The Hague, Jan.26 : Humanitarian Bombers in Court
1. Ex-PM to Testify on NATO Strikes
2. Humanitarian Bombers in Court
3. Radio Netherlands: NATO bombing spree revisited
SEE ALSO:
Pictures:
http://www.natosued.org/GB
EC: Interview: Nico Steijnen: A Victory for Truth in the Netherlands!
(by Andy Wilcoxson)
http://emperors-clothes.com/interviews/victory.htm
=== 1 ===
http://www.seeurope.net/en/Story.php?StoryID=47434&LangID=1
Seeurope.net
January 26, 2004
Ex-PM to Testify on NATO Strikes
Former Dutch Prime Minister Wim Kok is due to give
evidence in The Hague in connection with the Nato
bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999.
Some victims' relatives are seeking compensation from
the Dutch state.
Mr Kok and two former ministers are due to appear at
the district court on today, BBC reports.
It is the first time since World War II that Western
politicians will testify in relation to alleged crimes
against humanity in a national court.
It has been brought by the relatives of 16 victims of
the Nato bombings of a television station in Belgrade
and the market place in Nis in 1999. They claim the
attacks on civilian targets were the result of illegal
aggression against Yugoslavia.
The three witnesses will be asked how much of a
warning was given to the TV studio and about the use
of cluster bombs in the attack on Nis.
The victims' lawyers say they have solid grounds for
their case on the basis of reports from two government
advisory committees and a previous case in Amsterdam.
They argue that as a centre for international law, the
Netherlands must be seen to uphold it.
=== 2 ===
http://www.natosued.org/GB/archiveEngl/040126/040126Getuigenverhoor.html
Humanitarian Bombers in Court
by Noah Tucker
27/1/04
For the first time since the Nuremburg trials of Nazis in 1946,the
former leadership of a western country was forced to attend court
yesterday to defend accusations that their country had committed war
crimes. (…)
Wim Kok, who had been a trade union firebrand before becoming prime
minister of the Netherlands, and is now a corporate board member of
Shell and the Dutch Telecoms company Telfort, avoided giving a view on
whether the NATO attack on the Belgrade RTS TV Studio was justified,
saying he had only found out after the bombing that 150 civilians had
been inside the building at that time. Ex foreign minister van Aartsen
on the other hand, appeared enthusiastic about the attack. When the
advocate for the victims' families, Nico Steijnen, asked him about the
Amnesty International report which concluded that the TV studio was a
purely civilian site, the former cabinet member claimed that the studio
was in fact a 'dual use' installation which also had a function for the
Yugoslavian armed forces. Van Aartsen also stated that the Dutch
govenment had in written correspondence with Amnesty International on
several occasions before this bombing stating that communications
centres in general could be considered legitimate targets; this, he
suggested, could be considered sufficient warning to the civilians
inside the RTS TV building in Belgrade. Even Judge P. A. Koppen,
presiding over the courtroom, appeared to have difficulty concealing
his amazement at this statement.
Sixteen people, all civilians, died in the
attack, which put the television station out of action for three hours
before transmission was resumed.
When asked about the NATO cluster bomb attack
on Nis, a Serbian town near a military airfield, Wim Kok stated, "It's
even more sad, seeing that a market and a hospital were hit, that the
actual target was missed." Following the 15 deaths and 70 injured in
Nis, the Dutch government decided that its own F16 warplanes would
cease dropping cluster bombs on Yugoslavia; the other components of the
NATO forces did not change their policy of using these terrifying
weapons.
The packed courtroom heard an account of the
NATO strategy of gradually increasing the range of sites which it was
permissible for US and West European forces to attack, moving from
strictly military targets in phase one of the war, to phase two, phase
two-plus, and phase three, in which communications, transport and other
infrastructure would be destroyed.
Steijnen (for the victims'families): 'What was the difference between
phase two-plus and phase three''
Kok: 'In the NATO Council, the transition between phases two and three
was considered sensitive. So we had phase two-plus, which included
'C-three centres' ' command, control and communications targets.'
Steijnen: 'Why was it sensitive, the move to phase three''
Kok: 'That was my perception.'
Steijnen: 'A parliamentary document states explicitly that civil
targets were included. Was that the cause of this 'sensitiveness''"
Kok: 'I can't say more. The decisions on specific targets were not
posed to the Netherlands and did not have to be.'
One could conclude that only a country with no
real possiblity of hitting back at its opponents could thus be coldly,
systematically brought to its knees in the 78 days of this bombardment,
the first major war in Europe since 1945. The tensions within NATO had
more to do with keeping public opinion on board than any likelihood
that Yugoslavia could score any military successes.
The court appearance was part of a preliminary
hearing in an action for compensation from the Dutch state on behalf of
victims of the NATO attacks on Nis and the RTS TV Studio. The former
defence minister Frank de Grave has yet to to give evidence, and
ex-leader of parliament Jeltje van Nieuwenhoven is refusing to attend
the court.
After today's proceedings, Meindert Stelling, a
leading member of the campaign for the bombing victims and a founder
member of Lawyers for Peace, was optimistic about the outcome. "We have
established that the Dutch government was involved all the way, in the
decision-making process about what kind of targets would be attacked in
which phases of the war. Also, our former foreign minister made it
clear that NATO forces needed to operate within the protocol of
international law, meaning that a target can only be selected for
attack if destroying it or putting it out of action will create a
definite military advantage for the attacking party, according to plans
and in the circumstances of the time. The government will have to prove
that the RTS TV studio was actually in use by the Yugoslavian military.
They will also need to show that it was reasonable to drop cluster
bombs at Nis, so close to a civilian inhabited area."
Stelling, himself a former Dutch Air Force
pilot, commented further on the day's evidence. "Our former prime
minister showed that he was not in control in Holland's relationship
with the NATO military apparatus. He was not in control of whether the
war was conducted within international law. This amounts to neglect."
Stelling concurs that it might have been
convenient for the Dutch leadership and some other European NATO top
politicians not to know which specific sites were to be targetted, in
case they were illegal.
My discussion with Stelling moves onto the wider issues of the 1999
NATO war against Yugoslavia, and it transpires that, by coincidence, we
have both read the recent book by General Wesley K. Clarke, who is
currently in the running to be the Democratic Party candidate for
election as President of the United States. Although the politicians in
the courtroom today had referred to the bombardment of Yugoslavia as
having the aim of 'bringing Milosevic to the negotiating table', it is
clear from the account of the former Supreme Commander of NATO forces
and other insiders (for instance Michael Hirsh of Newsweek) that before
the bombing started, the western countries made no attempt to negotiate
seriously, and instead drew up an ultimatum, the 'Rambouillet Accord'
which they knew the Yugoslavian leaders could not accept because it
included the stationing of foreign troops on Serbian territory with no
jurisdiction over their activities by the Serbian and Yugoslavian
authorities.
(…)
This was a good war for NATO, one that kept the western allies
together, put Russia in its place and established a precedent for rich
western countries to use military means to intervene in the
'humanitarian' affairs of poorer nations. A war that caring liberals,
like Clinton, Blair and Wesley K. Clarke could be proud of. A war with
no casualties at all on the NATO side.
Nearly five years later, Kosovo is no nearer independence. It is still
formally part of Serbia, but is run as a NATO protectorate. Ethnic
Albanian militias have ethnically cleansed the Jews, Gypsies and
Serbians from the province. Its economy is managed by the World Bank.
US company Brown and Root Services, a subsidiary of Halliburton, is
reported to be making good profits from the construction of a huge
permanent US military base, Camp Bondsteel, which is conveniently
located near vital oil and gas energy corridors including the
Trans-Balkan Oil Pipeline.
As we leave the courtroom, an hour after the end of proceedings for
that day, a group of middle-aged women, Serbian civilians, have
dismantled the little shrine of crosses and photographs on the concrete
steps and are picking up the pieces.
=== 3 ===
http://www.kosovo.com/erpkiminfo_jan04/erpkiminfo27jan04.html#6
Radio Netherlands: NATO bombing spree revisited
Among those testifying today are former Prime Minister
Wim Kok, former Defence Minister Frank de Grave and
former Foreign Minister Jozias van Aartsen. The court
is to judge whether the two NATO attacks violated the
principles and norms of international humanitarian law and whether the
Netherlands might be held responsible.
Radio Netherlands
Monday, 26 January, 2004
by our Internet desk, 26 January 2004
The ruins of the Radio Television Serbia (RTS) building in Belgrade,
bombed on 23 April 1999.
Below: NATO cluster bombs aimed at an airfield target in the Yugoslav
city of Nis accidentally hit a residential area on 7
May, 1999.
Former Dutch leaders are to appear in court today to answer questions
about their role in the 1999 NATO bombing of the Serbian
state radio and television building in Belgrade, in
which 16 people died, and the cluster bombing of the
city of Nis, which claimed 14 civilian lives.
Dutch aircraft took part in the sustained US-led bombing campaign that
forced an end to the Milosevic government's ethnic
cleansing of the Serbian province of Kosovo.
Among those testifying today are former Prime Minister Wim Kok, former
Defence Minister Frank de Grave and former Foreign
Minister Jozias van Aartsen. The court is to judge
whether the two NATO attacks violated the principles
and norms of international humanitarian law and whether the
Netherlands might be held responsible.
Avril McDonald is an international justice expert from the Asser
Institute in The Hague. In this interview with Radio
Netherlands, she asserts that the Belgrade TV station
was a legitimate target and that the question of
responsibility is much more elusive.
"I think there was probably not a violation, the orthodox view - and I
think the court would reach this conclusion - being
that a radio-TV station is a legitimate military
target. It relays communications amongst the enemy, it
relays propaganda, and for that reason it's a
legitimate target."
"Now, that's in the abstract. In this particular case, let's look at
the facts. The bomb was dropped following I understand
a warning given to the state and to the owners of the
television station that the bomb would be dropped.
This was subsequent to an apparent request that the
station should give equal time to the allied propaganda as well as to
Serbian propaganda. Besides, the bomb was dropped
overnight. Given all of those facts, I think that this
was not a war crime."
RN: "What about the cluster bombing of Nis which is also claimed to be
a violation of humanitarian law. Do you think they
have a case there?"
"It's a tricky question, for the simple reason that the law has just
changed regarding cluster bombs. There's just been the
adoption of a new prohibition on the use of cluster
bombs. At the time of the Kosovo war of course, there
was no such prohibition. So, certainly under
conventional law, when they dropped those bombs, in principle the use
of the bomb in a non-discriminate way would not be a
violation of conventional humanitarian law."
Summoned to court: former Dutch Defence Minister Frank de Grave and
Prime Minister Kok and
"Now, of course some might argue that the adoption of this new protocol
on cluster bombs was simply recognising a pre-existing
customary norm, so at the time of the Kosovo war,
these were already banned."
"I think you also need to look at the way that the bombs were dropped.
A cluster bomb is an inherently indiscriminate weapon
in fact, which is why they have now been banned. But
of course, if you were to drop a cluster bomb on an
isolated military target where few, if any, civilians
were killed, I think that this in principle would not be have been a
violation at that time."
RN: "Suppose the court decides that it was a violation, that these were
illegitimate civilian targets and not military
targets, does that make the individual Dutch ministers
responsible for these acts?"
"There are many legal questions which would have to be considered in
this case of course. One of them indeed would be the
responsibility of coalitions. The Netherlands was only
one of all of the NATO states that took part in this
operation. The law has developed based on the actions
of states acting alone rather than in coalitions, and the law relating
to the responsibility of individual members of a
military coalition is not entirely settled."
"Nevertheless, I think it would not be unreasonable for a court to find
that the member states of a coalition are responsible
for collective decision-making. If in this case it has
been suggested that the Dutch were actually kind of
out of the loop and that the planning was taking place
at the Pentagon, I still think there would be residual liability
because of the very nature of being a member of the
coalition."
"To me, it's a completely separate issue whether they communicate
amongst each other as to what targets they bomb. That's not
a legal question as far as I'm concerned, that's just
a question of bad communication. I mean, of course,
the whole point of coalition warfare doesn't mean that
it gives individual states carte blanche to do what
they want in an individual capacity. Of course not. Every state would
always remain individually responsible for whatever it
does. There might just be another layer of
responsibility as well."
"So, it's not unforeseeable that the court could recognise that and
there has been very limited jurisprudence to support this
position: in Germany, for instance, and in Greece. It
would be a brave step of the Dutch court to find this,
but it wouldn't be an unprecedented step."
1. Ex-PM to Testify on NATO Strikes
2. Humanitarian Bombers in Court
3. Radio Netherlands: NATO bombing spree revisited
SEE ALSO:
Pictures:
http://www.natosued.org/GB
EC: Interview: Nico Steijnen: A Victory for Truth in the Netherlands!
(by Andy Wilcoxson)
http://emperors-clothes.com/interviews/victory.htm
=== 1 ===
http://www.seeurope.net/en/Story.php?StoryID=47434&LangID=1
Seeurope.net
January 26, 2004
Ex-PM to Testify on NATO Strikes
Former Dutch Prime Minister Wim Kok is due to give
evidence in The Hague in connection with the Nato
bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999.
Some victims' relatives are seeking compensation from
the Dutch state.
Mr Kok and two former ministers are due to appear at
the district court on today, BBC reports.
It is the first time since World War II that Western
politicians will testify in relation to alleged crimes
against humanity in a national court.
It has been brought by the relatives of 16 victims of
the Nato bombings of a television station in Belgrade
and the market place in Nis in 1999. They claim the
attacks on civilian targets were the result of illegal
aggression against Yugoslavia.
The three witnesses will be asked how much of a
warning was given to the TV studio and about the use
of cluster bombs in the attack on Nis.
The victims' lawyers say they have solid grounds for
their case on the basis of reports from two government
advisory committees and a previous case in Amsterdam.
They argue that as a centre for international law, the
Netherlands must be seen to uphold it.
=== 2 ===
http://www.natosued.org/GB/archiveEngl/040126/040126Getuigenverhoor.html
Humanitarian Bombers in Court
by Noah Tucker
27/1/04
For the first time since the Nuremburg trials of Nazis in 1946,the
former leadership of a western country was forced to attend court
yesterday to defend accusations that their country had committed war
crimes. (…)
Wim Kok, who had been a trade union firebrand before becoming prime
minister of the Netherlands, and is now a corporate board member of
Shell and the Dutch Telecoms company Telfort, avoided giving a view on
whether the NATO attack on the Belgrade RTS TV Studio was justified,
saying he had only found out after the bombing that 150 civilians had
been inside the building at that time. Ex foreign minister van Aartsen
on the other hand, appeared enthusiastic about the attack. When the
advocate for the victims' families, Nico Steijnen, asked him about the
Amnesty International report which concluded that the TV studio was a
purely civilian site, the former cabinet member claimed that the studio
was in fact a 'dual use' installation which also had a function for the
Yugoslavian armed forces. Van Aartsen also stated that the Dutch
govenment had in written correspondence with Amnesty International on
several occasions before this bombing stating that communications
centres in general could be considered legitimate targets; this, he
suggested, could be considered sufficient warning to the civilians
inside the RTS TV building in Belgrade. Even Judge P. A. Koppen,
presiding over the courtroom, appeared to have difficulty concealing
his amazement at this statement.
Sixteen people, all civilians, died in the
attack, which put the television station out of action for three hours
before transmission was resumed.
When asked about the NATO cluster bomb attack
on Nis, a Serbian town near a military airfield, Wim Kok stated, "It's
even more sad, seeing that a market and a hospital were hit, that the
actual target was missed." Following the 15 deaths and 70 injured in
Nis, the Dutch government decided that its own F16 warplanes would
cease dropping cluster bombs on Yugoslavia; the other components of the
NATO forces did not change their policy of using these terrifying
weapons.
The packed courtroom heard an account of the
NATO strategy of gradually increasing the range of sites which it was
permissible for US and West European forces to attack, moving from
strictly military targets in phase one of the war, to phase two, phase
two-plus, and phase three, in which communications, transport and other
infrastructure would be destroyed.
Steijnen (for the victims'families): 'What was the difference between
phase two-plus and phase three''
Kok: 'In the NATO Council, the transition between phases two and three
was considered sensitive. So we had phase two-plus, which included
'C-three centres' ' command, control and communications targets.'
Steijnen: 'Why was it sensitive, the move to phase three''
Kok: 'That was my perception.'
Steijnen: 'A parliamentary document states explicitly that civil
targets were included. Was that the cause of this 'sensitiveness''"
Kok: 'I can't say more. The decisions on specific targets were not
posed to the Netherlands and did not have to be.'
One could conclude that only a country with no
real possiblity of hitting back at its opponents could thus be coldly,
systematically brought to its knees in the 78 days of this bombardment,
the first major war in Europe since 1945. The tensions within NATO had
more to do with keeping public opinion on board than any likelihood
that Yugoslavia could score any military successes.
The court appearance was part of a preliminary
hearing in an action for compensation from the Dutch state on behalf of
victims of the NATO attacks on Nis and the RTS TV Studio. The former
defence minister Frank de Grave has yet to to give evidence, and
ex-leader of parliament Jeltje van Nieuwenhoven is refusing to attend
the court.
After today's proceedings, Meindert Stelling, a
leading member of the campaign for the bombing victims and a founder
member of Lawyers for Peace, was optimistic about the outcome. "We have
established that the Dutch government was involved all the way, in the
decision-making process about what kind of targets would be attacked in
which phases of the war. Also, our former foreign minister made it
clear that NATO forces needed to operate within the protocol of
international law, meaning that a target can only be selected for
attack if destroying it or putting it out of action will create a
definite military advantage for the attacking party, according to plans
and in the circumstances of the time. The government will have to prove
that the RTS TV studio was actually in use by the Yugoslavian military.
They will also need to show that it was reasonable to drop cluster
bombs at Nis, so close to a civilian inhabited area."
Stelling, himself a former Dutch Air Force
pilot, commented further on the day's evidence. "Our former prime
minister showed that he was not in control in Holland's relationship
with the NATO military apparatus. He was not in control of whether the
war was conducted within international law. This amounts to neglect."
Stelling concurs that it might have been
convenient for the Dutch leadership and some other European NATO top
politicians not to know which specific sites were to be targetted, in
case they were illegal.
My discussion with Stelling moves onto the wider issues of the 1999
NATO war against Yugoslavia, and it transpires that, by coincidence, we
have both read the recent book by General Wesley K. Clarke, who is
currently in the running to be the Democratic Party candidate for
election as President of the United States. Although the politicians in
the courtroom today had referred to the bombardment of Yugoslavia as
having the aim of 'bringing Milosevic to the negotiating table', it is
clear from the account of the former Supreme Commander of NATO forces
and other insiders (for instance Michael Hirsh of Newsweek) that before
the bombing started, the western countries made no attempt to negotiate
seriously, and instead drew up an ultimatum, the 'Rambouillet Accord'
which they knew the Yugoslavian leaders could not accept because it
included the stationing of foreign troops on Serbian territory with no
jurisdiction over their activities by the Serbian and Yugoslavian
authorities.
(…)
This was a good war for NATO, one that kept the western allies
together, put Russia in its place and established a precedent for rich
western countries to use military means to intervene in the
'humanitarian' affairs of poorer nations. A war that caring liberals,
like Clinton, Blair and Wesley K. Clarke could be proud of. A war with
no casualties at all on the NATO side.
Nearly five years later, Kosovo is no nearer independence. It is still
formally part of Serbia, but is run as a NATO protectorate. Ethnic
Albanian militias have ethnically cleansed the Jews, Gypsies and
Serbians from the province. Its economy is managed by the World Bank.
US company Brown and Root Services, a subsidiary of Halliburton, is
reported to be making good profits from the construction of a huge
permanent US military base, Camp Bondsteel, which is conveniently
located near vital oil and gas energy corridors including the
Trans-Balkan Oil Pipeline.
As we leave the courtroom, an hour after the end of proceedings for
that day, a group of middle-aged women, Serbian civilians, have
dismantled the little shrine of crosses and photographs on the concrete
steps and are picking up the pieces.
=== 3 ===
http://www.kosovo.com/erpkiminfo_jan04/erpkiminfo27jan04.html#6
Radio Netherlands: NATO bombing spree revisited
Among those testifying today are former Prime Minister
Wim Kok, former Defence Minister Frank de Grave and
former Foreign Minister Jozias van Aartsen. The court
is to judge whether the two NATO attacks violated the
principles and norms of international humanitarian law and whether the
Netherlands might be held responsible.
Radio Netherlands
Monday, 26 January, 2004
by our Internet desk, 26 January 2004
The ruins of the Radio Television Serbia (RTS) building in Belgrade,
bombed on 23 April 1999.
Below: NATO cluster bombs aimed at an airfield target in the Yugoslav
city of Nis accidentally hit a residential area on 7
May, 1999.
Former Dutch leaders are to appear in court today to answer questions
about their role in the 1999 NATO bombing of the Serbian
state radio and television building in Belgrade, in
which 16 people died, and the cluster bombing of the
city of Nis, which claimed 14 civilian lives.
Dutch aircraft took part in the sustained US-led bombing campaign that
forced an end to the Milosevic government's ethnic
cleansing of the Serbian province of Kosovo.
Among those testifying today are former Prime Minister Wim Kok, former
Defence Minister Frank de Grave and former Foreign
Minister Jozias van Aartsen. The court is to judge
whether the two NATO attacks violated the principles
and norms of international humanitarian law and whether the
Netherlands might be held responsible.
Avril McDonald is an international justice expert from the Asser
Institute in The Hague. In this interview with Radio
Netherlands, she asserts that the Belgrade TV station
was a legitimate target and that the question of
responsibility is much more elusive.
"I think there was probably not a violation, the orthodox view - and I
think the court would reach this conclusion - being
that a radio-TV station is a legitimate military
target. It relays communications amongst the enemy, it
relays propaganda, and for that reason it's a
legitimate target."
"Now, that's in the abstract. In this particular case, let's look at
the facts. The bomb was dropped following I understand
a warning given to the state and to the owners of the
television station that the bomb would be dropped.
This was subsequent to an apparent request that the
station should give equal time to the allied propaganda as well as to
Serbian propaganda. Besides, the bomb was dropped
overnight. Given all of those facts, I think that this
was not a war crime."
RN: "What about the cluster bombing of Nis which is also claimed to be
a violation of humanitarian law. Do you think they
have a case there?"
"It's a tricky question, for the simple reason that the law has just
changed regarding cluster bombs. There's just been the
adoption of a new prohibition on the use of cluster
bombs. At the time of the Kosovo war of course, there
was no such prohibition. So, certainly under
conventional law, when they dropped those bombs, in principle the use
of the bomb in a non-discriminate way would not be a
violation of conventional humanitarian law."
Summoned to court: former Dutch Defence Minister Frank de Grave and
Prime Minister Kok and
"Now, of course some might argue that the adoption of this new protocol
on cluster bombs was simply recognising a pre-existing
customary norm, so at the time of the Kosovo war,
these were already banned."
"I think you also need to look at the way that the bombs were dropped.
A cluster bomb is an inherently indiscriminate weapon
in fact, which is why they have now been banned. But
of course, if you were to drop a cluster bomb on an
isolated military target where few, if any, civilians
were killed, I think that this in principle would not be have been a
violation at that time."
RN: "Suppose the court decides that it was a violation, that these were
illegitimate civilian targets and not military
targets, does that make the individual Dutch ministers
responsible for these acts?"
"There are many legal questions which would have to be considered in
this case of course. One of them indeed would be the
responsibility of coalitions. The Netherlands was only
one of all of the NATO states that took part in this
operation. The law has developed based on the actions
of states acting alone rather than in coalitions, and the law relating
to the responsibility of individual members of a
military coalition is not entirely settled."
"Nevertheless, I think it would not be unreasonable for a court to find
that the member states of a coalition are responsible
for collective decision-making. If in this case it has
been suggested that the Dutch were actually kind of
out of the loop and that the planning was taking place
at the Pentagon, I still think there would be residual liability
because of the very nature of being a member of the
coalition."
"To me, it's a completely separate issue whether they communicate
amongst each other as to what targets they bomb. That's not
a legal question as far as I'm concerned, that's just
a question of bad communication. I mean, of course,
the whole point of coalition warfare doesn't mean that
it gives individual states carte blanche to do what
they want in an individual capacity. Of course not. Every state would
always remain individually responsible for whatever it
does. There might just be another layer of
responsibility as well."
"So, it's not unforeseeable that the court could recognise that and
there has been very limited jurisprudence to support this
position: in Germany, for instance, and in Greece. It
would be a brave step of the Dutch court to find this,
but it wouldn't be an unprecedented step."