Informazione
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/savich1.html
ANTIWAR
Dead Babies
Lynching or Justice? The Trial of the Century: Kosovo
Phase Analysis
by Carl Savich
October 22, 2002
Dead Babies and Baby Killers
Witness K41: "The people who were in the houses were
expelled. They were forced out into the yard.There was a
gun placed to each of their heads.I think there were
about 15 people there. There were women there too,
children. I remember at least one child that I saw."
Prosecutor Dirk Rynevald: "Were there any babies? ."
Witness K41: "Yes.There was at least one baby. It might
have been - well, not even a year old. A soldier checked
to see if they had any money. The rest of the soldiers
started to leave the yard, and the four of us, or five
of us, remained. And our sergeant, Sergeant Kozlina,
ordered us to shoot the people who were in the yard. The
people who were shot at began falling down one across
the other, one over the other, and what I remember most
vividly is how - I remember this very vividly. There was
a baby, and it had been shot with three bullets, and it
was screaming unbelievably loud..
Never a night goes by without my dreaming about that
child."
Is this a scene from yet another Hollywood Holocaust
movie? Is it from Schindler's List? Is this the Racak
Massacre Hoax, an example of Propaganda of the Deed? Is
this the massacre at Babi Yar during World War II? Is
this "testimony" from the Iraqi Baby Incubator Hoax that
Tom Lantos manufactured and concocted/orchestrated to
foment war against Iraq? In 1990, Iraqi troops were
alleged to have turned off incubators and allowed
Kuwaiti babies to die. There were dead babies. The Iraqi
troops were baby killers. Is this the testimony of Hun
atrocities in Belgium in 1914 during World War I? German
troops were alleged to have carried dead babies on
bayonets and to have cut off the arms of Belgian
children, dismembering a baby.
This was the testimony of Witness K41 at the ICTY
"international trial of the century" of former Yugoslav
President Slobodan Milosevic, at the session held on
Friday, September 6, 2002. The testimony by K41 bears a
striking resemblance and similarity to the "Hun
atrocities" alleged to have been committed in Belgium in
August, 1914 and to the Iraqi Incubator Hoax of the 1991
Persian Gulf War.
British and French government/media propaganda accused
German troops of the mass rape of Belgian girls in
public in Liege. German troops were accused of
mutilating the breasts of a Belgian girl. The classic
propaganda image of the Allied propaganda against
Germany was the dead Belgian baby on a bayonet. German
troops, eight in number, were accused of bayoneting a
two-year-old Belgian baby. The London Times published
the news dispatch of an eyewitness account of German
atrocities against Belgian babies. A man was quoted as
stating that he witnessed "with his own eyes German
soldiery chop off the arms of a baby which clung to its
mother's skirts." The French propaganda office even
manufactured a photograph of the "handless baby" which
on September 18, 1915 was published in the French
newspaper La Rive Rouge. The French media included a
drawing that showed German troops eating the hands of
the dead baby. A Belgian commission of inquiry in 1922,
however, failed to find any evidence whatsoever for any
of these alleged atrocities. But that is irrelevant.
The truth of the allegations is irrelevant in
propaganda. What is important is that the dead babies
propaganda was successful on the propaganda front. For
Britain and France, the dead babies propaganda rallied
domestic public opinion against Germany. The truth of
the allegations is irrelevant and immaterial. The goal
was to create public opinion on the home front to create
support for a continuation of the war, to manufacture
racist/national/ethnic fervor, to instill war frenzy and
to lessen the antipathy towards killing. The Belgian
atrocity propaganda was also used to create public
support in the US for a declaration of war against
Germany. As John MacArthur noted, "slaughtered and
mutilated Belgian babies were a tremendous propaganda
triumph for the Allies."
Dead babies propaganda would be used again in the Iraqi
Persian Gulf War in 1991. Propaganda techniques do not
change. Wars and "dictators" and "butchers" come and go,
but propaganda techniques do not. Why is this so?
Propaganda appeals to fundamental, universal impulses of
man. Propaganda relies on archetypes of the human mental
psyche, primordial psychological processes and
mechanisms of the mind. There are archetypical motifs,
paradigms, stereotypes that are unchanging. This is why
massacres, atrocities, the mass rape of women and the
killing of babies remains an unchanging propaganda
technique from the 1914 Belgian atrocities to the 2002
ICTY "international trial of the century" of Slobodan
Milosevic. The mass rape propaganda technique was
revived during the Bosnian civil war while the dead
babies propaganda was used again in the Iraqi War of
1991 and the Milosevic trial of 2002. You go with what
works. And if it works, why change it? Why fix it if it
ain't broken?
The ICTY dead babies propaganda is analogous to the
Jewish Ritual Murder allegations or "blood libels" in
European history. In medieval Europe, anti-Jewish and
anti-Semitic racism and racist paranoia was induced by
manufacturing allegations that Jews abducted Christian
babies and then killed them in sacrificial religious
blood rites. Jews require the blood of Christian babies
for the Passover rite or ritual. Every year Jews abduct
a Christian baby, torture and crucify the baby, pierce
its side, perform a circumcision, then they kill the
Christian baby and dispose of the body. The Jewish
ritual murder of Christian babies charge first emerged
in England. Thomas of Monmouth published an account of
St. William of Norwich in 1173. William was alleged to
have been the victim of a Jewish ritual murder committed
in Norwich in 1144 by a converted Jew, Theobald. William
was tortured, circumcised, and his side was pierced in a
mock crucifixion. Anti-Jewish propaganda and paranoia
would eventually result in the expulsion from England of
all Jews by King Edward. In 1171, Jews of Blois, France,
were accused of crucifying a French Christian baby
during Passover as a ritualistic yearly murder. Jews
then threw the dead baby into the Loise river. There was
a dead baby. Jews were baby killers. That was the
message. That was the image. The association was with
dead Christian babies and Jews. Similarly, anti-Gypsy
racism and bigotry is based on the allegation that
wandering Gypsies kidnap helpless and defenseless babies
who are subsequently murdered. The dead baby propaganda
of the ICTY prosecutors makes use of the same
psychological or psychic mechanisms and responses of the
human brain. The dead babies allegations legitimize
racial and religious hatred and suspicion and in the
case of the Kosovo conflict, "revenge killings" of
Serbian children due to the "repression" and
"oppression" of the "ethnic Albanians". K41 was used to
show that the Yugoslav/Serbian Army was made up of baby
killers. Slobodan Milosevic was a baby killer. By
implication, every Serbian Orthodox is a baby killer.
This should insult our intelligence and human dignity.
But the ICTY prosecution is appealing to our emotions,
our feelings. Don't think, just feel. Focus on the
image. The image is everything. Just take in the image
of a dead Albanian baby being shot with three bullets
and screaming. Do you feel guilty now? Do you feel
remorse? Well, do you? Do you still want to be a Serb
now? Feel. Do not think. How many times have we heard
this before?
During the Iraqi conflict, Iraqi troops were accused of
removing 312 babies from incubators and placing them on
the hospital floors to die in Kuwait City. The London
Telegraph of September 5, 1990 reported that "babies in
the premature unit of one hospital had been removed from
their incubators so that these, too, could be carried
off." Two days later, the Los Angeles Times carried a
Reuters news dispatch which reported: "Iraqis are
beating people.taking hospital equipment, babies out of
incubators. Life-support systems are turned off.The
Iraqis are beating Kuwaitis.cutting their ears off if
they are caught resisting." MacArthur noted that "of all
the accusations made against the dictator, none had more
impact on American public opinion" than the dead babies
propaganda. The dead babies propaganda was manufactured
by the US government. President George Bush used the
dead babies propaganda is calling for a war against Iraq
in 1991. The US government colluded with the media and
PR firms to manufacture the hoax. Tom Lantos
orchestrated the presentation of bogus "testimony" to
substantiate the dead babies accusation. Lantos
presented "Nayirah" who would testify about witnessing
the murder of innocent Kuwaiti babies. Nayirah testified
before the Human Rights Caucus as follows:
I volunteered at the al-Addan hospital.While I was
there, I saw the Iraqi soldiers come into the hospital
with guns, and go into the room where 15 babies were in
incubators. They took the babies out of the incubators,
took the incubators, and left the babies on the cold
floor to die.
Voila! Dead babies! Of course, the later investigations
proved the Kuwaiti baby incubator story was a
manufactured hoax, manufactured and orchestrated by the
US Government, the Hill & Knowlton PR firm, the US
media, and Tom Lantos. Why did Lantos not reveal her
last name? Nayirah was actually Nayirah al-Sabah, the
daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador to the US. It was all
a phony propaganda stunt orchestrated and staged by the
US Government. It was a hoax and a sham. But it worked.
And therefore it is to be imitated and repeated. That is
why we see its reappearance at the "trial of the
century" of Slobodan Milosevic. What is the lesson here?
What is the moral? In the New World Order, all we are
concerned with is results. If it works, it is good. If
it does not work, it is bad. This is the morality and
ethics of the New World Order. This is the ethos of the
era. Selling. But you cannot have economic expansion and
exploitation without first having military and political
exploitation. It is all about selling. We want to build
more McDonald's restaurants. We want to build Kentucky
Fried Chicken franchises globally. The goal is to expand
markets. The avatars of the New World Order are the Big
Mac and the soft-drink Coca-Cola and affordable PCs.
Selling. Get used to it. Because we will see it repeated
ad infinitum and ad nauseam.
Why use dead babies propaganda? Dead babies propaganda
is highly effective as Western propagandists have
learned since the 1914 Belgian atrocity hoax following
the German occupation of Belgium in August, 1914. But
attempting to portray the Serbian Orthodox as baby
killers is an act of desperation and a sign of utter
weakness by the prosecutors at the ICTY. Dead babies
propaganda is a last resort. Its use demonstrates moral
and ethical bankruptcy and total disregard for human
rights, for humanity, humanitas. Why did the ICTY use
it? The ICTY could find no evidence of genocide in
Kosovo, no evidence of war crimes, no evidence of a plan
or conspiracy by Slobodan Milosevic to deport or
ethnically cleanse Albanians, no evidence of crimes
against humanity. The ICTY learned that the Milosevic
regime was engaged in a legal and legitimate state
action to prevent infiltration/invasion of armed
terrorist groups from Albania, the "mother country", a
terrorist army that sought to create an ethnically pure
Greater Albania that would encompass "Kosova",
Kosovo-Metohija, and "Illirida", western Macedonia.
Indeed, events in "Kosova" following the NATO bombing
showed that this was the actual goal all along.
Dead babies propaganda is a textbook example of the
Atrocity Technique or Atrocity Appeal in propaganda.
Atrocity propaganda was the US/NATO technique used
during the Bosnian Civil War to mobilize public opinion
against the Bosnian Serb faction. How was this done? The
US/NATO/ media relied on atrocity propaganda. The
Bosnian Serb forces massacred Bosnian Muslims and Croat
civilians, engaged in a systematic policy of mass rape
as an instrument of war, established "rape camps" or
"rape motels", set up concentration camps to intern
Bosnian Muslim and Croat civilians. The US
government/media concocted the Markale Massacre I and
Markale Massacre II, the Sarajevo Breadline Massacre,
and the Srebrenica Massacre. Why did the US
government/media do this? This was done to create
anti-Serbian public opinion so that the groundwork could
be established for war against the Serbian faction. The
ultimate aim of all propaganda is to enable or to
justify the killing of the "enemy".
Dead babies propaganda is meant to camouflage or
obscure/obfuscate the fact that the ICTY has failed to
prove or establish any part of its case against Slobodan
Milosevic. A focus on dead babies is termed an appeal to
the emotions, Affective Appeal in propaganda analysis.
In other words, it as an appeal to emotion, not to
reasoning, not the intellect. The goal is to bypass
reason. Atrocity propaganda in fact is meant to preclude
or prevent thought. Don't think, don't use your brain,
the ICTY prosecutors are saying, but let your emotions
control you. Here is a dead Albanian baby that Yugoslav
troops have killed. You must emote, you must feel. Guilt
and contrition are the objectives here. The Milosevic
trial is aimed primarily at the Serbian population. That
is why there is a virtual news black-out in the US. The
"trial of the century" is meant for Serbia. Ironically,
Pravda exposed the Milosevic trial as "The Lie of the
Century." It is a waste of time for Americans. The trial
is meant to discredit Serbia and the Serbian people, the
Orthodox. This was noted concisely in a Houston
Chronicle article of February 26, 2002: "Truth is,
Serbia's on trial along with Milosevic." This is why
Sylvia Poggioli of NPR interviews citizens of Belgrade
and not in New York or Washington, DC. The trial is
meant to vindicate or justify the NATO bombing and the
anti-Serbian Orthodox propaganda. Common sense tells us
the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia violated the UN Charter
and all rules, customs, and agreements of international
law. The unprovoked NATO bombing, invasion, and
occupation of Serbia/Yugoslavia violated basic
principles of sovereignty. The only way NATO could sell
the war was by propaganda, by manufacturing an
imperative for intervention based on genocide. But there
was no genocide. Thus the need to justify the illegal
NATO aggressive war against a UN state, Yugoslavia. The
trial is meant to justify and vindicate what cannot be
justified and vindicated. Thus there is a mindless and
inexplicable appeal to emotion. Don't think. Feel.
Why appeal to emotion? We cannot control our emotions.
Emotion is spontaneous and based on our subconscious and
operates at the subliminal level. Is this propaganda
technique new or original? Adolf Hitler examined and
discussed this propaganda technique in Mein Kampf in
1924. Hitler wrote that atrocity propaganda, dead babies
propaganda, appeals to the emotion, and not the
intellect:
The art of propaganda lies in understanding the
emotional ideas of the masses and finding, through a
psychologically correct form, the way to the attention
and thence to the heart of the masses.The purpose of
propaganda is not to provide interesting distraction for
blasé young gentlemen, but to convince, and what I mean
is to convince the masses.Its effect for the most part
must be aimed at the emotions and only to a very limited
degree at the so-called intellect.Sober reasoning
determines the people's thoughts and actions far less
than emotion and feeling.
As Hitler understood, propaganda is illogical and based
not on reason, but on emotion and feeling. This is why
the ICTY prosecution used the dead babies propaganda
which is illogical, absurd, and factually unconvincing.
But emotionally the dead babies propaganda is effective
because its appeal is to the emotions, which are
involuntary and reflexive and which are sensory in
nature.
How did the media report on this testimony of the
alleged killing of a baby? Ian Black in The Guardian
Unlimited for September 6, 2002 had this headline:
"Milosevic's army shot baby in village massacre". As the
ICTY prosecutors planned, the media focused on the dead
baby, the dead babies propaganda, the baby killers
propaganda. "We shot a little baby three times: soldiers
tell" was the headline in the Sun-Herald on September 8,
2002. This article even falsifies/manipulates the
testimony by adding the superfluous redundancy "little"
to describe the dead baby. K41 never used the adjective
"little". Isn't a baby always "little"? Media overkill?
Propaganda? The propaganda, nevertheless, worked as the
ICTY prosecution knew it would. Never mind that legally
their case against Milosevic was a total failure and
fiasco and amounted to a show or witch-hunt trial or
political trial masterminded by the US/NATO. Never mind
that legally the dead babies propaganda had achieved
absolutely nothing, had shown or proven nothing. That
was irrelevant. Why bother with something as trivial as
jurisprudence, due process, fundamental fairness, and
basic legal principles and procedures? The headline in
the Electronic Telegraph for September 6, 2002 was
"Milosevic unmoved": "Milosevic yawns as soldier witness
tells of village massacre" by Neil Tweedie for September
7, 2002. National Public Radio (NPR) pointed to the dead
babies testimony to vindicate and justify their
anti-Serbian posture.
The US and Western media advanced the propaganda line
that, contrary to all common sense and rudimentary legal
concepts, the ICTY had proven its case against
Milosevic. Isabel Vincent in The National Post Online
for September 14, 2002, argued that the ICTY prosecutors
had won a "slam dunk": "Milosevic prosecutors win a
'slam dunk'". Ruth Wedgwood, an international law
professor at Johns Hopkins University, was quoted as
follows: "Kosovo was a slam dunk." The term "slam dunk"
is an Americanism using a basketball analogy. Does using
a basketball analogy in a genocide prosecution reveal
profound moral hypocrisy and ethical cynicism or does it
demonstrate a genuine concern for human rights?
According to Vincent, the K41 dead babies testimony was
achieving its results in Serbia, instilling guilt and
contrition of the Serbian Orthodox as the ICTY
prosecutors planned: "After K41's testimony, media
outlets in Belgrade noted prosecutors were beginning to
win the case against Mr. Milosevic." Of course, not
legally, but emotionally, or at the propaganda or
infowar level. The propaganda was working. Keep it
coming. Give us more of the same. As for the legal case
against Milosevic, Vincent concluded that the ICTY
prosecutors "appeared to present a strong case." The
operative term here is "appeared". Was a strong legal
case against Milosevic presented? We do not know because
"appeared" is a meaningless, superficial term, actually
a propagandistic term implying plausible deniability and
reality control and spin. Based on the facts and the
evidence, the prosecution case was a total and complete
failure and flop/fiasco, "the travesty of the century".
Why does the US and Western media use the term "ethnic"
to describe Albanians but not the other ethnic groups in
the former Yugoslavia? The use of the term "ethnic"
stands out as an anomaly. The ethnic Serbs of
Bosnia-Hercegovina were referred to as "Bosnian Serbs".
The ethnic Serbs of Krajina were referred to as
"Croatian Serbs". The ethnic Macedonians of Macedonia
were referred to as "Slavs". Does a propaganda pattern
emerge? Why the difference in media reporting with
reference to the term "ethnic"? Nothing in propaganda or
infowar is by accident or at random. This terminology
was devised and manufactured at the US State Department
and then handed out to the "free and independent" media
as an instance of handout journalism. Every word, every
nuance of the psyop technician has a subtle purpose. As
Hitler noted, propaganda is not meant as "interesting
distraction for blasé young gentlemen". Propaganda takes
time, coordination, planning, and money to organize.
Infowar techniques have a specific result in mind, to
convince. To be consistent, US/Western terminology
should refer to Bosnian Serbs, Croatian Serbs, as
"ethnic" Serbs. But that was not the case. Ethnic
Albanians should be referred to as Yugoslav Albanians or
Serbian Albanians. In the Macedonia conflict, the two
groups, Albanians and Macedonians, were described as
"ethnic Albanians" and "Slavs" respectively. Is this
just random and by accident? We have to get inside the
mind of the US propagandist here. The terms the US
propagandist uses are based on function or on objectives
the US propagandist seeks to advance or achieve. Let us
take the term "Croatian Serbs", an oxymoron coined by
the US propagandist at the US State Department. Why this
term? The infowar technician wants to convince the
reader that the ethnic Serbian population of Croatia
only has meaning as part of Croatia. In other words, the
propagandist opposes any autonomy for the Krajina Serbs
or ethnic Serbs of Croatia. The way this brainwashing is
achieved is by the oxymoron "Croatian Serbs". Similarly,
the US propagandist coined the term "Bosnian Serb" for
the ethnic Serbs of Bosnia and Hercegovina. Why? The
choice here again is to limit Serbs to the territory of
Bosnia by the use of the limiting adjective "Bosnian".
The propagandist could just as well have used "ethnic
Serbs" or "Hercegovina Serbs" but instead chose "Bosnian
Serbs". Similarly, in the Macedonian conflict, the US
propagandist could use the term "Macedonian Albanians"
but instead refers to them as "ethnic Albanians". This
requires a parallel designation for "ethnic
Macedonians". But inconsistently and illogically, the
propaganda specialist uses the term "Slavs". Here the
goal is the opposite. The term "ethnic" is used because
"Macedonian" would limit the Albanian population to the
territory of Macedonia. The term "Slavs" is used because
the infowar technician wants to de-legitimize the ethnic
Macedonian classification. The dichotomy is between
"ethnic Albanians" and "Slavs". This creates parity and
equality between the two groups and allows for the
establishment of a separate Albanian federation in
Macedonia, the division of the country into "Slavs" and
"ethnic Albanians", the Greater Albania federalization
plan. Similarly, the Albanian minority in Yugoslavia is
referred to as "ethnic Albanians" and not as "Yugoslav
Albanians" or "Serbian Albanians" or Kosovo Albanians.
The rationale is obvious. The US propagandist seeks to
deny legitimacy to Yugoslavia and to Serbia by using the
vague and open term "ethnic". This systematic and
planned propaganda campaign insults our intelligence and
treats us like swine and cattle. But the US government
and media do not agree. They would maintain that they
are doing us a service, that they are teaching us how to
think correctly and ethically. Moreover, they are
counteracting the negative influence of the "butcher",
"dictator", "Hitler", Milosevic's propaganda. So enjoy
it. It is for your own good.
The dead babies testimony was presented by witness K41,
an anonymous witness, who presented his testimony on
"video link". K41 was the star prosecution witness after
the botched Rade Markovic fiasco. K41 was the final act,
the climax to the Kosovo Phase of the "trial of the
century". Before his testimony, Judge Richard May
summarily dismissed Milosevic's request to make legal
submissions: "Mr. Milosevic, we're not hearing legal
submissions now." Judge May was eager and excited to get
the star witness who was going to deliver the "slam
dunk" against Milosevic: "Now, Witness K41, we're going
to hear your evidence." K41 was questioned by Ryneveld,
and cross-examined by Slobodan Milosevic and Branislav
Tapuskovic.
Much of the background information regarding K41 was
"redacted" from the trial transcripts, that is, it was
cut out or censored. But what emerged was that K41 was
unable to get a passport to appear at the Hague in the
Netherlands because he was a suspected criminal
fugitive, wanted by the Yugoslav police, who had been to
his house seeking his arrest. K41 was 19 years old at
the time he was a member of the 549th Motorized Brigade
in Prizren. K41 was in the Battalion Technical Company.
His duties consisted of the maintenance of trucks, road
construction, and delivering food supplies. His
Logistics Battalion was part of the Technical Company
under the charge of Sergeant Rajko Kozlina. K41 served
from September 9, 1998 to June 10, 1999. His company was
ordered to set up an ambush in the Trnje area of Kosovo.
K41 testified that he and other Yugoslav troops had
expelled Albanian civilians from villages after the
villages had been shelled. He had received orders "to
clean up the village." There had been no shooting from
the village. He testified that the inhabitants were all
Albanian civilians. He stated that there was "looting"
of "shops" by Yugoslav troops. He saw no UCK/KLA
uniforms. K41 "left the village of Trnje with a truck
full of bodies and children." A truck full of dead
babies! Hill & Knowlton and Ruder Finn could never top
that one. What a propaganda bonanza! Too bad this is a
trial and not a PR campaign. Hill & Knowlton and Ruder
Finn would have a field day. One of his accomplices in
the massacre was Miroslav Fejzic according to K41. But
during cross-examination Milosevic was able to show that
no one by the name of Miroslav Fejzic was in the
company. His actual name was Mohammed Fejzic. Why is
this important? It may or may not be. K41 stated that
the "nickname" for Fejzic in the company was "Miroslav",
a Slavic Christian name. Why would a Muslim be called by
such a "nickname"? One possible explanation is the ICTY
prosecutors wanted to conceal the fact that one of the
accomplices to the so-called massacre near Trnje was a
Muslim. The object was to create a clear-cut line
between Good and Evil, a classic dichotomy between Us
and Them. But if one of those killing the Muslim victims
was a Muslim himself, the story is rendered less
plausible. Moreover, the dichotomy is destroyed.
Miroslav Fejzic? That is an oxymoron. Why conceal the
fact that his real name is Mohammed Fejzic?
In his cross-examination of Witness K41, Milosevic was
able to show that a warrant had been issued for the
arrest of K41 for armed robbery. The police had come to
K41's house but he had fled. He was fleeing and eluding
arrest. This is a serious crime in itself. K41 was a
wanted criminal and a self-confessed murderer. Why was
he the star prosecution witness against Milosevic?
Milosevic explained that he wanted to "test" the
"credibility" of K41 by this line of question. Judge
May, however, cautioned Milosevic to question K41 on his
testimony only. Milosevic stated that "quite obviously
we're dealing with a criminal here." Milosevic explained
that K41 was part of a contingent sent to the village of
Ljubizda Has near the Albanian border where UCL/KLA
guerrillas/terrorists were infiltrating Yugoslavia from
their military bases in Albania. The unit of which K41
was a member had set up an ambush position at the
village which was 4 kilometers from the Albanian border
on the Pastrik Mountains. Milosevic introduced evidence
that representatives of the OSCE Verification Mission
witnessed the Yugoslav military operations in the region
at the time. The OSCE "conducted a verification
spot-check" and concluded that no civilians were killed.
There were no massacres or executions according to the
OSCE monitors who were on the scene. Instead, 9 UCK/KLA
guerrillas were killed in the operation in Jeskovo. The
UCK "freedom fighters'/"terrorists" were all wearing UCK
military uniforms with Greater Albania badges, the black
double-headed eagle on a red background, the national
flag of Albania, the mother country. The UCK troops all
possessed weapons. Brigadier General Michel Maisonneuve
of the Canadian force, head of the regional center in
Prizren, along with OSCE monitors from Poland, Finland,
and Russia confirmed these facts. How could the OSCE
monitors miss another Racak-style massacre under their
own eyes? Milosevic concluded that "this witness, like
many others, is a false witness."
Milosevic pointed out an inconsistency in the testimony.
K41 stated that the massacre occurred in Trnje. But K32,
an earlier who witness gave the same testimony, claimed
that Medvedje was where the massacre occurred. After a
recess, the court announced that K32 had later corrected
his version to agree with that of K41. Milosevic
concluded: "These witnesses did not reach the right kind
of agreement when they were supposed to tell these
falsehoods."
K41 was part of a Logistics Battalion that supplied food
and water to front-line troops stationed in the Trnje
area of Kosovo-Metohija. Logistics is involved with
supply, not combat or actions in "built-up" positions,
and operates in the rear. Captain First Class Major
Pavle Gavrilovic had stated that every soldier was
instructed on how to treat the wounded, POWs, and
civilians and informed of humanitarian law. The Geneva
Convention guidelines were read to the troops. The
"Rules for Combatants" was also provided to the troops.
Gavrilovic concluded that no violations had occurred in
this area. K41 testified that there were no UCK/KLA
troops in the area. There was no combat whatsoever.
Milosevic queried K41: "You were just going and killing
babies, women, and children."
K41 stated that the Yugoslav forces suffered no
casualties and were not in danger. But Milosevic then
disproved this statement by introducing KFOR documents
that showed that a UCK/KLA brigade was in that area. A
heavy KLA concentration of military forces was located
precisely in the Trnje area. Milosevic showed that three
Yugoslav troops, Slobodan Gasparic, Bojan Jovanovic, and
Vladimir Mirko had been killed in the operation K41
described in combat with KLA guerrillas. Milosevic was
able to contradict the testimony of K41 that there were
no Yugoslav losses. The trial transcript is redacted
following this evidence. The evidence was presented in
private session. Milosevic asserted that this evidence
was offered "to show you that the witness has not been
telling the truth about other matters either."
Milosevic then introduced evidence that the OSCE had
reported no civilian deaths in the Trnje area of Kosovo.
In fact, Yugoslav police and military forces had helped
the Albanian civilians of this area to build roads. The
UCK/KLA guerrillas had occupied the villages and imposed
terror and blackmailed residents into paying money to
KLA. K41 testified that Yugoslav forces had burned
houses in Mamusa. But Milosevic introduced a tape that
showed that no houses had been burned in Mamusa. On the
tape, Albanian residents of Mamusa reported that no
houses had been burned. K41 stated that his unit fired
an anti-aircraft gun at the Albanian village for 20
minutes non-stop. Milosevic, however, was able to show
that based on the rate of fire of the gun, it was not
possible to maintain constant fire for that long without
the ammunition running out. K41 then changed his
testimony and stated that the fire was sporadic only.
Milosevic clearly showed that K41 did not know what he
was talking about.
Yugoslav military rules, regulations, and laws required
a member of the armed forces to report an order to
commit a crime and to disobey such an order. An order to
commit a crime was to be reported to a superior officer
immediately. All members of the Yugoslav armed forces
were duty-bound by the "Rules of Service" which every
member of the armed forces was required to know.
Milosevic introduced the "Rules of Service" as part of
the evidence to the court. Milosevic asked K41 if he was
aware of these rules and regulations. K41 replied that
he was not. Milosevic explained that every Yugoslav
soldier was informed of these regulations. K41 played
dumb. Perhaps he didn't have to play that much.
The amicus curia, Branislav Tapuskovic, then
cross-examined K41. Judge May admonished him: "Mr.
Tapuskovic, we wish not to be too long." Setting a time
limit on cross-examination is definitely a clear
violation of due process. Tapuskovic asked K41 why he
chose now to come forward with his testimony about
killing the "little" baby. Why had it taken him nearly
three years to confess his crimes? If he is innocent,
why does he fear going to the police? K41 explained that
he wanted to have his relatives exonerate him. He did
not want to go to the police. Tapuskovic explained that
the proper and legal way to be exonerated was to go
before a magistrate or judge. This is how to clear his
name. Eluding and fleeing the police was not the
accepted or normal way to be exonerated. K41 stated that
he planned to go to the police "when it suits me." K41
was asked about ICTY investigator John Zdrilic. Did
Zdrilic recruit him to testify? Was he offered anything
in exchange for his testimony? K41 explained: "I thought
that if I come forward and tell the truth that I will
feel easier in my soul." It had taken three years for
K41 to make his "confession".
Dead babies. That is what the Kosovo phase of the ICTY
Slobodan Milosevic "international trial of the century"
came down to. In the final analysis, this is what the
prosecution used to close their case against former
Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic, the "Hitler",
"dictator", "Butcher of the Balkans". The earlier ICTY
"star witness" exonerated Milosevic and admitted that he
was coerced. Milosevic alleged that Markovic was
"tortured" to testify falsely against him. Judge May
prevented any testimony on the "torture" allegation
because he ruled that it was "irrelevant" to the Kosovo
case.
The Kosovo phase of the "trial of the century", the war
crimes trial of Slobodan Milosevic in the ICTY in the
Hague, concluded on September 11, 2002. Milosevic had
been charged with 66 counts of war crimes, crimes
against humanity, and genocide in the conflicts in
Kosovo-Metohija, Bosnia-Hercegovina, and
Croatia/Krajina. In what human rights groups have dubbed
"the international trial of the century", 95 days were
spent on in court testimony. The three-member panel was
presided over by Judge Richard May of the UK appointed
by Tony Blair. The prosecutor was Geoffrey Nice of the
UK. In these 95 days, 124 witnesses were called, both
public/open and "secret"/anonymous witnesses, while
chief prosecutor Carla Del Ponte assembled over 300
exhibits, consisting of maps, charts, photographs, video
tapes, and statements. What is the result of the Kosovo
phase? The trial has been a total, complete, and
unmitigated failure and disaster. The trial has been
exposed as a political show trial orchestrated by the
US/NATO. Fundamental and elementary principles of due
process have been egregiously violated. News coverage of
the trial has been censored, suppressed, and
manipulated. The trial has been a useful propaganda tool
of US/NATO. Legally the trial is a travesty of justice.
The trial of the century is a lynching, exposing the
so-called Western justice as a sham.
What have legal analysts and the so-called mainstream
media concluded about the Kosovo phase of the trial of
the century? In The Independent (UK), September 11,
2002, Stephen Castle concluded that the prosecution
"fails to make vital link" in "Case against Milosevic
fails to make vital link". The prosecution needed to
prove command responsibility on the part of Slobodan
Milosevic. But this was not done. Castle concluded: "It
says [the prosecution] proves Mr. Milosevic must have
known of the murder and deportation of ethnic Albanians
in Kosovo, and he therefore bears command
responsibility." Ian Black in "Milosevic protests as
curtain falls on first act of his trial" in The Guardian
(UK), September 12, 2002, concluded: "If there were a
jury in this trial, it would probably be deeply divided
at this stage."
Lynching or Justice?
Is the ICTY trial of Slobodan Milosevic an example of
justice or is it a lynching? Edward L. Greenspan, QC, a
Toronto attorney in The National Post Online for March
13, 2002 concluded: "This is a lynching!" Due process
was violated as well as fundamental fairness and
elementary legal rules. Slobodan Milosevic was prevented
by Judge May from conducting a complete and thorough
cross-examination. May has set time limitations on the
Milosevic cross-examinations and has restricted their
scope. This is a blatant violation of an accused's right
to cross-examination. As Judge Learned Hand noted: "Thou
shalt not ration justice." Justice is rationed when a
time limit is set for cross-examination. Greenspan noted
the political nature of the trial and its function as a
show trial masterminded and organized by the US/NATO.
Greenspan concluded that the trial of the century was
nothing short of a lynching:
This is a lynching. Normally, lynchings are done
outdoors. Here, the lynching has been brought indoors.
Instead of a tree and rope, there are May and Del Ponte.
The problem with lynching is that it's flawed as a
process, whether the man who gets hanged is innocent or
guilty. The result is certain. A kangaroo court is one
in which legal procedures are largely a show, and the
action "jumps" from accusation to sentencing without due
process. No matter how long a trial takes, if the result
is inevitable, then it's a show trial. The accusers
might as well shoot Milosevic. At least it doesn't soil
the process.
Lynchings have a long history in American "justice".
Between 1882 and 1951, 4,730 persons were lynched in the
United States, 1,293 white, 3,437 black, by vigilantes
or vigilance groups. "Lynch law" or swamp law consists
in the administration of justice by a self-appointed and
self-constituted court that imposes sentence on a person
without due process. The goal is political and social
submission. Various explanations have been offered for
the derivation of the term "lynching". One explanation
bases the derivation from Colonel Charles Lynch
(1736-1796), a Virginia planter and justice of the
peace, who harassed Tories during the American
Revolutionary War. Summary punishment, usually hanging,
was imposed by a self-appointed commission without a
trial based in law. The punishment of persons suspected
of crime without due process of law is the gravamen of
the definition. Another derivation bases the term on
Captain William lynch (1742-1820) of Pittsylvania
County, Virginia, who made an agreement to punish
criminals without due process of law. Nation of Islam
Minister Louis Farrakhan at the Million Man March
maintained lynching was derived from William Lynch, a
British slave-owner in the West Indies who later settled
in the United States. Lynch was alleged to have made a
speech in 1712 to US slave owners advising them on how
to control and subjugate their slaves.
How did the ICTY obtain jurisdiction over Slobodan
Milosevic? Due to intense military, economic, and
political pressure by the US and NATO amounting to
"blackmail", Milosevic was arrested and extradited to
the Hague Tribunal in 2001. The US/NATO blackmail
included arming and training the UCK/KLA/UCMPB Greater
Albanian "terrorists", "guerrillas", "insurgents", and
planning military operations on their behalf in Southern
Serbia. The US/NATO sent this KLA proxy army from
US/NATO occupied Kosovo into Serbia where they murdered
and mutilated the bodies of several Serbian policemen
and soldiers and occupied Serbian towns and villages.
Was this terror campaign by the US meant to achieve
"greater rights" for the Albanian minority in
Yugoslavia? That was the official propaganda or "party
line" spewed forth by US propaganda outlets like
National Public Radio (NPR), the "Radio Free America",
and RFE/RE. But the actual motive was to exert blackmail
on the Serbian government. Dead and mutilated corpses of
Serbian police and soldiers would only stop if Milosevic
was extradited to the Hague. That was the price. The
US/NATO moreover withheld economic aid to Yugoslavia
unless Milosevic was extradited. Using military,
economic, and political blackmail is prohibited by the
United Nations and international legal guidelines. But
NPR and RFE/RL and the mainstream media of the US/NATO
countries never seemed to notice or to care. Laws exist
to be broken. The ends justified the means.
The Serbian and Yugoslav constitutions prohibited the
extradition of Milosevic. Nevertheless, the US/NATO and
the ICTY urged the violation of the both the Serbian and
Yugoslav constitutions. The Vojislav Kostunica/Zoran
Djinjic regime complied. Milosevic was
unconstitutionally extradited to the Hague in violation
of the constitutions.
Milosevic attacked the jurisdiction and legitimacy of
the ICTY tribunal. "Defiant Milosevic rejects 'lynch
law'" was the headline by Neil Tweedie at the Hague for
February 2, 2002 in the Telegraph. In a February 13,
2002 Reuters article by Andrew Roche, "Milosevic Scorns
War Crimes Trial as 'Lynching'", Milosevic accused the
trial of being a "lynching":
This tribunal does not have the right to try me because
it has not been established lawfully. We cannot speak of
a fair or equitable trial here. The prosecutor is not
only biased but has already publicized my judgment. From
your prosecutor's office a media campaign has been
orchestrated as a parallel lynching.
Is this a valid characterization of the international
trial of the century? Is it a lynching? What is a
lynching?
Fundamental and elementary standards of due process are
violated in the ICTY: 1) an accused has no right to bail
or to a speedy trial; 2) defendants can be tried and
convicted for the same crime twice, no double jeopardy
safeguards; 3) there is no
distinction/separation/division between the judge and
prosecution; 4) there is no clear burden of proof for
conviction; 5) there is no independent appeal body or
process; 6) suspects can be held for 90 days without
trial; 7) hearsay evidence is admissible; 8) witnesses
can testify anonymously and maintain "secret"
identities, i.e., K41, K32; 9) confessions are assumed
to be free and voluntarily given unless otherwise shown;
and, 10) secret indictments are allowed. Protagonists of
the ICTY argue that strict adherence to due process
guidelines is not possible because no nation wants to
see its citizens prosecuted. Moreover, political and
military leaders can use their influence and immunity to
avoid prosecution. Due process must be sacrificed in the
interests of expediency.
NATO is immune from prosecution for war crimes. The 6th
Convention of the Nuremberg prohibited targeting
civilian targets not based on "military necessity". NATO
systematically targeted Serbian civilian targets. ICTY
prosecutor Louise Arbour initially charged Milosevic
with war crimes at the behest of NATO and to support and
buttress the NATO bombing campaign against Serbia.
Louise Arbour made the charges at the apex of the NATO
bombing campaign when NATO was bombing Serbian civilian
targets in violation of the Nuremberg conventions. NATO
targeted Serbian television, power grids, oil
refineries, bridges, passenger trains, busses,
automobiles, nursing homes, Orthodox churches, and
hospitals. Thus, the initial charges were lodged as a
cover for NATO war crimes. Indeed, even before the NATO
bombing, Paddy Ashdown had threatened that Milosevic
would be indicted by NATO for war crimes if he did not
allow NATO troops to occupy Yugoslavia. Ian Black, in
the September 12, 2002 "Hectoring interventions" in The
Guardian (UK), quoted Ashdown as follows when he
testified against Milosevic at the Tribunal: "I said
that you would end up in this court, and here you are."
Indeed, NATO was able to write its own script and
dictate events at will. Milosevic opposed NATO
occupation of Yugoslavia. Now he paid the price for
opposing NATO. Exactly as Ashdown threatened. The ICTY
is just a NATO/US tribunal.
The ICTY prosecution seeks to establish command
responsibility or superior authority over subordinates
based on the theory of joint criminal enterprise a
criminal conspiracy theory. If a group is engaged in a
criminal operation then guilt is imputed to all members
of that group so long as they are members of the group
and seek to advance the goals or objectives of the
operation or enterprise. Under this quasi-conspiracy
theory, command responsibility can be imputed to
Milosevic as the member holding the top command
authority. Milosevic need not have direct knowledge of
all the events carried out in the commission of the
scheme. Knowledge can be inferred or imputed. But a
criminal enterprise must first be established. And the
ICTY prosecution has not shown this. Anonymous Witness
K41 testified that he had executed 15 Albanian civilians
including the killing of a baby. But does this show a
criminal enterprise? K41 should turn himself in to the
Yugoslav police and be prosecuted for the crimes he
personally committed. What have the actions of K41 to do
with Milosevic? No link has been established whatsoever.
The ICTY appointed three amici curiae, friends of the
court, lawyers to assist Milosevic in his defense and to
ensure that the trial is fair, Branislav Tapuskovic from
Yugoslavia, Steven Kay from the UK, and Mikhail
Wladimiroff from the Netherlands. Wladimiroff, a Dutch
lawyer, gave a newspaper interview in which he claimed
that there was enough evidence to convict Milosevic.
Vladimiroff was quoted in a Bulgarian newspaper of
saying that Milosevic had a "zero" chance of being
acquitted. He was appointed to assist in Milosevic's
defense and to ensure that justice was maintained. But
with only the Kosovo phase concluded, he was making his
opinion known. Indeed, why even bother with a trial?
Just hang Milosevic now? But he overreacted in his
eagerness and called his hand and thereby exposed the
"trial of the century" as a sham and farce. As everyone
already knew, the verdict had been reached in advance:
Guilty. The pathetic and shameful aspect of this
incident is that Vladimiroff announced this to the press
as a revelation or bombshell. Only problem was that the
cat was out of the bag. Everyone knew the so-called
trial was a lynching and political show trial. What is
the great mystery here? Of course Milosevic is guilty.
Why even have a trial at all? Lynch the scoundrel
immediately! Hang the "Balkan Hitler" from the nearest
tree or lamppost. Show everyone how Western justice
really works? The ICTY dismissed Vladimiroff because his
statements were supposed to have compromised the
impartiality of the tribunal. But there was no
impartiality to compromise.
Mainstream media accounts of the Kosovo phase of the
trial of the century were self-congratulatory. The US
media parroted this propaganda line. The Los Angeles
Times for September 13, 2002 had this headline:
"Compelling Case Seen Against Milosevic". The Fresno Bee
for September 10, 2002 stated that: "Military expert
says Milosevic responsible for war crimes".
Common sense told a different story. In the WSWS
analysis for September 11, 2002, "The Milosevic Trial:
Key prosecution witness backs deposed Yugoslav
president" by Keith Lee and Paul Mitchell concluded:
"The fact is that the prosecution has not been able to
produce any evidence that Milosevic was directly
responsible for war crimes." Moreover, they noted that
"officials used threats to extract testimony, ex-spy
chief says" referring to the exculpatory testimony of
Rade Markovic, who under oath stated that he was coerced
to testify against Milosevic. Milosevic then accused the
ICTY prosecutors of using "torture" in violation of UN
conventions to extract and compel Markovic's testimony.
Judge May, however, concluded that this testimony of
alleged torture was irrelevant to the main charge of war
crimes in Kosovo so he prevented Milosevic from
cross-examining Markovic further on this crucial issue.
The final ICTY prosecution witness during the Kosovo
phase was Canadian "military expert" on Yugoslavia,
Phillip Coo, who testified that Milosevic held ultimate
responsibility for decisions made by the Yugoslav
government. The conclusion was that this testimony
"failed to prove the charges" against Milosevic.
Initially, NATO charged Milosevic with causing the
planned murder of over 100,000 Albanians in Kosovo. This
was revealed and exposed to be a NATO hoax, part of the
massive and systematic NATO propaganda war against
Serbia/Yugoslavia. The ICTY had no choice but to reduce
the numbers allegedly killed to figures based on the
evidence or facts. The ICTY accused Milosevic for being
"responsible for the murder of hundreds of Albanians
from Kosovo." Absurdly, the so-called genocide was
reduced from the murder of 100,000 Albanians to the
murder of hundreds of Albanians. In fact, NATO bombing,
"collateral damage", killed more Albanian civilians than
Milosevic's forces did. NATO killed more Albanians than
Milosevic did. Who is guilty of war crimes then?
NATO Kills a Baby
NATO killed more babies and children than Milosevic did.
On April 10, 1999, at 11:55 PM, a NATO attack on Merdare
and Mirovac on the Kosovo-Serbia border killed an
eleven-month-old Serbian baby in Kosovo as was reported
in a Tanjug news report for April 11. 1999, "NATO Kills
a Baby". On the 18th day of the NATO bombardment, on
Orthodox Easter, Bojana Tosovic, who was an 11 month old
baby, was killed along with her father, Bozin Tosovic,
from Kursumlija, 30 years of age, and her mother Marija
Tosovic was seriously injured. On April 18, 3 year old
Milica Rakic of Batajnica was killed by NATO bombing.
NATO used cluster bombs, banned by international
agreements. The New York Times wrote, "in Merdare, NATO
bombs and anti-personnel cluster bombs demolished four
houses early Sunday morning, killing five." The New York
Times noted that: "A number of pigs and cows were
killed." The New York Times is more concerned for the
welfare of pigs and cows than the killing of a Serbian
baby. This is the epitome of dehumanization. The New
York Times has reduced propaganda to a science. There
was nothing about the killing of a Serbian baby by NATO.
And nothing about the illegality of using cluster bombs.
General Wesley Clark called it an "uncanny accident"
when 20 civilians were killed.
Serbian civilians and the civilian infrastructure of
Yugoslavia/Serbia were purposely targeted by US/NATO.
Passenger trains, automobiles, tractors, factories,
automotive plants, electricity power grids, nursing
homes, hospitals, residential areas were systematically
and methodically targeted by the US/NATO. A Spanish
pilot in NATO even confessed that civilian targets were
systematically and purposely targeted. The Serbian
civilian population was the target. An unexploded shell
had this written on it by US troops: "You still wanna be
a Serb now!!"
NATO bombed a passenger train that killed 23 civilians.
Was this by accident and due to a mistake? The NATO
pilot in cold blood waited until the passenger train
crossed the bridge and then bombed the train along with
the bridge to kill as many Serbian civilians as
possible. Isn't this a war crime? The way NATO explained
this systematic killing of Serbian civilians was that
the bridge itself was targeted only, while it is only a
coincidence that the passenger train happened to be
passing over it just when NATO jets bombed it. How
plausible is this? NATO not only committed war crimes by
targeting civilians but also by concealing its blatant
and egregious war crimes in Yugoslavia. NATO sped up
film footage of the attack on the passenger train to
make it appear as if it was by accident. NATO wanted to
create the illusion that the NATO pilot did not have
time to react to the passenger train. NATO knew it was
committing war crimes which were subsequently
covered-up. NATO spokesman Jamie Shea functioned as a
Joseph Goebbels-style "information" or propaganda
mouthpiece. When NATO killed approximately 100 Albanian
civilians who were in a tractor convoy, Shea stated
first that the Yugoslav/Serbian military forces had
massacred them. Then Shea stated that the Yugoslav
forces had tricked NATO into bombing Albanian civilians.
Finally, Shea admitted NATO pilots killed the Albanian
civilians, but argued that it was by mistake and by
accident, i.e., "collateral damage". Shea did Joseph
Goebbels proud! The NATO bombing of Yugoslav targets was
the purposeful, planned, and systematic targeting of
civilians. NATO violated the Nuremberg Convention and
committed war crimes. Why isn't NATO prosecuted? The
Milosevic trial was meant to cover up these NATO war
crimes.
The dead babies propaganda of the ICTY demonstrates the
moral hypocrisy and selective morality of the US/NATO.
The US/NATO sanctioned the murder of two-year-old Kosovo
Serb Danilo Cokic, his father Njegos, and his mother
Snezana. The entire Cokic family was murdered. The
US/NATO dismissed this mass murder as a "revenge"
killing. The mass murder of a Kosovo Serbian family was
a planned, premeditated murder carried out by Kosovo
Albanians. The Cokic family was on a bus traveling
through Kosovo when Albanians detonated a
remote-controlled bomb killing 11 Kosovo Serbs. The
suspected Albanian murderers were allowed to escape by
US/NATO forces and no one was prosecuted. Kosovo Serb
Branko Jovic, 70, and his wife Saveta, 65, were
bludgeoned to death with an axe by Albanian attackers.
The US/NATO dismissed this murder as a "revenge"
killing. Moreover, approximately 230,000 Kosovo Serbs,
Roma, Turks, and Jews were expelled from Kosovo in an
officially sanctioned expulsion by US/NATO. Human rights
and international humanitarian law have nothing to do
with the Kosovo conflict. The ICTY and US/NATO are using
the dead babies propaganda merely to demonize Milosevic
and by implication the Serbian Orthodox. NATO/US and
ICTY engage in selective morality and moral hypocrisy.
Conclusion
The Slobodan Milosevic "trial of the century" has
absolutely nothing to do with international law, war
crimes, or justice. The "international trial of the
century" is a travesty of justice and international law,
the legal travesty of the century, "The Lie of the
Century", a US/NATO political show trial. President Bill
Clinton explained the motives for the Kosovo conflict
and the attendant "trial of the century" in The Nation
for April 19, 1999:
If we're going to have a strong economic relationship
that includes our ability to sell around the world..
That's what this Kosovo thing is all about.
The Kosovo conflict thus has nothing to do with human
rights or international humanitarian law or war crimes.
The Kosovo crisis was merely a pretext for expanding US
economic/political/military penetration of Eastern
Europe. In other words, it was all about markets and
spheres of influence, economic expansion and
exploitation with concomitant military expansion.
Coca-Cola diplomacy. The goal was to ensure that US
corporations and the Pentagon were allowed to expand
into the Balkans. Is this something new or original?
Absolutely not. This is merely an instance of Gun Boat
diplomacy, the Policy of the Big Stick, the Banana
Republic paradigm of South and Central America, the
"military-industrial complex". It is business as usual.
So in other words we do not need to sweat the small
stuff. Just enjoy your Big Mac and French Fries and your
Coke and your SUV and your mini-van. Enjoy your freedom.
Do not worry about the Slobodan Milosevic trial. We are
building McDonald's restaurants and Kentucky Fried
Chicken and Burger King franchises all over the world
now. Enjoy.
What about the violations of morality and ethics of the
Milosevic "trial of the century"? Why is the US/NATO
using an updated version of the Jewish Ritual Murder
accusation, the dead babies hoax, to demonize the
Serbian Orthodox? Why is the Racak Massacre Propaganda
of the Deed Hoax being repeated? Is this ethical and
moral? Is it humane? Isn't this racism and a violation
of basic human rights? Isn't the ICTY insulting our
intelligence and dignity as human beings with the dead
babies propaganda? How can we say we have progressed and
advanced when we are witnessing a reversion to the
tactics of the Jewish Ritual Murder hoax? Have we
progressed? Have we advanced? Or have we regressed
instead? Has our moral and ethical sense been degraded?
Has our humanity been deadened by the New World Order?
The ICTY trial of the century of Slobodan Milosevic
answers all of these questions.
Carl Savich is a columnist for Serbianna.com.
ANTIWAR
Dead Babies
Lynching or Justice? The Trial of the Century: Kosovo
Phase Analysis
by Carl Savich
October 22, 2002
Dead Babies and Baby Killers
Witness K41: "The people who were in the houses were
expelled. They were forced out into the yard.There was a
gun placed to each of their heads.I think there were
about 15 people there. There were women there too,
children. I remember at least one child that I saw."
Prosecutor Dirk Rynevald: "Were there any babies? ."
Witness K41: "Yes.There was at least one baby. It might
have been - well, not even a year old. A soldier checked
to see if they had any money. The rest of the soldiers
started to leave the yard, and the four of us, or five
of us, remained. And our sergeant, Sergeant Kozlina,
ordered us to shoot the people who were in the yard. The
people who were shot at began falling down one across
the other, one over the other, and what I remember most
vividly is how - I remember this very vividly. There was
a baby, and it had been shot with three bullets, and it
was screaming unbelievably loud..
Never a night goes by without my dreaming about that
child."
Is this a scene from yet another Hollywood Holocaust
movie? Is it from Schindler's List? Is this the Racak
Massacre Hoax, an example of Propaganda of the Deed? Is
this the massacre at Babi Yar during World War II? Is
this "testimony" from the Iraqi Baby Incubator Hoax that
Tom Lantos manufactured and concocted/orchestrated to
foment war against Iraq? In 1990, Iraqi troops were
alleged to have turned off incubators and allowed
Kuwaiti babies to die. There were dead babies. The Iraqi
troops were baby killers. Is this the testimony of Hun
atrocities in Belgium in 1914 during World War I? German
troops were alleged to have carried dead babies on
bayonets and to have cut off the arms of Belgian
children, dismembering a baby.
This was the testimony of Witness K41 at the ICTY
"international trial of the century" of former Yugoslav
President Slobodan Milosevic, at the session held on
Friday, September 6, 2002. The testimony by K41 bears a
striking resemblance and similarity to the "Hun
atrocities" alleged to have been committed in Belgium in
August, 1914 and to the Iraqi Incubator Hoax of the 1991
Persian Gulf War.
British and French government/media propaganda accused
German troops of the mass rape of Belgian girls in
public in Liege. German troops were accused of
mutilating the breasts of a Belgian girl. The classic
propaganda image of the Allied propaganda against
Germany was the dead Belgian baby on a bayonet. German
troops, eight in number, were accused of bayoneting a
two-year-old Belgian baby. The London Times published
the news dispatch of an eyewitness account of German
atrocities against Belgian babies. A man was quoted as
stating that he witnessed "with his own eyes German
soldiery chop off the arms of a baby which clung to its
mother's skirts." The French propaganda office even
manufactured a photograph of the "handless baby" which
on September 18, 1915 was published in the French
newspaper La Rive Rouge. The French media included a
drawing that showed German troops eating the hands of
the dead baby. A Belgian commission of inquiry in 1922,
however, failed to find any evidence whatsoever for any
of these alleged atrocities. But that is irrelevant.
The truth of the allegations is irrelevant in
propaganda. What is important is that the dead babies
propaganda was successful on the propaganda front. For
Britain and France, the dead babies propaganda rallied
domestic public opinion against Germany. The truth of
the allegations is irrelevant and immaterial. The goal
was to create public opinion on the home front to create
support for a continuation of the war, to manufacture
racist/national/ethnic fervor, to instill war frenzy and
to lessen the antipathy towards killing. The Belgian
atrocity propaganda was also used to create public
support in the US for a declaration of war against
Germany. As John MacArthur noted, "slaughtered and
mutilated Belgian babies were a tremendous propaganda
triumph for the Allies."
Dead babies propaganda would be used again in the Iraqi
Persian Gulf War in 1991. Propaganda techniques do not
change. Wars and "dictators" and "butchers" come and go,
but propaganda techniques do not. Why is this so?
Propaganda appeals to fundamental, universal impulses of
man. Propaganda relies on archetypes of the human mental
psyche, primordial psychological processes and
mechanisms of the mind. There are archetypical motifs,
paradigms, stereotypes that are unchanging. This is why
massacres, atrocities, the mass rape of women and the
killing of babies remains an unchanging propaganda
technique from the 1914 Belgian atrocities to the 2002
ICTY "international trial of the century" of Slobodan
Milosevic. The mass rape propaganda technique was
revived during the Bosnian civil war while the dead
babies propaganda was used again in the Iraqi War of
1991 and the Milosevic trial of 2002. You go with what
works. And if it works, why change it? Why fix it if it
ain't broken?
The ICTY dead babies propaganda is analogous to the
Jewish Ritual Murder allegations or "blood libels" in
European history. In medieval Europe, anti-Jewish and
anti-Semitic racism and racist paranoia was induced by
manufacturing allegations that Jews abducted Christian
babies and then killed them in sacrificial religious
blood rites. Jews require the blood of Christian babies
for the Passover rite or ritual. Every year Jews abduct
a Christian baby, torture and crucify the baby, pierce
its side, perform a circumcision, then they kill the
Christian baby and dispose of the body. The Jewish
ritual murder of Christian babies charge first emerged
in England. Thomas of Monmouth published an account of
St. William of Norwich in 1173. William was alleged to
have been the victim of a Jewish ritual murder committed
in Norwich in 1144 by a converted Jew, Theobald. William
was tortured, circumcised, and his side was pierced in a
mock crucifixion. Anti-Jewish propaganda and paranoia
would eventually result in the expulsion from England of
all Jews by King Edward. In 1171, Jews of Blois, France,
were accused of crucifying a French Christian baby
during Passover as a ritualistic yearly murder. Jews
then threw the dead baby into the Loise river. There was
a dead baby. Jews were baby killers. That was the
message. That was the image. The association was with
dead Christian babies and Jews. Similarly, anti-Gypsy
racism and bigotry is based on the allegation that
wandering Gypsies kidnap helpless and defenseless babies
who are subsequently murdered. The dead baby propaganda
of the ICTY prosecutors makes use of the same
psychological or psychic mechanisms and responses of the
human brain. The dead babies allegations legitimize
racial and religious hatred and suspicion and in the
case of the Kosovo conflict, "revenge killings" of
Serbian children due to the "repression" and
"oppression" of the "ethnic Albanians". K41 was used to
show that the Yugoslav/Serbian Army was made up of baby
killers. Slobodan Milosevic was a baby killer. By
implication, every Serbian Orthodox is a baby killer.
This should insult our intelligence and human dignity.
But the ICTY prosecution is appealing to our emotions,
our feelings. Don't think, just feel. Focus on the
image. The image is everything. Just take in the image
of a dead Albanian baby being shot with three bullets
and screaming. Do you feel guilty now? Do you feel
remorse? Well, do you? Do you still want to be a Serb
now? Feel. Do not think. How many times have we heard
this before?
During the Iraqi conflict, Iraqi troops were accused of
removing 312 babies from incubators and placing them on
the hospital floors to die in Kuwait City. The London
Telegraph of September 5, 1990 reported that "babies in
the premature unit of one hospital had been removed from
their incubators so that these, too, could be carried
off." Two days later, the Los Angeles Times carried a
Reuters news dispatch which reported: "Iraqis are
beating people.taking hospital equipment, babies out of
incubators. Life-support systems are turned off.The
Iraqis are beating Kuwaitis.cutting their ears off if
they are caught resisting." MacArthur noted that "of all
the accusations made against the dictator, none had more
impact on American public opinion" than the dead babies
propaganda. The dead babies propaganda was manufactured
by the US government. President George Bush used the
dead babies propaganda is calling for a war against Iraq
in 1991. The US government colluded with the media and
PR firms to manufacture the hoax. Tom Lantos
orchestrated the presentation of bogus "testimony" to
substantiate the dead babies accusation. Lantos
presented "Nayirah" who would testify about witnessing
the murder of innocent Kuwaiti babies. Nayirah testified
before the Human Rights Caucus as follows:
I volunteered at the al-Addan hospital.While I was
there, I saw the Iraqi soldiers come into the hospital
with guns, and go into the room where 15 babies were in
incubators. They took the babies out of the incubators,
took the incubators, and left the babies on the cold
floor to die.
Voila! Dead babies! Of course, the later investigations
proved the Kuwaiti baby incubator story was a
manufactured hoax, manufactured and orchestrated by the
US Government, the Hill & Knowlton PR firm, the US
media, and Tom Lantos. Why did Lantos not reveal her
last name? Nayirah was actually Nayirah al-Sabah, the
daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador to the US. It was all
a phony propaganda stunt orchestrated and staged by the
US Government. It was a hoax and a sham. But it worked.
And therefore it is to be imitated and repeated. That is
why we see its reappearance at the "trial of the
century" of Slobodan Milosevic. What is the lesson here?
What is the moral? In the New World Order, all we are
concerned with is results. If it works, it is good. If
it does not work, it is bad. This is the morality and
ethics of the New World Order. This is the ethos of the
era. Selling. But you cannot have economic expansion and
exploitation without first having military and political
exploitation. It is all about selling. We want to build
more McDonald's restaurants. We want to build Kentucky
Fried Chicken franchises globally. The goal is to expand
markets. The avatars of the New World Order are the Big
Mac and the soft-drink Coca-Cola and affordable PCs.
Selling. Get used to it. Because we will see it repeated
ad infinitum and ad nauseam.
Why use dead babies propaganda? Dead babies propaganda
is highly effective as Western propagandists have
learned since the 1914 Belgian atrocity hoax following
the German occupation of Belgium in August, 1914. But
attempting to portray the Serbian Orthodox as baby
killers is an act of desperation and a sign of utter
weakness by the prosecutors at the ICTY. Dead babies
propaganda is a last resort. Its use demonstrates moral
and ethical bankruptcy and total disregard for human
rights, for humanity, humanitas. Why did the ICTY use
it? The ICTY could find no evidence of genocide in
Kosovo, no evidence of war crimes, no evidence of a plan
or conspiracy by Slobodan Milosevic to deport or
ethnically cleanse Albanians, no evidence of crimes
against humanity. The ICTY learned that the Milosevic
regime was engaged in a legal and legitimate state
action to prevent infiltration/invasion of armed
terrorist groups from Albania, the "mother country", a
terrorist army that sought to create an ethnically pure
Greater Albania that would encompass "Kosova",
Kosovo-Metohija, and "Illirida", western Macedonia.
Indeed, events in "Kosova" following the NATO bombing
showed that this was the actual goal all along.
Dead babies propaganda is a textbook example of the
Atrocity Technique or Atrocity Appeal in propaganda.
Atrocity propaganda was the US/NATO technique used
during the Bosnian Civil War to mobilize public opinion
against the Bosnian Serb faction. How was this done? The
US/NATO/ media relied on atrocity propaganda. The
Bosnian Serb forces massacred Bosnian Muslims and Croat
civilians, engaged in a systematic policy of mass rape
as an instrument of war, established "rape camps" or
"rape motels", set up concentration camps to intern
Bosnian Muslim and Croat civilians. The US
government/media concocted the Markale Massacre I and
Markale Massacre II, the Sarajevo Breadline Massacre,
and the Srebrenica Massacre. Why did the US
government/media do this? This was done to create
anti-Serbian public opinion so that the groundwork could
be established for war against the Serbian faction. The
ultimate aim of all propaganda is to enable or to
justify the killing of the "enemy".
Dead babies propaganda is meant to camouflage or
obscure/obfuscate the fact that the ICTY has failed to
prove or establish any part of its case against Slobodan
Milosevic. A focus on dead babies is termed an appeal to
the emotions, Affective Appeal in propaganda analysis.
In other words, it as an appeal to emotion, not to
reasoning, not the intellect. The goal is to bypass
reason. Atrocity propaganda in fact is meant to preclude
or prevent thought. Don't think, don't use your brain,
the ICTY prosecutors are saying, but let your emotions
control you. Here is a dead Albanian baby that Yugoslav
troops have killed. You must emote, you must feel. Guilt
and contrition are the objectives here. The Milosevic
trial is aimed primarily at the Serbian population. That
is why there is a virtual news black-out in the US. The
"trial of the century" is meant for Serbia. Ironically,
Pravda exposed the Milosevic trial as "The Lie of the
Century." It is a waste of time for Americans. The trial
is meant to discredit Serbia and the Serbian people, the
Orthodox. This was noted concisely in a Houston
Chronicle article of February 26, 2002: "Truth is,
Serbia's on trial along with Milosevic." This is why
Sylvia Poggioli of NPR interviews citizens of Belgrade
and not in New York or Washington, DC. The trial is
meant to vindicate or justify the NATO bombing and the
anti-Serbian Orthodox propaganda. Common sense tells us
the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia violated the UN Charter
and all rules, customs, and agreements of international
law. The unprovoked NATO bombing, invasion, and
occupation of Serbia/Yugoslavia violated basic
principles of sovereignty. The only way NATO could sell
the war was by propaganda, by manufacturing an
imperative for intervention based on genocide. But there
was no genocide. Thus the need to justify the illegal
NATO aggressive war against a UN state, Yugoslavia. The
trial is meant to justify and vindicate what cannot be
justified and vindicated. Thus there is a mindless and
inexplicable appeal to emotion. Don't think. Feel.
Why appeal to emotion? We cannot control our emotions.
Emotion is spontaneous and based on our subconscious and
operates at the subliminal level. Is this propaganda
technique new or original? Adolf Hitler examined and
discussed this propaganda technique in Mein Kampf in
1924. Hitler wrote that atrocity propaganda, dead babies
propaganda, appeals to the emotion, and not the
intellect:
The art of propaganda lies in understanding the
emotional ideas of the masses and finding, through a
psychologically correct form, the way to the attention
and thence to the heart of the masses.The purpose of
propaganda is not to provide interesting distraction for
blasé young gentlemen, but to convince, and what I mean
is to convince the masses.Its effect for the most part
must be aimed at the emotions and only to a very limited
degree at the so-called intellect.Sober reasoning
determines the people's thoughts and actions far less
than emotion and feeling.
As Hitler understood, propaganda is illogical and based
not on reason, but on emotion and feeling. This is why
the ICTY prosecution used the dead babies propaganda
which is illogical, absurd, and factually unconvincing.
But emotionally the dead babies propaganda is effective
because its appeal is to the emotions, which are
involuntary and reflexive and which are sensory in
nature.
How did the media report on this testimony of the
alleged killing of a baby? Ian Black in The Guardian
Unlimited for September 6, 2002 had this headline:
"Milosevic's army shot baby in village massacre". As the
ICTY prosecutors planned, the media focused on the dead
baby, the dead babies propaganda, the baby killers
propaganda. "We shot a little baby three times: soldiers
tell" was the headline in the Sun-Herald on September 8,
2002. This article even falsifies/manipulates the
testimony by adding the superfluous redundancy "little"
to describe the dead baby. K41 never used the adjective
"little". Isn't a baby always "little"? Media overkill?
Propaganda? The propaganda, nevertheless, worked as the
ICTY prosecution knew it would. Never mind that legally
their case against Milosevic was a total failure and
fiasco and amounted to a show or witch-hunt trial or
political trial masterminded by the US/NATO. Never mind
that legally the dead babies propaganda had achieved
absolutely nothing, had shown or proven nothing. That
was irrelevant. Why bother with something as trivial as
jurisprudence, due process, fundamental fairness, and
basic legal principles and procedures? The headline in
the Electronic Telegraph for September 6, 2002 was
"Milosevic unmoved": "Milosevic yawns as soldier witness
tells of village massacre" by Neil Tweedie for September
7, 2002. National Public Radio (NPR) pointed to the dead
babies testimony to vindicate and justify their
anti-Serbian posture.
The US and Western media advanced the propaganda line
that, contrary to all common sense and rudimentary legal
concepts, the ICTY had proven its case against
Milosevic. Isabel Vincent in The National Post Online
for September 14, 2002, argued that the ICTY prosecutors
had won a "slam dunk": "Milosevic prosecutors win a
'slam dunk'". Ruth Wedgwood, an international law
professor at Johns Hopkins University, was quoted as
follows: "Kosovo was a slam dunk." The term "slam dunk"
is an Americanism using a basketball analogy. Does using
a basketball analogy in a genocide prosecution reveal
profound moral hypocrisy and ethical cynicism or does it
demonstrate a genuine concern for human rights?
According to Vincent, the K41 dead babies testimony was
achieving its results in Serbia, instilling guilt and
contrition of the Serbian Orthodox as the ICTY
prosecutors planned: "After K41's testimony, media
outlets in Belgrade noted prosecutors were beginning to
win the case against Mr. Milosevic." Of course, not
legally, but emotionally, or at the propaganda or
infowar level. The propaganda was working. Keep it
coming. Give us more of the same. As for the legal case
against Milosevic, Vincent concluded that the ICTY
prosecutors "appeared to present a strong case." The
operative term here is "appeared". Was a strong legal
case against Milosevic presented? We do not know because
"appeared" is a meaningless, superficial term, actually
a propagandistic term implying plausible deniability and
reality control and spin. Based on the facts and the
evidence, the prosecution case was a total and complete
failure and flop/fiasco, "the travesty of the century".
Why does the US and Western media use the term "ethnic"
to describe Albanians but not the other ethnic groups in
the former Yugoslavia? The use of the term "ethnic"
stands out as an anomaly. The ethnic Serbs of
Bosnia-Hercegovina were referred to as "Bosnian Serbs".
The ethnic Serbs of Krajina were referred to as
"Croatian Serbs". The ethnic Macedonians of Macedonia
were referred to as "Slavs". Does a propaganda pattern
emerge? Why the difference in media reporting with
reference to the term "ethnic"? Nothing in propaganda or
infowar is by accident or at random. This terminology
was devised and manufactured at the US State Department
and then handed out to the "free and independent" media
as an instance of handout journalism. Every word, every
nuance of the psyop technician has a subtle purpose. As
Hitler noted, propaganda is not meant as "interesting
distraction for blasé young gentlemen". Propaganda takes
time, coordination, planning, and money to organize.
Infowar techniques have a specific result in mind, to
convince. To be consistent, US/Western terminology
should refer to Bosnian Serbs, Croatian Serbs, as
"ethnic" Serbs. But that was not the case. Ethnic
Albanians should be referred to as Yugoslav Albanians or
Serbian Albanians. In the Macedonia conflict, the two
groups, Albanians and Macedonians, were described as
"ethnic Albanians" and "Slavs" respectively. Is this
just random and by accident? We have to get inside the
mind of the US propagandist here. The terms the US
propagandist uses are based on function or on objectives
the US propagandist seeks to advance or achieve. Let us
take the term "Croatian Serbs", an oxymoron coined by
the US propagandist at the US State Department. Why this
term? The infowar technician wants to convince the
reader that the ethnic Serbian population of Croatia
only has meaning as part of Croatia. In other words, the
propagandist opposes any autonomy for the Krajina Serbs
or ethnic Serbs of Croatia. The way this brainwashing is
achieved is by the oxymoron "Croatian Serbs". Similarly,
the US propagandist coined the term "Bosnian Serb" for
the ethnic Serbs of Bosnia and Hercegovina. Why? The
choice here again is to limit Serbs to the territory of
Bosnia by the use of the limiting adjective "Bosnian".
The propagandist could just as well have used "ethnic
Serbs" or "Hercegovina Serbs" but instead chose "Bosnian
Serbs". Similarly, in the Macedonian conflict, the US
propagandist could use the term "Macedonian Albanians"
but instead refers to them as "ethnic Albanians". This
requires a parallel designation for "ethnic
Macedonians". But inconsistently and illogically, the
propaganda specialist uses the term "Slavs". Here the
goal is the opposite. The term "ethnic" is used because
"Macedonian" would limit the Albanian population to the
territory of Macedonia. The term "Slavs" is used because
the infowar technician wants to de-legitimize the ethnic
Macedonian classification. The dichotomy is between
"ethnic Albanians" and "Slavs". This creates parity and
equality between the two groups and allows for the
establishment of a separate Albanian federation in
Macedonia, the division of the country into "Slavs" and
"ethnic Albanians", the Greater Albania federalization
plan. Similarly, the Albanian minority in Yugoslavia is
referred to as "ethnic Albanians" and not as "Yugoslav
Albanians" or "Serbian Albanians" or Kosovo Albanians.
The rationale is obvious. The US propagandist seeks to
deny legitimacy to Yugoslavia and to Serbia by using the
vague and open term "ethnic". This systematic and
planned propaganda campaign insults our intelligence and
treats us like swine and cattle. But the US government
and media do not agree. They would maintain that they
are doing us a service, that they are teaching us how to
think correctly and ethically. Moreover, they are
counteracting the negative influence of the "butcher",
"dictator", "Hitler", Milosevic's propaganda. So enjoy
it. It is for your own good.
The dead babies testimony was presented by witness K41,
an anonymous witness, who presented his testimony on
"video link". K41 was the star prosecution witness after
the botched Rade Markovic fiasco. K41 was the final act,
the climax to the Kosovo Phase of the "trial of the
century". Before his testimony, Judge Richard May
summarily dismissed Milosevic's request to make legal
submissions: "Mr. Milosevic, we're not hearing legal
submissions now." Judge May was eager and excited to get
the star witness who was going to deliver the "slam
dunk" against Milosevic: "Now, Witness K41, we're going
to hear your evidence." K41 was questioned by Ryneveld,
and cross-examined by Slobodan Milosevic and Branislav
Tapuskovic.
Much of the background information regarding K41 was
"redacted" from the trial transcripts, that is, it was
cut out or censored. But what emerged was that K41 was
unable to get a passport to appear at the Hague in the
Netherlands because he was a suspected criminal
fugitive, wanted by the Yugoslav police, who had been to
his house seeking his arrest. K41 was 19 years old at
the time he was a member of the 549th Motorized Brigade
in Prizren. K41 was in the Battalion Technical Company.
His duties consisted of the maintenance of trucks, road
construction, and delivering food supplies. His
Logistics Battalion was part of the Technical Company
under the charge of Sergeant Rajko Kozlina. K41 served
from September 9, 1998 to June 10, 1999. His company was
ordered to set up an ambush in the Trnje area of Kosovo.
K41 testified that he and other Yugoslav troops had
expelled Albanian civilians from villages after the
villages had been shelled. He had received orders "to
clean up the village." There had been no shooting from
the village. He testified that the inhabitants were all
Albanian civilians. He stated that there was "looting"
of "shops" by Yugoslav troops. He saw no UCK/KLA
uniforms. K41 "left the village of Trnje with a truck
full of bodies and children." A truck full of dead
babies! Hill & Knowlton and Ruder Finn could never top
that one. What a propaganda bonanza! Too bad this is a
trial and not a PR campaign. Hill & Knowlton and Ruder
Finn would have a field day. One of his accomplices in
the massacre was Miroslav Fejzic according to K41. But
during cross-examination Milosevic was able to show that
no one by the name of Miroslav Fejzic was in the
company. His actual name was Mohammed Fejzic. Why is
this important? It may or may not be. K41 stated that
the "nickname" for Fejzic in the company was "Miroslav",
a Slavic Christian name. Why would a Muslim be called by
such a "nickname"? One possible explanation is the ICTY
prosecutors wanted to conceal the fact that one of the
accomplices to the so-called massacre near Trnje was a
Muslim. The object was to create a clear-cut line
between Good and Evil, a classic dichotomy between Us
and Them. But if one of those killing the Muslim victims
was a Muslim himself, the story is rendered less
plausible. Moreover, the dichotomy is destroyed.
Miroslav Fejzic? That is an oxymoron. Why conceal the
fact that his real name is Mohammed Fejzic?
In his cross-examination of Witness K41, Milosevic was
able to show that a warrant had been issued for the
arrest of K41 for armed robbery. The police had come to
K41's house but he had fled. He was fleeing and eluding
arrest. This is a serious crime in itself. K41 was a
wanted criminal and a self-confessed murderer. Why was
he the star prosecution witness against Milosevic?
Milosevic explained that he wanted to "test" the
"credibility" of K41 by this line of question. Judge
May, however, cautioned Milosevic to question K41 on his
testimony only. Milosevic stated that "quite obviously
we're dealing with a criminal here." Milosevic explained
that K41 was part of a contingent sent to the village of
Ljubizda Has near the Albanian border where UCL/KLA
guerrillas/terrorists were infiltrating Yugoslavia from
their military bases in Albania. The unit of which K41
was a member had set up an ambush position at the
village which was 4 kilometers from the Albanian border
on the Pastrik Mountains. Milosevic introduced evidence
that representatives of the OSCE Verification Mission
witnessed the Yugoslav military operations in the region
at the time. The OSCE "conducted a verification
spot-check" and concluded that no civilians were killed.
There were no massacres or executions according to the
OSCE monitors who were on the scene. Instead, 9 UCK/KLA
guerrillas were killed in the operation in Jeskovo. The
UCK "freedom fighters'/"terrorists" were all wearing UCK
military uniforms with Greater Albania badges, the black
double-headed eagle on a red background, the national
flag of Albania, the mother country. The UCK troops all
possessed weapons. Brigadier General Michel Maisonneuve
of the Canadian force, head of the regional center in
Prizren, along with OSCE monitors from Poland, Finland,
and Russia confirmed these facts. How could the OSCE
monitors miss another Racak-style massacre under their
own eyes? Milosevic concluded that "this witness, like
many others, is a false witness."
Milosevic pointed out an inconsistency in the testimony.
K41 stated that the massacre occurred in Trnje. But K32,
an earlier who witness gave the same testimony, claimed
that Medvedje was where the massacre occurred. After a
recess, the court announced that K32 had later corrected
his version to agree with that of K41. Milosevic
concluded: "These witnesses did not reach the right kind
of agreement when they were supposed to tell these
falsehoods."
K41 was part of a Logistics Battalion that supplied food
and water to front-line troops stationed in the Trnje
area of Kosovo-Metohija. Logistics is involved with
supply, not combat or actions in "built-up" positions,
and operates in the rear. Captain First Class Major
Pavle Gavrilovic had stated that every soldier was
instructed on how to treat the wounded, POWs, and
civilians and informed of humanitarian law. The Geneva
Convention guidelines were read to the troops. The
"Rules for Combatants" was also provided to the troops.
Gavrilovic concluded that no violations had occurred in
this area. K41 testified that there were no UCK/KLA
troops in the area. There was no combat whatsoever.
Milosevic queried K41: "You were just going and killing
babies, women, and children."
K41 stated that the Yugoslav forces suffered no
casualties and were not in danger. But Milosevic then
disproved this statement by introducing KFOR documents
that showed that a UCK/KLA brigade was in that area. A
heavy KLA concentration of military forces was located
precisely in the Trnje area. Milosevic showed that three
Yugoslav troops, Slobodan Gasparic, Bojan Jovanovic, and
Vladimir Mirko had been killed in the operation K41
described in combat with KLA guerrillas. Milosevic was
able to contradict the testimony of K41 that there were
no Yugoslav losses. The trial transcript is redacted
following this evidence. The evidence was presented in
private session. Milosevic asserted that this evidence
was offered "to show you that the witness has not been
telling the truth about other matters either."
Milosevic then introduced evidence that the OSCE had
reported no civilian deaths in the Trnje area of Kosovo.
In fact, Yugoslav police and military forces had helped
the Albanian civilians of this area to build roads. The
UCK/KLA guerrillas had occupied the villages and imposed
terror and blackmailed residents into paying money to
KLA. K41 testified that Yugoslav forces had burned
houses in Mamusa. But Milosevic introduced a tape that
showed that no houses had been burned in Mamusa. On the
tape, Albanian residents of Mamusa reported that no
houses had been burned. K41 stated that his unit fired
an anti-aircraft gun at the Albanian village for 20
minutes non-stop. Milosevic, however, was able to show
that based on the rate of fire of the gun, it was not
possible to maintain constant fire for that long without
the ammunition running out. K41 then changed his
testimony and stated that the fire was sporadic only.
Milosevic clearly showed that K41 did not know what he
was talking about.
Yugoslav military rules, regulations, and laws required
a member of the armed forces to report an order to
commit a crime and to disobey such an order. An order to
commit a crime was to be reported to a superior officer
immediately. All members of the Yugoslav armed forces
were duty-bound by the "Rules of Service" which every
member of the armed forces was required to know.
Milosevic introduced the "Rules of Service" as part of
the evidence to the court. Milosevic asked K41 if he was
aware of these rules and regulations. K41 replied that
he was not. Milosevic explained that every Yugoslav
soldier was informed of these regulations. K41 played
dumb. Perhaps he didn't have to play that much.
The amicus curia, Branislav Tapuskovic, then
cross-examined K41. Judge May admonished him: "Mr.
Tapuskovic, we wish not to be too long." Setting a time
limit on cross-examination is definitely a clear
violation of due process. Tapuskovic asked K41 why he
chose now to come forward with his testimony about
killing the "little" baby. Why had it taken him nearly
three years to confess his crimes? If he is innocent,
why does he fear going to the police? K41 explained that
he wanted to have his relatives exonerate him. He did
not want to go to the police. Tapuskovic explained that
the proper and legal way to be exonerated was to go
before a magistrate or judge. This is how to clear his
name. Eluding and fleeing the police was not the
accepted or normal way to be exonerated. K41 stated that
he planned to go to the police "when it suits me." K41
was asked about ICTY investigator John Zdrilic. Did
Zdrilic recruit him to testify? Was he offered anything
in exchange for his testimony? K41 explained: "I thought
that if I come forward and tell the truth that I will
feel easier in my soul." It had taken three years for
K41 to make his "confession".
Dead babies. That is what the Kosovo phase of the ICTY
Slobodan Milosevic "international trial of the century"
came down to. In the final analysis, this is what the
prosecution used to close their case against former
Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic, the "Hitler",
"dictator", "Butcher of the Balkans". The earlier ICTY
"star witness" exonerated Milosevic and admitted that he
was coerced. Milosevic alleged that Markovic was
"tortured" to testify falsely against him. Judge May
prevented any testimony on the "torture" allegation
because he ruled that it was "irrelevant" to the Kosovo
case.
The Kosovo phase of the "trial of the century", the war
crimes trial of Slobodan Milosevic in the ICTY in the
Hague, concluded on September 11, 2002. Milosevic had
been charged with 66 counts of war crimes, crimes
against humanity, and genocide in the conflicts in
Kosovo-Metohija, Bosnia-Hercegovina, and
Croatia/Krajina. In what human rights groups have dubbed
"the international trial of the century", 95 days were
spent on in court testimony. The three-member panel was
presided over by Judge Richard May of the UK appointed
by Tony Blair. The prosecutor was Geoffrey Nice of the
UK. In these 95 days, 124 witnesses were called, both
public/open and "secret"/anonymous witnesses, while
chief prosecutor Carla Del Ponte assembled over 300
exhibits, consisting of maps, charts, photographs, video
tapes, and statements. What is the result of the Kosovo
phase? The trial has been a total, complete, and
unmitigated failure and disaster. The trial has been
exposed as a political show trial orchestrated by the
US/NATO. Fundamental and elementary principles of due
process have been egregiously violated. News coverage of
the trial has been censored, suppressed, and
manipulated. The trial has been a useful propaganda tool
of US/NATO. Legally the trial is a travesty of justice.
The trial of the century is a lynching, exposing the
so-called Western justice as a sham.
What have legal analysts and the so-called mainstream
media concluded about the Kosovo phase of the trial of
the century? In The Independent (UK), September 11,
2002, Stephen Castle concluded that the prosecution
"fails to make vital link" in "Case against Milosevic
fails to make vital link". The prosecution needed to
prove command responsibility on the part of Slobodan
Milosevic. But this was not done. Castle concluded: "It
says [the prosecution] proves Mr. Milosevic must have
known of the murder and deportation of ethnic Albanians
in Kosovo, and he therefore bears command
responsibility." Ian Black in "Milosevic protests as
curtain falls on first act of his trial" in The Guardian
(UK), September 12, 2002, concluded: "If there were a
jury in this trial, it would probably be deeply divided
at this stage."
Lynching or Justice?
Is the ICTY trial of Slobodan Milosevic an example of
justice or is it a lynching? Edward L. Greenspan, QC, a
Toronto attorney in The National Post Online for March
13, 2002 concluded: "This is a lynching!" Due process
was violated as well as fundamental fairness and
elementary legal rules. Slobodan Milosevic was prevented
by Judge May from conducting a complete and thorough
cross-examination. May has set time limitations on the
Milosevic cross-examinations and has restricted their
scope. This is a blatant violation of an accused's right
to cross-examination. As Judge Learned Hand noted: "Thou
shalt not ration justice." Justice is rationed when a
time limit is set for cross-examination. Greenspan noted
the political nature of the trial and its function as a
show trial masterminded and organized by the US/NATO.
Greenspan concluded that the trial of the century was
nothing short of a lynching:
This is a lynching. Normally, lynchings are done
outdoors. Here, the lynching has been brought indoors.
Instead of a tree and rope, there are May and Del Ponte.
The problem with lynching is that it's flawed as a
process, whether the man who gets hanged is innocent or
guilty. The result is certain. A kangaroo court is one
in which legal procedures are largely a show, and the
action "jumps" from accusation to sentencing without due
process. No matter how long a trial takes, if the result
is inevitable, then it's a show trial. The accusers
might as well shoot Milosevic. At least it doesn't soil
the process.
Lynchings have a long history in American "justice".
Between 1882 and 1951, 4,730 persons were lynched in the
United States, 1,293 white, 3,437 black, by vigilantes
or vigilance groups. "Lynch law" or swamp law consists
in the administration of justice by a self-appointed and
self-constituted court that imposes sentence on a person
without due process. The goal is political and social
submission. Various explanations have been offered for
the derivation of the term "lynching". One explanation
bases the derivation from Colonel Charles Lynch
(1736-1796), a Virginia planter and justice of the
peace, who harassed Tories during the American
Revolutionary War. Summary punishment, usually hanging,
was imposed by a self-appointed commission without a
trial based in law. The punishment of persons suspected
of crime without due process of law is the gravamen of
the definition. Another derivation bases the term on
Captain William lynch (1742-1820) of Pittsylvania
County, Virginia, who made an agreement to punish
criminals without due process of law. Nation of Islam
Minister Louis Farrakhan at the Million Man March
maintained lynching was derived from William Lynch, a
British slave-owner in the West Indies who later settled
in the United States. Lynch was alleged to have made a
speech in 1712 to US slave owners advising them on how
to control and subjugate their slaves.
How did the ICTY obtain jurisdiction over Slobodan
Milosevic? Due to intense military, economic, and
political pressure by the US and NATO amounting to
"blackmail", Milosevic was arrested and extradited to
the Hague Tribunal in 2001. The US/NATO blackmail
included arming and training the UCK/KLA/UCMPB Greater
Albanian "terrorists", "guerrillas", "insurgents", and
planning military operations on their behalf in Southern
Serbia. The US/NATO sent this KLA proxy army from
US/NATO occupied Kosovo into Serbia where they murdered
and mutilated the bodies of several Serbian policemen
and soldiers and occupied Serbian towns and villages.
Was this terror campaign by the US meant to achieve
"greater rights" for the Albanian minority in
Yugoslavia? That was the official propaganda or "party
line" spewed forth by US propaganda outlets like
National Public Radio (NPR), the "Radio Free America",
and RFE/RE. But the actual motive was to exert blackmail
on the Serbian government. Dead and mutilated corpses of
Serbian police and soldiers would only stop if Milosevic
was extradited to the Hague. That was the price. The
US/NATO moreover withheld economic aid to Yugoslavia
unless Milosevic was extradited. Using military,
economic, and political blackmail is prohibited by the
United Nations and international legal guidelines. But
NPR and RFE/RL and the mainstream media of the US/NATO
countries never seemed to notice or to care. Laws exist
to be broken. The ends justified the means.
The Serbian and Yugoslav constitutions prohibited the
extradition of Milosevic. Nevertheless, the US/NATO and
the ICTY urged the violation of the both the Serbian and
Yugoslav constitutions. The Vojislav Kostunica/Zoran
Djinjic regime complied. Milosevic was
unconstitutionally extradited to the Hague in violation
of the constitutions.
Milosevic attacked the jurisdiction and legitimacy of
the ICTY tribunal. "Defiant Milosevic rejects 'lynch
law'" was the headline by Neil Tweedie at the Hague for
February 2, 2002 in the Telegraph. In a February 13,
2002 Reuters article by Andrew Roche, "Milosevic Scorns
War Crimes Trial as 'Lynching'", Milosevic accused the
trial of being a "lynching":
This tribunal does not have the right to try me because
it has not been established lawfully. We cannot speak of
a fair or equitable trial here. The prosecutor is not
only biased but has already publicized my judgment. From
your prosecutor's office a media campaign has been
orchestrated as a parallel lynching.
Is this a valid characterization of the international
trial of the century? Is it a lynching? What is a
lynching?
Fundamental and elementary standards of due process are
violated in the ICTY: 1) an accused has no right to bail
or to a speedy trial; 2) defendants can be tried and
convicted for the same crime twice, no double jeopardy
safeguards; 3) there is no
distinction/separation/division between the judge and
prosecution; 4) there is no clear burden of proof for
conviction; 5) there is no independent appeal body or
process; 6) suspects can be held for 90 days without
trial; 7) hearsay evidence is admissible; 8) witnesses
can testify anonymously and maintain "secret"
identities, i.e., K41, K32; 9) confessions are assumed
to be free and voluntarily given unless otherwise shown;
and, 10) secret indictments are allowed. Protagonists of
the ICTY argue that strict adherence to due process
guidelines is not possible because no nation wants to
see its citizens prosecuted. Moreover, political and
military leaders can use their influence and immunity to
avoid prosecution. Due process must be sacrificed in the
interests of expediency.
NATO is immune from prosecution for war crimes. The 6th
Convention of the Nuremberg prohibited targeting
civilian targets not based on "military necessity". NATO
systematically targeted Serbian civilian targets. ICTY
prosecutor Louise Arbour initially charged Milosevic
with war crimes at the behest of NATO and to support and
buttress the NATO bombing campaign against Serbia.
Louise Arbour made the charges at the apex of the NATO
bombing campaign when NATO was bombing Serbian civilian
targets in violation of the Nuremberg conventions. NATO
targeted Serbian television, power grids, oil
refineries, bridges, passenger trains, busses,
automobiles, nursing homes, Orthodox churches, and
hospitals. Thus, the initial charges were lodged as a
cover for NATO war crimes. Indeed, even before the NATO
bombing, Paddy Ashdown had threatened that Milosevic
would be indicted by NATO for war crimes if he did not
allow NATO troops to occupy Yugoslavia. Ian Black, in
the September 12, 2002 "Hectoring interventions" in The
Guardian (UK), quoted Ashdown as follows when he
testified against Milosevic at the Tribunal: "I said
that you would end up in this court, and here you are."
Indeed, NATO was able to write its own script and
dictate events at will. Milosevic opposed NATO
occupation of Yugoslavia. Now he paid the price for
opposing NATO. Exactly as Ashdown threatened. The ICTY
is just a NATO/US tribunal.
The ICTY prosecution seeks to establish command
responsibility or superior authority over subordinates
based on the theory of joint criminal enterprise a
criminal conspiracy theory. If a group is engaged in a
criminal operation then guilt is imputed to all members
of that group so long as they are members of the group
and seek to advance the goals or objectives of the
operation or enterprise. Under this quasi-conspiracy
theory, command responsibility can be imputed to
Milosevic as the member holding the top command
authority. Milosevic need not have direct knowledge of
all the events carried out in the commission of the
scheme. Knowledge can be inferred or imputed. But a
criminal enterprise must first be established. And the
ICTY prosecution has not shown this. Anonymous Witness
K41 testified that he had executed 15 Albanian civilians
including the killing of a baby. But does this show a
criminal enterprise? K41 should turn himself in to the
Yugoslav police and be prosecuted for the crimes he
personally committed. What have the actions of K41 to do
with Milosevic? No link has been established whatsoever.
The ICTY appointed three amici curiae, friends of the
court, lawyers to assist Milosevic in his defense and to
ensure that the trial is fair, Branislav Tapuskovic from
Yugoslavia, Steven Kay from the UK, and Mikhail
Wladimiroff from the Netherlands. Wladimiroff, a Dutch
lawyer, gave a newspaper interview in which he claimed
that there was enough evidence to convict Milosevic.
Vladimiroff was quoted in a Bulgarian newspaper of
saying that Milosevic had a "zero" chance of being
acquitted. He was appointed to assist in Milosevic's
defense and to ensure that justice was maintained. But
with only the Kosovo phase concluded, he was making his
opinion known. Indeed, why even bother with a trial?
Just hang Milosevic now? But he overreacted in his
eagerness and called his hand and thereby exposed the
"trial of the century" as a sham and farce. As everyone
already knew, the verdict had been reached in advance:
Guilty. The pathetic and shameful aspect of this
incident is that Vladimiroff announced this to the press
as a revelation or bombshell. Only problem was that the
cat was out of the bag. Everyone knew the so-called
trial was a lynching and political show trial. What is
the great mystery here? Of course Milosevic is guilty.
Why even have a trial at all? Lynch the scoundrel
immediately! Hang the "Balkan Hitler" from the nearest
tree or lamppost. Show everyone how Western justice
really works? The ICTY dismissed Vladimiroff because his
statements were supposed to have compromised the
impartiality of the tribunal. But there was no
impartiality to compromise.
Mainstream media accounts of the Kosovo phase of the
trial of the century were self-congratulatory. The US
media parroted this propaganda line. The Los Angeles
Times for September 13, 2002 had this headline:
"Compelling Case Seen Against Milosevic". The Fresno Bee
for September 10, 2002 stated that: "Military expert
says Milosevic responsible for war crimes".
Common sense told a different story. In the WSWS
analysis for September 11, 2002, "The Milosevic Trial:
Key prosecution witness backs deposed Yugoslav
president" by Keith Lee and Paul Mitchell concluded:
"The fact is that the prosecution has not been able to
produce any evidence that Milosevic was directly
responsible for war crimes." Moreover, they noted that
"officials used threats to extract testimony, ex-spy
chief says" referring to the exculpatory testimony of
Rade Markovic, who under oath stated that he was coerced
to testify against Milosevic. Milosevic then accused the
ICTY prosecutors of using "torture" in violation of UN
conventions to extract and compel Markovic's testimony.
Judge May, however, concluded that this testimony of
alleged torture was irrelevant to the main charge of war
crimes in Kosovo so he prevented Milosevic from
cross-examining Markovic further on this crucial issue.
The final ICTY prosecution witness during the Kosovo
phase was Canadian "military expert" on Yugoslavia,
Phillip Coo, who testified that Milosevic held ultimate
responsibility for decisions made by the Yugoslav
government. The conclusion was that this testimony
"failed to prove the charges" against Milosevic.
Initially, NATO charged Milosevic with causing the
planned murder of over 100,000 Albanians in Kosovo. This
was revealed and exposed to be a NATO hoax, part of the
massive and systematic NATO propaganda war against
Serbia/Yugoslavia. The ICTY had no choice but to reduce
the numbers allegedly killed to figures based on the
evidence or facts. The ICTY accused Milosevic for being
"responsible for the murder of hundreds of Albanians
from Kosovo." Absurdly, the so-called genocide was
reduced from the murder of 100,000 Albanians to the
murder of hundreds of Albanians. In fact, NATO bombing,
"collateral damage", killed more Albanian civilians than
Milosevic's forces did. NATO killed more Albanians than
Milosevic did. Who is guilty of war crimes then?
NATO Kills a Baby
NATO killed more babies and children than Milosevic did.
On April 10, 1999, at 11:55 PM, a NATO attack on Merdare
and Mirovac on the Kosovo-Serbia border killed an
eleven-month-old Serbian baby in Kosovo as was reported
in a Tanjug news report for April 11. 1999, "NATO Kills
a Baby". On the 18th day of the NATO bombardment, on
Orthodox Easter, Bojana Tosovic, who was an 11 month old
baby, was killed along with her father, Bozin Tosovic,
from Kursumlija, 30 years of age, and her mother Marija
Tosovic was seriously injured. On April 18, 3 year old
Milica Rakic of Batajnica was killed by NATO bombing.
NATO used cluster bombs, banned by international
agreements. The New York Times wrote, "in Merdare, NATO
bombs and anti-personnel cluster bombs demolished four
houses early Sunday morning, killing five." The New York
Times noted that: "A number of pigs and cows were
killed." The New York Times is more concerned for the
welfare of pigs and cows than the killing of a Serbian
baby. This is the epitome of dehumanization. The New
York Times has reduced propaganda to a science. There
was nothing about the killing of a Serbian baby by NATO.
And nothing about the illegality of using cluster bombs.
General Wesley Clark called it an "uncanny accident"
when 20 civilians were killed.
Serbian civilians and the civilian infrastructure of
Yugoslavia/Serbia were purposely targeted by US/NATO.
Passenger trains, automobiles, tractors, factories,
automotive plants, electricity power grids, nursing
homes, hospitals, residential areas were systematically
and methodically targeted by the US/NATO. A Spanish
pilot in NATO even confessed that civilian targets were
systematically and purposely targeted. The Serbian
civilian population was the target. An unexploded shell
had this written on it by US troops: "You still wanna be
a Serb now!!"
NATO bombed a passenger train that killed 23 civilians.
Was this by accident and due to a mistake? The NATO
pilot in cold blood waited until the passenger train
crossed the bridge and then bombed the train along with
the bridge to kill as many Serbian civilians as
possible. Isn't this a war crime? The way NATO explained
this systematic killing of Serbian civilians was that
the bridge itself was targeted only, while it is only a
coincidence that the passenger train happened to be
passing over it just when NATO jets bombed it. How
plausible is this? NATO not only committed war crimes by
targeting civilians but also by concealing its blatant
and egregious war crimes in Yugoslavia. NATO sped up
film footage of the attack on the passenger train to
make it appear as if it was by accident. NATO wanted to
create the illusion that the NATO pilot did not have
time to react to the passenger train. NATO knew it was
committing war crimes which were subsequently
covered-up. NATO spokesman Jamie Shea functioned as a
Joseph Goebbels-style "information" or propaganda
mouthpiece. When NATO killed approximately 100 Albanian
civilians who were in a tractor convoy, Shea stated
first that the Yugoslav/Serbian military forces had
massacred them. Then Shea stated that the Yugoslav
forces had tricked NATO into bombing Albanian civilians.
Finally, Shea admitted NATO pilots killed the Albanian
civilians, but argued that it was by mistake and by
accident, i.e., "collateral damage". Shea did Joseph
Goebbels proud! The NATO bombing of Yugoslav targets was
the purposeful, planned, and systematic targeting of
civilians. NATO violated the Nuremberg Convention and
committed war crimes. Why isn't NATO prosecuted? The
Milosevic trial was meant to cover up these NATO war
crimes.
The dead babies propaganda of the ICTY demonstrates the
moral hypocrisy and selective morality of the US/NATO.
The US/NATO sanctioned the murder of two-year-old Kosovo
Serb Danilo Cokic, his father Njegos, and his mother
Snezana. The entire Cokic family was murdered. The
US/NATO dismissed this mass murder as a "revenge"
killing. The mass murder of a Kosovo Serbian family was
a planned, premeditated murder carried out by Kosovo
Albanians. The Cokic family was on a bus traveling
through Kosovo when Albanians detonated a
remote-controlled bomb killing 11 Kosovo Serbs. The
suspected Albanian murderers were allowed to escape by
US/NATO forces and no one was prosecuted. Kosovo Serb
Branko Jovic, 70, and his wife Saveta, 65, were
bludgeoned to death with an axe by Albanian attackers.
The US/NATO dismissed this murder as a "revenge"
killing. Moreover, approximately 230,000 Kosovo Serbs,
Roma, Turks, and Jews were expelled from Kosovo in an
officially sanctioned expulsion by US/NATO. Human rights
and international humanitarian law have nothing to do
with the Kosovo conflict. The ICTY and US/NATO are using
the dead babies propaganda merely to demonize Milosevic
and by implication the Serbian Orthodox. NATO/US and
ICTY engage in selective morality and moral hypocrisy.
Conclusion
The Slobodan Milosevic "trial of the century" has
absolutely nothing to do with international law, war
crimes, or justice. The "international trial of the
century" is a travesty of justice and international law,
the legal travesty of the century, "The Lie of the
Century", a US/NATO political show trial. President Bill
Clinton explained the motives for the Kosovo conflict
and the attendant "trial of the century" in The Nation
for April 19, 1999:
If we're going to have a strong economic relationship
that includes our ability to sell around the world..
That's what this Kosovo thing is all about.
The Kosovo conflict thus has nothing to do with human
rights or international humanitarian law or war crimes.
The Kosovo crisis was merely a pretext for expanding US
economic/political/military penetration of Eastern
Europe. In other words, it was all about markets and
spheres of influence, economic expansion and
exploitation with concomitant military expansion.
Coca-Cola diplomacy. The goal was to ensure that US
corporations and the Pentagon were allowed to expand
into the Balkans. Is this something new or original?
Absolutely not. This is merely an instance of Gun Boat
diplomacy, the Policy of the Big Stick, the Banana
Republic paradigm of South and Central America, the
"military-industrial complex". It is business as usual.
So in other words we do not need to sweat the small
stuff. Just enjoy your Big Mac and French Fries and your
Coke and your SUV and your mini-van. Enjoy your freedom.
Do not worry about the Slobodan Milosevic trial. We are
building McDonald's restaurants and Kentucky Fried
Chicken and Burger King franchises all over the world
now. Enjoy.
What about the violations of morality and ethics of the
Milosevic "trial of the century"? Why is the US/NATO
using an updated version of the Jewish Ritual Murder
accusation, the dead babies hoax, to demonize the
Serbian Orthodox? Why is the Racak Massacre Propaganda
of the Deed Hoax being repeated? Is this ethical and
moral? Is it humane? Isn't this racism and a violation
of basic human rights? Isn't the ICTY insulting our
intelligence and dignity as human beings with the dead
babies propaganda? How can we say we have progressed and
advanced when we are witnessing a reversion to the
tactics of the Jewish Ritual Murder hoax? Have we
progressed? Have we advanced? Or have we regressed
instead? Has our moral and ethical sense been degraded?
Has our humanity been deadened by the New World Order?
The ICTY trial of the century of Slobodan Milosevic
answers all of these questions.
Carl Savich is a columnist for Serbianna.com.
LIÈNI STAV
Strani plaæenici
PI©E: KOSTA ÈAVO©KI (Glas Javnosti)
Kao ¹to se i moglo oèekivati, poslednja poseta ha¹kog tu¾ioca Karle
del Ponte dovela je do jo¹ jednog nacionalnog poni¾enja. Iako su na¹i
vlastodr¹ci ispunjavali svaki diktat iz inostranstva, ona ih je
optu¾ila da nedovoljno "saraðuju" s Ha¹kim sudom.
Najpre je pomenula da general Ratko Mladiæ jo¹ nije uhap¹en i izveden
pred Ha¹ki sud, iako ne mo¾e da mu uðe u trag ni nekoliko stotina
stranih obave¹tajaca i plaæenika, koji slobodno vr¹ljaju po na¹oj
zemlji, a kamoli policajci Du¹ka Mihajloviæa, koji veæ du¾e vremena
"prevræu nebo i zemlju".
Potom je zahtevala da se ukine èlan 39. saveznog Zakona o saradnji s
Hagom, kojim se utvrðuje da se Hagu mogu isporuèiti samo oni
optu¾enici protiv kojih je optu¾nica podignuta i potvrðena do dana
kada je ovaj Zakon donet.
Naposletku se po¾alila kako su na¹e arhive, naroèito vojne, jo¹
nedostupne ha¹kim istra¾iteljima. A to je za predsednika Ha¹kog suda
Kloda ®ordu bio dovoljan razlog da od Saveta bezbednosti zatra¾i da
protiv SRJ preduzme mere koje æe je prisiliti da "saraðuje" s ovim
Sudom.
Da bi smo razabrali koliko je ova "saradnja" na¹ih vlastodr¾aca s
Hagom nedovoljna, treba je uporediti sa sliènom saradnjom hrvatskih
vlasti. Na¹i vlastodr¹ci su najpre na Vidovdan 2001. oteli iz zatvora
i isporuèili doskora¹njeg ¹efa dr¾ave Slobodana Milo¹eviæa, po èemu su
veæ u¹li u anale istorije.
Zatim su predhodnog ¹efa dr¾ave Zorana Liliæa uputili u Hag kao
prinudnog "svedoka". A veæ du¾e vremena nagove¹tavaju da æe i treæeg
¹efa dr¾ave Milana Milutinoviæa otpremiti u Hag èim mu istekne
predsednièki mandat.
Uz to su izruèili, a da mu nikakvu za¹titu nisu pru¾ili, i generala
Dragoljuba Ojdaniæa, ratnog naèelnika general¹taba, ¹to takoðe
predstavlja jedinstven primer u novijoj istoriji.
Do sada se od Hrvatske za ¾ivota Franje Tuðmana i kasnije nije tra¾ilo
da izruèi ni svog ¹efa dr¾ave niti bilo kojeg ¹efa vlade, iako su svi
oni, osim Tuðmana, ¾ivi i zdravi. Jedino se posle devet punih godina
zahteva izruèenje negda¹njeg naèelnika general¹taba Janka Bobetka zbog
ratnih zloèina u Medaèkom d¾epu septembra 1993.
Tom prilikom hrvatska soldateska je, prema kazivanju Sedrika
Tornberija, tada¹njeg pomoænika generalnog sekretara UN, primenila
taktiku "spr¾ene zemlje". Sravnjena je svaka kuæa i ubijano je sve ¹to
se kreæe, ukljuèujuæi i domaæe ¾ivotinje, tako da je na prostoru od
100 kvadratnih milja pronaðeno ¾ivo samo jedno pile.
Pa, kako je hrvatska vlada odgovorila na zahtev da izruèi generala
Janka Bobetka? Vajkanjem Ivice Raèana da bi to ugrozilo mladu i jo¹
rovitu hrvatsku "demokraciju" i da to "nije optu¾nica protiv generala
Bobetka, nego protiv Domovinskog rata".
Karla del Ponte je s velikim razumevanjem primila ove hrvatske
razloge, pa Savetu bezbednosti nije podnela pritu¾bu protiv Hrvatske,
nego se èak srdaèno zahvalila zbog dosada¹njeg odziva svedoka iz
Hrvatske, posebno Stipeta Mesiæa, na suðenju Slobodanu Milo¹eviæu.
Posebnu pa¾nju zaslu¾uje pritu¾ba Karle del Ponte da joj nisu dostupni
na¹i arhivi, posebno vojni. Kad je, meðutim, njena komisija na èelu s
Vilijamom Fenrikom, kanadskim kapetanom fregate u vreme oru¾ane
agresije Atlantskog pakta na na¹u zemlju, pravila izve¹taj kojim je
ovaj savez oslobodila svake odgovornosti za poèinjene ratne zloèine,
ona to nije uèinila na osnovu uvida u tajne vojne arhive, nego na
osnovu izjava za ¹tampu èelnika Atlanskog pakta.
Ostaje jo¹ da se ka¾e kakvi su, za razliku od hrvatskih, na¹i
vlastodr¹ci koji ispunjavaju svaki diktat iz inostranstva. U intervjuu
sarajevskom listu "Dani" od 23. februara 2001. Srða Popoviæ, koji je
izvrsno upuæen u to odakle su i kome su godinama dolazile pare iz
inostranstva, veli da je "Madlen Olbrajt ujedinila opoziciju, da im je
Amerika platila kampanju, da je Amerika plaæala sve te nevladine
organizacije..., platila i godina plaæala opozicione medije...
" Tako smo se jo¹ jednom suoèili sa surovom istinom da su danas na
vlasti strani plaæenici - ljudi koji bez stida i srama upuæuju u Hag
svakog na koga Karla del Ponte prstom uka¾e.
http://www.glas-javnosti.co.yu/danas/srpski/T02102702.shtml
=== * ===
Bosko Todorovic
Dusan Vilic
ZASTO SU OPTUZENI 2
(odgovor na haske "optuznice" za Hrvatsku i BiH protiv
Slobodana Milosevica)
Izdavac: GRAFOMARK, Beograd, 2002.
Strani plaæenici
PI©E: KOSTA ÈAVO©KI (Glas Javnosti)
Kao ¹to se i moglo oèekivati, poslednja poseta ha¹kog tu¾ioca Karle
del Ponte dovela je do jo¹ jednog nacionalnog poni¾enja. Iako su na¹i
vlastodr¹ci ispunjavali svaki diktat iz inostranstva, ona ih je
optu¾ila da nedovoljno "saraðuju" s Ha¹kim sudom.
Najpre je pomenula da general Ratko Mladiæ jo¹ nije uhap¹en i izveden
pred Ha¹ki sud, iako ne mo¾e da mu uðe u trag ni nekoliko stotina
stranih obave¹tajaca i plaæenika, koji slobodno vr¹ljaju po na¹oj
zemlji, a kamoli policajci Du¹ka Mihajloviæa, koji veæ du¾e vremena
"prevræu nebo i zemlju".
Potom je zahtevala da se ukine èlan 39. saveznog Zakona o saradnji s
Hagom, kojim se utvrðuje da se Hagu mogu isporuèiti samo oni
optu¾enici protiv kojih je optu¾nica podignuta i potvrðena do dana
kada je ovaj Zakon donet.
Naposletku se po¾alila kako su na¹e arhive, naroèito vojne, jo¹
nedostupne ha¹kim istra¾iteljima. A to je za predsednika Ha¹kog suda
Kloda ®ordu bio dovoljan razlog da od Saveta bezbednosti zatra¾i da
protiv SRJ preduzme mere koje æe je prisiliti da "saraðuje" s ovim
Sudom.
Da bi smo razabrali koliko je ova "saradnja" na¹ih vlastodr¾aca s
Hagom nedovoljna, treba je uporediti sa sliènom saradnjom hrvatskih
vlasti. Na¹i vlastodr¹ci su najpre na Vidovdan 2001. oteli iz zatvora
i isporuèili doskora¹njeg ¹efa dr¾ave Slobodana Milo¹eviæa, po èemu su
veæ u¹li u anale istorije.
Zatim su predhodnog ¹efa dr¾ave Zorana Liliæa uputili u Hag kao
prinudnog "svedoka". A veæ du¾e vremena nagove¹tavaju da æe i treæeg
¹efa dr¾ave Milana Milutinoviæa otpremiti u Hag èim mu istekne
predsednièki mandat.
Uz to su izruèili, a da mu nikakvu za¹titu nisu pru¾ili, i generala
Dragoljuba Ojdaniæa, ratnog naèelnika general¹taba, ¹to takoðe
predstavlja jedinstven primer u novijoj istoriji.
Do sada se od Hrvatske za ¾ivota Franje Tuðmana i kasnije nije tra¾ilo
da izruèi ni svog ¹efa dr¾ave niti bilo kojeg ¹efa vlade, iako su svi
oni, osim Tuðmana, ¾ivi i zdravi. Jedino se posle devet punih godina
zahteva izruèenje negda¹njeg naèelnika general¹taba Janka Bobetka zbog
ratnih zloèina u Medaèkom d¾epu septembra 1993.
Tom prilikom hrvatska soldateska je, prema kazivanju Sedrika
Tornberija, tada¹njeg pomoænika generalnog sekretara UN, primenila
taktiku "spr¾ene zemlje". Sravnjena je svaka kuæa i ubijano je sve ¹to
se kreæe, ukljuèujuæi i domaæe ¾ivotinje, tako da je na prostoru od
100 kvadratnih milja pronaðeno ¾ivo samo jedno pile.
Pa, kako je hrvatska vlada odgovorila na zahtev da izruèi generala
Janka Bobetka? Vajkanjem Ivice Raèana da bi to ugrozilo mladu i jo¹
rovitu hrvatsku "demokraciju" i da to "nije optu¾nica protiv generala
Bobetka, nego protiv Domovinskog rata".
Karla del Ponte je s velikim razumevanjem primila ove hrvatske
razloge, pa Savetu bezbednosti nije podnela pritu¾bu protiv Hrvatske,
nego se èak srdaèno zahvalila zbog dosada¹njeg odziva svedoka iz
Hrvatske, posebno Stipeta Mesiæa, na suðenju Slobodanu Milo¹eviæu.
Posebnu pa¾nju zaslu¾uje pritu¾ba Karle del Ponte da joj nisu dostupni
na¹i arhivi, posebno vojni. Kad je, meðutim, njena komisija na èelu s
Vilijamom Fenrikom, kanadskim kapetanom fregate u vreme oru¾ane
agresije Atlantskog pakta na na¹u zemlju, pravila izve¹taj kojim je
ovaj savez oslobodila svake odgovornosti za poèinjene ratne zloèine,
ona to nije uèinila na osnovu uvida u tajne vojne arhive, nego na
osnovu izjava za ¹tampu èelnika Atlanskog pakta.
Ostaje jo¹ da se ka¾e kakvi su, za razliku od hrvatskih, na¹i
vlastodr¹ci koji ispunjavaju svaki diktat iz inostranstva. U intervjuu
sarajevskom listu "Dani" od 23. februara 2001. Srða Popoviæ, koji je
izvrsno upuæen u to odakle su i kome su godinama dolazile pare iz
inostranstva, veli da je "Madlen Olbrajt ujedinila opoziciju, da im je
Amerika platila kampanju, da je Amerika plaæala sve te nevladine
organizacije..., platila i godina plaæala opozicione medije...
" Tako smo se jo¹ jednom suoèili sa surovom istinom da su danas na
vlasti strani plaæenici - ljudi koji bez stida i srama upuæuju u Hag
svakog na koga Karla del Ponte prstom uka¾e.
http://www.glas-javnosti.co.yu/danas/srpski/T02102702.shtml
=== * ===
Bosko Todorovic
Dusan Vilic
ZASTO SU OPTUZENI 2
(odgovor na haske "optuznice" za Hrvatsku i BiH protiv
Slobodana Milosevica)
Izdavac: GRAFOMARK, Beograd, 2002.
1. Jared Israel Interrogates Hague "Tribunal" Prosecutor Blewitt
2. Attack on Life of President Milosevic (SLOBODA Association,
5/10/2002)
3. Return Milosevic! (SLOBODA Association, 13/10/2002)
4. Petition for Health and Life (25/10/2002)
MORE LINKS:
> http://emperors-clothes.com/petition/states.htm
Signers of "Free Milosevic!" Petition Speak Out
>http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=339343
> http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=11&ItemID=2419
NATO used the same old trick when it made Milosevic an offer he could
only refuse (by Robert Fisk)
> http://www.workers.org/ww/2002/intlcourt0919.php
Protecting mass murderers: Why Washington battles the International
Criminal Court (by John Catalinotto)
> http://www.workers.org/ww/2002/milosevic0926.php
Kosovo phase of Milosevic 'trial' ends (by John Catalinotto)
> http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/09/30/37444.html
The Hague's Nightmare: Milosevic Strikes Above the Belt (by Sergey
Yugov)
> http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/10/03/37672.html
Biljana Plavsic Turns Traitor; Milosevic Stands Up (by Sergey
Stefanov)
> http://emperors-clothes.com/news/milosevi2.html
Miloshevich's Speech to the Nation
Delivered Monday, October 2, 2000
=== 1 ===
> http://www.icdsm.org/more/blewitt.htm
Jared Israel Interrogates Hague "Tribunal" Prosecutor Blewitt
Jared Israel, Vice chairman of the ICDSM and editor of Emperor's
Clothes interrogated the Deputy Prosecutor of the so-called Hague
"Tribunal" regarding the testimony of the former security chief of
Serbia, Radomir Markovic.
Mr. Markovic had testified that he was pressured and tortured by
Serbian security officials who work with the "tribunal".
How did Mr. Blewitt respond to these charges? See for yourself.
With commentary by Andy Wilcoxson [27 September 2002]
Blewitt Interview (5.8 MB RealAudio File)
To just play the interview, go to
> http://emperor.vwh.net/Audio/blewitt.rm
To save the interview to your hard drive you must be reading this text
at the ICDSM website at
> http://www.icdsm.org/more/blewitt.htm
Once you are at http://www.icdsm.org/more/blewitt.htm you can
right-click on "Blewitt Interview" (above) and select "Save Target As"
RealPlayer is required to play this file. If you don't have RealPlayer
you can download it for free at
http://www.real.com
=== 2 ===
Subject: ATTACK ON LIFE OF PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC
Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 23:02:08 +0200
From: "Vladimir Krsljanin"
SAVE HIS LIFE!
WHOLE-DAY-LONG 'COURT' PROCEEDINGS HAVE STARTED AGAIN!
IT IS AN INTENTIONAL ATTACK ON LIFE OF
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC BY NATO TRIBUNAL!
RESPONSIBLE SHOULD BE PROSECUTED!
After more than three months the "trial" of
President Milosevic was going on only in
morning sessions, last Thursday the "trial
chamber" returned to earlier practice of
whole-day-long hearings. This was after the
same "trial chamber" weeks ago publicly
admitted existence of serious health and life
risks for President Milosevic and declared that
tempo of the "trial" will be slowed down and
President Milosevic will have more days for
rest.
President Milosevic, with malignant
hypertension and heart damages, still has no
specialists' medical care.
Death of six prisoners (all of them were Serbs)
was caused by the "tribunal" - in three cases
it was due to lack of medical assistance or due
to improper medical care.
We call all supporters of freedom and all
National Committees to mobilize medical doctors
and lawyers to react to this criminal practice
at The Hague.
UN is still giving auspices to the criminal
NATO martial court.
Address your government, which is UN member!
Address UN Security Council and Secretary
General!
They are being involved in a crime!
Save the life of President Milosevic!
Send copies of your letters of protest and
demands to protect humanity to the "tribunal"
as well. Here is their address:
ICTY
Churchillplein 1, 2517 JW The Hague
P.O. Box 13888 EW The Hague
The Netherlands
Fax No. +31 70 512 8637
People of Serbia and Yugoslavia require your
urgent reaction!
SLOBODA/FREEDOM Association
=== 3 ===
Subject: RETURN MILOSEVIC!
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 21:46:27 +0200
From: "Vladimir Krsljanin"
Belgrade, October 13, 2002
Mr. Claude JORDA, President
ICTY
The Hague
The Netherlands
Dear Mr. Jorda,
Please find here enclosed the statement of
Mr. Bogoljub Bjelica, the Chairman of the Freedom Association.
After our several letters to ICTY and many
appeals of organizations and individuals from Yugoslavia and other
countries, aiming to secure the proper life and health conditions for
President Slobodan Milosevic, we came to the conclusion that the
whole construction of the process against President Milosevic has as
one of its intentions to break the health and threaten the life of
President Milosevic. In spite of the oral promises of Mr. Richard May
and the Trial Chamber that recommendations of the ICTY appointed
physicians that President Milosevic should get a cardiologic
check-up, appropriate health monitoring and therapy, as well as that
intensity of the process should be slowed down, the only thing that
happened is that the Trial Chamber has returned the whole-day-long
proceedings.
That is why we demand release of President
Milosevic and his return to Yugoslavia for recovery and appropriate
specialists' medical treatment.
Yours sincerely,
Chairman of the Assembly
of the Freedom Association
Igor Raicevic
Belgrade, October 13, 2002
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC SHOULD BE IMMEDIATELY
RETURNED TO YUGOSLAVIA!
The Hague tribunal intentionally continues to threaten
the life of President Slobodan Milosevic.
Despite the numerous appeals and warnings from our
country and from abroad, this unacceptable criminal activity
continues. The whole-day-long proceedings at The Hague are back to
practice. In addition to the time spent in the court room, President
Milosevic is forced to spend more hours in the tribunal building
without food, rest and fresh air. The process is still indefinitely
prolonged with series of false witnesses, whose order has being
changed last minute, but who are followed by tens of thousand pages
of printed material.
With all the mentioned conditions, there is lack of not
only proper therapy, but even of any medical monitoring over the
health of President Milosevic. There was no cardiologic check-up, in
spite of the recommendation of the Dutch physicians appointed by the
tribunal, who made the one and only check-up of President Milosevic.
For that reason the total untruths in the statement of
the tribunal spokesman Jim Landale for the Yugoslav press (daily
"Nacional", October 11, 2002) - that President Milosevic has
permanent medical monitoring and proper therapy, cause our increased
worry.
Domestic and international public is aware that the
permanent over-human efforts and inhuman conditions President
Milosevic faces in the tribunal and in the prison, combined with
hearth damages and malignant hypertension, are the permanent threat
to his life.
The public is also aware that already several tribunal
prisoners lost their lives after the dramatic worsening of their
health in detention.
For all these reasons we demand that President Milosevic
should be immediately returned to Yugoslavia for recovery and
necessary medical treatment by an appropriate medical institution. It
is the only way to remove the threat to his life!
Bogoljub Bjelica,
Chairman of the Freedom Association -
Yugoslav Committee for the Defense of Slobodan Milosevic
=== 4 ===
Subject: PETITION FOR HEALTH AND LIFE
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 13:33:03 +0200
From: "Vladimir Krsljanin"
c o u r t e s y t r a n s l a t i o n
-TO THE SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE UNITED NATIONS H.E. Kofi Annan
-TO THE SECURITY COUNCIL OF THE UNITED NATIONS
-TO THE "INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE FORMER YUGOSLAVIA"
Mr. Claude Jorda, president
Mr. Richard May, president of the Trial Chamber
D E M A N D
to protect rights for health and life of Slobodan Milosevic
We draw attention of all people of good will, and of our
colleagues - medical doctors in particular, the same way as to you -
high officials of the Organization of United Nations and of the
Tribunal at The Hague, that the different means of modern torture
have been applied against Mr. Slobodan Milosevic, since the first day
of his stay in the UN Detention Unit at The Hague. Mr. Milosevic
faces different kinds of physical and psychological exhaustion aimed
to worsen his already damaged health condition.
This torture started with strong light of the reflectors
switched on during 24 hours in his prison cell, it continued with
permanent video-camera monitoring of his prison cell, violating his
privacy and basic human integrity. It is allowed to the
representatives of the Prosecution to supply Mr. Milosevic with
hundreds of thousand pages of text and more than thousand video and
audio tapes, as well as to make last minute changes in the indefinite
order of witnesses, whom Mr. Milosevic has to cross examine, which all
requires from him enormous additional effort in the preparation for
the process. Above all that, instead of four hours as reasonable
length of daily proceedings, which would enable Mr. Milosevic with
some time for preparation, as well as with time for daily walk in
fresh air, regular meals and protection of general physical condition,
the unbearable practice of daily proceedings lasting from 9 a.m. until
4:30 p.m. has been imposed again. If one has in mind that Mr.
Milosevic is forced to be in the Tribunal building one hour before
until one hour after the proceedings, and that the proceedings take
place every working day, it becomes clear that he is deprived of all
conditions necessary for protection of normal health condition.
The Trial Chamber at The Hague has been acquainted in
detail with the health condition of Mr. Slobodan Milosevic, not only
on the basis of the submitted previous medical documentation, but as
well on the basis of findings of the medical check-up performed at
The Hague by three medical doctors appointed by the Tribunal.
Bearing in mind the provisions of the UN General
Assembly Resolution No. 3794 of December 18, 1982, which established
the duty of medical doctors and other medical personnel to provide
persons in prison or in detention "with therapy of the same quality
and in accordance with the same norms as for the persons who are not
in prison or in detention";
Recalling the Article 6 of the Codex of behavior of
persons responsible for application of the law, adopted by the UN
General Assembly on December 17, 1979, constituting the obligation of
all courts, from which the Hague Tribunal can not be excluded, to
take care about the complete protection of the health of persons
under its jurisdiction, in this case of Mr. Slobodan Milosevic, and
in particular to perform all necessary measures of medical care of
the same quality and based on the same standards as for the persons
who are not in detention or in prison;
Emphasizing the right for heath and right for life as
basic human rights;
Remaining faithful to the Hypocrates oath to which we all
as medicine doctors swore;
We demand:
1) To cease immediately the physical and intellectual
exhausting that seriously damages the health of Mr. Slobodan
Milosevic;
2) That Trial Chamber at The Hague determines such
schedule of the process that would enable Mr. Milosevic with at least
four days of recess after each two weeks of proceedings, as proposed
by our colleagues who made check-up of Mr. Milosevic at The Hague;
3) That daily proceedings before the Trial Chamber should
not be longer than four hours during a working day, so that besides
of preparation for the next day proceedings, Mr. Milosevic would have
time necessary for protection of his health condition (walk on fresh
air, regular meals, regular sleep, physical exercises etc.). We also
hereby require decrease of the amount of documentation supplied by
the Prosecution, especially since it is in large part irrelevant for
the role of Mr. Milosevic. The amount of documentation which has
currently been submitted, contributes to physical and intellectual
exhaustion of Mr. Milosevic, who is standing for his own case before
the Tribunal's Trial Chamber;
4) To secure all necessary medical protection for Mr.
Slobodan Milosevic, including regular check-ups by Yugoslav medical
doctors of his own choice.
We, the undersigned medical doctors, consider that
defense from freedom would be the most appropriate way to protect
health and life of Mr. Slobodan Milosevic. In that sense, our demands
1) - 4) constitute only a minimum of preconditions to avoid further
serious deterioration of his health and to avoid endangering of his
life.
Done in Belgrade, October 2002
S i g n e d b y:
1. Professor Dr. Sci. Med. SVETOLIK AVRAMOV, surgeon
2. Professor Dr. Sci. Med. VUKASIN ANDRIC, otorinolaringologist
3. Professor Dr. Sci. Med. VASO ANTUNOVIC, neuro-surgeon, Member of
the Scientific Society of Serbia
4. Professor Dr. Sci. Med. MOMCILO BABIC, specialist in social
medicine
5. Professor Dr. Sci. Med. JOVAN BUKELIC, neuro-psychiatrist,
Ordinary Member of the Academy of Medical Sciences of the Serbian
Physicians' Society
6. Professor Dr. Sci. Med. DRAGAN DELIC, infectologist
7. Professor Dr. Sci. Med. VASILIJE DRECUN, internist-pulmologist
8. LJUBOMIR DURKOVIC, MD, primarius, specialist in social medicine
9. Professor Dr. Sci. Med. DRAGOLJUB DJOKIC, specialist in social
medicine
10. Professor Dr. Sci. Med. MIODRAG DJORDJEVIC, onco-epidemiologist
11. Professor Dr. Sci. Med. VLADIMIR DJUKIC, surgeon
12. Professor Dr. Sci. Med. SLAVICA DJUKIC-DEJANOVIC,
neuro-psychiatrist
13. Professor Dr. Sci. Med. MILOS JANICIJEVIC, neuro-surgeon,
Ordinary Member of the Academy of Medical Sciences of the Serbian
Physicians' Society
14. Professor Dr. Sci. Med. RATKO KALJALOVIC, infectologist, Ordinary
Member of the Academy of Medical Sciences of the Serbian Physicians'
Society
15. Professor Dr. Sci. Med. MIROSLAV KOVACEVIC, neuro-psychiatrist
16. Professor Dr. Sci. Med. GORAN LUKIC, internist
17. Professor Dr. Sci. Med. CASLAV MILIC, internist
18. Professor Dr. Sci. Med. SRECKO NEDELJKOVIC,
internist-cardiologist, Ordinary Member of the Academy of Medical
Sciences of the Serbian Physicians' Society
19. Professor Dr. Sci. Med. LAZAR RANIN, microbiologist
20. Professor Dr. Sci. Med. ZARKO RANKOVIC, infectologist
21. PERISA SIMONOVIC, MD, neuro-psychiatrist
22. Professor Dr. Sci. Med. VLADA SLAVKOVIC, internist
23. Professor Dr. Sci. Med. SVETOMIR STOZINIC,
internist-cardiologist, Ordinary Member of the Academy of Medical
Sciences of the Serbian Physicians' Society, Member of the National
Bulgarian Medical Academy, Member of the Russian Medical Academy
24. SLAVICA TASIC, MD, MS, specialist in general medicine
25. Dr. Sci. Med. DRAGAN CANOVIC, surgeon
26. Professor Dr. Sci. Med. VOJISLAV SUVAKOVIC, infectologist,
Ordinary Member of the Academy of Medical Sciences of the Serbian
Physicians' Society
To join or help this struggle, visit:
http://www.sps.org.yu/ (official SPS website)
http://www.belgrade-forum.org/ (forum for the world of equals)
http://www.icdsm.org/ (the international committee to defend Slobodan
Milosevic)
2. Attack on Life of President Milosevic (SLOBODA Association,
5/10/2002)
3. Return Milosevic! (SLOBODA Association, 13/10/2002)
4. Petition for Health and Life (25/10/2002)
MORE LINKS:
> http://emperors-clothes.com/petition/states.htm
Signers of "Free Milosevic!" Petition Speak Out
>http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=339343
> http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=11&ItemID=2419
NATO used the same old trick when it made Milosevic an offer he could
only refuse (by Robert Fisk)
> http://www.workers.org/ww/2002/intlcourt0919.php
Protecting mass murderers: Why Washington battles the International
Criminal Court (by John Catalinotto)
> http://www.workers.org/ww/2002/milosevic0926.php
Kosovo phase of Milosevic 'trial' ends (by John Catalinotto)
> http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/09/30/37444.html
The Hague's Nightmare: Milosevic Strikes Above the Belt (by Sergey
Yugov)
> http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/10/03/37672.html
Biljana Plavsic Turns Traitor; Milosevic Stands Up (by Sergey
Stefanov)
> http://emperors-clothes.com/news/milosevi2.html
Miloshevich's Speech to the Nation
Delivered Monday, October 2, 2000
=== 1 ===
> http://www.icdsm.org/more/blewitt.htm
Jared Israel Interrogates Hague "Tribunal" Prosecutor Blewitt
Jared Israel, Vice chairman of the ICDSM and editor of Emperor's
Clothes interrogated the Deputy Prosecutor of the so-called Hague
"Tribunal" regarding the testimony of the former security chief of
Serbia, Radomir Markovic.
Mr. Markovic had testified that he was pressured and tortured by
Serbian security officials who work with the "tribunal".
How did Mr. Blewitt respond to these charges? See for yourself.
With commentary by Andy Wilcoxson [27 September 2002]
Blewitt Interview (5.8 MB RealAudio File)
To just play the interview, go to
> http://emperor.vwh.net/Audio/blewitt.rm
To save the interview to your hard drive you must be reading this text
at the ICDSM website at
> http://www.icdsm.org/more/blewitt.htm
Once you are at http://www.icdsm.org/more/blewitt.htm you can
right-click on "Blewitt Interview" (above) and select "Save Target As"
RealPlayer is required to play this file. If you don't have RealPlayer
you can download it for free at
http://www.real.com
=== 2 ===
Subject: ATTACK ON LIFE OF PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC
Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 23:02:08 +0200
From: "Vladimir Krsljanin"
SAVE HIS LIFE!
WHOLE-DAY-LONG 'COURT' PROCEEDINGS HAVE STARTED AGAIN!
IT IS AN INTENTIONAL ATTACK ON LIFE OF
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC BY NATO TRIBUNAL!
RESPONSIBLE SHOULD BE PROSECUTED!
After more than three months the "trial" of
President Milosevic was going on only in
morning sessions, last Thursday the "trial
chamber" returned to earlier practice of
whole-day-long hearings. This was after the
same "trial chamber" weeks ago publicly
admitted existence of serious health and life
risks for President Milosevic and declared that
tempo of the "trial" will be slowed down and
President Milosevic will have more days for
rest.
President Milosevic, with malignant
hypertension and heart damages, still has no
specialists' medical care.
Death of six prisoners (all of them were Serbs)
was caused by the "tribunal" - in three cases
it was due to lack of medical assistance or due
to improper medical care.
We call all supporters of freedom and all
National Committees to mobilize medical doctors
and lawyers to react to this criminal practice
at The Hague.
UN is still giving auspices to the criminal
NATO martial court.
Address your government, which is UN member!
Address UN Security Council and Secretary
General!
They are being involved in a crime!
Save the life of President Milosevic!
Send copies of your letters of protest and
demands to protect humanity to the "tribunal"
as well. Here is their address:
ICTY
Churchillplein 1, 2517 JW The Hague
P.O. Box 13888 EW The Hague
The Netherlands
Fax No. +31 70 512 8637
People of Serbia and Yugoslavia require your
urgent reaction!
SLOBODA/FREEDOM Association
=== 3 ===
Subject: RETURN MILOSEVIC!
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 21:46:27 +0200
From: "Vladimir Krsljanin"
Belgrade, October 13, 2002
Mr. Claude JORDA, President
ICTY
The Hague
The Netherlands
Dear Mr. Jorda,
Please find here enclosed the statement of
Mr. Bogoljub Bjelica, the Chairman of the Freedom Association.
After our several letters to ICTY and many
appeals of organizations and individuals from Yugoslavia and other
countries, aiming to secure the proper life and health conditions for
President Slobodan Milosevic, we came to the conclusion that the
whole construction of the process against President Milosevic has as
one of its intentions to break the health and threaten the life of
President Milosevic. In spite of the oral promises of Mr. Richard May
and the Trial Chamber that recommendations of the ICTY appointed
physicians that President Milosevic should get a cardiologic
check-up, appropriate health monitoring and therapy, as well as that
intensity of the process should be slowed down, the only thing that
happened is that the Trial Chamber has returned the whole-day-long
proceedings.
That is why we demand release of President
Milosevic and his return to Yugoslavia for recovery and appropriate
specialists' medical treatment.
Yours sincerely,
Chairman of the Assembly
of the Freedom Association
Igor Raicevic
Belgrade, October 13, 2002
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC SHOULD BE IMMEDIATELY
RETURNED TO YUGOSLAVIA!
The Hague tribunal intentionally continues to threaten
the life of President Slobodan Milosevic.
Despite the numerous appeals and warnings from our
country and from abroad, this unacceptable criminal activity
continues. The whole-day-long proceedings at The Hague are back to
practice. In addition to the time spent in the court room, President
Milosevic is forced to spend more hours in the tribunal building
without food, rest and fresh air. The process is still indefinitely
prolonged with series of false witnesses, whose order has being
changed last minute, but who are followed by tens of thousand pages
of printed material.
With all the mentioned conditions, there is lack of not
only proper therapy, but even of any medical monitoring over the
health of President Milosevic. There was no cardiologic check-up, in
spite of the recommendation of the Dutch physicians appointed by the
tribunal, who made the one and only check-up of President Milosevic.
For that reason the total untruths in the statement of
the tribunal spokesman Jim Landale for the Yugoslav press (daily
"Nacional", October 11, 2002) - that President Milosevic has
permanent medical monitoring and proper therapy, cause our increased
worry.
Domestic and international public is aware that the
permanent over-human efforts and inhuman conditions President
Milosevic faces in the tribunal and in the prison, combined with
hearth damages and malignant hypertension, are the permanent threat
to his life.
The public is also aware that already several tribunal
prisoners lost their lives after the dramatic worsening of their
health in detention.
For all these reasons we demand that President Milosevic
should be immediately returned to Yugoslavia for recovery and
necessary medical treatment by an appropriate medical institution. It
is the only way to remove the threat to his life!
Bogoljub Bjelica,
Chairman of the Freedom Association -
Yugoslav Committee for the Defense of Slobodan Milosevic
=== 4 ===
Subject: PETITION FOR HEALTH AND LIFE
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 13:33:03 +0200
From: "Vladimir Krsljanin"
c o u r t e s y t r a n s l a t i o n
-TO THE SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE UNITED NATIONS H.E. Kofi Annan
-TO THE SECURITY COUNCIL OF THE UNITED NATIONS
-TO THE "INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE FORMER YUGOSLAVIA"
Mr. Claude Jorda, president
Mr. Richard May, president of the Trial Chamber
D E M A N D
to protect rights for health and life of Slobodan Milosevic
We draw attention of all people of good will, and of our
colleagues - medical doctors in particular, the same way as to you -
high officials of the Organization of United Nations and of the
Tribunal at The Hague, that the different means of modern torture
have been applied against Mr. Slobodan Milosevic, since the first day
of his stay in the UN Detention Unit at The Hague. Mr. Milosevic
faces different kinds of physical and psychological exhaustion aimed
to worsen his already damaged health condition.
This torture started with strong light of the reflectors
switched on during 24 hours in his prison cell, it continued with
permanent video-camera monitoring of his prison cell, violating his
privacy and basic human integrity. It is allowed to the
representatives of the Prosecution to supply Mr. Milosevic with
hundreds of thousand pages of text and more than thousand video and
audio tapes, as well as to make last minute changes in the indefinite
order of witnesses, whom Mr. Milosevic has to cross examine, which all
requires from him enormous additional effort in the preparation for
the process. Above all that, instead of four hours as reasonable
length of daily proceedings, which would enable Mr. Milosevic with
some time for preparation, as well as with time for daily walk in
fresh air, regular meals and protection of general physical condition,
the unbearable practice of daily proceedings lasting from 9 a.m. until
4:30 p.m. has been imposed again. If one has in mind that Mr.
Milosevic is forced to be in the Tribunal building one hour before
until one hour after the proceedings, and that the proceedings take
place every working day, it becomes clear that he is deprived of all
conditions necessary for protection of normal health condition.
The Trial Chamber at The Hague has been acquainted in
detail with the health condition of Mr. Slobodan Milosevic, not only
on the basis of the submitted previous medical documentation, but as
well on the basis of findings of the medical check-up performed at
The Hague by three medical doctors appointed by the Tribunal.
Bearing in mind the provisions of the UN General
Assembly Resolution No. 3794 of December 18, 1982, which established
the duty of medical doctors and other medical personnel to provide
persons in prison or in detention "with therapy of the same quality
and in accordance with the same norms as for the persons who are not
in prison or in detention";
Recalling the Article 6 of the Codex of behavior of
persons responsible for application of the law, adopted by the UN
General Assembly on December 17, 1979, constituting the obligation of
all courts, from which the Hague Tribunal can not be excluded, to
take care about the complete protection of the health of persons
under its jurisdiction, in this case of Mr. Slobodan Milosevic, and
in particular to perform all necessary measures of medical care of
the same quality and based on the same standards as for the persons
who are not in detention or in prison;
Emphasizing the right for heath and right for life as
basic human rights;
Remaining faithful to the Hypocrates oath to which we all
as medicine doctors swore;
We demand:
1) To cease immediately the physical and intellectual
exhausting that seriously damages the health of Mr. Slobodan
Milosevic;
2) That Trial Chamber at The Hague determines such
schedule of the process that would enable Mr. Milosevic with at least
four days of recess after each two weeks of proceedings, as proposed
by our colleagues who made check-up of Mr. Milosevic at The Hague;
3) That daily proceedings before the Trial Chamber should
not be longer than four hours during a working day, so that besides
of preparation for the next day proceedings, Mr. Milosevic would have
time necessary for protection of his health condition (walk on fresh
air, regular meals, regular sleep, physical exercises etc.). We also
hereby require decrease of the amount of documentation supplied by
the Prosecution, especially since it is in large part irrelevant for
the role of Mr. Milosevic. The amount of documentation which has
currently been submitted, contributes to physical and intellectual
exhaustion of Mr. Milosevic, who is standing for his own case before
the Tribunal's Trial Chamber;
4) To secure all necessary medical protection for Mr.
Slobodan Milosevic, including regular check-ups by Yugoslav medical
doctors of his own choice.
We, the undersigned medical doctors, consider that
defense from freedom would be the most appropriate way to protect
health and life of Mr. Slobodan Milosevic. In that sense, our demands
1) - 4) constitute only a minimum of preconditions to avoid further
serious deterioration of his health and to avoid endangering of his
life.
Done in Belgrade, October 2002
S i g n e d b y:
1. Professor Dr. Sci. Med. SVETOLIK AVRAMOV, surgeon
2. Professor Dr. Sci. Med. VUKASIN ANDRIC, otorinolaringologist
3. Professor Dr. Sci. Med. VASO ANTUNOVIC, neuro-surgeon, Member of
the Scientific Society of Serbia
4. Professor Dr. Sci. Med. MOMCILO BABIC, specialist in social
medicine
5. Professor Dr. Sci. Med. JOVAN BUKELIC, neuro-psychiatrist,
Ordinary Member of the Academy of Medical Sciences of the Serbian
Physicians' Society
6. Professor Dr. Sci. Med. DRAGAN DELIC, infectologist
7. Professor Dr. Sci. Med. VASILIJE DRECUN, internist-pulmologist
8. LJUBOMIR DURKOVIC, MD, primarius, specialist in social medicine
9. Professor Dr. Sci. Med. DRAGOLJUB DJOKIC, specialist in social
medicine
10. Professor Dr. Sci. Med. MIODRAG DJORDJEVIC, onco-epidemiologist
11. Professor Dr. Sci. Med. VLADIMIR DJUKIC, surgeon
12. Professor Dr. Sci. Med. SLAVICA DJUKIC-DEJANOVIC,
neuro-psychiatrist
13. Professor Dr. Sci. Med. MILOS JANICIJEVIC, neuro-surgeon,
Ordinary Member of the Academy of Medical Sciences of the Serbian
Physicians' Society
14. Professor Dr. Sci. Med. RATKO KALJALOVIC, infectologist, Ordinary
Member of the Academy of Medical Sciences of the Serbian Physicians'
Society
15. Professor Dr. Sci. Med. MIROSLAV KOVACEVIC, neuro-psychiatrist
16. Professor Dr. Sci. Med. GORAN LUKIC, internist
17. Professor Dr. Sci. Med. CASLAV MILIC, internist
18. Professor Dr. Sci. Med. SRECKO NEDELJKOVIC,
internist-cardiologist, Ordinary Member of the Academy of Medical
Sciences of the Serbian Physicians' Society
19. Professor Dr. Sci. Med. LAZAR RANIN, microbiologist
20. Professor Dr. Sci. Med. ZARKO RANKOVIC, infectologist
21. PERISA SIMONOVIC, MD, neuro-psychiatrist
22. Professor Dr. Sci. Med. VLADA SLAVKOVIC, internist
23. Professor Dr. Sci. Med. SVETOMIR STOZINIC,
internist-cardiologist, Ordinary Member of the Academy of Medical
Sciences of the Serbian Physicians' Society, Member of the National
Bulgarian Medical Academy, Member of the Russian Medical Academy
24. SLAVICA TASIC, MD, MS, specialist in general medicine
25. Dr. Sci. Med. DRAGAN CANOVIC, surgeon
26. Professor Dr. Sci. Med. VOJISLAV SUVAKOVIC, infectologist,
Ordinary Member of the Academy of Medical Sciences of the Serbian
Physicians' Society
To join or help this struggle, visit:
http://www.sps.org.yu/ (official SPS website)
http://www.belgrade-forum.org/ (forum for the world of equals)
http://www.icdsm.org/ (the international committee to defend Slobodan
Milosevic)
International Committee to Defend Slobodan Milosevic
www.icdsm.org
=================================
Slobodan Milosevic's Cross-Examination of
Croatian President Stjepan Mesic: PART IV
Because the transcript of the cross-examination
is 150 pages long we have broken it into 12
easy to read segments. If you wish to read the
whole thing at once go to:
http://www.icdsm.org/more/mesic.htm
=================================
Page 10647
1 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Was that when Ante Markovic established his own party?
3 A. On the 27th of July, 1990, the Serb assembly passed its so-called
4 decision on Serb autonomy in Croatia. On the 1st of July, 1990 in
Kosovo
5 by Knin, an official statement was made that the Serb Autonomous
Krajina
6 was established in Croatia, its president being Milan Babic. On the
17th
7 of August, the first roadblocks were on the road in Benkovac, Knin
and
8 Gradacac. On the 13th of September, there were meetings and rallies
of
9 persons in Dvor and in various other places. In towns and in
10 municipalities in Croatia where there is a predominantly Serb
population,
11 there were inscriptions saying: "This is Serbia." So it is persons
who
12 came from Serbia who manipulated the Serb masses in Serbia? Why?
Because
13 Milosevic needed to bring about an insurgency of the Serbs in
Croatia so
14 that he would light the initial fuse for setting Bosnia-Herzegovina
on
15 fire, because he needed Bosnia-Herzegovina. That's what the accused
16 actually did. That is why he should be held accountable. These
radical
17 statements, regrettably, are only in response to statements made by
the
18 accused.
19 Q. Mr. Mesic, do you see that you're not testifying about anything
20 here except your political and propaganda activities all this time?
21 Because you do not have a single fact here; you only have your own
22 positions and your attacks against Milosevic.
23 A. This is the trial of the accused Slobodan Milosevic. I have
24 sufficient facts in order to believe that he is guilty because he
planned
25 war, he carried out war, and he built into this plan a crime that
he
Page 10648
1 should be held accountable for.
2 Q. Very well.
3 JUDGE MAY: Let us get back to the subject-matter of the trial.
4 Yes. You are asking about the statements, Mr. Milosevic.
5 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. I put a question. I said: These laws and the atmosphere in
7 parliament, the atmosphere in Croatia, the dismissals of thousands
of
8 persons from the administration, from the police, from the media,
even
9 from the health sector, is that the kind of atmosphere that caused
concern
10 among the Serbs, or was it, as Mr. Mesic just put it now, was it
Milosevic
11 who caused concern and who led to this insurgency? Were these facts
of
12 life the thing that caused concern among them or did Milosevic come
from
13 Serbia to make them start a rebellion, now that I've quoted all of
this?
14 A. It wasn't the accused Milosevic who came. His emissaries came,
15 and they were the ones who started the insurgency in Croatia.
16 JUDGE MAY: Can you deal with the allegations which are made,
17 that, first of all, there were the dismissals of thousands of
persons from
18 the administration and the police and the media and the health
sector?
19 Now, can you deal with that, Mr. Mesic? Were thousands dismissed?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think that it is an exaggeration
21 to speak of thousands, but that there were dismissals is a fact.
There
22 were unnecessary dismissals. People also took those who dismissed
them to
23 court and won these cases. I think that these statements that are
radical
24 and inadmissible only work to Croatia's detriment, and I always
struggled
25 against that.
Page 10649
1 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. All right. So the atmosphere and the statements -- I mean, you
3 say now that it is negative, but the atmosphere was there, wasn't
it? So
4 it's not Milosevic who caused an insurgency among the Serbs; it is
your
5 laws, your pressures, your behaviour, your attacks against people.
Is
6 that right or is that not right, Mr. Mesic?
7 A. I have to reply once again, and I've already said this.
8 Q. If you've already said it, please don't read out what you've
9 already read out, please.
10 A. Those who wanted to cut off parts of Croatia, parts of the
11 Republic of Croatia, those are the ones who are to be blamed for
the
12 radical statements that were made.
13 Q. Well, look, somebody wanted to cut off parts of your territory.
14 Susanne Woodward from the Brooking Institution, an institution of
high
15 renown throughout the world, she says:
16 "Smashed stores fronts, fire bombs thrown and harassed and
17 arrested potential Serb leaders. In many parts of Croatia Serbs
were
18 expelled from jobs because of their nationality."
19 JUDGE MAY: You can call her to give evidence if you want. Yes.
20 Was there an atmosphere, Mr. Mesic, to cause the Serbs to have
21 fear at this time or is that not so?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is an exaggeration to say that
23 there was an atmosphere of fear, but that there were improper and
24 inadmissible statements, that is a fact. Also there were dismissals
that
25 were wrong; however, people took those who dismissed them to court
and
Page 10650
1 they won those cases.
2 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. You mean those 100,000 Serbs who fled Croatia already in 1990,
4 they won these cases for their own jobs; is that what you're trying
to
5 say?
6 A. The accused is a lawyer, and he knows that only a person who is a
7 plaintiff can win a case.
8 Q. Well, we heard your own statements of a few minutes ago about
9 those murders, what kind of rule of law you had. We're going to hear
10 others later as well. I assume that you're not joking now when
you're
11 referring to --
12 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, the time has come to move on from this
13 sort of argument, which doesn't assist the Court.
14 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Tell me, Mr. Mesic: Do you remember the statement made by the
16 famous artist Edo Murtic in Novi Liste [phoen], a daily from
Rijeka, made
17 in June 2000? I'm quoting him: "I remember how a few months prior
to the
18 elections in 1990" - he is referring to his conversation with
Tudjman -
19 "how he came to me quite delighted, believing that he would turn me
into
20 his Augustincic. He thought that we would now do what the Ustashas
and
21 Pavelic did not do in 1941. He said that he would send 250.000
Serbs
22 packing away and the remaining 250.000 would be killed." So these
are
23 your own newspapers. It's not a Belgrade newspaper. This is Edo
Murtic,
24 a famous artist, painter, a well-known intellectual. Do you
remember that
25 statement of his about this conversation before the elections in
1990?
Page 10651
1 And I quoted Susan Woodward a few minutes ago and she is referring
to the
2 atmosphere before 1990, before the elections.
3 JUDGE MAY: The witness can deal with the conversation by -- or
4 comments by the artist which has been referred to.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The artist Edo Murtic is a friend of
6 mine, by the way, but I do admit that I haven't read that particular
7 statement of his.
8 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. All right. Tell me, please: I'm just going to briefly quote the
10 newspaper Feral Tribune on the 21st of April, 2001, autumn 2001,
there was
11 a hunt against the Serbs in 1991. It says: "Mercep's killers were
12 killing Serbs en masse in Pogracka [phoen], Puljane [phoen], they
were
13 taking people out of their homes in Zagreb and they were trying
them but
14 firing bullets into their heads. Norac Oreskovic and others applied
15 similar methods when dealing with the innocent Serbs of Gospic.
16 Spectacular Crystal Nights were organised in Zadar during which
tens of
17 houses were destroyed whose inhabitants had the wrong chromosomes."
18 Is that correct, Mr. Mesic? Is that what the Croatian newspaper
19 Feral Tribune said or did this Croatian newspaper lie when they
said that?
20 A. There were crimes, and I always asked for them to be
investigated
21 and the perpetrators to be punished. Croatia did not have
sufficient rule
22 of law, and after all, that is how I won the election, because I
have been
23 calling for true rule of law in Croatia. Crimes were committed and
24 perpetrators should be brought to justice. But that is no reason
for
25 destroying Dubrovnik, for destroying Vukovar, for destroying
Croatian
Page 10652
1 cities. Criminals should be prosecuted, but towns should not be
2 destroyed.
3 Q. Correct. Perpetrators should be prosecuted, perpetrators should
4 be tried, but the only question is: Who criminals were. Who were the
5 criminals? That's the only question. And criminals should certainly
be
6 prosecuted and brought to justice, certainly.
7 So that is the whole point. That is the inversion that was made,
8 Mr. Mesic; isn't that right? You are testifying here that I was the
one
9 who broke up Yugoslavia and you were in favour of Yugoslavia and any
child
10 in Yugoslavia knows --
11 A. I think that we can reach agreement on one thing very quickly
12 here. I am not the person on trial here.
13 Q. Well, that's the point.
14 JUDGE MAY: We're going to adjourn now. It's time, Mr. Milosevic.
15 Half past. Twenty minutes.
16 --- Recess taken at 10.29 a.m.
17 --- On resuming at 10.54 a.m.
18 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.
19 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. I'm going to show you now that you weren't speaking the truth a
21 moment ago when we were discussing an issue and questions about the
people
22 who were fighting in Bosnia who were not volunteers. And when I
asked you
23 about your nephew, who was also in Bosnia, a Croatian soldier
there, and
24 he was not a volunteer. He was born in Slavonia so he was not from
Bosnia
25 either and had nothing to do with Bosnia, and you said that that
was not
Page 10653
1 true, not correct; isn't that so? Now take a look at your own
testimony
2 in a case - or rather, when you speak about this same subject, it is
page
3 7266 of the transcript - while you were testifying here in this same
4 building --
5 JUDGE MAY: This is, so we've got it, is this in -- not in
6 Dokmanovic?
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No, it isn't. It's in the other
8 case, the other trial, where Mr. Mesic was a protected witness. And
so I
9 wish to adhere to the rules, although the Slobodna Dalmacija paper
did
10 publicise this. I don't want to make explicit mention of it. And
11 Mr. Mesic, as we can see, is a witness, has been a witness in many
cases,
12 a witness for the Prosecution, which also demonstrates this
inversion.
13 JUDGE MAY: No. That's just --
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That I was talking about. All
15 right. But this is what it says here. May I read it out?
16 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. And I'm reading out your own transcript, not mine, when you're
18 talking about whether they were in Bosnia-Herzegovina. He says the
19 following: "Whether there were any, I cannot tell [In English] I
was not
20 an inspector, nor was it up to me to establish it. But my nephew
Vlatko
21 Mesic, who was a Croat soldier, he was in Bosnia. He came back from
there
22 and he was not a volunteer in Bosnia. He was born in Slavonia. He
has
23 nothing in common with Bosnia, but he was there."
24 Therefore, you told an untruth a moment ago. You even said that
25 your nephews were too young, whereas here in this transcript from
your
Page 10654
Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the
French and English transcripts.
Page 10655
1 testimony which was given under oath, you are saying something quite
2 different, in fact. Is that right, Mr. Mesic, or is it not?
3 A. My two nephews live in France, and two of them live in Belgrade.
4 And during the war, they were minors. It is a relation of mine, a
distant
5 cousin. The interpretation of that was probably erroneous. Who said
6 that -- who told me he was in Bosnia. That is what he told me and
that is
7 what I said.
8 Q. Very well.
9 MR. NICE: Your Honour, can I -- I didn't want to interrupt that
10 last exchange, given that it had started, but any further reference
to
11 protected testimony should itself be given in private session.
12 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Very well.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't see why this should be given
14 in private session, Mr. May, when I am making no mention here of --
15 JUDGE MAY: It doesn't matter.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] -- what it refers to, actually.
17 JUDGE MAY: Those are the Rules. Any reference to private-session
18 matters should be in private session. Yes, let's go on.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't see that I have infringed
20 upon your procedure in any way by having brought that up.
21 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. When you were asked by a representative of the accused, did you
as
23 a speaker take any steps for this matter to be investigated?
Because of
24 course [In English] It is the assembly's responsibility regarding
the use
25 of the army outside its border. Did you form a commission? Did you
put
Page 10656
1 this issue on agenda --
2 JUDGE MAY: We'll go into private session.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Don't, please. I don't want to
4 waste time. I won't carry on with that.
5 JUDGE MAY: Very well.
6 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. So when weren't you speaking the truth, Mr. Mesic: Now or then,
8 when you made that statement which was under oath again?
9 JUDGE MAY: He's given his explanation. If there's anything you
10 want to add, Mr. Mesic, you can.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The direct question was whether my
12 nephew was there, and I said no. A relative, a relation of mine,
was,
13 which means that individuals were there who were not born in
Bosnia. But
14 apart from that one individual that I did know, I wasn't able to
ascertain
15 who was there.
16 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Now, whether you say nephew or relative or distant cousin or
18 whatever I read out here, that's what it said, so there can be no
dilemmas
19 there or confusion. Let's move on.
20 Is it true that in your presence Tudjman said that at the end of
21 the war there would be 5 per cent of Serbs in Croatia, by the end
of the
22 war?
23 A. Yes, that is what he said. He said that was his assumption.
24 Q. Is it also true that he said that Tudjman thought that the 1938
25 solution for Croatia was the best one when it was the banovina of
Croatia?
Page 10657
1 A. No. It was Tudjman's position that as Vojvodina had been attached
2 to Serbia, and it was never under Serbia, even during World War II,
3 Vojvodina was under the main staff and headquarters of Croatia
because
4 Serbia did not have one. And he therefore considered that Avnoj, the
5 anti-fascist World War II council had made a mistake when to
6 Bosnia-Herzegovina as a historical Croatian province had not been
7 envisioned as autonomous province within Croatia. So that position
was
8 one that he always stood by, and he considered that
Bosnia-Herzegovina had
9 to be a whole, a whole entity, and that it must be within the
frameworks
10 of Croatia. But Avnoj, the anti-fascist council, did not take that
into
11 account. However, in the electoral campaign, he stated the facts
and said
12 that Croatia represented an oblong role with one section cut off.
But in
13 that way, he did not move any proceedings to put that right and to
ask for
14 alien territory to be attached to Croatia. After he returned from
15 Karadjordjevo, he said that Croatia was to receive the banovina
borders
16 plus Cazin and Bihac, Kladusa, and he said, as Milosevic had told
him, he
17 said: "Listen, Franjo." That's what he said. You take Cazin,
Kladusa and
18 Bihac. I don't need that. That is what we refer to as Turkish
Croatia.
19 That's what he told us. Now, whether that was what actually took
place,
20 the accused knows that better himself.
21 Q. Well, of course there was no discussion about carving up Bosnia.
22 We have already had that discussion here. But your explanations are
23 becoming relevant for you. So to recap: You weren't telling the
truth
24 with respect to the presence in Bosnia, and later on I am going to
call
25 evidence --
* Continued at: http://www.icdsm.org/more/mesic-5.htm
***** Urgent Message from Sloboda (Freedom) Association and the
International Committee to Defend Slobodan Milosevic!
The Freedom Association in Belgrade and the ICDSM, based outside
Yugoslavia, are the two organizations formed at the request of
Slobodan
Milosevic to aid in his defense.
Up until now our main work has been threefold. We have publicized the
truth about The Hague's phony trial. We have organized research to
help President Milosevic expose NATO's lies. And we have initiated
legal action in the Dutch and European Courts.
Now our job has increased. The defense phase of the "trial" starts in
May 2003. No longer will Mr. Milosevic be limited to cross-examining
Hague witnesses. The prosecution will be forced further onto the
defensive as victims of NATO's aggression and experts from Yugoslavia
and
the NATO countries tell what really happened and expose media lies.
Moreover, Mr. Milosevic will call leaders, from East and West, some
friendly and some hostile to the truth.
The controlled mass media will undoubtedly try to suppress this
testimony as they have tried to suppress Mr. Milosevic's
cross-examinations. Nevertheless this phase of the "trial" will be the
biggest international forum ever to expose NATO's use of racism,
violence and lies to attack Yugoslavia.
We urgently need the help of all people who care about what is
happening in The Hague. Right now, Nico Steijnen , the Dutch lawyer in
the
ICDSM, is waging legal battles in the Dutch courts and before the
European Court, about which more news soon. These efforts urgently
require financial support. We now maintain a small staff of Yugoslav
lawyers in Holland, assisting and advising Mr. Milosevic full-time. We
need to expand our Dutch facilities, perhaps bringing in a
non-Yugoslav attorney full-time. Definitely we must guarantee that we
have an
office and office manager available at all times, to compile and
process evidence and for meetings with witnesses and lawyers and as a
base
for organizing press conferences.
All this costs money. And for this, we rely on those who want Mr.
Milosevic to have the best possible support for attacking NATO's lies.
************
Here's how you can help...
************
* You may contribute by credit card. By the end of September we will
have an ICDSM secure server so you can contribute directly on the
Internet.
For now, you can contribute by credit card in two ways: *
You can Contribute by Credit Card over the Telephone by calling:
ICDSM office, USA: 1 617 916-1705
SLOBODA (Freedom) Association office, Belgrade: 381 63 279 819
You can Contribute using PayPal at:
https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=icdsm%40aol.com
PayPal accepts VISA and MasterCard
You can Contribute by mail to:
ICDSM
831 Beacon St., #295
Newton Centre, MA 02459 (USA)
- OR -
You can Contribute by wire transfer to Sloboda Association
Intermediary:
UBS AG
Zurich, Switzerland
Swift Code: UBSWCHZH
Account with:
/ 756 - CHF
/ 840 - USD
/ 978 - EUR
Kmercijalna Banka AD
SV. Save 14, 11000 Belgrade, FR Yugoslavia
Swift Code: KOBBYUBG
Beneficiary: Account No. 5428-1246-16154-6
SLOBODA
Rajiceva 16, 11000 Belgrade, FR Yugoslavia
Thank you!
http://www.icdsm.org
www.icdsm.org
=================================
Slobodan Milosevic's Cross-Examination of
Croatian President Stjepan Mesic: PART IV
Because the transcript of the cross-examination
is 150 pages long we have broken it into 12
easy to read segments. If you wish to read the
whole thing at once go to:
http://www.icdsm.org/more/mesic.htm
=================================
Page 10647
1 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Was that when Ante Markovic established his own party?
3 A. On the 27th of July, 1990, the Serb assembly passed its so-called
4 decision on Serb autonomy in Croatia. On the 1st of July, 1990 in
Kosovo
5 by Knin, an official statement was made that the Serb Autonomous
Krajina
6 was established in Croatia, its president being Milan Babic. On the
17th
7 of August, the first roadblocks were on the road in Benkovac, Knin
and
8 Gradacac. On the 13th of September, there were meetings and rallies
of
9 persons in Dvor and in various other places. In towns and in
10 municipalities in Croatia where there is a predominantly Serb
population,
11 there were inscriptions saying: "This is Serbia." So it is persons
who
12 came from Serbia who manipulated the Serb masses in Serbia? Why?
Because
13 Milosevic needed to bring about an insurgency of the Serbs in
Croatia so
14 that he would light the initial fuse for setting Bosnia-Herzegovina
on
15 fire, because he needed Bosnia-Herzegovina. That's what the accused
16 actually did. That is why he should be held accountable. These
radical
17 statements, regrettably, are only in response to statements made by
the
18 accused.
19 Q. Mr. Mesic, do you see that you're not testifying about anything
20 here except your political and propaganda activities all this time?
21 Because you do not have a single fact here; you only have your own
22 positions and your attacks against Milosevic.
23 A. This is the trial of the accused Slobodan Milosevic. I have
24 sufficient facts in order to believe that he is guilty because he
planned
25 war, he carried out war, and he built into this plan a crime that
he
Page 10648
1 should be held accountable for.
2 Q. Very well.
3 JUDGE MAY: Let us get back to the subject-matter of the trial.
4 Yes. You are asking about the statements, Mr. Milosevic.
5 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. I put a question. I said: These laws and the atmosphere in
7 parliament, the atmosphere in Croatia, the dismissals of thousands
of
8 persons from the administration, from the police, from the media,
even
9 from the health sector, is that the kind of atmosphere that caused
concern
10 among the Serbs, or was it, as Mr. Mesic just put it now, was it
Milosevic
11 who caused concern and who led to this insurgency? Were these facts
of
12 life the thing that caused concern among them or did Milosevic come
from
13 Serbia to make them start a rebellion, now that I've quoted all of
this?
14 A. It wasn't the accused Milosevic who came. His emissaries came,
15 and they were the ones who started the insurgency in Croatia.
16 JUDGE MAY: Can you deal with the allegations which are made,
17 that, first of all, there were the dismissals of thousands of
persons from
18 the administration and the police and the media and the health
sector?
19 Now, can you deal with that, Mr. Mesic? Were thousands dismissed?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think that it is an exaggeration
21 to speak of thousands, but that there were dismissals is a fact.
There
22 were unnecessary dismissals. People also took those who dismissed
them to
23 court and won these cases. I think that these statements that are
radical
24 and inadmissible only work to Croatia's detriment, and I always
struggled
25 against that.
Page 10649
1 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. All right. So the atmosphere and the statements -- I mean, you
3 say now that it is negative, but the atmosphere was there, wasn't
it? So
4 it's not Milosevic who caused an insurgency among the Serbs; it is
your
5 laws, your pressures, your behaviour, your attacks against people.
Is
6 that right or is that not right, Mr. Mesic?
7 A. I have to reply once again, and I've already said this.
8 Q. If you've already said it, please don't read out what you've
9 already read out, please.
10 A. Those who wanted to cut off parts of Croatia, parts of the
11 Republic of Croatia, those are the ones who are to be blamed for
the
12 radical statements that were made.
13 Q. Well, look, somebody wanted to cut off parts of your territory.
14 Susanne Woodward from the Brooking Institution, an institution of
high
15 renown throughout the world, she says:
16 "Smashed stores fronts, fire bombs thrown and harassed and
17 arrested potential Serb leaders. In many parts of Croatia Serbs
were
18 expelled from jobs because of their nationality."
19 JUDGE MAY: You can call her to give evidence if you want. Yes.
20 Was there an atmosphere, Mr. Mesic, to cause the Serbs to have
21 fear at this time or is that not so?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is an exaggeration to say that
23 there was an atmosphere of fear, but that there were improper and
24 inadmissible statements, that is a fact. Also there were dismissals
that
25 were wrong; however, people took those who dismissed them to court
and
Page 10650
1 they won those cases.
2 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. You mean those 100,000 Serbs who fled Croatia already in 1990,
4 they won these cases for their own jobs; is that what you're trying
to
5 say?
6 A. The accused is a lawyer, and he knows that only a person who is a
7 plaintiff can win a case.
8 Q. Well, we heard your own statements of a few minutes ago about
9 those murders, what kind of rule of law you had. We're going to hear
10 others later as well. I assume that you're not joking now when
you're
11 referring to --
12 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, the time has come to move on from this
13 sort of argument, which doesn't assist the Court.
14 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Tell me, Mr. Mesic: Do you remember the statement made by the
16 famous artist Edo Murtic in Novi Liste [phoen], a daily from
Rijeka, made
17 in June 2000? I'm quoting him: "I remember how a few months prior
to the
18 elections in 1990" - he is referring to his conversation with
Tudjman -
19 "how he came to me quite delighted, believing that he would turn me
into
20 his Augustincic. He thought that we would now do what the Ustashas
and
21 Pavelic did not do in 1941. He said that he would send 250.000
Serbs
22 packing away and the remaining 250.000 would be killed." So these
are
23 your own newspapers. It's not a Belgrade newspaper. This is Edo
Murtic,
24 a famous artist, painter, a well-known intellectual. Do you
remember that
25 statement of his about this conversation before the elections in
1990?
Page 10651
1 And I quoted Susan Woodward a few minutes ago and she is referring
to the
2 atmosphere before 1990, before the elections.
3 JUDGE MAY: The witness can deal with the conversation by -- or
4 comments by the artist which has been referred to.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The artist Edo Murtic is a friend of
6 mine, by the way, but I do admit that I haven't read that particular
7 statement of his.
8 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. All right. Tell me, please: I'm just going to briefly quote the
10 newspaper Feral Tribune on the 21st of April, 2001, autumn 2001,
there was
11 a hunt against the Serbs in 1991. It says: "Mercep's killers were
12 killing Serbs en masse in Pogracka [phoen], Puljane [phoen], they
were
13 taking people out of their homes in Zagreb and they were trying
them but
14 firing bullets into their heads. Norac Oreskovic and others applied
15 similar methods when dealing with the innocent Serbs of Gospic.
16 Spectacular Crystal Nights were organised in Zadar during which
tens of
17 houses were destroyed whose inhabitants had the wrong chromosomes."
18 Is that correct, Mr. Mesic? Is that what the Croatian newspaper
19 Feral Tribune said or did this Croatian newspaper lie when they
said that?
20 A. There were crimes, and I always asked for them to be
investigated
21 and the perpetrators to be punished. Croatia did not have
sufficient rule
22 of law, and after all, that is how I won the election, because I
have been
23 calling for true rule of law in Croatia. Crimes were committed and
24 perpetrators should be brought to justice. But that is no reason
for
25 destroying Dubrovnik, for destroying Vukovar, for destroying
Croatian
Page 10652
1 cities. Criminals should be prosecuted, but towns should not be
2 destroyed.
3 Q. Correct. Perpetrators should be prosecuted, perpetrators should
4 be tried, but the only question is: Who criminals were. Who were the
5 criminals? That's the only question. And criminals should certainly
be
6 prosecuted and brought to justice, certainly.
7 So that is the whole point. That is the inversion that was made,
8 Mr. Mesic; isn't that right? You are testifying here that I was the
one
9 who broke up Yugoslavia and you were in favour of Yugoslavia and any
child
10 in Yugoslavia knows --
11 A. I think that we can reach agreement on one thing very quickly
12 here. I am not the person on trial here.
13 Q. Well, that's the point.
14 JUDGE MAY: We're going to adjourn now. It's time, Mr. Milosevic.
15 Half past. Twenty minutes.
16 --- Recess taken at 10.29 a.m.
17 --- On resuming at 10.54 a.m.
18 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.
19 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. I'm going to show you now that you weren't speaking the truth a
21 moment ago when we were discussing an issue and questions about the
people
22 who were fighting in Bosnia who were not volunteers. And when I
asked you
23 about your nephew, who was also in Bosnia, a Croatian soldier
there, and
24 he was not a volunteer. He was born in Slavonia so he was not from
Bosnia
25 either and had nothing to do with Bosnia, and you said that that
was not
Page 10653
1 true, not correct; isn't that so? Now take a look at your own
testimony
2 in a case - or rather, when you speak about this same subject, it is
page
3 7266 of the transcript - while you were testifying here in this same
4 building --
5 JUDGE MAY: This is, so we've got it, is this in -- not in
6 Dokmanovic?
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No, it isn't. It's in the other
8 case, the other trial, where Mr. Mesic was a protected witness. And
so I
9 wish to adhere to the rules, although the Slobodna Dalmacija paper
did
10 publicise this. I don't want to make explicit mention of it. And
11 Mr. Mesic, as we can see, is a witness, has been a witness in many
cases,
12 a witness for the Prosecution, which also demonstrates this
inversion.
13 JUDGE MAY: No. That's just --
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That I was talking about. All
15 right. But this is what it says here. May I read it out?
16 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. And I'm reading out your own transcript, not mine, when you're
18 talking about whether they were in Bosnia-Herzegovina. He says the
19 following: "Whether there were any, I cannot tell [In English] I
was not
20 an inspector, nor was it up to me to establish it. But my nephew
Vlatko
21 Mesic, who was a Croat soldier, he was in Bosnia. He came back from
there
22 and he was not a volunteer in Bosnia. He was born in Slavonia. He
has
23 nothing in common with Bosnia, but he was there."
24 Therefore, you told an untruth a moment ago. You even said that
25 your nephews were too young, whereas here in this transcript from
your
Page 10654
Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the
French and English transcripts.
Page 10655
1 testimony which was given under oath, you are saying something quite
2 different, in fact. Is that right, Mr. Mesic, or is it not?
3 A. My two nephews live in France, and two of them live in Belgrade.
4 And during the war, they were minors. It is a relation of mine, a
distant
5 cousin. The interpretation of that was probably erroneous. Who said
6 that -- who told me he was in Bosnia. That is what he told me and
that is
7 what I said.
8 Q. Very well.
9 MR. NICE: Your Honour, can I -- I didn't want to interrupt that
10 last exchange, given that it had started, but any further reference
to
11 protected testimony should itself be given in private session.
12 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Very well.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't see why this should be given
14 in private session, Mr. May, when I am making no mention here of --
15 JUDGE MAY: It doesn't matter.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] -- what it refers to, actually.
17 JUDGE MAY: Those are the Rules. Any reference to private-session
18 matters should be in private session. Yes, let's go on.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't see that I have infringed
20 upon your procedure in any way by having brought that up.
21 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. When you were asked by a representative of the accused, did you
as
23 a speaker take any steps for this matter to be investigated?
Because of
24 course [In English] It is the assembly's responsibility regarding
the use
25 of the army outside its border. Did you form a commission? Did you
put
Page 10656
1 this issue on agenda --
2 JUDGE MAY: We'll go into private session.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Don't, please. I don't want to
4 waste time. I won't carry on with that.
5 JUDGE MAY: Very well.
6 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. So when weren't you speaking the truth, Mr. Mesic: Now or then,
8 when you made that statement which was under oath again?
9 JUDGE MAY: He's given his explanation. If there's anything you
10 want to add, Mr. Mesic, you can.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The direct question was whether my
12 nephew was there, and I said no. A relative, a relation of mine,
was,
13 which means that individuals were there who were not born in
Bosnia. But
14 apart from that one individual that I did know, I wasn't able to
ascertain
15 who was there.
16 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Now, whether you say nephew or relative or distant cousin or
18 whatever I read out here, that's what it said, so there can be no
dilemmas
19 there or confusion. Let's move on.
20 Is it true that in your presence Tudjman said that at the end of
21 the war there would be 5 per cent of Serbs in Croatia, by the end
of the
22 war?
23 A. Yes, that is what he said. He said that was his assumption.
24 Q. Is it also true that he said that Tudjman thought that the 1938
25 solution for Croatia was the best one when it was the banovina of
Croatia?
Page 10657
1 A. No. It was Tudjman's position that as Vojvodina had been attached
2 to Serbia, and it was never under Serbia, even during World War II,
3 Vojvodina was under the main staff and headquarters of Croatia
because
4 Serbia did not have one. And he therefore considered that Avnoj, the
5 anti-fascist World War II council had made a mistake when to
6 Bosnia-Herzegovina as a historical Croatian province had not been
7 envisioned as autonomous province within Croatia. So that position
was
8 one that he always stood by, and he considered that
Bosnia-Herzegovina had
9 to be a whole, a whole entity, and that it must be within the
frameworks
10 of Croatia. But Avnoj, the anti-fascist council, did not take that
into
11 account. However, in the electoral campaign, he stated the facts
and said
12 that Croatia represented an oblong role with one section cut off.
But in
13 that way, he did not move any proceedings to put that right and to
ask for
14 alien territory to be attached to Croatia. After he returned from
15 Karadjordjevo, he said that Croatia was to receive the banovina
borders
16 plus Cazin and Bihac, Kladusa, and he said, as Milosevic had told
him, he
17 said: "Listen, Franjo." That's what he said. You take Cazin,
Kladusa and
18 Bihac. I don't need that. That is what we refer to as Turkish
Croatia.
19 That's what he told us. Now, whether that was what actually took
place,
20 the accused knows that better himself.
21 Q. Well, of course there was no discussion about carving up Bosnia.
22 We have already had that discussion here. But your explanations are
23 becoming relevant for you. So to recap: You weren't telling the
truth
24 with respect to the presence in Bosnia, and later on I am going to
call
25 evidence --
* Continued at: http://www.icdsm.org/more/mesic-5.htm
***** Urgent Message from Sloboda (Freedom) Association and the
International Committee to Defend Slobodan Milosevic!
The Freedom Association in Belgrade and the ICDSM, based outside
Yugoslavia, are the two organizations formed at the request of
Slobodan
Milosevic to aid in his defense.
Up until now our main work has been threefold. We have publicized the
truth about The Hague's phony trial. We have organized research to
help President Milosevic expose NATO's lies. And we have initiated
legal action in the Dutch and European Courts.
Now our job has increased. The defense phase of the "trial" starts in
May 2003. No longer will Mr. Milosevic be limited to cross-examining
Hague witnesses. The prosecution will be forced further onto the
defensive as victims of NATO's aggression and experts from Yugoslavia
and
the NATO countries tell what really happened and expose media lies.
Moreover, Mr. Milosevic will call leaders, from East and West, some
friendly and some hostile to the truth.
The controlled mass media will undoubtedly try to suppress this
testimony as they have tried to suppress Mr. Milosevic's
cross-examinations. Nevertheless this phase of the "trial" will be the
biggest international forum ever to expose NATO's use of racism,
violence and lies to attack Yugoslavia.
We urgently need the help of all people who care about what is
happening in The Hague. Right now, Nico Steijnen , the Dutch lawyer in
the
ICDSM, is waging legal battles in the Dutch courts and before the
European Court, about which more news soon. These efforts urgently
require financial support. We now maintain a small staff of Yugoslav
lawyers in Holland, assisting and advising Mr. Milosevic full-time. We
need to expand our Dutch facilities, perhaps bringing in a
non-Yugoslav attorney full-time. Definitely we must guarantee that we
have an
office and office manager available at all times, to compile and
process evidence and for meetings with witnesses and lawyers and as a
base
for organizing press conferences.
All this costs money. And for this, we rely on those who want Mr.
Milosevic to have the best possible support for attacking NATO's lies.
************
Here's how you can help...
************
* You may contribute by credit card. By the end of September we will
have an ICDSM secure server so you can contribute directly on the
Internet.
For now, you can contribute by credit card in two ways: *
You can Contribute by Credit Card over the Telephone by calling:
ICDSM office, USA: 1 617 916-1705
SLOBODA (Freedom) Association office, Belgrade: 381 63 279 819
You can Contribute using PayPal at:
https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=icdsm%40aol.com
PayPal accepts VISA and MasterCard
You can Contribute by mail to:
ICDSM
831 Beacon St., #295
Newton Centre, MA 02459 (USA)
- OR -
You can Contribute by wire transfer to Sloboda Association
Intermediary:
UBS AG
Zurich, Switzerland
Swift Code: UBSWCHZH
Account with:
/ 756 - CHF
/ 840 - USD
/ 978 - EUR
Kmercijalna Banka AD
SV. Save 14, 11000 Belgrade, FR Yugoslavia
Swift Code: KOBBYUBG
Beneficiary: Account No. 5428-1246-16154-6
SLOBODA
Rajiceva 16, 11000 Belgrade, FR Yugoslavia
Thank you!
http://www.icdsm.org
1. The 'job offer' that led to years of sex slavery (The Daily
Telegraph)
2. In Europe, Sex Slavery Is Thriving Despite Raids (The New York
Times)
3. Investigative Report: KOSOVO SEX INDUSTRY (IWPR)
Una sintesi in lingua italiana dell'ultimo documento si puo' trovare
su: http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/1920
Altri articoli recenti sul problema della "tratta delle bianche" nei
Balcani si possono trovare su:
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/1912
=== 1 ===
http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$
GWYSBEGGIXKI1QFIQMFCFGGAVCBQYIV0?xml=%2F
news%2F2002%2F10%2F21%2Fwbalk21.xml&secureRefresh=true&
_requestid=207679
THE DAILY TELEGRAPH (London)
(Filed: 21/10/2002)
The 'job offer' that led to years of sex slavery
Eve-Ann Prentice in Podgorica reports on attempts to
clamp down on the trade of young women as sex slaves
in the Balkans
Elena was a naive 19-year-old when a man started
flirting with her in the market place of her home town
in Moldova.
She and her mother were near destitute after her
father had left home and she believed the handsome
stranger when he offered her a job as a waitress at a
coastal resort in Montenegro.
Instead, she was taken to the Serbian town of Novi
Sad, where she was drugged, beaten and repeatedly
raped.
After a couple of weeks of relentless abuse, stupefied
by drink and drugs, she was taken to northern
Montenegro, where she was sold as a sex slave.
Elena is just one of countless thousands of young
women, some as young as 14, who every year become
victims of human trafficking.
It is big business for the gangsters who kidnap the
women off the streets of impoverished towns in eastern
Europe and the Balkans, or lure them with false
promises of work, then beat them into becoming unpaid
prostitutes.
Many are taken across the Adriatic to Italy, from
where they are transported to the brothels of
north-western Europe, including Britain.
Some are increasingly being held as captives in
brothels used by the army of foreign aid workers now
working across the region. Elena was luckier than
most.
After three years of being sold from one owner to
another, police raided the bar where she was
imprisoned this summer and she grabbed her chance to
escape. She was taken to a secret shelter for victims
of trafficking on the outskirts of Podgorica in
Montenegro.
Two men were arrested in the bar, including a
policeman, Vladan Bakic, who is awaiting trial. This
weekend, Elena is on her way back home to Moldova,
after spending several weeks at a high-security
shelter run by the International Organisation for
Migration.
Here the lucky few who either escape from their
captors or are rescued in police raids can find
counselling, medical care and help to return home.
Even then, the women often face hostility from their
own families, as they are forever afterwards regarded
as soiled.
Most of the victims of the trade in humans have been
from Moldova, Romania and other countries outside
Montenegro but now an increasing number are from
within the tiny mountain republic which, with Serbia,
makes up what remains of federal Yugoslavia.
"This is because standards of living have become worse
and worse here and all criminal trades flourish in
such an atmosphere," says Zana Pevicevic, who runs the
IOM's operation in Podgorica. Cuddly toys and pop star
posters testify to the youth of the victims at the
shelter.
It is dangerous work for Zana and her two assistants
who run the shelter at a modern, clean and
well-equipped house guarded by security cameras and
with a fast-response alarm system linked to the local
police.
Attitudes to the human trafficking are beginning to
change in Montenegro. There are signs that police
raids have forced the criminal gangs behind the trade
to change their main route - south through Serbia,
Montenegro and Albania - to a more northerly path. The
misery will not be ended, it will only be relocated.
letters.online@...
=== 2 ===
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/20/international/europe/20MIRA.html
THE NEW YORK TIMES, Sunday, October 20, 2002
In Europe, Sex Slavery Is Thriving Despite Raids
By DAVID BINDER
WASHINGTON, Oct. 19 - An intensive European operation conducted with
American assistance to crack down on the trafficking of women for the
sex trade has had mixed success, American officials say.
Preliminary data show that in 20,558 raids conducted from Sept. 7 to
Sept. 16 across Central and Eastern Europe, 237 victims of trafficking
were identified and 293 traffickers were arrested and charged as
criminals.
But little was done in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the focus of the
operation because it is considered a center for international
prostitution and sexual slavery as well as a major transit point to
northern Europe. National and international police officers made just
71 raids on Bosnian nightclubs, hotels and other locations during the
September operation and arrested seven trafficking suspects.
"We are gratified by what was accomplished by some of the
participating countries, but are less satisfied with others who should
have been more involved," said John F. Markey, a United States customs
agent who directs law enforcement assistance programs in the State
Department.
Regionally and globally, the problem is huge. Trafficked women from
poor regions of Ukraine, Romania, Moldova and other Central and
Eastern European countries have been turning up in the United States
as well - in Miami, New York, Los Angeles and even Anchorage.
The International Organization for Migration, an offshoot of the
United Nations, estimates that 700,000 women are transported, mostly
involuntarily, over international borders each year for the sex trade.
As many as 200,000 are taken to or through the Balkans.
The September operation was conducted by the transborder crime center
of the Southeast European Cooperative Initiative in Bucharest,
Romania, bringing together regional law enforcement agencies. The
center receives considerable assistance from the United States Customs
Service, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Immigration and
Naturalization Service, the Drug Enforcement Administration and the
Secret Service. The crime center is directed by Brig. Gen. Ferenc
Banfi of Hungary, and the antitrafficking task force is led by a
Romanian, Col. Gabriel Sotirescu.
In addition to Bosnia, the operation enlisted the assistance of
Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Macedonia, Yugoslavia, Greece, Hungary,
Moldova, Romania, Turkey and Ukraine.
The operation focused on Bosnia because, since the war there ended
seven years ago, the presence of thousands of NATO troops and civilian
workers for the United Nations and aid agencies has made it a prime
market for both prostitution and sexual slavery, officials said.
Over the past two years, both NATO soldiers and United Nations
officials, including some Americans, have been implicated in the
exploitation of young women held in sexual bondage.
Because of its porous borders - only about 40 of its 432 official
border crossings are guarded - Bosnia is also a major transit country
for trafficked women, narcotics and contraband being sent to Northern
Europe.
On Thursday, the United Nations Mission in Sarajevo dismissed 11
Bosnian police officers, including members of the antitrafficking
squad, after they were apprehended visiting brothels and abusing
prostitutes. One has been sentenced by a Bosnian court to a month's
imprisonment, the mission announced.
By contrast, Bulgaria posted large numbers during the September
operation: in 2,079 individual raids, 258 people were identified as
traffickers and 64 women as trafficking victims. Some of the women
were taken to shelters run by private groups.
Romania reported 2,597 police raids, in which 47 traffickers were
identified and 1,063 women were identified as being in the sex
industry; 37 were classified as sex slaves.
For the other participating countries, the available performance data
declined sharply, officials said.
Among the functions of the Bucharest center's approximately 30
permanent officers is to receive, evaluate and pass on information on
suspected illegal movements of people, narcotics and contraband goods
to bring about transborder law enforcement operations. More than 100
messages were exchanged during the September operation, Colonel
Sotirescu said.
The center, housed in a palace built under Romania's Communist-era
dictator, Nicolae Ceausescu, carried out its first joint action last
summer, focusing on narcotics trafficking across 15 countries from
Central Asia to the Balkans. More such operations are in the works.
Mr. Markey said the lack of cooperation the operation sometimes
encountered could be explained by political turmoil surrounding
elections in some countries, including Serbia, Bosnia and Macedonia.
letters@...
=== 3 ===
IWPR'S BALKAN CRISIS REPORT, No. 355, Part II, August 2, 2002
KOSOVO SEX INDUSTRY
There was hardly any prostitution in Kosovo before the war - now it's
booming
By Jeta Xharra in Pristina
Red neon over the Nairobi bar and an arc of light slicing through a
chink in its heavily-draped window are all that illuminate the
entrance to the striptease club, where Naim, a thin Albanian man in
his twenties, stands looking bored. When he sees me he springs into
action, spreading his scrawny chest across the door. "Sorry, women
are not allowed here," he said.
The doorman, Naim, was soon joined by a colleague who said he had
visited similar nightclubs in Sweden, and considers the provision of
such "entertainment" a measure of Kosovo's recent progress. "The real
excitement here is that guys whose first journey beyond their village
was to Stankovac (a refugee camp in Macedonia) can now see women strip
here," he said.
I ask to be let in, saying that I only want to order a drink at the
bar. When that fails, I threaten to complain to the UN police about
the discriminatory entrance policy at the club. Naim will not budge.
"All the girls inside the club are on contract, if the police raid the
place and find uncontracted local girls we'll be in trouble," he said.
"Anyway, this is no place for you 'sister', do you have any idea of
why people come here?" He probably didn't expect an answer, but I
whisper back, "Per kurv'ni?" - a piece of local slang best translated
as "for whoring". Naim does not respond, but his face reddens.
Such prudishness might seem absurd from a man working at a club where
punters can buy sex with the dancers. But this is a traditional
tightly-knit society. Discussing his job with an Albanian woman was
probably as awkward for him as talking about it to his mother, or his
own sister. Naim probably justified his work on the basis that the
club - which has since closed - is staffed entirely by foreign women.
By "importing" Romanian, Moldovan or Ukrainian women, club owners and
their staff can argue that they are shielding "our women" from this
unpleasant, but lucrative business.
Unheard of three years ago, the sex industry is now the fastest
growing "business" in post-war Kosovo, which has undergone
unprecedented social and political upheaval since the 1999 conflict.
Mobilised for over a decade against the Milosevic regime, the
population now plays host to the KFOR peacekeeping force, which
provides a steady stream of clients for the protectorate's 120 or so
strip clubs.
Around 60 per cent of women working in the sex trade come from
Moldova, the others from Romania and Ukraine. However, figures from
the International Organisation of Migration, IOM, counter-trafficking
unit suggest that 70 per cent of the overseas women were lured from
their home countries with promises of jobs as cleaners, waitresses,
baby-sitters or care workers.
While the arrival of 45,000 international peacekeepers has certainly
been a key factor in the sudden growth of the industry, in research
conducted by the IOM Kosovo team last year, victims of trafficking
reported that the bulk of the clientele are local residents.
Sevdije Ahmeti, a human rights activist and director of the Centre for
the Protection of Women and Children, CPWC, also questions the image
of Kosovo as an untainted, traditional society where an imported sex
trade serves the needs of promiscuous foreigners. Traditional
Albanian family structures, in which a male breadwinner provided for
women and children, had started eroding even before the war, she says.
Many Kosovar men emigrated to western Europe during the 1990s, either
to escape the military draft or to earn the hard currency which funded
Kosovo's "parallel economy" in a period when Albanians either
boycotted or were sacked from state jobs. Their absence altered the
traditional balance of roles between the sexes.
Kosovar society was then traumatised by the events of spring 1999, as
the majority of men were left powerless to defend their families in
the face of Serbian army tactics, which included rape and gang rape.
This "weapon" was not only used against women, but also to humiliate
and emasculate the men who were supposed to be their protectors.
Claims by local men that no Kosovar women work in the sex industry are
open to dispute. A local safe house set up by CPWC in 1996, to offer
refuge to Bosnian women who had been raped during the 1991-5 war, has
helped hundreds of women from across the former Yugoslavia, including
a significant number from Kosovo.
Tina, a Kosovar girl who sought sanctuary at the refuge, was kept as a
virtual slave in a Mitrovica nightclub for two years. Her clientele
was divided between locals who visited the club and military personnel
to whom she was "delivered" at checkpoints and barracks across
northern Kosovo.
In practice, the traditional attitudes that are believed to "protect"
Kosovar women from the sex trade leave victims of trafficking and
sexual crimes largely unprotected by the law.
One teenage victim of abduction and gang rape received scant support
from the legal system.
Violeta, 16, was kidnapped by two young Albanian men on her way to
school in Pristina three years ago. She was taken to a bar, which
promptly closed for the day. After drawing the curtains, the men and
their friends raped her repeatedly. She was allowed to return home in
the evenings, but the kidnappers threatened to ruin her reputation if
she said a word to anyone. Terrified, Violeta, did not dare tell her
parents what had happened and her ordeal was repeated several times.
She became pregnant and had an abortion before her abductors were
eventually caught. She testified against them, but they were released
for "lack of evidence".
Three years on, her life is still severely restricted. "My kidnappers
can go wherever they want, I only dare to go out in the company of my
mother or father," she said. "I had to drop out of school, because
they would follow me and ask my teachers where I was."
The first judge Violeta encountered told her to be less emotional and
stop crying about her ordeal, which, he said, was clearly her own
fault. With the support of her parents and the CPWC, she is now
pushing for a new hearing of her case at the Pristina district court,
but her experience shows the attitude rife among local men and even
judges that women willingly engage in sexual activities in the various
strip joints and bars. It is a view that conveniently overlooks the
fact that girls may have been trafficked or abducted.
Urosevac (Ferizaj in Albanian) is a grim little town with a population
of 130,000 in the south-east of Kosovo, bordering Macedonia. Even
before the war the town had a bad reputation, with the level of drug
dealing and underworld activity earning it the title of Kosovo's
gangster capital. The nightclubs here are more relaxed than in
Pristina.
Anyone - including a woman - can walk into the clubs and the owners
seem unconcerned about regulations or the police. Their confidence is
well-placed. "You don't just go and raid off-limits clubs in
Ferizaj," exclaimed Jamie Higgins, head of the UNMIK Trafficking and
Prostitution Unit, TPIU, when I asked if I could join a police swoop
in the town. As a centre of organised crime, a crackdown on the town
would require detailed planning and extensive numbers of police on the
ground - more than the TPIU has at its disposal, he said.
On the outskirts of the Freizaj is the Madonna nightclub, a former
family house turned striptease joint. In the corner, girls were
putting on bikinis, ready to perform. Following a signal from an
Albanian pimp, a blonde girl dancing on the podium made way for a dark
girl, who began an elaborate gyration to Michael Jackson's ballad
"Liberian Girl". A clientele of Albanian men, old and young, relaxed,
surrounded by groups of foreign women.
This is where Gezim, a local resident and acquaintance from high
school, brought me when I asked him to show me the place where he had
tried to "order" a girl for a friend who he thought had "a problem" in
that department.
"We stood outside the club almost all night after the dancing
finished, but we couldn't get anything," he told me. "Other people
were bidding and by the end there were no women left. The demand was
high so I don't think we could have afforded them anyway."
We also visited the Apachi Club, named after the famous US Apache
helicopters and one of the first clubs to open after the NATO action.
Armed with Hellfire amour-piercing missiles, the aircraft were much
vaunted during the war as the only military hardware capable of
stopping the Yugoslav tanks and troops ethnically cleansing the
province. The Americans' reluctance to deploy the helicopters, and
their frequent crashes during training exercises in northern Albania,
did not deter the owners. They probably hoped to attract a clientele
from the US military base Camp Bondsteel, 14 km away.
It seems to have worked. "I drive both civilians and uniformed men to
these clubs," said a taxi driver waiting outside the Apachi club,
sometimes also - confusingly - known as the Arizona club. "Some have
even changed into civilian clothing in my car. Of course, the locals
think this is bad for the area. It's a bad example for the young if
they see these things, but soldiers will be soldiers and they won't
stay on base if there is a night-club outside."
Outside the Apachi, a string of red Christmas lights hang neatly
around the entrance. Inside, the corridor leading to the striptease
room was festooned with pictures of helicopters.
By 2 am, the dancing was over. Semi-naked, heavily made-up girls
accompanied men to different tables, to negotiate "business" for the
night. With heavy local patronage and little international appetite
to take punitive action, scenes like this one look set to continue in
Kosovo for many nights to come.
Jeta Xharra is a freelance researcher/journalist & recent MA graduate
from the War Studies department, at King's College London
[WARNING:
Balkan Crisis Report, by IWPR, is an anti-yugoslav and serbophobic
newsletter supported by the Department for International
Development, the European Commission, the Swedish International
Development and Cooperation Agency, The Netherlands Ministry for
Foreign Affairs, and other funders. IWPR also acknowledges general
support from the Ford Foundation.
For further details on this project, other information services and
media programmes, visit IWPR's website: www.iwpr.net
C.N.J.]
Telegraph)
2. In Europe, Sex Slavery Is Thriving Despite Raids (The New York
Times)
3. Investigative Report: KOSOVO SEX INDUSTRY (IWPR)
Una sintesi in lingua italiana dell'ultimo documento si puo' trovare
su: http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/1920
Altri articoli recenti sul problema della "tratta delle bianche" nei
Balcani si possono trovare su:
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/1912
=== 1 ===
http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$
GWYSBEGGIXKI1QFIQMFCFGGAVCBQYIV0?xml=%2F
news%2F2002%2F10%2F21%2Fwbalk21.xml&secureRefresh=true&
_requestid=207679
THE DAILY TELEGRAPH (London)
(Filed: 21/10/2002)
The 'job offer' that led to years of sex slavery
Eve-Ann Prentice in Podgorica reports on attempts to
clamp down on the trade of young women as sex slaves
in the Balkans
Elena was a naive 19-year-old when a man started
flirting with her in the market place of her home town
in Moldova.
She and her mother were near destitute after her
father had left home and she believed the handsome
stranger when he offered her a job as a waitress at a
coastal resort in Montenegro.
Instead, she was taken to the Serbian town of Novi
Sad, where she was drugged, beaten and repeatedly
raped.
After a couple of weeks of relentless abuse, stupefied
by drink and drugs, she was taken to northern
Montenegro, where she was sold as a sex slave.
Elena is just one of countless thousands of young
women, some as young as 14, who every year become
victims of human trafficking.
It is big business for the gangsters who kidnap the
women off the streets of impoverished towns in eastern
Europe and the Balkans, or lure them with false
promises of work, then beat them into becoming unpaid
prostitutes.
Many are taken across the Adriatic to Italy, from
where they are transported to the brothels of
north-western Europe, including Britain.
Some are increasingly being held as captives in
brothels used by the army of foreign aid workers now
working across the region. Elena was luckier than
most.
After three years of being sold from one owner to
another, police raided the bar where she was
imprisoned this summer and she grabbed her chance to
escape. She was taken to a secret shelter for victims
of trafficking on the outskirts of Podgorica in
Montenegro.
Two men were arrested in the bar, including a
policeman, Vladan Bakic, who is awaiting trial. This
weekend, Elena is on her way back home to Moldova,
after spending several weeks at a high-security
shelter run by the International Organisation for
Migration.
Here the lucky few who either escape from their
captors or are rescued in police raids can find
counselling, medical care and help to return home.
Even then, the women often face hostility from their
own families, as they are forever afterwards regarded
as soiled.
Most of the victims of the trade in humans have been
from Moldova, Romania and other countries outside
Montenegro but now an increasing number are from
within the tiny mountain republic which, with Serbia,
makes up what remains of federal Yugoslavia.
"This is because standards of living have become worse
and worse here and all criminal trades flourish in
such an atmosphere," says Zana Pevicevic, who runs the
IOM's operation in Podgorica. Cuddly toys and pop star
posters testify to the youth of the victims at the
shelter.
It is dangerous work for Zana and her two assistants
who run the shelter at a modern, clean and
well-equipped house guarded by security cameras and
with a fast-response alarm system linked to the local
police.
Attitudes to the human trafficking are beginning to
change in Montenegro. There are signs that police
raids have forced the criminal gangs behind the trade
to change their main route - south through Serbia,
Montenegro and Albania - to a more northerly path. The
misery will not be ended, it will only be relocated.
letters.online@...
=== 2 ===
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/20/international/europe/20MIRA.html
THE NEW YORK TIMES, Sunday, October 20, 2002
In Europe, Sex Slavery Is Thriving Despite Raids
By DAVID BINDER
WASHINGTON, Oct. 19 - An intensive European operation conducted with
American assistance to crack down on the trafficking of women for the
sex trade has had mixed success, American officials say.
Preliminary data show that in 20,558 raids conducted from Sept. 7 to
Sept. 16 across Central and Eastern Europe, 237 victims of trafficking
were identified and 293 traffickers were arrested and charged as
criminals.
But little was done in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the focus of the
operation because it is considered a center for international
prostitution and sexual slavery as well as a major transit point to
northern Europe. National and international police officers made just
71 raids on Bosnian nightclubs, hotels and other locations during the
September operation and arrested seven trafficking suspects.
"We are gratified by what was accomplished by some of the
participating countries, but are less satisfied with others who should
have been more involved," said John F. Markey, a United States customs
agent who directs law enforcement assistance programs in the State
Department.
Regionally and globally, the problem is huge. Trafficked women from
poor regions of Ukraine, Romania, Moldova and other Central and
Eastern European countries have been turning up in the United States
as well - in Miami, New York, Los Angeles and even Anchorage.
The International Organization for Migration, an offshoot of the
United Nations, estimates that 700,000 women are transported, mostly
involuntarily, over international borders each year for the sex trade.
As many as 200,000 are taken to or through the Balkans.
The September operation was conducted by the transborder crime center
of the Southeast European Cooperative Initiative in Bucharest,
Romania, bringing together regional law enforcement agencies. The
center receives considerable assistance from the United States Customs
Service, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Immigration and
Naturalization Service, the Drug Enforcement Administration and the
Secret Service. The crime center is directed by Brig. Gen. Ferenc
Banfi of Hungary, and the antitrafficking task force is led by a
Romanian, Col. Gabriel Sotirescu.
In addition to Bosnia, the operation enlisted the assistance of
Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Macedonia, Yugoslavia, Greece, Hungary,
Moldova, Romania, Turkey and Ukraine.
The operation focused on Bosnia because, since the war there ended
seven years ago, the presence of thousands of NATO troops and civilian
workers for the United Nations and aid agencies has made it a prime
market for both prostitution and sexual slavery, officials said.
Over the past two years, both NATO soldiers and United Nations
officials, including some Americans, have been implicated in the
exploitation of young women held in sexual bondage.
Because of its porous borders - only about 40 of its 432 official
border crossings are guarded - Bosnia is also a major transit country
for trafficked women, narcotics and contraband being sent to Northern
Europe.
On Thursday, the United Nations Mission in Sarajevo dismissed 11
Bosnian police officers, including members of the antitrafficking
squad, after they were apprehended visiting brothels and abusing
prostitutes. One has been sentenced by a Bosnian court to a month's
imprisonment, the mission announced.
By contrast, Bulgaria posted large numbers during the September
operation: in 2,079 individual raids, 258 people were identified as
traffickers and 64 women as trafficking victims. Some of the women
were taken to shelters run by private groups.
Romania reported 2,597 police raids, in which 47 traffickers were
identified and 1,063 women were identified as being in the sex
industry; 37 were classified as sex slaves.
For the other participating countries, the available performance data
declined sharply, officials said.
Among the functions of the Bucharest center's approximately 30
permanent officers is to receive, evaluate and pass on information on
suspected illegal movements of people, narcotics and contraband goods
to bring about transborder law enforcement operations. More than 100
messages were exchanged during the September operation, Colonel
Sotirescu said.
The center, housed in a palace built under Romania's Communist-era
dictator, Nicolae Ceausescu, carried out its first joint action last
summer, focusing on narcotics trafficking across 15 countries from
Central Asia to the Balkans. More such operations are in the works.
Mr. Markey said the lack of cooperation the operation sometimes
encountered could be explained by political turmoil surrounding
elections in some countries, including Serbia, Bosnia and Macedonia.
letters@...
=== 3 ===
IWPR'S BALKAN CRISIS REPORT, No. 355, Part II, August 2, 2002
KOSOVO SEX INDUSTRY
There was hardly any prostitution in Kosovo before the war - now it's
booming
By Jeta Xharra in Pristina
Red neon over the Nairobi bar and an arc of light slicing through a
chink in its heavily-draped window are all that illuminate the
entrance to the striptease club, where Naim, a thin Albanian man in
his twenties, stands looking bored. When he sees me he springs into
action, spreading his scrawny chest across the door. "Sorry, women
are not allowed here," he said.
The doorman, Naim, was soon joined by a colleague who said he had
visited similar nightclubs in Sweden, and considers the provision of
such "entertainment" a measure of Kosovo's recent progress. "The real
excitement here is that guys whose first journey beyond their village
was to Stankovac (a refugee camp in Macedonia) can now see women strip
here," he said.
I ask to be let in, saying that I only want to order a drink at the
bar. When that fails, I threaten to complain to the UN police about
the discriminatory entrance policy at the club. Naim will not budge.
"All the girls inside the club are on contract, if the police raid the
place and find uncontracted local girls we'll be in trouble," he said.
"Anyway, this is no place for you 'sister', do you have any idea of
why people come here?" He probably didn't expect an answer, but I
whisper back, "Per kurv'ni?" - a piece of local slang best translated
as "for whoring". Naim does not respond, but his face reddens.
Such prudishness might seem absurd from a man working at a club where
punters can buy sex with the dancers. But this is a traditional
tightly-knit society. Discussing his job with an Albanian woman was
probably as awkward for him as talking about it to his mother, or his
own sister. Naim probably justified his work on the basis that the
club - which has since closed - is staffed entirely by foreign women.
By "importing" Romanian, Moldovan or Ukrainian women, club owners and
their staff can argue that they are shielding "our women" from this
unpleasant, but lucrative business.
Unheard of three years ago, the sex industry is now the fastest
growing "business" in post-war Kosovo, which has undergone
unprecedented social and political upheaval since the 1999 conflict.
Mobilised for over a decade against the Milosevic regime, the
population now plays host to the KFOR peacekeeping force, which
provides a steady stream of clients for the protectorate's 120 or so
strip clubs.
Around 60 per cent of women working in the sex trade come from
Moldova, the others from Romania and Ukraine. However, figures from
the International Organisation of Migration, IOM, counter-trafficking
unit suggest that 70 per cent of the overseas women were lured from
their home countries with promises of jobs as cleaners, waitresses,
baby-sitters or care workers.
While the arrival of 45,000 international peacekeepers has certainly
been a key factor in the sudden growth of the industry, in research
conducted by the IOM Kosovo team last year, victims of trafficking
reported that the bulk of the clientele are local residents.
Sevdije Ahmeti, a human rights activist and director of the Centre for
the Protection of Women and Children, CPWC, also questions the image
of Kosovo as an untainted, traditional society where an imported sex
trade serves the needs of promiscuous foreigners. Traditional
Albanian family structures, in which a male breadwinner provided for
women and children, had started eroding even before the war, she says.
Many Kosovar men emigrated to western Europe during the 1990s, either
to escape the military draft or to earn the hard currency which funded
Kosovo's "parallel economy" in a period when Albanians either
boycotted or were sacked from state jobs. Their absence altered the
traditional balance of roles between the sexes.
Kosovar society was then traumatised by the events of spring 1999, as
the majority of men were left powerless to defend their families in
the face of Serbian army tactics, which included rape and gang rape.
This "weapon" was not only used against women, but also to humiliate
and emasculate the men who were supposed to be their protectors.
Claims by local men that no Kosovar women work in the sex industry are
open to dispute. A local safe house set up by CPWC in 1996, to offer
refuge to Bosnian women who had been raped during the 1991-5 war, has
helped hundreds of women from across the former Yugoslavia, including
a significant number from Kosovo.
Tina, a Kosovar girl who sought sanctuary at the refuge, was kept as a
virtual slave in a Mitrovica nightclub for two years. Her clientele
was divided between locals who visited the club and military personnel
to whom she was "delivered" at checkpoints and barracks across
northern Kosovo.
In practice, the traditional attitudes that are believed to "protect"
Kosovar women from the sex trade leave victims of trafficking and
sexual crimes largely unprotected by the law.
One teenage victim of abduction and gang rape received scant support
from the legal system.
Violeta, 16, was kidnapped by two young Albanian men on her way to
school in Pristina three years ago. She was taken to a bar, which
promptly closed for the day. After drawing the curtains, the men and
their friends raped her repeatedly. She was allowed to return home in
the evenings, but the kidnappers threatened to ruin her reputation if
she said a word to anyone. Terrified, Violeta, did not dare tell her
parents what had happened and her ordeal was repeated several times.
She became pregnant and had an abortion before her abductors were
eventually caught. She testified against them, but they were released
for "lack of evidence".
Three years on, her life is still severely restricted. "My kidnappers
can go wherever they want, I only dare to go out in the company of my
mother or father," she said. "I had to drop out of school, because
they would follow me and ask my teachers where I was."
The first judge Violeta encountered told her to be less emotional and
stop crying about her ordeal, which, he said, was clearly her own
fault. With the support of her parents and the CPWC, she is now
pushing for a new hearing of her case at the Pristina district court,
but her experience shows the attitude rife among local men and even
judges that women willingly engage in sexual activities in the various
strip joints and bars. It is a view that conveniently overlooks the
fact that girls may have been trafficked or abducted.
Urosevac (Ferizaj in Albanian) is a grim little town with a population
of 130,000 in the south-east of Kosovo, bordering Macedonia. Even
before the war the town had a bad reputation, with the level of drug
dealing and underworld activity earning it the title of Kosovo's
gangster capital. The nightclubs here are more relaxed than in
Pristina.
Anyone - including a woman - can walk into the clubs and the owners
seem unconcerned about regulations or the police. Their confidence is
well-placed. "You don't just go and raid off-limits clubs in
Ferizaj," exclaimed Jamie Higgins, head of the UNMIK Trafficking and
Prostitution Unit, TPIU, when I asked if I could join a police swoop
in the town. As a centre of organised crime, a crackdown on the town
would require detailed planning and extensive numbers of police on the
ground - more than the TPIU has at its disposal, he said.
On the outskirts of the Freizaj is the Madonna nightclub, a former
family house turned striptease joint. In the corner, girls were
putting on bikinis, ready to perform. Following a signal from an
Albanian pimp, a blonde girl dancing on the podium made way for a dark
girl, who began an elaborate gyration to Michael Jackson's ballad
"Liberian Girl". A clientele of Albanian men, old and young, relaxed,
surrounded by groups of foreign women.
This is where Gezim, a local resident and acquaintance from high
school, brought me when I asked him to show me the place where he had
tried to "order" a girl for a friend who he thought had "a problem" in
that department.
"We stood outside the club almost all night after the dancing
finished, but we couldn't get anything," he told me. "Other people
were bidding and by the end there were no women left. The demand was
high so I don't think we could have afforded them anyway."
We also visited the Apachi Club, named after the famous US Apache
helicopters and one of the first clubs to open after the NATO action.
Armed with Hellfire amour-piercing missiles, the aircraft were much
vaunted during the war as the only military hardware capable of
stopping the Yugoslav tanks and troops ethnically cleansing the
province. The Americans' reluctance to deploy the helicopters, and
their frequent crashes during training exercises in northern Albania,
did not deter the owners. They probably hoped to attract a clientele
from the US military base Camp Bondsteel, 14 km away.
It seems to have worked. "I drive both civilians and uniformed men to
these clubs," said a taxi driver waiting outside the Apachi club,
sometimes also - confusingly - known as the Arizona club. "Some have
even changed into civilian clothing in my car. Of course, the locals
think this is bad for the area. It's a bad example for the young if
they see these things, but soldiers will be soldiers and they won't
stay on base if there is a night-club outside."
Outside the Apachi, a string of red Christmas lights hang neatly
around the entrance. Inside, the corridor leading to the striptease
room was festooned with pictures of helicopters.
By 2 am, the dancing was over. Semi-naked, heavily made-up girls
accompanied men to different tables, to negotiate "business" for the
night. With heavy local patronage and little international appetite
to take punitive action, scenes like this one look set to continue in
Kosovo for many nights to come.
Jeta Xharra is a freelance researcher/journalist & recent MA graduate
from the War Studies department, at King's College London
[WARNING:
Balkan Crisis Report, by IWPR, is an anti-yugoslav and serbophobic
newsletter supported by the Department for International
Development, the European Commission, the Swedish International
Development and Cooperation Agency, The Netherlands Ministry for
Foreign Affairs, and other funders. IWPR also acknowledges general
support from the Ford Foundation.
For further details on this project, other information services and
media programmes, visit IWPR's website: www.iwpr.net
C.N.J.]
International Committee to Defend Slobodan Milosevic
www.icdsm.org
=================================
Slobodan Milosevic's Cross-Examination of
Croatian President Stjepan Mesic: PART V
Because the transcript of the cross-examination
is 150 pages long we have broken it into 12 easy
to read segments. If you wish to read the whole thing
at once go to: http://www.icdsm.org/more/mesic.htm
=================================
Page 10658
1 JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. Just a moment. The witness has said
2 he's telling the truth. Now, don't misrepresent the evidence. If
you've
3 got a question, you can ask it.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think that we differ because of
5 the translation in your transcript, where it says nephew, and he
says
6 relative or distant cousin, whereas otherwise there is no
difference.
7 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Now, to get back to what you were just saying, that you had no
9 intentions of any kind, Globus, the paper, this is a special
edition,
10 November 1, 1999, which says the following:
11 "Tudjman was in Canada, paid a state visit to Canada in 1988 and
12 1989 [As interpreted] -- 1998 and 1999, and dovetailed concepts,
first
13 that Croatia had to be independent and autonomous, and so on and so
14 forth. Third, that the Serbs must be brought to the level of a
national
15 minority, which meant that Croatia should have been more or less
16 ethnically pure. And fourth, if there are Serbs in
Bosnia-Herzegovina to
17 the extent that they cannot all be expelled to Serbia, all that
remains is
18 to carve up Bosnia-Herzegovina, which will ensure pure Croatian
regions
19 and certain restructuring, and this would be joined onto an
ethnically
20 pure Croatian state." Isn't that right, Mr. Mesic?
21 A. I don't know who said that.
22 Q. This is something that can be read in Globus about a plan that
was
23 dovetailed in 1988 and 1989 [As interpreted] in Canada with the
Ustasha
24 émigrés. Do you know at all about that?
25 A. I know nothing about that plan whatsoever.
Page 10659
1 Q. All right. Thank you. Now, on the basis of what you were saying
2 a moment ago, is it true and correct that Tudjman considered the
3 territories that belonged to the 1938 banovina, that it should be
annexed
4 to Croatia? Is that what he thought? Is that right or not? Annexed.
5 A. He said that that was what Milosevic had proposed.
6 Q. Just a minute. I'm speaking about something else now. I don't
7 want to show you the transcript once again, but you can look at the
8 transcript from that same trial where you testified and the number
of the
9 transcript line is 7130. But to avoid having to go into private
session,
10 I just want to jog your memory and tell you that you did speak
about the
11 subject at that particular time.
12 And just as like a moment ago, when you challenged the fact that
13 Tudjman thought that for Croatia the best solution would be the
1938
14 banovina solution, also from your testimony, on page 7129 and 7130,
you
15 said what you said. So tell me now: Is it true that the HDZ party
for
16 you was an extremist nationalistic --
17 MR. NICE: If this line of questioning is to be of any value at
18 all --
19 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Mr. Nice.
20 MR. NICE: If this is to be of any value at all, the following
21 thing should happen: The Chamber will have to go into private
session,
22 not because itself necessarily wants to. It simply that this was
23 protected evidence of another Chamber and we don't have rights to
do
24 anything else. Second, the transcript will then have to be examined
25 properly with the witness being in a position to read it and the
Chamber
Page 10660
1 being able to see the full context.
2 JUDGE MAY: At the moment I do not wish to go into private
3 session. It cuts up the cross-examination, makes it very difficult
for
4 everybody else to follow. If there is a significant point here, no
doubt
5 our attention can be drawn to it.
6 MR. NICE: Can I simply also then ask that the accused reminds me,
7 or through the Chamber, of what page he says its was on which the
first
8 reference was to be found. He says 7266 but it doesn't match my page
9 numbering.
10 JUDGE MAY: That's the note we have, 7266.
11 Mr. Milosevic, you will have -- if you want to quote from the
12 transcript, if there's any significance in what was said earlier,
do you
13 want to quote from the transcript, we have to go into private
session.
14 Those are the rules which we have to follow. Now, if we can avoid
doing
15 that, we should do so.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. May, but it is not proper
17 and correct that the public should not be able to see this, that
18 Mr. Mesic, for the most part --
19 JUDGE MAY: It doesn't matter about that. It is the Rules which
20 we have to follow. This was private session evidence, therefore it
should
21 be dealt with in private session. Now, do you want to ask anything
more
22 about that transcript or not?
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. I'll ask him something
24 about -- something else from the transcript in the Dokmanovic
trial, where
25 he wasn't a protected witness.
Page 10661
1 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Is it correct that the HDZ is an extremist nationalistic party
3 which introduced a uniform, unilateral way of thought that captured
people
4 in this way? Is that what you think? And you expressed words to that
5 effect in the Dokmanovic trial, where you were not a protected
witness.
6 The transcript page is 1714 in the testimony against him, and that
is
7 where you made a statement to that effect. You said that that was
your
8 opinion later on, not straight away, not from the very outset. So
when
9 did you come to think that way?
10 JUDGE MAY: Wait a moment. In order that the witness can deal
11 with this properly, have we got a copy of the transcript, Mr. Nice?
First
12 of all, have we got a copy of the transcript.
13 MR. NICE: Yes.
14 JUDGE MAY: Secondly, can the witness follow it?
15 MR. NICE: It's in English, I'm afraid, so he probably can't
16 follow it, because his English is not probably at the level to deal
with
17 that. But we have a copy for Your Honours if Your Honours haven't
seen
18 it.
19 JUDGE MAY: We, we have it here.
20 Mr. Mesic -- I'll deal with it. Mr. Mesic, what is being put to
21 you in the passage which the accused is asking you about is counsel
says,
22 counsel Mr. Fila, put: "We read that for you the HDZ is an
extremist
23 nationalist party, a hindrance to democracy which introduced a
single way
24 of thinking and which robbed the people. Is that what you really
meant?"
25 And you replied: To look at this in terms of the period -- time
period
Page 10662
Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the
French and English transcripts.
Page 10663
1 involved. "Okay," said witness. "Have you said something like this?"
2 And you replied: "The statement of yours calls for clarification,
namely,
3 when the HDZ was established first, when I was its member, when its
4 programme was elaborated, that was a party that was in favour of a
5 multiparty system for democratisation of free society. When the
balance
6 of political forces in the HDZ changed, I left the HDZ and I became
7 critical of the policy."
8 So counsel then put: That is to say that this statement,
9 obviously referring to his earlier statement, is from the latter
period.
10 And you replied: Yes, from the latter period.
11 Now, you're being asked about the comment that the HDZ was or
12 became an extreme nationalist party, a hindrance to democracy,
introducing
13 a single way of thinking. Can you help us as to whether you said
that,
14 and if you wish to elaborate on it, do.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When the HDZ was formed, just like
16 the other parties in Croatia, after the socialist model, I wanted
to have
17 a multiparty system. That's what I was in favour of, of a contest
of
18 opinion of democracy. That's what I wanted. Now, as the threats
were
19 coming from Serbia, threats which the accused himself, via his
rallies,
20 was sending out to Croatia, and they were coming from Vojvodina,
from
21 Serbia, and from Kosovo, the so-called rallies for truth, where it
was
22 stated that the people attending the rallies would go as far as
Ljubljana
23 and that what they would do was to stop over in Zagreb, topple the
24 government there, and carry on by way of passing. I considered that
the
25 HDZ could mobilise in Croatia people for setting up resistance to
that
Page 10664
1 kind of policy on the part of Milosevic, and I joined the HDZ
because I
2 considered that we would be able to protect the interests of the
Republic
3 of Croatia. However, because of the erroneous policy which prevailed
4 later on, or rather, the erroneous policy towards and vis-a-vis
5 Bosnia-Herzegovina, the wrong model of privatisation which was seen
and
6 the insufficient functioning of the rule of law in the country, the
7 insufficient functioning of the institutions inherent in the rule of
law,
8 I left that policy behind. I stepped down from it, because finally I
9 could still go on being the president of the Sabor parliament. I had
to
10 take part in that policy and politics. But as I did not agree with
the
11 policies, I left the post of president of parliament and joined the
12 opposition.
13 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Mr. Mesic, you relinquished the post of president of parliament,
15 as you said a moment ago, only after the first quarter of 1994.
However,
16 the destructive policy of the HDZ, according to you, began already
in
17 March 1991; isn't that so?
18 A. Yes, you're quite right. From your agreement in Karadjordjevo.
19 Q. So you ascribe the destructive policy of the HDZ, you date it to
20 March 1991 and you ascribe it to me. Is that so, Mr. Mesic?
21 A. Well, if you offered the carving up and division of Bosnia, then
22 it is quite true that in part you did take part in the creation of
the
23 wrong kind of policy.
24 Q. Well, as you well know, I never offered a division of Bosnia nor
25 was that our policy. And if you believe I did so, then please show
me one
Page 10665
1 detail which would be illustrative of that?
2 A. Not only the division of Bosnia. It is sufficient that you paid
3 the army in Bosnia-Herzegovina. It is sufficient to read the book
written
4 by General Veljko Kadijevic, the Federal Secretary for National
Defence,
5 who speaks precisely of the Virovitica-Karlobag-Karlovac border and
that
6 you stood behind that border, Mr. Accused. That same person
Kadijevic,
7 the Federal Secretary for National Defence, Blagoje Adzic, General
Blagoje
8 Adzic, who was the Chief of Staff of the General Staff of the
Yugoslav
9 army, never came to me. They never, ever came to me in the
Presidency,
10 although I embodied the Supreme Command. They never came to see me.
I
11 insisted -- it was I who insisted on going to see them. They never
came
12 to see me. But if you read Boro Jovic and his books and if you read
13 Mamula and his books, if you read Veljko Kadijevic and his books,
you will
14 see that the agreements were only and exclusively made with the
accused.
15 Q. First of all, that is not correct. I don't know what they say in
16 their books. Mamula retired even before the tensions mounted in
Croatia,
17 and later on in Bosnia. But I assume that you are a passionate
reader of
18 all these various books. But now tell me, please: As you were
referring
19 to the HDZ just now, in 1991 it started acting destructively, so
how can
20 you put up with this for a full three years, staying in that
destructive
21 party for three years as its executive chief, that is, as president
of the
22 Executive Board of the HDZ?
23 A. The point is something else. I was the president of the
executive
24 board of the HDZ. Let me tell you -- just a moment. From the 29th
of
25 December, 1991 until the 7th of August, 1992. This is the period in
which
Page 10666
1 I was at the head of the Executive Board of the HDZ. The point is
that as
2 soon as I saw that the policy was not the policy I had advocated, I
could
3 have relinquished it. That is true. However, in Croatia, I would
have
4 been seen as someone who refused to face the problems Croatia was
facing
5 at that moment, and it would have been thought that I had not done
enough
6 to correct the things that were going wrong in Croatia. I hoped that
with
7 those who thought the same way I did, I could correct the HDZ
policy, that
8 we could win. That is why, with other representatives, or rather,
with 23
9 MPs of the Croatian parliament, I discussed our leaving the HDZ.
This was
10 in 1993. In this way, we could have achieved cohabitation. The
11 opposition would have been the strongest in parliament, and HDZ
would have
12 held executive power. Things would have been different had we
succeeded.
13 But unfortunately, I was not successful. Only 11 MPs followed me,
and we
14 had one vote less than we needed to be the majority in parliament.
15 If you want to make a big change, you need to have a critical mass
16 with you. I thought that 23 MPs in parliament would be sufficient.
We
17 did not succeed, but I went over to the opposition. So I cannot
pinpoint
18 a date and say up to that date the policy was right; after that
date, the
19 policy was wrong. There was a continuity of events in politics.
When
20 enough things happen, one responds. My response was to try to
contribute,
21 in a positive way, to a better climate and a better policy in
Croatia.
22 Q. Very well. That was two years after March 1991, when you say
that
23 the destructive policy of the HDZ started. You say that to start
with the
24 HDZ was a democratic party and so on. In the HDZ platform, which I
assume
25 you contributed to, together with the other leaders of the HDZ, you
say
Page 10667
1 that the programme is based, among other things, on the teachings of
Ante
2 Starcevic. Let me just remind you what Ante Starcevic said -- or
rather,
3 wrote about the Serbs. He called the Serbs -- I don't know if this
can be
4 translated. I wouldn't be able to translate it. He called them
filthy
5 spawn, horrible slaves, people who were fit for the axe, Austrian
dogs,
6 inflated bags?
7 JUDGE MAY: When was this kind of thing written?
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Ante Starcevic wrote, for example,
9 in 1870, because the witness based his programme on that of Ante
10 Starcevic, who wrote --
11 JUDGE MAY: You're saying that. The witness hasn't said it. Help
12 us with Mr. Ante Starcevic, who wrote 130 years ago. Was your
programme
13 based on his writings?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] First of all, I did not create the
15 HDZ platform or programme. It had already been adopted when I
joined the
16 HDZ. Secondly, the teachings of Ante Starcevic do not consist of
17 particular statements that he made under various circumstances.
Ante
18 Starcevic, who is referred to in Croatia as the father of the
homeland,
19 advocated the idea that Croatia had to be independent. He struggled
for
20 the independence of Croatia from Austria and Hungary. In essence,
he was
21 a liberal. On the basis of Croatian state law, he demanded the
22 independence of Croatia. This is the part of his teaching that I
find
23 acceptable, an independent republic of Croatia. This is what was
taken
24 from Starcevic.
25 It was also mentioned, and the accused does not mention this, that
Page 10668
1 the programme was based on the anti-fascist tradition of the peoples
2 liberation struggle. The accused omitted this on purpose, on the
3 traditions of the anti-fascist struggle. So the ideas were not taken
just
4 from one source, but from all sources contributing to a positive
role for
5 Croatia and its citizens. That is why this was referred to in the
6 preamble to the programme. If we are to speak of history, the
accused
7 should say what Vuk Stefanovic Karadzic wrote. He was a Serbian
writer
8 who said that Serbs are all, everyone is a Serb, that the Croats
were
9 nothing but Serbs of Catholic faith, so that all this should be
Serbia.
10 JUDGE MAY: The Trial Chamber is not assisted by the exchange of
11 abuse, particularly abuse a hundred years ago.
12 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Is it true that the HDZ policy became more radical with time and
14 that elements who found inspiration in the Croatian state during
World War
15 II grew stronger? I'm referring to the fascist independent state of
16 Croatia.
17 A. The more attacks were mounted against Croatia and its integrity,
18 more excesses arose, and more and more people referred to the
independent
19 state of Croatia. I was against this. I'm still against this
policy,
20 because in essence I am an anti-fascist, and those are the ideas I
always
21 struggled for.
22 Q. Very well. I asked you about what you said about the HDZ, not
23 about what you say about yourself.
24 A. That's why I left the HDZ.
25 Q. Very well. In any case, I see that as the president of the
* Continued at: http://www.icdsm.org/more/mesic-6.htm
***** Urgent Message from Sloboda (Freedom) Association and the
International Committee to Defend Slobodan Milosevic!
The Freedom Association in Belgrade and the ICDSM, based outside
Yugoslavia, are the two organizations formed at the request of
Slobodan
Milosevic to aid in his defense.
Up until now our main work has been threefold. We have publicized the
truth about The Hague's phony trial. We have organized research to
help President Milosevic expose NATO's lies. And we have initiated
legal action in the Dutch and European Courts.
Now our job has increased. The defense phase of the "trial" starts in
May 2003. No longer will Mr. Milosevic be limited to cross-examining
Hague witnesses. The prosecution will be forced further onto the
defensive as victims of NATO's aggression and experts from Yugoslavia
and
the NATO countries tell what really happened and expose media lies.
Moreover, Mr. Milosevic will call leaders, from East and West, some
friendly and some hostile to the truth.
The controlled mass media will undoubtedly try to suppress this
testimony as they have tried to suppress Mr. Milosevic's
cross-examinations. Nevertheless this phase of the "trial" will be the
biggest international forum ever to expose NATO's use of racism,
violence and lies to attack Yugoslavia.
We urgently need the help of all people who care about what is
happening in The Hague. Right now, Nico Steijnen , the Dutch lawyer in
the
ICDSM, is waging legal battles in the Dutch courts and before the
European Court, about which more news soon. These efforts urgently
require financial support. We now maintain a small staff of Yugoslav
lawyers in Holland, assisting and advising Mr. Milosevic full-time. We
need to expand our Dutch facilities, perhaps bringing in a
non-Yugoslav attorney full-time. Definitely we must guarantee that we
have an
office and office manager available at all times, to compile and
process evidence and for meetings with witnesses and lawyers and as a
base
for organizing press conferences.
All this costs money. And for this, we rely on those who want Mr.
Milosevic to have the best possible support for attacking NATO's lies.
************
Here's how you can help...
************
* You may contribute by credit card. By the end of September we will
have an ICDSM secure server so you can contribute directly on the
Internet.
For now, you can contribute by credit card in two ways: *
You can Contribute by Credit Card over the Telephone by calling:
ICDSM office, USA: 1 617 916-1705
SLOBODA (Freedom) Association office, Belgrade: 381 63 279 819
You can Contribute using PayPal at:
https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=icdsm%40aol.com
PayPal accepts VISA and MasterCard
You can Contribute by mail to:
ICDSM
831 Beacon St., #295
Newton Centre, MA 02459 (USA)
- OR -
You can Contribute by wire transfer to Sloboda Association
Intermediary:
UBS AG
Zurich, Switzerland
Swift Code: UBSWCHZH
Account with:
/ 756 - CHF
/ 840 - USD
/ 978 - EUR
Kmercijalna Banka AD
SV. Save 14, 11000 Belgrade, FR Yugoslavia
Swift Code: KOBBYUBG
Beneficiary: Account No. 5428-1246-16154-6
SLOBODA
Rajiceva 16, 11000 Belgrade, FR Yugoslavia
Thank you!
http://www.icdsm.org
www.icdsm.org
=================================
Slobodan Milosevic's Cross-Examination of
Croatian President Stjepan Mesic: PART V
Because the transcript of the cross-examination
is 150 pages long we have broken it into 12 easy
to read segments. If you wish to read the whole thing
at once go to: http://www.icdsm.org/more/mesic.htm
=================================
Page 10658
1 JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. Just a moment. The witness has said
2 he's telling the truth. Now, don't misrepresent the evidence. If
you've
3 got a question, you can ask it.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think that we differ because of
5 the translation in your transcript, where it says nephew, and he
says
6 relative or distant cousin, whereas otherwise there is no
difference.
7 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Now, to get back to what you were just saying, that you had no
9 intentions of any kind, Globus, the paper, this is a special
edition,
10 November 1, 1999, which says the following:
11 "Tudjman was in Canada, paid a state visit to Canada in 1988 and
12 1989 [As interpreted] -- 1998 and 1999, and dovetailed concepts,
first
13 that Croatia had to be independent and autonomous, and so on and so
14 forth. Third, that the Serbs must be brought to the level of a
national
15 minority, which meant that Croatia should have been more or less
16 ethnically pure. And fourth, if there are Serbs in
Bosnia-Herzegovina to
17 the extent that they cannot all be expelled to Serbia, all that
remains is
18 to carve up Bosnia-Herzegovina, which will ensure pure Croatian
regions
19 and certain restructuring, and this would be joined onto an
ethnically
20 pure Croatian state." Isn't that right, Mr. Mesic?
21 A. I don't know who said that.
22 Q. This is something that can be read in Globus about a plan that
was
23 dovetailed in 1988 and 1989 [As interpreted] in Canada with the
Ustasha
24 émigrés. Do you know at all about that?
25 A. I know nothing about that plan whatsoever.
Page 10659
1 Q. All right. Thank you. Now, on the basis of what you were saying
2 a moment ago, is it true and correct that Tudjman considered the
3 territories that belonged to the 1938 banovina, that it should be
annexed
4 to Croatia? Is that what he thought? Is that right or not? Annexed.
5 A. He said that that was what Milosevic had proposed.
6 Q. Just a minute. I'm speaking about something else now. I don't
7 want to show you the transcript once again, but you can look at the
8 transcript from that same trial where you testified and the number
of the
9 transcript line is 7130. But to avoid having to go into private
session,
10 I just want to jog your memory and tell you that you did speak
about the
11 subject at that particular time.
12 And just as like a moment ago, when you challenged the fact that
13 Tudjman thought that for Croatia the best solution would be the
1938
14 banovina solution, also from your testimony, on page 7129 and 7130,
you
15 said what you said. So tell me now: Is it true that the HDZ party
for
16 you was an extremist nationalistic --
17 MR. NICE: If this line of questioning is to be of any value at
18 all --
19 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Mr. Nice.
20 MR. NICE: If this is to be of any value at all, the following
21 thing should happen: The Chamber will have to go into private
session,
22 not because itself necessarily wants to. It simply that this was
23 protected evidence of another Chamber and we don't have rights to
do
24 anything else. Second, the transcript will then have to be examined
25 properly with the witness being in a position to read it and the
Chamber
Page 10660
1 being able to see the full context.
2 JUDGE MAY: At the moment I do not wish to go into private
3 session. It cuts up the cross-examination, makes it very difficult
for
4 everybody else to follow. If there is a significant point here, no
doubt
5 our attention can be drawn to it.
6 MR. NICE: Can I simply also then ask that the accused reminds me,
7 or through the Chamber, of what page he says its was on which the
first
8 reference was to be found. He says 7266 but it doesn't match my page
9 numbering.
10 JUDGE MAY: That's the note we have, 7266.
11 Mr. Milosevic, you will have -- if you want to quote from the
12 transcript, if there's any significance in what was said earlier,
do you
13 want to quote from the transcript, we have to go into private
session.
14 Those are the rules which we have to follow. Now, if we can avoid
doing
15 that, we should do so.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. May, but it is not proper
17 and correct that the public should not be able to see this, that
18 Mr. Mesic, for the most part --
19 JUDGE MAY: It doesn't matter about that. It is the Rules which
20 we have to follow. This was private session evidence, therefore it
should
21 be dealt with in private session. Now, do you want to ask anything
more
22 about that transcript or not?
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. I'll ask him something
24 about -- something else from the transcript in the Dokmanovic
trial, where
25 he wasn't a protected witness.
Page 10661
1 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Is it correct that the HDZ is an extremist nationalistic party
3 which introduced a uniform, unilateral way of thought that captured
people
4 in this way? Is that what you think? And you expressed words to that
5 effect in the Dokmanovic trial, where you were not a protected
witness.
6 The transcript page is 1714 in the testimony against him, and that
is
7 where you made a statement to that effect. You said that that was
your
8 opinion later on, not straight away, not from the very outset. So
when
9 did you come to think that way?
10 JUDGE MAY: Wait a moment. In order that the witness can deal
11 with this properly, have we got a copy of the transcript, Mr. Nice?
First
12 of all, have we got a copy of the transcript.
13 MR. NICE: Yes.
14 JUDGE MAY: Secondly, can the witness follow it?
15 MR. NICE: It's in English, I'm afraid, so he probably can't
16 follow it, because his English is not probably at the level to deal
with
17 that. But we have a copy for Your Honours if Your Honours haven't
seen
18 it.
19 JUDGE MAY: We, we have it here.
20 Mr. Mesic -- I'll deal with it. Mr. Mesic, what is being put to
21 you in the passage which the accused is asking you about is counsel
says,
22 counsel Mr. Fila, put: "We read that for you the HDZ is an
extremist
23 nationalist party, a hindrance to democracy which introduced a
single way
24 of thinking and which robbed the people. Is that what you really
meant?"
25 And you replied: To look at this in terms of the period -- time
period
Page 10662
Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the
French and English transcripts.
Page 10663
1 involved. "Okay," said witness. "Have you said something like this?"
2 And you replied: "The statement of yours calls for clarification,
namely,
3 when the HDZ was established first, when I was its member, when its
4 programme was elaborated, that was a party that was in favour of a
5 multiparty system for democratisation of free society. When the
balance
6 of political forces in the HDZ changed, I left the HDZ and I became
7 critical of the policy."
8 So counsel then put: That is to say that this statement,
9 obviously referring to his earlier statement, is from the latter
period.
10 And you replied: Yes, from the latter period.
11 Now, you're being asked about the comment that the HDZ was or
12 became an extreme nationalist party, a hindrance to democracy,
introducing
13 a single way of thinking. Can you help us as to whether you said
that,
14 and if you wish to elaborate on it, do.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When the HDZ was formed, just like
16 the other parties in Croatia, after the socialist model, I wanted
to have
17 a multiparty system. That's what I was in favour of, of a contest
of
18 opinion of democracy. That's what I wanted. Now, as the threats
were
19 coming from Serbia, threats which the accused himself, via his
rallies,
20 was sending out to Croatia, and they were coming from Vojvodina,
from
21 Serbia, and from Kosovo, the so-called rallies for truth, where it
was
22 stated that the people attending the rallies would go as far as
Ljubljana
23 and that what they would do was to stop over in Zagreb, topple the
24 government there, and carry on by way of passing. I considered that
the
25 HDZ could mobilise in Croatia people for setting up resistance to
that
Page 10664
1 kind of policy on the part of Milosevic, and I joined the HDZ
because I
2 considered that we would be able to protect the interests of the
Republic
3 of Croatia. However, because of the erroneous policy which prevailed
4 later on, or rather, the erroneous policy towards and vis-a-vis
5 Bosnia-Herzegovina, the wrong model of privatisation which was seen
and
6 the insufficient functioning of the rule of law in the country, the
7 insufficient functioning of the institutions inherent in the rule of
law,
8 I left that policy behind. I stepped down from it, because finally I
9 could still go on being the president of the Sabor parliament. I had
to
10 take part in that policy and politics. But as I did not agree with
the
11 policies, I left the post of president of parliament and joined the
12 opposition.
13 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Mr. Mesic, you relinquished the post of president of parliament,
15 as you said a moment ago, only after the first quarter of 1994.
However,
16 the destructive policy of the HDZ, according to you, began already
in
17 March 1991; isn't that so?
18 A. Yes, you're quite right. From your agreement in Karadjordjevo.
19 Q. So you ascribe the destructive policy of the HDZ, you date it to
20 March 1991 and you ascribe it to me. Is that so, Mr. Mesic?
21 A. Well, if you offered the carving up and division of Bosnia, then
22 it is quite true that in part you did take part in the creation of
the
23 wrong kind of policy.
24 Q. Well, as you well know, I never offered a division of Bosnia nor
25 was that our policy. And if you believe I did so, then please show
me one
Page 10665
1 detail which would be illustrative of that?
2 A. Not only the division of Bosnia. It is sufficient that you paid
3 the army in Bosnia-Herzegovina. It is sufficient to read the book
written
4 by General Veljko Kadijevic, the Federal Secretary for National
Defence,
5 who speaks precisely of the Virovitica-Karlobag-Karlovac border and
that
6 you stood behind that border, Mr. Accused. That same person
Kadijevic,
7 the Federal Secretary for National Defence, Blagoje Adzic, General
Blagoje
8 Adzic, who was the Chief of Staff of the General Staff of the
Yugoslav
9 army, never came to me. They never, ever came to me in the
Presidency,
10 although I embodied the Supreme Command. They never came to see me.
I
11 insisted -- it was I who insisted on going to see them. They never
came
12 to see me. But if you read Boro Jovic and his books and if you read
13 Mamula and his books, if you read Veljko Kadijevic and his books,
you will
14 see that the agreements were only and exclusively made with the
accused.
15 Q. First of all, that is not correct. I don't know what they say in
16 their books. Mamula retired even before the tensions mounted in
Croatia,
17 and later on in Bosnia. But I assume that you are a passionate
reader of
18 all these various books. But now tell me, please: As you were
referring
19 to the HDZ just now, in 1991 it started acting destructively, so
how can
20 you put up with this for a full three years, staying in that
destructive
21 party for three years as its executive chief, that is, as president
of the
22 Executive Board of the HDZ?
23 A. The point is something else. I was the president of the
executive
24 board of the HDZ. Let me tell you -- just a moment. From the 29th
of
25 December, 1991 until the 7th of August, 1992. This is the period in
which
Page 10666
1 I was at the head of the Executive Board of the HDZ. The point is
that as
2 soon as I saw that the policy was not the policy I had advocated, I
could
3 have relinquished it. That is true. However, in Croatia, I would
have
4 been seen as someone who refused to face the problems Croatia was
facing
5 at that moment, and it would have been thought that I had not done
enough
6 to correct the things that were going wrong in Croatia. I hoped that
with
7 those who thought the same way I did, I could correct the HDZ
policy, that
8 we could win. That is why, with other representatives, or rather,
with 23
9 MPs of the Croatian parliament, I discussed our leaving the HDZ.
This was
10 in 1993. In this way, we could have achieved cohabitation. The
11 opposition would have been the strongest in parliament, and HDZ
would have
12 held executive power. Things would have been different had we
succeeded.
13 But unfortunately, I was not successful. Only 11 MPs followed me,
and we
14 had one vote less than we needed to be the majority in parliament.
15 If you want to make a big change, you need to have a critical mass
16 with you. I thought that 23 MPs in parliament would be sufficient.
We
17 did not succeed, but I went over to the opposition. So I cannot
pinpoint
18 a date and say up to that date the policy was right; after that
date, the
19 policy was wrong. There was a continuity of events in politics.
When
20 enough things happen, one responds. My response was to try to
contribute,
21 in a positive way, to a better climate and a better policy in
Croatia.
22 Q. Very well. That was two years after March 1991, when you say
that
23 the destructive policy of the HDZ started. You say that to start
with the
24 HDZ was a democratic party and so on. In the HDZ platform, which I
assume
25 you contributed to, together with the other leaders of the HDZ, you
say
Page 10667
1 that the programme is based, among other things, on the teachings of
Ante
2 Starcevic. Let me just remind you what Ante Starcevic said -- or
rather,
3 wrote about the Serbs. He called the Serbs -- I don't know if this
can be
4 translated. I wouldn't be able to translate it. He called them
filthy
5 spawn, horrible slaves, people who were fit for the axe, Austrian
dogs,
6 inflated bags?
7 JUDGE MAY: When was this kind of thing written?
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Ante Starcevic wrote, for example,
9 in 1870, because the witness based his programme on that of Ante
10 Starcevic, who wrote --
11 JUDGE MAY: You're saying that. The witness hasn't said it. Help
12 us with Mr. Ante Starcevic, who wrote 130 years ago. Was your
programme
13 based on his writings?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] First of all, I did not create the
15 HDZ platform or programme. It had already been adopted when I
joined the
16 HDZ. Secondly, the teachings of Ante Starcevic do not consist of
17 particular statements that he made under various circumstances.
Ante
18 Starcevic, who is referred to in Croatia as the father of the
homeland,
19 advocated the idea that Croatia had to be independent. He struggled
for
20 the independence of Croatia from Austria and Hungary. In essence,
he was
21 a liberal. On the basis of Croatian state law, he demanded the
22 independence of Croatia. This is the part of his teaching that I
find
23 acceptable, an independent republic of Croatia. This is what was
taken
24 from Starcevic.
25 It was also mentioned, and the accused does not mention this, that
Page 10668
1 the programme was based on the anti-fascist tradition of the peoples
2 liberation struggle. The accused omitted this on purpose, on the
3 traditions of the anti-fascist struggle. So the ideas were not taken
just
4 from one source, but from all sources contributing to a positive
role for
5 Croatia and its citizens. That is why this was referred to in the
6 preamble to the programme. If we are to speak of history, the
accused
7 should say what Vuk Stefanovic Karadzic wrote. He was a Serbian
writer
8 who said that Serbs are all, everyone is a Serb, that the Croats
were
9 nothing but Serbs of Catholic faith, so that all this should be
Serbia.
10 JUDGE MAY: The Trial Chamber is not assisted by the exchange of
11 abuse, particularly abuse a hundred years ago.
12 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Is it true that the HDZ policy became more radical with time and
14 that elements who found inspiration in the Croatian state during
World War
15 II grew stronger? I'm referring to the fascist independent state of
16 Croatia.
17 A. The more attacks were mounted against Croatia and its integrity,
18 more excesses arose, and more and more people referred to the
independent
19 state of Croatia. I was against this. I'm still against this
policy,
20 because in essence I am an anti-fascist, and those are the ideas I
always
21 struggled for.
22 Q. Very well. I asked you about what you said about the HDZ, not
23 about what you say about yourself.
24 A. That's why I left the HDZ.
25 Q. Very well. In any case, I see that as the president of the
* Continued at: http://www.icdsm.org/more/mesic-6.htm
***** Urgent Message from Sloboda (Freedom) Association and the
International Committee to Defend Slobodan Milosevic!
The Freedom Association in Belgrade and the ICDSM, based outside
Yugoslavia, are the two organizations formed at the request of
Slobodan
Milosevic to aid in his defense.
Up until now our main work has been threefold. We have publicized the
truth about The Hague's phony trial. We have organized research to
help President Milosevic expose NATO's lies. And we have initiated
legal action in the Dutch and European Courts.
Now our job has increased. The defense phase of the "trial" starts in
May 2003. No longer will Mr. Milosevic be limited to cross-examining
Hague witnesses. The prosecution will be forced further onto the
defensive as victims of NATO's aggression and experts from Yugoslavia
and
the NATO countries tell what really happened and expose media lies.
Moreover, Mr. Milosevic will call leaders, from East and West, some
friendly and some hostile to the truth.
The controlled mass media will undoubtedly try to suppress this
testimony as they have tried to suppress Mr. Milosevic's
cross-examinations. Nevertheless this phase of the "trial" will be the
biggest international forum ever to expose NATO's use of racism,
violence and lies to attack Yugoslavia.
We urgently need the help of all people who care about what is
happening in The Hague. Right now, Nico Steijnen , the Dutch lawyer in
the
ICDSM, is waging legal battles in the Dutch courts and before the
European Court, about which more news soon. These efforts urgently
require financial support. We now maintain a small staff of Yugoslav
lawyers in Holland, assisting and advising Mr. Milosevic full-time. We
need to expand our Dutch facilities, perhaps bringing in a
non-Yugoslav attorney full-time. Definitely we must guarantee that we
have an
office and office manager available at all times, to compile and
process evidence and for meetings with witnesses and lawyers and as a
base
for organizing press conferences.
All this costs money. And for this, we rely on those who want Mr.
Milosevic to have the best possible support for attacking NATO's lies.
************
Here's how you can help...
************
* You may contribute by credit card. By the end of September we will
have an ICDSM secure server so you can contribute directly on the
Internet.
For now, you can contribute by credit card in two ways: *
You can Contribute by Credit Card over the Telephone by calling:
ICDSM office, USA: 1 617 916-1705
SLOBODA (Freedom) Association office, Belgrade: 381 63 279 819
You can Contribute using PayPal at:
https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=icdsm%40aol.com
PayPal accepts VISA and MasterCard
You can Contribute by mail to:
ICDSM
831 Beacon St., #295
Newton Centre, MA 02459 (USA)
- OR -
You can Contribute by wire transfer to Sloboda Association
Intermediary:
UBS AG
Zurich, Switzerland
Swift Code: UBSWCHZH
Account with:
/ 756 - CHF
/ 840 - USD
/ 978 - EUR
Kmercijalna Banka AD
SV. Save 14, 11000 Belgrade, FR Yugoslavia
Swift Code: KOBBYUBG
Beneficiary: Account No. 5428-1246-16154-6
SLOBODA
Rajiceva 16, 11000 Belgrade, FR Yugoslavia
Thank you!
http://www.icdsm.org
LABIRINTO LESSICALE
"Non chiamando le cose con il loro nome si seminano disgrazie tra la
gente", diceva Camus. Nel caso della tragedia jugoslava abbiamo avuto
tantissimi esempi pratici di questa "regola aurea"; ma piu' il tempo
passa, piu' il problema diventa generale e tragico.
Esempio: su "Il Manifesto" del 14.9.2002 Toni Negri e la sua
intervistatrice Ida Dominijanni si esibivano in uno spericolato slalom
tra neologismi, idee imprecise e concetti indefinibili, rappresentato
gia' nel ridicolo titolo: "Il backlash imperialista sull'Impero". Da
mettersi le mani tra i capelli: "La controspinta reazionaria
dell'amministrazione Bush blocca il processo di costruzione imperiale
[che dunque non sarebbe reazionario]. Ma la guerra preventiva non
salverà l'economia americana [se l'avesse salvata sarebbe andata bene?].
Le due carte in mano al movimento dei movimenti [trattasi forse di una
specie di ballo di gruppo?], i pericoli dell'antiamericanismo...". Basti
il sottotitolo.
Negri inventa l'"Impero", ma non sa piu' dire se esso e' fattore di
liberazione o di oppressione, se va appoggiato o se va combattuto.
Bisogna stare dalla parte dell'"Impero", o dalla parte del
"contro-impero"? Il problema, per i seguaci di Negri - che sono entrati
in un cortocircuito cerebrale, ma non se ne avvedono - e' talmente grave
che si incominciano a produrre pubblicazioni e dibattiti sul tema. Come
il libro: "Controimpero. Per un lessico dei movimenti globali", appena
uscito (AA.VV. - Manifestolibri, 2002 - una recensione su:
http://www.galileonet.it/Lo%20Scaffale/recensioni2002/rec_0210_07.htm)
"Chi parla male, pensa male", diceva pure Nanni Moretti - prima di
diventare un politicante. Ma qui non si parla male "per sbaglio": e' la
scelta deliberata di smantellare, con il lessico, il pensiero stesso e
la capacita' di critica. Proseguendo la via tracciata dai filosofi
pensiero-debolisti, i "maître à penser" soggettivisti operaisti alla
Negri e alla Revelli si scatenano: archiviare le categorie marxiste!
Cancellare ogni rigorosa analisi di tipo economico! Annullare l'identità
di classe, e diffondere concetti indistinti come: "moltitudine",
"folla",
"comunità di destino", "biopolitica", "impero", "corpi"... Diffondere
l'utilizzo dell'irrazionalità nella politica come elemento portante
delle nuove dinamiche consenso/dissenso. Costruire le condizioni
culturali e psicologiche per l'accettazione della necessità del
soggiogamento imperialista, e per l'accettazione della guerra, che e' il
portato piu' tipico del capitalismo nella sua fase imperialista.
"Non chiamando le cose con il loro nome si seminano disgrazie tra la
gente", diceva Camus. Nel caso della tragedia jugoslava abbiamo avuto
tantissimi esempi pratici di questa "regola aurea"; ma piu' il tempo
passa, piu' il problema diventa generale e tragico.
Esempio: su "Il Manifesto" del 14.9.2002 Toni Negri e la sua
intervistatrice Ida Dominijanni si esibivano in uno spericolato slalom
tra neologismi, idee imprecise e concetti indefinibili, rappresentato
gia' nel ridicolo titolo: "Il backlash imperialista sull'Impero". Da
mettersi le mani tra i capelli: "La controspinta reazionaria
dell'amministrazione Bush blocca il processo di costruzione imperiale
[che dunque non sarebbe reazionario]. Ma la guerra preventiva non
salverà l'economia americana [se l'avesse salvata sarebbe andata bene?].
Le due carte in mano al movimento dei movimenti [trattasi forse di una
specie di ballo di gruppo?], i pericoli dell'antiamericanismo...". Basti
il sottotitolo.
Negri inventa l'"Impero", ma non sa piu' dire se esso e' fattore di
liberazione o di oppressione, se va appoggiato o se va combattuto.
Bisogna stare dalla parte dell'"Impero", o dalla parte del
"contro-impero"? Il problema, per i seguaci di Negri - che sono entrati
in un cortocircuito cerebrale, ma non se ne avvedono - e' talmente grave
che si incominciano a produrre pubblicazioni e dibattiti sul tema. Come
il libro: "Controimpero. Per un lessico dei movimenti globali", appena
uscito (AA.VV. - Manifestolibri, 2002 - una recensione su:
http://www.galileonet.it/Lo%20Scaffale/recensioni2002/rec_0210_07.htm)
"Chi parla male, pensa male", diceva pure Nanni Moretti - prima di
diventare un politicante. Ma qui non si parla male "per sbaglio": e' la
scelta deliberata di smantellare, con il lessico, il pensiero stesso e
la capacita' di critica. Proseguendo la via tracciata dai filosofi
pensiero-debolisti, i "maître à penser" soggettivisti operaisti alla
Negri e alla Revelli si scatenano: archiviare le categorie marxiste!
Cancellare ogni rigorosa analisi di tipo economico! Annullare l'identità
di classe, e diffondere concetti indistinti come: "moltitudine",
"folla",
"comunità di destino", "biopolitica", "impero", "corpi"... Diffondere
l'utilizzo dell'irrazionalità nella politica come elemento portante
delle nuove dinamiche consenso/dissenso. Costruire le condizioni
culturali e psicologiche per l'accettazione della necessità del
soggiogamento imperialista, e per l'accettazione della guerra, che e' il
portato piu' tipico del capitalismo nella sua fase imperialista.
DUBBI ATROCI
Anche dentro le ONG ("Organizzazioni Non Governative") affiora ormai
ovunque la perplessita'... Il dubbio atroce, ormai, viene espresso in
modo esplicito: "Mica ci staranno usando, per caso?"
In un nuovo libro, il giornalista David Rieff critica la Croce Rossa ed
altri organismi umanitari (si veda: "Mission Impossible" -
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/293/focus/Mission_impossible+.shtml ),
dentro ai quali la gente si pone domande imbarazzanti: "Dobbiamo
rinunciare alla neutralita' nell'ambito d'un conflitto, per guadagnarci
in efficacia d'intervento?"
Allo stesso modo, nella provincia italiana, Giulio Marcon, notoriamente
impegnato con l'ICS (Consorzio Italiano di Solidarieta') tanto
nell'aiuto umanitario quanto nelle dichiarazioni a sostegno delle une o
delle altre parti in causa, ha scritto un altro libro: "L'ambiguità
degli aiuti umanitari", in uscita proprio in questi giorni con
Feltrinelli. Per l'appunto. (I. Slavo)
Anche dentro le ONG ("Organizzazioni Non Governative") affiora ormai
ovunque la perplessita'... Il dubbio atroce, ormai, viene espresso in
modo esplicito: "Mica ci staranno usando, per caso?"
In un nuovo libro, il giornalista David Rieff critica la Croce Rossa ed
altri organismi umanitari (si veda: "Mission Impossible" -
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/293/focus/Mission_impossible+.shtml ),
dentro ai quali la gente si pone domande imbarazzanti: "Dobbiamo
rinunciare alla neutralita' nell'ambito d'un conflitto, per guadagnarci
in efficacia d'intervento?"
Allo stesso modo, nella provincia italiana, Giulio Marcon, notoriamente
impegnato con l'ICS (Consorzio Italiano di Solidarieta') tanto
nell'aiuto umanitario quanto nelle dichiarazioni a sostegno delle une o
delle altre parti in causa, ha scritto un altro libro: "L'ambiguità
degli aiuti umanitari", in uscita proprio in questi giorni con
Feltrinelli. Per l'appunto. (I. Slavo)
AL MOMENTO DI MARCIARE
Al momento di marciare molti non sanno
che alla loro testa marcia il nemico.
La voce che li comanda
e' la voce del loro nemico.
E chi parla del nemico
e' lui stesso il nemico.
[Da Bertolt Brecht, Poesie di Svendborg, Einaudi, Torino 1976, p. 20. La
traduzione e' di Franco Fortini. Segnalato da Beppe Sini.]
Al momento di marciare molti non sanno
che alla loro testa marcia il nemico.
La voce che li comanda
e' la voce del loro nemico.
E chi parla del nemico
e' lui stesso il nemico.
[Da Bertolt Brecht, Poesie di Svendborg, Einaudi, Torino 1976, p. 20. La
traduzione e' di Franco Fortini. Segnalato da Beppe Sini.]
DRUSTVO "JOSIP BROZ TITO"
http://www.drustvo-jbt.tk/
GLASILO - Suvremenih gledanja Drustva "Josip Broz Tito"
http://www.geocities.com/d_jbt/glasilo.htm
Osnivanje i razvoj Dru¹tva "Josip Broz Tito"
http://www.geocities.com/d_jbt/drustvo.htm
AKTIVNOSTI:
25.05.2002.Kumrovec: Dan Mladosti - radosti
Narodnooslobodilaèka borba u Hrvatskoj 1941.
7-9.11.2001. Beograd: Okrugli stol "Ratovi u Jugoslaviji od 1991 -
2001.", izlaganje je podnio Dr.sc. Tomislav Badovinac
27.05.2001. Kumrovec: Dan Mladosti
04.05.2001. Beograd: Polaganje vjenca na Titov grob
---
Osnivanje i razvoj Dru¹tva "Josip Broz Tito"
Dru¹tvo "Josip Broz Tito" osnovano je 25. svibnja 1996.
godine. Cilj osnivanja bila je ¾elja da se okupe oni koji su privr¾eni
antifa¹izmu i osjeæaju potrebu promoviranja pouke Titova vremena i
po¹tuju Josipa Broza Tita, vodeæu osobu antifa¹istièkog pokreta,
Narodno-oslobodilaèkog rata 1941-1945. godine, poslijeratne
izgradnje zemlje, ostvarivanja pune demokracije i socijalne pravde,
borbe za mir, suradnje i ravnopravnosti meðu narodima i dr¾avama
i kao jednog od organizatora i voða Pokreta nesvrstanih zamalja u
svijetu.
Na osnivaèkoj Skup¹tini donijet je Statut, izabran
Glavni odbor, Predsjedni¹tvo i Nadzorni odbor, a za predsjednika
Dru¹tva je izabran Dr. Tomislav Badovinac
Osnivanje Dru¹tva potaknula je i postojeæa politièka atmosfera
u kojoj su jaèale snage koje su bile na suprotnoj strani antifa¹istièke
borbe, pravdajuæi potrebom sveukupnog pomirenja Hrvata.
Meðutim, posljedica te nazovi "pomirbe", ne samo ¹to su
minimizirana prava i polo¾aj antifa¹ista, boraca - partizana, veæ su
sustavno oskrnavljivana i uni¹tavana obilje¾ja njihove narodno -
oslobodilaèke borbe. Voðena je ignorantska politika u odnosu na
djela i liènost
Josipa Broza Tita, kojom ne samo da Tito nema nikakvih zasluga za
Hrvatsku, veæ ga se obilje¾ava zloèincem u odnosu na Hrvate.
U tim okolnostima Dru¹tvo je trebalo osporiti takvu politièku
platformu i promovirati pouke Titova vremena i temeljne vrijednosti
antifa¹istièke borbe i liènosti Tita.
Dru¹tvo je upisano u Registar udru¾enja graðana i steklo
svojstvo pravne osobe, 26 studenog 1996. godine.
U toku veljaèe 1997. godine odr¾ana je Konferencija za
novinstvo i prezentiran je Program aktivnosti Dru¹tva u 1997. godini.
Prikladnim pismom (uz prilog bro¹ure "Josip Broz Tito") obavje¹tene
su : Politièke stranke za koje se smatralo da bi mogle imati interes na
na¹u djelatnost; Sindikatima Hrvatske; Znanstvenim organizacijama i
udru¾enjima graðana (HAZU, Dru¹tvu povjesnièara, Savezu
¾idovskih opæina); Ambasadama u Zagrebu, koje pripadaju krugu
velike antifa¹istièke koalicije i nesvrstanih zemalja;
Meðunarodnim organizacijama u i izvan zemlje (Europsko dru¹tvo
Hrvatske, OESS, FMAC, AMPI). Dru¹tvo se pridru¾uje Savezu
antifa¹istièkih boraca uèestvovanjem u znaèajnim i veæ
tradicionalnim javnim skupovima, obilje¾avajuæi dogaðaje iz
Narodno - oslobodilaèke borbe, odnosno na proteste povodom
odreðenih aktualnih zbivanja. Odr¾ane su prigodne sveèanosti u
povodu 105. obljetnice roðenja Josipa Broza Tita, na razini Dru¹tva i
u ograncima Dru¹tva.
Predsjedni¹tvo Dru¹tva zatra¾ilo je prijem svoje delegacije kod
Predsjednika Vlade kojeg bi upoznali o postojanju Dru¹tva, te o
problemima vezanih za ukidanje Memorijalnog centra Josip Broz
Tito u Beogradu, rodnu kuæu u Kumrovcu i objekte na Vangi
(Brijuni). Isto tako, zatra¾ili smo financijsku pomoæ za rad Dru¹tva.
Meðutim, do danas nismo bili ni primljeni niti smo dobili bilo kakvu
pomoæ.
Uspostavljena je komunikacija s "Dru¹tvom za istinu o
antifa¹istièkoj narodno - oslobodilaèkoj borbi u Jugoslaviji 1941 -
1945." koja djeluje u Beogradu.
Dana 07. sijeènja 1998. godine je odr¾ana II. Skup¹tina
Dru¹tva, uglavnom radi usklaðivanja Statuta s novo done¹enim
Zakonom o udrugama . Suglasno izmjenama i dopunama Statuta
Izabran je Savjet Dru¹tva umjesto Glavnog odbora, a Predsjedni¹tvo je
dopunjeno s novim èlanovima. U osvrtu na rad Dru¹tva izmeðu I.
osnivaèke i II. Skup¹tine istaknuto je da je : osnovano 5 Ogranaka
(Split, Pula, Labin, Delnice i Fu¾ine); od¹tampano je 1000 bro¹ura
Dru¹tvo "Josip Broz Tito" i toliko pristupnica kako bi se
nastavilo sa ¹irenjem i poveæanjem ogranaka; zbog pojava nekih
nejasnoæa i nesporazuma
izmeðu Saveza antifa¹istièkih boraca Hrvatske (SABH) i Dru¹tva,
posebno u Splitu i Puli, obavljeno je niz razgovora sa SABH i
poslana su pisma; u cilju isticanja zajednièkih stremljenja donijeta je
odluka o pristupanju Dru¹tva u kolektivno èlanstvo SABH; Dru¹tvo i
èlanovi njegovih ogranaka su se prikljuèivali SABH u
obilje¾avanju dogaðaja i liènosti iz Narodno oslobodilaèkog rata.
U emisiji "Latinica" uèestvovali su predstavnici Dru¹tva
nasuprot odabrane suprotne opcije, ¹to je, mo¾e se reæi, bio presedan
u tada¹njoj politièkoj atmosferi. Nakon rasprave o postavljenom
pitanju "Tito, veliki dr¾avnik ili diktator , odnos glasanja je pokazao
da se 86.000 izjasnilo za Tita, kao velikog dr¾avnika, prema 23.000
koji su smatrali da je diktator.
Odr¾an je zajednièki sastanak Predsjedni¹tva i Savjeta s
ograncima Dru¹tva, 17 listopada 1998. godine. Pristvovalo je 17
ogranaka koji su okupili oko 2.500 èlanova. Iz izlaganja ogranaka
vidljivo je da su, uglavnom, ogranci uspjeli razviti korektnu i
konkretnu suradnju s SAB-om. Usvojen je Program Dru¹tva za
dvogodi¹nji period, kao i smjernice za dalji rad Dru¹tva i Ogranaka.
Skup je informiran da je Predsjednik Dru¹tva ostvario neposredni
kontakt sa Dru¹tvom za istinu u Beogradu i naglasio da oni svoju
djelatnost baziraju na izdavanju knjiga i bro¹ura preko kojih nastoje
istinitim i objektivnim izno¹enjem dogaðaja vezanih za Narodno -
oslobodilaèku borbu i druga Tita oèuvati od prekrajanja i negiranja,
odnosno falcificiranja.
Saglasno usvojenom programu odr¾ane su tribine: "Titovo ne
Informbirou - put u demokratizaciju" ( Pedeset godina od Rezolucije
Informbiroa) ; Neki pogledi na "Sluèaj Stepinac";
"Kosovsko pitanje" (za¹to na ovom prostoru jo¹ uvijek teèe ljudska
krv); "Samoupravljanje kod nas i u svijetu"; "U susret danu
antifa¹istièke borbe u Hrvatskoj"; "Izbori i ljudska prava".
Svake godine organizirana je zajedno sa SAB
komemorativna sveèanost
u Kumrovcu u povodu obilje¾avanja obljetnice smrti Josipa Broza
Tita. Istovremeno su Ogranci organizirali prigodnu sveèanost u
svojim sredinama.
U povodu roðenja Josipa Broza Tita organizirani su
sveèani skupovi u povodu "Dana Mladosti", kako u Dru¹tvu tako i u
ograncima sa prigodnim programima, tribinama i okruglim
stolovima. U sveèanom dijelu dodjeljena su priznanja drugovima: Dr.
Vladimiru Velebit, Dr. Branku Horvat, Dr. Savi Zlatiæ i Zvonimiru
Ivankoviæ - Vonti za njihov nesebièni doprinos u radu i afirmaciji
aktivnosti Dru¹tva. Dodijeljeno je priznanje i drugarici Meri Lukiæ
za iskazani volonterski rad u Dru¹tvu.
Dru¹tvo je na razne naèine nastojalo podr¾ati i pomoæi
izdavanje knjige "Tito" na hrvatskom jeziku, napisane od Jaspera
Ridleva, ¹to smo i uspjeli otkupiv¹i pravo ¹tampanja, kako bi
omoguæili izdavaèu tiskanje knjige.
Na zajednièkom sastanku Predsjedni¹tva i
Savjeta s ograncima Dru¹tva, 29. studenog 1999. godine, u prigodnom
dijelu sastanka, posthumno priznanje drugu Ivici Gretiæ - Marjanu za
njegove zasluge u formiranjju i radu Dru¹tva uruèeno je kæeri i
sinovima, na godi¹njicu njegove smrti.
Odr¾ana je III. Skup¹tina, 25. svibnja 2.000. godine, na dan
kada je prije èetiri (4) godine osnovano Dru¹tvo "Josip Broz Tito" i
povodom toga je odr¾ana Sveèano - izborna skup¹tina. Na poèetku
Sveèanog dijela Skup¹tine obratio se prigodnim govorom Dr. Savo
Zlatiæ, koji je i prije 4 godine otvorio Osnivaèku skup¹tinu. Zatim je
Skup¹tini uputio ohrabrujuæe rijeèi Dr. Vladimir Velebit, jedan od
najbli¾ih saradnika Tita i doajen na¹eg Dru¹tva.
Na komemorativnom skupu u Kumrovcu, 04.05. 2.000.
godine, povodom 20. godi¹njice smrti Josipa Broza Tita, predlo¾io
je, u svom govoru Dr. Tomislav Badovinac, u ime Dru¹tva "Josip
Broz Tito", Saveza antifa¹istièkih boraca i Saveza ratnih vojnih
invalida da se Tito proglasi, za liènost stoljeæa. Na temelju nespornih
djela i uva¾avanja njegove liènosti, kako u inozemstvu tako i u
donedavnoj domovini, kojima se ne mo¾e pripisati stvaranje kulta
njegove liènosti, prijedlog je svesrdno podr¾ala i Sveèana Skup¹tina
Dru¹tva.
Sa Skup¹tine, na prijedlog Dr. Branka Horvata, upuæen je i
javni protest u povodu odluke Vlade RH, koja je odbila da se dodijeli
20.000 kn na ime pomoæi Dru¹tvu sa obrazlo¾enjem da se ne ¾eli
podupirati kult liènosti.
U radnom dijelu Skup¹tine rezimirana je djelatnost Dru¹tva i
njegovih ogranaka: tekuæe aktivnosti u suradnji sa SAB Hrvatske
povodom obljetnica; odr¾ane su tribine, okrugli stolovi i prigodna
predavanja; protesti povodom raznih dogaðanja (kao na primjer: na
Trgu ¾rtava fa¹izma; TV emisija "Hrvatska u XX. stoljeæu", ru¹enja
spomen-ploèe Talijanskom partizanskom bataljonu "Garibaldi",
ru¹enja spomenika i skandalozne odluke, kojom ¹pilja na otoku Visu
nije vi¹e ¾astièeni dio prirode i drugi); razni zahtjevi za povrat
Titovih i drugih bista, ulica i trgova; osnovano je 22 ogranaka sa oko
3.000 èlanova.
Financijsko poslovanje Dru¹tva, u protekle 4 godine, bilo je:
ukupni prihodi (èlanarina i prilozi, donacije simpatizera, ostali
prihodi) iznosili su 33.682 kune i pozajnica Dru¹tvu 7.800 kuna, a
ukupni rashod su iznosili 38.488 kuna, ostvaren je negativan saldo od
2.994 kn. Iz iskazanog èetvero-godi¹njeg raspolaganja novcem i
njegovog tro¹enja vidljivo je da se djelatnost ostvarirala na
volonterskom entuzijazmu i samofinanciranju.
Usvojen je Program Dru¹tva za 2.000 - 2.001. godinu: prvo,
realizacija ciljeva i zadataka utvrðenih Statutom; drugo, rad u
narednom dvogodi¹njem razdoblju zasnivati æe se na prijedlozima
rje¹avanja aktualnih problema hrvatskog dru¹tva, a na poukama
Titovog vremena za buduænost. Na taj naèin, pronala¾enjem
dodirnih toèaka izmeðu sada¹njih problema i Titove misli moguæe je
dati doprinos rje¹avanju nagomilanih problema u zemlji, kao i u
odnosima prema svijetu, a posebno prema susjedstvu. U tom pravcu
Dru¹tvo æe koristiti razne oblike putem kojih æe upoznati javnost sa
svojim stavovima, te pru¾ili pomoæ u rje¹avanju pojedinih pitanja, a
osobito o: dru¹tveno-ekonomskim problemima; reafirmaciji
samoupravljanja ili participacije radnika i graðana u jedinicama
lokalne samouprave; razvitku lokalne samouprave, koja treba da
osigura prava i zadovoljavanje interesa i potreba graðama;
ravnopravnosti naroda i narodnosti, kao nastavka Titove politike
(bratstva i jedinstva, miroljubive koegzistencije i suradnje u
meðunarodnim odnosima); punoj demokraciji i socijalnoj pravdi, jer
puna demokracija je i politièka, ali i ekonomska; treæe, Dru¹tvo æe
djelovati na omasovljenju kroz: osnivanje i omasovljenje Savjeta za
punu demokraciju i socijalnu pravdu, osnivanje novih ogranaka;
ukljuèivanjem u rad mladih ljudi iz znanstvenog, kulturnog i
umjetnièkog ¾ivota, te svih antifa¹istièki i demokratski usmjerenih
graðana; èetvrto, potrebno je medijski afirmirati Dru¹tvo i uz
informacije o Titu na internetu, potrebno je imati i WEB stranicu,
peto, Dru¹tvo sa ograncima ostvarit æe Program, uz jasnu oznaku
orjentacije kao nevladinih, nepolitièkih, toleratnih i javnih oblika
udru¾ivanja graðana; ¹esto, Dru¹tvo æe i nadalje suraðivati sa
Savezom antifa¹istièkoh boraca, Savezom ratnih vojnih invalida,
Dru¹tvom za istinu o NOB-i 1941-1945. godine i drugim sa kojima
æe se uspostaviti saradnja.
Izabrano je Predsjedni¹tvo, Nadzorni odbor i Savjet Dru¹tva, a
za predsjednika je izabran Dr. Tomislav Badovinac, po treæi put. S
obzirom na potrebe prilagoðavanja Statuta saglasno dana¹njim
potrebama izabrana je i Statutarna komisija.
28. rujna 2.000. godine promovirana je knjiga Jaspera Ridley
TITO, nakladnika Prometej, a veæ pet mjeseci je, uglavnom, na
prvom mjestu po interesu graðana za kupnju, ¹to pokazuje ne samo
velik interes veæ i dobar pogodak.
U skladu s usvojenim Programom Dru¹tva, 8. studenog 2.000.
godine organiziran je Okrugli stol pod naslovom "Nova stremljenja"
(o akcijama za zapo¹ljavanje, o rastu privrede i podizanju ¾ivotnog
standarda) i 18. sijeènja 2.001. godine na temu "Aktuelna pitanja
Lokalne samouprave".
Na zajednièkoj sjednici Predsjednika ogranaka, Predsjedni¹tva,
Nadzornog odbora i Savjeta Dru¹tva, 21. prosinca 2.000. godine,
dogovoreno je da se priðe izdavanju Biltena, koji bi omoguæio
odreðenu vrstu medijskog pojavljivanja Dru¹tva u javnosti, zatim da
se komemoracija izvr¹i polaganjem vijenca na grob Josipa Broza Tita
u Beogradu, 4. svibnja 2.001. godine i da se u Kumrovcu organizira
susret èlanova i simpatizera Dru¹tva, a povodom dana roðenja Josipa
Broza, poznatijeg kao "Dan Mladosti".
U cilju isticanja zajednièkih stremljenja doneta je odluka o
pristupanju Dru¹tva u kolektivno èlanstvo Saveza ratnih vojnih
invalida Hrvatske.
Ured za odnose s javno¹æu Vlade Republike Hrvatske izdao je
Potvrdu da je nakladnik Dru¹tvo "Josip Broz Tito" dana 9. veljaèe
2.001. godine prijavilo GLASILO Dru¹tva "Josip Broz Tito" te da
prijava sadr¾i propisane podatke.
Tomislav
Badovinac
http://www.drustvo-jbt.tk/
GLASILO - Suvremenih gledanja Drustva "Josip Broz Tito"
http://www.geocities.com/d_jbt/glasilo.htm
Osnivanje i razvoj Dru¹tva "Josip Broz Tito"
http://www.geocities.com/d_jbt/drustvo.htm
AKTIVNOSTI:
25.05.2002.Kumrovec: Dan Mladosti - radosti
Narodnooslobodilaèka borba u Hrvatskoj 1941.
7-9.11.2001. Beograd: Okrugli stol "Ratovi u Jugoslaviji od 1991 -
2001.", izlaganje je podnio Dr.sc. Tomislav Badovinac
27.05.2001. Kumrovec: Dan Mladosti
04.05.2001. Beograd: Polaganje vjenca na Titov grob
---
Osnivanje i razvoj Dru¹tva "Josip Broz Tito"
Dru¹tvo "Josip Broz Tito" osnovano je 25. svibnja 1996.
godine. Cilj osnivanja bila je ¾elja da se okupe oni koji su privr¾eni
antifa¹izmu i osjeæaju potrebu promoviranja pouke Titova vremena i
po¹tuju Josipa Broza Tita, vodeæu osobu antifa¹istièkog pokreta,
Narodno-oslobodilaèkog rata 1941-1945. godine, poslijeratne
izgradnje zemlje, ostvarivanja pune demokracije i socijalne pravde,
borbe za mir, suradnje i ravnopravnosti meðu narodima i dr¾avama
i kao jednog od organizatora i voða Pokreta nesvrstanih zamalja u
svijetu.
Na osnivaèkoj Skup¹tini donijet je Statut, izabran
Glavni odbor, Predsjedni¹tvo i Nadzorni odbor, a za predsjednika
Dru¹tva je izabran Dr. Tomislav Badovinac
Osnivanje Dru¹tva potaknula je i postojeæa politièka atmosfera
u kojoj su jaèale snage koje su bile na suprotnoj strani antifa¹istièke
borbe, pravdajuæi potrebom sveukupnog pomirenja Hrvata.
Meðutim, posljedica te nazovi "pomirbe", ne samo ¹to su
minimizirana prava i polo¾aj antifa¹ista, boraca - partizana, veæ su
sustavno oskrnavljivana i uni¹tavana obilje¾ja njihove narodno -
oslobodilaèke borbe. Voðena je ignorantska politika u odnosu na
djela i liènost
Josipa Broza Tita, kojom ne samo da Tito nema nikakvih zasluga za
Hrvatsku, veæ ga se obilje¾ava zloèincem u odnosu na Hrvate.
U tim okolnostima Dru¹tvo je trebalo osporiti takvu politièku
platformu i promovirati pouke Titova vremena i temeljne vrijednosti
antifa¹istièke borbe i liènosti Tita.
Dru¹tvo je upisano u Registar udru¾enja graðana i steklo
svojstvo pravne osobe, 26 studenog 1996. godine.
U toku veljaèe 1997. godine odr¾ana je Konferencija za
novinstvo i prezentiran je Program aktivnosti Dru¹tva u 1997. godini.
Prikladnim pismom (uz prilog bro¹ure "Josip Broz Tito") obavje¹tene
su : Politièke stranke za koje se smatralo da bi mogle imati interes na
na¹u djelatnost; Sindikatima Hrvatske; Znanstvenim organizacijama i
udru¾enjima graðana (HAZU, Dru¹tvu povjesnièara, Savezu
¾idovskih opæina); Ambasadama u Zagrebu, koje pripadaju krugu
velike antifa¹istièke koalicije i nesvrstanih zemalja;
Meðunarodnim organizacijama u i izvan zemlje (Europsko dru¹tvo
Hrvatske, OESS, FMAC, AMPI). Dru¹tvo se pridru¾uje Savezu
antifa¹istièkih boraca uèestvovanjem u znaèajnim i veæ
tradicionalnim javnim skupovima, obilje¾avajuæi dogaðaje iz
Narodno - oslobodilaèke borbe, odnosno na proteste povodom
odreðenih aktualnih zbivanja. Odr¾ane su prigodne sveèanosti u
povodu 105. obljetnice roðenja Josipa Broza Tita, na razini Dru¹tva i
u ograncima Dru¹tva.
Predsjedni¹tvo Dru¹tva zatra¾ilo je prijem svoje delegacije kod
Predsjednika Vlade kojeg bi upoznali o postojanju Dru¹tva, te o
problemima vezanih za ukidanje Memorijalnog centra Josip Broz
Tito u Beogradu, rodnu kuæu u Kumrovcu i objekte na Vangi
(Brijuni). Isto tako, zatra¾ili smo financijsku pomoæ za rad Dru¹tva.
Meðutim, do danas nismo bili ni primljeni niti smo dobili bilo kakvu
pomoæ.
Uspostavljena je komunikacija s "Dru¹tvom za istinu o
antifa¹istièkoj narodno - oslobodilaèkoj borbi u Jugoslaviji 1941 -
1945." koja djeluje u Beogradu.
Dana 07. sijeènja 1998. godine je odr¾ana II. Skup¹tina
Dru¹tva, uglavnom radi usklaðivanja Statuta s novo done¹enim
Zakonom o udrugama . Suglasno izmjenama i dopunama Statuta
Izabran je Savjet Dru¹tva umjesto Glavnog odbora, a Predsjedni¹tvo je
dopunjeno s novim èlanovima. U osvrtu na rad Dru¹tva izmeðu I.
osnivaèke i II. Skup¹tine istaknuto je da je : osnovano 5 Ogranaka
(Split, Pula, Labin, Delnice i Fu¾ine); od¹tampano je 1000 bro¹ura
Dru¹tvo "Josip Broz Tito" i toliko pristupnica kako bi se
nastavilo sa ¹irenjem i poveæanjem ogranaka; zbog pojava nekih
nejasnoæa i nesporazuma
izmeðu Saveza antifa¹istièkih boraca Hrvatske (SABH) i Dru¹tva,
posebno u Splitu i Puli, obavljeno je niz razgovora sa SABH i
poslana su pisma; u cilju isticanja zajednièkih stremljenja donijeta je
odluka o pristupanju Dru¹tva u kolektivno èlanstvo SABH; Dru¹tvo i
èlanovi njegovih ogranaka su se prikljuèivali SABH u
obilje¾avanju dogaðaja i liènosti iz Narodno oslobodilaèkog rata.
U emisiji "Latinica" uèestvovali su predstavnici Dru¹tva
nasuprot odabrane suprotne opcije, ¹to je, mo¾e se reæi, bio presedan
u tada¹njoj politièkoj atmosferi. Nakon rasprave o postavljenom
pitanju "Tito, veliki dr¾avnik ili diktator , odnos glasanja je pokazao
da se 86.000 izjasnilo za Tita, kao velikog dr¾avnika, prema 23.000
koji su smatrali da je diktator.
Odr¾an je zajednièki sastanak Predsjedni¹tva i Savjeta s
ograncima Dru¹tva, 17 listopada 1998. godine. Pristvovalo je 17
ogranaka koji su okupili oko 2.500 èlanova. Iz izlaganja ogranaka
vidljivo je da su, uglavnom, ogranci uspjeli razviti korektnu i
konkretnu suradnju s SAB-om. Usvojen je Program Dru¹tva za
dvogodi¹nji period, kao i smjernice za dalji rad Dru¹tva i Ogranaka.
Skup je informiran da je Predsjednik Dru¹tva ostvario neposredni
kontakt sa Dru¹tvom za istinu u Beogradu i naglasio da oni svoju
djelatnost baziraju na izdavanju knjiga i bro¹ura preko kojih nastoje
istinitim i objektivnim izno¹enjem dogaðaja vezanih za Narodno -
oslobodilaèku borbu i druga Tita oèuvati od prekrajanja i negiranja,
odnosno falcificiranja.
Saglasno usvojenom programu odr¾ane su tribine: "Titovo ne
Informbirou - put u demokratizaciju" ( Pedeset godina od Rezolucije
Informbiroa) ; Neki pogledi na "Sluèaj Stepinac";
"Kosovsko pitanje" (za¹to na ovom prostoru jo¹ uvijek teèe ljudska
krv); "Samoupravljanje kod nas i u svijetu"; "U susret danu
antifa¹istièke borbe u Hrvatskoj"; "Izbori i ljudska prava".
Svake godine organizirana je zajedno sa SAB
komemorativna sveèanost
u Kumrovcu u povodu obilje¾avanja obljetnice smrti Josipa Broza
Tita. Istovremeno su Ogranci organizirali prigodnu sveèanost u
svojim sredinama.
U povodu roðenja Josipa Broza Tita organizirani su
sveèani skupovi u povodu "Dana Mladosti", kako u Dru¹tvu tako i u
ograncima sa prigodnim programima, tribinama i okruglim
stolovima. U sveèanom dijelu dodjeljena su priznanja drugovima: Dr.
Vladimiru Velebit, Dr. Branku Horvat, Dr. Savi Zlatiæ i Zvonimiru
Ivankoviæ - Vonti za njihov nesebièni doprinos u radu i afirmaciji
aktivnosti Dru¹tva. Dodijeljeno je priznanje i drugarici Meri Lukiæ
za iskazani volonterski rad u Dru¹tvu.
Dru¹tvo je na razne naèine nastojalo podr¾ati i pomoæi
izdavanje knjige "Tito" na hrvatskom jeziku, napisane od Jaspera
Ridleva, ¹to smo i uspjeli otkupiv¹i pravo ¹tampanja, kako bi
omoguæili izdavaèu tiskanje knjige.
Na zajednièkom sastanku Predsjedni¹tva i
Savjeta s ograncima Dru¹tva, 29. studenog 1999. godine, u prigodnom
dijelu sastanka, posthumno priznanje drugu Ivici Gretiæ - Marjanu za
njegove zasluge u formiranjju i radu Dru¹tva uruèeno je kæeri i
sinovima, na godi¹njicu njegove smrti.
Odr¾ana je III. Skup¹tina, 25. svibnja 2.000. godine, na dan
kada je prije èetiri (4) godine osnovano Dru¹tvo "Josip Broz Tito" i
povodom toga je odr¾ana Sveèano - izborna skup¹tina. Na poèetku
Sveèanog dijela Skup¹tine obratio se prigodnim govorom Dr. Savo
Zlatiæ, koji je i prije 4 godine otvorio Osnivaèku skup¹tinu. Zatim je
Skup¹tini uputio ohrabrujuæe rijeèi Dr. Vladimir Velebit, jedan od
najbli¾ih saradnika Tita i doajen na¹eg Dru¹tva.
Na komemorativnom skupu u Kumrovcu, 04.05. 2.000.
godine, povodom 20. godi¹njice smrti Josipa Broza Tita, predlo¾io
je, u svom govoru Dr. Tomislav Badovinac, u ime Dru¹tva "Josip
Broz Tito", Saveza antifa¹istièkih boraca i Saveza ratnih vojnih
invalida da se Tito proglasi, za liènost stoljeæa. Na temelju nespornih
djela i uva¾avanja njegove liènosti, kako u inozemstvu tako i u
donedavnoj domovini, kojima se ne mo¾e pripisati stvaranje kulta
njegove liènosti, prijedlog je svesrdno podr¾ala i Sveèana Skup¹tina
Dru¹tva.
Sa Skup¹tine, na prijedlog Dr. Branka Horvata, upuæen je i
javni protest u povodu odluke Vlade RH, koja je odbila da se dodijeli
20.000 kn na ime pomoæi Dru¹tvu sa obrazlo¾enjem da se ne ¾eli
podupirati kult liènosti.
U radnom dijelu Skup¹tine rezimirana je djelatnost Dru¹tva i
njegovih ogranaka: tekuæe aktivnosti u suradnji sa SAB Hrvatske
povodom obljetnica; odr¾ane su tribine, okrugli stolovi i prigodna
predavanja; protesti povodom raznih dogaðanja (kao na primjer: na
Trgu ¾rtava fa¹izma; TV emisija "Hrvatska u XX. stoljeæu", ru¹enja
spomen-ploèe Talijanskom partizanskom bataljonu "Garibaldi",
ru¹enja spomenika i skandalozne odluke, kojom ¹pilja na otoku Visu
nije vi¹e ¾astièeni dio prirode i drugi); razni zahtjevi za povrat
Titovih i drugih bista, ulica i trgova; osnovano je 22 ogranaka sa oko
3.000 èlanova.
Financijsko poslovanje Dru¹tva, u protekle 4 godine, bilo je:
ukupni prihodi (èlanarina i prilozi, donacije simpatizera, ostali
prihodi) iznosili su 33.682 kune i pozajnica Dru¹tvu 7.800 kuna, a
ukupni rashod su iznosili 38.488 kuna, ostvaren je negativan saldo od
2.994 kn. Iz iskazanog èetvero-godi¹njeg raspolaganja novcem i
njegovog tro¹enja vidljivo je da se djelatnost ostvarirala na
volonterskom entuzijazmu i samofinanciranju.
Usvojen je Program Dru¹tva za 2.000 - 2.001. godinu: prvo,
realizacija ciljeva i zadataka utvrðenih Statutom; drugo, rad u
narednom dvogodi¹njem razdoblju zasnivati æe se na prijedlozima
rje¹avanja aktualnih problema hrvatskog dru¹tva, a na poukama
Titovog vremena za buduænost. Na taj naèin, pronala¾enjem
dodirnih toèaka izmeðu sada¹njih problema i Titove misli moguæe je
dati doprinos rje¹avanju nagomilanih problema u zemlji, kao i u
odnosima prema svijetu, a posebno prema susjedstvu. U tom pravcu
Dru¹tvo æe koristiti razne oblike putem kojih æe upoznati javnost sa
svojim stavovima, te pru¾ili pomoæ u rje¹avanju pojedinih pitanja, a
osobito o: dru¹tveno-ekonomskim problemima; reafirmaciji
samoupravljanja ili participacije radnika i graðana u jedinicama
lokalne samouprave; razvitku lokalne samouprave, koja treba da
osigura prava i zadovoljavanje interesa i potreba graðama;
ravnopravnosti naroda i narodnosti, kao nastavka Titove politike
(bratstva i jedinstva, miroljubive koegzistencije i suradnje u
meðunarodnim odnosima); punoj demokraciji i socijalnoj pravdi, jer
puna demokracija je i politièka, ali i ekonomska; treæe, Dru¹tvo æe
djelovati na omasovljenju kroz: osnivanje i omasovljenje Savjeta za
punu demokraciju i socijalnu pravdu, osnivanje novih ogranaka;
ukljuèivanjem u rad mladih ljudi iz znanstvenog, kulturnog i
umjetnièkog ¾ivota, te svih antifa¹istièki i demokratski usmjerenih
graðana; èetvrto, potrebno je medijski afirmirati Dru¹tvo i uz
informacije o Titu na internetu, potrebno je imati i WEB stranicu,
peto, Dru¹tvo sa ograncima ostvarit æe Program, uz jasnu oznaku
orjentacije kao nevladinih, nepolitièkih, toleratnih i javnih oblika
udru¾ivanja graðana; ¹esto, Dru¹tvo æe i nadalje suraðivati sa
Savezom antifa¹istièkoh boraca, Savezom ratnih vojnih invalida,
Dru¹tvom za istinu o NOB-i 1941-1945. godine i drugim sa kojima
æe se uspostaviti saradnja.
Izabrano je Predsjedni¹tvo, Nadzorni odbor i Savjet Dru¹tva, a
za predsjednika je izabran Dr. Tomislav Badovinac, po treæi put. S
obzirom na potrebe prilagoðavanja Statuta saglasno dana¹njim
potrebama izabrana je i Statutarna komisija.
28. rujna 2.000. godine promovirana je knjiga Jaspera Ridley
TITO, nakladnika Prometej, a veæ pet mjeseci je, uglavnom, na
prvom mjestu po interesu graðana za kupnju, ¹to pokazuje ne samo
velik interes veæ i dobar pogodak.
U skladu s usvojenim Programom Dru¹tva, 8. studenog 2.000.
godine organiziran je Okrugli stol pod naslovom "Nova stremljenja"
(o akcijama za zapo¹ljavanje, o rastu privrede i podizanju ¾ivotnog
standarda) i 18. sijeènja 2.001. godine na temu "Aktuelna pitanja
Lokalne samouprave".
Na zajednièkoj sjednici Predsjednika ogranaka, Predsjedni¹tva,
Nadzornog odbora i Savjeta Dru¹tva, 21. prosinca 2.000. godine,
dogovoreno je da se priðe izdavanju Biltena, koji bi omoguæio
odreðenu vrstu medijskog pojavljivanja Dru¹tva u javnosti, zatim da
se komemoracija izvr¹i polaganjem vijenca na grob Josipa Broza Tita
u Beogradu, 4. svibnja 2.001. godine i da se u Kumrovcu organizira
susret èlanova i simpatizera Dru¹tva, a povodom dana roðenja Josipa
Broza, poznatijeg kao "Dan Mladosti".
U cilju isticanja zajednièkih stremljenja doneta je odluka o
pristupanju Dru¹tva u kolektivno èlanstvo Saveza ratnih vojnih
invalida Hrvatske.
Ured za odnose s javno¹æu Vlade Republike Hrvatske izdao je
Potvrdu da je nakladnik Dru¹tvo "Josip Broz Tito" dana 9. veljaèe
2.001. godine prijavilo GLASILO Dru¹tva "Josip Broz Tito" te da
prijava sadr¾i propisane podatke.
Tomislav
Badovinac
International Committee to Defend Slobodan Milosevic
www.icdsm.org
=================================
Slobodan Milosevic's Cross-Examination of
Croatian President Stjepan Mesic: PART III
Because the transcript of the cross-examination is 150 pages long we
have broken it into 12 easy to read segments. If you wish to read the
whole thing at once go to: http://www.icdsm.org/more/mesic.htm
=================================
Page 10636
1 Q. You arrived on the 5th of December in the Croatian parliament.
2 You thanked them for their confidence. This was on the 5th of
December,
3 1991. And you made a notorious statement to the effect that you
thought I
4 have performed my task. Yugoslavia is no more. Is this so, Mr. Mesic?
5 We saw it on the video we played here a few days ago, and all of
6 Yugoslavia knows about this. You said: I think I have performed my
task.
7 Yugoslavia is no more.
8 A. An excellent question. I will explain what this was about. The
9 Croatian parliament elected me to be the Croatian member of the
Presidency
10 of Yugoslavia. I went to Belgrade, where first, for several months, I
was
11 not allowed to take up my duties because the Federal Assembly was
unable
12 to meet. After that, the Serbian bloc boycotted my election as
president
13 under --
14 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, let him finish. You've asked him a
15 question. Let him give his explanation.
16 A. Finally, under pressure from the international community, I was
17 elected president. Croatia adopted a decision on its independence.
18 Croatia, in agreement with the international community, postponed its
19 secession from Yugoslavia by three months. This time period had
elapsed.
20 Yugoslavia no longer existed. The federal institutions were no longer
21 functioning. I returned to Zagreb, and that's precisely what I said.
22 Because I did not go to Belgrade to open up a house-painting
business. I
23 went there as a member of the Presidency of Yugoslavia. Since
Yugoslavia
24 no longer existed and the Presidency no longer existed, I had
performed
25 the tasks entrusted to me by the Croatian parliament and was
reporting
Page 10637
1 back, ready to take up a different office. What was I to do in
Belgrade
2 when the Presidency no longer existed?
3 Q. Very well, Mr. Mesic. This is truly worthy of admiration, your
4 explanation of what you said, but you haven't told me whether you
actually
5 said: I have performed my task. Yugoslavia is no more.
6 A. The accused is a lawyer. He understands very well what I'm
7 talking about. My task was to represent Croatia in the Federal
8 Presidency.
9 Q. There is no need for you to repeat this. You said this in the
10 Croatian or Serbian language, or whatever you want to call it, and
11 everybody understood it. Your explanation now is obviously an attempt
to
12 make this statement relative, but this is no longer important.
13 [Trial Chamber confers]
14 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. In your public statements, or rather, in Tudjman's public
16 statements on Ban Jelacic Square on the 24th of May, 1992, said
"There
17 would have been no war had not Croatia wanted it. But we thought that
it
18 was only by war that we could win the independence of Croatia. That's
why
19 we had a policy of negotiations behind which we were setting up
military
20 units. Had this not been so, we would not have reached our goal." Is
21 this correct, Mr. Mesic?
22 A. I think that this could have been reported only by the Serbian
23 press, because it simply does not correspond to the truth. We know
who
24 was in control of the press in Serbia. It was the accused, Slobodan
25 Milosevic.
Page 10638
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the
French and
13 English transcripts.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 10639
1 Q. Unfortunately, a few days ago we watched a video of this, and we
2 saw this speech on Ban Jelacic square, taped on video. Tell me,
please:
3 Do you know that when the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was founded
and
4 the new constituted was promulgated on the 27th of April, 1992, a
5 declaration was adopted on the goals of the new common state, that is,
the
6 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, according to which, and I quote
verbatim:
7 "Yugoslavia has no territorial pretensions towards any of the former
8 Yugoslav republics." Are you aware of this?
9 A. I don't know what the declaration on the establishing of the
10 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia says, but I do know everything that
was
11 done to cut off parts of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina and annex
them
12 to Serbia.
13 Q. Mr. Mesic, you're telling us fairy tales about Karlovac, Karlobag
14 Virovitica boundary. When did you ever hear any official of the
Republic
15 of Serbia referring to this border, and when did any body or organ of
the
16 Republic of Serbia or anyone in Yugoslavia raise this issue and talk
about
17 such a boundary? This is a pure fabrication that you are launching
here.
18 Where did you get this idea?
19 A. It's quite understandable that those who perpetrated aggression
20 did not make such statements, but the Serbian minister, who was in
the
21 government, one of the ministers of Mr. Milosevic, visited this
boundary
22 with Vojislav Seselj, the Chetnik Vojvoda or leader, to show how far
the
23 interests of Serbia reached.
24 Q. What minister are you referring to? And if a minister visits a
25 spot, if he goes to a certain municipality, does he go to a boundary
or
Page 10640
1 does he mark a boundary? Was he marking a boundary there?
2 A. You understand very well that if someone visits Croatia,
3 especially an official, he should visit the official organs of the
4 Republic of Croatia.
5 Q. What municipal organs are you referring to if someone is visiting
6 a municipality? I didn't know you were a police state of that kind,
that
7 someone visiting a municipality in Croatia would have to report to the
8 police.
9 A. I was not paid to teach the accused Croatian laws. I was paid to
10 implement them.
11 Q. Mr. Mesic, you are a university graduate. Did you ever learn
12 about the rights of peoples to self-determination, and do you know
that
13 volumes and volumes of books have been written on this topic? Do you
know
14 about this?
15 A. I think this question is pointless. Of course I do. Of course I
16 know about the right to self-determination. This is going too far.
17 Q. Well, then answer me, please: Where did you get the idea that, as
18 you said, the Serbs in Croatia do not have a right to
self-determination?
19 Where did you get the idea, as you said on page 2 of your statement,
that
20 according to the constitution of 1974, Yugoslavia was a confederal
state?
21 You know yourself that this is untrue. Show me a single
constitutional
22 provision to this effect. Is this correct or not, Mr. Mesic?
23 A. The Presidency of Yugoslavia was established as a confederal
24 institution because all decisions were made for the most part by
25 consensus, and the accused knows this very well. He also knows very
well
Page 10641
1 that according to the constitution of 1974, the republics were called
2 states, and he also knows that, by virtue of their association into
3 Yugoslavia, they also had the right to disassociate themselves from
4 Yugoslavia. When a threat arose that Croatia and Slovenia might suffer
5 the same fate as Kosovo, Vojvodina, and Montenegro, Croatia made use
of
6 its right to disassociate itself, and the Badinter Commission
confirmed
7 this. Of course the Serbs have a right to their own state. That state
is
8 the Republic of Serbia. But it is well known that national minorities
9 cannot ask to secede from the Republic of Croatia. They could ask for
10 that but they could not realise it, because the Republic of Croatia
was
11 recognised in the borders established by Avnoj and the accused knows
this
12 very well.
13 Q. Do you know that according to the Yugoslav constitution, it was
14 the peoples and not the republics that had sovereignty? Do you
remember
15 that even the coat of arms of Yugoslavia had five torches,
represented
16 five peoples: The Serbs, the Croats, the Slovenes, the Macedonians
and the
17 Montenegrins, and then later on a sixth torch was added when the
Muslims
18 were declared a constituent people? Are you aware of this, Mr. Mesic?
19 A. The constituent elements of the Federation were the republics,
20 plus two autonomous provinces: Vojvodina, and Kosovo. Those were the
21 constituent elements of the Federation. Symbolism is one thing, but
22 constitutional provisions are quite another.
23 Q. You assert that in the constitutions of Yugoslavia and the
24 republics, it was not the sovereignty of peoples that was the
starting
25 point but the territory of the republics established in 1945; is that
what
Page 10642
1 you're claiming? I just want to be clear so as not to waste time.
2 A. I have said what I had to say about the constituent elements of
3 the Federation. Croatia had the right to self-determination, and the
4 Serbs in Croatia had the right to protection, to protection of their
5 collective rights and of their status as citizens of the Republic of
6 Croatia.
7 Q. Very well. Let us proceed, then. Let us proceed at a faster
8 pace, so please answer me yes or no: Is it correct that all the
9 constitutions of Croatia, until the amendments introduced by you in
1990,
10 had a provision about the Serbs as a constituent people, not a ethnic
11 minority, as you have just said? For example, the constitution of
1945,
12 1963, 1974, the constitutional amendments of July 1990. So these
13 amendments of July 1990 for the first time left out the Serbs as a
14 constituent element of the Republic of Croatia. I'm referring now to
the
15 constitution of the Republic of Croatia. Did all the constitutions
16 contain a provision about the Serbian people as a constituent people
in
17 Croatia; yes or no?
18 A. One cannot reply to this question with yes or no. The
19 constitutions were enacted in different periods of time, in different
20 situations, and in different international environments. The
21 constitution, therefore, had different provisions at different points
in
22 time. For example, the Yugoslav and the Croatian constitutions had a
23 provision which other constitutions, for example, do not contain,
that
24 there are two kinds of groups: Narodi and Narodnosti, two kinds of
25 peoples, plus ethnic groups. The constitution was further developed
up
Page 10643
1 until 1990.
2 Q. So the fact that the Serbs were left out of the constitution was
3 a development.
4 Do you know that on the 14th of May, 1887, the Croatian parliament
5 enacted a provision on the use of the Cyrillic alphabet? Are you aware
of
6 this?
7 A. I was not aware of that particular piece of information, but I do
8 thank the accused for having given me this piece of information. That
is
9 truly meaningful for me.
10 Q. And do you know about the rest, that what the constitution -- what
11 the assembly of Croatia adopted in 1887 was abolished in 1990 by your
12 parliament? They abolished the Cyrillic alphabet as an official
13 alphabet. Do you know about that? You went 150 years backwards. Do
you
14 know that?
15 A. Yet another piece of information, very important to me, as a
16 lawyer.
17 Q. All right, Mr. Mesic. Do you remember an entire series of laws,
18 not to mention taking over symbols, the symbols of the Nazi state of
the
19 independent state of Croatia, for example, the law on the Academy of
20 Sciences and Arts, the Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts? In
article
21 1 it says that it is the legal successor of the academy from the
period
22 from 1941 to 1945. The budget for 1991 does not envisage a single
dinar
23 for the schools of Serbs in Croatia, but it does envisage money for
24 Italians, Czechs, Ruthenians, and other national minorities. The law
on
25 the government allows the government to take measures against
so-called
Page 10644
1 disobedient municipalities. The only executive government in Europe
that
2 has the right to dissolve municipalities. The law on education refers
to
3 the Croatian language only, and so on and so forth?
4 JUDGE MAY: One thing at a time. What is the question,
5 Mr. Milosevic?
6 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. The question is -- the question is: Is it correct that not only
8 through this behaviour and also the combination of this ethnic
intolerance
9 towards the Serbs, but it is also through the adoption of many laws,
the
10 Croatian authorities instigated nationalism and chauvinism not only
in
11 Croatia but also a discriminatory, an insulting attitude towards
Serbs in
12 Croatia. Is that right or is that not right, Mr. Mesic?
13 A. Croatia adopted laws that gave equal rights to all its citizens
14 and protect national minorities, all vulnerable groups, actually.
15 National minorities are vulnerable groups, and that is why Croatia
favours
16 positive discrimination of all vulnerable groups.
17 Q. Very well. Then give me a comment with regard to these following
18 statements: There are many such laws, and of course they did have to
19 cause concern. For example, a meeting of the parliament on the 4th of
20 October, 1990, the 4th of October, 1990, your own assembly. Damir
Majovic
21 says: "Do not trust the Serbs even when they bring gifts." Stjepan
22 Sulimanac says: "Persons who moved in after 1918, who moved into
Croatia
23 after 1918, a law should be passed with regard to such persons and
there
24 should be protection from them." Then MP Ivan Milas says: "We are
going
25 to use a sword in respect of your rights. The day of a final showdown
is
Page 10645
1 getting near." Another MP says: "All Serbs should be isolated like
Iraq
2 isolated the Kurds. A ghetto should be established for the Serbs." And
3 Praljak, what's his name, one of the helmsmen of the HDZ said in April
4 1990: "Outside the boys are already singing we are going to slaughter
the
5 Serbs." And so on and so forth. Is that the right kind of atmosphere,
6 Mr. Mesic? Is that the atmosphere in which the Serbs were supposed to
7 view everything that was happening to them with confidence? And in the
8 meantime you dismissed practically all Serbs from the state
9 administration?
10 JUDGE MAY: One thing at a time. Now, you've read out a series --
11 you've read out a series of quotations which are said to have been
made in
12 the parliament.
13 Now, Mr. Mesic, you can deal with that. First of all, do you know
14 if these statements were made, or these sort of statements, and if
so, is
15 there anything that you can tell us about them?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There were different statements that
17 will were impermissible, and it is certain that such statements
harmed
18 Croatia. As for Slobodan Praljak, I must say that he was never a
member
19 of the HDZ. When the HDZ was established, he was one of President
20 Tudjman's major critics. Now, why were such statements made? I say
today
21 as well that they did not work to Croatia's advantage but to its
22 disadvantage. There were rallies of Serbs in various places on the
4th of
23 February, 1990. On the 4th of March, 1990, there was a rally in
Petrova
24 Gora of people from Lika, Kordun, Banja Luka, Bosanska Krajina, and
also
25 Vojvodina in Serbia.
Page 10646
Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French
and English transcripts.
* Continued at: http://www.icdsm.org/more/mesic-4.htm
***** Urgent Message from Sloboda (Freedom) Association and the
International Committee to Defend Slobodan Milosevic!
The Freedom Association in Belgrade and the ICDSM, based outside
Yugoslavia, are the two organizations formed at the request of Slobodan
Milosevic to aid in his defense.
Up until now our main work has been threefold. We have publicized the
truth about The Hague's phony trial. We have organized research to
help President Milosevic expose NATO's lies. And we have initiated legal
action in the Dutch and European Courts.
Now our job has increased. The defense phase of the "trial" starts in
May 2003. No longer will Mr. Milosevic be limited to cross-examining
Hague witnesses. The prosecution will be forced further onto the
defensive as victims of NATO's aggression and experts from Yugoslavia
and
the NATO countries tell what really happened and expose media lies.
Moreover, Mr. Milosevic will call leaders, from East and West, some
friendly and some hostile to the truth.
The controlled mass media will undoubtedly try to suppress this
testimony as they have tried to suppress Mr. Milosevic's
cross-examinations.
Nevertheless this phase of the "trial" will be the biggest international
forum ever to expose NATO's use of racism, violence and lies to
attack Yugoslavia.
We urgently need the help of all people who care about what is happening
in The Hague. Right now, Nico Steijnen , the Dutch lawyer in the
ICDSM, is waging legal battles in the Dutch courts and before the
European Court, about which more news soon. These efforts urgently
require
financial support. We now maintain a small staff of Yugoslav lawyers in
Holland, assisting and advising Mr. Milosevic full-time. We need to
expand our Dutch facilities, perhaps bringing in a non-Yugoslav attorney
full-time. Definitely we must guarantee that we have an office and
office manager available at all times, to compile and process evidence
and for meetings with witnesses and lawyers and as a base for
organizing press conferences.
All this costs money. And for this, we rely on those who want Mr.
Milosevic to have the best possible support for attacking NATO's lies.
************
Here's how you can help...
************
* You may contribute by credit card. By the end of September we will
have an ICDSM secure server so you can contribute directly on the
Internet.
For now, you can contribute by credit card in two ways: *
You can Contribute by Credit Card over the Telephone by calling:
ICDSM office, USA: 1 617 916-1705
SLOBODA (Freedom) Association office, Belgrade: 381 63 279 819
You can Contribute using PayPal at:
https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=icdsm%40aol.com
PayPal accepts VISA and MasterCard
You can Contribute by mail to:
ICDSM
831 Beacon St., #295
Newton Centre, MA 02459 (USA)
- OR -
You can Contribute by wire transfer to Sloboda Association
Intermediary:
UBS AG
Zurich, Switzerland
Swift Code: UBSWCHZH
Account with:
/ 756 - CHF
/ 840 - USD
/ 978 - EUR
Kmercijalna Banka AD
SV. Save 14, 11000 Belgrade, FR Yugoslavia
Swift Code: KOBBYUBG
Beneficiary: Account No. 5428-1246-16154-6
SLOBODA
Rajiceva 16, 11000 Belgrade, FR Yugoslavia
Thank you!
http://www.icdsm.org
www.icdsm.org
=================================
Slobodan Milosevic's Cross-Examination of
Croatian President Stjepan Mesic: PART III
Because the transcript of the cross-examination is 150 pages long we
have broken it into 12 easy to read segments. If you wish to read the
whole thing at once go to: http://www.icdsm.org/more/mesic.htm
=================================
Page 10636
1 Q. You arrived on the 5th of December in the Croatian parliament.
2 You thanked them for their confidence. This was on the 5th of
December,
3 1991. And you made a notorious statement to the effect that you
thought I
4 have performed my task. Yugoslavia is no more. Is this so, Mr. Mesic?
5 We saw it on the video we played here a few days ago, and all of
6 Yugoslavia knows about this. You said: I think I have performed my
task.
7 Yugoslavia is no more.
8 A. An excellent question. I will explain what this was about. The
9 Croatian parliament elected me to be the Croatian member of the
Presidency
10 of Yugoslavia. I went to Belgrade, where first, for several months, I
was
11 not allowed to take up my duties because the Federal Assembly was
unable
12 to meet. After that, the Serbian bloc boycotted my election as
president
13 under --
14 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, let him finish. You've asked him a
15 question. Let him give his explanation.
16 A. Finally, under pressure from the international community, I was
17 elected president. Croatia adopted a decision on its independence.
18 Croatia, in agreement with the international community, postponed its
19 secession from Yugoslavia by three months. This time period had
elapsed.
20 Yugoslavia no longer existed. The federal institutions were no longer
21 functioning. I returned to Zagreb, and that's precisely what I said.
22 Because I did not go to Belgrade to open up a house-painting
business. I
23 went there as a member of the Presidency of Yugoslavia. Since
Yugoslavia
24 no longer existed and the Presidency no longer existed, I had
performed
25 the tasks entrusted to me by the Croatian parliament and was
reporting
Page 10637
1 back, ready to take up a different office. What was I to do in
Belgrade
2 when the Presidency no longer existed?
3 Q. Very well, Mr. Mesic. This is truly worthy of admiration, your
4 explanation of what you said, but you haven't told me whether you
actually
5 said: I have performed my task. Yugoslavia is no more.
6 A. The accused is a lawyer. He understands very well what I'm
7 talking about. My task was to represent Croatia in the Federal
8 Presidency.
9 Q. There is no need for you to repeat this. You said this in the
10 Croatian or Serbian language, or whatever you want to call it, and
11 everybody understood it. Your explanation now is obviously an attempt
to
12 make this statement relative, but this is no longer important.
13 [Trial Chamber confers]
14 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. In your public statements, or rather, in Tudjman's public
16 statements on Ban Jelacic Square on the 24th of May, 1992, said
"There
17 would have been no war had not Croatia wanted it. But we thought that
it
18 was only by war that we could win the independence of Croatia. That's
why
19 we had a policy of negotiations behind which we were setting up
military
20 units. Had this not been so, we would not have reached our goal." Is
21 this correct, Mr. Mesic?
22 A. I think that this could have been reported only by the Serbian
23 press, because it simply does not correspond to the truth. We know
who
24 was in control of the press in Serbia. It was the accused, Slobodan
25 Milosevic.
Page 10638
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the
French and
13 English transcripts.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 10639
1 Q. Unfortunately, a few days ago we watched a video of this, and we
2 saw this speech on Ban Jelacic square, taped on video. Tell me,
please:
3 Do you know that when the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was founded
and
4 the new constituted was promulgated on the 27th of April, 1992, a
5 declaration was adopted on the goals of the new common state, that is,
the
6 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, according to which, and I quote
verbatim:
7 "Yugoslavia has no territorial pretensions towards any of the former
8 Yugoslav republics." Are you aware of this?
9 A. I don't know what the declaration on the establishing of the
10 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia says, but I do know everything that
was
11 done to cut off parts of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina and annex
them
12 to Serbia.
13 Q. Mr. Mesic, you're telling us fairy tales about Karlovac, Karlobag
14 Virovitica boundary. When did you ever hear any official of the
Republic
15 of Serbia referring to this border, and when did any body or organ of
the
16 Republic of Serbia or anyone in Yugoslavia raise this issue and talk
about
17 such a boundary? This is a pure fabrication that you are launching
here.
18 Where did you get this idea?
19 A. It's quite understandable that those who perpetrated aggression
20 did not make such statements, but the Serbian minister, who was in
the
21 government, one of the ministers of Mr. Milosevic, visited this
boundary
22 with Vojislav Seselj, the Chetnik Vojvoda or leader, to show how far
the
23 interests of Serbia reached.
24 Q. What minister are you referring to? And if a minister visits a
25 spot, if he goes to a certain municipality, does he go to a boundary
or
Page 10640
1 does he mark a boundary? Was he marking a boundary there?
2 A. You understand very well that if someone visits Croatia,
3 especially an official, he should visit the official organs of the
4 Republic of Croatia.
5 Q. What municipal organs are you referring to if someone is visiting
6 a municipality? I didn't know you were a police state of that kind,
that
7 someone visiting a municipality in Croatia would have to report to the
8 police.
9 A. I was not paid to teach the accused Croatian laws. I was paid to
10 implement them.
11 Q. Mr. Mesic, you are a university graduate. Did you ever learn
12 about the rights of peoples to self-determination, and do you know
that
13 volumes and volumes of books have been written on this topic? Do you
know
14 about this?
15 A. I think this question is pointless. Of course I do. Of course I
16 know about the right to self-determination. This is going too far.
17 Q. Well, then answer me, please: Where did you get the idea that, as
18 you said, the Serbs in Croatia do not have a right to
self-determination?
19 Where did you get the idea, as you said on page 2 of your statement,
that
20 according to the constitution of 1974, Yugoslavia was a confederal
state?
21 You know yourself that this is untrue. Show me a single
constitutional
22 provision to this effect. Is this correct or not, Mr. Mesic?
23 A. The Presidency of Yugoslavia was established as a confederal
24 institution because all decisions were made for the most part by
25 consensus, and the accused knows this very well. He also knows very
well
Page 10641
1 that according to the constitution of 1974, the republics were called
2 states, and he also knows that, by virtue of their association into
3 Yugoslavia, they also had the right to disassociate themselves from
4 Yugoslavia. When a threat arose that Croatia and Slovenia might suffer
5 the same fate as Kosovo, Vojvodina, and Montenegro, Croatia made use
of
6 its right to disassociate itself, and the Badinter Commission
confirmed
7 this. Of course the Serbs have a right to their own state. That state
is
8 the Republic of Serbia. But it is well known that national minorities
9 cannot ask to secede from the Republic of Croatia. They could ask for
10 that but they could not realise it, because the Republic of Croatia
was
11 recognised in the borders established by Avnoj and the accused knows
this
12 very well.
13 Q. Do you know that according to the Yugoslav constitution, it was
14 the peoples and not the republics that had sovereignty? Do you
remember
15 that even the coat of arms of Yugoslavia had five torches,
represented
16 five peoples: The Serbs, the Croats, the Slovenes, the Macedonians
and the
17 Montenegrins, and then later on a sixth torch was added when the
Muslims
18 were declared a constituent people? Are you aware of this, Mr. Mesic?
19 A. The constituent elements of the Federation were the republics,
20 plus two autonomous provinces: Vojvodina, and Kosovo. Those were the
21 constituent elements of the Federation. Symbolism is one thing, but
22 constitutional provisions are quite another.
23 Q. You assert that in the constitutions of Yugoslavia and the
24 republics, it was not the sovereignty of peoples that was the
starting
25 point but the territory of the republics established in 1945; is that
what
Page 10642
1 you're claiming? I just want to be clear so as not to waste time.
2 A. I have said what I had to say about the constituent elements of
3 the Federation. Croatia had the right to self-determination, and the
4 Serbs in Croatia had the right to protection, to protection of their
5 collective rights and of their status as citizens of the Republic of
6 Croatia.
7 Q. Very well. Let us proceed, then. Let us proceed at a faster
8 pace, so please answer me yes or no: Is it correct that all the
9 constitutions of Croatia, until the amendments introduced by you in
1990,
10 had a provision about the Serbs as a constituent people, not a ethnic
11 minority, as you have just said? For example, the constitution of
1945,
12 1963, 1974, the constitutional amendments of July 1990. So these
13 amendments of July 1990 for the first time left out the Serbs as a
14 constituent element of the Republic of Croatia. I'm referring now to
the
15 constitution of the Republic of Croatia. Did all the constitutions
16 contain a provision about the Serbian people as a constituent people
in
17 Croatia; yes or no?
18 A. One cannot reply to this question with yes or no. The
19 constitutions were enacted in different periods of time, in different
20 situations, and in different international environments. The
21 constitution, therefore, had different provisions at different points
in
22 time. For example, the Yugoslav and the Croatian constitutions had a
23 provision which other constitutions, for example, do not contain,
that
24 there are two kinds of groups: Narodi and Narodnosti, two kinds of
25 peoples, plus ethnic groups. The constitution was further developed
up
Page 10643
1 until 1990.
2 Q. So the fact that the Serbs were left out of the constitution was
3 a development.
4 Do you know that on the 14th of May, 1887, the Croatian parliament
5 enacted a provision on the use of the Cyrillic alphabet? Are you aware
of
6 this?
7 A. I was not aware of that particular piece of information, but I do
8 thank the accused for having given me this piece of information. That
is
9 truly meaningful for me.
10 Q. And do you know about the rest, that what the constitution -- what
11 the assembly of Croatia adopted in 1887 was abolished in 1990 by your
12 parliament? They abolished the Cyrillic alphabet as an official
13 alphabet. Do you know about that? You went 150 years backwards. Do
you
14 know that?
15 A. Yet another piece of information, very important to me, as a
16 lawyer.
17 Q. All right, Mr. Mesic. Do you remember an entire series of laws,
18 not to mention taking over symbols, the symbols of the Nazi state of
the
19 independent state of Croatia, for example, the law on the Academy of
20 Sciences and Arts, the Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts? In
article
21 1 it says that it is the legal successor of the academy from the
period
22 from 1941 to 1945. The budget for 1991 does not envisage a single
dinar
23 for the schools of Serbs in Croatia, but it does envisage money for
24 Italians, Czechs, Ruthenians, and other national minorities. The law
on
25 the government allows the government to take measures against
so-called
Page 10644
1 disobedient municipalities. The only executive government in Europe
that
2 has the right to dissolve municipalities. The law on education refers
to
3 the Croatian language only, and so on and so forth?
4 JUDGE MAY: One thing at a time. What is the question,
5 Mr. Milosevic?
6 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. The question is -- the question is: Is it correct that not only
8 through this behaviour and also the combination of this ethnic
intolerance
9 towards the Serbs, but it is also through the adoption of many laws,
the
10 Croatian authorities instigated nationalism and chauvinism not only
in
11 Croatia but also a discriminatory, an insulting attitude towards
Serbs in
12 Croatia. Is that right or is that not right, Mr. Mesic?
13 A. Croatia adopted laws that gave equal rights to all its citizens
14 and protect national minorities, all vulnerable groups, actually.
15 National minorities are vulnerable groups, and that is why Croatia
favours
16 positive discrimination of all vulnerable groups.
17 Q. Very well. Then give me a comment with regard to these following
18 statements: There are many such laws, and of course they did have to
19 cause concern. For example, a meeting of the parliament on the 4th of
20 October, 1990, the 4th of October, 1990, your own assembly. Damir
Majovic
21 says: "Do not trust the Serbs even when they bring gifts." Stjepan
22 Sulimanac says: "Persons who moved in after 1918, who moved into
Croatia
23 after 1918, a law should be passed with regard to such persons and
there
24 should be protection from them." Then MP Ivan Milas says: "We are
going
25 to use a sword in respect of your rights. The day of a final showdown
is
Page 10645
1 getting near." Another MP says: "All Serbs should be isolated like
Iraq
2 isolated the Kurds. A ghetto should be established for the Serbs." And
3 Praljak, what's his name, one of the helmsmen of the HDZ said in April
4 1990: "Outside the boys are already singing we are going to slaughter
the
5 Serbs." And so on and so forth. Is that the right kind of atmosphere,
6 Mr. Mesic? Is that the atmosphere in which the Serbs were supposed to
7 view everything that was happening to them with confidence? And in the
8 meantime you dismissed practically all Serbs from the state
9 administration?
10 JUDGE MAY: One thing at a time. Now, you've read out a series --
11 you've read out a series of quotations which are said to have been
made in
12 the parliament.
13 Now, Mr. Mesic, you can deal with that. First of all, do you know
14 if these statements were made, or these sort of statements, and if
so, is
15 there anything that you can tell us about them?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There were different statements that
17 will were impermissible, and it is certain that such statements
harmed
18 Croatia. As for Slobodan Praljak, I must say that he was never a
member
19 of the HDZ. When the HDZ was established, he was one of President
20 Tudjman's major critics. Now, why were such statements made? I say
today
21 as well that they did not work to Croatia's advantage but to its
22 disadvantage. There were rallies of Serbs in various places on the
4th of
23 February, 1990. On the 4th of March, 1990, there was a rally in
Petrova
24 Gora of people from Lika, Kordun, Banja Luka, Bosanska Krajina, and
also
25 Vojvodina in Serbia.
Page 10646
Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French
and English transcripts.
* Continued at: http://www.icdsm.org/more/mesic-4.htm
***** Urgent Message from Sloboda (Freedom) Association and the
International Committee to Defend Slobodan Milosevic!
The Freedom Association in Belgrade and the ICDSM, based outside
Yugoslavia, are the two organizations formed at the request of Slobodan
Milosevic to aid in his defense.
Up until now our main work has been threefold. We have publicized the
truth about The Hague's phony trial. We have organized research to
help President Milosevic expose NATO's lies. And we have initiated legal
action in the Dutch and European Courts.
Now our job has increased. The defense phase of the "trial" starts in
May 2003. No longer will Mr. Milosevic be limited to cross-examining
Hague witnesses. The prosecution will be forced further onto the
defensive as victims of NATO's aggression and experts from Yugoslavia
and
the NATO countries tell what really happened and expose media lies.
Moreover, Mr. Milosevic will call leaders, from East and West, some
friendly and some hostile to the truth.
The controlled mass media will undoubtedly try to suppress this
testimony as they have tried to suppress Mr. Milosevic's
cross-examinations.
Nevertheless this phase of the "trial" will be the biggest international
forum ever to expose NATO's use of racism, violence and lies to
attack Yugoslavia.
We urgently need the help of all people who care about what is happening
in The Hague. Right now, Nico Steijnen , the Dutch lawyer in the
ICDSM, is waging legal battles in the Dutch courts and before the
European Court, about which more news soon. These efforts urgently
require
financial support. We now maintain a small staff of Yugoslav lawyers in
Holland, assisting and advising Mr. Milosevic full-time. We need to
expand our Dutch facilities, perhaps bringing in a non-Yugoslav attorney
full-time. Definitely we must guarantee that we have an office and
office manager available at all times, to compile and process evidence
and for meetings with witnesses and lawyers and as a base for
organizing press conferences.
All this costs money. And for this, we rely on those who want Mr.
Milosevic to have the best possible support for attacking NATO's lies.
************
Here's how you can help...
************
* You may contribute by credit card. By the end of September we will
have an ICDSM secure server so you can contribute directly on the
Internet.
For now, you can contribute by credit card in two ways: *
You can Contribute by Credit Card over the Telephone by calling:
ICDSM office, USA: 1 617 916-1705
SLOBODA (Freedom) Association office, Belgrade: 381 63 279 819
You can Contribute using PayPal at:
https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=icdsm%40aol.com
PayPal accepts VISA and MasterCard
You can Contribute by mail to:
ICDSM
831 Beacon St., #295
Newton Centre, MA 02459 (USA)
- OR -
You can Contribute by wire transfer to Sloboda Association
Intermediary:
UBS AG
Zurich, Switzerland
Swift Code: UBSWCHZH
Account with:
/ 756 - CHF
/ 840 - USD
/ 978 - EUR
Kmercijalna Banka AD
SV. Save 14, 11000 Belgrade, FR Yugoslavia
Swift Code: KOBBYUBG
Beneficiary: Account No. 5428-1246-16154-6
SLOBODA
Rajiceva 16, 11000 Belgrade, FR Yugoslavia
Thank you!
http://www.icdsm.org
CONTRO LA GUERRA IMPERIALISTA
RESISTENZA CONTINUA!
Con l'imminente guerra all'Iraq, in continuità con quella del '91,
della Jugoslavia e dell'Afghanistan, è in atto un'operazione di
destabilizzazione dell'area mediorientale, condotta dall'imperialismo
USA, con il contributo determinante dello Stato sionista israeliano,
teso al controllo diretto delle risorse petrolifere dell'area e
relativi corridoi.
Tale guerra ne prepara altre, insieme alla definitiva soluzione del
problema palestinese con l'annessione israeliana di gran parte dei
territori occupati e il resto ridotto a regime di apartheid, come
riserva di manodopera a basso costo e senza alcun diritto.
Il carattere imperialista della guerra è nella necessità per gli USA
di mantenere la propria egemonia economica con la forza bellica,
rilanciando la spesa militare e la corsa al riarmo a sostegno del
ciclo economico, e pilotare così la fuoriuscita dalla recessione.
Infatti tutta l'economia americana si regge su un enorme processo di
indebitamento, finanziato da tutto il resto del mondo.
La strategia di guerra preventiva, che è anche la forma attuale dello
scontro interimperialistico USA-UE, implica per tutti i paesi, inclusi
quelli europei, la possibilità di essere colpiti dalle politiche di
destabilizzazione degli USA, che cercano di prevenire il formarsi di
potenze competitive o che possano sottrarsi al loro controllo.
Guerra preventiva significa anche un salto di qualità ulteriore nelle
politiche interne di attacco alle condizioni di vita e di lavoro dei
proletari (Precarietà, Patto per l'Italia, abolizione dell'articolo
18, Legge Bossi-Fini ecc.) e nelle misure repressive e di deriva
autoritaria col pretesto della "guerra al terrorismo" nel nostro Paese
come in tutto il mondo.
Come organismi di lotta intendiamo impegnarci nell'ampio movimento
contro la guerra che si va formando, sollecitando ad una presa di
coscienza ed alla resistenza antimperialista.
Proponiamo, in questo contesto, l'unità delle forze antimperialiste in
Italia, nella prospettiva dello sviluppo di un largo fronte
internazionale.
- Non un uomo, non un soldo, né una base per la guerra.
- Pieno sostegno al popolo iracheno, alla resistenza
palestinese e a tutti i popoli in lotta contro l'oppressione
imperialista
- Contro le polizie e gli eserciti dei padroni, le liste nere,
la criminalizzazione degli immigrati e delle lotte sociali, la
repressione dello Stato e il potere manipolatorio dei mass-media.
- Fuori l'Italia dalla Nato, fuori le basi Usa e Nato dal
nostro Paese
L'UNICA GUERRA CHE I POPOLI POSSONO ACCETTARE
È QUELLA PER LA LORO LIBERAZIONE
Domenica 10 novembre - Firenze
ASSEMBLEA
Via Pisana, 809 c/o Casa del Popolo Ponte a Greve
per dare vita ad un percorso stabile e unitario delle forze
antimperialiste
Promotori:
Coordinamento dei Comitati Antimperialisti ed Antifascisti della
Toscana
Assemblea Antimperialista
Comitati contro la guerra - Milano
Centro Popolare Occupato "La Fucina" - Sesto San Giovanni (MI)
Coordinamento Romagnolo contro le guerre e la Nato
Gruppo Zastava - Trieste
Coordinamento Nazionale per la Jugoslavia
Comitato contro la guerra - Roma Sud
Compagne e compagni antimperialiste/i di: Bologna, Pordenone, Torino
Soccorso Popolare - Padova
G.A.MA.DI. - Roma
Comitato Provvisorio immigrati in Italia
--------------------------------------
PRAGA 20 NOVEMBRE 2002
Piazza della citta' vecchia (Staromestske Namesti) - ore 14:30
In occasione del vertice atlantico che si terra' il 21-22 novembre
nella capitale ceka per decidere un nuovo allargamento ad Est della
Nato e il suo coinvolgimento nella dottrina di Bush della "guerra
preventiva"
MANIFESTAZIONE EUROPEA
Contro la guerra all'Iraq, contro le guerre di Bush
Contro la NATO e il suo allargamento ad Est
Per un'Europa di pace, di giustizia sociale e di amicizia tra i popoli
Per un'Europa autonoma e neutrale, senza basi militari straniere
La manifestazione e' promossa da Partito comunista della Repubblica
Ceka (KSCM) con altre organizzazioni giovanili, pacifiste, sindacali
del paese, e dal Forum europeo per la pace, con l'adesione - per la
prima volta congiunta, dopo il 1989 - delle maggiori forze comuniste e
di sinistra alternativa di tutta l'Europa (dell'Est e dell'Ovest),
rappresentative di decine di milioni di cittadini europei. Hanno
aderito finora: BELGIO (Pc e Partito del lavoro), BIELORUSSIA (i due
partiti comunisti), BOSNIA (Pc dei lavoratori), BULGARIA (Pcb), CIPRO
(Akel), CROAZIA (Partito socialista operaio), DANIMARCA (i due partiti
comunisti), FINLANDIA (Pc), FRANCIA (Pcf), GERMANIA (Pds e Dkp),
GRECIA (Pc-Kke e Synaspismos), ITALIA (Rifondazione comunista, PdCI,
Rete dei comunisti), LETTONIA (Partito socialista), MOLDAVIA (Pc),
POLONIA (Unione comunisti polacchi - proletariat), PORTOGALLO (Pcp),
UNGHERIA (Partito del lavoro), YUGOSLAVIA (Partito socialista serbo,
Partito dei comunisti yugoslavi e Nuovo Pc yugoslavo)... Dagli STATI
UNITI aderisce l'International Action Center di Ramsey Clark. E le
adesioni continuano...
La manifestazione e' aperta a tutte le realta' politiche, sociali,
culturali, religiose, di movimento che si riconoscano nelle sue parole
d'ordine: contro la guerra, contro la NATO.
Per adesioni e maggiori informazioni, politiche e logistiche (viaggio
e alloggio a Praga) rivolgersi alle rispettive organizzazioni
nazionali
IL 9 NOVEMBRE TUTTI A FIRENZE
alla manifestazione contro la guerra del Forum Sociale Europeo
IL 20 NOVEMBRE TUTTI A PRAGA
(da: http://www.lernesto.it/ )
RESISTENZA CONTINUA!
Con l'imminente guerra all'Iraq, in continuità con quella del '91,
della Jugoslavia e dell'Afghanistan, è in atto un'operazione di
destabilizzazione dell'area mediorientale, condotta dall'imperialismo
USA, con il contributo determinante dello Stato sionista israeliano,
teso al controllo diretto delle risorse petrolifere dell'area e
relativi corridoi.
Tale guerra ne prepara altre, insieme alla definitiva soluzione del
problema palestinese con l'annessione israeliana di gran parte dei
territori occupati e il resto ridotto a regime di apartheid, come
riserva di manodopera a basso costo e senza alcun diritto.
Il carattere imperialista della guerra è nella necessità per gli USA
di mantenere la propria egemonia economica con la forza bellica,
rilanciando la spesa militare e la corsa al riarmo a sostegno del
ciclo economico, e pilotare così la fuoriuscita dalla recessione.
Infatti tutta l'economia americana si regge su un enorme processo di
indebitamento, finanziato da tutto il resto del mondo.
La strategia di guerra preventiva, che è anche la forma attuale dello
scontro interimperialistico USA-UE, implica per tutti i paesi, inclusi
quelli europei, la possibilità di essere colpiti dalle politiche di
destabilizzazione degli USA, che cercano di prevenire il formarsi di
potenze competitive o che possano sottrarsi al loro controllo.
Guerra preventiva significa anche un salto di qualità ulteriore nelle
politiche interne di attacco alle condizioni di vita e di lavoro dei
proletari (Precarietà, Patto per l'Italia, abolizione dell'articolo
18, Legge Bossi-Fini ecc.) e nelle misure repressive e di deriva
autoritaria col pretesto della "guerra al terrorismo" nel nostro Paese
come in tutto il mondo.
Come organismi di lotta intendiamo impegnarci nell'ampio movimento
contro la guerra che si va formando, sollecitando ad una presa di
coscienza ed alla resistenza antimperialista.
Proponiamo, in questo contesto, l'unità delle forze antimperialiste in
Italia, nella prospettiva dello sviluppo di un largo fronte
internazionale.
- Non un uomo, non un soldo, né una base per la guerra.
- Pieno sostegno al popolo iracheno, alla resistenza
palestinese e a tutti i popoli in lotta contro l'oppressione
imperialista
- Contro le polizie e gli eserciti dei padroni, le liste nere,
la criminalizzazione degli immigrati e delle lotte sociali, la
repressione dello Stato e il potere manipolatorio dei mass-media.
- Fuori l'Italia dalla Nato, fuori le basi Usa e Nato dal
nostro Paese
L'UNICA GUERRA CHE I POPOLI POSSONO ACCETTARE
È QUELLA PER LA LORO LIBERAZIONE
Domenica 10 novembre - Firenze
ASSEMBLEA
Via Pisana, 809 c/o Casa del Popolo Ponte a Greve
per dare vita ad un percorso stabile e unitario delle forze
antimperialiste
Promotori:
Coordinamento dei Comitati Antimperialisti ed Antifascisti della
Toscana
Assemblea Antimperialista
Comitati contro la guerra - Milano
Centro Popolare Occupato "La Fucina" - Sesto San Giovanni (MI)
Coordinamento Romagnolo contro le guerre e la Nato
Gruppo Zastava - Trieste
Coordinamento Nazionale per la Jugoslavia
Comitato contro la guerra - Roma Sud
Compagne e compagni antimperialiste/i di: Bologna, Pordenone, Torino
Soccorso Popolare - Padova
G.A.MA.DI. - Roma
Comitato Provvisorio immigrati in Italia
--------------------------------------
PRAGA 20 NOVEMBRE 2002
Piazza della citta' vecchia (Staromestske Namesti) - ore 14:30
In occasione del vertice atlantico che si terra' il 21-22 novembre
nella capitale ceka per decidere un nuovo allargamento ad Est della
Nato e il suo coinvolgimento nella dottrina di Bush della "guerra
preventiva"
MANIFESTAZIONE EUROPEA
Contro la guerra all'Iraq, contro le guerre di Bush
Contro la NATO e il suo allargamento ad Est
Per un'Europa di pace, di giustizia sociale e di amicizia tra i popoli
Per un'Europa autonoma e neutrale, senza basi militari straniere
La manifestazione e' promossa da Partito comunista della Repubblica
Ceka (KSCM) con altre organizzazioni giovanili, pacifiste, sindacali
del paese, e dal Forum europeo per la pace, con l'adesione - per la
prima volta congiunta, dopo il 1989 - delle maggiori forze comuniste e
di sinistra alternativa di tutta l'Europa (dell'Est e dell'Ovest),
rappresentative di decine di milioni di cittadini europei. Hanno
aderito finora: BELGIO (Pc e Partito del lavoro), BIELORUSSIA (i due
partiti comunisti), BOSNIA (Pc dei lavoratori), BULGARIA (Pcb), CIPRO
(Akel), CROAZIA (Partito socialista operaio), DANIMARCA (i due partiti
comunisti), FINLANDIA (Pc), FRANCIA (Pcf), GERMANIA (Pds e Dkp),
GRECIA (Pc-Kke e Synaspismos), ITALIA (Rifondazione comunista, PdCI,
Rete dei comunisti), LETTONIA (Partito socialista), MOLDAVIA (Pc),
POLONIA (Unione comunisti polacchi - proletariat), PORTOGALLO (Pcp),
UNGHERIA (Partito del lavoro), YUGOSLAVIA (Partito socialista serbo,
Partito dei comunisti yugoslavi e Nuovo Pc yugoslavo)... Dagli STATI
UNITI aderisce l'International Action Center di Ramsey Clark. E le
adesioni continuano...
La manifestazione e' aperta a tutte le realta' politiche, sociali,
culturali, religiose, di movimento che si riconoscano nelle sue parole
d'ordine: contro la guerra, contro la NATO.
Per adesioni e maggiori informazioni, politiche e logistiche (viaggio
e alloggio a Praga) rivolgersi alle rispettive organizzazioni
nazionali
IL 9 NOVEMBRE TUTTI A FIRENZE
alla manifestazione contro la guerra del Forum Sociale Europeo
IL 20 NOVEMBRE TUTTI A PRAGA
(da: http://www.lernesto.it/ )
Jugocoord su Telegram
Jugocoord su Facebook