(Sono almeno due i testimoni oculari del connubio tra Bin Laden ed
Izetbegovic: una è Renate Flottau, di Der Spiegel, della quale
parlammo in passato; l'altro è un giornalista inglese - vedi sotto.
Questa ed altre cosucce emergono dalla deposizione dei testimoni "a
difesa" nel "processo" dell'Aia: Stipe Mesic faceva vanto di avere
liquidato la Jugoslavia, mentre Milosevic si oppose per tutto il tempo
allo squartamento del paese; il referendum per la secessione della
Bosnia nel 1992, non avendo ottenuto i 2/3 del quorum, fu irregolare;
e così via. Avete notato che i nostri organi di "informazione", dal
"processo" dell'Aia non riportano più alcuna cronaca, da anni? Vi
siete mai chiesti il perchè?)
Recent "trial" reports from www.slobodan-milosevic.org (selection)
1) MESIC CAUGHT ON TAPE: "I HAVE PERFORMED MY TASK YUGOSLAVIA IS NO
MORE" (Feb. 2nd)
2) BRITISH JOURNALIST EYE-WITNESSED OSAMA BIN LADEN ENTERING ALIJA
IZETBEGOVIC'S OFFICE IN SARAJEVO (Feb. 3rd)
3) MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF SPENDS A WHOLE DAY PROVING THAT MILOSEVIC WAS
THE PRESIDENT OF SERBIA (Feb. 8th)
4) PROSECUTION CASE: MILOSEVIC DESTROYED YUGOSLAVIA BY REFUSING TO
ACCEPT ITS DESTRUCTION (Feb. 13th)
5) 62% IS LESS THAN TWO-THIRDS: BOSNIA'S 1992 REFERENDUM ON SECESSION
FAILED (Feb. 14th)
=== 1 ===
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg020206.htm
MESIC CAUGHT ON TAPE: "I HAVE PERFORMED MY TASK YUGOSLAVIA IS NO MORE"
www.slobodan-milosevic.org – February 2, 2006
Written by: Andy Wilcoxson
The trial of Slobodan Milosevic continued on Thursday with the
continued testimony of Prof. Branko Kostic, a former member of the
SFRY state presidency from Montenegro.
Kostic began the day by giving testimony about the war in Croatia. He
explained that in 1991, while Yugoslavia was still an internationally
recognized state, Croatian paramilitary forces attacked Western
Slavonia and destroyed 28 villages where Serbs were the majority
population.
He testified that the regime of Franjo Tudjman illegally armed members
of the HDZ political party, and that Croatian paramilitaries blockaded
JNA barracks in Croatia.
In response, to the Croatian violence the SFRY presidency issued 14
cease-fire declarations. Unfortunately the Croatian side never
complied, instead it increased its offensive activities.
During his testimony as a prosecution witness, Stepjan Mesic accused
Milosevic of undertaking a coup, when on October 1st 1991 the SFRY
presidency declared an imminent state of war in Yugoslavia.
As professor Kostic explained there was no coup. Six members of the
SFRY presidency met in Belgrade on October 1st and unanimously
declared an imminent state of war. These representatives were from
Kosovo, Vojovodina, Montenegro, Serbia, Macedonia, and Bosnia.
Slobodan Milosevic had nothing to do with it.
The representatives from Slovenia and Croatia chose not attend the
presidency session. However, even if the absent members had voted
against the imminent state of war the declaration still would have
passed by the required two-thirds majority.
The next presidency session was scheduled for October 3rd.
Unfortunately this was when the members from Macedonia and Bosnia
chose to stop attending presidency sessions.
However, since Yugoslavia was officially in an "imminent state of
war," the remaining four-member presidency could legally function and
take decisions on behalf of the entire presidency.
As further proof that no coup had been undertaken, Kostic pointed out
that Mesic himself returned to chair a presidency session on October
18th – more than two weeks after the coup he was alleging was to have
taken place.
Kostic said that this four-member presidency never ordered the JNA to
take any offensive actions, although it could have. Nor did it utilize
its powers to govern and legislate by decree, which it also could have
done.
This four-member presidency devised the Vance plan. Under the Vance
plan the JNA withdrew from Croatia, and UN peacekeeping troops took
their place. The peacekeepers were to remain in Croatia until a
peaceful settlement could be found. Kostic testified that Milosevic
enthusiastically supported the Vance plan.
Kostic testified that the Vance plan was not consistent with any
aspirations for "greater Serbia." The witness said that Milosevic
never advocated greater Serbia. He said that Milosevic advocated the
equality of peoples and the preservation of Yugoslavia.
The Croatian indictment claims that "From 8 October 1991 an
international armed conflict and partial occupation existed in the
Republic of Croatia."
The indictment also claims that "The SFRY existed as a sovereign state
until 27 April 1992 when the constitution of the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia was adopted, replacing the Constitution of the Socialist
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia of 1974."
The absolute absurdity of the indictment is laid bare by these two
passages. How can the SFRY simultaneously "occupy" Croatia since
October 1991 and, at the same time, exist as the sovereign state until
April 1992? Its absolute stupidity and it shows the carelessness that
went into the drafting of the indictment.
If the SFRY existed as a sovereign state until mid-1992, then Croatian
paramilitaries were in fact occupying part of Yugoslavia. The
indictment has it completely backwards. Yugoslavia didn't occupy
Croatia. Part of Yugoslavia was occupied by Croatian paramilitaries.
As further proof that Yugoslavia was not "occupying" its own territory
in Croatia, Prof. Kostic pointed out that the Croat paramilitary
forces had the JNA barracks blocked. The JNA was unable to leave its
barracks let alone leave Croatia.
Furthermore, on October 8th Stepjan Mesic (a Croat) was the SFRY
president, and Ante Markovic (another Croat) was the SFRY Prime
Minister. What sort of a moron would say that Yugoslavia was occupying
Croatia while two Croats were holding the top posts in the Yugoslav
government? For the answer one only needs to see that the indictment
was signed by Carla del Ponte in Zagreb.
The prosecution accuses Milosevic of breaking up Yugoslavia. Kostic
commented that if a tsunami hit Yugoslavia the prosecution would
likely blame him for that too. To prove that Yugoslavia was not
broken-up on his account Milosevic played a tape of Stepjan Mesic
addressing the Croatian parliament. On December 5th 1991, Mesic got up
and told a cheering Croatian parliament "I have performed my task.
Yugoslavia is no more. Thank you."
Link that with Mesic's comments that he would be "Yugoslavia's last
president" and his book entitled "How I Broke-Up Yugoslavia" and it
becomes crystal clear who broke-up Yugoslavia.
Milosevic also played a video of an interview with Lord Carrington. In
this interview Carrington explained why Yugoslavia descended into
civil war. Carrington said that in Bosnia and Croatia the
secessionists attempted to secede from Yugoslavia without the required
agreement of all the constituent peoples. He explained that the
Croatian and Bosnian constitutions required a consensus between the
Serbs and Croats, and in Bosnia with the Muslims too, before any form
of secession could legally be carried out.
Eva Prentice will take the witness stand tomorrow. She is expected to
testify for one day. On Monday Prof. Kostic is expected to complete
his examination-in-chief.
=== 2 ===
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg020306.htm
BRITISH JOURNALIST EYE-WITNESSED OSAMA BIN LADEN ENTERING ALIJA
IZETBEGOVIC'S OFFICE IN SARAJEVO
www.slobodan-milosevic.org - February 3, 2006
Written by: Andy Wilcoxson
The trial of Slobodan Milosevic resumed on Friday with the testimony
of Ms. Eve-Ann Prentice. Ms. Prentice is a British journalist who has
covered the Balkans for both The Guardian and the London Times
newspapers since the 1980s. Over the course of her career she visited
the former Yugoslavia at least forty times.
Ms. Prentice testified that she was concerned by non-objective
reporting in the Western media. She said that Western politicians and
journalists presented the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia in terms
of good vs. evil. She said that Serbs were demonized and portrayed as
evil while Kosovo-Albanians, Croats, and Bosnian-Muslims were
portrayed as innocent victims.
Ms. Prentice made it clear that she believed that all sides had
committed crimes and that all sides had innocent victims. As her book
"One Woman's War" makes clear she is not an apologist for the Serbian
cause.
Ms. Prentice testified that the KLA waged a terrorism war in Kosovo
throughout the late 1990s. She said that Kosovo fell victim to a cycle
of violence where the KLA launched attacks and the Yugoslav security
forces retaliated.
Ms. Prentice was one of the few Western journalists who was actually
in Kosovo during the NATO bombing campaign. She testified that she
spoke to hundreds of Albanian, Roma and Turkish civilians.
She testified that the Kosovo-Albanians told her that they were
leaving Kosovo primarily because they were afraid of the KLA and the
NATO bombing. She only came across one Albanian who told her that he
was leaving because the Serbian police had told him to.
She said that the KLA was telling the Albanian population that it was
their "patriotic duty" to leave Kosovo in order to make it appear that
the Serbs were victimizing the Albanians and ethnically cleansing the
province.
Ms. Prentice testified that she took measures to speak to Albanian
civilians at times when Serbian police were not around. Her Albanian
interpreter was a lawyer who worked for Ibrahim Rugova.
She testified that Albanian civilians were afraid to speak freely in
the presence of the KLA. She recounted one instance in Kosvoska
Mitrovica where she was interviewing a group of Albanians and they
would not speak to her once a member of the KLA came within earshot.
During her stay in Kosovo she never witnessed any inappropriate
behavior on the part of the Yugoslav Army or the Serbian police. She
said that she saw non-Serb civilians enjoying a relaxed relationship
with the army.
She testified that she had heard from other journalists that some
people had been forced to leave Kosovo due to pressure exerted against
them by Serbian forces, but she never witnessed any such incidents
herself.
Ms. Prentice testified that the civilian population was justifiably
afraid of the NATO bombing. She witnessed the destruction of civilian
targets almost daily. She saw the result of NATO's cluster bomb attack
on Nis. She saw at least 30 corpses in the streets and interviewed
several wounded persons in the hospital.
She also witnessed the destruction caused by NATO bombing raids in
Gnjilane, Istok (Dubrava Prison), Orohovac, and Meja. In each of these
cases the indictment accuses Serbia for the destruction.
In the case of Meja, the indictment accuses Serbian forces of
organizing a massacre, Ms. Prentice spoke to several victims in the
hospital and they told her that NATO had bombed them.
While she was in Gnjilane she did not see any evidence of the
deliberate burning of shops and houses alleged by the indictment. All
she saw was the destruction caused by NATO.
The indictment says that Serbian troops forced the Albanian population
to leave Prizren from March 28th onwards. But Ms. Prentice said that
there were a lot of Albanians in Prizren while she was there in May.
Ms. Prentice was bombed by NATO herself. At about 3 PM on May 30, 1999
she was on her way to Prizren. She was on the road about 8 km east of
Prizren when NATO attacked. Her driver was killed in the attack, and a
cameraman she was traveling with was blown into a river several meters
away.
She said that the NATO aircraft were flying low enough that they could
have easily seen the civilian cars on the road below.
Ms. Prentice, who has a pilot's license herself, estimated the
aircraft to be flying at about 2,000 ft. Because she was traveling
with a cameraman she also has videotape of the NATO aircraft. She was
ultimately rescued from the scene Yugoslav Army personnel who took her
to safety and gave her medical treatment.
About two weeks after the bombing Ms. Prentice began to suffer health
effects. She lost her voice. Her immune system weakened. She has had
cancer twice since then, and the presence of heavy metals in her blood
stream causes her to suspect that NATO used depleted uranium weapons
during the attack.
NATO has publicly denied that it carried out the bombing raid, but Ms.
Prentice's father (who had served a member of the British House of
Lords) received information from his contacts in the British military
that NATO had indeed carried out the bombing.
Ms. Prentice testified that after NATO entered Kosovo a massive exodus
of the non-Albanian population occurred. She said that the KLA,
together with Albanians from Albania, went around Kosovo forcing the
non-Albanian population to leave. She said that NATO did nothing to
protect the non-Albanian population.
The most explosive part of her testimony dealt with an interview that
she scheduled with Alija Izetbegovic in November 1994. While she was
waiting in Izetbegovic's foyer both she, and a journalist from Der
Speigel, saw Osama bin Laden being escorted into Izetbegovic's office.
Yes *that* Osama bin Laden -- the same Osama bin Laden who
masterminded the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Needless to say this evidence did not sit well with the tribunal. Mr.
Nice immediately objected and Judge Robinson cut off the testimony
immediately declaring it "irrelevant."
Milosevic tried to explain that the involvement of Islamic terrorists
with the highest level of the Bosnian Muslim government shows that the
Bosnian Serbs were fighting a war for self-preservation, not a war for
some made-up "greater Serbia" conspiracy. Unfortunately the Judges
wouldn't have any of it so he was forced to move on.
Milosevic questioned the witness questions about the Markale market.
Over the course of her work, Ms. Prentice spoke with people who had
access to ballistics data on the blast. According to the information
she received the blast did not come from an outside projectile. The
blast came from an explosive device that had been taped under one of
the tables at the market.
When she interviewed Lord Owen she asked him whether he had believed
that the Bosnian-Muslim government planted the bomb themselves. She
said that Owen responded by refusing to confirm or deny the
suggestion. The Markale Market is significant because NATO used it as
the justification to bomb the Bosnian Serbs.
Ms. Prentice testified that when she visited Sarajevo in 1994 she did
not find the city under siege. She said that there was some shelling
but not a siege.
She said that one day while she was at the offices of the Bosnian
presidency a shell exploded near the house she was staying. She
observed that the shell fell in a location that was surrounded by tall
buildings and narrow streets meaning that the shell could have only
come in from a steep angle, which meant that it could only have been
fired from a Muslim-held position.
During her time in Bosnia she visited Pale. She said that she was
surprised to find that a large number of non-Serb refugees were being
given shelter there. Before she actually visited Bosnia she had
believed what the rest of the media told her about the Serbs.
She recounted one occasion where she tried to convince Robin Cook to
visit Pale so that he could see for himself that non-Serbs were living
freely in the Bosnian-Serb capital. Cook, who was on a fact finding
mission, told her that he would not visit Pale because he thought the
Serbs were "monsters."
Mr. Nice spent the last part of the day cross-examining Ms. Prentice.
As I said in the beginning of this report Ms. Prentice is not an
apologist for the Serbian cause. She wrote a lot of things that were
critical of the Serbian side and Mr. Nice spent his entire
cross-examination quoting every unfavorable word that she ever wrote
about the Serbs. Ms. Prentice could barely get a word in edgewise.
However, it is worth noting that nearly everything Mr. Nice quoted
from Ms. Prentice's work was hearsay. It was mostly information that
she had heard from others – not events that she had directly witnessed
herself.
At the end of the day Milosevic was left with practically no time for
re-examination. He accused the prosecutor of quoting Ms. Prentice's
work in a selective and misleading fashion.
The trial will resume next Monday with the continued testimony of
Prof. Branko Kostic.
=== 3 ===
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg020806.htm
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF SPENDS A WHOLE DAY PROVING THAT MILOSEVIC WAS THE
PRESIDENT OF SERBIA
www.slobodan-milosevic.org – February 8, 2006
Written by: Andy Wilcoxson
Prof. Branko Kostic, Slobodan Milosevic's forty-eighth defense
witness, was cross-examined by Ms. Hildegard Uertz-Retzlaff at the
Hague Tribunal on Wednesday.
The prosecutor spent the balance of the day asking the witness to
comment on text written in several books, including the writings of
prosecution witness Borislav Jovic . The prosecutor was attempting use
the writings to show that Milosevic exerted control over the JNA and
the SFRY state presidency, but she didn't have any evidence to back-up
her thesis.
Many, if not all, of the material she read wouldn't be incriminating
even if proven true. Unfortunately a lot of it wasn't true so the
witness had to spend a great deal of time correcting her information.
The case that Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff was advancing was practically
meaningless. For example, she produced a table to show that Milosevic
had frequent meetings with JNA officials, Serbian leaders from Bosnia
and Croatia, and SFRY presidency members.
Even if we accept Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff's information at face value, it
doesn't prove anything. All it shows is that Milosevic had meetings
with people. Why wouldn't he have meetings? He was the President of
Serbia; of course he had meetings.
The fact that Milosevic had meetings with people does not prove that
he controlled them. Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff did not offer a single example
showing that Milosevic exerted any effective control over anybody
outside of Serbia. All she could offer were the opinions that other
people wrote in their books, and none of those opinions were backed-up
with any concrete facts.
Prof. Kostic testified that Milosevic, as the president of Serbia, had
political clout but no control over the Krajina Serb or Bosnian Serb
leadership. He said that Karadzic and Mladic were the ones who
controlled Republika Srpska's government and military, and that Martic
and Babic had control and authority in Republika Srpska Krajina.
One could just as easily argue that George W. Bush, as the president
of the United States has political influence in Egypt (not to mention
many of other countries), but that doesn't mean that he controls the
Egyptian government or commands the Egyptian military.
The witness reiterated his testimony that the SFRY presidency (of
which he was a member) controlled the JNA – not Milosevic.
Kostic did not deny that Milosevic had meetings with presidency
members and JNA officials, but he said it was only natural for the
president of Serbia (the largest republic in Yugoslavia) to have
meetings with government and military officials because of the dire
situation the country was facing.
As Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff's lengthy cross-examination makes plain,
Milosevic doesn't have a case to answer for in relation to Croatia or
Bosnia. There is not a single piece of evidence to show that he had
command or control over any of the combatants in Bosnia or Croatia.
As far as Milosevic's personal and legal responsibility is concerned,
it doesn't matter whether any of the specific crimes alleged by the
Croatian and Bosnian indictments were committed or not. The combatants
were not under his control, and no reasonable person could conclude
that he should be held accountable for their alleged actions.
Practically the only thing that Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff managed to prove
was that Milosevic was the president of Serbia.
At one point Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff sought to challenge the credibility of
the witness, but she didn't have any luck in that department either.
She accused the witness of being prejudiced against Muslims and, just
like Mr. Nice would have done, she cut the witness off when he tried
to refute her accusations.
Prof. Kostic will continue his cross-examination when the trial
resumes on Monday, February 13th.
=== 4 ===
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg021306.htm
PROSECUTION CASE: MILOSEVIC DESTROYED YUGOSLAVIA BY REFUSING TO ACCEPT
ITS DESTRUCTION
www.slobodan-milosevic.org - February 13, 2006
Written by: Andy Wilcoxson
Ms. Hildegard Uertz-Retzlaff continued her cross-examination of Prof.
Branko Kostic, the former SFRY presidency member from Montenegro, at
the Hague Tribunal on Monday.
Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff continued to waste everybody's time by spending
most of the day asking questions that were completely irrelevant or
that had already been discussed.
She unsuccessfully tried to paint Kostic as an extremist. She would
take quotes from his speeches completely out of context, and he would
reply by reading out the parts of the speech that she didn't read.
Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff attempted to show that the SFRY presidency acted
illegally when, in late 1991, it convened meetings without the
representatives of Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia, and Macedonia.
Kostic reminded her that the Croatian, Slovenian, Bosnian, and
Macedonian representatives were always invited to attend the meetings
but that they chose not to attend. He further reminded her that an
imminent state of war had already been declared and under such
circumstances the presidency could legally function in a reduced
composition.
Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff played intercepts of Kostic's telephone
conversations. There was absolutely nothing incriminating on the
tapes. In one of the intercepts he was discussing a region in southern
Bosnia with Radovan Karadzic. The conversation had no relevance
because, as Kostic noted, the region being discussed never saw any
combat. Nor was he discussing combat operations with Karadzic.
Although, at one point in the conversation he mentioned the need for
the JNA to demilitarize Dubrovnik.
Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff spent the end of the day asking the witness about
the Hague Conference. Although he was not present at the October 4th
meeting Kostic pointed-out that a document had been drawn-up where it
was decided that there would be no unilateral changes in the SFRY's
borders and that the right of the people to stay in Yugoslavia would
be equal to those who wished to leave.
Kostic said that Serbia and later Montenegro voted against the
proposal offered at the Hague Conference on October 18th because the
proposal called for the wholesale destruction of Yugoslavia. The
October 18th proposal threw-out the items that had been agreed to at
the previous meeting and called for an outright dissolution of
Yugoslavia along its internal republican borders.
In spite of the existence of the agreements reached on October 4th,
Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff tried to claim that it was Milosevic who changed
his mind and derailed the peace process.
This whole issue points to the sheer stupidity of the prosecution
case. According to the prosecution's logic, by refusing to accept
Yugoslavia's destruction at the Hague Conference Milosevic is
responsible for Yugoslavia's destruction. Heaven forbid that the blame
for Yugoslavia's destruction should actually fall upon the people who
advocated it's destruction.
=== 5 ===
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg021406.htm
62% IS LESS THAN TWO-THIRDS: BOSNIA'S 1992 REFERENDUM ON SECESSION FAILED
www.slobodan-milosevic.org – February 14, 2006
Written by: Andy Wilcoxson
Prosecutor Hildegard Uertz-Retzlaff completed her cross-examination of
Montenegro's former SFRY presidency member Prof. Branko Kostic at the
trial of Slobodan Milosevic on Tuesday.
Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff continued her previous line of questioning
regarding the Carrington proposal. The prosecution believes that
Milosevic caused Yugoslavia's destruction by opposing the Carrington
proposal, which called for the dissolution of Yugoslavia along its
internal republican borders.
The prosecutor also questioned Kostic about the Vance Plan. During his
examination-in-chief Kostic stated that he did not know of any
violations of the Vance Plan from the Serbian side.
It turns out that there was an instance when the Serbian side
technically violated the Vance Plan. The Vance Plan called for all
rifles and heavy weapons to be handed over to the UN. Ms.
Uertz-Retzlaff procured a UN report where it was written that some
Krajina-Serb police officers had been found to be in possession of
automatic rifles.
The UN report did not say that these police officers ever used the
rifles, only that the rifles had been found in their possession.
In spite of the fact that possession of banned weapons is the most
minor violation imaginable, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff acted as though she had
caught the witness in some huge lie. She crowed "but the Serbian side
violated the Vance Plan!"
The prosecutor did not provide a single example of a serious violation
such as the Serbian side launching an attack.
Unfortunately, the same thing can not be said of the Croatian side.
Nearly four years after the Vance Plan was adopted, Croatia over-ran
the UNPA's and launching Operation Storm and Operation Flash. Those
operations resulted in the wholesale ethnic cleansing of approximately
a quarter-million Krajina-Serbs. Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff conveniently
neglected to mention that little fact from her discussion of Vance
Plan violations.
Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff also questioned the witness about the transfer of
JNA material to the Krajina-Serb Territorial Defense (TO).
Kostic confirmed that the JNA left much of its equipment and weaponry
to the Krajina-Serb TO when it left the RSK in 1991. Kostic testified
and a report of the UN Secretary General confirmed that the weapons
the JNA left for the TO were placed in UN warehouses under the
double-key system pursuant to the Vance Plan.
Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff asked the witness what he knew about the 30th and
40th personnel centers of the VJ, which paid pensions and benefits to
former JNA soldiers who lived outside of the FRY. The witness did not
know anything because he had withdrawn from politics before any of
that was set-up.
The prosecutor ended the day by questioning the witness about a series
of letters and reports, which alleged misconduct by JNA soldiers
stationed in Croatia. The entire exercise was for naught. Kostic had
not seen any of the material that Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff showed him.
Kostic was a member of the federal presidency. He explained that it
was the responsibility of the Ministry of Defense, and the military
judiciary to investigate criminal complaints against JNA soldiers.
The only thing that Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff showed him was a series of
accusations, many of which were made by hostile NGO's or by Tudjman's
government. She did not show him any proof to back-up the accusations,
or the results of any investigations that might have been carried out.
All in all it was a pointless exercise.
Prof. Kostic gave a lengthy analysis of the 1974 Bosnian Constitution,
which was in force when Bosnia seceded from Yugoslavia.
According to Article I of its constitution, Bosnia was an equal state
of Serbs, Croats, and Muslims and it was an integral part of Yugoslavia.
The 52nd amendment of the Bosnian constitution stated unequivocally
that Bosnia's borders and territorial status could not be changed
unless two-thirds of all eligible voters vote in favor of the change
in a referendum.
In Bosnia's referendum, held on February 29, 1992, 62% of eligible
voters voted in favor of secession, which means that the referendum
failed because less than the required two-thirds voted for it.
Two-thirds is 66.6%, and 62% is less than that.
Bosnia's secession from Yugoslavia was illegal no matter which way you
slice it. The referendum on secession was called in an illegal
fashion, but even if it had been legal it still failed because less
than the required two-thirds voted in favor.
After Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff completed her cross-examination, Milosevic
began his re-examination of the witness.
There were only a few minutes left in the day when Milosevic began the
cross-examination. He spent most of the time reading from the UN
Secretary General's report on the implementation of the Vance Plan.
The report said that the Serbian side was complying, and that the
Croatian side was not. It also said that the majority of "Serbian
crimes" against Croats in the RSK were perpetrated by Serbian refugees
who had been expelled from other parts of Croatia.
Milosevic also corrected Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff's erroneous interpretation
of one of his speeches. During the cross-examination she claimed that
Milosevic had made a speech where he said he was activating Serbia's
reserve police force in connection with the wars in Croatia and Bosnia.
Milosevic read the text of the speech, which made it clear that he
activated the reserve police to respond to provocations that were
being carried out in Kosovo and Sandjak. The speech had nothing to do
with Croatia or Bosnia.
Milosevic will continue to re-examine Kostic when the trial resumes on
Wednesday.
Izetbegovic: una è Renate Flottau, di Der Spiegel, della quale
parlammo in passato; l'altro è un giornalista inglese - vedi sotto.
Questa ed altre cosucce emergono dalla deposizione dei testimoni "a
difesa" nel "processo" dell'Aia: Stipe Mesic faceva vanto di avere
liquidato la Jugoslavia, mentre Milosevic si oppose per tutto il tempo
allo squartamento del paese; il referendum per la secessione della
Bosnia nel 1992, non avendo ottenuto i 2/3 del quorum, fu irregolare;
e così via. Avete notato che i nostri organi di "informazione", dal
"processo" dell'Aia non riportano più alcuna cronaca, da anni? Vi
siete mai chiesti il perchè?)
Recent "trial" reports from www.slobodan-milosevic.org (selection)
1) MESIC CAUGHT ON TAPE: "I HAVE PERFORMED MY TASK YUGOSLAVIA IS NO
MORE" (Feb. 2nd)
2) BRITISH JOURNALIST EYE-WITNESSED OSAMA BIN LADEN ENTERING ALIJA
IZETBEGOVIC'S OFFICE IN SARAJEVO (Feb. 3rd)
3) MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF SPENDS A WHOLE DAY PROVING THAT MILOSEVIC WAS
THE PRESIDENT OF SERBIA (Feb. 8th)
4) PROSECUTION CASE: MILOSEVIC DESTROYED YUGOSLAVIA BY REFUSING TO
ACCEPT ITS DESTRUCTION (Feb. 13th)
5) 62% IS LESS THAN TWO-THIRDS: BOSNIA'S 1992 REFERENDUM ON SECESSION
FAILED (Feb. 14th)
=== 1 ===
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg020206.htm
MESIC CAUGHT ON TAPE: "I HAVE PERFORMED MY TASK YUGOSLAVIA IS NO MORE"
www.slobodan-milosevic.org – February 2, 2006
Written by: Andy Wilcoxson
The trial of Slobodan Milosevic continued on Thursday with the
continued testimony of Prof. Branko Kostic, a former member of the
SFRY state presidency from Montenegro.
Kostic began the day by giving testimony about the war in Croatia. He
explained that in 1991, while Yugoslavia was still an internationally
recognized state, Croatian paramilitary forces attacked Western
Slavonia and destroyed 28 villages where Serbs were the majority
population.
He testified that the regime of Franjo Tudjman illegally armed members
of the HDZ political party, and that Croatian paramilitaries blockaded
JNA barracks in Croatia.
In response, to the Croatian violence the SFRY presidency issued 14
cease-fire declarations. Unfortunately the Croatian side never
complied, instead it increased its offensive activities.
During his testimony as a prosecution witness, Stepjan Mesic accused
Milosevic of undertaking a coup, when on October 1st 1991 the SFRY
presidency declared an imminent state of war in Yugoslavia.
As professor Kostic explained there was no coup. Six members of the
SFRY presidency met in Belgrade on October 1st and unanimously
declared an imminent state of war. These representatives were from
Kosovo, Vojovodina, Montenegro, Serbia, Macedonia, and Bosnia.
Slobodan Milosevic had nothing to do with it.
The representatives from Slovenia and Croatia chose not attend the
presidency session. However, even if the absent members had voted
against the imminent state of war the declaration still would have
passed by the required two-thirds majority.
The next presidency session was scheduled for October 3rd.
Unfortunately this was when the members from Macedonia and Bosnia
chose to stop attending presidency sessions.
However, since Yugoslavia was officially in an "imminent state of
war," the remaining four-member presidency could legally function and
take decisions on behalf of the entire presidency.
As further proof that no coup had been undertaken, Kostic pointed out
that Mesic himself returned to chair a presidency session on October
18th – more than two weeks after the coup he was alleging was to have
taken place.
Kostic said that this four-member presidency never ordered the JNA to
take any offensive actions, although it could have. Nor did it utilize
its powers to govern and legislate by decree, which it also could have
done.
This four-member presidency devised the Vance plan. Under the Vance
plan the JNA withdrew from Croatia, and UN peacekeeping troops took
their place. The peacekeepers were to remain in Croatia until a
peaceful settlement could be found. Kostic testified that Milosevic
enthusiastically supported the Vance plan.
Kostic testified that the Vance plan was not consistent with any
aspirations for "greater Serbia." The witness said that Milosevic
never advocated greater Serbia. He said that Milosevic advocated the
equality of peoples and the preservation of Yugoslavia.
The Croatian indictment claims that "From 8 October 1991 an
international armed conflict and partial occupation existed in the
Republic of Croatia."
The indictment also claims that "The SFRY existed as a sovereign state
until 27 April 1992 when the constitution of the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia was adopted, replacing the Constitution of the Socialist
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia of 1974."
The absolute absurdity of the indictment is laid bare by these two
passages. How can the SFRY simultaneously "occupy" Croatia since
October 1991 and, at the same time, exist as the sovereign state until
April 1992? Its absolute stupidity and it shows the carelessness that
went into the drafting of the indictment.
If the SFRY existed as a sovereign state until mid-1992, then Croatian
paramilitaries were in fact occupying part of Yugoslavia. The
indictment has it completely backwards. Yugoslavia didn't occupy
Croatia. Part of Yugoslavia was occupied by Croatian paramilitaries.
As further proof that Yugoslavia was not "occupying" its own territory
in Croatia, Prof. Kostic pointed out that the Croat paramilitary
forces had the JNA barracks blocked. The JNA was unable to leave its
barracks let alone leave Croatia.
Furthermore, on October 8th Stepjan Mesic (a Croat) was the SFRY
president, and Ante Markovic (another Croat) was the SFRY Prime
Minister. What sort of a moron would say that Yugoslavia was occupying
Croatia while two Croats were holding the top posts in the Yugoslav
government? For the answer one only needs to see that the indictment
was signed by Carla del Ponte in Zagreb.
The prosecution accuses Milosevic of breaking up Yugoslavia. Kostic
commented that if a tsunami hit Yugoslavia the prosecution would
likely blame him for that too. To prove that Yugoslavia was not
broken-up on his account Milosevic played a tape of Stepjan Mesic
addressing the Croatian parliament. On December 5th 1991, Mesic got up
and told a cheering Croatian parliament "I have performed my task.
Yugoslavia is no more. Thank you."
Link that with Mesic's comments that he would be "Yugoslavia's last
president" and his book entitled "How I Broke-Up Yugoslavia" and it
becomes crystal clear who broke-up Yugoslavia.
Milosevic also played a video of an interview with Lord Carrington. In
this interview Carrington explained why Yugoslavia descended into
civil war. Carrington said that in Bosnia and Croatia the
secessionists attempted to secede from Yugoslavia without the required
agreement of all the constituent peoples. He explained that the
Croatian and Bosnian constitutions required a consensus between the
Serbs and Croats, and in Bosnia with the Muslims too, before any form
of secession could legally be carried out.
Eva Prentice will take the witness stand tomorrow. She is expected to
testify for one day. On Monday Prof. Kostic is expected to complete
his examination-in-chief.
=== 2 ===
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg020306.htm
BRITISH JOURNALIST EYE-WITNESSED OSAMA BIN LADEN ENTERING ALIJA
IZETBEGOVIC'S OFFICE IN SARAJEVO
www.slobodan-milosevic.org - February 3, 2006
Written by: Andy Wilcoxson
The trial of Slobodan Milosevic resumed on Friday with the testimony
of Ms. Eve-Ann Prentice. Ms. Prentice is a British journalist who has
covered the Balkans for both The Guardian and the London Times
newspapers since the 1980s. Over the course of her career she visited
the former Yugoslavia at least forty times.
Ms. Prentice testified that she was concerned by non-objective
reporting in the Western media. She said that Western politicians and
journalists presented the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia in terms
of good vs. evil. She said that Serbs were demonized and portrayed as
evil while Kosovo-Albanians, Croats, and Bosnian-Muslims were
portrayed as innocent victims.
Ms. Prentice made it clear that she believed that all sides had
committed crimes and that all sides had innocent victims. As her book
"One Woman's War" makes clear she is not an apologist for the Serbian
cause.
Ms. Prentice testified that the KLA waged a terrorism war in Kosovo
throughout the late 1990s. She said that Kosovo fell victim to a cycle
of violence where the KLA launched attacks and the Yugoslav security
forces retaliated.
Ms. Prentice was one of the few Western journalists who was actually
in Kosovo during the NATO bombing campaign. She testified that she
spoke to hundreds of Albanian, Roma and Turkish civilians.
She testified that the Kosovo-Albanians told her that they were
leaving Kosovo primarily because they were afraid of the KLA and the
NATO bombing. She only came across one Albanian who told her that he
was leaving because the Serbian police had told him to.
She said that the KLA was telling the Albanian population that it was
their "patriotic duty" to leave Kosovo in order to make it appear that
the Serbs were victimizing the Albanians and ethnically cleansing the
province.
Ms. Prentice testified that she took measures to speak to Albanian
civilians at times when Serbian police were not around. Her Albanian
interpreter was a lawyer who worked for Ibrahim Rugova.
She testified that Albanian civilians were afraid to speak freely in
the presence of the KLA. She recounted one instance in Kosvoska
Mitrovica where she was interviewing a group of Albanians and they
would not speak to her once a member of the KLA came within earshot.
During her stay in Kosovo she never witnessed any inappropriate
behavior on the part of the Yugoslav Army or the Serbian police. She
said that she saw non-Serb civilians enjoying a relaxed relationship
with the army.
She testified that she had heard from other journalists that some
people had been forced to leave Kosovo due to pressure exerted against
them by Serbian forces, but she never witnessed any such incidents
herself.
Ms. Prentice testified that the civilian population was justifiably
afraid of the NATO bombing. She witnessed the destruction of civilian
targets almost daily. She saw the result of NATO's cluster bomb attack
on Nis. She saw at least 30 corpses in the streets and interviewed
several wounded persons in the hospital.
She also witnessed the destruction caused by NATO bombing raids in
Gnjilane, Istok (Dubrava Prison), Orohovac, and Meja. In each of these
cases the indictment accuses Serbia for the destruction.
In the case of Meja, the indictment accuses Serbian forces of
organizing a massacre, Ms. Prentice spoke to several victims in the
hospital and they told her that NATO had bombed them.
While she was in Gnjilane she did not see any evidence of the
deliberate burning of shops and houses alleged by the indictment. All
she saw was the destruction caused by NATO.
The indictment says that Serbian troops forced the Albanian population
to leave Prizren from March 28th onwards. But Ms. Prentice said that
there were a lot of Albanians in Prizren while she was there in May.
Ms. Prentice was bombed by NATO herself. At about 3 PM on May 30, 1999
she was on her way to Prizren. She was on the road about 8 km east of
Prizren when NATO attacked. Her driver was killed in the attack, and a
cameraman she was traveling with was blown into a river several meters
away.
She said that the NATO aircraft were flying low enough that they could
have easily seen the civilian cars on the road below.
Ms. Prentice, who has a pilot's license herself, estimated the
aircraft to be flying at about 2,000 ft. Because she was traveling
with a cameraman she also has videotape of the NATO aircraft. She was
ultimately rescued from the scene Yugoslav Army personnel who took her
to safety and gave her medical treatment.
About two weeks after the bombing Ms. Prentice began to suffer health
effects. She lost her voice. Her immune system weakened. She has had
cancer twice since then, and the presence of heavy metals in her blood
stream causes her to suspect that NATO used depleted uranium weapons
during the attack.
NATO has publicly denied that it carried out the bombing raid, but Ms.
Prentice's father (who had served a member of the British House of
Lords) received information from his contacts in the British military
that NATO had indeed carried out the bombing.
Ms. Prentice testified that after NATO entered Kosovo a massive exodus
of the non-Albanian population occurred. She said that the KLA,
together with Albanians from Albania, went around Kosovo forcing the
non-Albanian population to leave. She said that NATO did nothing to
protect the non-Albanian population.
The most explosive part of her testimony dealt with an interview that
she scheduled with Alija Izetbegovic in November 1994. While she was
waiting in Izetbegovic's foyer both she, and a journalist from Der
Speigel, saw Osama bin Laden being escorted into Izetbegovic's office.
Yes *that* Osama bin Laden -- the same Osama bin Laden who
masterminded the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Needless to say this evidence did not sit well with the tribunal. Mr.
Nice immediately objected and Judge Robinson cut off the testimony
immediately declaring it "irrelevant."
Milosevic tried to explain that the involvement of Islamic terrorists
with the highest level of the Bosnian Muslim government shows that the
Bosnian Serbs were fighting a war for self-preservation, not a war for
some made-up "greater Serbia" conspiracy. Unfortunately the Judges
wouldn't have any of it so he was forced to move on.
Milosevic questioned the witness questions about the Markale market.
Over the course of her work, Ms. Prentice spoke with people who had
access to ballistics data on the blast. According to the information
she received the blast did not come from an outside projectile. The
blast came from an explosive device that had been taped under one of
the tables at the market.
When she interviewed Lord Owen she asked him whether he had believed
that the Bosnian-Muslim government planted the bomb themselves. She
said that Owen responded by refusing to confirm or deny the
suggestion. The Markale Market is significant because NATO used it as
the justification to bomb the Bosnian Serbs.
Ms. Prentice testified that when she visited Sarajevo in 1994 she did
not find the city under siege. She said that there was some shelling
but not a siege.
She said that one day while she was at the offices of the Bosnian
presidency a shell exploded near the house she was staying. She
observed that the shell fell in a location that was surrounded by tall
buildings and narrow streets meaning that the shell could have only
come in from a steep angle, which meant that it could only have been
fired from a Muslim-held position.
During her time in Bosnia she visited Pale. She said that she was
surprised to find that a large number of non-Serb refugees were being
given shelter there. Before she actually visited Bosnia she had
believed what the rest of the media told her about the Serbs.
She recounted one occasion where she tried to convince Robin Cook to
visit Pale so that he could see for himself that non-Serbs were living
freely in the Bosnian-Serb capital. Cook, who was on a fact finding
mission, told her that he would not visit Pale because he thought the
Serbs were "monsters."
Mr. Nice spent the last part of the day cross-examining Ms. Prentice.
As I said in the beginning of this report Ms. Prentice is not an
apologist for the Serbian cause. She wrote a lot of things that were
critical of the Serbian side and Mr. Nice spent his entire
cross-examination quoting every unfavorable word that she ever wrote
about the Serbs. Ms. Prentice could barely get a word in edgewise.
However, it is worth noting that nearly everything Mr. Nice quoted
from Ms. Prentice's work was hearsay. It was mostly information that
she had heard from others – not events that she had directly witnessed
herself.
At the end of the day Milosevic was left with practically no time for
re-examination. He accused the prosecutor of quoting Ms. Prentice's
work in a selective and misleading fashion.
The trial will resume next Monday with the continued testimony of
Prof. Branko Kostic.
=== 3 ===
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg020806.htm
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF SPENDS A WHOLE DAY PROVING THAT MILOSEVIC WAS THE
PRESIDENT OF SERBIA
www.slobodan-milosevic.org – February 8, 2006
Written by: Andy Wilcoxson
Prof. Branko Kostic, Slobodan Milosevic's forty-eighth defense
witness, was cross-examined by Ms. Hildegard Uertz-Retzlaff at the
Hague Tribunal on Wednesday.
The prosecutor spent the balance of the day asking the witness to
comment on text written in several books, including the writings of
prosecution witness Borislav Jovic . The prosecutor was attempting use
the writings to show that Milosevic exerted control over the JNA and
the SFRY state presidency, but she didn't have any evidence to back-up
her thesis.
Many, if not all, of the material she read wouldn't be incriminating
even if proven true. Unfortunately a lot of it wasn't true so the
witness had to spend a great deal of time correcting her information.
The case that Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff was advancing was practically
meaningless. For example, she produced a table to show that Milosevic
had frequent meetings with JNA officials, Serbian leaders from Bosnia
and Croatia, and SFRY presidency members.
Even if we accept Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff's information at face value, it
doesn't prove anything. All it shows is that Milosevic had meetings
with people. Why wouldn't he have meetings? He was the President of
Serbia; of course he had meetings.
The fact that Milosevic had meetings with people does not prove that
he controlled them. Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff did not offer a single example
showing that Milosevic exerted any effective control over anybody
outside of Serbia. All she could offer were the opinions that other
people wrote in their books, and none of those opinions were backed-up
with any concrete facts.
Prof. Kostic testified that Milosevic, as the president of Serbia, had
political clout but no control over the Krajina Serb or Bosnian Serb
leadership. He said that Karadzic and Mladic were the ones who
controlled Republika Srpska's government and military, and that Martic
and Babic had control and authority in Republika Srpska Krajina.
One could just as easily argue that George W. Bush, as the president
of the United States has political influence in Egypt (not to mention
many of other countries), but that doesn't mean that he controls the
Egyptian government or commands the Egyptian military.
The witness reiterated his testimony that the SFRY presidency (of
which he was a member) controlled the JNA – not Milosevic.
Kostic did not deny that Milosevic had meetings with presidency
members and JNA officials, but he said it was only natural for the
president of Serbia (the largest republic in Yugoslavia) to have
meetings with government and military officials because of the dire
situation the country was facing.
As Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff's lengthy cross-examination makes plain,
Milosevic doesn't have a case to answer for in relation to Croatia or
Bosnia. There is not a single piece of evidence to show that he had
command or control over any of the combatants in Bosnia or Croatia.
As far as Milosevic's personal and legal responsibility is concerned,
it doesn't matter whether any of the specific crimes alleged by the
Croatian and Bosnian indictments were committed or not. The combatants
were not under his control, and no reasonable person could conclude
that he should be held accountable for their alleged actions.
Practically the only thing that Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff managed to prove
was that Milosevic was the president of Serbia.
At one point Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff sought to challenge the credibility of
the witness, but she didn't have any luck in that department either.
She accused the witness of being prejudiced against Muslims and, just
like Mr. Nice would have done, she cut the witness off when he tried
to refute her accusations.
Prof. Kostic will continue his cross-examination when the trial
resumes on Monday, February 13th.
=== 4 ===
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg021306.htm
PROSECUTION CASE: MILOSEVIC DESTROYED YUGOSLAVIA BY REFUSING TO ACCEPT
ITS DESTRUCTION
www.slobodan-milosevic.org - February 13, 2006
Written by: Andy Wilcoxson
Ms. Hildegard Uertz-Retzlaff continued her cross-examination of Prof.
Branko Kostic, the former SFRY presidency member from Montenegro, at
the Hague Tribunal on Monday.
Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff continued to waste everybody's time by spending
most of the day asking questions that were completely irrelevant or
that had already been discussed.
She unsuccessfully tried to paint Kostic as an extremist. She would
take quotes from his speeches completely out of context, and he would
reply by reading out the parts of the speech that she didn't read.
Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff attempted to show that the SFRY presidency acted
illegally when, in late 1991, it convened meetings without the
representatives of Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia, and Macedonia.
Kostic reminded her that the Croatian, Slovenian, Bosnian, and
Macedonian representatives were always invited to attend the meetings
but that they chose not to attend. He further reminded her that an
imminent state of war had already been declared and under such
circumstances the presidency could legally function in a reduced
composition.
Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff played intercepts of Kostic's telephone
conversations. There was absolutely nothing incriminating on the
tapes. In one of the intercepts he was discussing a region in southern
Bosnia with Radovan Karadzic. The conversation had no relevance
because, as Kostic noted, the region being discussed never saw any
combat. Nor was he discussing combat operations with Karadzic.
Although, at one point in the conversation he mentioned the need for
the JNA to demilitarize Dubrovnik.
Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff spent the end of the day asking the witness about
the Hague Conference. Although he was not present at the October 4th
meeting Kostic pointed-out that a document had been drawn-up where it
was decided that there would be no unilateral changes in the SFRY's
borders and that the right of the people to stay in Yugoslavia would
be equal to those who wished to leave.
Kostic said that Serbia and later Montenegro voted against the
proposal offered at the Hague Conference on October 18th because the
proposal called for the wholesale destruction of Yugoslavia. The
October 18th proposal threw-out the items that had been agreed to at
the previous meeting and called for an outright dissolution of
Yugoslavia along its internal republican borders.
In spite of the existence of the agreements reached on October 4th,
Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff tried to claim that it was Milosevic who changed
his mind and derailed the peace process.
This whole issue points to the sheer stupidity of the prosecution
case. According to the prosecution's logic, by refusing to accept
Yugoslavia's destruction at the Hague Conference Milosevic is
responsible for Yugoslavia's destruction. Heaven forbid that the blame
for Yugoslavia's destruction should actually fall upon the people who
advocated it's destruction.
=== 5 ===
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg021406.htm
62% IS LESS THAN TWO-THIRDS: BOSNIA'S 1992 REFERENDUM ON SECESSION FAILED
www.slobodan-milosevic.org – February 14, 2006
Written by: Andy Wilcoxson
Prosecutor Hildegard Uertz-Retzlaff completed her cross-examination of
Montenegro's former SFRY presidency member Prof. Branko Kostic at the
trial of Slobodan Milosevic on Tuesday.
Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff continued her previous line of questioning
regarding the Carrington proposal. The prosecution believes that
Milosevic caused Yugoslavia's destruction by opposing the Carrington
proposal, which called for the dissolution of Yugoslavia along its
internal republican borders.
The prosecutor also questioned Kostic about the Vance Plan. During his
examination-in-chief Kostic stated that he did not know of any
violations of the Vance Plan from the Serbian side.
It turns out that there was an instance when the Serbian side
technically violated the Vance Plan. The Vance Plan called for all
rifles and heavy weapons to be handed over to the UN. Ms.
Uertz-Retzlaff procured a UN report where it was written that some
Krajina-Serb police officers had been found to be in possession of
automatic rifles.
The UN report did not say that these police officers ever used the
rifles, only that the rifles had been found in their possession.
In spite of the fact that possession of banned weapons is the most
minor violation imaginable, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff acted as though she had
caught the witness in some huge lie. She crowed "but the Serbian side
violated the Vance Plan!"
The prosecutor did not provide a single example of a serious violation
such as the Serbian side launching an attack.
Unfortunately, the same thing can not be said of the Croatian side.
Nearly four years after the Vance Plan was adopted, Croatia over-ran
the UNPA's and launching Operation Storm and Operation Flash. Those
operations resulted in the wholesale ethnic cleansing of approximately
a quarter-million Krajina-Serbs. Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff conveniently
neglected to mention that little fact from her discussion of Vance
Plan violations.
Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff also questioned the witness about the transfer of
JNA material to the Krajina-Serb Territorial Defense (TO).
Kostic confirmed that the JNA left much of its equipment and weaponry
to the Krajina-Serb TO when it left the RSK in 1991. Kostic testified
and a report of the UN Secretary General confirmed that the weapons
the JNA left for the TO were placed in UN warehouses under the
double-key system pursuant to the Vance Plan.
Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff asked the witness what he knew about the 30th and
40th personnel centers of the VJ, which paid pensions and benefits to
former JNA soldiers who lived outside of the FRY. The witness did not
know anything because he had withdrawn from politics before any of
that was set-up.
The prosecutor ended the day by questioning the witness about a series
of letters and reports, which alleged misconduct by JNA soldiers
stationed in Croatia. The entire exercise was for naught. Kostic had
not seen any of the material that Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff showed him.
Kostic was a member of the federal presidency. He explained that it
was the responsibility of the Ministry of Defense, and the military
judiciary to investigate criminal complaints against JNA soldiers.
The only thing that Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff showed him was a series of
accusations, many of which were made by hostile NGO's or by Tudjman's
government. She did not show him any proof to back-up the accusations,
or the results of any investigations that might have been carried out.
All in all it was a pointless exercise.
Prof. Kostic gave a lengthy analysis of the 1974 Bosnian Constitution,
which was in force when Bosnia seceded from Yugoslavia.
According to Article I of its constitution, Bosnia was an equal state
of Serbs, Croats, and Muslims and it was an integral part of Yugoslavia.
The 52nd amendment of the Bosnian constitution stated unequivocally
that Bosnia's borders and territorial status could not be changed
unless two-thirds of all eligible voters vote in favor of the change
in a referendum.
In Bosnia's referendum, held on February 29, 1992, 62% of eligible
voters voted in favor of secession, which means that the referendum
failed because less than the required two-thirds voted for it.
Two-thirds is 66.6%, and 62% is less than that.
Bosnia's secession from Yugoslavia was illegal no matter which way you
slice it. The referendum on secession was called in an illegal
fashion, but even if it had been legal it still failed because less
than the required two-thirds voted in favor.
After Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff completed her cross-examination, Milosevic
began his re-examination of the witness.
There were only a few minutes left in the day when Milosevic began the
cross-examination. He spent most of the time reading from the UN
Secretary General's report on the implementation of the Vance Plan.
The report said that the Serbian side was complying, and that the
Croatian side was not. It also said that the majority of "Serbian
crimes" against Croats in the RSK were perpetrated by Serbian refugees
who had been expelled from other parts of Croatia.
Milosevic also corrected Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff's erroneous interpretation
of one of his speeches. During the cross-examination she claimed that
Milosevic had made a speech where he said he was activating Serbia's
reserve police force in connection with the wars in Croatia and Bosnia.
Milosevic read the text of the speech, which made it clear that he
activated the reserve police to respond to provocations that were
being carried out in Kosovo and Sandjak. The speech had nothing to do
with Croatia or Bosnia.
Milosevic will continue to re-examine Kostic when the trial resumes on
Wednesday.