World Socialist Web Site www.wsws.org
The Milosevic Trial: journalists warned to stop criticisms
By Paul Mitchell
14 October 2002
Prosecution lawyers in the trial of former Yugoslav President Slobodan
Milosevic have warned journalists to stop criticising their
performance
and evidence. Milosevic is appearing before the International Criminal
Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague accused of war
crimes.
Opening the second phase of the trial-covering the wars in Croatia and
Bosnia-Prosecutor Geoffrey Nice complained, "These proceedings are in
public in order that the public can see our work is done properly ...
They're not here to provide copy or particularly good copy for
newspapers or matters of that sort."
There is no doubt that Milosevic's utilisation of Serbian nationalism
to
shore up his position within Yugoslavia played a significant role in
enflaming ethnic tensions and encouraging crimes against Kosovan
Albanians. But that does not change the fact that The Hague trial is a
politically motivated kangaroo court. Its claim that Milosevic was
solely responsible for events in Yugoslavia is aimed at covering over
the role of the Western powers in fanning the flames of civil war in
order to divide the country into a series of impotent ethnically-based
states-entirely dependent on imperialist favour.
The prosecution's efforts to this end, however, have produced a less
than convincing case against Milosevic-a fact that is causing
consternation is some circles. Whilst the media has been largely
supportive of Milosevic being found guilty there has been criticism
that
the prosecution has failed to provide conclusive evidence of his guilt
that justifies their own uncritical support for the NATO bombing of
Yugoslavia.
The Institute of War and Peace Reporting laments the "unfavourable
media
reports of the prosecution's performance during the Kosovo phase of
the
trial, when it was criticised for not producing a 'smoking gun' or key
insiders" that could provide cast-iron proof that Milosevic
masterminded
ethnic cleansing.
Typical of these unfavourable media reports is one by John Laughland
in
the British conservative Daily Mail last month. In his article
entitled,
"If this man is a war criminal where is all the evidence?" Laughland
ridiculed the prosecution for presenting two Serbian "key
insiders"-Radomir Tanic and Radomir Markovic-as witnesses. Tanic
claimed
in court he actually heard Milosevic give the order for ethnic
cleansing
but later admitted it was only his interpretation. Laughland says
Tanic
"was shown to be an agent of the secret services of various Western
countries and to be so unfamiliar with the corridors of power that he
could not even say on which floor of the presidential palace
Milosevic's
office had been".
When Markovic-Milosevic's spy chief-appeared before The Hague he told
the court that he had been forced under duress to give a statement
incriminating Milosevic. Laughland complained that contrary to the
prosecution's intentions, Markovic had said Milosevic "had never
ordered
the expulsion of the Albanian population of Kosovo, that the former
president had repeatedly issued instructions to the police and the
army
to respect the laws of war, and to protect the civilian population
even
if it meant compromising the battle against Albanian terrorists."
After eight months and 124 witnesses the prosecution has completed its
evidence for the indictment covering war crimes in Kosovo in 1998/99.
This was supposed to constitute the entire substance of the original
case against Milosevic. Bosnia and Croatia were only added because of
concerns that the evidence of direct responsibility for war crimes in
Kosovo was not strong enough. The Kosovo indictment was drawn up at
the
height of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia when politicians talked-and
the
media duly reported-of hundreds of thousands of unarmed civilians
being
murdered by "Serb forces". In the end, the indictment covers the
deaths
of 340 civilians at 10 alleged massacre sites.
But the case has proved to be fairly disastrous. Two thirds of the
witnesses have been Kosovan farmers and villagers who claimed to have
seen the massacres. There has been a handful of low-ranking Yugoslav
Army or police officers who alleged they saw or took part in
atrocities.
Other witnesses include former Kosovo Liberation Army soldiers,
diplomats and politicians involved in the Organisation for Security
and
Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and researchers for the Office of the
Prosecution (OTP).
The difficulty the prosecution has had in linking Milosevic directly
to
war crimes was shown by General Peter de la Billiere. Involved in
counter-terrorist activities for 41 years and commander of the British
Army in the Falklands and Gulf Wars, de la Billiere told the court he
had been impressed by the Yugoslav Army's rulebook and its "attention
to
humanitarian issues". He then revealed he had never visited Yugoslavia
or been involved in the war there and that the indictment itself was
"the sole document on which I have made a judgement as to what
happened
on the ground." If the indictment was true, he continued, there must
have been "massive logistic and manpower organisation" to carry out
the
genocide. However, it emerged there were "no documents produced or
seen
indicating a concerted campaign". He continued, "We do not have any
written directions suggesting what these instructions were and indeed
nor are there ... nor is there any record of war diaries or situation
reports. So one can only make the assumption that the instructions
were
given verbally."
Faced with the lack of a single written order Nice told the court,
"criminals or politicians who do acts that are or are subsequently
revealed as being criminal, don't leave traces behind them. They don't
leave paper trails. That's why, of course, this accused operated in
that
curiously empty office, dealing with people on a one-to-one basis".
It is precisely the inability of the prosecution to present witnesses
who dealt with Milosevic on a one-to-one basis that has provoked the
criticism. In an attempt to dig itself out of this hole, the
prosecution
recently called Zoran Stijovic, who had transcribed Markovic's
statement. But he only made matters worse for the prosecution.
Stijovic
told the tribunal, "I didn't come here of my own free will and it was
my
fault that [Markovic's] statement was placed before the Tribunal
here".
He was surprised the prosecution had used the statement since it was
just an information gathering exercise for another court case and had
no
legal status in Serbia. Stijovic added that there was no lawyer
present
during Markovic's interview and he had not been cautioned about
incriminating himself.
Previous US and European support for Milosevic
The second problem confronting the prosecution will be to explain why
Milosevic is now being charged with war crimes in Bosnia and Croatia
when it is common knowledge that the US and European powers maintained
diplomatic ties with his regime and he was viewed by Washington in
particular as the main guarantor of the 1996 Dayton Accords that ended
the Bosnian civil war.
Nice tried to dismiss such questions at the end of his address to the
court. He argued, disingenuously, "Your Honours, this Tribunal is, of
course, not political. It doesn't need to concern itself with or to
explain how it was that the accused was left to recover after Dayton
...
as an apparently respectable member of the community."
Nice's statement is a diplomatic sideswipe at the US government, to
which the court has tried to attribute sole responsibility for
promoting
Milosevic as "the guarantor of peace" in the Balkans after Dayton and
making him an "apparently respectable member of the community".
The prosecution has also criticised the US government's attitude to
the
Milosevic trial. The first part of the trial was notable for the
absence
of the key US personnel involved in the Kosovo War. US envoy Richard
Holbrooke was the main negotiator with Milosevic between October 1998
and March 1999. Christopher Hill mediated talks between Kosovan
Albanians and Milosevic in 1998 and at the Rambouillet talks before
NATO
started bombing. General Wesley Clark was commander of NATO during the
bombing campaign. To date, the US government has refused to allow them
to appear for fear of compromising security and intelligence
operations
and setting a precedent that could lead to the conviction of US
officials. The only American citizen to appear at The Hague has been
William Walker who was "provided" by the OSCE in his capacity as head
of
its Kosovo Verification Mission (KVM).
Nice has previously expressed his frustration at negotiations with an
unnamed power-believed to be the US-over "Rule 70" witnesses, which is
the ICTY's ruling specifically designed to limit or prevent disclosure
of state secrets. He said he could not accept the conditions imposed
by
this unnamed government, which thinks it "can simply set its terms".
The refusal of the Bush administration to subject US personnel to
international tribunals undermines the humanitarian pretext for the
NATO
intervention in the Balkans and threatens the authority of the
European
powers and the ICTY-particularly if they fail to convict Milosevic.
The British government in particular has invested a lot of time and
effort in the Milosevic trial. Nice is British as is presiding Judge
Richard May, a former Labour Party parliamentary candidate who stood
against Margaret Thatcher, and nearly all the army and intelligence
officers who have appeared before the court. British Special Forces
have
been in the forefront of arresting suspected war criminals and MI5 and
MI6 have been behind a lot of the ICTY's investigations.
The tensions between the US and European powers have surfaced on many
occasions during the trial. Many European officials and politicians
have
referred to US officials in diplomatic terms such as "Milosevic's
collocutors"-a term meaning "those involved in discussions" but
implying
collaboration. One of many such occasions was provided by Knut
Vollebaek, former chairman of the OSCE and head of the UN mission in
Kosovo. He told the tribunal that the Norwegian government saw the
resolution of the Balkans conflict as a means to build on the
international prestige it had gained with the Oslo Israeli-Palestinian
Accords. He praised the leading role of the OSCE mandated by UN
resolutions and referred to the Milosevic-Holbrooke agreement
negotiated
by the US in 1998 to implement a ceasefire between the KLA and
Yugoslav
Army and police as simply "an added agreement."
Vollebaek then criticised US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright
over
her threat to withdraw Walker and the KVM. She had made the threat
after
the Yugoslav government pronounced Walker persona non grata for
calling
the shootings at Racak a "massacre of innocent civilians", when they
insisted the bodies were of KLA fighters gathered together to create
the
false impression of a massacre. Walker's statement famously provided a
pretext for NATO intervention, but Vollebaek called it an "emotional
response to Racak" and said that Albright had "no right to give such a
statement. I suppose this was her personal opinion or assessment." He
also criticised Albright who imposed the KLA as the leading faction in
the Kosovar Albanian delegation at Rambouillet, for insisting that the
"international presence" in Kosovo he had been trying to negotiate had
to be "NATO-led".
Criticism of Walker was also made by General Joseph Maisonneuve,
Assistant Deputy Chief of Canadian Army Defence staff and an OSCE
inspector, who told the tribunal that it had led to the Yugoslav Army
breaking off its "professional and very productive discussions". He
added, "I can't answer why Walker made this assessment," as he knew
there had been a big battle between the Yugoslav Army and the KLA
whose
members were amongst the dead.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/oct2002/milo-o14_prn.shtml
Copyright 1998-2002
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved
The Milosevic Trial: journalists warned to stop criticisms
By Paul Mitchell
14 October 2002
Prosecution lawyers in the trial of former Yugoslav President Slobodan
Milosevic have warned journalists to stop criticising their
performance
and evidence. Milosevic is appearing before the International Criminal
Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague accused of war
crimes.
Opening the second phase of the trial-covering the wars in Croatia and
Bosnia-Prosecutor Geoffrey Nice complained, "These proceedings are in
public in order that the public can see our work is done properly ...
They're not here to provide copy or particularly good copy for
newspapers or matters of that sort."
There is no doubt that Milosevic's utilisation of Serbian nationalism
to
shore up his position within Yugoslavia played a significant role in
enflaming ethnic tensions and encouraging crimes against Kosovan
Albanians. But that does not change the fact that The Hague trial is a
politically motivated kangaroo court. Its claim that Milosevic was
solely responsible for events in Yugoslavia is aimed at covering over
the role of the Western powers in fanning the flames of civil war in
order to divide the country into a series of impotent ethnically-based
states-entirely dependent on imperialist favour.
The prosecution's efforts to this end, however, have produced a less
than convincing case against Milosevic-a fact that is causing
consternation is some circles. Whilst the media has been largely
supportive of Milosevic being found guilty there has been criticism
that
the prosecution has failed to provide conclusive evidence of his guilt
that justifies their own uncritical support for the NATO bombing of
Yugoslavia.
The Institute of War and Peace Reporting laments the "unfavourable
media
reports of the prosecution's performance during the Kosovo phase of
the
trial, when it was criticised for not producing a 'smoking gun' or key
insiders" that could provide cast-iron proof that Milosevic
masterminded
ethnic cleansing.
Typical of these unfavourable media reports is one by John Laughland
in
the British conservative Daily Mail last month. In his article
entitled,
"If this man is a war criminal where is all the evidence?" Laughland
ridiculed the prosecution for presenting two Serbian "key
insiders"-Radomir Tanic and Radomir Markovic-as witnesses. Tanic
claimed
in court he actually heard Milosevic give the order for ethnic
cleansing
but later admitted it was only his interpretation. Laughland says
Tanic
"was shown to be an agent of the secret services of various Western
countries and to be so unfamiliar with the corridors of power that he
could not even say on which floor of the presidential palace
Milosevic's
office had been".
When Markovic-Milosevic's spy chief-appeared before The Hague he told
the court that he had been forced under duress to give a statement
incriminating Milosevic. Laughland complained that contrary to the
prosecution's intentions, Markovic had said Milosevic "had never
ordered
the expulsion of the Albanian population of Kosovo, that the former
president had repeatedly issued instructions to the police and the
army
to respect the laws of war, and to protect the civilian population
even
if it meant compromising the battle against Albanian terrorists."
After eight months and 124 witnesses the prosecution has completed its
evidence for the indictment covering war crimes in Kosovo in 1998/99.
This was supposed to constitute the entire substance of the original
case against Milosevic. Bosnia and Croatia were only added because of
concerns that the evidence of direct responsibility for war crimes in
Kosovo was not strong enough. The Kosovo indictment was drawn up at
the
height of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia when politicians talked-and
the
media duly reported-of hundreds of thousands of unarmed civilians
being
murdered by "Serb forces". In the end, the indictment covers the
deaths
of 340 civilians at 10 alleged massacre sites.
But the case has proved to be fairly disastrous. Two thirds of the
witnesses have been Kosovan farmers and villagers who claimed to have
seen the massacres. There has been a handful of low-ranking Yugoslav
Army or police officers who alleged they saw or took part in
atrocities.
Other witnesses include former Kosovo Liberation Army soldiers,
diplomats and politicians involved in the Organisation for Security
and
Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and researchers for the Office of the
Prosecution (OTP).
The difficulty the prosecution has had in linking Milosevic directly
to
war crimes was shown by General Peter de la Billiere. Involved in
counter-terrorist activities for 41 years and commander of the British
Army in the Falklands and Gulf Wars, de la Billiere told the court he
had been impressed by the Yugoslav Army's rulebook and its "attention
to
humanitarian issues". He then revealed he had never visited Yugoslavia
or been involved in the war there and that the indictment itself was
"the sole document on which I have made a judgement as to what
happened
on the ground." If the indictment was true, he continued, there must
have been "massive logistic and manpower organisation" to carry out
the
genocide. However, it emerged there were "no documents produced or
seen
indicating a concerted campaign". He continued, "We do not have any
written directions suggesting what these instructions were and indeed
nor are there ... nor is there any record of war diaries or situation
reports. So one can only make the assumption that the instructions
were
given verbally."
Faced with the lack of a single written order Nice told the court,
"criminals or politicians who do acts that are or are subsequently
revealed as being criminal, don't leave traces behind them. They don't
leave paper trails. That's why, of course, this accused operated in
that
curiously empty office, dealing with people on a one-to-one basis".
It is precisely the inability of the prosecution to present witnesses
who dealt with Milosevic on a one-to-one basis that has provoked the
criticism. In an attempt to dig itself out of this hole, the
prosecution
recently called Zoran Stijovic, who had transcribed Markovic's
statement. But he only made matters worse for the prosecution.
Stijovic
told the tribunal, "I didn't come here of my own free will and it was
my
fault that [Markovic's] statement was placed before the Tribunal
here".
He was surprised the prosecution had used the statement since it was
just an information gathering exercise for another court case and had
no
legal status in Serbia. Stijovic added that there was no lawyer
present
during Markovic's interview and he had not been cautioned about
incriminating himself.
Previous US and European support for Milosevic
The second problem confronting the prosecution will be to explain why
Milosevic is now being charged with war crimes in Bosnia and Croatia
when it is common knowledge that the US and European powers maintained
diplomatic ties with his regime and he was viewed by Washington in
particular as the main guarantor of the 1996 Dayton Accords that ended
the Bosnian civil war.
Nice tried to dismiss such questions at the end of his address to the
court. He argued, disingenuously, "Your Honours, this Tribunal is, of
course, not political. It doesn't need to concern itself with or to
explain how it was that the accused was left to recover after Dayton
...
as an apparently respectable member of the community."
Nice's statement is a diplomatic sideswipe at the US government, to
which the court has tried to attribute sole responsibility for
promoting
Milosevic as "the guarantor of peace" in the Balkans after Dayton and
making him an "apparently respectable member of the community".
The prosecution has also criticised the US government's attitude to
the
Milosevic trial. The first part of the trial was notable for the
absence
of the key US personnel involved in the Kosovo War. US envoy Richard
Holbrooke was the main negotiator with Milosevic between October 1998
and March 1999. Christopher Hill mediated talks between Kosovan
Albanians and Milosevic in 1998 and at the Rambouillet talks before
NATO
started bombing. General Wesley Clark was commander of NATO during the
bombing campaign. To date, the US government has refused to allow them
to appear for fear of compromising security and intelligence
operations
and setting a precedent that could lead to the conviction of US
officials. The only American citizen to appear at The Hague has been
William Walker who was "provided" by the OSCE in his capacity as head
of
its Kosovo Verification Mission (KVM).
Nice has previously expressed his frustration at negotiations with an
unnamed power-believed to be the US-over "Rule 70" witnesses, which is
the ICTY's ruling specifically designed to limit or prevent disclosure
of state secrets. He said he could not accept the conditions imposed
by
this unnamed government, which thinks it "can simply set its terms".
The refusal of the Bush administration to subject US personnel to
international tribunals undermines the humanitarian pretext for the
NATO
intervention in the Balkans and threatens the authority of the
European
powers and the ICTY-particularly if they fail to convict Milosevic.
The British government in particular has invested a lot of time and
effort in the Milosevic trial. Nice is British as is presiding Judge
Richard May, a former Labour Party parliamentary candidate who stood
against Margaret Thatcher, and nearly all the army and intelligence
officers who have appeared before the court. British Special Forces
have
been in the forefront of arresting suspected war criminals and MI5 and
MI6 have been behind a lot of the ICTY's investigations.
The tensions between the US and European powers have surfaced on many
occasions during the trial. Many European officials and politicians
have
referred to US officials in diplomatic terms such as "Milosevic's
collocutors"-a term meaning "those involved in discussions" but
implying
collaboration. One of many such occasions was provided by Knut
Vollebaek, former chairman of the OSCE and head of the UN mission in
Kosovo. He told the tribunal that the Norwegian government saw the
resolution of the Balkans conflict as a means to build on the
international prestige it had gained with the Oslo Israeli-Palestinian
Accords. He praised the leading role of the OSCE mandated by UN
resolutions and referred to the Milosevic-Holbrooke agreement
negotiated
by the US in 1998 to implement a ceasefire between the KLA and
Yugoslav
Army and police as simply "an added agreement."
Vollebaek then criticised US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright
over
her threat to withdraw Walker and the KVM. She had made the threat
after
the Yugoslav government pronounced Walker persona non grata for
calling
the shootings at Racak a "massacre of innocent civilians", when they
insisted the bodies were of KLA fighters gathered together to create
the
false impression of a massacre. Walker's statement famously provided a
pretext for NATO intervention, but Vollebaek called it an "emotional
response to Racak" and said that Albright had "no right to give such a
statement. I suppose this was her personal opinion or assessment." He
also criticised Albright who imposed the KLA as the leading faction in
the Kosovar Albanian delegation at Rambouillet, for insisting that the
"international presence" in Kosovo he had been trying to negotiate had
to be "NATO-led".
Criticism of Walker was also made by General Joseph Maisonneuve,
Assistant Deputy Chief of Canadian Army Defence staff and an OSCE
inspector, who told the tribunal that it had led to the Yugoslav Army
breaking off its "professional and very productive discussions". He
added, "I can't answer why Walker made this assessment," as he knew
there had been a big battle between the Yugoslav Army and the KLA
whose
members were amongst the dead.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/oct2002/milo-o14_prn.shtml
Copyright 1998-2002
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved