* Uno scambio di vedute su diritto internazionale e legalita' borghese
* Amnesty International sul Tribunale "ad hoc" dell'Aia
* Carla del Ponte, criminale di guerra impunita
* Richiesta di dimissioni per Carla del Ponte
* Il governo olandese sotto processo
---
DIRITTO INTERNAZIONALE E LEGALITA' BORGHESE
In seguito al nostro ultimo messaggio sui crimini della NATO
(http://www.egroups.com/message/crj-mailinglist/286?&start=263)
abbiamo ricevuto da Luca il seguente commento:
> Ho letto l' articolo sulle leggi di guerra.
> A me pare pericoloso appoggiare le critiche alla guerra ed alla nato in
> particolare seguendo un approccio "legalitario".
>
> Le forze borghesi amano le cosiddette convenzioni di guerra perche' esse
> fanno parte della copertura ideologica della guerra ....Forse si
> dovrebbero mostrare le inconsistenze logiche insite negli argomenti
> legalisti. Soprattutto per quanto concerne
> i "coccodrilli " del manifesto
>
> o no?
Sicuramente! Tuttavia sottolineare queste come altre violazioni della
legalita' borghese commesse da parte della stessa borghesia ha un suo
significato. In pratica si tratta del "sovversivismo
delle classi dirigenti", lo stesso fenomeno che ci ha portato al
fascismo ed al nazismo, quando la classe dirigente rompe le leggi che
essa stessa ha formulato. Questo puo' avere due ricadute:
- o si prefigura come scontro inter-borghese (inter-imperialista);
- oppure semplicemente significa una deriva autoritaria, quando anche le
garanzie, gli spazi della democrazia borghese ci vengono sottratte;
oppure tutte e due le cose insieme. Percio' ci sembra importante
evidenziare quando questo succede. CRJ
---
Subject: YUGOSLAVIA: Amnesty International's initial comments
on the review by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former
Yugoslavia of NATO's Operation Allied Force
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 09:06:13 -0400
From: amnesty@...
Reply-To: owner-amnesty-l@...
To: amnesty-L@...
* News Release Issued by the International Secretariat of Amnesty
International *
Amnesty International Public document
AI Index EUR 70/029/2000
News Service Nr. 116
13 June 2000
Amnesty International's initial comments on the review by the
International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia of NATO's
Operation Allied Force
The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) has
published today the Final Report to the Prosecutor by the Committee
Established to Review the NATO Bombing Campaign Against the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia. The report examines general issues and five
specific incidents and recommends to the ICTY Prosecutor not to commence
a criminal investigation "in relation to the NATO bombing campaign or
incidents occurring during the campaign" (para 91).
Ms Carla Del Ponte, ICTY's Prosecutor, informed the United Nations'
Security Council on 2 June 2000 that she had decided to accept this
recommendation. She specifies that although some mistakes were made by
NATO, "the Prosecutor is satisfied that there was no deliberate
targeting of civilians or unlawful military targets by NATO during the
campaign".
Amnesty International has received a copy of the 45-page ICTY report and
is examining it carefully. All five incidents examined in the report by
ICTY's review committee were included in the Amnesty International
report, Collateral Damage or Unlawful Killings?, Violations of the Laws
of War by NATO during Operation Allied Force, published last week (AI
Index: EUR 70/18/00).
Amnesty International welcomes the unusual publication by the ICTY of
the reasoning behind the decision not to open an investigation related
to NATO's bombing campaign. The organization believes that this step
contributes greatly to the Tribunal's transparency, offering important
perspectives on the interpretation of the laws of war.
Amnesty International also respects the discretion enjoyed by the ICTY's
Prosecutor in deciding whether or not to open criminal investigations.
The organization understands that, as with other cases, the Prosecutor
may still decide to open an investigation into the NATO bombing should
additional relevant information become available.
Amnesty International notes that the report of the ICTY assessment
indicates that when NATO was requested "to answer specific questions
about specific incidents, the NATO reply was couched in general terms
and failed to address the specific incidents." The report also points
out that the "committee has not spoken to those involved in directing or
carrying out the bombing campaign". These facts must have contributed to
the information gaps that the committee itself acknowledges in its
report. Amnesty International also notes the following overall
conclusion of the review committee (para 90):
"NATO has admitted that mistakes did occur during the bombing campaign;
errors of judgment may also have occurred. Selection of certain
objectives for attack may be subject to legal debate. On the basis of
the information reviewed, however, the committee is of the opinion that
neither an in-depth investigation related to the bombing campaign as a
whole nor investigations related to specific incidents are justified. In
all cases, either the law is not sufficiently clear or investigations
are unlikely to result in the acquisition of sufficient evidence to
substantiate charges against high level accused or against lower accused
for particularly heinous offences."
The report does not explain what difficulties are envisaged by the
Office of the Prosecutor in gathering sufficient evidence against any
NATO or NATO member state official.
With regard to the bombing of the headquarters and studios of Serbian
state television and radio (Radio Televisija Srbije, RTS) in Belgrade on
23 April 1999, the report states (para 76):
"The committee finds that if the attack on the RTS was justified by
reference to its propaganda purpose alone, its legality might well be
questioned by some experts in the field of international humanitarian
law. It appears, however, that NATO's targeting of the RTS building for
propaganda purposes was an incidental (albeit complementary) aim of its
primary goal of disabling the Serbian military command and control
system and to destroy the nerve system and apparatus that keeps
Milosevic in power."
Earlier (para 55) the report made the following observation regarding
the role of the media in general:
"The media as such is not a traditional target category. To the extent
particular media components are part of the C3 (command, control and
communications) network they are military objectives. If media
components are not part of the C3 network then they may become military
objectives depending upon their use. As a bottom line, civilians,
civilian objects and civilian morale as such are not legitimate military
objectives. The media does have an effect on civilian morale. If that
effect is merely to foster support for the war effort, the media is not
a legitimate military objective. If the media is used to incite crimes,
as in Rwanda, it can become a legitimate military objective. If the
media is the nerve system that keeps a war-monger in power and thus
perpetuates the war effort, it may fall within the definition of a
legitimate military objective."
Amnesty International reiterates that the explanation it sought and
received by NATO regarding the attack on the RTS headquarters was that
the attack was carried out because the RTS was a propaganda organ. In a
letter to Amnesty International dated 17 May 1999 and quoted in ICTY's
report (para 73), NATO's then Secretary General Javier Solana said that
NATO made "every possible effort to avoid civilian casualties and
collateral damage by exclusively and carefully targeting the military
infrastructure of President Milocevic", adding that the RTS facilities
"are being used as radio relay stations and transmitters to support the
activities of the FRY military and special police forces, and therefore
they represented legitimate military targets". However, as also
indicated in the Amnesty International report published last week, at a
meeting with Amnesty International in Brussels on 14 February 2000 NATO
officials clarified that this reference to relay stations and
transmitters was to other attacks on RTS infrastructure and not this
particular attack on the RTS headquarters. They insisted that the attack
on the RTS headquarters was carried out because RTS was a propaganda
organ and argued that propaganda is direct support for military action.
The point relating to propaganda has been made repeatedly, most recently
by General Wesley Clark, Supreme Allied Commander in Europe at the time
of Operation Allied Force. In an address at the Brookings Institution on
8 June 2000 he is quoted as saying:
"I noticed on the news today there is criticism of the attack on the
Serb media. Well, of course, that was a controversial target. But the
Serb media engine was feeding the war. It was a crucial instrument of
Milosevic's control over the Serb population. And it exported fear,
hatred and instability into neighbouring regions. And so it was a
legitimate target of war, validated by lawyers in many countries and
validated by the International Criminal Tribunal. But it sure eased our
minds a lot to know that our elected political leaders took the
responsibility for that strike."
As explained in its report last week, Amnesty International recognizes
that disrupting government propaganda may help to undermine the morale
of the population and the armed forces. However, the organization
believes that justifying an attack on such grounds stretches the meaning
of "effective contribution to military action" and "definite military
advantage" -- essential requirements of the definition of a military
objective -- beyond the acceptable bounds of interpretation. As such,
Amnesty International takes the view that the attack on the RTS
headquarters was directed at a civilian object and points out that
"[I]ntentionally directing attacks against civilian objects" is a war
crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
Amnesty International regrets the lack of full cooperation by NATO in
resposnding to ICTY's inquiries. The organization stresses that the fact
that the ICTY Prosecutor has decided not to open a criminal
investigation against NATO should not lead NATO to ignore the detailed
and nuanced contents of the ICTY report, or dismiss recommendations made
by Amnesty International and other organizations.
Amnesty International calls again on NATO and NATO member states to heed
the recommendations it made in its report published last week, including
the need for all NATO member states to ratify without reservations
Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949; ensure a common
interpretation of international humanitarian law in line with the
highest international standards; reflect these standards in NATO's rules
of engagement; and clarify NATO's chain of command, so as to ensure
clear lines of responsibility.
NATO and NATO member states should also conduct their own investigation
into reported breaches of the rules of war during Operation Allied
Force, whether or not they may amount to war crimes, so as to take
appropriate measures against anyone found responsible, provide redress,
including compensation, to victims of such violations, and learn lessons
for the future. ...
ENDS.../
Amnesty International, International Secretariat, 1 Easton Street,
WC1X 8DJ, London, United Kingdom
****************************************************************
You may repost this message onto other sources provided the main
text is not altered in any way and both the header crediting
Amnesty International and this footer remain intact. Only the
list subscription message may be removed.
****************************************************************
To subscribe to amnesty-L, send a message to <majordomo@...>
with "subscribe amnesty-L" in the message body. To unsubscribe,
send a message to <majordomo@...> with "unsubscribe amnesty-L"
in the message body. If you have problem signing off, contact
<owner-amnesty-L@...>. <owner-amnesty-L@...> handles
only messages concerning list administration. Past and current Amnesty
news services can be found at <http://www.amnesty.org/news/>.
Visit <http://www.amnesty.org> for information about Amnesty
International
and for other AI publications. Contact amnestyis@... if you
need to get in touch with the International Secretariat of Amnesty
International.
---
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/indexe.htm
The Emperor's New Clothes
Louise Arbour: Unindicted War Criminal
by Christopher Black and Edward S. Herman (6-14-00)
Among the many ironies of the NATO war against Yugoslavia was the role
of the International Criminal Tribunal and its chief prosecutor, Louise
Arbour, elevated by Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien to Canada's
highest court in 1999. It will be argued here that as Arbour and her
Tribunal played a key role in EXPEDITING war crimes, an excellent case
can be made that in a just world she would be in the dock rather than in
judicial robes.
Arbour To NATO's Rescue
In the midst of NATO's 78-day bombing campaign against Yugoslavia,
Arbour participated in an April 20 press conference with British Foreign
Secretary Robin Cook to receive from him documentation on Serb war
crimes. Then on May 27, Arbour announced the indictment of Serb
President Slobodan Milosevic and four of his associates for war crimes.
The inappropriateness of a supposedly judicial body doing this when
Germany, Russia and other powers were trying to find a diplomatic
resolution to the conflict, was staggering.
At the April 20 appearance with Cook, Arbour stated that
"It is inconceivable...that we would agree to be guided by the political
will of those who may want to advance an agenda."
But her appearance with Cook and the followup indictments fitted
perfectly the needs of the NATO leadership. There had been growing
criticism of NATO's increasingly civilian infrastructure-oriented
bombing of Serbia. Arbour's and the Tribunal's intervention declaring
the Serb leadership to be guilty of war crimes was a public relations
coup that justified the NATO policies and helped permit the bombing to
continue and escalate. This was pointed out repeatedly by NATO leaders
and propagandists: for example, Madeleine Albright noted that the
indictments
"make very clear to the world and the publics in our countries that this
[NATO policy] is justified because of the crimes committed, and I think
also will enable us to keep moving all these processes [i.e., bombing]
forward" (CNN, May 27).
Arbour herself noted that "I am mindful of the impact that this
indictment may have on the peace process," and although indicted
individuals are "entitled to the presumption of innocence until they are
convicted, the evidence upon which this indictment was confirmed raises
serious questions about their suitability to be guarantors of any deal,
let alone a peace agreement." (CNN, May 27). So Arbour not only
understood the political significance of her indictment, she suggested
that interference with diplomatic efforts was justified because the
indicted individuals, though not yet found guilty, were not suitable to
negotiate. This hugely unjudicial political judgment, along with the
convenient timing of the indictments, points up Arbour's and the
Tribunal's highly political role.
The Tribunal's Politicization
Arbour's service to NATO in indicting Milosevic was the logical outcome
of the Tribunal's de facto control and purpose. Established by the
Security Council in the early 1990s to serve the Balkan policy ends of
its dominant members, the Tribunal's funding and interlocking functional
relationship with the leading NATO powers have made it NATO's
instrument. (1)
Although Article 32 of the Tribunal's Charter declares that its expenses
shall be provided in the general budget of the United Nations, this
proviso has been regularly violated. In 1994-1995 the U.S. government
provided it with $700,000 in cash and $2.3 million in equipment, and
numerous other U.S.-based governmental and non- governmental agencies
have provided the Tribunal with resources.
Article 16 of the Tribunal's charter states that the Prosecutor shall
act independently and shall not seek or receive instruction from any
government. This section also has been systematically violated. NATO
sources have regularly made claims suggesting their authority over the
Tribunal: "We will make a decision on whether Yugoslav actions against
ethnic Albanians constitute genocide," states a USIA Fact Sheet, and
Cook asserted at his April 20 press conference with Arbour that "we are
going to focus on the war crimes being committed in Kosovo and our
determination to bring those responsible to justice, " as if he and
Arbour were a team jointly deciding on who should be charged for war
crimes.
Tribunal officials have even bragged about "the strong support of
concerned governments and dedicated individuals such as Secretary
Albright," further referred to as "mother of the Tribunal" (by Judge
Gabrielle Kirk McDonald, president of the Tribunal). In 1996 Arbour met
with the Secretary-General of NATO and its supreme commander to
"establish contacts and begin discussing modalities of cooperation and
assistance." Numerous other meetings have occurred between prosecutor
and NATO, which was given the function of Tribunal gendarme.
Arbour acknowleged (April 20) that "the real danger is whether we would
fall into [following somebody's political agenda] inadvertently by being
in the hands of information-providers who might have an agenda that we
would not be able to discern." But even an imbecile could discern that
NATO had an agenda and that simply accepting the flood of documents
offered by Cook and Albright entailed ADVERTENTLY following that agenda.
Arbour's April 20 reference to the "morality of the [NATO] enterprise"
and her remarks on Milosevic's possible lack of character disqualifying
him from negotiations, as well as her rush to help NATO with an
indictment, point to quite clearly understood political service.
The Arbour-Tribunal bias was dramatically illustrated by the disposition
of an internal Tribunal report on Operation Storm, which described war
crimes committed by the Croatian armed forces in their expulsion of more
than 200,000 Serbs from Krajina in August 1995. (6) In only four days
"at least 150 Serbs were summarily executed, and many hundreds
disappeared," totals that exceeded the 241 victims of the Serbs named in
the indictment of Milosevic. But as the United States supported the
Croat's ethnic cleansing of Serbs in Krajina, and refused to provide
requested information, no indictment of any Croat officer named in the
report, or head of state Tudjman, was ever brought by the Tribunal.
Tribunal's Kangaroo Court Processes
According to Arbour, the Tribunal was "subject to extremely stringent
rules of evidence with respect to the admissibility and the credibility
of the product that we will tender in court," thus precluding
"unsubstantiated, unverifiable, uncorroborated allegations" (April 20).
This is a gross misrepresentation of what John Laughland described in
the Times (London) as "a rogue court with rigged rules" (June 17, 1999).
The Tribunal violates virtually every standard of due process: among
others, it fails to separate prosecution and judge; witnesses can
testify anonymously; confessions are presumed free and voluntary unless
the contrary can be established by the prisoner; and "rules against
hearsay, deeply entrenched in Common Law, are not observed and the
Prosecutor's office has even suggested not calling witnesses to give
evidence but only the tribunal's own 'war crimes investigators'"
(Laughland).
As noted, Arbour presumes guilt before trial; the concept of "innocent
till convicted" is rejected, and she can declare that people linked with
Arkan "will be tainted by their association with an indicted war
criminal" (March 31). Arbour clearly does not believe in the basic rules
of Western jurisprudence. And within a month of her elevation to the
Canadian Supreme Court she joined a court majority that grafted onto
Canadian law the dangerous Tribunal practice of permitting a more
liberal use of hearsay evidence in trials. (2) The consequent corruption
of the Canadian justice system, both by her appointment and her impact,
mirrors that in the Canadian political system, whose leading members
supported the NATO war without question.
NATO's Crimes
In bombing Yugoslavia from March 24 to June 8 1999, NATO violated the UN
Charter requirement that it not use force without UN Security Council
sanction. (3) It was also guilty of aggression in attacking a sovereign
state that was not going beyond its borders. In its defense, NATO
claimed that "humanitarian" concerns demanded these actions and
justified seemingly serious law violations. (4) This reply sanctions law
violations on the basis of self-serving judgments that contradict the
rule of law, but it is also dubious on its own grounds. The NATO bombing
made "an internal humanitarian problem into a disaster" in the words of
Rollie Keith, the returned Canadian OSCE human rights monitor in Kosovo.
Furthermore, NATO refused to negotiate a settlement in Kosovo and
insisted on a violent solution; in the words of one State Department
official, NATO deliberately "raised the bar" and precluded a compromise
resolution because Serbia "needed to be bombed." These counter- facts
suggest that the alleged humanitarian basis of the law violations was a
cover for starkly political and geopolitical objectives.
NATO was also guilty of more traditional war crimes, including some that
the Tribunal had found indictable when [allegeldy] carried out by Serbs.
Thus on March 8, 1996, the Serb leader Milan Martic was indicted for
[allegeldy] launching a rocket cluster-bomb attack on military targets
in Zagreb in May 1995, on the ground that the rocket was "not designed
to hit military targets but to terrorize the civilians of Zagreb." But
the same case could be made for numerous NATO bombing raids, as in the
cluster-bombing of Nis on May 7, 1999, in which a market and hospital
far from any military target were hit in separate strikes--but no
indictment has yet been handed down against NATO.
But NATO was also guilty of bombing non-military targets as systematic
policy. On March 26, 1999, General Wesley Clark said that "We are going
to very systematically and progressively work on his military
forces...[to see] how much pain he is willing to suffer." But this focus
on "military forces" wasn't effective, so NATO quickly turned to "taking
down...the economic apparatus supporting" Serb military forces
(Clinton's words); targets were gradually extended to factories of all
kinds, electric power stations, water and sewage processing facilities,
transport, public buildings, and even schools and hospitals. In effect,
it was NATO's strategy to bring Serbia to its knees by gradually
escalating its attacks on the civil society.
But international law makes civilian targets off limits; the "wanton
destruction of cities, towns or villages or devastation not justified by
military necessity" is prohibited (Sixth Principle of Nuremberg,
formulated in 1950 by a UN-sponsored international law commission).
"Military necessity" does not allow the destruction of a civil society
to make it more difficult for the country to support its armed forces,
any more than civilians can be killed directly because they pay taxes
supporting the war machine or might some day become soldiers. Making an
entire population a hostage is a blatant violation of international law
and its implementing acts are war crimes.
In December 1999, it was finally reported that post-Arbour prosecutor
Carla Del Ponte was reviewing the conduct of NATO, at the urging of
Russia and several other "interested parties" ("U.N. Court Examines
NATO's Yugoslavia War," NYT, Dec. 29, 1999). But the news report
indicates that the focus is on the conduct of NATO pilots and their
commanders, not the NATO decision-makers who decided to target the
civilian infrastructure. It also suggests the public relations nature of
the inquiry, which would "go far in dispelling the belief...that the
tribunal is a tool used by Western leaders to escape accountability."
The report also indicates the delicate matter that the tribunal "depends
on the military alliance to arrest and hand over suspects." It also
quotes Del Ponte saying that "It's not my priority, because I have
inquiries about genocide, about bodies in mass graves." We may rest
assured that no indictments will result from this inquiry.
Beyond Orwell
NATO's leaders, frustrated in attacking the Serb military machine, quite
openly turned to smashing the civil society of Serbia as their means of
attaining the desired quick victory. Arbour and the Tribunal helped NATO
by indicting Milosevic, thereby giving NATO the moral cover needed for
escalated attacks on the hostage population.
Arbour and the Tribunal thus present us with the amazing spectacle of an
institution supposedly organized to contain, prevent, and prosecute for
war crimes actually knowingly facilitating them. Furthermore, petitions
submitted to the Tribunal during Arbour's tenure had called for
prosecution of the leaders of NATO, including Canadian Prime Minister
Jean Chretien, for the commission of war crimes. If she had been a
prosecutor in Canada, Britain or the United States, she would have been
subject to disbarment for considering and then accepting a job from a
person she had been asked to charge. But Arbour was elevated to the
Supreme Court of Canada by Chretien with hardly a mention of this
conflict of interest and immorality. **
About the authors...
Christopher Black (5) is part of the team of Canadian lawyers who have
attempted to bring war crimes charges against NATO before the War Crimes
Tribunal. At present, Mr. Black is serving as the attorney for one of
the defendant at the Rwandan war crimes hearings. He believes that
Western meddling is in large measure responsible for the horrendous
killing in Rwanda. He plans to write an article for Emperors-Clothes on
the subject.
Edward S. Herman is the author of many books including 'Real Terror
Network: Terrorism in Fact and Propaganda' (June 1998) and 'Triumph of
the Market: Essays on Economics, Politics, and the Media' (October
1995).
Further reading...
(1) See Money Talks - US Funds ICTY Public Relations at
http://emperors-clothes.com/news/press.htm
(2) Back to the dark ages by Jared Israel at
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/bac.htm
(3) See NATO's War & World Security by Prof. Raju G. C. Thomas at
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/analysis/security.htm
(4) See HUMANITARIAN WAR: Making the Crime Fit the Punishment by Diana
Johnstone at
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/articles/Johnstone/crime.htm
(5) See An Impartial Tribunal? Really? by Christopher Black at
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/analysis/Impartial.htm
(6)See Conditions of Serbs in Croatia, by Alice Mahon, MP at
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/articles/mahon/croatia.htm
---
>Tribunal Watch archives are on-line at:
>http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/archives/
>==========================================
>
>CANA (Christians Against NATO Aggression)
>Statement from William Spring, Director
>
>CARLA DEL PONTE SHOULD RESIGN AS WAR CRIMES PROSECUTOR
>
>Carla del Ponte should resign as war crimes prosecutor for the Hague
>Tribunal responsible for War Crimes in the area of the Former Yugoslavia.
>She has brought international law into disrepute by her decision announced
>to the Security Council June 2nd not to prosecute NATO leaders for war
>crimes committed by NATO forces in relation to the illegal military attack
>on Yugoslavia last year.
>
>Thomas Fuller, as quoted by the late Lord Denning, Master of the Rolls,
>said: "whoever you are the law is above you." In effect Carla del Ponte has
>put NATO civilian & military leaders beyond the law - has given them
>immunity to engage in whatever criminal action they like. A disgrace to
>the legal profession she should be replaced forthwith by the UN Secretary
>General.
>
>Her investigation into allegations made, not only by the Russian, Yugoslav
>& Chinese Governments concerning NATO war crimes, but also by ordinary
>people across the world, (in which I include CANA, as we detailed specific
>NATO atrocities in a dossier sent to her January 28th this year) was at
>best cursory; at worst her inaction can be interpreted as the frantic
>manoeuvrings of a mafia judge eager to please her mafia paymasters.
>Someone should do an investigation into the War Crimes Tribunal & her
>role, & that of of her predecessor, Ms Arbour. How is this body financed?
>Is it a legal entity? Does the UN Charter allow for new Institutions to be
>created simply on the say so of the Security Council?
>
>What has happened is a juridical nightmare; a nominally independent
>prosecutor, who in fact is leaned on, & responds to pressure from
>representatives of whatever coalition of powers happens to hold most
>influence in the Security Council at any one time.
>
>Her willingness to receive Jamie Shea, & Robin Cook, in her office at the
>Hague, while still theoretically engaged in an investigation as to whether
>NATO had committed war crimes was reprehensible, indicating collusion &
>undue influence. She should have had the courage to stand up to gangsters
>who 'fix' international Courts in the same way as Clinton fixed Congress to
>avoid impeachment.
>
>Her Office wrote to me 15th March stating "aerial warfare is a complex
>area of military international law involving difficult issues of targeting
>& execution." That may be so, but is not an excuse to duck the moral
>questions involved. The Prosecutor gets NATO off the hook by saying she is
>not satisfied there was 'intent' on the part of the NATO authorities to
>cause civilian casualties, which misses the point entirely: all deaths
>caused by those responsible for a war of aggression, whether they be
>military or civilian, are unlawful homicides, & it's not necessary to prove
>intent for every act which flowed from the decision to engage in aggressive
>war. But in the 15th March letter Gavin Ruxton said "The Prosecutor has no
>locus to consider the lawfulness or otherwise of the NATO decision to
>launch its air campaign": which means the Tribunal is disqualified from
>making any finding acquitting NATO of war crimes. (There is of course
>unambiguous evidence of NATO's intent to cause civilian casualties.)
>
>___________________________________________________________________________
___
>For further info tel 02088022144 cana@... also diarise
>House of Lords Cttee Room 4 12 noon 28th June 2000 Press Conference by
>Justin/Cana/Planning for Peace
>
>===========================================================================
=
>To unsubscribe from TWATCH-L: Send an e-mail to
LISTSERV@...
> In your message, type in the command: SIGNOFF TWATCH-L
>
>To resubscribe to TW, send this message to the same address: SUBSCRIBE
TWATCH-L [name of person]
>Send questions, comments, suggestions to:
> twatch-l-request@...
---
From: Herman de Tollenaere <hermantl@...>
To: right-left@...,Questo indirizzo email è protetto dagli spambots. È necessario abilitare JavaScript per vederlo.;,
Questo indirizzo email è protetto dagli spambots. È necessario abilitare JavaScript per vederlo.
Subject: 9 June Amsterdam: report on Dutch ministers on trial for NATO
bombing
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 00:24:20 +0200
[Unofficial report, hastily written by a non-lawyer]
On Friday 9 June, at the "Paleis van Justitie" [court house] in
Amsterdam,
Dutch Government Ministers were on trial for the NATO bombing of
Yugoslavia
in 1999.
As I walk to the court house, posters of a beer brand proclaim
"Yugoslavs
like our drink". Maybe, like people in Colombia or in Sierra Leone. All
these people, however, might think one drinks more safely if there is
less
chance of dying by a bomb or other weapon made in a NATO country.
Opening
headline of the day of daily De Volkskrant: the Dutch UN representative
says
that the Netherlands armed forces should get over their Balkans trauma
by
sending a thousand soldiers to Sierra Leone. The British NATO allies
would
like that. Might the Dutch soldiers not find out too late they go there,
like to the Balkans, not really for peace; but maybe for British diamond
millionaires, fighting out their conflict with French diamond
millionaires
at the cost of lives of European soldiers and [especially] African
soldiers,
including child soldiers, and civilians? Remember racism and escalating
violence, when troops from NATO countries were supposed to bring peace
to
Somalia?
Police had not allowed a demonstration, which would have started at 10
o'clock. The case starts 11 o'clock at the "Paleis van Justitie",
Prinsengracht 434 in Amsterdam. Long before the start, people gather
outside. Pro peace leaflets change hands. A big banner goes aloft: NATO
OUT
OF THE BALKANS. It is held by a local anti war committee member, and by
a
twentyish Amsterdam university student. She is here with others of De
Socialist magazine, also present at earlier peace demonstrations.
Celine is there as well. Though more than fifty-five years ago, the Nazi
occupiers of The Netherlands put her in a camp, today she still fights
against racism and war. She is of De Anti Fascist. This is the magazine
of
the Bond van Anti Fascisten [Anti Fascist League], founded by ex members
of
the 1940-1945 resistance against German Nazi occupation. Later, younger
fighters against present day racism and other forms of discrimination
joined. The Anti Fascist League is a main source making it financially
possible to have this case: as the Yugoslav plaintiffs are very poor,
having
often lost jobs and everything by the war.
Speaking of media: a TV crew of the local [multicultural] Amsterdam TV
records the scene outside and the court case inside. Radio The
Netherlands
World Broadcasting is there; as are correspondents of De Volkskrant and
Bosnian media. Yesterday, an article in Ganashakti daily, all the way in
India, told its readers of the case.
In 1999, 29 citizens of Yugoslavia, victims of the bombs, started this
civil
court case against Ministers Kok [Prime Minister], Van Aartsen [Foreign
Affairs], and De Grave [Defense]. In May/June 1999, the judge did not
grant
their request for summary proceedings. However, he also did not throw
out
the case, as pro-war politicians might have liked. Similar court cases
are
on their way in other NATO countries; though often, in these countries
the
legal system works a little slower, or is more expensive for plaintiffs,
than in The Netherlands. In The Netherlands, there are now also cases
against the State [so, not against ministers individually, like in this
case]; other Dutch civil cases against individuals; and World Court
cases
for violation of UN Charter point 2 sub 4, against military aggression.
In a
few months' time, the case brought by surviving families of the bombed
Belgrade television studio crew members will start in The Netherlands.
Before a full big court room, Mr Van Schendel, court president, first
arranges for the media representatives' reporting. Then, he calls upon
the
bombs victims' lawyers to speak. He grants them one hour. As twenty
minutes
is usual for lawyers in civil cases, this indicates some sense of the
juridical importance of this case.
These lawyers are Mr Steijnen and Mr Olof, of Juristen voor de Vrede
[Lawyers for Peace] and the Permanente Commissie [Permanent Legal
Commission
against Dutch War Crimes]. Lawyers for Peace have a long history of
legal
challenges to the Dutch government for allowing NATO nuclear weapons in
The
Netherlands [officially, the people are not allowed to know whether the
nuclear weapons are there or not].
Mr Olof pointed out NATO's war was against the United Nations charter
and
international law. Mr Steijnen pointed out that the Dutch government,
like
NATO, claims NATO's targets were all military. The civilian victims
supposedly were "collateral damage". Really? asked Mr Steijnen. NATO
destroyed fifty churches and monasteries, over three hundred schools;
many
bridges unsuited for military vehicles; buses; passenger trains; TV
studios;
cigarette factories; 100% of chemical industry and 100% of agricultural
fertilizer industry in Yugoslavia; even apart from depleted uranium
ammunition radiation, creating enormous environmental damage. NATO used
cluster bombs.
Conservative pro NATO estimates say 1000 civilians died, 6000 were
wounded.
The MEAT report of the United States Air Force, quoted by Newsweek and
others, says all the weeks of air war destroyed 14 Yugoslav tanks, 18
armed
vehicles, 20 pieces of artillery. If we base ourselves on the
conservative
estimate of civilian victims: then, 70 civilians died for every Yugoslav
tank. Would it not be more accurate to say civilians and civilian
targets
were the real targets, and the damage against Yugoslav army vehicles and
artillery really was "collateral" damage? NATO leaders themselves
basically
admitted this [eg, when asked: why did the Yugoslav government finally
admit NATO troops in Kosovo? Eg, General Short said on BBC television
the
first target [to his regret, only destroyed later] should have been the
"rock and roll bridge" in Belgrade, where young people had concerts
against
the bombing].
Concluding, Mr Steijnen named three random examples of the plaintiffs.
One
worked as a car mechanic in Montenegro. The war started; very worried
about
his family in Belgrade, he went there, and parked his car. NATO bombs
fell
and destroyed the car. This loss meant also the loss of his mechanic's
job.
Now, he has nothing.
Another plaintiff worked in a small businessman's garage. A bomb
destroyed
the garage and the cars in it. Now, the employer is jobless and hungry.
So
is the employee.
A third example: this man used to work in a metal working factory. Bombs
totally destroyed the factory. Like its other 8000 workers, now he is
jobless.
For the ministers, Mr Houtzagers spoke. He quoted from a political
government statement, claiming NATO became involved as it worried about
stability of Albania and Macedonia [both non NATO members; and how did
the
war 'help stability' of these countries, let alone of Kosovo? Mr
Steijnen
replied]. And 'Yugoslavia had refused to negotiate seriously in
Rambouillet
[and how about NATO's proposed Appendix B, amounting to de facto
occupation
of all Yugoslavia?]'. Repeatedly interrupted by judges' critical
questions,
Mr Houtzagers talked about the legal base for the NATO attack. He
admitted
that UN Resolution 1199 was not such a legal base; nevertheless, the
government used it as justification. Mr Steijnen pointed out that only
one
member of the Dutch parliament, Mr Van Middelkoop, had known about
Resolution 1199. So, then, how about democratic control by parliament on
whether The Netherlands were at war or not [not even Prime Minister Kok
knew
when the bombing started]?
Mr Houtzagers also said the ministers could not be sued, 'as they had
acted
as organs of the State'. In reply, Mr Steijnen pointed out that at the
1945
Nuremberg trials, the court had rejected such a defense. *Individuals*
commit war crimes. The Nuremburg decisions are important in
international
law; though in its defence the Dutch government now more or less tries
to
dismiss them. They were part of the precedents claimed, by, for
instance,
the 1993 establishment of the court on Yugoslavia in The Hague. Mr
Steijnen
said: "How would a court react to General Pinochet claiming he had not
been
an individual, only '"an organ of the state"?
To the argument: "the war is over now, so the plaintiffs have no case
anymore. [Two of the plaintiffs last year complained, as the war had
made
them join the Yugoslav army as conscripts, thus putting them in danger
involuntarily]", Mr Steijnen replied the plaintiffs still were in
danger,
also if they would all continue to be civilians as at the moment; as
there
was only a cease fire, not peace. If one listens today to Dutch and
other
NATO leaders they may not yet have learned not to start a similar war
again
against Yugoslavia [or against another country].
President Van Schendel concluded the session by saying that the court
decision will, in principle, become public at 6 July, at 11.30 in the
same
court house. However, Mr Van Schendel left open the possibility that the
court would need more time for the legal complexities of the case; then,
the
verdict would be later.
Even if Lawyers for Peace lose the case in Amsterdam, they will appeal,
all
the way up to the European Court.
After the court case, Mr Houtzagers, contrary to the bombs victims'
lawyers,
refused to answer media questions. Later that day, there was a meeting.
Other Dutch ministers may also face civil cases. So may F16 pilots. So
may
pro-war Members of Parliament like Mr Blaauw of the ["Rightist Liberal"]
VVD
government party: Blaauw, during the Balkan war, talked of glorious
profit
opportunities for Dutch construction millionaires in Kosovo, after the
NATO
bombs would have done their job. Mr Blaauw is also a leader of the Press
Now
organization; officially for 'independent' [in fact, NATOish] media in
the
Balkans. Maybe, also a civil case by people hurt by the bombs, against
Mr De
Hoop Scheffer of the ["Christian Democrat"] CDA [very pro bombing,
though
officially in opposition].
And, maybe also civil damages claims against Marcel Rüter, businessman,
and
leader of the extreme Rightist Voorpost ["Vanguard"] movement, not
represented in government or parliament, which made pro bombing
propaganda.
Mr Rüter is an ex leader of the Centrumpartij'86, members of which used
to
rally for Adolf Hitler and his deputy, Rudolf Hess. Used to, *as
Centrumpartij'86 people*; because a few years ago, the courts banned
this
party for racism; after members had gone to jail for violence. In 1999
Voorpost tried a political comeback on the wave of pro-war and
anti-Serb-anti-Roma-and-anti-other-foreigner propaganda in the 'popular'
media. Maybe an opportunity for the Anti Fascist League to figuratively
"kill the two birds, of war and racism, with one stone"?
Best wishes,
Herman de Tollenaere
---
http://www.counterpunch.com
CounterPunch [Originally published at Swans: http://www.swans.com]
June 4, 2000
An Impartial Tribunal, Really?
By Christopher Black
-
http://www.serbianna.com/dorich/stories/00_06_09.html
The Road To Hell Is Paved With Good Intentions
By William Dorich
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------
* Amnesty International sul Tribunale "ad hoc" dell'Aia
* Carla del Ponte, criminale di guerra impunita
* Richiesta di dimissioni per Carla del Ponte
* Il governo olandese sotto processo
---
DIRITTO INTERNAZIONALE E LEGALITA' BORGHESE
In seguito al nostro ultimo messaggio sui crimini della NATO
(http://www.egroups.com/message/crj-mailinglist/286?&start=263)
abbiamo ricevuto da Luca il seguente commento:
> Ho letto l' articolo sulle leggi di guerra.
> A me pare pericoloso appoggiare le critiche alla guerra ed alla nato in
> particolare seguendo un approccio "legalitario".
>
> Le forze borghesi amano le cosiddette convenzioni di guerra perche' esse
> fanno parte della copertura ideologica della guerra ....Forse si
> dovrebbero mostrare le inconsistenze logiche insite negli argomenti
> legalisti. Soprattutto per quanto concerne
> i "coccodrilli " del manifesto
>
> o no?
Sicuramente! Tuttavia sottolineare queste come altre violazioni della
legalita' borghese commesse da parte della stessa borghesia ha un suo
significato. In pratica si tratta del "sovversivismo
delle classi dirigenti", lo stesso fenomeno che ci ha portato al
fascismo ed al nazismo, quando la classe dirigente rompe le leggi che
essa stessa ha formulato. Questo puo' avere due ricadute:
- o si prefigura come scontro inter-borghese (inter-imperialista);
- oppure semplicemente significa una deriva autoritaria, quando anche le
garanzie, gli spazi della democrazia borghese ci vengono sottratte;
oppure tutte e due le cose insieme. Percio' ci sembra importante
evidenziare quando questo succede. CRJ
---
Subject: YUGOSLAVIA: Amnesty International's initial comments
on the review by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former
Yugoslavia of NATO's Operation Allied Force
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 09:06:13 -0400
From: amnesty@...
Reply-To: owner-amnesty-l@...
To: amnesty-L@...
* News Release Issued by the International Secretariat of Amnesty
International *
Amnesty International Public document
AI Index EUR 70/029/2000
News Service Nr. 116
13 June 2000
Amnesty International's initial comments on the review by the
International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia of NATO's
Operation Allied Force
The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) has
published today the Final Report to the Prosecutor by the Committee
Established to Review the NATO Bombing Campaign Against the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia. The report examines general issues and five
specific incidents and recommends to the ICTY Prosecutor not to commence
a criminal investigation "in relation to the NATO bombing campaign or
incidents occurring during the campaign" (para 91).
Ms Carla Del Ponte, ICTY's Prosecutor, informed the United Nations'
Security Council on 2 June 2000 that she had decided to accept this
recommendation. She specifies that although some mistakes were made by
NATO, "the Prosecutor is satisfied that there was no deliberate
targeting of civilians or unlawful military targets by NATO during the
campaign".
Amnesty International has received a copy of the 45-page ICTY report and
is examining it carefully. All five incidents examined in the report by
ICTY's review committee were included in the Amnesty International
report, Collateral Damage or Unlawful Killings?, Violations of the Laws
of War by NATO during Operation Allied Force, published last week (AI
Index: EUR 70/18/00).
Amnesty International welcomes the unusual publication by the ICTY of
the reasoning behind the decision not to open an investigation related
to NATO's bombing campaign. The organization believes that this step
contributes greatly to the Tribunal's transparency, offering important
perspectives on the interpretation of the laws of war.
Amnesty International also respects the discretion enjoyed by the ICTY's
Prosecutor in deciding whether or not to open criminal investigations.
The organization understands that, as with other cases, the Prosecutor
may still decide to open an investigation into the NATO bombing should
additional relevant information become available.
Amnesty International notes that the report of the ICTY assessment
indicates that when NATO was requested "to answer specific questions
about specific incidents, the NATO reply was couched in general terms
and failed to address the specific incidents." The report also points
out that the "committee has not spoken to those involved in directing or
carrying out the bombing campaign". These facts must have contributed to
the information gaps that the committee itself acknowledges in its
report. Amnesty International also notes the following overall
conclusion of the review committee (para 90):
"NATO has admitted that mistakes did occur during the bombing campaign;
errors of judgment may also have occurred. Selection of certain
objectives for attack may be subject to legal debate. On the basis of
the information reviewed, however, the committee is of the opinion that
neither an in-depth investigation related to the bombing campaign as a
whole nor investigations related to specific incidents are justified. In
all cases, either the law is not sufficiently clear or investigations
are unlikely to result in the acquisition of sufficient evidence to
substantiate charges against high level accused or against lower accused
for particularly heinous offences."
The report does not explain what difficulties are envisaged by the
Office of the Prosecutor in gathering sufficient evidence against any
NATO or NATO member state official.
With regard to the bombing of the headquarters and studios of Serbian
state television and radio (Radio Televisija Srbije, RTS) in Belgrade on
23 April 1999, the report states (para 76):
"The committee finds that if the attack on the RTS was justified by
reference to its propaganda purpose alone, its legality might well be
questioned by some experts in the field of international humanitarian
law. It appears, however, that NATO's targeting of the RTS building for
propaganda purposes was an incidental (albeit complementary) aim of its
primary goal of disabling the Serbian military command and control
system and to destroy the nerve system and apparatus that keeps
Milosevic in power."
Earlier (para 55) the report made the following observation regarding
the role of the media in general:
"The media as such is not a traditional target category. To the extent
particular media components are part of the C3 (command, control and
communications) network they are military objectives. If media
components are not part of the C3 network then they may become military
objectives depending upon their use. As a bottom line, civilians,
civilian objects and civilian morale as such are not legitimate military
objectives. The media does have an effect on civilian morale. If that
effect is merely to foster support for the war effort, the media is not
a legitimate military objective. If the media is used to incite crimes,
as in Rwanda, it can become a legitimate military objective. If the
media is the nerve system that keeps a war-monger in power and thus
perpetuates the war effort, it may fall within the definition of a
legitimate military objective."
Amnesty International reiterates that the explanation it sought and
received by NATO regarding the attack on the RTS headquarters was that
the attack was carried out because the RTS was a propaganda organ. In a
letter to Amnesty International dated 17 May 1999 and quoted in ICTY's
report (para 73), NATO's then Secretary General Javier Solana said that
NATO made "every possible effort to avoid civilian casualties and
collateral damage by exclusively and carefully targeting the military
infrastructure of President Milocevic", adding that the RTS facilities
"are being used as radio relay stations and transmitters to support the
activities of the FRY military and special police forces, and therefore
they represented legitimate military targets". However, as also
indicated in the Amnesty International report published last week, at a
meeting with Amnesty International in Brussels on 14 February 2000 NATO
officials clarified that this reference to relay stations and
transmitters was to other attacks on RTS infrastructure and not this
particular attack on the RTS headquarters. They insisted that the attack
on the RTS headquarters was carried out because RTS was a propaganda
organ and argued that propaganda is direct support for military action.
The point relating to propaganda has been made repeatedly, most recently
by General Wesley Clark, Supreme Allied Commander in Europe at the time
of Operation Allied Force. In an address at the Brookings Institution on
8 June 2000 he is quoted as saying:
"I noticed on the news today there is criticism of the attack on the
Serb media. Well, of course, that was a controversial target. But the
Serb media engine was feeding the war. It was a crucial instrument of
Milosevic's control over the Serb population. And it exported fear,
hatred and instability into neighbouring regions. And so it was a
legitimate target of war, validated by lawyers in many countries and
validated by the International Criminal Tribunal. But it sure eased our
minds a lot to know that our elected political leaders took the
responsibility for that strike."
As explained in its report last week, Amnesty International recognizes
that disrupting government propaganda may help to undermine the morale
of the population and the armed forces. However, the organization
believes that justifying an attack on such grounds stretches the meaning
of "effective contribution to military action" and "definite military
advantage" -- essential requirements of the definition of a military
objective -- beyond the acceptable bounds of interpretation. As such,
Amnesty International takes the view that the attack on the RTS
headquarters was directed at a civilian object and points out that
"[I]ntentionally directing attacks against civilian objects" is a war
crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
Amnesty International regrets the lack of full cooperation by NATO in
resposnding to ICTY's inquiries. The organization stresses that the fact
that the ICTY Prosecutor has decided not to open a criminal
investigation against NATO should not lead NATO to ignore the detailed
and nuanced contents of the ICTY report, or dismiss recommendations made
by Amnesty International and other organizations.
Amnesty International calls again on NATO and NATO member states to heed
the recommendations it made in its report published last week, including
the need for all NATO member states to ratify without reservations
Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949; ensure a common
interpretation of international humanitarian law in line with the
highest international standards; reflect these standards in NATO's rules
of engagement; and clarify NATO's chain of command, so as to ensure
clear lines of responsibility.
NATO and NATO member states should also conduct their own investigation
into reported breaches of the rules of war during Operation Allied
Force, whether or not they may amount to war crimes, so as to take
appropriate measures against anyone found responsible, provide redress,
including compensation, to victims of such violations, and learn lessons
for the future. ...
ENDS.../
Amnesty International, International Secretariat, 1 Easton Street,
WC1X 8DJ, London, United Kingdom
****************************************************************
You may repost this message onto other sources provided the main
text is not altered in any way and both the header crediting
Amnesty International and this footer remain intact. Only the
list subscription message may be removed.
****************************************************************
To subscribe to amnesty-L, send a message to <majordomo@...>
with "subscribe amnesty-L" in the message body. To unsubscribe,
send a message to <majordomo@...> with "unsubscribe amnesty-L"
in the message body. If you have problem signing off, contact
<owner-amnesty-L@...>. <owner-amnesty-L@...> handles
only messages concerning list administration. Past and current Amnesty
news services can be found at <http://www.amnesty.org/news/>.
Visit <http://www.amnesty.org> for information about Amnesty
International
and for other AI publications. Contact amnestyis@... if you
need to get in touch with the International Secretariat of Amnesty
International.
---
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/indexe.htm
The Emperor's New Clothes
Louise Arbour: Unindicted War Criminal
by Christopher Black and Edward S. Herman (6-14-00)
Among the many ironies of the NATO war against Yugoslavia was the role
of the International Criminal Tribunal and its chief prosecutor, Louise
Arbour, elevated by Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien to Canada's
highest court in 1999. It will be argued here that as Arbour and her
Tribunal played a key role in EXPEDITING war crimes, an excellent case
can be made that in a just world she would be in the dock rather than in
judicial robes.
Arbour To NATO's Rescue
In the midst of NATO's 78-day bombing campaign against Yugoslavia,
Arbour participated in an April 20 press conference with British Foreign
Secretary Robin Cook to receive from him documentation on Serb war
crimes. Then on May 27, Arbour announced the indictment of Serb
President Slobodan Milosevic and four of his associates for war crimes.
The inappropriateness of a supposedly judicial body doing this when
Germany, Russia and other powers were trying to find a diplomatic
resolution to the conflict, was staggering.
At the April 20 appearance with Cook, Arbour stated that
"It is inconceivable...that we would agree to be guided by the political
will of those who may want to advance an agenda."
But her appearance with Cook and the followup indictments fitted
perfectly the needs of the NATO leadership. There had been growing
criticism of NATO's increasingly civilian infrastructure-oriented
bombing of Serbia. Arbour's and the Tribunal's intervention declaring
the Serb leadership to be guilty of war crimes was a public relations
coup that justified the NATO policies and helped permit the bombing to
continue and escalate. This was pointed out repeatedly by NATO leaders
and propagandists: for example, Madeleine Albright noted that the
indictments
"make very clear to the world and the publics in our countries that this
[NATO policy] is justified because of the crimes committed, and I think
also will enable us to keep moving all these processes [i.e., bombing]
forward" (CNN, May 27).
Arbour herself noted that "I am mindful of the impact that this
indictment may have on the peace process," and although indicted
individuals are "entitled to the presumption of innocence until they are
convicted, the evidence upon which this indictment was confirmed raises
serious questions about their suitability to be guarantors of any deal,
let alone a peace agreement." (CNN, May 27). So Arbour not only
understood the political significance of her indictment, she suggested
that interference with diplomatic efforts was justified because the
indicted individuals, though not yet found guilty, were not suitable to
negotiate. This hugely unjudicial political judgment, along with the
convenient timing of the indictments, points up Arbour's and the
Tribunal's highly political role.
The Tribunal's Politicization
Arbour's service to NATO in indicting Milosevic was the logical outcome
of the Tribunal's de facto control and purpose. Established by the
Security Council in the early 1990s to serve the Balkan policy ends of
its dominant members, the Tribunal's funding and interlocking functional
relationship with the leading NATO powers have made it NATO's
instrument. (1)
Although Article 32 of the Tribunal's Charter declares that its expenses
shall be provided in the general budget of the United Nations, this
proviso has been regularly violated. In 1994-1995 the U.S. government
provided it with $700,000 in cash and $2.3 million in equipment, and
numerous other U.S.-based governmental and non- governmental agencies
have provided the Tribunal with resources.
Article 16 of the Tribunal's charter states that the Prosecutor shall
act independently and shall not seek or receive instruction from any
government. This section also has been systematically violated. NATO
sources have regularly made claims suggesting their authority over the
Tribunal: "We will make a decision on whether Yugoslav actions against
ethnic Albanians constitute genocide," states a USIA Fact Sheet, and
Cook asserted at his April 20 press conference with Arbour that "we are
going to focus on the war crimes being committed in Kosovo and our
determination to bring those responsible to justice, " as if he and
Arbour were a team jointly deciding on who should be charged for war
crimes.
Tribunal officials have even bragged about "the strong support of
concerned governments and dedicated individuals such as Secretary
Albright," further referred to as "mother of the Tribunal" (by Judge
Gabrielle Kirk McDonald, president of the Tribunal). In 1996 Arbour met
with the Secretary-General of NATO and its supreme commander to
"establish contacts and begin discussing modalities of cooperation and
assistance." Numerous other meetings have occurred between prosecutor
and NATO, which was given the function of Tribunal gendarme.
Arbour acknowleged (April 20) that "the real danger is whether we would
fall into [following somebody's political agenda] inadvertently by being
in the hands of information-providers who might have an agenda that we
would not be able to discern." But even an imbecile could discern that
NATO had an agenda and that simply accepting the flood of documents
offered by Cook and Albright entailed ADVERTENTLY following that agenda.
Arbour's April 20 reference to the "morality of the [NATO] enterprise"
and her remarks on Milosevic's possible lack of character disqualifying
him from negotiations, as well as her rush to help NATO with an
indictment, point to quite clearly understood political service.
The Arbour-Tribunal bias was dramatically illustrated by the disposition
of an internal Tribunal report on Operation Storm, which described war
crimes committed by the Croatian armed forces in their expulsion of more
than 200,000 Serbs from Krajina in August 1995. (6) In only four days
"at least 150 Serbs were summarily executed, and many hundreds
disappeared," totals that exceeded the 241 victims of the Serbs named in
the indictment of Milosevic. But as the United States supported the
Croat's ethnic cleansing of Serbs in Krajina, and refused to provide
requested information, no indictment of any Croat officer named in the
report, or head of state Tudjman, was ever brought by the Tribunal.
Tribunal's Kangaroo Court Processes
According to Arbour, the Tribunal was "subject to extremely stringent
rules of evidence with respect to the admissibility and the credibility
of the product that we will tender in court," thus precluding
"unsubstantiated, unverifiable, uncorroborated allegations" (April 20).
This is a gross misrepresentation of what John Laughland described in
the Times (London) as "a rogue court with rigged rules" (June 17, 1999).
The Tribunal violates virtually every standard of due process: among
others, it fails to separate prosecution and judge; witnesses can
testify anonymously; confessions are presumed free and voluntary unless
the contrary can be established by the prisoner; and "rules against
hearsay, deeply entrenched in Common Law, are not observed and the
Prosecutor's office has even suggested not calling witnesses to give
evidence but only the tribunal's own 'war crimes investigators'"
(Laughland).
As noted, Arbour presumes guilt before trial; the concept of "innocent
till convicted" is rejected, and she can declare that people linked with
Arkan "will be tainted by their association with an indicted war
criminal" (March 31). Arbour clearly does not believe in the basic rules
of Western jurisprudence. And within a month of her elevation to the
Canadian Supreme Court she joined a court majority that grafted onto
Canadian law the dangerous Tribunal practice of permitting a more
liberal use of hearsay evidence in trials. (2) The consequent corruption
of the Canadian justice system, both by her appointment and her impact,
mirrors that in the Canadian political system, whose leading members
supported the NATO war without question.
NATO's Crimes
In bombing Yugoslavia from March 24 to June 8 1999, NATO violated the UN
Charter requirement that it not use force without UN Security Council
sanction. (3) It was also guilty of aggression in attacking a sovereign
state that was not going beyond its borders. In its defense, NATO
claimed that "humanitarian" concerns demanded these actions and
justified seemingly serious law violations. (4) This reply sanctions law
violations on the basis of self-serving judgments that contradict the
rule of law, but it is also dubious on its own grounds. The NATO bombing
made "an internal humanitarian problem into a disaster" in the words of
Rollie Keith, the returned Canadian OSCE human rights monitor in Kosovo.
Furthermore, NATO refused to negotiate a settlement in Kosovo and
insisted on a violent solution; in the words of one State Department
official, NATO deliberately "raised the bar" and precluded a compromise
resolution because Serbia "needed to be bombed." These counter- facts
suggest that the alleged humanitarian basis of the law violations was a
cover for starkly political and geopolitical objectives.
NATO was also guilty of more traditional war crimes, including some that
the Tribunal had found indictable when [allegeldy] carried out by Serbs.
Thus on March 8, 1996, the Serb leader Milan Martic was indicted for
[allegeldy] launching a rocket cluster-bomb attack on military targets
in Zagreb in May 1995, on the ground that the rocket was "not designed
to hit military targets but to terrorize the civilians of Zagreb." But
the same case could be made for numerous NATO bombing raids, as in the
cluster-bombing of Nis on May 7, 1999, in which a market and hospital
far from any military target were hit in separate strikes--but no
indictment has yet been handed down against NATO.
But NATO was also guilty of bombing non-military targets as systematic
policy. On March 26, 1999, General Wesley Clark said that "We are going
to very systematically and progressively work on his military
forces...[to see] how much pain he is willing to suffer." But this focus
on "military forces" wasn't effective, so NATO quickly turned to "taking
down...the economic apparatus supporting" Serb military forces
(Clinton's words); targets were gradually extended to factories of all
kinds, electric power stations, water and sewage processing facilities,
transport, public buildings, and even schools and hospitals. In effect,
it was NATO's strategy to bring Serbia to its knees by gradually
escalating its attacks on the civil society.
But international law makes civilian targets off limits; the "wanton
destruction of cities, towns or villages or devastation not justified by
military necessity" is prohibited (Sixth Principle of Nuremberg,
formulated in 1950 by a UN-sponsored international law commission).
"Military necessity" does not allow the destruction of a civil society
to make it more difficult for the country to support its armed forces,
any more than civilians can be killed directly because they pay taxes
supporting the war machine or might some day become soldiers. Making an
entire population a hostage is a blatant violation of international law
and its implementing acts are war crimes.
In December 1999, it was finally reported that post-Arbour prosecutor
Carla Del Ponte was reviewing the conduct of NATO, at the urging of
Russia and several other "interested parties" ("U.N. Court Examines
NATO's Yugoslavia War," NYT, Dec. 29, 1999). But the news report
indicates that the focus is on the conduct of NATO pilots and their
commanders, not the NATO decision-makers who decided to target the
civilian infrastructure. It also suggests the public relations nature of
the inquiry, which would "go far in dispelling the belief...that the
tribunal is a tool used by Western leaders to escape accountability."
The report also indicates the delicate matter that the tribunal "depends
on the military alliance to arrest and hand over suspects." It also
quotes Del Ponte saying that "It's not my priority, because I have
inquiries about genocide, about bodies in mass graves." We may rest
assured that no indictments will result from this inquiry.
Beyond Orwell
NATO's leaders, frustrated in attacking the Serb military machine, quite
openly turned to smashing the civil society of Serbia as their means of
attaining the desired quick victory. Arbour and the Tribunal helped NATO
by indicting Milosevic, thereby giving NATO the moral cover needed for
escalated attacks on the hostage population.
Arbour and the Tribunal thus present us with the amazing spectacle of an
institution supposedly organized to contain, prevent, and prosecute for
war crimes actually knowingly facilitating them. Furthermore, petitions
submitted to the Tribunal during Arbour's tenure had called for
prosecution of the leaders of NATO, including Canadian Prime Minister
Jean Chretien, for the commission of war crimes. If she had been a
prosecutor in Canada, Britain or the United States, she would have been
subject to disbarment for considering and then accepting a job from a
person she had been asked to charge. But Arbour was elevated to the
Supreme Court of Canada by Chretien with hardly a mention of this
conflict of interest and immorality. **
About the authors...
Christopher Black (5) is part of the team of Canadian lawyers who have
attempted to bring war crimes charges against NATO before the War Crimes
Tribunal. At present, Mr. Black is serving as the attorney for one of
the defendant at the Rwandan war crimes hearings. He believes that
Western meddling is in large measure responsible for the horrendous
killing in Rwanda. He plans to write an article for Emperors-Clothes on
the subject.
Edward S. Herman is the author of many books including 'Real Terror
Network: Terrorism in Fact and Propaganda' (June 1998) and 'Triumph of
the Market: Essays on Economics, Politics, and the Media' (October
1995).
Further reading...
(1) See Money Talks - US Funds ICTY Public Relations at
http://emperors-clothes.com/news/press.htm
(2) Back to the dark ages by Jared Israel at
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/bac.htm
(3) See NATO's War & World Security by Prof. Raju G. C. Thomas at
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/analysis/security.htm
(4) See HUMANITARIAN WAR: Making the Crime Fit the Punishment by Diana
Johnstone at
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/articles/Johnstone/crime.htm
(5) See An Impartial Tribunal? Really? by Christopher Black at
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/analysis/Impartial.htm
(6)See Conditions of Serbs in Croatia, by Alice Mahon, MP at
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/articles/mahon/croatia.htm
---
>Tribunal Watch archives are on-line at:
>http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/archives/
>==========================================
>
>CANA (Christians Against NATO Aggression)
>Statement from William Spring, Director
>
>CARLA DEL PONTE SHOULD RESIGN AS WAR CRIMES PROSECUTOR
>
>Carla del Ponte should resign as war crimes prosecutor for the Hague
>Tribunal responsible for War Crimes in the area of the Former Yugoslavia.
>She has brought international law into disrepute by her decision announced
>to the Security Council June 2nd not to prosecute NATO leaders for war
>crimes committed by NATO forces in relation to the illegal military attack
>on Yugoslavia last year.
>
>Thomas Fuller, as quoted by the late Lord Denning, Master of the Rolls,
>said: "whoever you are the law is above you." In effect Carla del Ponte has
>put NATO civilian & military leaders beyond the law - has given them
>immunity to engage in whatever criminal action they like. A disgrace to
>the legal profession she should be replaced forthwith by the UN Secretary
>General.
>
>Her investigation into allegations made, not only by the Russian, Yugoslav
>& Chinese Governments concerning NATO war crimes, but also by ordinary
>people across the world, (in which I include CANA, as we detailed specific
>NATO atrocities in a dossier sent to her January 28th this year) was at
>best cursory; at worst her inaction can be interpreted as the frantic
>manoeuvrings of a mafia judge eager to please her mafia paymasters.
>Someone should do an investigation into the War Crimes Tribunal & her
>role, & that of of her predecessor, Ms Arbour. How is this body financed?
>Is it a legal entity? Does the UN Charter allow for new Institutions to be
>created simply on the say so of the Security Council?
>
>What has happened is a juridical nightmare; a nominally independent
>prosecutor, who in fact is leaned on, & responds to pressure from
>representatives of whatever coalition of powers happens to hold most
>influence in the Security Council at any one time.
>
>Her willingness to receive Jamie Shea, & Robin Cook, in her office at the
>Hague, while still theoretically engaged in an investigation as to whether
>NATO had committed war crimes was reprehensible, indicating collusion &
>undue influence. She should have had the courage to stand up to gangsters
>who 'fix' international Courts in the same way as Clinton fixed Congress to
>avoid impeachment.
>
>Her Office wrote to me 15th March stating "aerial warfare is a complex
>area of military international law involving difficult issues of targeting
>& execution." That may be so, but is not an excuse to duck the moral
>questions involved. The Prosecutor gets NATO off the hook by saying she is
>not satisfied there was 'intent' on the part of the NATO authorities to
>cause civilian casualties, which misses the point entirely: all deaths
>caused by those responsible for a war of aggression, whether they be
>military or civilian, are unlawful homicides, & it's not necessary to prove
>intent for every act which flowed from the decision to engage in aggressive
>war. But in the 15th March letter Gavin Ruxton said "The Prosecutor has no
>locus to consider the lawfulness or otherwise of the NATO decision to
>launch its air campaign": which means the Tribunal is disqualified from
>making any finding acquitting NATO of war crimes. (There is of course
>unambiguous evidence of NATO's intent to cause civilian casualties.)
>
>___________________________________________________________________________
___
>For further info tel 02088022144 cana@... also diarise
>House of Lords Cttee Room 4 12 noon 28th June 2000 Press Conference by
>Justin/Cana/Planning for Peace
>
>===========================================================================
=
>To unsubscribe from TWATCH-L: Send an e-mail to
LISTSERV@...
> In your message, type in the command: SIGNOFF TWATCH-L
>
>To resubscribe to TW, send this message to the same address: SUBSCRIBE
TWATCH-L [name of person]
>Send questions, comments, suggestions to:
> twatch-l-request@...
---
From: Herman de Tollenaere <hermantl@...>
To: right-left@...,Questo indirizzo email è protetto dagli spambots. È necessario abilitare JavaScript per vederlo.;,
Questo indirizzo email è protetto dagli spambots. È necessario abilitare JavaScript per vederlo.
Subject: 9 June Amsterdam: report on Dutch ministers on trial for NATO
bombing
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 00:24:20 +0200
[Unofficial report, hastily written by a non-lawyer]
On Friday 9 June, at the "Paleis van Justitie" [court house] in
Amsterdam,
Dutch Government Ministers were on trial for the NATO bombing of
Yugoslavia
in 1999.
As I walk to the court house, posters of a beer brand proclaim
"Yugoslavs
like our drink". Maybe, like people in Colombia or in Sierra Leone. All
these people, however, might think one drinks more safely if there is
less
chance of dying by a bomb or other weapon made in a NATO country.
Opening
headline of the day of daily De Volkskrant: the Dutch UN representative
says
that the Netherlands armed forces should get over their Balkans trauma
by
sending a thousand soldiers to Sierra Leone. The British NATO allies
would
like that. Might the Dutch soldiers not find out too late they go there,
like to the Balkans, not really for peace; but maybe for British diamond
millionaires, fighting out their conflict with French diamond
millionaires
at the cost of lives of European soldiers and [especially] African
soldiers,
including child soldiers, and civilians? Remember racism and escalating
violence, when troops from NATO countries were supposed to bring peace
to
Somalia?
Police had not allowed a demonstration, which would have started at 10
o'clock. The case starts 11 o'clock at the "Paleis van Justitie",
Prinsengracht 434 in Amsterdam. Long before the start, people gather
outside. Pro peace leaflets change hands. A big banner goes aloft: NATO
OUT
OF THE BALKANS. It is held by a local anti war committee member, and by
a
twentyish Amsterdam university student. She is here with others of De
Socialist magazine, also present at earlier peace demonstrations.
Celine is there as well. Though more than fifty-five years ago, the Nazi
occupiers of The Netherlands put her in a camp, today she still fights
against racism and war. She is of De Anti Fascist. This is the magazine
of
the Bond van Anti Fascisten [Anti Fascist League], founded by ex members
of
the 1940-1945 resistance against German Nazi occupation. Later, younger
fighters against present day racism and other forms of discrimination
joined. The Anti Fascist League is a main source making it financially
possible to have this case: as the Yugoslav plaintiffs are very poor,
having
often lost jobs and everything by the war.
Speaking of media: a TV crew of the local [multicultural] Amsterdam TV
records the scene outside and the court case inside. Radio The
Netherlands
World Broadcasting is there; as are correspondents of De Volkskrant and
Bosnian media. Yesterday, an article in Ganashakti daily, all the way in
India, told its readers of the case.
In 1999, 29 citizens of Yugoslavia, victims of the bombs, started this
civil
court case against Ministers Kok [Prime Minister], Van Aartsen [Foreign
Affairs], and De Grave [Defense]. In May/June 1999, the judge did not
grant
their request for summary proceedings. However, he also did not throw
out
the case, as pro-war politicians might have liked. Similar court cases
are
on their way in other NATO countries; though often, in these countries
the
legal system works a little slower, or is more expensive for plaintiffs,
than in The Netherlands. In The Netherlands, there are now also cases
against the State [so, not against ministers individually, like in this
case]; other Dutch civil cases against individuals; and World Court
cases
for violation of UN Charter point 2 sub 4, against military aggression.
In a
few months' time, the case brought by surviving families of the bombed
Belgrade television studio crew members will start in The Netherlands.
Before a full big court room, Mr Van Schendel, court president, first
arranges for the media representatives' reporting. Then, he calls upon
the
bombs victims' lawyers to speak. He grants them one hour. As twenty
minutes
is usual for lawyers in civil cases, this indicates some sense of the
juridical importance of this case.
These lawyers are Mr Steijnen and Mr Olof, of Juristen voor de Vrede
[Lawyers for Peace] and the Permanente Commissie [Permanent Legal
Commission
against Dutch War Crimes]. Lawyers for Peace have a long history of
legal
challenges to the Dutch government for allowing NATO nuclear weapons in
The
Netherlands [officially, the people are not allowed to know whether the
nuclear weapons are there or not].
Mr Olof pointed out NATO's war was against the United Nations charter
and
international law. Mr Steijnen pointed out that the Dutch government,
like
NATO, claims NATO's targets were all military. The civilian victims
supposedly were "collateral damage". Really? asked Mr Steijnen. NATO
destroyed fifty churches and monasteries, over three hundred schools;
many
bridges unsuited for military vehicles; buses; passenger trains; TV
studios;
cigarette factories; 100% of chemical industry and 100% of agricultural
fertilizer industry in Yugoslavia; even apart from depleted uranium
ammunition radiation, creating enormous environmental damage. NATO used
cluster bombs.
Conservative pro NATO estimates say 1000 civilians died, 6000 were
wounded.
The MEAT report of the United States Air Force, quoted by Newsweek and
others, says all the weeks of air war destroyed 14 Yugoslav tanks, 18
armed
vehicles, 20 pieces of artillery. If we base ourselves on the
conservative
estimate of civilian victims: then, 70 civilians died for every Yugoslav
tank. Would it not be more accurate to say civilians and civilian
targets
were the real targets, and the damage against Yugoslav army vehicles and
artillery really was "collateral" damage? NATO leaders themselves
basically
admitted this [eg, when asked: why did the Yugoslav government finally
admit NATO troops in Kosovo? Eg, General Short said on BBC television
the
first target [to his regret, only destroyed later] should have been the
"rock and roll bridge" in Belgrade, where young people had concerts
against
the bombing].
Concluding, Mr Steijnen named three random examples of the plaintiffs.
One
worked as a car mechanic in Montenegro. The war started; very worried
about
his family in Belgrade, he went there, and parked his car. NATO bombs
fell
and destroyed the car. This loss meant also the loss of his mechanic's
job.
Now, he has nothing.
Another plaintiff worked in a small businessman's garage. A bomb
destroyed
the garage and the cars in it. Now, the employer is jobless and hungry.
So
is the employee.
A third example: this man used to work in a metal working factory. Bombs
totally destroyed the factory. Like its other 8000 workers, now he is
jobless.
For the ministers, Mr Houtzagers spoke. He quoted from a political
government statement, claiming NATO became involved as it worried about
stability of Albania and Macedonia [both non NATO members; and how did
the
war 'help stability' of these countries, let alone of Kosovo? Mr
Steijnen
replied]. And 'Yugoslavia had refused to negotiate seriously in
Rambouillet
[and how about NATO's proposed Appendix B, amounting to de facto
occupation
of all Yugoslavia?]'. Repeatedly interrupted by judges' critical
questions,
Mr Houtzagers talked about the legal base for the NATO attack. He
admitted
that UN Resolution 1199 was not such a legal base; nevertheless, the
government used it as justification. Mr Steijnen pointed out that only
one
member of the Dutch parliament, Mr Van Middelkoop, had known about
Resolution 1199. So, then, how about democratic control by parliament on
whether The Netherlands were at war or not [not even Prime Minister Kok
knew
when the bombing started]?
Mr Houtzagers also said the ministers could not be sued, 'as they had
acted
as organs of the State'. In reply, Mr Steijnen pointed out that at the
1945
Nuremberg trials, the court had rejected such a defense. *Individuals*
commit war crimes. The Nuremburg decisions are important in
international
law; though in its defence the Dutch government now more or less tries
to
dismiss them. They were part of the precedents claimed, by, for
instance,
the 1993 establishment of the court on Yugoslavia in The Hague. Mr
Steijnen
said: "How would a court react to General Pinochet claiming he had not
been
an individual, only '"an organ of the state"?
To the argument: "the war is over now, so the plaintiffs have no case
anymore. [Two of the plaintiffs last year complained, as the war had
made
them join the Yugoslav army as conscripts, thus putting them in danger
involuntarily]", Mr Steijnen replied the plaintiffs still were in
danger,
also if they would all continue to be civilians as at the moment; as
there
was only a cease fire, not peace. If one listens today to Dutch and
other
NATO leaders they may not yet have learned not to start a similar war
again
against Yugoslavia [or against another country].
President Van Schendel concluded the session by saying that the court
decision will, in principle, become public at 6 July, at 11.30 in the
same
court house. However, Mr Van Schendel left open the possibility that the
court would need more time for the legal complexities of the case; then,
the
verdict would be later.
Even if Lawyers for Peace lose the case in Amsterdam, they will appeal,
all
the way up to the European Court.
After the court case, Mr Houtzagers, contrary to the bombs victims'
lawyers,
refused to answer media questions. Later that day, there was a meeting.
Other Dutch ministers may also face civil cases. So may F16 pilots. So
may
pro-war Members of Parliament like Mr Blaauw of the ["Rightist Liberal"]
VVD
government party: Blaauw, during the Balkan war, talked of glorious
profit
opportunities for Dutch construction millionaires in Kosovo, after the
NATO
bombs would have done their job. Mr Blaauw is also a leader of the Press
Now
organization; officially for 'independent' [in fact, NATOish] media in
the
Balkans. Maybe, also a civil case by people hurt by the bombs, against
Mr De
Hoop Scheffer of the ["Christian Democrat"] CDA [very pro bombing,
though
officially in opposition].
And, maybe also civil damages claims against Marcel Rüter, businessman,
and
leader of the extreme Rightist Voorpost ["Vanguard"] movement, not
represented in government or parliament, which made pro bombing
propaganda.
Mr Rüter is an ex leader of the Centrumpartij'86, members of which used
to
rally for Adolf Hitler and his deputy, Rudolf Hess. Used to, *as
Centrumpartij'86 people*; because a few years ago, the courts banned
this
party for racism; after members had gone to jail for violence. In 1999
Voorpost tried a political comeback on the wave of pro-war and
anti-Serb-anti-Roma-and-anti-other-foreigner propaganda in the 'popular'
media. Maybe an opportunity for the Anti Fascist League to figuratively
"kill the two birds, of war and racism, with one stone"?
Best wishes,
Herman de Tollenaere
---
http://www.counterpunch.com
CounterPunch [Originally published at Swans: http://www.swans.com]
June 4, 2000
An Impartial Tribunal, Really?
By Christopher Black
-
http://www.serbianna.com/dorich/stories/00_06_09.html
The Road To Hell Is Paved With Good Intentions
By William Dorich
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------