
themselves, because they knew my life was in danger.
Elsässer: Del Ponte has denied that.
Turover: Then she's not telling the truth. And I've already said this
many times and she has never threatened to sue for slander. The reason
is simple: she has no proof, but I do.
Elsässer: Mabetex boss Pacolli is not only a construction magnate, but
is also said to have close ties to the Kosovo Albanian KLA terrorists.
Turover: That's right. He himself has stated that at least until 2000
his group owned the Kosovo Albanian daily "Bota Sot" which even the
OSCE condemned for racist articles. Its agitation was aimed mainly at
the Serbs, but it also made an anti-Semitic attack on me as the "Jew
Turover".
Elsässer: If it were the case that the Yeltsin clan had received Kosovo
Albanian bribes, this might explain his behaviour in spring 1999. As
NATO prepared for war against Yugoslavia, he didn't lift a finger to
help the Serbs, his supposed brother people. At the Rambouillet
Conference, when the NATO states took an extremely biased pro-Albanian
position, Moscow didn't protest, although its diplomats were at the
negotiating table. Did the Kosovo Albanians buy Yeltsin's passivity?
Turover: That's possible. We're looking here at a symbiosis of
politics, plunder and money laundering on a large scale.
Elsässer: And del Ponte?
Turover: All the preliminary inquiries in the Mabetex case in
Switzerland were politically abandoned at the highest level. Moreover,
the documents that del Ponte had received from her Russian colleague
Skuratov somehow ended up in Pacolli's possession. He reported back to
his Russian friends Yeltsin and Borodin and subsequently Skuratov, an
honest and competent lawyer, was shunted aside, in spite of three
almost unanimous resolutions in his support from the Russian
Senate. The end of Skuratov was also the end of the Moscow Mabetex case
- the proceedings were finally abandoned in December 2000.
Elsässer: Was del Ponte acting to protect the Albanian Mafia or the
Yeltsin clan?
Turover: Neither. She acts only in her own interest. She is indifferent
to political goals. Look at the point in time when she made public what
she knew about the Mabetex case, including my name - the end of August
1999. That was a blow not only to me, but to Yeltsin too.
It's true that she later failed to follow through on the case, but at
that moment her revelations did serious damage to Yeltsin. The
immediate background was the spectacular coup by Russian elite units in
Kosovo in summer 1999; after the ceasefire they occupied Pristina
airport, getting there before NATO. According to the British head of
KFOR, Michael Jackson, this could have led to world war three. Moscow
was playing for high stakes. It wanted its own occupation zone in
Kosovo to protect the Serbs. In this situation Yeltsin had to be
repudiated. The current US Foreign Minister, Madeleine Albright,
therefore met del Ponte at London Heathrow airport in July 1999 and
probably spelt all this out to her. So then del Ponte went public with
her revelations about Yeltsin in Corriere della Sera and in
mid-September Albright in a statement on CNN stoked up the heat about
Russian government corruption. Yeltsin had to fear an effort to impeach
him and then prosecution. He was let off the hook by two bombings in
Moscow, allegedly by Chechen terrorists. Russian troops went into
Chechnya and public attention was diverted from Russiagate.
Elsässer: Was del Ponte acting as an agent of Washington in this
situation?
Turover: She is no more pro-American than she is pro-Albanian. She acts
in Swiss interests, i.e. in the interests of the Mafia in Switzerland.
Elsässer: Explain.
Turover: Switzerland and the Swiss banks live mainly off money
laundering. All the world's dictators and major criminals deposit their
money here. Above all the canton of Tessin is exceptionally well placed
for this. People simply carry millions in suitcases and glove
compartments over the border from Italy. Every politician in Tessin
knows about it and benefits from it. And as the canton's public
prosecutor del Ponte protected this activity even before the Mabetex
case at the end of the 1990s. Take the case of a company in Chiasso
accused of money laundering for the Italian Mafia. She stopped the
proceedings. But basically del Ponte is pro-del Ponte. She would do
anything for her career, even bring a case against George W. Bush. She
is in any case a useless lawyer. To my knowledge she has never won a
case in her entire career. Her only talent is self-promotion,
self-marketing.
Elsässer: Her agreement with Albright in any case proved profitable. A
little later she became the Chief Prosecutor at the Hague, at
Washington's behest. The Zurich Weltwoche expressed surprise: "why the
Americans wanted her to succeed the difficult and prematurely ousted
Louise Arbour remains a puzzle. After all they had made no secret of
the fact that they regarded the Court as a useless waste of time".
Turover: Del Ponte and the Swiss government helped Albright and the
Americans - they're honest people, they pay their bills - therefore
rewarded her with the Hague job. Here too she has sold herself
brilliantly. With her, the trial is a total disaster. She has nothing
on Milosevic, and legally he ought therefore to be released
immediately. And so Milosevic, who himself is nothing but a bandit and
con man, can present himself as an innocent victim of persecution and
Serb nationalism is on the rise as the recent elections showed [1]. Do
people in the Hague really not know that the Swiss Federal Government
has appointed a special investigator to look into the del Ponte
affair? How can a woman who is herself the subject of judicial
investigation at the highest level because of serious crimes stay on as
Chief Prosecutor at the UN war crimes tribunal?
Elsässer: In March 2001 you reported Carla del Ponte and persons
unknown to the police for, among other things, endangering your life
and attempted murder (tentato assassinio) in connection with
Russiagate. But the Swiss Federal Prosecutor, Valentin Roschacher,
dismissed the charges against his predecessor. So how can you say that
a special investigation of del Ponte is ongoing?
Turover: Roschacher protected del Ponte and I have therefore brought a
case against him for bias in her favour. This case has not only been
taken up, but in May 2002 the Swiss Federal Council appointed a special
investigator, Arthur Hublard, the former public prosecutor of Jura
canton. He is investigating my accusations against Roschacher - but the
del Ponte case is obviously also involved here. Furthermore, I have
laid charges against Switzerland at the European Court of Human Rights
in Strasbourg.
Elsässer: Against Switzerland, not against del Ponte?
Turover: You can't bring cases against private persons in
Strasbourg. But in substance the charges relate primarily to del Ponte
because as the Swiss Federal Prosecutor she placed my life in
danger. It's preposterous for her to continue to hold office in the
Hague when two such cases are pending.
Elsässer: You are living in hiding, constantly moving house. How long
will you keep this up?
Turover: I have to, otherwise I'm dead because of del Ponte. I have of
course insured myself by making sure that in the event of my demise
even more explosive information than hitherto will be revealed. But
that does not provide me with real security. So far at least five
prosecution witnesses in the Mabetex case have been cleared out of the
way. The most recent victim was Pacolli's personal secretary, a 32-year
old woman, who was found dead in the bathroom, allegedly from a blood
clot. There was no autopsy and she was cremated the next day.
[1] Obviously, these disparaging remarks about Mr Milosevic do not
represent the views of the ICDSM. The reason why Carla del Ponte has
got nothing on Mr Milosevic is that the charges against him have no
basis in reality. However incompetent del Ponte may be, she has had a
multitude of "experts", investigators and compliant officials within
and outside Yugoslavia to help her in her quest for "evidence". They
have found nothing because there was never anything there to find.
---
IS THE END NEAR?
Obviously. Anyhow. Remember: in spite of all blackmails from ICTY and
puppet regime in Belgrade, all the ‘crucial insiders’ were just more
and more ruining the ‘indictment’ – one of the biggest historical lies
ever. And here is how just days ago, Carla tried, without conviction,
to advertise her non-existing achievements and to propose herself to
the Security Council:
UN Prosecutor to Show Milosevic Evidence
ARTHUR MAX
Associated Press
Wed, Jul. 16, 2003
THE HAGUE, Netherlands-With time running out to conclude her case, the
chief U.N. war crimes prosecutor said Wednesday she will begin focusing
on the genocide charges against Slobodan Milosevic, and the next few
months will be critical.
The prosecutor, Carla Del Ponte, said crucial evidence will soon be
presented to the tribunal regarding the former Yugoslav president's
involvement with the massacre in Srebrenica and the months-long
bombardment of Sarajevo. She said she was confident it would lead to
convictions for genocide - the most serious of the 66 charges Milosevic
faces.
The prosecution has until the end of the year to complete its case in
the trial. Milosevic, 61, who is representing himself, will then have
equal time - nearly two years - to present his defense.
Milosevic, who has been on trial since February 2002, has serious heart
trouble and illness that has repeatedly delayed hearings.
In verdicts in other cases, the Yugoslav tribunal has set stiff
standards for genocide convictions, demanding the prosecution
demonstrate that a prior intent to destroy a race or ethnic group was
the motive for the crime.
In the tribunal's 10-year existence, one person has been convicted of
genocide. Two other defendants were acquitted, but were convicted of
crimes against humanity and received long prison terms. Prosecutors
have dropped genocide charges in several other cases when they believed
the evidence was inadequate.
In an Associated Press interview, Del Ponte said the prosecution's case
against Milosevic is going well, but they haven't yet proved the
genocide charges.
"So far it's going OK, but let's see. It will be in September-October
that will be the most crucial moment for this count of genocide," she
said.
Del Ponte said she expected to hand down the last indictments against
war crimes suspects in the former Yugoslavia, and conclude all the
investigations on schedule by the end of next year.
The tribunal, created in 1993 by the U.N. Security Council to prosecute
crimes in the Balkan wars of the 1990s, will disband when the last
trials are completed - in 2010 at the latest.
Keeping an eye on a television monitor showing the Milosevic trial one
floor below her office, Del Ponte said she hoped senior political and
military figures during his 13 years in power, who are under indictment
themselves, will testify against their former leader.
She has been buoyed in the last month by the decision of two former
Yugoslav army officers to change their innocent pleas to guilty and to
issue lengthy statements implicating co-defendants - but not Milosevic
himself - in the killings at Srebrenica in July 1995.
Bosnian Serbs slaughtered more than 7,000 Muslims in one week in the
enclave, which had been declared a U.N. protected zone. It was the
worst mass murder in Europe since World War II.
Del Ponte held out hope that Biljana Plavsic, the former Bosnian Serb
leader who pleaded guilty and the most senior political figure to be
convicted so far, would change her mind and testify against Milosevic.
Plavsic is serving an 11-year sentence in Sweden.
"If Biljana Plavsic would agree to testify in court, it would be much
easier," Del Ponte said. "But it's not only Plavsic. We have others."
In her plea bargain last year, Plavsic made it clear she had no
intention to be a witness in other trials.
"Until now, I am optimistic," Del Ponte said about persuading suspects
to testify against Milosevic. "But you know it can change from day to
day, because sometimes witnesses are hesitant for other reasons -
threats, a political situation."
Don’t miss to tell to the Security Council and to the public, before
September 15 what do you think about Carla del Ponte and her NATO
justice.
---
And justice will work, sooner or later. On behalf of the people, of
course. There is at least one document waiting since last year in
Belgrade that democracy returns:
District State Attorney’s Office-Belgrade
B e l g r a d e
16A Slobodana Penezica St.
Pursuant to the Art. 224 of the Law on Criminal Proceedings and the
Art. 107 item 1 of the Penal Code of FRY, the above Attorney’ s Office
being of actual and regional jurisdiction has been filed the following
CRIMINAL CHARGES
against:
1. Carla del Ponte, the Attorney of the International Criminal Tribunal
for the Former Yugoslavia in the Hague;
2. Geoffrey Nice, the Deputy Attorney of the ICTY;
3. Dirk Ryneveld, the Deputy Attorney of the ICTY;
4. Cristina Romano, the Deputy Attorney of the ICTY;
5. Milbert Shin, the Deputy Attorney of the ICTY;
6. Daniel Saxon, the Deputy Attorney of the ICTY;
7. Julia Baly, the Deputy Attorney of the ICTY;
8. Daryl A. Mundis, the Deputy Attorney of the ICTY
Them having deliberately ever since June 26, 2001, initiated the
procedure of life deprivation of Slobodan Milosevic, him being at
request of the Attorney’s Office of the Hague Tribunal, kept in the
Detention Unit of the ICTY in Scheweningen in the Hague; him being
occasionally, ever since February 12, 2002, brought and kept under
surveillance in the court -room in the Hague and him being returned to
the Detention Unit although all of them knowing that the health
condition of Slobodan Milosevic requires urgent medical
treatment outside prison; them depriving Slobodan Milosevic necessary
cardiology specialist treatment and further care; them doing this
persistently and deliberately, ignoring opinions and recommendations of
the physicians conference from FRY and recommendations of the
physicians Dr. J.W. Crosse and Dr. H.A. Rodrigues from Holland dtd.
June 17, 2002, as well as opinions of the Head of the Cardiology Clinic
of the Military Medical Academy, Belgrade, FRY dtd. July 23, 2002, that
tried persistently to propose to the Trial Chamber Slobodan Milosevic
being assigned defense attorney instead of Slobodan Milosevic
temporarily being relieved due to further medical treatment and
seriously aggravated health condition that might cause his death.
Them, hereby, being co-executors for the criminal offense of attempted
murder pursuant to the Art 47 item 1 of the Penal Code of the Republic
of Serbia in connection with the Art. 19 of the Penal Code of FRY.
Them although chosen by the OUN and having the above assignments,
deliberately and roughly broke their professional code of conduct and
the acts of the OUN, representing the generally binding acts of the
international public law that covers bodies and institutions of the OUN
as well as the stuff of the OUN, i.e.:
“the principles of medical ethics applied to medical stuff, physicians
mostly, to protect detainees and persons detained from torture and
other cruel, inhuman or degrading punishments or deeds” (Adopted by the
General Assembly of the United Nations on Dec. 18 1982, the Resolution
37/94),
as well as
“The Code of Conduct of Persons Liable for Introduction of the Law”
adopted on the part of the General Assembly of the United Nations on
Dec. 17, 1979, the Resolution 34/169.
The Art. 6 of this Code determined that “persons liable for application
of this law should take care that health of persons entrusted to them
should be FULLY PROTECTED and they MUST, IMMEDIATELY TAKE ALL NECESSARY
STEPS to provide the affected persons with all medical care whenever
need arises”.
They violated severely the Art. 3 of the Universal Declaration on Human
Rights that guarantees that “EVERYBODY HAS RIGHT TO LIFE, FREADOM AND
SECURITY OF HIS PERSONALITY.”
The Attorney and her Deputies do not propose to the President of the
Court and the Trial Chamber neither the change of conditions for
Slobodan Milosevic pursuant to the Art. 64 of the Rules nor do they
initiate the Trial Chamber to release temporarily Slobodan Milosevic
due to medical treatment pursuant to the Art. 65 of the Rules although
they are well acquainted with the quoted medical reports and proposals.
In Annex to these Charges we provide copies of medical reports of Dr.
J.W. Crosse and Dr. H.A. Rodriques from Holland dtd. July 19, 2002,
done upon request of the court council of MKSJ and Dr. Sc. Med. Zdravko
Mijailovic, the Head of the Cardiology Clinic of the Military Medical
Academy, Belgrade.
Hereinafter we propose pursuant to the legal jurisdiction mentioned in
the Law on Public Attorney Office Work and the Criminal Proceedings
Regulations to take all necessary steps for suspects’ persecution in
conformity with the presentation of evidence and their punishment
before authorized courts.
In Belgrade on Nov. 12, 2002.
Charges filed by
Association of Citizens “FREEDOM’
National Committee for Release of Slobodan Milosevic
Belgrade, 16 Rajiceva St.
---
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.wpc-in.org/ (world peace council)
http://www.geocities.com/b_antinato/ (Balkan antiNATO center)
SLOBODA today addressed the media in Belgrade with the following
statement:
Sloboda/Freedom Association – Yugoslav Committee for the Release of
Slobodan Milosevic warns the public at home and abroad that the state
of health of President Slobodan Milosevic is continuously getting
worse, due to the dangerous and malicious disrespect of the
international standards of the human right protection by the illegal
tribunal at The Hague.
President Milosevic is triumphant in his struggle for truth in the
process without a precedent in history, in spite he faces everyday
burden exceeding the human abilities as well as the inhuman prison
conditions. And it lasts more than two years already. Few specialist
medical examinations and analyses have undoubtedly proven that the
conditions he faces are a dangerous factor of cardiovascular risk. But
the tribunal refuses even to secure regular check-ups of the
President’s health condition.
Sloboda/Freedom Association demands that President Milosevic should be
at least provided with the necessary examinations and recuperation in
his own country and to be allowed to continue his participation in the
process from freedom. That would be the only way to protect his life
and health.
Belgrade, July 30, 2003
NOTE: Since last Friday, President Milosevic has kidney pains. On
Friday, the court session started with delay, since he was waiting to
get a pill against pain. This week, there was no trial. Tribunal’s
doctors have been examining him today. Results are still expected.
President Milosevic was examined by the specialists’ medical team from
Belgrade in February. On that occasion, Belgrade doctors agreed with
their Dutch colleagues appointed by the tribunal that President
Milosevic needs regular health monitoring, including specialists’
examination at least once in a month. Since then, there were no
specialists’ examinations. In June, Sloboda demanded in strongest terms
that Belgrade medical team goes to The Hague again, referring to the
February agreement. This demand was sent to the person in charge,
tribunal’s Registrar and to all “judges” of the “Trial Chamber III”.
Until now, Sloboda got no response from the tribunal. When we were
urging a response by phone, persons from the Registry replied that for
another visit of Belgrade doctors, according to the tribunal’s “Rules”,
‘a written request of the accused is needed’. Now we are facing another
dramatic turn in President Milosevic’s health due to another tribunal’s
deliberate disregard of the medical conclusions. And President
Milosevic is not willing to ask his inquisitors for anything.
Sloboda calls upon the national committees, jurists and medical doctors
to react. Address the tribunal and UN Security Council members (find
their contacts at
http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_members.html )
---
When light of truth or light of public attention falls on the illegal
tribunal’s building made of immoral and criminal ‘right of might’, the
building starts to be ruined.
Look at the two excerpts from today’s tribunal’s weekly press briefing
(last before the three weeks summer recess). First, about the President
Milosevic’s health:
<<Asked for more information concerning Milosevic’s health, [spokesman
for Registry and Chambers Jim] Landale replied that he could not really
go much further than what Judge May had said in court this morning
during the administrative session, which was that the Trial Chamber
understood that Milosevic was suffering from problems with his blood
pressure and that was the reason he was not able to attend court this
week and why the trial would now adjourn until 25 August 2003. He could
not go further than that, he concluded.
A journalist stated that everyone had become used to interruptions of
the Milosevic trial due to reasons of blood pressure, flu or
exhaustion, but that Milosevic, during the public hearing on Friday,
had mentioned that he had asked for a pain killer and that it was the
first time he did so. Asked whether this indicated that there was a new
ailment, or new symptoms, Landale replied that he would not go any
further than what Judge May had said in court today. He added that it
was not for him to disclose confidential medical information and that
he would not do so.>>
And second, about Carla del Ponte:
<<Asked what the position of the Prosecutor was concerning
recommendations made by the UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, not to
extend her mandate as Prosecutor of the ICTR, [spokeswoman for the
Office of the Prosecutor Florence] Hartmann replied that the next step,
following the recommendation of the Secretary-General, was for the
Security Council to issue a resolution. It was up to the Security
Council to decide on such matters. She concluded that the Prosecutor
would make no comment until a decision had been made.
According to a journalist, Carla Del Ponte had told a Swiss newspaper a
few days ago that if her mandate for the ICTR was not extended, she
would not stay at the ICTY. Hartmann replied that she had no further
comment to make on this issue except that she was waiting to see what
the Security Council decided. She would comment after that, but not at
the moment as it was too early.>>
WHY SHOULD SUCH A PERSON KEEP ANY POST IN UN SYSTEM?
(we remind you of one of our earlier posts, which is just a piece of
numerous dirty stories about the criminal NATO executor)
TRANSLATION OF INTERVIEW BY JURGEN ELSAESSER WITH FELIPE TUROVER ON
CARLA DEL PONTE
(source: Konkret, December 2002)
Translated by Colin Meade
[quotation]
Felipe Turover: "Carla del Ponte told the hit-men where to find me".
[Introduction]
"Justice is a woman", said UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan about Carla
del Ponte, currently Chief Prosecutor in the Hague trial of Slobodan
Milosevic. Felipe Turover's experience of the Swiss jurist is very
different. 37-year old Felipe comes from a Spanish Republican family
whose parents fled with him from Franco to the Soviet Union. After the
death of the dictator, Felipe returned to his native land before going
back at the end of the 1980s to Moscow as a financial expert. From 1992
to 1999 he worked for the Yeltsin government managing debts with
Western creditor banks.
[Interview]
Elsässer: You are the chief witness in the Mabetex case, also known as
Russiagate. What is it about and how does Carla del Ponte come into it?
Turover: Mabetex is a construction company based in Lugano in Italian
Switzerland. It belongs to the Kosovo Albanian Beghijet Pacolli who now
has a Swiss passport. In the 1990s Pacolli and his business partner
Viktor Stolpovskich won some two billion euros-worth of orders from the
Kremlin, supposedly for building and restoration work in the government
and presidential complex. It has been proved that billions of dollars
vanished from Russia through this operation, with millions being spent
on bribes in Moscow in return. Pacolli acted as guarantor for credit
cards for Yeltsin and both his daughters, according to the Banca del
Gottardo which issued the cards. Carla del Ponte, at that time a Swiss
public prosecutor contacted me in 1997 and asked me to be ready to
testify in the case. Later she invited the Russian investigating
prosecutor Yuri Skuratov to Switzerland and put me in touch with
him. At that time she already had a reputation as a great fighter for
justice and I therefore did as she asked. That was an almost fatal
error.
Elsässer: Why?
Turover: I was dependent on her honesty and had made it clear to her
from the start that my testimony placed my life in danger. I was still
at the time working as an advisor to the Russian authorities, i.e. for
the very people I was incriminating with these documents. So what did
Ms del Ponte do? She gave my full name and job to the press. This was
as if I had given information to the US Drug Enforcement Agency about
the Escobar Clan out of Medellin and then, while still in the lions'
den, read in the New York Times that I was the chief witness against
Escobar. In my case, it was Moscow rather than Medellin and the
newspaper was the Corriere della Sera but the effect was the same. I
was in big trouble and saved my life by hurriedly getting out of
Moscow. Since then, for the past three years, I have been living
undercover. I have Carla del Ponte to thank for this. She told the
hit-men where to find me.
Elsässer: Isn't that an exaggeration? How is a Swiss Federal Prosecutor
responsible for an article in an Italian newspaper?
Turover: Both the Corriere journalists got all their information from
del Ponte, including my mobile phone number. They told me so
themselves, because they knew my life was in danger.
Elsässer: Del Ponte has denied that.
Turover: Then she's not telling the truth. And I've already said this
many times and she has never threatened to sue for slander. The reason
is simple: she has no proof, but I do.
Elsässer: Mabetex boss Pacolli is not only a construction magnate, but
is also said to have close ties to the Kosovo Albanian KLA terrorists.
Turover: That's right. He himself has stated that at least until 2000
his group owned the Kosovo Albanian daily "Bota Sot" which even the
OSCE condemned for racist articles. Its agitation was aimed mainly at
the Serbs, but it also made an anti-Semitic attack on me as the "Jew
Turover".
Elsässer: If it were the case that the Yeltsin clan had received Kosovo
Albanian bribes, this might explain his behaviour in spring 1999. As
NATO prepared for war against Yugoslavia, he didn't lift a finger to
help the Serbs, his supposed brother people. At the Rambouillet
Conference, when the NATO states took an extremely biased pro-Albanian
position, Moscow didn't protest, although its diplomats were at the
negotiating table. Did the Kosovo Albanians buy Yeltsin's passivity?
Turover: That's possible. We're looking here at a symbiosis of
politics, plunder and money laundering on a large scale.
Elsässer: And del Ponte?
Turover: All the preliminary inquiries in the Mabetex case in
Switzerland were politically abandoned at the highest level. Moreover,
the documents that del Ponte had received from her Russian colleague
Skuratov somehow ended up in Pacolli's possession. He reported back to
his Russian friends Yeltsin and Borodin and subsequently Skuratov, an
honest and competent lawyer, was shunted aside, in spite of three
almost unanimous resolutions in his support from the Russian
Senate. The end of Skuratov was also the end of the Moscow Mabetex case
- the proceedings were finally abandoned in December 2000.
Elsässer: Was del Ponte acting to protect the Albanian Mafia or the
Yeltsin clan?
Turover: Neither. She acts only in her own interest. She is indifferent
to political goals. Look at the point in time when she made public what
she knew about the Mabetex case, including my name - the end of August
1999. That was a blow not only to me, but to Yeltsin too.
It's true that she later failed to follow through on the case, but at
that moment her revelations did serious damage to Yeltsin. The
immediate background was the spectacular coup by Russian elite units in
Kosovo in summer 1999; after the ceasefire they occupied Pristina
airport, getting there before NATO. According to the British head of
KFOR, Michael Jackson, this could have led to world war three. Moscow
was playing for high stakes. It wanted its own occupation zone in
Kosovo to protect the Serbs. In this situation Yeltsin had to be
repudiated. The current US Foreign Minister, Madeleine Albright,
therefore met del Ponte at London Heathrow airport in July 1999 and
probably spelt all this out to her. So then del Ponte went public with
her revelations about Yeltsin in Corriere della Sera and in
mid-September Albright in a statement on CNN stoked up the heat about
Russian government corruption. Yeltsin had to fear an effort to impeach
him and then prosecution. He was let off the hook by two bombings in
Moscow, allegedly by Chechen terrorists. Russian troops went into
Chechnya and public attention was diverted from Russiagate.
Elsässer: Was del Ponte acting as an agent of Washington in this
situation?
Turover: She is no more pro-American than she is pro-Albanian. She acts
in Swiss interests, i.e. in the interests of the Mafia in Switzerland.
Elsässer: Explain.
Turover: Switzerland and the Swiss banks live mainly off money
laundering. All the world's dictators and major criminals deposit their
money here. Above all the canton of Tessin is exceptionally well placed
for this. People simply carry millions in suitcases and glove
compartments over the border from Italy. Every politician in Tessin
knows about it and benefits from it. And as the canton's public
prosecutor del Ponte protected this activity even before the Mabetex
case at the end of the 1990s. Take the case of a company in Chiasso
accused of money laundering for the Italian Mafia. She stopped the
proceedings. But basically del Ponte is pro-del Ponte. She would do
anything for her career, even bring a case against George W. Bush. She
is in any case a useless lawyer. To my knowledge she has never won a
case in her entire career. Her only talent is self-promotion,
self-marketing.
Elsässer: Her agreement with Albright in any case proved profitable. A
little later she became the Chief Prosecutor at the Hague, at
Washington's behest. The Zurich Weltwoche expressed surprise: "why the
Americans wanted her to succeed the difficult and prematurely ousted
Louise Arbour remains a puzzle. After all they had made no secret of
the fact that they regarded the Court as a useless waste of time".
Turover: Del Ponte and the Swiss government helped Albright and the
Americans - they're honest people, they pay their bills - therefore
rewarded her with the Hague job. Here too she has sold herself
brilliantly. With her, the trial is a total disaster. She has nothing
on Milosevic, and legally he ought therefore to be released
immediately. And so Milosevic, who himself is nothing but a bandit and
con man, can present himself as an innocent victim of persecution and
Serb nationalism is on the rise as the recent elections showed [1]. Do
people in the Hague really not know that the Swiss Federal Government
has appointed a special investigator to look into the del Ponte
affair? How can a woman who is herself the subject of judicial
investigation at the highest level because of serious crimes stay on as
Chief Prosecutor at the UN war crimes tribunal?
Elsässer: In March 2001 you reported Carla del Ponte and persons
unknown to the police for, among other things, endangering your life
and attempted murder (tentato assassinio) in connection with
Russiagate. But the Swiss Federal Prosecutor, Valentin Roschacher,
dismissed the charges against his predecessor. So how can you say that
a special investigation of del Ponte is ongoing?
Turover: Roschacher protected del Ponte and I have therefore brought a
case against him for bias in her favour. This case has not only been
taken up, but in May 2002 the Swiss Federal Council appointed a special
investigator, Arthur Hublard, the former public prosecutor of Jura
canton. He is investigating my accusations against Roschacher - but the
del Ponte case is obviously also involved here. Furthermore, I have
laid charges against Switzerland at the European Court of Human Rights
in Strasbourg.
Elsässer: Against Switzerland, not against del Ponte?
Turover: You can't bring cases against private persons in
Strasbourg. But in substance the charges relate primarily to del Ponte
because as the Swiss Federal Prosecutor she placed my life in
danger. It's preposterous for her to continue to hold office in the
Hague when two such cases are pending.
Elsässer: You are living in hiding, constantly moving house. How long
will you keep this up?
Turover: I have to, otherwise I'm dead because of del Ponte. I have of
course insured myself by making sure that in the event of my demise
even more explosive information than hitherto will be revealed. But
that does not provide me with real security. So far at least five
prosecution witnesses in the Mabetex case have been cleared out of the
way. The most recent victim was Pacolli's personal secretary, a 32-year
old woman, who was found dead in the bathroom, allegedly from a blood
clot. There was no autopsy and she was cremated the next day.
[1] Obviously, these disparaging remarks about Mr Milosevic do not
represent the views of the ICDSM. The reason why Carla del Ponte has
got nothing on Mr Milosevic is that the charges against him have no
basis in reality. However incompetent del Ponte may be, she has had a
multitude of "experts", investigators and compliant officials within
and outside Yugoslavia to help her in her quest for "evidence". They
have found nothing because there was never anything there to find.
---
IS THE END NEAR?
Obviously. Anyhow. Remember: in spite of all blackmails from ICTY and
puppet regime in Belgrade, all the ‘crucial insiders’ were just more
and more ruining the ‘indictment’ – one of the biggest historical lies
ever. And here is how just days ago, Carla tried, without conviction,
to advertise her non-existing achievements and to propose herself to
the Security Council:
UN Prosecutor to Show Milosevic Evidence
ARTHUR MAX
Associated Press
Wed, Jul. 16, 2003
THE HAGUE, Netherlands-With time running out to conclude her case, the
chief U.N. war crimes prosecutor said Wednesday she will begin focusing
on the genocide charges against Slobodan Milosevic, and the next few
months will be critical.
The prosecutor, Carla Del Ponte, said crucial evidence will soon be
presented to the tribunal regarding the former Yugoslav president's
involvement with the massacre in Srebrenica and the months-long
bombardment of Sarajevo. She said she was confident it would lead to
convictions for genocide - the most serious of the 66 charges Milosevic
faces.
The prosecution has until the end of the year to complete its case in
the trial. Milosevic, 61, who is representing himself, will then have
equal time - nearly two years - to present his defense.
Milosevic, who has been on trial since February 2002, has serious heart
trouble and illness that has repeatedly delayed hearings.
In verdicts in other cases, the Yugoslav tribunal has set stiff
standards for genocide convictions, demanding the prosecution
demonstrate that a prior intent to destroy a race or ethnic group was
the motive for the crime.
In the tribunal's 10-year existence, one person has been convicted of
genocide. Two other defendants were acquitted, but were convicted of
crimes against humanity and received long prison terms. Prosecutors
have dropped genocide charges in several other cases when they believed
the evidence was inadequate.
In an Associated Press interview, Del Ponte said the prosecution's case
against Milosevic is going well, but they haven't yet proved the
genocide charges.
"So far it's going OK, but let's see. It will be in September-October
that will be the most crucial moment for this count of genocide," she
said.
Del Ponte said she expected to hand down the last indictments against
war crimes suspects in the former Yugoslavia, and conclude all the
investigations on schedule by the end of next year.
The tribunal, created in 1993 by the U.N. Security Council to prosecute
crimes in the Balkan wars of the 1990s, will disband when the last
trials are completed - in 2010 at the latest.
Keeping an eye on a television monitor showing the Milosevic trial one
floor below her office, Del Ponte said she hoped senior political and
military figures during his 13 years in power, who are under indictment
themselves, will testify against their former leader.
She has been buoyed in the last month by the decision of two former
Yugoslav army officers to change their innocent pleas to guilty and to
issue lengthy statements implicating co-defendants - but not Milosevic
himself - in the killings at Srebrenica in July 1995.
Bosnian Serbs slaughtered more than 7,000 Muslims in one week in the
enclave, which had been declared a U.N. protected zone. It was the
worst mass murder in Europe since World War II.
Del Ponte held out hope that Biljana Plavsic, the former Bosnian Serb
leader who pleaded guilty and the most senior political figure to be
convicted so far, would change her mind and testify against Milosevic.
Plavsic is serving an 11-year sentence in Sweden.
"If Biljana Plavsic would agree to testify in court, it would be much
easier," Del Ponte said. "But it's not only Plavsic. We have others."
In her plea bargain last year, Plavsic made it clear she had no
intention to be a witness in other trials.
"Until now, I am optimistic," Del Ponte said about persuading suspects
to testify against Milosevic. "But you know it can change from day to
day, because sometimes witnesses are hesitant for other reasons -
threats, a political situation."
Don’t miss to tell to the Security Council and to the public, before
September 15 what do you think about Carla del Ponte and her NATO
justice.
---
And justice will work, sooner or later. On behalf of the people, of
course. There is at least one document waiting since last year in
Belgrade that democracy returns:
District State Attorney’s Office-Belgrade
B e l g r a d e
16A Slobodana Penezica St.
Pursuant to the Art. 224 of the Law on Criminal Proceedings and the
Art. 107 item 1 of the Penal Code of FRY, the above Attorney’ s Office
being of actual and regional jurisdiction has been filed the following
CRIMINAL CHARGES
against:
1. Carla del Ponte, the Attorney of the International Criminal Tribunal
for the Former Yugoslavia in the Hague;
2. Geoffrey Nice, the Deputy Attorney of the ICTY;
3. Dirk Ryneveld, the Deputy Attorney of the ICTY;
4. Cristina Romano, the Deputy Attorney of the ICTY;
5. Milbert Shin, the Deputy Attorney of the ICTY;
6. Daniel Saxon, the Deputy Attorney of the ICTY;
7. Julia Baly, the Deputy Attorney of the ICTY;
8. Daryl A. Mundis, the Deputy Attorney of the ICTY
Them having deliberately ever since June 26, 2001, initiated the
procedure of life deprivation of Slobodan Milosevic, him being at
request of the Attorney’s Office of the Hague Tribunal, kept in the
Detention Unit of the ICTY in Scheweningen in the Hague; him being
occasionally, ever since February 12, 2002, brought and kept under
surveillance in the court -room in the Hague and him being returned to
the Detention Unit although all of them knowing that the health
condition of Slobodan Milosevic requires urgent medical
treatment outside prison; them depriving Slobodan Milosevic necessary
cardiology specialist treatment and further care; them doing this
persistently and deliberately, ignoring opinions and recommendations of
the physicians conference from FRY and recommendations of the
physicians Dr. J.W. Crosse and Dr. H.A. Rodrigues from Holland dtd.
June 17, 2002, as well as opinions of the Head of the Cardiology Clinic
of the Military Medical Academy, Belgrade, FRY dtd. July 23, 2002, that
tried persistently to propose to the Trial Chamber Slobodan Milosevic
being assigned defense attorney instead of Slobodan Milosevic
temporarily being relieved due to further medical treatment and
seriously aggravated health condition that might cause his death.
Them, hereby, being co-executors for the criminal offense of attempted
murder pursuant to the Art 47 item 1 of the Penal Code of the Republic
of Serbia in connection with the Art. 19 of the Penal Code of FRY.
Them although chosen by the OUN and having the above assignments,
deliberately and roughly broke their professional code of conduct and
the acts of the OUN, representing the generally binding acts of the
international public law that covers bodies and institutions of the OUN
as well as the stuff of the OUN, i.e.:
“the principles of medical ethics applied to medical stuff, physicians
mostly, to protect detainees and persons detained from torture and
other cruel, inhuman or degrading punishments or deeds” (Adopted by the
General Assembly of the United Nations on Dec. 18 1982, the Resolution
37/94),
as well as
“The Code of Conduct of Persons Liable for Introduction of the Law”
adopted on the part of the General Assembly of the United Nations on
Dec. 17, 1979, the Resolution 34/169.
The Art. 6 of this Code determined that “persons liable for application
of this law should take care that health of persons entrusted to them
should be FULLY PROTECTED and they MUST, IMMEDIATELY TAKE ALL NECESSARY
STEPS to provide the affected persons with all medical care whenever
need arises”.
They violated severely the Art. 3 of the Universal Declaration on Human
Rights that guarantees that “EVERYBODY HAS RIGHT TO LIFE, FREADOM AND
SECURITY OF HIS PERSONALITY.”
The Attorney and her Deputies do not propose to the President of the
Court and the Trial Chamber neither the change of conditions for
Slobodan Milosevic pursuant to the Art. 64 of the Rules nor do they
initiate the Trial Chamber to release temporarily Slobodan Milosevic
due to medical treatment pursuant to the Art. 65 of the Rules although
they are well acquainted with the quoted medical reports and proposals.
In Annex to these Charges we provide copies of medical reports of Dr.
J.W. Crosse and Dr. H.A. Rodriques from Holland dtd. July 19, 2002,
done upon request of the court council of MKSJ and Dr. Sc. Med. Zdravko
Mijailovic, the Head of the Cardiology Clinic of the Military Medical
Academy, Belgrade.
Hereinafter we propose pursuant to the legal jurisdiction mentioned in
the Law on Public Attorney Office Work and the Criminal Proceedings
Regulations to take all necessary steps for suspects’ persecution in
conformity with the presentation of evidence and their punishment
before authorized courts.
In Belgrade on Nov. 12, 2002.
Charges filed by
Association of Citizens “FREEDOM’
National Committee for Release of Slobodan Milosevic
Belgrade, 16 Rajiceva St.
---
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.wpc-in.org/ (world peace council)
http://www.geocities.com/b_antinato/ (Balkan antiNATO center)
(srpskohrvatski / english)
0. Sloboda: Reagujte dok ne bude prekasno!
Milosevic "Trial", 15--25 July 2003:
1. Dealing With the "Hostile" Insider Witness
by Judith Armatta, 15 July, 2003 - http://www.cij.org/
2. SYNOPSIS OF THE JULY 22, 2003 PROCEEDINGS AT THE HAGUE TRIBUNAL
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg072203.htm
3. SYNOPSIS OF JULY 23 HEARINGS AT THE HAGUE TRIBUNAL
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg072303.htm
4. ANOTHER SYNOPSIS OF THE JULY 23, 2003 PROCEEDINGS AT THE HAGUE
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/martinovic072303.htm
5. SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC: HISTORY TEACHER, July 24
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/martinovic072403.htm
6. "TRIAL" HALTED DUE TO PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC'S ILL HEALTH
Milosevic war crimes trial to resume August 25
=== 0 ===
Da: "Vladimir Krsljanin"
Data: Mer 30 Lug 2003 16:42:10 Europe/Rome
Oggetto: Sloboda: Reagujte dok ne bude prekasno!
SAOPSTENJE ZA JAVNOST
Udruzenje "Sloboda" - Jugoslovenski komitet za oslobodjenje
Slobodana Milosevica ukazuje domacoj i medjunarodnoj javnosti da se
zbog opasnog i zlonamernog nepostovanja medjunarodnih standarda o
zastiti ljudskih prava od strane ilegalnog tribunala u Hagu, stanje
zdravlja Predsednika Slobodana Milosevica stalno pogorsava. Predsednik
Milosevic svojom borbom za istinu trijumfuje u procesu bez presedana u
istoriji, izlozen svakodnevnim nadljudskim naporima i nehumanim
zatvorskim uslovima.
To traje vec vise od dve godine. Iako su dosadasnji malobrojni
specijalisticki pregledi i medicinske analize nesumnjivo utvrdili da
uslovi kojima je izlozen predstavljaju opasan faktor kardiovaskularnog
rizika, tribunal odbija cak i da obezbedi redovne specijalisticke
kontrole njegovog zdravstvenog stanja.
Udruzenje "Sloboda" zahteva da se Predsedniku Slobodanu Milosevicu
omoguce neophodni pregledi i oporavak u nasoj zemlji i da u ovom
procesu ucestvuje sa slobode. To je jedini primeren nacin da se zastite
njegov zivot i zdravlje.
UDRUZENJE "SLOBODA" - JUGOSLOVENSKI KOMITET ZA OSLOBODJENJE SLOBODANA
MILOSEVICA
Beograd, 30. jula 2003. godine
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.wpc-in.org/ (world peace council)
http://www.geocities.com/b_antinato/ (Balkan antiNATO center)
=== 1 ===
(NOTE: This Lady Armatta, after expressing concern about how
"accusation" witnesses turn in favor of Milosevic in
cross-examinations, claims that in "modern" proceedings such
cross-examinations must be forbidden. Milosevic would have "a nearly
hypnotic effect" thus "it makes it difficult to get at the truth", she
says - she is right, since only HER truth is meant.)
http://www.cij.org/
index.cfm?fuseaction=viewReport&reportID=361&tribunalID=1
Dealing With the "Hostile" Insider Witness
International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia (ICTY)
Milosevic Trial - The Hague - Court Room Three
15 July 2003
THE HAGUE - An attorney cannot impeach a witness he or she has called,
according to traditional trial practice rules. The rule is based on
the assumption that a party calling a witness vouches for the witness's
credibility. Only when the party can show that a witness has surprised
him or her with their testimony is there an exception. In this
situation, an attorney may ask the court to declare the witness
“hostile” and allow the attorney to impeach his or her own witness,
i.e., attempt to show the witness is lying. Traditionally, judges did
not favor this procedure and tended to tell attorneys they take their
witnesses as they find them. If they “go south” (change their stories)
on the stand, it is just one of life’s risks.
The more modern approach is to recognize that attorneys do not have
unlimited choice of witnesses. Not infrequently, a witness with
important information may also be untrustworthy. That is often the
case with certain witnesses in war crimes trials, especially where the
charge is involvement in a joint criminal enterprise. The best
witnesses in such cases are insiders. They can also be the worst.
Geoffrey Nice has been struggling with this problem since the beginning
of the Milosevic trial, as the Trial Chamber appears to favor the
traditional rule. The recent appearance of Zoran Lilic, one-time
President of the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY), was only
the latest challenge.
On the stand, Lilic showed himself a devotee of Slobodan Milosevic, the
Accused who he had come to testify against. Like other insider
witnesses, such as Rade Markovic, Dragan Vasiljkovic and protected
witness B-1775, once confronted by his old-time boss, Lilic rolled over
like a cur before the alpha dog. Milosevic’s aura was too strong for
him. Lilic (and Markovic, Vasiljkovic and B-1775) willingly and
unashamedly agreed to whatever Milosevic asked, with some exceptions.
It is not unusual for authoritarian leaders to surround themselves with
“yes-men,” but it makes it difficult to get at the truth, particularly
if the hostile witness rule is applied.
Lilic provided important testimony on direct examination about:
Milosevic's central role in getting the Bosnian Serbs to lay down their
guns; the primacy of Milosevic's Serbian police (MUP) over the VJ
(Yugoslav Army) and the direct subordination of MUP chiefs to him; the
FRY's financial support of the Croatian and Bosnian Serb armies, and
crimes committed by Serbian forces in Kosovo. The former FRY president
also authenticated minutes of high level meetings and a letter Army
Chief of Staff Momcilo Perisic wrote Milosevic, protesting his
extra-legal activities in Kosovo.
On cross examination, Lilic changed his testimony to suit his former
mentor with the ease of an actor changing roles. The fact that some of
his answers directly contradicted his earlier testimony seemed to
bother him not in the slightest. Despite having criticized Milosevic
for unnecessarily prolonging the war in Kosovo, when the Accused asked,
he agreed that Milosevic sought peace, not war. He testified that
Milosevic had no control over the Yugoslav army (VJ) and did not
interfere in its command during Lilic’s term in office – 1993 to 1997.
Moreover, he agreed that no VJ generals were promoted or dismissed at
Milosevic's request. In contrast to his earlier statement, Lilic also
assented to Milosevic's suggestion that he had no control over the
Bosnian Serbs, who often obstructed his efforts for a negotiated
settlement
In addition to these concessions, Lilic also provided the Amicus,
Branislav Tapuskovic, with helpful responses. He agreed with his
examiner that all the republican territorial defense units were under
JNA (Yugoslav People’s Army) command and their weapons and equipment
were JNA property. The Chamber has heard contrary evidence to the
effect that each Yugoslav republic had its own TO, financed by the
individual republics, and providing their own equipment, weapons and
ammunition. The relationship of the JNA and republican TO’s, including
property ownership, is important because the JNA took control of TO
weapons and ammunition before the wars, then redistributed them to
local Serbs, according to other testimony before the Chamber.
Mr. Tapuskovic also elicited the witness’s agreement that Serbian
Orthodox Patriarch Pavle was the one who intervened and secured
Mladic’s agreement for Milosevic to negotiate for the Bosnian Serbs at
Dayton – not Milosevic. This scenario counters Milosevic’s reputed
“influence” over the Bosnian Serb leadership.
Confronted with his witness’s many concessions to Milosevic, Geoffrey
Nice had only a short time for re-examination and a significant
challenge ahead of him. He did not ask the Chamber to declare Lilic a
hostile witness, though he would have been justified in doing so.
Rather, he set out to tread a cautious line, which twice drew warnings
from the Bench.
Probing Lilic’s relationship with the Accused, Mr. Nice asked him who
was giving instructions to whom as they sought to get Mladic to release
the two French pilots before the signing of the Dayton Accords in
Paris. Lilic responded, “Our fear was that the Accords would not be
signed and Milosevic insisted that I should issue an order to Perisic
that he try to establish the location of the pilots. I was not giving
instruction to him. He used his right through me to bring influence to
bear on the Yugoslav Army.” It is an explanation as curious as it is
convoluted and may provide unintended insight into the way Lilic has
ordered his reality to include a vision of his own power within the
confines of Milosevic’s far greater power.
Nice then stepped into deeper water and asked his witness, “Mladic left
the RS (Republika Srpska) at the end of 1996. Did he come to Serbia?”
Lilic responded: “I don’t know whether he left the RS altogether but
he certainly did come to Serbia.” Nice followed up by asking if there
was ever an inquiry into Mladic's involvement in Srebrenica, to which
Lilic replied, “As far as I know, no such investigation was
instituted.” Before the prosecutor could ask about the subsequent
promotion of Mladic, Judge May cautioned him, “There’s a limit to the
extent you can cross examine your own witness.”
Not for the first time, Nice tried to explain the trouble with insider
witnesses. “There are certain witnesses whose evidence has to be
viewed cautiously.” Yet, he said, “the Chamber is assisted by hearing
their evidence on particular documents and events,” in this case the
promotion of someone who has been indicted for genocide in Srebrenica.
Nice wanted to present a document showing Mladic’s promotion and to ask
the witness how it occurred. The Chamber ruled to exclude the document
and Nice approached his witness from a different angle.
In response to Mr. Nice’s questions, Lilic admitted that during his
term as president he had access to significant intelligence data,
though he said Milosevic had “more and better information.”
Nevertheless, when Nice asked him whether, despite the range of
available information, he had no intelligence on what happened at
Srebrenica, he said simply, “Right.”
Nice continued, “You denied the existence of any detention camps [when
Milosevic asked him about a report that nine existed in Serbia,
identified by location and number of prisoners] . . . . Did you visit
the areas yourself?” In another demonstration of his convoluted
universe, Lilic answered, “I did not visit them and according to my
information, they did not exist. I cannot visit what our [military
intelligence] service says does not exist.” It apparently never
occurred to him to visit the identified areas to see if they held camps
in which people were being detained. When Nice attempted to follow up
by asking if the witness would allow that he could have been kept from
information of this kind, Judge Robinson interrupted to caution him,
“Mr. Nice, you’re getting pretty close to cross examining.”
The lead prosecutor quietly asked his less than stellar witness, "If
the Court determines that the army [VJ] was involved [in the Bosnian
Serb war against the Bosnian government], who was in a position to
control or influence the VJ . . .?" The witness waffled, appearing
confused. Only General Perisic could have issued orders of that kind,
he said, and if he did, they could have come from Milosevic. That, he
continued, would have been completely unlawful. So, it could not have
happened, he appeared to conclude. "Only the President of FRY [Lilic]
[acting] with the Supreme Defense Council could issue such an order."
This exemplifies the dance he was forced to do in his efforts to please
Milosevic and protect himself.
Nice's further probing rehabilitated significant evidence Lilic had
given on direct examination, which he had repudiated on cross
examination by Milosevic. For example, Lilic re-asserted that the
Serbian MUP was militarized under Milosevic's presidency, and that it
included two special anti-terrorist units, the SJO and the SAJ. He
also reaffirmed that Jovica Stanisic, head of the Serbian State
Security Service, and indirectly Milosevic, exercised political control
over the Red Berets.
The Prosecutor then asked him about General Pavkovic's May 25, 1999
letter to Milosevic, asking him to take urgent measures to
resubordinate MUP units in Kosovo to the VJ. General Pavkovic reported
that certain MUP units were out of control, looting vast amounts of
property and "committing serious crimes against the Shiptars
[pejorative name for Kosovar Albanians]" including murder, rape,
robbery, plunder, etc. Lilic had fallen out of favor by this time and
could not testify directly about the letter. However, Mr. Nice asked
him one important question, "Do you have any reason to doubt General
Pavkovic?" In a strong voice, Lilic responded, "absolutely not."
Finally, Mr. Nice showed Lilic the transcript of a speech by Ratko
Mladic on April 16, 1995. In it, Mladic identifies the quantity of
weapons and ammunition the FRY provided to the RS Army from the
beginning of the war until December 31, 1994. Lilic explained that
Mladic was a bit of a sensationalist and the quantities were "so large
I personally don't believe them." The Prosecutor offered a
hypothetical, "If in due course it is found that [the VJ provided]
these materials . . ., who bears responsibility for authorizing it --
you as Commander in Chief?" Because the weapons were owned by the VJ
and because of the quantity, Lilic claimed that only the federal
minister of defense could have authorized their transfer to the RS.
Experience with insider witnesses demonstrates that the Court should
adopt the modern rule and allow cross examination of a party's own
witnesses. The Milosevic trial provides strong support to do so. At
least four witnesses have significantly diverted from their direct
testimony when Milosevic questioned them, under a nearly hypnotic
effect. The prosecutor should not be placed in a position to press a
reluctant Court to declare these witnesses "hostile" in order to
attempt to get at the truth. The purpose of presenting testimony
through these difficult witnesses is to assist the Chamber in its
decision-making. Applying the traditional rule thwarts that aim. The
Chamber should adopt the modern approach.
Submitted by Judith Armatta on 15 July, 2003 - Updated: 15 July 2003
08:32
=== 2 ===
SYNOPSIS OF THE JULY 22, 2003 PROCEEDINGS AT THE HAGUE TRIBUNAL
www.slobodan-milosevic.org - July 22, 2003
Written by: Andy Wilcoxson
The so-called “Trial” of Slobodan Milosevic resumed again today after
a four day weekend.
A secret witness code named “B-127” testified for most of the day.
B-127 is a Muslim and a former member of the JNA who stayed on and
joined the VRS, after the JNA withdrew from Bosnia-Herzegovina in May
of 1992.
The prosecution was trying to use B-127’s testimony as part of its
pathetic attempt to “prove” their absurd claim that the VJ and the VRS
were the same army, and not 2 different armies.
The “damning testimony” came fast and furious when B-127 claimed that
the VJ and the VRS shared information with each other. Oh, parish the
thought that 2 friendly states would share information with each
other! That has got to be the most sinister conspiracy in the history
of the world, or so you would think if you listened to the
“prosecutor” at the Hague Tribunal.
The truth is that it is completely normal for states that are on
friendly terms with one another to share information. An example of
that is making headlines right now. George W. Bush made what was
apparently a false claim in his State of the Union speech, on the basis
of British intelligence.
B-127 said that the information sharing went so far that the VJ could
access VRS radar data, and the VRS could access VJ radar data. In
North America the USA and Canada have the same agreement – it’s called
NORAD.
If one uses the logic employed by the Hague Tribunal one could
theorize that the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was really a Canadian
endeavor, and therefore the actions of the USA are really Canada’s
responsibility. After all, Canada and the USA cooperate with each
other, they share intelligence data, they share radar data – in fact,
in my home state of Washington, the Canadian Armed forces even conduct
joint training operations together with the U.S. Army at Ft. Lewis
near Tacoma.
Just like Slobodan Milosevic secretly controlled the government and
army of Republika Srpska – Canadian PM, Jean Chretien must be secretly
controlling the U.S. Government and the American armed forces. If you
understand the logic of the Hague Tribunal, or if you smoke enough
crack, then that type of thinking will make perfect sense to you.
Another thing that was seen as sinister (by the prosecutor) was the
fact that the government of Yugoslavia paid the former soldiers of the
JNA, through the 30th Personnel Center, the social insurance, health
benefits, salaries, old-age pensions, etc… which they had legally
accrued under Yugoslav law.
Imagine those scheming Serbs - paying people the money that they owed
them. If that doesn’t point to a “joint criminal enterprise” then I
don’t know what does. They even paid B-127, who is a Muslim, through
that same 30th Personnel Center.
The 30th Personnel Center was purely an administrative body that was
in charge of paying legally accrued social benefits to the former
soldiers of the JNA. The 30th Personnel Center issued no orders of any
kind. It had one office, consisting of one room, and it operated for a
full 6 years after the war ended,therefore it had absolutely nothing
at all to do with the war.
The prosecution’s claim that the VJ and the VRS were the same army
fell to pieces when Slobodan Milosevic asked B-127 some very direct
questions.
President Milosevic asked if B-127 knew of any orders that the VJ had
issued to the VRS, and B-127 didn’t know about any.
President Milosevic asked if B-127 had ever seen any units of the VJ
operating in Bosnia, and again B-127 hadn’t.
B-127 tried to save the prosecution’s case by saying that people from
Serbia were forced to join the VRS. President Milosevic then asked for
an example of this, but B-127 failed to come up with even a single
example.
President Milosevic further destroyed the prosecution’s case when he
asked - if the VJ and the VRS were the same army (as the prosecutor
claims), then why didn’t the VRS engage Albanian terrorists in Kosovo,
or mobilize to defend Yugoslavia during the NATO aggression?
After B-127 withdrew another secret witness code named B-83 came and
testified for about 10 minutes.
Then the so-called “judges” ruled that written statements from 2
secret witnesses, B-1576 and B-1010, could be admitted as evidence
under rule 92-bis without any cross-examination. In fact these secret
witnesses, if they even exist, don’t even have to appear in front of
the tribunal at all. For all we know these so-called “witnesses” could
simply be figments of Carla del Ponte’s imagination.
=== 3 ===
SYNOPSIS OF JULY 23 HEARINGS AT THE HAGUE TRIBUNAL
www.slobodan-milosevic.org - July 23, 2003
Written by: Andy Wilcoxson
Today at the Hague tribunal a secret witness testified under the
pseudonym of “B-83.” The majority of B-83’s testimony was given in
private session.
B-83 was apparently an official in the Serbian government who had
something to do with financial matters. His employment wasn’t clear
due to the excessive use of private sessions. I’m not even sure what
the gist of his testimony was supposed to be since so much of it was
given in private session.
B-83 did, however, say some interesting things in open session. B-83
accused the prosecution of twisting his words and putting falsehoods
into his witness statement. B-83 also said that the prosecution did
not give him adequate time to review his statement, or even give him
the chance to see the statement in his own language until he got to
the Hague earlier this week.
For example the prosecution made up a story about the Serbian Police
"organizing car thefts" and inserted this outrageous fairytale into
B-83's witness statement, even though the witness said that this story
wasn’t true. The prosecution also made up a bunch of malarkey about
“black budgets” which the witness also denied.
In fact, according to the witness, there were errors of fact in almost
every single paragraph of this witness statement that the prosecutor
had prepared for him.
While President Milosevic was questioning B-83 about the numerous
false claims that the prosecution had inserted into his witness
statement the so-called “judge” May cut him off and accused him of
“wasting time on irrelevant matters.”
This is amazing even for the Hague Tribunal. Here we have a witness
who had perjurious statements put into his mouth, against his will and
without his knowledge, by the prosecutor and the judge doesn’t see any
problem with that! If this was a real court, with a real judge, a
mistrial would be declared, and the prosecutor would face criminal
prosecution himself.
After B-83 finished, the prosecution called a so-called “expert”
witness, one Audrey Budding, a historian from Harvard who wrote a
paper on “Serb nationalism.”
Mrs. Budding proved her self to be an apologist for the Albanian
Fascists of the 2nd World War.
Mrs. Budding denied that the Ballistas* were fascists, and even had
the nerve to claim that the Ballistas were the victims of the Chetniks
and the Partisans.
All in all it was just another day at the Hague Tribunal.
* If you don’t know what a Ballista is see:
http://emperors-clothes/articles/thompson/rootsof.htm
=== 4 ===
ANOTHER SYNOPSIS OF THE JULY 23, 2003 PROCEEDINGS AT THE HAGUE
Written by: Vera Martinovic - July 23, 2003
Today's first witness, B-083, demonstrated again the flimsiness of the
Prosecution's case and the desperation of the OTP (Office of the
Prosecutor). Why flimsiness? Because, in the absence of anything
stronger, the Prosecutors sought to prove that Serbia provided
financial aid to the Serbs on the other side of the Drina. But that is
a common knowledge, an undisputed fact and certainly not a war crime.
And why desperation? They manipulated heavily the testimony of B-083,
fabricating his several previously given written statements, tricking
him into signing the English version without him fully understanding
it and trying to hide that by keeping his entire testimony in the
private session.
Only the last 10 minutes of the cross-examination were held in the
open session, but it was enough to reveal the whole scam. B-083 thus
joined those Prosecution witnesses whom they regretted they had ever
summoned: having received only few days ago at The Hague the Serbian
version of "his" statements, B-083 corrected in his handwriting
practically each and every paragraph, striking them out and adding in
the margins his explanations which invalidated the statements in toto.
B-083, introduced only vaguely as an "officer in the Ministry of
Defence of Serbia in 1991," started his testimony yesterday, but it
lasted only 10 minutes before the proceedings were adjourned for the
day and it was in the open session. The only thing Nice covered then
was the claim that the Government of Serbia deliberated in one of its
sessions in November 1991 the aid for the Serbs in Croatia, and the
amount mentioned was in the neighborhood of 92 million DM.
Today, B-083 finished his examination-in-chief, but most of it was in
private session. Therefore, the public was unable to follow the
explanation about those alleged millions.
Back in the open session, we saw that the examination-in-chief was
over and that amicus curiae Stephen Kay was arguing with Mr. May over
the allotment of time for the cross-examination, and the constant
changing in the order of witnesses.
Each time May spoke, he managed to muddle the issues, "explaining"
that indeed the Accused has to be granted a certain amount of time,
but he is not to waste it on arguments and quarrels with the witness.
Kay tried to point out this is a technical matter and the main thing
is that Nice 'moves like an express train', covering a large number of
important issues extremely briefly and superficially, which in turn
radically shortens the allotment of time for the Accused and makes it
impossible for him to cover those issues at all. He also noticed that
it is Nice who leads the most important witnesses, like Kucan was, who
was processed in only 1 day. Therefore, the time spent for the
examination-in-chief could not be the standard by which the allotted
time for the cross-examination is to be measured.
Apparently, the OTP produces a weekly list of witnesses complete with
the time planned for each examination-in-chief, and since the general
rule has been to allot approximately the same time for the
cross-examination, the Accused can plan his questioning accordingly.
But then Nice comes up, drastically cutting the actual time of his
questioning of a witness to, say, half an hour instead of the planned
two hours, simply by being superficial and thereby setting the low time
standard. And, he constantly reshuffles the witnesses, hampering the
preparation of the Defense.
Nice tried to prevent the judges from allotting too much time to this
cross-examination, by appealing to the Chamber to 'exert pressure on
the amicus and the Accused' (I failed to understand what kind of
pressure and in relation to what - perhaps to make them shut up).
Nice also half-complained and half-flattered: "I have to note that in
a short time the Accused has developed enviable skills of
cross-examination." What he meant by that was probably that the Accused
was now so much better at it that he could wrap it up in much less
time.
The troika in the scarlet robes put their heads together, murmuring
for two minutes among themselves and then May pronounced: "An hour and
fifteen minutes." Like a magician pulling a rabbit out of the hat, or
a generous nobleman tossing coins to a beggar: 15 minutes longer than
Nice had for the examination-in-chief.
So, not only haven't we seen what the witness had to say, and how rich
were the issues he covered, we also couldn't judge whether an hour and
fifteen would be reasonably long enough to cross-examine.
But, that was not all. Milosevic first tried to verify with May that
the issue of the place of employment of this witness was not for the
private session. May answered he also believed this had been mentioned
in the open session. But the moment Milosevic started to mouth his
first question, something to the effect of "You have been working…",
Nice jumped up, saying: "I believe this could infringe the security
measures." May seconded: "Yes, I think it might. We go to the private
session." And nearly all of the cross-examination, more than one hour
of it, was closed to the public!
When the session again became open again, there were Milosevic and the
witness at the end of the careful demolition of the written statements
by the latter and of the Prosecution's credibility.
Milosevic said that there was virtually not a single paragraph in
these statements that had not been corrected in writing by the
witness. B-083 confirmed: "That's right." He explained there were so
many mistakes and even some totally unrelated, irrelevant and invented
stuff, that he believed it was unfair that Milosevic is to be charged
with these things or the Tribunal's time wasted like this.
B-083 used the words "silly" and "preposterous" when describing these
passages from "his" statements. He spoke directly to Milosevic: "I
apologise to you", and he requested these issues to be disregarded. He
said he had made a mistake by being insufficiently cautious, and
signing this without having read it or having received it in Serbian.
Milosevic quoted several quite outrageous passages from one of these
statements, allegedly in direct speech by the witness: "I'll give you
another example of illegal fundraising - the Police had been involved
in car theft." He said to the witness: "Here you have added in your
handwriting: 'Not correct'." B-083 confirmed this, saying he also wrote
that it should be explained to the Accused, along with an apology, the
circumstances of this statement.
B-083 only got the Serbian version 5 days ago. Apparently, the OTP
Investigator Gerald Sexton had tricked the witness into signing the
English version years ago, saying he'll be able to 'explain everything
at The Hague', but then B-083 found out that practically everything
had been invented or too liberally interpreted, but as if the witness
had been quoted verbatim complete with the inverted commas ("I'll give
you another example…"). The witness now stated that, if he only had a
chance to write his statement with his own hand, "we would not be
having 1 minute of this discussion'.
Here's another gem: Milosevic said that one of the statements
contained the claim by the witness about our state budget, which had
'one secret segment, called a black fund'. B-083 simply said there's no
way he could have said that.
Judging by some other examples from the OTP's work of fiction that
Milosevic quoted, B-083 spoke to the Investigator quite broadly and
openly about the situation in the Ministry of Defense, where internal
squabbles and embezzlements were rife (and for which, as Milosevic
pointed out that 2 Ministers had been arrested at that time), and
cunning Mr. Sexton took it all and gave it a nice spin, necessary for
the Indictment.
B-083 had clearly misunderstood what it meant to give a statement for
the court, presuming it meant one should open up one's heart and spill
out every large and tiny office happening, giving the Investigator a
free hand to weave a story out of it, not even bothering to read what
the nice, understanding gentleman wrote in his name. Now he was
understandably angry at being bamboozled.
B-083 continued to complain about some of his former misbehaving
office colleagues even to Milosevic, saying that some of those who did
it were still holding their high positions today "and you and me are
sitting here". Milosevic drove the point home: "What possible
connection all these things could have with what's going on here?" The
witness answered: "None whatsoever."
Gradually, B-083 and Milosevic began to discuss those events in almost
friendly manner, chatting and not bothering to keep the pause between
questions and answers, like in a normal conversation. Milosevic would
quote another invented passage and they would together marvel at how
brazen the OTP had been, the witness repeating 'I have never said
something like that'.
B-083 even volunteered in his explanation of one particular instance
that he had 'never went there to inspect', forcing Nice to interject:
"I do not know whether the witness is aware he's in the open session?"
May also interrupted the cozy chat once, warning both not to overlap,
reminding witness he is "here to testify" and Milosevic is "here to
cross-examine," and not to have a conversation. Milosevic was quite
pleased with himself for exposing once more the sleazy modus operandi
of the OTP and disrupting so successfully this show trial, that he
calmly answered to May he was quite pleased to have the opportunity to
chat with this man, whom he has never met before.
Milosevic and the witness even tried to establish the method of
creating certain passages of the statements by the OTP. The problem
was, as many times before with those written statements, that there
were no questions to which these statements were answering, only the
unbroken, spun story.
B-083 was guessing what the original questions by the Investigator
must've been: probably the Investigator asked, for instance, what
would be the regular chain of command in the government for any given
issue. He got a detailed answer about the whole structure with the
President of the Republic at the top of the pyramid. Then the OTP
retold this explanation as if it had been an answer to a specific
accusation against Milosevic.
B-083 used the ship metaphor, describing the subordination, but he was
not answering the question of whether the captain organized the
piracy. It was as if the Investigator had asked: Who runs the ship?
and got the answer: The captain, who has officers under him. Then, the
Investigator spun the question this way: Who organized the piracy using
this ship? , and coupled it with the original question: The captain,
who has officers under him.
It was obvious that both Milosevic and B-083 were displeased when Mr.
May announced that there were only 5 minutes left, so they quickly
tried to cover several more inventions (Milosevic quoting them and
asking whether they were correct, the witness answering: "Not a chance.
Please, disregard this.") They parted almost friends, I'm sure.
Mr. Tapuskovic got his 2 minutes, and he used them to clarify the only
issue from the testimony mentioned by the witness in the open session
- those millions of Deutsche Marks requested/planned/given by Serbia
to the Serbs in Croatia. He wanted to make a distinction between the
sums requested and planned and those actually paid. B-083 confirmed
that he personally handled some of these payments, but these were all
amounts in dinars, it was aid and hardly the amount stated. Tapuskovic
was pleased: "I have no further questions."
Nice had a chance for a redirect, but guess what? The public couldn't
see it, again. He said: "We have a couple of additional questions, but
they're for a private session." And the screen went blank.
Please try to read "Dealing with the 'Hostile' Insider Witness"
(
http://www.cij.org/
index.cfm?fuseaction=viewReport&reportID=361&tribunalID=1 ) by Judith
Armatta of the CIJ. Here she explained the fact that several insiders
so far (notably Radomir Markovic, Captain Dragan, Zoran Lilic and
B-1775) allegedly changed their testimony due to the mesmerizing
effect of Milosevic on them. She compared him with an 'alpha dog', in
front of which a poor witness simply 'rolled over like a cur'. She
applied her cottage psychology/astrology/ESP skills, claiming that a
witness stood no chance, because 'Milosevic's aura was too strong for
him'.
I would suggest much simpler explanations: these people did not
volunteer to testify for the Prosecution, they had been summoned
or/and threatened into it with possible indictments against themselves.
And then the following happened: for instance, Captain Dragan had NOT
changed his testimony nor succumbed to a powerful aura, but had been
bamboozled by the OTP in the same manner as today's witness B-083.
Their original written statements had been liberally invented,
suggestively worded and devoid of questions by the Investigator and
they were tricked into signing. Not having seen the
examination-in-chief of B-083, I can only suppose that it had been
pretty much like that one of Captain Dragan: Prosecutor Nice rushing,
skipping and sliding through the invented statement 'like an express
train', sometimes not making sense at all, leaving the witness to
stare in disbelief and to simply say 'yes' to whatever construction
proffered. Too bad there was this damned cross-examination and the
possibility to demonstrate that the testimony was not at all what the
witness has signed, meant or wanted to say.
The second witness today, who is to continue tomorrow, is an expert on
history from Harvard (the font of knowledge for the ICTY), who
testifies about the Serbian nationalism in 20th century as she had
penned it in her report commissioned by the OTP. The very definition of
an expert must've been wildly stretched after the ICTY set up shop.
Vera Martinovic is an independent writer based in Belgrade, Yugoslavia.
=== 5 ===
SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC: HISTORY TEACHER
July 24, 2003
Written by: Vera Martinovic
Audrey Budding testified who testified on July 23rd and 24th, is a
skinny, bespectacled youthful PhD with expressive gesticulation. She
knows lots of historical facts. Her clothes and hairdo are unusually
interesting for an American. She apparently speaks/reads Serbian.
But that's where the plus side stops. Mrs. Budding's historical
knowledge is fragmentary and incomplete and, so she often misses the
big picture, and is unaware of important events and sources.
Mrs. Budding used to be a diplomatic official at the American Embassy
in Belgrade in the '80s, so she is obviously more of a politician then
a historian.
She penned a report commissioned by the OTP on Serbian nationalism in
the 20th century, which seems to be a rewrite of her own, more
balanced PhD thesis on the Serbian intellectuals and the national
question, only with the added twist to make the Serbs look bad, so she
supplied a political trial with a politicized rewrite of her own work.
None the less, I have to give her the credit of being much more subtle
than the previous Prosecution "expert", Riedlmayer, who was simply
ridiculous.
Mrs. Budding was seldom obvious and crude in her conclusions, except
sometimes, when Milosevic cornered her with facts and questions, and
then she turned stubborn. For example, when she disagreed with the
data by the Yad Vashem Holocaust Museum about the figure of 600,000
victims of the Ustasa concentration camp Jasenovac, claiming the
number is 100,000 and explaining that anyway 'nobody knows exactly how
many Serbs died in NDH [Nezavisna Drzava Hrvatska = Independent State
of Croatia, Ustase-led Nazi puppet invention during WW2, comprising
today's Croatia and Bosnia & Herzegovina], in each village and each
house' . Although she admitted this was clearly a genocide, she was
suspicious about the number, she couldn't be bothered to believe those
pedantic Jews at the Holocaust museum, and certainly not Yugoslav
sources, because she was unable to personally peek into each village
and house.
Another example where she was crude and stubborn was when she refused
to accept the fact that the Albanian Fascist movement of the notorious
Balli Combetar or balisti, were Fascists. The fact that they were
installed by Mussolini to rule Kosovo when it was given over to
Albania during the WW2, butchered thousands of Serbs, and then
continued armed fighting years after the war officially ended, all
that was to Audrey, "a rebellion that started after this region of
Drenica was incorporated in the Yugoslav state, which caused the
revolt of the Albanians, who didn't want to join the Partisans in the
final push against the Germans in 1944 because they were afraid to
leave their houses, and so this rebellion was quashed and probably few
thousands were killed, some in battles, some executed".
Mrs. Budding stubbornly persisted saying, "to describe balisti as
Albanian Fascists is not correct, because they did not support the
Fascistic form of the state."
Milosevic got impatient and curtly asked: "And what did they support?
Did they support Italian Fascists?"
Mrs. Budding mumbled that well, of course, they supported the creation
of the Greater Albania.
Milosevic snapped: "Not only supported the idea, but militarily
supported the Fascists."
Mrs. Budding mumbled some more, trailing off and ultimately saying
that she's not familiar with it, with each military action, that there
were different groups… Some historian and expert!
There were some more gaffes in her paper, like when she wrote that the
Ustasa émigrés were a marginal group (Milosevic wanted to know how
come they got to run a country for 4 years if they were so marginal).
Also, she found it problematic to define the nascent Yugoslavia as a
solution for the Serbs, with the maxim 'all Serbs in one state'. When
Milosevic said that Yugoslavia was not a solution only for the Serbs,
but also for others, that it could be equally said 'all Croats/Slovenes
in one state', Mrs. Budding proudly begged to disagree, 'because there
were significant Croatian and Slovenian minorities left in Italy and
Austria', but when Milosevic reminded her that also a significant
portion of the Serbs were left in Hungary and Romania, so the maxim
still applied for the bulk of all nations, Mrs. Budding didn't have
anything to say. A historian who argues an issue not knowing what the
next related historical fact might be used against her is not a very
competent historian.
Almost all other conclusions in her report were less obviously biased,
only ever so slightly leaned towards prejudice and one would have to
carefully read both her thesis and her OTP report to pinpoint the
distortions, although the general impression of a different slant is
palpable even from those paragraphs that were read in the courtroom.
Milosevic quoted her PhD thesis where she explained how it was
impossible for the Serbs to accept the confederate Yugoslavia and its
breaking along the borders of its republics because they were so
dispersed; the same issue in her report for the OTP got the subtle
addition that the Serbs failed to pay much attention to their ties
with other nations within the republics in which they lived outside of
Serbia.
Milosevic quipped: "Well, do you seriously believe that the ties of
the Serbs in Croatia with the Croats, these ties that include the
genocide that you've already explained, are so much stronger and more
important than the ties with other Serbs?!" Budding got pretty confused
after that and started to babble about life being not only one's
nation, but a house in which one lives… To that one can argue that one
can indeed live in a house if it still stands and if one is still
alive.
Another major problem with Budding's paper is the extremely shallow
and selective pool of sources that she used, some of the works
completely debunked as political pamphlets (e.g. "Kosovo - A Brief
History' by Noel Malcolm), yet she quoted from such articles and
books, disregarding or not being aware of the existence of other well
known authors and works that Milosevic listed.
Budding was often reduced to answering 'I'm not familiar with this
particular work' or 'I do not know about these particular sources' or
'I haven't read all the transcripts, only from the first meeting' or
'No, I haven't seen these diplomatic documents'. Milosevic and his
aides have done their homework and at times Mrs. Budding was indeed
receiving a thorough lesson in history.
The young doctor was selective not only in her sources, but also in
the historical events which she did or did not include in her paper.
Thus, she did quote a public speech by the soon-to-be Yugoslav King
Alexander, who said that Serbia must be strong so that Yugoslavia could
be strong too. She explained that as an example of 'Serbian
nationalism', but she failed to quote and explain, or even to mention
at all the crucial document of that time, the Corfu Declaration on the
creation of Yugoslavia. She explained her omissions with the necessity
to keep her report concise. Strangely enough, only the relevant and
balanced things got chopped off.
The "learned panel of judges" found themselves in an absurd situation:
here they were, admitting into evidence the Prosecution's exhibit
going way back into the 15th century, and discussing these despised
historical issues which they always pronounced as irrelevant, and of
which they knew nothing, and frankly didn't care to know. But, this is
what you get when the Prosecution's case so heavily depends on the
silly notion that all this is one and the same 'joint criminal
enterprise' to create the Greater Serbia, the plan which goes
centuries back, so even King Alexander, Vuk Karadzic, Garasanin and
other Serbian historical figures must be evoked in order to take their
punishment for their participation in this Nice-Del Ponte co-production
in Cinemascope.
History is a tough discipline, and it demands a broad knowledge. It
was at times hard for me to follow all of the expert nuances, because
I certainly haven't read all of the books that were mentioned. But, at
least I was able to follow the basic logic of the discussion and
arguments.
Mr. May was probably dozing or doing crosswords, because he proved
time and again unable to follow or understand the point of a certain
line of questioning.
At one point, Milosevic asked Mrs. Budding why she wrote that Vuk
Karadzic could be attributed with the authorship of the idea of
defining a nation by its language, when there is a whole line of other
linguists, historians and philosophers (of which he quoted some) who
had stated the same ideas much earlier, and Karadzic had merely
embraced that idea?
May interrupted by saying: "I do not know what is the purpose of this
list of names?" Milosevic professorially reprimanded him: "Mr May, you
have not been listening to the previous question", and he patiently
repeated the whole question and said that 'the list you're preventing
me from reading are the people who originally created the idea, among
them someone whom you might be familiar with, a German philosopher
Fichte'. So, not only was Mrs. Budding given a free history lesson,
but Mr. May as well.
The time was again the main problem, May not wanting to allow any
extension of the cross-examination. Milosevic said twice: "These time
restrictions I really regard as violence." And, at one point he
mockingly pointed at the courtroom wall clock and told May: "Anyway,
the press has been already writing that the central issue here is
time, and nothing much else."
As I said, Mrs. Budding was subtle in her intentional bias, perhaps
overly subtle, so the point the Prosecution wanted to make with this
witness hasn't come across all that clearly. It only left a faint
anti-Serb aftertaste, a few hints and insinuations, an admission that
yes, no nation of these parts is blameless, but the Serbs were somehow
the main culprits.
The time allotted for this witness, both for the examination-in-chief
and for the cross-examination, was all to short. And even that short
time was interrupted by inane interventions from Nice and stupid
questions from May. Milosevic told May at one point (when the latter
tried to dismiss one issue as irrelevant): "I don't believe that you
should learn the whole Serbian history in half an hour, but since you
mainly deal here with altering history, I consider this particular
issue to be relevant."
What I find appalling is that the "trial" aimed at rewriting history
was dealing in history in such a superficial and brief manner. But,
the reason lies precisely in that: when you want to do a quick and
crude rewrite, you don't dwell too much on the serious science.
Vera Martinovic is in independent writer based in Belgrade, Yugoslavia.
=== 6 ===
"TRIAL" HALTED DUE TO PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC'S ILL HEALTH
www.slobodan-milosevic.org - July 28, 2003
On Monday July 28th the troika announced that there would be no
proceedings in the Milosevic "trial." The proceedings have also been
canceled for the 29th.
There is no word on what type of illness President Milosevic is
suffering from, although it is known that he suffers from high blood
pressure and that he has a heart condition.
The Tribunal's doctors will examine President Milosevic on Tuesday in
order to determine when he will be fit to resume taking part in the
proceedings.
---
http://www.ptd.net/webnews/wed/aa/Qwarcrimes-yugo-
milosevic.R_qz_DlT.html
Milosevic war crimes trial to resume August 25
Tuesday, 29-Jul-2003 1:00PM
THE HAGUE, July 29 (AFP) - The war crimes trial of Slobodan Milosevic,
suspended again because the former Yugoslav leader was again suffering
from ill-health, will resume on August 25, the UN tribunal said Tuesday.
"The trial of Slobodan Milosevic is scheduled to resume on Monday 25
August at 9:00 am after the ICTY summer court recess," the
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia said in a
press release.
Tribunal spokesman Jim Landale told AFP Monday that Milosevic, who had
seen a doctor on Monday, would have another medical visit on Tuesday
and that the doctor's conclusions would affect the start date for the
trial.
He did not provide details on the illness of the former Yugoslav
leader, who suffers from high blood pressure and is at risk of a heart
attack.
The interruption was the ninth to date in the long-running trial before
the The Hague-based court. The ICTY began hearing Milosevic's case in
February last year, and the prosecution has not finished arguing its
case.
Milosevic, 61, has been undertaking his own defense in the case.
The one-time Yugoslav president, who was ousted from power in October
2000, is standing trial on more than 60 charges of war crimes and
crimes against humanity for his role in the 1990s wars in Bosnia,
Croatia and Kosovo.
0. Sloboda: Reagujte dok ne bude prekasno!
Milosevic "Trial", 15--25 July 2003:
1. Dealing With the "Hostile" Insider Witness
by Judith Armatta, 15 July, 2003 - http://www.cij.org/
2. SYNOPSIS OF THE JULY 22, 2003 PROCEEDINGS AT THE HAGUE TRIBUNAL
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg072203.htm
3. SYNOPSIS OF JULY 23 HEARINGS AT THE HAGUE TRIBUNAL
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg072303.htm
4. ANOTHER SYNOPSIS OF THE JULY 23, 2003 PROCEEDINGS AT THE HAGUE
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/martinovic072303.htm
5. SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC: HISTORY TEACHER, July 24
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/martinovic072403.htm
6. "TRIAL" HALTED DUE TO PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC'S ILL HEALTH
Milosevic war crimes trial to resume August 25
=== 0 ===
Da: "Vladimir Krsljanin"
Data: Mer 30 Lug 2003 16:42:10 Europe/Rome
Oggetto: Sloboda: Reagujte dok ne bude prekasno!
SAOPSTENJE ZA JAVNOST
Udruzenje "Sloboda" - Jugoslovenski komitet za oslobodjenje
Slobodana Milosevica ukazuje domacoj i medjunarodnoj javnosti da se
zbog opasnog i zlonamernog nepostovanja medjunarodnih standarda o
zastiti ljudskih prava od strane ilegalnog tribunala u Hagu, stanje
zdravlja Predsednika Slobodana Milosevica stalno pogorsava. Predsednik
Milosevic svojom borbom za istinu trijumfuje u procesu bez presedana u
istoriji, izlozen svakodnevnim nadljudskim naporima i nehumanim
zatvorskim uslovima.
To traje vec vise od dve godine. Iako su dosadasnji malobrojni
specijalisticki pregledi i medicinske analize nesumnjivo utvrdili da
uslovi kojima je izlozen predstavljaju opasan faktor kardiovaskularnog
rizika, tribunal odbija cak i da obezbedi redovne specijalisticke
kontrole njegovog zdravstvenog stanja.
Udruzenje "Sloboda" zahteva da se Predsedniku Slobodanu Milosevicu
omoguce neophodni pregledi i oporavak u nasoj zemlji i da u ovom
procesu ucestvuje sa slobode. To je jedini primeren nacin da se zastite
njegov zivot i zdravlje.
UDRUZENJE "SLOBODA" - JUGOSLOVENSKI KOMITET ZA OSLOBODJENJE SLOBODANA
MILOSEVICA
Beograd, 30. jula 2003. godine
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.wpc-in.org/ (world peace council)
http://www.geocities.com/b_antinato/ (Balkan antiNATO center)
=== 1 ===
(NOTE: This Lady Armatta, after expressing concern about how
"accusation" witnesses turn in favor of Milosevic in
cross-examinations, claims that in "modern" proceedings such
cross-examinations must be forbidden. Milosevic would have "a nearly
hypnotic effect" thus "it makes it difficult to get at the truth", she
says - she is right, since only HER truth is meant.)
http://www.cij.org/
index.cfm?fuseaction=viewReport&reportID=361&tribunalID=1
Dealing With the "Hostile" Insider Witness
International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia (ICTY)
Milosevic Trial - The Hague - Court Room Three
15 July 2003
THE HAGUE - An attorney cannot impeach a witness he or she has called,
according to traditional trial practice rules. The rule is based on
the assumption that a party calling a witness vouches for the witness's
credibility. Only when the party can show that a witness has surprised
him or her with their testimony is there an exception. In this
situation, an attorney may ask the court to declare the witness
“hostile” and allow the attorney to impeach his or her own witness,
i.e., attempt to show the witness is lying. Traditionally, judges did
not favor this procedure and tended to tell attorneys they take their
witnesses as they find them. If they “go south” (change their stories)
on the stand, it is just one of life’s risks.
The more modern approach is to recognize that attorneys do not have
unlimited choice of witnesses. Not infrequently, a witness with
important information may also be untrustworthy. That is often the
case with certain witnesses in war crimes trials, especially where the
charge is involvement in a joint criminal enterprise. The best
witnesses in such cases are insiders. They can also be the worst.
Geoffrey Nice has been struggling with this problem since the beginning
of the Milosevic trial, as the Trial Chamber appears to favor the
traditional rule. The recent appearance of Zoran Lilic, one-time
President of the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY), was only
the latest challenge.
On the stand, Lilic showed himself a devotee of Slobodan Milosevic, the
Accused who he had come to testify against. Like other insider
witnesses, such as Rade Markovic, Dragan Vasiljkovic and protected
witness B-1775, once confronted by his old-time boss, Lilic rolled over
like a cur before the alpha dog. Milosevic’s aura was too strong for
him. Lilic (and Markovic, Vasiljkovic and B-1775) willingly and
unashamedly agreed to whatever Milosevic asked, with some exceptions.
It is not unusual for authoritarian leaders to surround themselves with
“yes-men,” but it makes it difficult to get at the truth, particularly
if the hostile witness rule is applied.
Lilic provided important testimony on direct examination about:
Milosevic's central role in getting the Bosnian Serbs to lay down their
guns; the primacy of Milosevic's Serbian police (MUP) over the VJ
(Yugoslav Army) and the direct subordination of MUP chiefs to him; the
FRY's financial support of the Croatian and Bosnian Serb armies, and
crimes committed by Serbian forces in Kosovo. The former FRY president
also authenticated minutes of high level meetings and a letter Army
Chief of Staff Momcilo Perisic wrote Milosevic, protesting his
extra-legal activities in Kosovo.
On cross examination, Lilic changed his testimony to suit his former
mentor with the ease of an actor changing roles. The fact that some of
his answers directly contradicted his earlier testimony seemed to
bother him not in the slightest. Despite having criticized Milosevic
for unnecessarily prolonging the war in Kosovo, when the Accused asked,
he agreed that Milosevic sought peace, not war. He testified that
Milosevic had no control over the Yugoslav army (VJ) and did not
interfere in its command during Lilic’s term in office – 1993 to 1997.
Moreover, he agreed that no VJ generals were promoted or dismissed at
Milosevic's request. In contrast to his earlier statement, Lilic also
assented to Milosevic's suggestion that he had no control over the
Bosnian Serbs, who often obstructed his efforts for a negotiated
settlement
In addition to these concessions, Lilic also provided the Amicus,
Branislav Tapuskovic, with helpful responses. He agreed with his
examiner that all the republican territorial defense units were under
JNA (Yugoslav People’s Army) command and their weapons and equipment
were JNA property. The Chamber has heard contrary evidence to the
effect that each Yugoslav republic had its own TO, financed by the
individual republics, and providing their own equipment, weapons and
ammunition. The relationship of the JNA and republican TO’s, including
property ownership, is important because the JNA took control of TO
weapons and ammunition before the wars, then redistributed them to
local Serbs, according to other testimony before the Chamber.
Mr. Tapuskovic also elicited the witness’s agreement that Serbian
Orthodox Patriarch Pavle was the one who intervened and secured
Mladic’s agreement for Milosevic to negotiate for the Bosnian Serbs at
Dayton – not Milosevic. This scenario counters Milosevic’s reputed
“influence” over the Bosnian Serb leadership.
Confronted with his witness’s many concessions to Milosevic, Geoffrey
Nice had only a short time for re-examination and a significant
challenge ahead of him. He did not ask the Chamber to declare Lilic a
hostile witness, though he would have been justified in doing so.
Rather, he set out to tread a cautious line, which twice drew warnings
from the Bench.
Probing Lilic’s relationship with the Accused, Mr. Nice asked him who
was giving instructions to whom as they sought to get Mladic to release
the two French pilots before the signing of the Dayton Accords in
Paris. Lilic responded, “Our fear was that the Accords would not be
signed and Milosevic insisted that I should issue an order to Perisic
that he try to establish the location of the pilots. I was not giving
instruction to him. He used his right through me to bring influence to
bear on the Yugoslav Army.” It is an explanation as curious as it is
convoluted and may provide unintended insight into the way Lilic has
ordered his reality to include a vision of his own power within the
confines of Milosevic’s far greater power.
Nice then stepped into deeper water and asked his witness, “Mladic left
the RS (Republika Srpska) at the end of 1996. Did he come to Serbia?”
Lilic responded: “I don’t know whether he left the RS altogether but
he certainly did come to Serbia.” Nice followed up by asking if there
was ever an inquiry into Mladic's involvement in Srebrenica, to which
Lilic replied, “As far as I know, no such investigation was
instituted.” Before the prosecutor could ask about the subsequent
promotion of Mladic, Judge May cautioned him, “There’s a limit to the
extent you can cross examine your own witness.”
Not for the first time, Nice tried to explain the trouble with insider
witnesses. “There are certain witnesses whose evidence has to be
viewed cautiously.” Yet, he said, “the Chamber is assisted by hearing
their evidence on particular documents and events,” in this case the
promotion of someone who has been indicted for genocide in Srebrenica.
Nice wanted to present a document showing Mladic’s promotion and to ask
the witness how it occurred. The Chamber ruled to exclude the document
and Nice approached his witness from a different angle.
In response to Mr. Nice’s questions, Lilic admitted that during his
term as president he had access to significant intelligence data,
though he said Milosevic had “more and better information.”
Nevertheless, when Nice asked him whether, despite the range of
available information, he had no intelligence on what happened at
Srebrenica, he said simply, “Right.”
Nice continued, “You denied the existence of any detention camps [when
Milosevic asked him about a report that nine existed in Serbia,
identified by location and number of prisoners] . . . . Did you visit
the areas yourself?” In another demonstration of his convoluted
universe, Lilic answered, “I did not visit them and according to my
information, they did not exist. I cannot visit what our [military
intelligence] service says does not exist.” It apparently never
occurred to him to visit the identified areas to see if they held camps
in which people were being detained. When Nice attempted to follow up
by asking if the witness would allow that he could have been kept from
information of this kind, Judge Robinson interrupted to caution him,
“Mr. Nice, you’re getting pretty close to cross examining.”
The lead prosecutor quietly asked his less than stellar witness, "If
the Court determines that the army [VJ] was involved [in the Bosnian
Serb war against the Bosnian government], who was in a position to
control or influence the VJ . . .?" The witness waffled, appearing
confused. Only General Perisic could have issued orders of that kind,
he said, and if he did, they could have come from Milosevic. That, he
continued, would have been completely unlawful. So, it could not have
happened, he appeared to conclude. "Only the President of FRY [Lilic]
[acting] with the Supreme Defense Council could issue such an order."
This exemplifies the dance he was forced to do in his efforts to please
Milosevic and protect himself.
Nice's further probing rehabilitated significant evidence Lilic had
given on direct examination, which he had repudiated on cross
examination by Milosevic. For example, Lilic re-asserted that the
Serbian MUP was militarized under Milosevic's presidency, and that it
included two special anti-terrorist units, the SJO and the SAJ. He
also reaffirmed that Jovica Stanisic, head of the Serbian State
Security Service, and indirectly Milosevic, exercised political control
over the Red Berets.
The Prosecutor then asked him about General Pavkovic's May 25, 1999
letter to Milosevic, asking him to take urgent measures to
resubordinate MUP units in Kosovo to the VJ. General Pavkovic reported
that certain MUP units were out of control, looting vast amounts of
property and "committing serious crimes against the Shiptars
[pejorative name for Kosovar Albanians]" including murder, rape,
robbery, plunder, etc. Lilic had fallen out of favor by this time and
could not testify directly about the letter. However, Mr. Nice asked
him one important question, "Do you have any reason to doubt General
Pavkovic?" In a strong voice, Lilic responded, "absolutely not."
Finally, Mr. Nice showed Lilic the transcript of a speech by Ratko
Mladic on April 16, 1995. In it, Mladic identifies the quantity of
weapons and ammunition the FRY provided to the RS Army from the
beginning of the war until December 31, 1994. Lilic explained that
Mladic was a bit of a sensationalist and the quantities were "so large
I personally don't believe them." The Prosecutor offered a
hypothetical, "If in due course it is found that [the VJ provided]
these materials . . ., who bears responsibility for authorizing it --
you as Commander in Chief?" Because the weapons were owned by the VJ
and because of the quantity, Lilic claimed that only the federal
minister of defense could have authorized their transfer to the RS.
Experience with insider witnesses demonstrates that the Court should
adopt the modern rule and allow cross examination of a party's own
witnesses. The Milosevic trial provides strong support to do so. At
least four witnesses have significantly diverted from their direct
testimony when Milosevic questioned them, under a nearly hypnotic
effect. The prosecutor should not be placed in a position to press a
reluctant Court to declare these witnesses "hostile" in order to
attempt to get at the truth. The purpose of presenting testimony
through these difficult witnesses is to assist the Chamber in its
decision-making. Applying the traditional rule thwarts that aim. The
Chamber should adopt the modern approach.
Submitted by Judith Armatta on 15 July, 2003 - Updated: 15 July 2003
08:32
=== 2 ===
SYNOPSIS OF THE JULY 22, 2003 PROCEEDINGS AT THE HAGUE TRIBUNAL
www.slobodan-milosevic.org - July 22, 2003
Written by: Andy Wilcoxson
The so-called “Trial” of Slobodan Milosevic resumed again today after
a four day weekend.
A secret witness code named “B-127” testified for most of the day.
B-127 is a Muslim and a former member of the JNA who stayed on and
joined the VRS, after the JNA withdrew from Bosnia-Herzegovina in May
of 1992.
The prosecution was trying to use B-127’s testimony as part of its
pathetic attempt to “prove” their absurd claim that the VJ and the VRS
were the same army, and not 2 different armies.
The “damning testimony” came fast and furious when B-127 claimed that
the VJ and the VRS shared information with each other. Oh, parish the
thought that 2 friendly states would share information with each
other! That has got to be the most sinister conspiracy in the history
of the world, or so you would think if you listened to the
“prosecutor” at the Hague Tribunal.
The truth is that it is completely normal for states that are on
friendly terms with one another to share information. An example of
that is making headlines right now. George W. Bush made what was
apparently a false claim in his State of the Union speech, on the basis
of British intelligence.
B-127 said that the information sharing went so far that the VJ could
access VRS radar data, and the VRS could access VJ radar data. In
North America the USA and Canada have the same agreement – it’s called
NORAD.
If one uses the logic employed by the Hague Tribunal one could
theorize that the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was really a Canadian
endeavor, and therefore the actions of the USA are really Canada’s
responsibility. After all, Canada and the USA cooperate with each
other, they share intelligence data, they share radar data – in fact,
in my home state of Washington, the Canadian Armed forces even conduct
joint training operations together with the U.S. Army at Ft. Lewis
near Tacoma.
Just like Slobodan Milosevic secretly controlled the government and
army of Republika Srpska – Canadian PM, Jean Chretien must be secretly
controlling the U.S. Government and the American armed forces. If you
understand the logic of the Hague Tribunal, or if you smoke enough
crack, then that type of thinking will make perfect sense to you.
Another thing that was seen as sinister (by the prosecutor) was the
fact that the government of Yugoslavia paid the former soldiers of the
JNA, through the 30th Personnel Center, the social insurance, health
benefits, salaries, old-age pensions, etc… which they had legally
accrued under Yugoslav law.
Imagine those scheming Serbs - paying people the money that they owed
them. If that doesn’t point to a “joint criminal enterprise” then I
don’t know what does. They even paid B-127, who is a Muslim, through
that same 30th Personnel Center.
The 30th Personnel Center was purely an administrative body that was
in charge of paying legally accrued social benefits to the former
soldiers of the JNA. The 30th Personnel Center issued no orders of any
kind. It had one office, consisting of one room, and it operated for a
full 6 years after the war ended,therefore it had absolutely nothing
at all to do with the war.
The prosecution’s claim that the VJ and the VRS were the same army
fell to pieces when Slobodan Milosevic asked B-127 some very direct
questions.
President Milosevic asked if B-127 knew of any orders that the VJ had
issued to the VRS, and B-127 didn’t know about any.
President Milosevic asked if B-127 had ever seen any units of the VJ
operating in Bosnia, and again B-127 hadn’t.
B-127 tried to save the prosecution’s case by saying that people from
Serbia were forced to join the VRS. President Milosevic then asked for
an example of this, but B-127 failed to come up with even a single
example.
President Milosevic further destroyed the prosecution’s case when he
asked - if the VJ and the VRS were the same army (as the prosecutor
claims), then why didn’t the VRS engage Albanian terrorists in Kosovo,
or mobilize to defend Yugoslavia during the NATO aggression?
After B-127 withdrew another secret witness code named B-83 came and
testified for about 10 minutes.
Then the so-called “judges” ruled that written statements from 2
secret witnesses, B-1576 and B-1010, could be admitted as evidence
under rule 92-bis without any cross-examination. In fact these secret
witnesses, if they even exist, don’t even have to appear in front of
the tribunal at all. For all we know these so-called “witnesses” could
simply be figments of Carla del Ponte’s imagination.
=== 3 ===
SYNOPSIS OF JULY 23 HEARINGS AT THE HAGUE TRIBUNAL
www.slobodan-milosevic.org - July 23, 2003
Written by: Andy Wilcoxson
Today at the Hague tribunal a secret witness testified under the
pseudonym of “B-83.” The majority of B-83’s testimony was given in
private session.
B-83 was apparently an official in the Serbian government who had
something to do with financial matters. His employment wasn’t clear
due to the excessive use of private sessions. I’m not even sure what
the gist of his testimony was supposed to be since so much of it was
given in private session.
B-83 did, however, say some interesting things in open session. B-83
accused the prosecution of twisting his words and putting falsehoods
into his witness statement. B-83 also said that the prosecution did
not give him adequate time to review his statement, or even give him
the chance to see the statement in his own language until he got to
the Hague earlier this week.
For example the prosecution made up a story about the Serbian Police
"organizing car thefts" and inserted this outrageous fairytale into
B-83's witness statement, even though the witness said that this story
wasn’t true. The prosecution also made up a bunch of malarkey about
“black budgets” which the witness also denied.
In fact, according to the witness, there were errors of fact in almost
every single paragraph of this witness statement that the prosecutor
had prepared for him.
While President Milosevic was questioning B-83 about the numerous
false claims that the prosecution had inserted into his witness
statement the so-called “judge” May cut him off and accused him of
“wasting time on irrelevant matters.”
This is amazing even for the Hague Tribunal. Here we have a witness
who had perjurious statements put into his mouth, against his will and
without his knowledge, by the prosecutor and the judge doesn’t see any
problem with that! If this was a real court, with a real judge, a
mistrial would be declared, and the prosecutor would face criminal
prosecution himself.
After B-83 finished, the prosecution called a so-called “expert”
witness, one Audrey Budding, a historian from Harvard who wrote a
paper on “Serb nationalism.”
Mrs. Budding proved her self to be an apologist for the Albanian
Fascists of the 2nd World War.
Mrs. Budding denied that the Ballistas* were fascists, and even had
the nerve to claim that the Ballistas were the victims of the Chetniks
and the Partisans.
All in all it was just another day at the Hague Tribunal.
* If you don’t know what a Ballista is see:
http://emperors-clothes/articles/thompson/rootsof.htm
=== 4 ===
ANOTHER SYNOPSIS OF THE JULY 23, 2003 PROCEEDINGS AT THE HAGUE
Written by: Vera Martinovic - July 23, 2003
Today's first witness, B-083, demonstrated again the flimsiness of the
Prosecution's case and the desperation of the OTP (Office of the
Prosecutor). Why flimsiness? Because, in the absence of anything
stronger, the Prosecutors sought to prove that Serbia provided
financial aid to the Serbs on the other side of the Drina. But that is
a common knowledge, an undisputed fact and certainly not a war crime.
And why desperation? They manipulated heavily the testimony of B-083,
fabricating his several previously given written statements, tricking
him into signing the English version without him fully understanding
it and trying to hide that by keeping his entire testimony in the
private session.
Only the last 10 minutes of the cross-examination were held in the
open session, but it was enough to reveal the whole scam. B-083 thus
joined those Prosecution witnesses whom they regretted they had ever
summoned: having received only few days ago at The Hague the Serbian
version of "his" statements, B-083 corrected in his handwriting
practically each and every paragraph, striking them out and adding in
the margins his explanations which invalidated the statements in toto.
B-083, introduced only vaguely as an "officer in the Ministry of
Defence of Serbia in 1991," started his testimony yesterday, but it
lasted only 10 minutes before the proceedings were adjourned for the
day and it was in the open session. The only thing Nice covered then
was the claim that the Government of Serbia deliberated in one of its
sessions in November 1991 the aid for the Serbs in Croatia, and the
amount mentioned was in the neighborhood of 92 million DM.
Today, B-083 finished his examination-in-chief, but most of it was in
private session. Therefore, the public was unable to follow the
explanation about those alleged millions.
Back in the open session, we saw that the examination-in-chief was
over and that amicus curiae Stephen Kay was arguing with Mr. May over
the allotment of time for the cross-examination, and the constant
changing in the order of witnesses.
Each time May spoke, he managed to muddle the issues, "explaining"
that indeed the Accused has to be granted a certain amount of time,
but he is not to waste it on arguments and quarrels with the witness.
Kay tried to point out this is a technical matter and the main thing
is that Nice 'moves like an express train', covering a large number of
important issues extremely briefly and superficially, which in turn
radically shortens the allotment of time for the Accused and makes it
impossible for him to cover those issues at all. He also noticed that
it is Nice who leads the most important witnesses, like Kucan was, who
was processed in only 1 day. Therefore, the time spent for the
examination-in-chief could not be the standard by which the allotted
time for the cross-examination is to be measured.
Apparently, the OTP produces a weekly list of witnesses complete with
the time planned for each examination-in-chief, and since the general
rule has been to allot approximately the same time for the
cross-examination, the Accused can plan his questioning accordingly.
But then Nice comes up, drastically cutting the actual time of his
questioning of a witness to, say, half an hour instead of the planned
two hours, simply by being superficial and thereby setting the low time
standard. And, he constantly reshuffles the witnesses, hampering the
preparation of the Defense.
Nice tried to prevent the judges from allotting too much time to this
cross-examination, by appealing to the Chamber to 'exert pressure on
the amicus and the Accused' (I failed to understand what kind of
pressure and in relation to what - perhaps to make them shut up).
Nice also half-complained and half-flattered: "I have to note that in
a short time the Accused has developed enviable skills of
cross-examination." What he meant by that was probably that the Accused
was now so much better at it that he could wrap it up in much less
time.
The troika in the scarlet robes put their heads together, murmuring
for two minutes among themselves and then May pronounced: "An hour and
fifteen minutes." Like a magician pulling a rabbit out of the hat, or
a generous nobleman tossing coins to a beggar: 15 minutes longer than
Nice had for the examination-in-chief.
So, not only haven't we seen what the witness had to say, and how rich
were the issues he covered, we also couldn't judge whether an hour and
fifteen would be reasonably long enough to cross-examine.
But, that was not all. Milosevic first tried to verify with May that
the issue of the place of employment of this witness was not for the
private session. May answered he also believed this had been mentioned
in the open session. But the moment Milosevic started to mouth his
first question, something to the effect of "You have been working…",
Nice jumped up, saying: "I believe this could infringe the security
measures." May seconded: "Yes, I think it might. We go to the private
session." And nearly all of the cross-examination, more than one hour
of it, was closed to the public!
When the session again became open again, there were Milosevic and the
witness at the end of the careful demolition of the written statements
by the latter and of the Prosecution's credibility.
Milosevic said that there was virtually not a single paragraph in
these statements that had not been corrected in writing by the
witness. B-083 confirmed: "That's right." He explained there were so
many mistakes and even some totally unrelated, irrelevant and invented
stuff, that he believed it was unfair that Milosevic is to be charged
with these things or the Tribunal's time wasted like this.
B-083 used the words "silly" and "preposterous" when describing these
passages from "his" statements. He spoke directly to Milosevic: "I
apologise to you", and he requested these issues to be disregarded. He
said he had made a mistake by being insufficiently cautious, and
signing this without having read it or having received it in Serbian.
Milosevic quoted several quite outrageous passages from one of these
statements, allegedly in direct speech by the witness: "I'll give you
another example of illegal fundraising - the Police had been involved
in car theft." He said to the witness: "Here you have added in your
handwriting: 'Not correct'." B-083 confirmed this, saying he also wrote
that it should be explained to the Accused, along with an apology, the
circumstances of this statement.
B-083 only got the Serbian version 5 days ago. Apparently, the OTP
Investigator Gerald Sexton had tricked the witness into signing the
English version years ago, saying he'll be able to 'explain everything
at The Hague', but then B-083 found out that practically everything
had been invented or too liberally interpreted, but as if the witness
had been quoted verbatim complete with the inverted commas ("I'll give
you another example…"). The witness now stated that, if he only had a
chance to write his statement with his own hand, "we would not be
having 1 minute of this discussion'.
Here's another gem: Milosevic said that one of the statements
contained the claim by the witness about our state budget, which had
'one secret segment, called a black fund'. B-083 simply said there's no
way he could have said that.
Judging by some other examples from the OTP's work of fiction that
Milosevic quoted, B-083 spoke to the Investigator quite broadly and
openly about the situation in the Ministry of Defense, where internal
squabbles and embezzlements were rife (and for which, as Milosevic
pointed out that 2 Ministers had been arrested at that time), and
cunning Mr. Sexton took it all and gave it a nice spin, necessary for
the Indictment.
B-083 had clearly misunderstood what it meant to give a statement for
the court, presuming it meant one should open up one's heart and spill
out every large and tiny office happening, giving the Investigator a
free hand to weave a story out of it, not even bothering to read what
the nice, understanding gentleman wrote in his name. Now he was
understandably angry at being bamboozled.
B-083 continued to complain about some of his former misbehaving
office colleagues even to Milosevic, saying that some of those who did
it were still holding their high positions today "and you and me are
sitting here". Milosevic drove the point home: "What possible
connection all these things could have with what's going on here?" The
witness answered: "None whatsoever."
Gradually, B-083 and Milosevic began to discuss those events in almost
friendly manner, chatting and not bothering to keep the pause between
questions and answers, like in a normal conversation. Milosevic would
quote another invented passage and they would together marvel at how
brazen the OTP had been, the witness repeating 'I have never said
something like that'.
B-083 even volunteered in his explanation of one particular instance
that he had 'never went there to inspect', forcing Nice to interject:
"I do not know whether the witness is aware he's in the open session?"
May also interrupted the cozy chat once, warning both not to overlap,
reminding witness he is "here to testify" and Milosevic is "here to
cross-examine," and not to have a conversation. Milosevic was quite
pleased with himself for exposing once more the sleazy modus operandi
of the OTP and disrupting so successfully this show trial, that he
calmly answered to May he was quite pleased to have the opportunity to
chat with this man, whom he has never met before.
Milosevic and the witness even tried to establish the method of
creating certain passages of the statements by the OTP. The problem
was, as many times before with those written statements, that there
were no questions to which these statements were answering, only the
unbroken, spun story.
B-083 was guessing what the original questions by the Investigator
must've been: probably the Investigator asked, for instance, what
would be the regular chain of command in the government for any given
issue. He got a detailed answer about the whole structure with the
President of the Republic at the top of the pyramid. Then the OTP
retold this explanation as if it had been an answer to a specific
accusation against Milosevic.
B-083 used the ship metaphor, describing the subordination, but he was
not answering the question of whether the captain organized the
piracy. It was as if the Investigator had asked: Who runs the ship?
and got the answer: The captain, who has officers under him. Then, the
Investigator spun the question this way: Who organized the piracy using
this ship? , and coupled it with the original question: The captain,
who has officers under him.
It was obvious that both Milosevic and B-083 were displeased when Mr.
May announced that there were only 5 minutes left, so they quickly
tried to cover several more inventions (Milosevic quoting them and
asking whether they were correct, the witness answering: "Not a chance.
Please, disregard this.") They parted almost friends, I'm sure.
Mr. Tapuskovic got his 2 minutes, and he used them to clarify the only
issue from the testimony mentioned by the witness in the open session
- those millions of Deutsche Marks requested/planned/given by Serbia
to the Serbs in Croatia. He wanted to make a distinction between the
sums requested and planned and those actually paid. B-083 confirmed
that he personally handled some of these payments, but these were all
amounts in dinars, it was aid and hardly the amount stated. Tapuskovic
was pleased: "I have no further questions."
Nice had a chance for a redirect, but guess what? The public couldn't
see it, again. He said: "We have a couple of additional questions, but
they're for a private session." And the screen went blank.
Please try to read "Dealing with the 'Hostile' Insider Witness"
(
http://www.cij.org/
index.cfm?fuseaction=viewReport&reportID=361&tribunalID=1 ) by Judith
Armatta of the CIJ. Here she explained the fact that several insiders
so far (notably Radomir Markovic, Captain Dragan, Zoran Lilic and
B-1775) allegedly changed their testimony due to the mesmerizing
effect of Milosevic on them. She compared him with an 'alpha dog', in
front of which a poor witness simply 'rolled over like a cur'. She
applied her cottage psychology/astrology/ESP skills, claiming that a
witness stood no chance, because 'Milosevic's aura was too strong for
him'.
I would suggest much simpler explanations: these people did not
volunteer to testify for the Prosecution, they had been summoned
or/and threatened into it with possible indictments against themselves.
And then the following happened: for instance, Captain Dragan had NOT
changed his testimony nor succumbed to a powerful aura, but had been
bamboozled by the OTP in the same manner as today's witness B-083.
Their original written statements had been liberally invented,
suggestively worded and devoid of questions by the Investigator and
they were tricked into signing. Not having seen the
examination-in-chief of B-083, I can only suppose that it had been
pretty much like that one of Captain Dragan: Prosecutor Nice rushing,
skipping and sliding through the invented statement 'like an express
train', sometimes not making sense at all, leaving the witness to
stare in disbelief and to simply say 'yes' to whatever construction
proffered. Too bad there was this damned cross-examination and the
possibility to demonstrate that the testimony was not at all what the
witness has signed, meant or wanted to say.
The second witness today, who is to continue tomorrow, is an expert on
history from Harvard (the font of knowledge for the ICTY), who
testifies about the Serbian nationalism in 20th century as she had
penned it in her report commissioned by the OTP. The very definition of
an expert must've been wildly stretched after the ICTY set up shop.
Vera Martinovic is an independent writer based in Belgrade, Yugoslavia.
=== 5 ===
SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC: HISTORY TEACHER
July 24, 2003
Written by: Vera Martinovic
Audrey Budding testified who testified on July 23rd and 24th, is a
skinny, bespectacled youthful PhD with expressive gesticulation. She
knows lots of historical facts. Her clothes and hairdo are unusually
interesting for an American. She apparently speaks/reads Serbian.
But that's where the plus side stops. Mrs. Budding's historical
knowledge is fragmentary and incomplete and, so she often misses the
big picture, and is unaware of important events and sources.
Mrs. Budding used to be a diplomatic official at the American Embassy
in Belgrade in the '80s, so she is obviously more of a politician then
a historian.
She penned a report commissioned by the OTP on Serbian nationalism in
the 20th century, which seems to be a rewrite of her own, more
balanced PhD thesis on the Serbian intellectuals and the national
question, only with the added twist to make the Serbs look bad, so she
supplied a political trial with a politicized rewrite of her own work.
None the less, I have to give her the credit of being much more subtle
than the previous Prosecution "expert", Riedlmayer, who was simply
ridiculous.
Mrs. Budding was seldom obvious and crude in her conclusions, except
sometimes, when Milosevic cornered her with facts and questions, and
then she turned stubborn. For example, when she disagreed with the
data by the Yad Vashem Holocaust Museum about the figure of 600,000
victims of the Ustasa concentration camp Jasenovac, claiming the
number is 100,000 and explaining that anyway 'nobody knows exactly how
many Serbs died in NDH [Nezavisna Drzava Hrvatska = Independent State
of Croatia, Ustase-led Nazi puppet invention during WW2, comprising
today's Croatia and Bosnia & Herzegovina], in each village and each
house' . Although she admitted this was clearly a genocide, she was
suspicious about the number, she couldn't be bothered to believe those
pedantic Jews at the Holocaust museum, and certainly not Yugoslav
sources, because she was unable to personally peek into each village
and house.
Another example where she was crude and stubborn was when she refused
to accept the fact that the Albanian Fascist movement of the notorious
Balli Combetar or balisti, were Fascists. The fact that they were
installed by Mussolini to rule Kosovo when it was given over to
Albania during the WW2, butchered thousands of Serbs, and then
continued armed fighting years after the war officially ended, all
that was to Audrey, "a rebellion that started after this region of
Drenica was incorporated in the Yugoslav state, which caused the
revolt of the Albanians, who didn't want to join the Partisans in the
final push against the Germans in 1944 because they were afraid to
leave their houses, and so this rebellion was quashed and probably few
thousands were killed, some in battles, some executed".
Mrs. Budding stubbornly persisted saying, "to describe balisti as
Albanian Fascists is not correct, because they did not support the
Fascistic form of the state."
Milosevic got impatient and curtly asked: "And what did they support?
Did they support Italian Fascists?"
Mrs. Budding mumbled that well, of course, they supported the creation
of the Greater Albania.
Milosevic snapped: "Not only supported the idea, but militarily
supported the Fascists."
Mrs. Budding mumbled some more, trailing off and ultimately saying
that she's not familiar with it, with each military action, that there
were different groups… Some historian and expert!
There were some more gaffes in her paper, like when she wrote that the
Ustasa émigrés were a marginal group (Milosevic wanted to know how
come they got to run a country for 4 years if they were so marginal).
Also, she found it problematic to define the nascent Yugoslavia as a
solution for the Serbs, with the maxim 'all Serbs in one state'. When
Milosevic said that Yugoslavia was not a solution only for the Serbs,
but also for others, that it could be equally said 'all Croats/Slovenes
in one state', Mrs. Budding proudly begged to disagree, 'because there
were significant Croatian and Slovenian minorities left in Italy and
Austria', but when Milosevic reminded her that also a significant
portion of the Serbs were left in Hungary and Romania, so the maxim
still applied for the bulk of all nations, Mrs. Budding didn't have
anything to say. A historian who argues an issue not knowing what the
next related historical fact might be used against her is not a very
competent historian.
Almost all other conclusions in her report were less obviously biased,
only ever so slightly leaned towards prejudice and one would have to
carefully read both her thesis and her OTP report to pinpoint the
distortions, although the general impression of a different slant is
palpable even from those paragraphs that were read in the courtroom.
Milosevic quoted her PhD thesis where she explained how it was
impossible for the Serbs to accept the confederate Yugoslavia and its
breaking along the borders of its republics because they were so
dispersed; the same issue in her report for the OTP got the subtle
addition that the Serbs failed to pay much attention to their ties
with other nations within the republics in which they lived outside of
Serbia.
Milosevic quipped: "Well, do you seriously believe that the ties of
the Serbs in Croatia with the Croats, these ties that include the
genocide that you've already explained, are so much stronger and more
important than the ties with other Serbs?!" Budding got pretty confused
after that and started to babble about life being not only one's
nation, but a house in which one lives… To that one can argue that one
can indeed live in a house if it still stands and if one is still
alive.
Another major problem with Budding's paper is the extremely shallow
and selective pool of sources that she used, some of the works
completely debunked as political pamphlets (e.g. "Kosovo - A Brief
History' by Noel Malcolm), yet she quoted from such articles and
books, disregarding or not being aware of the existence of other well
known authors and works that Milosevic listed.
Budding was often reduced to answering 'I'm not familiar with this
particular work' or 'I do not know about these particular sources' or
'I haven't read all the transcripts, only from the first meeting' or
'No, I haven't seen these diplomatic documents'. Milosevic and his
aides have done their homework and at times Mrs. Budding was indeed
receiving a thorough lesson in history.
The young doctor was selective not only in her sources, but also in
the historical events which she did or did not include in her paper.
Thus, she did quote a public speech by the soon-to-be Yugoslav King
Alexander, who said that Serbia must be strong so that Yugoslavia could
be strong too. She explained that as an example of 'Serbian
nationalism', but she failed to quote and explain, or even to mention
at all the crucial document of that time, the Corfu Declaration on the
creation of Yugoslavia. She explained her omissions with the necessity
to keep her report concise. Strangely enough, only the relevant and
balanced things got chopped off.
The "learned panel of judges" found themselves in an absurd situation:
here they were, admitting into evidence the Prosecution's exhibit
going way back into the 15th century, and discussing these despised
historical issues which they always pronounced as irrelevant, and of
which they knew nothing, and frankly didn't care to know. But, this is
what you get when the Prosecution's case so heavily depends on the
silly notion that all this is one and the same 'joint criminal
enterprise' to create the Greater Serbia, the plan which goes
centuries back, so even King Alexander, Vuk Karadzic, Garasanin and
other Serbian historical figures must be evoked in order to take their
punishment for their participation in this Nice-Del Ponte co-production
in Cinemascope.
History is a tough discipline, and it demands a broad knowledge. It
was at times hard for me to follow all of the expert nuances, because
I certainly haven't read all of the books that were mentioned. But, at
least I was able to follow the basic logic of the discussion and
arguments.
Mr. May was probably dozing or doing crosswords, because he proved
time and again unable to follow or understand the point of a certain
line of questioning.
At one point, Milosevic asked Mrs. Budding why she wrote that Vuk
Karadzic could be attributed with the authorship of the idea of
defining a nation by its language, when there is a whole line of other
linguists, historians and philosophers (of which he quoted some) who
had stated the same ideas much earlier, and Karadzic had merely
embraced that idea?
May interrupted by saying: "I do not know what is the purpose of this
list of names?" Milosevic professorially reprimanded him: "Mr May, you
have not been listening to the previous question", and he patiently
repeated the whole question and said that 'the list you're preventing
me from reading are the people who originally created the idea, among
them someone whom you might be familiar with, a German philosopher
Fichte'. So, not only was Mrs. Budding given a free history lesson,
but Mr. May as well.
The time was again the main problem, May not wanting to allow any
extension of the cross-examination. Milosevic said twice: "These time
restrictions I really regard as violence." And, at one point he
mockingly pointed at the courtroom wall clock and told May: "Anyway,
the press has been already writing that the central issue here is
time, and nothing much else."
As I said, Mrs. Budding was subtle in her intentional bias, perhaps
overly subtle, so the point the Prosecution wanted to make with this
witness hasn't come across all that clearly. It only left a faint
anti-Serb aftertaste, a few hints and insinuations, an admission that
yes, no nation of these parts is blameless, but the Serbs were somehow
the main culprits.
The time allotted for this witness, both for the examination-in-chief
and for the cross-examination, was all to short. And even that short
time was interrupted by inane interventions from Nice and stupid
questions from May. Milosevic told May at one point (when the latter
tried to dismiss one issue as irrelevant): "I don't believe that you
should learn the whole Serbian history in half an hour, but since you
mainly deal here with altering history, I consider this particular
issue to be relevant."
What I find appalling is that the "trial" aimed at rewriting history
was dealing in history in such a superficial and brief manner. But,
the reason lies precisely in that: when you want to do a quick and
crude rewrite, you don't dwell too much on the serious science.
Vera Martinovic is in independent writer based in Belgrade, Yugoslavia.
=== 6 ===
"TRIAL" HALTED DUE TO PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC'S ILL HEALTH
www.slobodan-milosevic.org - July 28, 2003
On Monday July 28th the troika announced that there would be no
proceedings in the Milosevic "trial." The proceedings have also been
canceled for the 29th.
There is no word on what type of illness President Milosevic is
suffering from, although it is known that he suffers from high blood
pressure and that he has a heart condition.
The Tribunal's doctors will examine President Milosevic on Tuesday in
order to determine when he will be fit to resume taking part in the
proceedings.
---
http://www.ptd.net/webnews/wed/aa/Qwarcrimes-yugo-
milosevic.R_qz_DlT.html
Milosevic war crimes trial to resume August 25
Tuesday, 29-Jul-2003 1:00PM
THE HAGUE, July 29 (AFP) - The war crimes trial of Slobodan Milosevic,
suspended again because the former Yugoslav leader was again suffering
from ill-health, will resume on August 25, the UN tribunal said Tuesday.
"The trial of Slobodan Milosevic is scheduled to resume on Monday 25
August at 9:00 am after the ICTY summer court recess," the
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia said in a
press release.
Tribunal spokesman Jim Landale told AFP Monday that Milosevic, who had
seen a doctor on Monday, would have another medical visit on Tuesday
and that the doctor's conclusions would affect the start date for the
trial.
He did not provide details on the illness of the former Yugoslav
leader, who suffers from high blood pressure and is at risk of a heart
attack.
The interruption was the ninth to date in the long-running trial before
the The Hague-based court. The ICTY began hearing Milosevic's case in
February last year, and the prosecution has not finished arguing its
case.
Milosevic, 61, has been undertaking his own defense in the case.
The one-time Yugoslav president, who was ousted from power in October
2000, is standing trial on more than 60 charges of war crimes and
crimes against humanity for his role in the 1990s wars in Bosnia,
Croatia and Kosovo.
http://www.reseauvoltaire.net/article10200.html
RÉSEAU VOLTAIRE - Focus
Diviser pour mieux régner
L'éclatement du continent européen au service des États-Unis
La régionalisation de l'Europe pourrait être détournée de son sens
initial à la faveur d'un déséquilibre des institutions. Elle serait
alors un moyen de démembrer politiquement l'Europe, laissant ainsi le
champ libre à la domination de l'Empire états-unien. Pierre Hillard
analyse cette variante de la doctrine Wolfowitz : comment transformer
le rêve d'unité européenne en un cauchemar de la yougoslavisation
généralisée.
11 juillet 2003
Les modalités de la construction européenne dépendent de l'idée que
l'on se fait de l'unité de l'Europe et de son rôle dans le monde. Après
avoir piloté la création de l'Union pour stabiliser l'Europe
occidentale et la soustraire à l'influence soviétique, les États-Unis
encouragent aujourd'hui à la fois son élargissement géographique et sa
dilution politique. L'Union pourrait alors absorber la Russie et broyer
les États-membres en une myriade de régions pour se transformer en une
vaste zone de libre-échange protégée par la puissance militaire
états-unienne.
Contrairement à une idée répandue, il se trouve au sein même de l'Union
de nombreuses forces pour promouvoir ce projet comme l'atteste la carte
officielle que nous reproduisons.
(Table des régions d'Europe:
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/files/IMMAGINI/europe-
confetis.jpg
Edité par l'Assemblée des régions d'Europe (ARE), 2002)
Elle a été élaborée au sein de l'ARE (l'Assemblée des Régions d'Europe)
en 2002. Créé en 1985 par les Français, les Espagnols et les Portugais,
cet institut fut repris en 1987 par les Allemands qui lui insufflèrent
des principes fédéralistes, régionalistes et ethnicistes, le tout en
liaison avec les organismes européens comme le Comité des Régions (le
CdR), le Congrès des Pouvoirs Locaux et Régionaux d'Europe (le CPLRE)
ou le Conseil des Communes et des Régions d'Europe (le CCRE). L'intérêt
majeur de ce document est de révéler le sens caché de la forme actuelle
de la régionalisation européenne. Celle-ci ne concerne pas que l'Union
présente, mais est conçue pour s'étendre à toute l'Eurasie. Tous les
États d'Europe centrale, les États baltes, l'Ukraine, la Russie -avec
une frontière à l'Est qui s'étend vers la Sibérie- les États du Caucase
et la Turquie sont déjà intégrés dans ce projet européen ou plutôt
euro-atlantique. L'adhésion à l'Union ne serait plus le moyen de
réaliser l'unité européenne, mais au contraire de démembrer le
continent, assurant ainsi le triomphe pacifique de l'hyper puissance
états-unienne selon le principe classique « diviser pour régner ». La
régionalisation, présentée comme un moyen de rapprocher les citoyens
des lieux de décisions, ne serait plus qu'un artifice pour prévenir
l'émergence d'une Europe-puissance en application de la « doctrine
Wolfowitz » [ 1]
Peu de temps avant de quitter la Maison-Blanche, le président Clinton a
présenté la vision états-unienne de l'Europe dans un discours
magnifiant le bloc transatlantique. Il soulignait aussi et d'une
manière très nette que « (...) l'unité de l'Europe est en train
d'engendrer quelque chose de véritablement neuf sous le soleil : des
institutions communes plus vastes que l'État-nation parallèlement à la
délégation de l'autorité démocratique aux échelons inférieurs. L'Écosse
et le Pays de Galles ont leurs propres parlements. L'Irlande du Nord,
dont ma famille tire son origine, a retrouvé son nouveau gouvernement.
L'Europe est pleine de vie et résonne à nouveau des noms d'anciennes
régions dont on reparle - la Catalogne, le Piémont, la Lombardie, la
Silésie, la Transylvanie etc. - non pas au nom d'un quelconque
séparatisme, mais dans un élan de saine fierté et de respect de la
tradition. La souveraineté nationale est enrichie de voix régionales
pleines de vie qui font de l'Europe un lieu garantissant mieux
l'existence de la diversité (...) » [ 2]
La « sympathie » américaine à l'égard de cette forme de régionalisation
s'explique par le transfert du pouvoir politique des États vers les
régions. Désormais, la « région-État » se pare d'une autonomie
politique de plus en plus grande dans les domaines qui touchent
l'administration, la justice, les systèmes bancaire et postaux ou
encore l'éducation, cette dernière devenant de plus en plus - quoiqu'en
disent les autorités officielles - une éducation régionale. Or, ces
instances politiques régionales sont conduites à traiter directement
avec les instances supranationales de Bruxelles en court-circuitant
l'autorité nationale. Ceci ne peut que combler d'aise les dirigeants
politiques et économiques états-uniens qui, par l'intermédiaire de
leurs puissants lobbies présents massivement à Bruxelles, pourront
engager des contacts directement avec la Lombardie, l'Alsace, la
Catalogne, etc. Entre d'un côté, la puissance politique, militaire et
économique considérable des États-Unis et de l'autre, une quelconque
région d'Europe, on devine sans peine quel parti Washington tirera de
cette affaire.
Pour renforcer l'emprise complète américaine sur le vieux continent,
Les États-Unis ont présenté au seul gouvernement allemand une véritable
feuille de route pour l'extension à l'Est de l'Union européenne (l'UE)
et de l'OTAN. Selon le Financial Times Deutschland du 24 octobre 2002
l'objectif d'une « Europe libre et unie » doit s'articuler selon les
modalités suivantes. Après l'intégration de dix États en 2004 à l'UE
(Pologne, République tchèque, Slovaquie, Hongrie, Slovénie, Lituanie,
Lettonie, Estonie, Chypre et Malte), les pourparlers d'adhésion de
l'Ukraine à l'OTAN devraient commencer en 2004, suivies de ceux de la
Serbie en 2005, de la Croatie et de l'Albanie en 2007. En outre, selon
cette feuille de route, les États-Unis souhaiteraient l'adhésion de la
Turquie à l'UE pour 2007. Enfin, le Financial Times Deutschland ajoute
que l'intégration complète des Balkans et de l'Ukraine dans les
institutions euro-atlantiques doit être achevée pour 2010.
Au moins, nous connaissons la date butoir des objectifs états-uniens.
Dans cette parcellisation européenne donnant la primauté politique aux
régions, aux dépens des nations, en liaison directe avec tous les
lobbies financiers de Bruxelles, l'Allemagne joue un rôle décisif. En
effet, à l'origine de la régionalisation en Europe ( recommandation 34
(1997) du Congrès des Pouvoirs Locaux et Régionaux d'Europe:
http://www.coe.int/T/F/Cplre/%5F5.%5FTextes/2._Textes_adopt%E9s/
1._Recommandations/1997/Rec_34_1997_F.asp#TopOfPage ), elle soumet le
continent aux concepts institutionnels que les Britanniques et
États-Uniens lui ont imposés à la Conférence de Postdam (11 juillet au
2 août 1945) et lors de la création de la bizone d'occupation (2
décembre 1946). À l'époque, le rôle dévolu aux Länders visait à la fois
à rétablir les libertés supprimées par le centralisme du IIIe Reich et
à priver l'Allemagne du statut de grande puissance. Ce dispositif avait
été approuvé par la France qui, selon le mot de Mauriac à propos des
zones d'occupation, aimait tant l'Allemagne qu'il préférait qu'il y en
ait plusieurs. En outre, les Anglo-Saxons figèrent ces institutions en
sacralisant la Constitution allemande et en créant une Cour
constitutionnelle indépendante à Karlsruhe.
Cependant la vassalité de l'Europe vis-à-vis des États-Unis n'a plus de
raison d'être depuis l'effondrement de l'Union soviétique et la
dissolution du Pacte de Varsovie. La classe dirigeante allemande, quant
à elle, se trouve partagée entre d'une part ceux qui rêvent d'une
puissance indépendante et qui se sont exprimés en refusant de
s'associer à l'attaque de l'Irak, et d'autre part, ceux qui préfèrent
minimiser les risques et jouer le rôle de gouverneur délégué de
l'Empire pour l'Europe. Ceux-là se sont empressés de jouer les
supplétifs dans le démembrement de la Yougoslavie et dans la guerre du
Kosovo. Dès lors, ces contradictions pourraient trouver une solution en
se débarrassant de la tutelle états-unienne afin d'être seuls maîtres à
bord, selon le bon vieux « principe d'Iznogoud » (être calife à la
place du calife). Tout le problème réside dans la capacité des
Anglo-Saxons à convaincre les élites allemandes de jouer le rôle qu'ils
leur ont assigné dans le nouvel ordre mondial
En tout cas, l'éclatement de l'Europe comme le présente cette carte de
l'ARE est encore transitoire. En effet, l'émergence première des
régions est le préalable avant de passer à un autre niveau : le
remaniement des frontières régionales en fonction de critères
économiques et ethniques. Dans le cadre de l'interrégionalité, de
nombreux regroupements sont possibles comme par exemple entre les
entités basques française et espagnole ou encore entre l'Alsace et le
Pays de Bade. C'est tout l'enjeu de la carte élaborée par la commission
européenne en 2002 [ 3]. En effet, l'objectif étant de créer un vaste
marché économique de libre-échange transatlantique, les technocrates
bruxellois ont procédé à des remaniements territoriaux afin de créer
des groupes économiques comme le stipulent les textes officiels :
Interreg IIIB regroupe désormais toutes les actions de coopération
transnationale impliquant les autorités nationales, régionales et
locales et les autres acteurs socio-économiques. L'objectif est de
promouvoir l'intégration territoriale au sein de grands groupes de
régions européennes y compris au-delà de l'Union des Quinze, de même
qu'entre les États membres et les pays candidats ou autres pays
voisins, et à favoriser ainsi un développement durable, équilibré et
harmonieux de l'Union. Une attention particulière est accordée
notamment aux régions ultrapériphériques et insulaires [ 4].
Cette révolution politique, géopolitique et sociale en Europe est sur
le point de franchir un pas décisif avec la reconnaissance d'une
personnalité juridique pour l'Union européenne. Ce qui peut apparaître
comme l'aboutissement d'un rêve d'unité contient en lui-même des
éléments qui, dans ce contexte particulier et en l'absence de
garde-fous, peuvent dériver vers le cauchemar de la Yougoslavisation
généralisée.
Pierre Hillard
Essayiste, auteur de Minorités et régionalismes, Enquête sur le plan
allemand qui va bouleverser l'Europe , Editions François-Xavier de
Guibert, 2002 (
http://www.fnac.com/Shelf/
article.asp?PRID=1288052&SID=7309b720%2D64c4%2D994f%2D8a47%2D3d14eb640a3
1&UID=0b549c42e%2Dec06%2D0016%2D8814%2D5cec73ad87b9&AID=&Origin=FnacAff&
Pe=1&No=1&Fr=0&Mn=1&Ra=-1&To=0 ).
Article suivant : L'effet CNN
[1] Cf. Defense Policy Guidance for the Fiscal Years 1994-1999 , US
Department of Defense, 18 février 1992. Des extraits du document ont
été publiés dans The New York Times du 8 mars 1992.
[2] Extrait du discours du président Clinton à l'occasion de la remise
du prix Charlemagne
(http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/Europe-0005/speeches/20000602-
1245.html) , Aix-la-Chapelle, 2 juin 2000.
[3] Voir la carte des 13 programmes INTERREG IIIB 2000-2006, Les
politiques structurelles et les territoires de l'Europe, Coopération
sans frontières , Commission européenne, 2002.
[4] Ibid., p. 8.
RÉSEAU VOLTAIRE - Focus
Diviser pour mieux régner
L'éclatement du continent européen au service des États-Unis
La régionalisation de l'Europe pourrait être détournée de son sens
initial à la faveur d'un déséquilibre des institutions. Elle serait
alors un moyen de démembrer politiquement l'Europe, laissant ainsi le
champ libre à la domination de l'Empire états-unien. Pierre Hillard
analyse cette variante de la doctrine Wolfowitz : comment transformer
le rêve d'unité européenne en un cauchemar de la yougoslavisation
généralisée.
11 juillet 2003
Les modalités de la construction européenne dépendent de l'idée que
l'on se fait de l'unité de l'Europe et de son rôle dans le monde. Après
avoir piloté la création de l'Union pour stabiliser l'Europe
occidentale et la soustraire à l'influence soviétique, les États-Unis
encouragent aujourd'hui à la fois son élargissement géographique et sa
dilution politique. L'Union pourrait alors absorber la Russie et broyer
les États-membres en une myriade de régions pour se transformer en une
vaste zone de libre-échange protégée par la puissance militaire
états-unienne.
Contrairement à une idée répandue, il se trouve au sein même de l'Union
de nombreuses forces pour promouvoir ce projet comme l'atteste la carte
officielle que nous reproduisons.
(Table des régions d'Europe:
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/files/IMMAGINI/europe-
confetis.jpg
Edité par l'Assemblée des régions d'Europe (ARE), 2002)
Elle a été élaborée au sein de l'ARE (l'Assemblée des Régions d'Europe)
en 2002. Créé en 1985 par les Français, les Espagnols et les Portugais,
cet institut fut repris en 1987 par les Allemands qui lui insufflèrent
des principes fédéralistes, régionalistes et ethnicistes, le tout en
liaison avec les organismes européens comme le Comité des Régions (le
CdR), le Congrès des Pouvoirs Locaux et Régionaux d'Europe (le CPLRE)
ou le Conseil des Communes et des Régions d'Europe (le CCRE). L'intérêt
majeur de ce document est de révéler le sens caché de la forme actuelle
de la régionalisation européenne. Celle-ci ne concerne pas que l'Union
présente, mais est conçue pour s'étendre à toute l'Eurasie. Tous les
États d'Europe centrale, les États baltes, l'Ukraine, la Russie -avec
une frontière à l'Est qui s'étend vers la Sibérie- les États du Caucase
et la Turquie sont déjà intégrés dans ce projet européen ou plutôt
euro-atlantique. L'adhésion à l'Union ne serait plus le moyen de
réaliser l'unité européenne, mais au contraire de démembrer le
continent, assurant ainsi le triomphe pacifique de l'hyper puissance
états-unienne selon le principe classique « diviser pour régner ». La
régionalisation, présentée comme un moyen de rapprocher les citoyens
des lieux de décisions, ne serait plus qu'un artifice pour prévenir
l'émergence d'une Europe-puissance en application de la « doctrine
Wolfowitz » [ 1]
Peu de temps avant de quitter la Maison-Blanche, le président Clinton a
présenté la vision états-unienne de l'Europe dans un discours
magnifiant le bloc transatlantique. Il soulignait aussi et d'une
manière très nette que « (...) l'unité de l'Europe est en train
d'engendrer quelque chose de véritablement neuf sous le soleil : des
institutions communes plus vastes que l'État-nation parallèlement à la
délégation de l'autorité démocratique aux échelons inférieurs. L'Écosse
et le Pays de Galles ont leurs propres parlements. L'Irlande du Nord,
dont ma famille tire son origine, a retrouvé son nouveau gouvernement.
L'Europe est pleine de vie et résonne à nouveau des noms d'anciennes
régions dont on reparle - la Catalogne, le Piémont, la Lombardie, la
Silésie, la Transylvanie etc. - non pas au nom d'un quelconque
séparatisme, mais dans un élan de saine fierté et de respect de la
tradition. La souveraineté nationale est enrichie de voix régionales
pleines de vie qui font de l'Europe un lieu garantissant mieux
l'existence de la diversité (...) » [ 2]
La « sympathie » américaine à l'égard de cette forme de régionalisation
s'explique par le transfert du pouvoir politique des États vers les
régions. Désormais, la « région-État » se pare d'une autonomie
politique de plus en plus grande dans les domaines qui touchent
l'administration, la justice, les systèmes bancaire et postaux ou
encore l'éducation, cette dernière devenant de plus en plus - quoiqu'en
disent les autorités officielles - une éducation régionale. Or, ces
instances politiques régionales sont conduites à traiter directement
avec les instances supranationales de Bruxelles en court-circuitant
l'autorité nationale. Ceci ne peut que combler d'aise les dirigeants
politiques et économiques états-uniens qui, par l'intermédiaire de
leurs puissants lobbies présents massivement à Bruxelles, pourront
engager des contacts directement avec la Lombardie, l'Alsace, la
Catalogne, etc. Entre d'un côté, la puissance politique, militaire et
économique considérable des États-Unis et de l'autre, une quelconque
région d'Europe, on devine sans peine quel parti Washington tirera de
cette affaire.
Pour renforcer l'emprise complète américaine sur le vieux continent,
Les États-Unis ont présenté au seul gouvernement allemand une véritable
feuille de route pour l'extension à l'Est de l'Union européenne (l'UE)
et de l'OTAN. Selon le Financial Times Deutschland du 24 octobre 2002
l'objectif d'une « Europe libre et unie » doit s'articuler selon les
modalités suivantes. Après l'intégration de dix États en 2004 à l'UE
(Pologne, République tchèque, Slovaquie, Hongrie, Slovénie, Lituanie,
Lettonie, Estonie, Chypre et Malte), les pourparlers d'adhésion de
l'Ukraine à l'OTAN devraient commencer en 2004, suivies de ceux de la
Serbie en 2005, de la Croatie et de l'Albanie en 2007. En outre, selon
cette feuille de route, les États-Unis souhaiteraient l'adhésion de la
Turquie à l'UE pour 2007. Enfin, le Financial Times Deutschland ajoute
que l'intégration complète des Balkans et de l'Ukraine dans les
institutions euro-atlantiques doit être achevée pour 2010.
Au moins, nous connaissons la date butoir des objectifs états-uniens.
Dans cette parcellisation européenne donnant la primauté politique aux
régions, aux dépens des nations, en liaison directe avec tous les
lobbies financiers de Bruxelles, l'Allemagne joue un rôle décisif. En
effet, à l'origine de la régionalisation en Europe ( recommandation 34
(1997) du Congrès des Pouvoirs Locaux et Régionaux d'Europe:
http://www.coe.int/T/F/Cplre/%5F5.%5FTextes/2._Textes_adopt%E9s/
1._Recommandations/1997/Rec_34_1997_F.asp#TopOfPage ), elle soumet le
continent aux concepts institutionnels que les Britanniques et
États-Uniens lui ont imposés à la Conférence de Postdam (11 juillet au
2 août 1945) et lors de la création de la bizone d'occupation (2
décembre 1946). À l'époque, le rôle dévolu aux Länders visait à la fois
à rétablir les libertés supprimées par le centralisme du IIIe Reich et
à priver l'Allemagne du statut de grande puissance. Ce dispositif avait
été approuvé par la France qui, selon le mot de Mauriac à propos des
zones d'occupation, aimait tant l'Allemagne qu'il préférait qu'il y en
ait plusieurs. En outre, les Anglo-Saxons figèrent ces institutions en
sacralisant la Constitution allemande et en créant une Cour
constitutionnelle indépendante à Karlsruhe.
Cependant la vassalité de l'Europe vis-à-vis des États-Unis n'a plus de
raison d'être depuis l'effondrement de l'Union soviétique et la
dissolution du Pacte de Varsovie. La classe dirigeante allemande, quant
à elle, se trouve partagée entre d'une part ceux qui rêvent d'une
puissance indépendante et qui se sont exprimés en refusant de
s'associer à l'attaque de l'Irak, et d'autre part, ceux qui préfèrent
minimiser les risques et jouer le rôle de gouverneur délégué de
l'Empire pour l'Europe. Ceux-là se sont empressés de jouer les
supplétifs dans le démembrement de la Yougoslavie et dans la guerre du
Kosovo. Dès lors, ces contradictions pourraient trouver une solution en
se débarrassant de la tutelle états-unienne afin d'être seuls maîtres à
bord, selon le bon vieux « principe d'Iznogoud » (être calife à la
place du calife). Tout le problème réside dans la capacité des
Anglo-Saxons à convaincre les élites allemandes de jouer le rôle qu'ils
leur ont assigné dans le nouvel ordre mondial
En tout cas, l'éclatement de l'Europe comme le présente cette carte de
l'ARE est encore transitoire. En effet, l'émergence première des
régions est le préalable avant de passer à un autre niveau : le
remaniement des frontières régionales en fonction de critères
économiques et ethniques. Dans le cadre de l'interrégionalité, de
nombreux regroupements sont possibles comme par exemple entre les
entités basques française et espagnole ou encore entre l'Alsace et le
Pays de Bade. C'est tout l'enjeu de la carte élaborée par la commission
européenne en 2002 [ 3]. En effet, l'objectif étant de créer un vaste
marché économique de libre-échange transatlantique, les technocrates
bruxellois ont procédé à des remaniements territoriaux afin de créer
des groupes économiques comme le stipulent les textes officiels :
Interreg IIIB regroupe désormais toutes les actions de coopération
transnationale impliquant les autorités nationales, régionales et
locales et les autres acteurs socio-économiques. L'objectif est de
promouvoir l'intégration territoriale au sein de grands groupes de
régions européennes y compris au-delà de l'Union des Quinze, de même
qu'entre les États membres et les pays candidats ou autres pays
voisins, et à favoriser ainsi un développement durable, équilibré et
harmonieux de l'Union. Une attention particulière est accordée
notamment aux régions ultrapériphériques et insulaires [ 4].
Cette révolution politique, géopolitique et sociale en Europe est sur
le point de franchir un pas décisif avec la reconnaissance d'une
personnalité juridique pour l'Union européenne. Ce qui peut apparaître
comme l'aboutissement d'un rêve d'unité contient en lui-même des
éléments qui, dans ce contexte particulier et en l'absence de
garde-fous, peuvent dériver vers le cauchemar de la Yougoslavisation
généralisée.
Pierre Hillard
Essayiste, auteur de Minorités et régionalismes, Enquête sur le plan
allemand qui va bouleverser l'Europe , Editions François-Xavier de
Guibert, 2002 (
http://www.fnac.com/Shelf/
article.asp?PRID=1288052&SID=7309b720%2D64c4%2D994f%2D8a47%2D3d14eb640a3
1&UID=0b549c42e%2Dec06%2D0016%2D8814%2D5cec73ad87b9&AID=&Origin=FnacAff&
Pe=1&No=1&Fr=0&Mn=1&Ra=-1&To=0 ).
Article suivant : L'effet CNN
[1] Cf. Defense Policy Guidance for the Fiscal Years 1994-1999 , US
Department of Defense, 18 février 1992. Des extraits du document ont
été publiés dans The New York Times du 8 mars 1992.
[2] Extrait du discours du président Clinton à l'occasion de la remise
du prix Charlemagne
(http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/Europe-0005/speeches/20000602-
1245.html) , Aix-la-Chapelle, 2 juin 2000.
[3] Voir la carte des 13 programmes INTERREG IIIB 2000-2006, Les
politiques structurelles et les territoires de l'Europe, Coopération
sans frontières , Commission européenne, 2002.
[4] Ibid., p. 8.
Nota biografica su Josip Broz Tito
(Il testo che segue e' apparso su "La Voce", notiziario del Gruppo
Atei Materialisti Dialettici (GAMADI). Per informazioni sul GAMADI e
per abbonarsi al mensile "La Voce":
telefono e fax 06-7915200
posta elettronica <gamadilavoce@...>
Per iscriversi al servizio telematico del GAMADI inviare un messaggio
vuoto a:
<This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>.
La revisione e la nota sono a cura del CNJ.)
---
JOZIP BROZ
TITO (nome di battaglia)
Il suo vero nome era Josip Broz, e fu il capo politico e militare della
Jugoslavia.
Tito nacque il 25 maggio del 1892 (1) a Kumrovec, periferia di
Zagabria, in Croazia.
Si sa che la madre era slovena e che il padre era un fabbro ferraio,
per cui Tito seguì il mestiere paterno.
In giovanissima età partecipò al movimento giovanile socialista e
venne, per questo, più volte arrestato.
Nel 1914 (prima guerra mondiale) venne arruolato nell’esercito
austriaco e venne inviato prima sul fronte italiano e poi su quello
russo.
Fu ferito nei Carpazi, e cadde prigioniero.
La rivoluzione russa lo colse quando era in Siberia e Tito, con
slancio, diede il suo contributo rivoluzionario.
Nel 1924 fece ritorno in Croazia, portando seco la moglie russa ed un
figlio.
Iniziò il suo mestiere di operaio metalmeccanico a Zagabria, dove
esercitava opera di propaganda in difesa dei diritti dei lavoratori.
Per questo, il 10 novembre del 1928 viene arrestato e condannato a 5
anni di ergastolo in parte scontati a Lepoglava.
La moglie e il figlio fuggirono in Russia e Tito, appena liberato, li
raggiunse.
Va considerato che negli anni 1934-1938 sia in patria che all’estero
egli si dedicò totalmente alla propaganda comunista.
Nel 1936 partecipò alla guerra civile di Spagna, come sergente nelle
Brigate Internazionali, formate da volontari, in aiuto alla Repubblica
spagnola minacciata dalla guerra civile scatenata dal fascista
Francisco Franco.
Tito tornò clandestinamente in Jugoslavia e precisamente a Zagabria e
a Belgrado.
Uscì dalla clandestinità nel 1938 col soprannome di Tito, datogli dai
compagni di lotta.
Nel 1940 venne eletto Segretario del Comitato Centrale dei delegati
comunisti jugoslavi.
Nella primavera del 1941, Tito si trovava a Belgrado.
Non ebbe esitazioni a divenire capo del Movimento di Resistenza,
essendo entrata in guerra anche l’URSS.
Opero' dapprima in Serbia, poi nel Montenegro e in Bosnia, finché non
si scontrò col movimento dei cetnici capeggiato da Draza Mihajlovic.
Tra i due movimenti era impossibile una intesa.
Tito, comunque, ebbe la meglio, anche per il riconoscimento
internazionale, e i suoi reparti partigiani, male equipaggiati e poco
armati, seppero svolgere azioni ardite contro gli agguerriti eserciti
tedesco nazista e fascista italiano.
In questa epica occasione Tito dimostrò di possedere, oltre a
straordinarie attitudini organizzative, anche un inestimabile talento
militare.
Il 29 novembre del 1943 la Seconda sessione del Consiglio Antifascista
di Liberazione Nazionale (AVNOJ) conferì a Tito il titolo di
Maresciallo.
La forte pressione tedesca, giunta a ferirlo in battaglia, lo
costrinse a rifugiarsi a Lissa, in Dalmazia.
Da questo luogo di convalescenza, il 16 giugno 1944, egli stabilì un
accordo con J. Subasic che era emissario del governo regio in esilio a
Londra.
Tito venne trasportato a Bari, in Italia, per curare meglio la sua
ferita, e sembra che, su invito di Churchill che si trovava tra il
22 e il 24 agosto del 1944 a Roma, Tito abbia avuto un breve incontro
con lo statista inglese. Operava in difesa del suo paese, qualsiasi
fosse stato l’esito della guerra.
Via via che le truppe sovietiche si avvicinavano al Danubio e alla
Jugoslavia, Tito ritenne di doversi sciogliere dall’intesa con
l’Inghilterra, identificandosi con gli ideali rappresentati dall’URSS.
Una visita di Tito a Mosca, nel novembre del 1944, rinsaldò
l’orientamento della sua politica verso l’URSS, che non venne a
cessare neppure quando, nel 1948 il Kominform lanciò contro di lui
l’accusa di deviazionismo, di nazionalismo.
Le condizioni della Jugoslavia erano assai difficili, anche perché
provata da una grave crisi economica. Tito voleva il bene del suo paese
e seguiva una linea di condotta volta ed aderente agli interessi della
Jugoslavia.
Per le accuse di nazionalismo, Tito era forte del fatto che i suoi
sentimenti internazionalisti li aveva dimostrati anche rischiando la
vita in Spagna e nella rivoluzione d’Ottobre.
Nel 1948 viene eletto Segretario Generale del Partito, nonostante le
ingiunzioni dell’URSS.
Dalla Costituzione della Repubblica Federale Popolare di Jugoslavia,
Tito fruirà del titolo di Primo Ministro e di Ministro per la difesa
nazionale, poi di Presidente dello Stato.
Fu cosa non facile mantenere la pace in quell'agglomerato di etnie, con
tre religioni diverse ma con l’ateismo materialista dialettico che,
tramite la politica di Tito, si faceva strada, nella parte del popolo
più illuminata e negli studenti.
Non siamo in grado di dire se Tito fu sempre un comunista coerente e
rispettoso dei principi scientifici. Quello che però è possibile
affermare è che egli fu un dirigente comunista che amava il suo paese
e il suo popolo.
Sappiamo che tutti i cittadini, di tutte le repubbliche, godevano di un
alloggio sicuro, della sanità gratuita, del diritto allo studio
gratuito.
Sappiamo che sotto la direzione di Tito non vi erano disoccupati e che
la donna godeva del rispetto e degli stessi diritti dell’uomo.
Tito si batteva affinché nel paese vigesse una maggior democrazia.
Tentò di applicare l’autogestione che a suo parere doveva dare respiro
e migliori condizioni di vita al popolo.
Ma fu un esperimento errato che, al contrario di quanto egli volesse,
finì col rafforzare la burocrazia.
Nel 1977, Tito tornò a porre la questione della democrazia nel
paese, credendo nella necessità di applicare un diffuso pluralismo
d’interessi e la sua espressione in una nuova politica.
Anche se questi tentativi innovativi possono lasciare perplessi,
considerando anche che venivano da un uomo malato, che poi morì a
Lubiana il 4 maggio del 1980, noi lo vogliamo ricordare come una
figura politica molto amata dal suo popolo, un uomo che ha dedicato la
vita agli interessi del suo paese, un uomo che vorremmo riavere nella
tormentata e distrutta terra jugoslava, di oggi.
Ecco quello che lo scrittore Zvonko Straunbringer scrisse nella stesura
del suo libro: “LA BATTAGLIA PIU’ SOFFERTA DI JOZIP BROZ TITO":
<<Nel corso dei 35 anni di sviluppo postbellico della Jugoslavia, Tito
ha lasciato una forte impronta. Ha tentato di trovare le giuste
risposte ai dilemmi e alle richieste, ed ha ritenuto che solo il
socialismo avrebbe potuto dare le giuste risposte.
Era profondamente convinto dell’idea della Jugoslavia e per tutto il
tempo, da quando entrò a far parte del movimento rivoluzionario,
durante l'ultima guerra e alla fine di essa, ha combattuto decisamente
per la sua affermazione.
La Jugoslavia sotto la guida di Tito ha combattuto grandi battaglie
perché si realizzasse la grande idea della Pace mondiale, del
Non-allineamento, del superamento del bipolarismo e per la costruzione
di un assetto internazionale più giusto, nel quale i paesi grandi e
piccoli, ricchi e poveri, fossero politicamente alla pari.
A questo scopo Tito ha visitato 69 paesi incontrando più di 500 capi di
stato, sovrani e premier. Ha costruito ponti di amicizia e
collaborazione, tanto che per decenni la Jugoslavia ha goduto di grande
prestigio nel mondo.>>
Questo libro su Tito, afferma Ivan Pavicevac, è un grande contributo
nella delucidazione della verità non soltanto su Tito ma su noi stessi,
che abbiamo vissuto in quel periodo, che abbiamo combattuto e lavorato
sul suolo jugoslavo.
Non ci sono uomini infallibili, tanto meno statisti... Ma le sue idee
socio-politiche sono state progressiste. Quanto più ha potuto, egli ha
saputo realizzarle, queste sue idee.
Tanto per le guerre come per le rivoluzioni e così pure per le figure
storiche non può esserci un giudizio finale. E qui, la storia va
esposta, e vanno verificati i fatti.
Nessuno di noi idolatra Tito, in quanto egli non è una reliquia, né un
santo, né un mago.
Egli è stato presidente della Jugoslavia e come tale appartiene ad una
critica storica.
Quando era vivo, Tito si opponeva alle canzoni celebrative, alla parole
di elogio, ai giuramenti rivolti alla sua persona, specie dagli
anniversari, perché si sentiva in imbarazzo.
Un giorno un regista chiese a Tito: "Come uomo semplice, cos’è che la
turba, e perché a volte non riesce a dormire?”
Tito rispose:
“E’ la nostra unità, la Jugoslavia” – Questi piccoli dissidi, a volte,
tra le Repubbliche – Vorrei che rimanessero nell’unità.
L’unità e la fratellanza sono le nostre conquiste, la nostra realtà.
In questo noi abbiamo ottenuto molto. Vorrei che fosse così anche
quando non ci saremo più”
Cubrilovic, un politico che uscì dal governo nel 1951, dopo la morte di
Tito disse:
“E’ stato uno dei più grandi atei, il comunista Jozip Broz Tito, ma
praticamente è stato sepolto con tutti gli onori perfino delle
chiese. Le gerarchie di tutte le comunità religiose non potevano
sorvolare sul fatto che milioni di credenti hanno veramente amato e
stimato Tito, e che sono stati addolorati alla notizia della sua morte”.
Noi del G.A.MA.DI., compagni di lotta di tutti i popoli, auguriamo ai
popoli della Jugoslavia un nuovo Tito!
---
1. 25 maggio per gli jugoslavi e' la "Giornata della Gioventu'",
tradizionalmente assunta come anniversario della nascita di Josip Broz
"Tito" (1892). Per la precisione, Tito è nato a Kumrovec, al confine
tra Croazia e Slovenia, il 7 maggio e non il 25. Quest'ultima è la data
di quando è "rinato": è la data del fallito attacco dei paracadutisti
tedeschi a Drvar, e da allora si festeggia come suo simbolico
compleanno.
(a cura del CNJ)
(Il testo che segue e' apparso su "La Voce", notiziario del Gruppo
Atei Materialisti Dialettici (GAMADI). Per informazioni sul GAMADI e
per abbonarsi al mensile "La Voce":
telefono e fax 06-7915200
posta elettronica <gamadilavoce@...>
Per iscriversi al servizio telematico del GAMADI inviare un messaggio
vuoto a:
<This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>.
La revisione e la nota sono a cura del CNJ.)
---
JOZIP BROZ
TITO (nome di battaglia)
Il suo vero nome era Josip Broz, e fu il capo politico e militare della
Jugoslavia.
Tito nacque il 25 maggio del 1892 (1) a Kumrovec, periferia di
Zagabria, in Croazia.
Si sa che la madre era slovena e che il padre era un fabbro ferraio,
per cui Tito seguì il mestiere paterno.
In giovanissima età partecipò al movimento giovanile socialista e
venne, per questo, più volte arrestato.
Nel 1914 (prima guerra mondiale) venne arruolato nell’esercito
austriaco e venne inviato prima sul fronte italiano e poi su quello
russo.
Fu ferito nei Carpazi, e cadde prigioniero.
La rivoluzione russa lo colse quando era in Siberia e Tito, con
slancio, diede il suo contributo rivoluzionario.
Nel 1924 fece ritorno in Croazia, portando seco la moglie russa ed un
figlio.
Iniziò il suo mestiere di operaio metalmeccanico a Zagabria, dove
esercitava opera di propaganda in difesa dei diritti dei lavoratori.
Per questo, il 10 novembre del 1928 viene arrestato e condannato a 5
anni di ergastolo in parte scontati a Lepoglava.
La moglie e il figlio fuggirono in Russia e Tito, appena liberato, li
raggiunse.
Va considerato che negli anni 1934-1938 sia in patria che all’estero
egli si dedicò totalmente alla propaganda comunista.
Nel 1936 partecipò alla guerra civile di Spagna, come sergente nelle
Brigate Internazionali, formate da volontari, in aiuto alla Repubblica
spagnola minacciata dalla guerra civile scatenata dal fascista
Francisco Franco.
Tito tornò clandestinamente in Jugoslavia e precisamente a Zagabria e
a Belgrado.
Uscì dalla clandestinità nel 1938 col soprannome di Tito, datogli dai
compagni di lotta.
Nel 1940 venne eletto Segretario del Comitato Centrale dei delegati
comunisti jugoslavi.
Nella primavera del 1941, Tito si trovava a Belgrado.
Non ebbe esitazioni a divenire capo del Movimento di Resistenza,
essendo entrata in guerra anche l’URSS.
Opero' dapprima in Serbia, poi nel Montenegro e in Bosnia, finché non
si scontrò col movimento dei cetnici capeggiato da Draza Mihajlovic.
Tra i due movimenti era impossibile una intesa.
Tito, comunque, ebbe la meglio, anche per il riconoscimento
internazionale, e i suoi reparti partigiani, male equipaggiati e poco
armati, seppero svolgere azioni ardite contro gli agguerriti eserciti
tedesco nazista e fascista italiano.
In questa epica occasione Tito dimostrò di possedere, oltre a
straordinarie attitudini organizzative, anche un inestimabile talento
militare.
Il 29 novembre del 1943 la Seconda sessione del Consiglio Antifascista
di Liberazione Nazionale (AVNOJ) conferì a Tito il titolo di
Maresciallo.
La forte pressione tedesca, giunta a ferirlo in battaglia, lo
costrinse a rifugiarsi a Lissa, in Dalmazia.
Da questo luogo di convalescenza, il 16 giugno 1944, egli stabilì un
accordo con J. Subasic che era emissario del governo regio in esilio a
Londra.
Tito venne trasportato a Bari, in Italia, per curare meglio la sua
ferita, e sembra che, su invito di Churchill che si trovava tra il
22 e il 24 agosto del 1944 a Roma, Tito abbia avuto un breve incontro
con lo statista inglese. Operava in difesa del suo paese, qualsiasi
fosse stato l’esito della guerra.
Via via che le truppe sovietiche si avvicinavano al Danubio e alla
Jugoslavia, Tito ritenne di doversi sciogliere dall’intesa con
l’Inghilterra, identificandosi con gli ideali rappresentati dall’URSS.
Una visita di Tito a Mosca, nel novembre del 1944, rinsaldò
l’orientamento della sua politica verso l’URSS, che non venne a
cessare neppure quando, nel 1948 il Kominform lanciò contro di lui
l’accusa di deviazionismo, di nazionalismo.
Le condizioni della Jugoslavia erano assai difficili, anche perché
provata da una grave crisi economica. Tito voleva il bene del suo paese
e seguiva una linea di condotta volta ed aderente agli interessi della
Jugoslavia.
Per le accuse di nazionalismo, Tito era forte del fatto che i suoi
sentimenti internazionalisti li aveva dimostrati anche rischiando la
vita in Spagna e nella rivoluzione d’Ottobre.
Nel 1948 viene eletto Segretario Generale del Partito, nonostante le
ingiunzioni dell’URSS.
Dalla Costituzione della Repubblica Federale Popolare di Jugoslavia,
Tito fruirà del titolo di Primo Ministro e di Ministro per la difesa
nazionale, poi di Presidente dello Stato.
Fu cosa non facile mantenere la pace in quell'agglomerato di etnie, con
tre religioni diverse ma con l’ateismo materialista dialettico che,
tramite la politica di Tito, si faceva strada, nella parte del popolo
più illuminata e negli studenti.
Non siamo in grado di dire se Tito fu sempre un comunista coerente e
rispettoso dei principi scientifici. Quello che però è possibile
affermare è che egli fu un dirigente comunista che amava il suo paese
e il suo popolo.
Sappiamo che tutti i cittadini, di tutte le repubbliche, godevano di un
alloggio sicuro, della sanità gratuita, del diritto allo studio
gratuito.
Sappiamo che sotto la direzione di Tito non vi erano disoccupati e che
la donna godeva del rispetto e degli stessi diritti dell’uomo.
Tito si batteva affinché nel paese vigesse una maggior democrazia.
Tentò di applicare l’autogestione che a suo parere doveva dare respiro
e migliori condizioni di vita al popolo.
Ma fu un esperimento errato che, al contrario di quanto egli volesse,
finì col rafforzare la burocrazia.
Nel 1977, Tito tornò a porre la questione della democrazia nel
paese, credendo nella necessità di applicare un diffuso pluralismo
d’interessi e la sua espressione in una nuova politica.
Anche se questi tentativi innovativi possono lasciare perplessi,
considerando anche che venivano da un uomo malato, che poi morì a
Lubiana il 4 maggio del 1980, noi lo vogliamo ricordare come una
figura politica molto amata dal suo popolo, un uomo che ha dedicato la
vita agli interessi del suo paese, un uomo che vorremmo riavere nella
tormentata e distrutta terra jugoslava, di oggi.
Ecco quello che lo scrittore Zvonko Straunbringer scrisse nella stesura
del suo libro: “LA BATTAGLIA PIU’ SOFFERTA DI JOZIP BROZ TITO":
<<Nel corso dei 35 anni di sviluppo postbellico della Jugoslavia, Tito
ha lasciato una forte impronta. Ha tentato di trovare le giuste
risposte ai dilemmi e alle richieste, ed ha ritenuto che solo il
socialismo avrebbe potuto dare le giuste risposte.
Era profondamente convinto dell’idea della Jugoslavia e per tutto il
tempo, da quando entrò a far parte del movimento rivoluzionario,
durante l'ultima guerra e alla fine di essa, ha combattuto decisamente
per la sua affermazione.
La Jugoslavia sotto la guida di Tito ha combattuto grandi battaglie
perché si realizzasse la grande idea della Pace mondiale, del
Non-allineamento, del superamento del bipolarismo e per la costruzione
di un assetto internazionale più giusto, nel quale i paesi grandi e
piccoli, ricchi e poveri, fossero politicamente alla pari.
A questo scopo Tito ha visitato 69 paesi incontrando più di 500 capi di
stato, sovrani e premier. Ha costruito ponti di amicizia e
collaborazione, tanto che per decenni la Jugoslavia ha goduto di grande
prestigio nel mondo.>>
Questo libro su Tito, afferma Ivan Pavicevac, è un grande contributo
nella delucidazione della verità non soltanto su Tito ma su noi stessi,
che abbiamo vissuto in quel periodo, che abbiamo combattuto e lavorato
sul suolo jugoslavo.
Non ci sono uomini infallibili, tanto meno statisti... Ma le sue idee
socio-politiche sono state progressiste. Quanto più ha potuto, egli ha
saputo realizzarle, queste sue idee.
Tanto per le guerre come per le rivoluzioni e così pure per le figure
storiche non può esserci un giudizio finale. E qui, la storia va
esposta, e vanno verificati i fatti.
Nessuno di noi idolatra Tito, in quanto egli non è una reliquia, né un
santo, né un mago.
Egli è stato presidente della Jugoslavia e come tale appartiene ad una
critica storica.
Quando era vivo, Tito si opponeva alle canzoni celebrative, alla parole
di elogio, ai giuramenti rivolti alla sua persona, specie dagli
anniversari, perché si sentiva in imbarazzo.
Un giorno un regista chiese a Tito: "Come uomo semplice, cos’è che la
turba, e perché a volte non riesce a dormire?”
Tito rispose:
“E’ la nostra unità, la Jugoslavia” – Questi piccoli dissidi, a volte,
tra le Repubbliche – Vorrei che rimanessero nell’unità.
L’unità e la fratellanza sono le nostre conquiste, la nostra realtà.
In questo noi abbiamo ottenuto molto. Vorrei che fosse così anche
quando non ci saremo più”
Cubrilovic, un politico che uscì dal governo nel 1951, dopo la morte di
Tito disse:
“E’ stato uno dei più grandi atei, il comunista Jozip Broz Tito, ma
praticamente è stato sepolto con tutti gli onori perfino delle
chiese. Le gerarchie di tutte le comunità religiose non potevano
sorvolare sul fatto che milioni di credenti hanno veramente amato e
stimato Tito, e che sono stati addolorati alla notizia della sua morte”.
Noi del G.A.MA.DI., compagni di lotta di tutti i popoli, auguriamo ai
popoli della Jugoslavia un nuovo Tito!
---
1. 25 maggio per gli jugoslavi e' la "Giornata della Gioventu'",
tradizionalmente assunta come anniversario della nascita di Josip Broz
"Tito" (1892). Per la precisione, Tito è nato a Kumrovec, al confine
tra Croazia e Slovenia, il 7 maggio e non il 25. Quest'ultima è la data
di quando è "rinato": è la data del fallito attacco dei paracadutisti
tedeschi a Drvar, e da allora si festeggia come suo simbolico
compleanno.
(a cura del CNJ)
