(english / srpskohrvatski)
ON PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ADMIRAL MIODRAG JOKIC BEFORE SO-CALLED HAGUE
TRIBUNAL
O POSTUPKU PROTIV ADMIRALA JNA MIODRADA JOKICA PRED TZV. HAŠKIM
TRIBUNALOM
ARTEL GEOPOLITIKA by www.artel.co.yu
office@...
---
ON PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ADMIRAL MIODRAG JOKIC BEFORE SO-CALLED HAGUE
TRIBUNAL
http://www.artel.co.yu/en/reakcije_citalaca/2003-08-30.html
Dr Milan Tepavac
miltep@...
Belgrade, 30 August 2003
Almost all domestic – as well as foreign – media inform us these days
that former admiral of the Yugoslav People's Army (YPA) Miodrag Jokic
pleaded guilty to six accounts of the indictment of the prosecution of
the so-called Hague tribunal for "violation of the laws and custom of
war" on Dubrovnik area in Yugoslavia in October 1991 for (1) murder,
(2) cruel treatment, (3) attacs on civilians, (4) exessive use of force
and (5) destruction of historic buildings. It is about bombardement of
Dubrovnik on December 6, 1991, when 2 civilians were killed and 3
wounded. As a result of a deal with Jokic, the Prosecution abandonded
all other caunts contained in the initial idictment of Febrauary 22,
2001 against him and other three officers of the YPA – Pavle Strugar,
Vladimir Kovacevic and Milan Zec. On his first appearence before the
Tribunal on November 14, 2001, he pleaded not guilty to all 9 counts.
As a result of the deal the Prosecution wrote a new amanded indictment
bearing the date of March 31, 2003.
One of the reasons that the case provokes interst in domestic and
foreign media is that it is the first time that that a high officer of
the YPA pleads gulty before the Hague tribual for former Yugoslavia,
changing his mind.
What is in the initial idictment?
As we already mentioned, it is about the indictment of February 22,
2001, which idicts also three other officers of the YPA – Pavle
Strugar, Vladimir Kovacevic and Milan Zec. Reading that indictment one
cannot just believe his eyes.
Namely, all four officers of the YPA are indicted for serious
violations of Geneva Conventions and violations of the laws and customs
of war!!
Because the prosecution was aware taht these criminal offences could be
committed only in an international armed conflict, it was a conditio
sine qua non to caracterize that armed conflict on the Dubrovnik area
between Yugoslav legal and legitimate authorities with the Croatian
secessionist ustasha paramilitaries as an armed conflict of
international character!! No problem for the prosecutor: she simply
characterze it as a conflict of international character. The
prosecution simply wrote in the initial indictment:
"All the acts and omissions specified in this indictment took place
between October 1 and December 31, 1991 on the territory of the
Republic of Croatia. In all relevant periods there existed the state of
international armed conflict and partial occupation". And even more
explicitly in the amanded indictment (paragraph 10): "10. At all times
relevant to this amended indictment, a state of armed conflict existed
in Croatia. On 25 June 1991, Croatia declared its independence from the
Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia ("SFRY") and became
independent on 8 October 1991. Up to and including 7 October 1991, this
armed conflict was internal in nature. >From 8 October 1991 an
international armed conflict and partial occupation existed in
Croatia."!!
No proofs for such categorical statement were offered. Naturally
enough, because they do not exist. Everybody who wishes to know knows
that in Croatia in the relevant period of time – that is between the
October 1st and December 31, 1991 – existed armed secessionist mutiny
in which all Army's barracks and institutions on the territory of
Croatia, including the Dubrovnik area, were attacked and that the YPA
had to defend itself . It was a typical internal armed conflict, and
such conflicts are regulated by the common Article 3 of the Geneva
Conventions 1949 and Additional Protocol II of 1977, and not by the
Geneva and Hague Conventions which regulate international armed
conflicts.
With regard to the above statement of the prosecutor Carla del Ponte
that Croatia seceded Yugoslavia on June 25, 1991, one must point to the
cynicism of such a statement. The act of Croatia, it is known, was
unconstitutional and legally of no validity whatsoever. She is not
stupid, and knows very well that if in her country, Switzerland, a
canton adopted such a decision that all normal Swiss would laugh and
that the authorities would act swiftly. She doubtlessly knows how
Lincoln reacted when Southern states used unconstitutional means to
secede. She surely knows how would every state react in the case of
unconstitutional armed secession and how in political realm they react.
What this immoral woman is telling us is: yes, every state and every
nation has right to use force against armed secession, EXCEPT those
damned Serbs! She knew all that and what such a behavior of the
pro-ustashas HDZ (Croatian Democratic Union) especially meant for the
Serbs in Croatia who were during the Second World War subject of a
genocide unknown in human history for its cruelty. She only pretends to
be stupid in order to satisfy her masters. Also, taking the October 8,
1991, as a date when Croatia became an independent state is utmost
cynicism. In all probability, it is reference to a so-called Brioni
declaration of July 7, 1991, when, under pressure, deceit and lies of
European Community it was agreed that Slovenia would not press for its
independence within 3 months in order to solve the problems peacefully.
But, it has nothing to do with Croatia's independence.
Therefore, there is no basis to consider the conflict between YPA and
ustashas paramilitaries between October 1 and December 31, 1991 as a
conflict of an international character, but consider it as a typical
internal, secessionist conflict. The first, naturally illegal,
recognition of a new "Independent State of Croatia" came from its
sponsors and masters from the West only on the January 15, 1992, and
cowardly General Assembly, under the command of the USA, which,
precisely at that time took it under its patronage, enrolled that
secessionist entity in the UN. If there is any reason to speak about
legality of diplomatic recognition of Yugoslav secessionist entities as
independent states (there are numerous resolutions of the General
Assembly of the UN about prohibition and non-recognition of the violent
dismemberment of states!!) it could be done only after the admission of
an entity into the UN. Therefore, in the case of Croatia – only after
May 22, 1992.
Therefore, Miodrag Jokic agreed to accept non-existent guilt. Let us
repeat: "war crimes" technically could be committed only in a conflict
of an international character. In civil, internal conflict the criteria
for judging whether actions of state organs which are constitutionally
in charge of protecting state and citizens from internal separatists,
secessionists and terrorists are different, less demanding than those
when there are conflicts among states. Those situations are, as we
said, covered with the common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and
Additional Protocol II, and not with the remaining provisions of the
Geneva and Hague Conventions of 1907. That should be known to every law
student. This is not the place to speak about those laws. Surely all
that is known to Carla del Ponte, but that woman takes care only how to
satisfy her masters who reward her generously for her undertakings.
What is astonishing is the behavior of Miodrag Jokic, behavior which is
unworthy of a high YPA officer, although former. In all probability the
answer to the question how it all happened lies in the pressure to
which he was subject by those political factors in the current power
holders whose main aim is to submit to demands which come from abroad,
whose aim is to fully submit the state and the nation to foreign
interests and discredit not only its military but also the nation as a
whole.
---
O POSTUPKU PROTIV ADMIRALA JNA MIODRADA JOKICA PRED TZV. HAŠKIM
TRIBUNALOM
http://www.artel.co.yu/sr/reakcije_citalaca/2003-08-30_1.html
Dr Milan Tepavac
miltep@...
Beograd, 30. avgust 2003. godine
Gotovo sva domaca – pa i strana – sredstva javnog inforrmisanja
objavila su informaciju da je bivši admiral JNA Miodrag Jokic priznao
krivicu po šest tacaka optužbe za kršenje zakona i obicaja rata na
dubrovackom ratištu u oktobru 1991. godine, i to za (1) ubistva, (2)
okrutno postupanje, (3) protivpravne napade na civile, (4) prekomerna
upotreba vojne sile, (5) razaranje civilnih objekata i (6) uništavanje
sakralnih objekata i kulturne baštine. Rec je o bombardovanju
Dubrovnika na dan 6. decembra 1991. godine, kojom prilikom su dva
civila poginula, a tri su ranjena. Kao rezultat nagodbe sa Tužilaštvom,
ono je odustalo od svih ostalih tacaka optužnice protiv Jokica koje
sadržava prvobitna optužnica protiv njega i još trojice oficira JNA –
Pavla Strugara, Vladimira Kovacevica i Milana Zeca – od 22. februara
2001 (br. IT-01-42). Sve optužbe po toj optužnici je Jokic na svom
prvom pojavljivanju pred tim "tribunalom" 14. novembra 2001. godine
odbacio, rekavši da se ne oseca krivim. Kao rezultat nagodbe sa
Jokicem, i odustanka od optužbe protiv Zeca, tužilaštvo je napravilo
novu, amandiranu optužnicu koja nosi datum 31. mart 2003.
Slucaj izaziva interes u domacoj i stranoj javnosti pre svega po tome
što je to prvi slucaj da pred tzv. Haškim tribunalom za prethodnu
Jugoslaviju jedan visoki oficir Jugoslovenske narodne armije priznaje
krivicu, tim pre što je ranije poricao krivicu.
Šta sadrži optužnice iz 2001. godine
Kao što rekosmo, rec je o optužnici od 22.2. 2001. kojom su ubuhvaceni
još trojica oficira JNA – Pavle Strugar, Vladimir Kovacevic i Milan
Zec. Kada covek cita tu optužnicu, koju je licno potpisala glavni
tužiulac toga nazovi suda Karla del Ponte, naprosto ne može da veruje
svojim ocima.
Naime, sva cetvorica oficira JNA optuženi su za teška kršenja Ženevskih
konvencija i kršenje zakona i obicaja rata!
Buduci da je tužilac svestan toga da se ta krivicna dela mogu pociniti
samo u oružanom sukobu medunarodnog karaktera bilo je nužno taj oružani
sukob na dubrovackom prostoru izmedu legalne i legitimne oružane sile
države koju su oružano napale secesionisticke paravojne formacije
okarakterisati kao "oružani sukob medunarodnog karaktera". Za tužioca
tog "tribunala" ništa lakše od toga: jednostavno je taj sukob
okarakterisala kao medunarodni! Tužilac jednostavno veli u tackama 12 i
13 optužnice:
"Sva cinjenja i necinjenja navedena u ovoj optužnici dogodila su se
izmedu 1. oktobra i 31. decembra 1991. na teritoriji Republike
Hrvatske. U svim periodima relevantnim za ovu optužnicu Hrvatskoj je
vladalo stanje medunarodnog oružanog sukoba i djelimicne okupacije"!! A
u amandiranoj optužnici od 31.marta 2003. još eksplicitnije stoji
(tacka 10): "10. Za sve vreme relevantno za ovu optužnicu postojalo je
u Hrvatskoj stanje oružanog sukoba. Na dan 25. juna 1991. Hrvatsaka je
proglasila svoju nezavisnost od Socijalisticke Federativne Jugoslavije
("SFRJ") i postala nezavisna na dan 8. oktobra 1991. Sve do 7. oktobra
1991. ovaj oružani sukob bio je po svojoj prirodi interni. Od 8.
oktobra 1991. postojao je medunarodni oružani sukob, kao i delimicna
okupacija Hrvatske"!!
Nikakvi se dokazi ne navode. Naravno, jer ih nema. Sakome ko to hoce da
zna dobro je poznato da je u Hrvatskoj u naznacenom periodu – dakle
izmedu 1. oktobra i 31. decembra 1991 – bila ustaška secesionisticka
oružana pobuna u kojoj su izmedu ostalog bile napadnute sve kasarne i
postaje JNA na teritoriji te jugoslovenske republike i da se JNA
branila od tih i takvih napada na celoj teritoriji Hrvatske, pa i na
dubrovackom podrucju. Radilo se o tipicnom oružanom sukobu
nemedunarodnog karaktera, a ti i takvi sukobu su regulisani zajednickim
clanom 3 Ženevskih konvencija iz 1949. godine i Dopunskim protokolam II
iz 1977. godine, a ne ženevskim i haškim konvencijama koje se odnose na
medunarodne oružane sukobe.
U vezi sa gornjim stavom tužiteljice Karla del Ponte da se Hrvatska
otcepila od SFRJ 25. juna 1991. mora se ukazati na cinizam takve
tvrdnje. Taj akt Hrvatske, kao što se zna, bio je protivustavan i
pravno nevažeci. Ona nije glupa, i vrlo dobro zna da ako bi neki kanton
u njenoj zemlju, Švajcarskoj, usvojio slicnu odluku da bi to izazvalo
smeh svih normalnih ljudi, ali bogami i akciju vlasti od koje bi se sve
dimilo. Ona nesumnjivo zna kako je Linkoln reagovao kada je došlo do
protivustavne oružane secesije južnih država SAD. Zna ona kako bi svaka
država reagovala, i kako reaguje. Ono što nama ova nemoralna žena
porucuje jeste: svaka država i svaki narod imaju pravo da na oružanu
secesiju reaguju silom, OSIM kada se radi o tim prokletim Srbima! Ona
sve to zna, i to kakva se oluja spremala takvim ponašanjem proustaškog
HDZ u Hrvatskoj, a posebno u odnosu na Srbe u Hrvatskoj koji su za
vreme Drugog svetskog rata tamo doživeli genocid kakvom nema ravna u
istoriji zlocina po svojoj okrutnosti. A pravi se blesava, samo da bi
udovoljila svojim nalogodnacima. Isto tako, uzimanje 8. oktobra 1991.
kao datuma kada je Hrvatska postala država je krajnji cinizam. Rec je
verovatno o stavu izrecenom u Brionskoj deklaraciji od 7. jula 1991. –
koju je Jugoslaviji nametnula EZ – kojom se pre svega Slovenija
obavezala na strpljivost i mirno raspetljavanje jugoslovenske krize u
naredna tri meseca. Ta deklaracija nema nikakve vezee sa datumom kada
su jugoslovenski secesionisticki entiteti postali države.
Dakle, nema nikakvog osnova smatrati da je sukob izmedu JNA i ustaških
paravojski izmedu 1. oktobra i 31. decembra 1991. bio sukob
medunarodnog karaktera, vec se radilo o tipicnom unutrašnjem
secesionistickom sukobu. Prvo, naravno nelegalno, diplomatsko priznanje
nove "Nezavisne Države Hrvatske" dolazi od njenih zapadnih pokrovitelja
i nalogodavaca tek 15. januara 1992, a kukavna Generalna skupština UN,
pod komandom SAD koje su upravo u to vreme potpuno preuzele UN pod
svoje, prima taj secesionisticki entitet u UN. Ako ima ikakvog smisla
govoriti o bilo kakvoj legalnosti diplomatskog priznavanja
jugoslovenskih secessionistickih entiteta za nezavisne države (postoji
nekoliko rezolucija Generalne skupštine UN kojima se osuduju i ne
priznaje protivustavna nasilna komadanja država!!) onda se o tome može
govoriti samo nakon prijema takvih entiteta u UN. Dakle, kada je rec o
Hrvatskoj – samo nakon 22. maja 1992.
Prema tome, Miodrag Jokic je pristao da na sebe primi nepostojecu
krivicu. Ponovimo: "ratni zlocini" tehnicki se mogu pociniti samo u
oružanom sukobu (ratu) medunarodnog karaktera. U gradanskom,
unutrašnjem sukobu kriteriji za prosudivanje postupaka državnih organa
cija je dužnost da zaštite državu i narod od unutašnjih separatista,
secesionista i terorista su drukciji, manje zahtevni, od onih koji se
moraju poštivati kada je rec o oružanom sukobu (ratu) izmedu država. Te
situacije su, kao što rekosmo, "pokrivene" zajednickim clanom 3 sve
cetiri Ženevske konvencije i Dopunskim protokolom II, a ne ostalim
odredbama ženevskih konvencija i haškim konvencijama iz 1907. To bi
trebalo da zna svaki student prve godine prava. Ovde nije mesto da se
detaljnije govori o tim pravnim propisima. Sigurno je to poznato i
Karli del Ponte, ali ta žena ne vodi racuna ni o cemu vec da se dodvori
svojim gazdama koji je izdašno nagraduju za njen "rad". Ono što
zaprepašcuje jeste ponašanje Miodrga Jokica, ponašanje koje je
nedostojno visokog oficira JNA, makar bivšeg. Verovatno odgovor na
pitanje kako je došlo do toga da se upusti u necasnu rabotu sa
tužiulaštvom "tribunala" leži u pritiscima na njega od strane onih
politickih faktora u aktuelnoj vlasti kojima je glavni cilj pokoravanje
svim zahtevima koja dolaze od mocnika izvana, onima kojima je cilj
potpuno podredivanje zemlje stranim interesima i kompromitacija ne samo
njene oružane sile nego i naroda kao takvog.
ON PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ADMIRAL MIODRAG JOKIC BEFORE SO-CALLED HAGUE
TRIBUNAL
O POSTUPKU PROTIV ADMIRALA JNA MIODRADA JOKICA PRED TZV. HAŠKIM
TRIBUNALOM
ARTEL GEOPOLITIKA by www.artel.co.yu
office@...
---
ON PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ADMIRAL MIODRAG JOKIC BEFORE SO-CALLED HAGUE
TRIBUNAL
http://www.artel.co.yu/en/reakcije_citalaca/2003-08-30.html
Dr Milan Tepavac
miltep@...
Belgrade, 30 August 2003
Almost all domestic – as well as foreign – media inform us these days
that former admiral of the Yugoslav People's Army (YPA) Miodrag Jokic
pleaded guilty to six accounts of the indictment of the prosecution of
the so-called Hague tribunal for "violation of the laws and custom of
war" on Dubrovnik area in Yugoslavia in October 1991 for (1) murder,
(2) cruel treatment, (3) attacs on civilians, (4) exessive use of force
and (5) destruction of historic buildings. It is about bombardement of
Dubrovnik on December 6, 1991, when 2 civilians were killed and 3
wounded. As a result of a deal with Jokic, the Prosecution abandonded
all other caunts contained in the initial idictment of Febrauary 22,
2001 against him and other three officers of the YPA – Pavle Strugar,
Vladimir Kovacevic and Milan Zec. On his first appearence before the
Tribunal on November 14, 2001, he pleaded not guilty to all 9 counts.
As a result of the deal the Prosecution wrote a new amanded indictment
bearing the date of March 31, 2003.
One of the reasons that the case provokes interst in domestic and
foreign media is that it is the first time that that a high officer of
the YPA pleads gulty before the Hague tribual for former Yugoslavia,
changing his mind.
What is in the initial idictment?
As we already mentioned, it is about the indictment of February 22,
2001, which idicts also three other officers of the YPA – Pavle
Strugar, Vladimir Kovacevic and Milan Zec. Reading that indictment one
cannot just believe his eyes.
Namely, all four officers of the YPA are indicted for serious
violations of Geneva Conventions and violations of the laws and customs
of war!!
Because the prosecution was aware taht these criminal offences could be
committed only in an international armed conflict, it was a conditio
sine qua non to caracterize that armed conflict on the Dubrovnik area
between Yugoslav legal and legitimate authorities with the Croatian
secessionist ustasha paramilitaries as an armed conflict of
international character!! No problem for the prosecutor: she simply
characterze it as a conflict of international character. The
prosecution simply wrote in the initial indictment:
"All the acts and omissions specified in this indictment took place
between October 1 and December 31, 1991 on the territory of the
Republic of Croatia. In all relevant periods there existed the state of
international armed conflict and partial occupation". And even more
explicitly in the amanded indictment (paragraph 10): "10. At all times
relevant to this amended indictment, a state of armed conflict existed
in Croatia. On 25 June 1991, Croatia declared its independence from the
Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia ("SFRY") and became
independent on 8 October 1991. Up to and including 7 October 1991, this
armed conflict was internal in nature. >From 8 October 1991 an
international armed conflict and partial occupation existed in
Croatia."!!
No proofs for such categorical statement were offered. Naturally
enough, because they do not exist. Everybody who wishes to know knows
that in Croatia in the relevant period of time – that is between the
October 1st and December 31, 1991 – existed armed secessionist mutiny
in which all Army's barracks and institutions on the territory of
Croatia, including the Dubrovnik area, were attacked and that the YPA
had to defend itself . It was a typical internal armed conflict, and
such conflicts are regulated by the common Article 3 of the Geneva
Conventions 1949 and Additional Protocol II of 1977, and not by the
Geneva and Hague Conventions which regulate international armed
conflicts.
With regard to the above statement of the prosecutor Carla del Ponte
that Croatia seceded Yugoslavia on June 25, 1991, one must point to the
cynicism of such a statement. The act of Croatia, it is known, was
unconstitutional and legally of no validity whatsoever. She is not
stupid, and knows very well that if in her country, Switzerland, a
canton adopted such a decision that all normal Swiss would laugh and
that the authorities would act swiftly. She doubtlessly knows how
Lincoln reacted when Southern states used unconstitutional means to
secede. She surely knows how would every state react in the case of
unconstitutional armed secession and how in political realm they react.
What this immoral woman is telling us is: yes, every state and every
nation has right to use force against armed secession, EXCEPT those
damned Serbs! She knew all that and what such a behavior of the
pro-ustashas HDZ (Croatian Democratic Union) especially meant for the
Serbs in Croatia who were during the Second World War subject of a
genocide unknown in human history for its cruelty. She only pretends to
be stupid in order to satisfy her masters. Also, taking the October 8,
1991, as a date when Croatia became an independent state is utmost
cynicism. In all probability, it is reference to a so-called Brioni
declaration of July 7, 1991, when, under pressure, deceit and lies of
European Community it was agreed that Slovenia would not press for its
independence within 3 months in order to solve the problems peacefully.
But, it has nothing to do with Croatia's independence.
Therefore, there is no basis to consider the conflict between YPA and
ustashas paramilitaries between October 1 and December 31, 1991 as a
conflict of an international character, but consider it as a typical
internal, secessionist conflict. The first, naturally illegal,
recognition of a new "Independent State of Croatia" came from its
sponsors and masters from the West only on the January 15, 1992, and
cowardly General Assembly, under the command of the USA, which,
precisely at that time took it under its patronage, enrolled that
secessionist entity in the UN. If there is any reason to speak about
legality of diplomatic recognition of Yugoslav secessionist entities as
independent states (there are numerous resolutions of the General
Assembly of the UN about prohibition and non-recognition of the violent
dismemberment of states!!) it could be done only after the admission of
an entity into the UN. Therefore, in the case of Croatia – only after
May 22, 1992.
Therefore, Miodrag Jokic agreed to accept non-existent guilt. Let us
repeat: "war crimes" technically could be committed only in a conflict
of an international character. In civil, internal conflict the criteria
for judging whether actions of state organs which are constitutionally
in charge of protecting state and citizens from internal separatists,
secessionists and terrorists are different, less demanding than those
when there are conflicts among states. Those situations are, as we
said, covered with the common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and
Additional Protocol II, and not with the remaining provisions of the
Geneva and Hague Conventions of 1907. That should be known to every law
student. This is not the place to speak about those laws. Surely all
that is known to Carla del Ponte, but that woman takes care only how to
satisfy her masters who reward her generously for her undertakings.
What is astonishing is the behavior of Miodrag Jokic, behavior which is
unworthy of a high YPA officer, although former. In all probability the
answer to the question how it all happened lies in the pressure to
which he was subject by those political factors in the current power
holders whose main aim is to submit to demands which come from abroad,
whose aim is to fully submit the state and the nation to foreign
interests and discredit not only its military but also the nation as a
whole.
---
O POSTUPKU PROTIV ADMIRALA JNA MIODRADA JOKICA PRED TZV. HAŠKIM
TRIBUNALOM
http://www.artel.co.yu/sr/reakcije_citalaca/2003-08-30_1.html
Dr Milan Tepavac
miltep@...
Beograd, 30. avgust 2003. godine
Gotovo sva domaca – pa i strana – sredstva javnog inforrmisanja
objavila su informaciju da je bivši admiral JNA Miodrag Jokic priznao
krivicu po šest tacaka optužbe za kršenje zakona i obicaja rata na
dubrovackom ratištu u oktobru 1991. godine, i to za (1) ubistva, (2)
okrutno postupanje, (3) protivpravne napade na civile, (4) prekomerna
upotreba vojne sile, (5) razaranje civilnih objekata i (6) uništavanje
sakralnih objekata i kulturne baštine. Rec je o bombardovanju
Dubrovnika na dan 6. decembra 1991. godine, kojom prilikom su dva
civila poginula, a tri su ranjena. Kao rezultat nagodbe sa Tužilaštvom,
ono je odustalo od svih ostalih tacaka optužnice protiv Jokica koje
sadržava prvobitna optužnica protiv njega i još trojice oficira JNA –
Pavla Strugara, Vladimira Kovacevica i Milana Zeca – od 22. februara
2001 (br. IT-01-42). Sve optužbe po toj optužnici je Jokic na svom
prvom pojavljivanju pred tim "tribunalom" 14. novembra 2001. godine
odbacio, rekavši da se ne oseca krivim. Kao rezultat nagodbe sa
Jokicem, i odustanka od optužbe protiv Zeca, tužilaštvo je napravilo
novu, amandiranu optužnicu koja nosi datum 31. mart 2003.
Slucaj izaziva interes u domacoj i stranoj javnosti pre svega po tome
što je to prvi slucaj da pred tzv. Haškim tribunalom za prethodnu
Jugoslaviju jedan visoki oficir Jugoslovenske narodne armije priznaje
krivicu, tim pre što je ranije poricao krivicu.
Šta sadrži optužnice iz 2001. godine
Kao što rekosmo, rec je o optužnici od 22.2. 2001. kojom su ubuhvaceni
još trojica oficira JNA – Pavle Strugar, Vladimir Kovacevic i Milan
Zec. Kada covek cita tu optužnicu, koju je licno potpisala glavni
tužiulac toga nazovi suda Karla del Ponte, naprosto ne može da veruje
svojim ocima.
Naime, sva cetvorica oficira JNA optuženi su za teška kršenja Ženevskih
konvencija i kršenje zakona i obicaja rata!
Buduci da je tužilac svestan toga da se ta krivicna dela mogu pociniti
samo u oružanom sukobu medunarodnog karaktera bilo je nužno taj oružani
sukob na dubrovackom prostoru izmedu legalne i legitimne oružane sile
države koju su oružano napale secesionisticke paravojne formacije
okarakterisati kao "oružani sukob medunarodnog karaktera". Za tužioca
tog "tribunala" ništa lakše od toga: jednostavno je taj sukob
okarakterisala kao medunarodni! Tužilac jednostavno veli u tackama 12 i
13 optužnice:
"Sva cinjenja i necinjenja navedena u ovoj optužnici dogodila su se
izmedu 1. oktobra i 31. decembra 1991. na teritoriji Republike
Hrvatske. U svim periodima relevantnim za ovu optužnicu Hrvatskoj je
vladalo stanje medunarodnog oružanog sukoba i djelimicne okupacije"!! A
u amandiranoj optužnici od 31.marta 2003. još eksplicitnije stoji
(tacka 10): "10. Za sve vreme relevantno za ovu optužnicu postojalo je
u Hrvatskoj stanje oružanog sukoba. Na dan 25. juna 1991. Hrvatsaka je
proglasila svoju nezavisnost od Socijalisticke Federativne Jugoslavije
("SFRJ") i postala nezavisna na dan 8. oktobra 1991. Sve do 7. oktobra
1991. ovaj oružani sukob bio je po svojoj prirodi interni. Od 8.
oktobra 1991. postojao je medunarodni oružani sukob, kao i delimicna
okupacija Hrvatske"!!
Nikakvi se dokazi ne navode. Naravno, jer ih nema. Sakome ko to hoce da
zna dobro je poznato da je u Hrvatskoj u naznacenom periodu – dakle
izmedu 1. oktobra i 31. decembra 1991 – bila ustaška secesionisticka
oružana pobuna u kojoj su izmedu ostalog bile napadnute sve kasarne i
postaje JNA na teritoriji te jugoslovenske republike i da se JNA
branila od tih i takvih napada na celoj teritoriji Hrvatske, pa i na
dubrovackom podrucju. Radilo se o tipicnom oružanom sukobu
nemedunarodnog karaktera, a ti i takvi sukobu su regulisani zajednickim
clanom 3 Ženevskih konvencija iz 1949. godine i Dopunskim protokolam II
iz 1977. godine, a ne ženevskim i haškim konvencijama koje se odnose na
medunarodne oružane sukobe.
U vezi sa gornjim stavom tužiteljice Karla del Ponte da se Hrvatska
otcepila od SFRJ 25. juna 1991. mora se ukazati na cinizam takve
tvrdnje. Taj akt Hrvatske, kao što se zna, bio je protivustavan i
pravno nevažeci. Ona nije glupa, i vrlo dobro zna da ako bi neki kanton
u njenoj zemlju, Švajcarskoj, usvojio slicnu odluku da bi to izazvalo
smeh svih normalnih ljudi, ali bogami i akciju vlasti od koje bi se sve
dimilo. Ona nesumnjivo zna kako je Linkoln reagovao kada je došlo do
protivustavne oružane secesije južnih država SAD. Zna ona kako bi svaka
država reagovala, i kako reaguje. Ono što nama ova nemoralna žena
porucuje jeste: svaka država i svaki narod imaju pravo da na oružanu
secesiju reaguju silom, OSIM kada se radi o tim prokletim Srbima! Ona
sve to zna, i to kakva se oluja spremala takvim ponašanjem proustaškog
HDZ u Hrvatskoj, a posebno u odnosu na Srbe u Hrvatskoj koji su za
vreme Drugog svetskog rata tamo doživeli genocid kakvom nema ravna u
istoriji zlocina po svojoj okrutnosti. A pravi se blesava, samo da bi
udovoljila svojim nalogodnacima. Isto tako, uzimanje 8. oktobra 1991.
kao datuma kada je Hrvatska postala država je krajnji cinizam. Rec je
verovatno o stavu izrecenom u Brionskoj deklaraciji od 7. jula 1991. –
koju je Jugoslaviji nametnula EZ – kojom se pre svega Slovenija
obavezala na strpljivost i mirno raspetljavanje jugoslovenske krize u
naredna tri meseca. Ta deklaracija nema nikakve vezee sa datumom kada
su jugoslovenski secesionisticki entiteti postali države.
Dakle, nema nikakvog osnova smatrati da je sukob izmedu JNA i ustaških
paravojski izmedu 1. oktobra i 31. decembra 1991. bio sukob
medunarodnog karaktera, vec se radilo o tipicnom unutrašnjem
secesionistickom sukobu. Prvo, naravno nelegalno, diplomatsko priznanje
nove "Nezavisne Države Hrvatske" dolazi od njenih zapadnih pokrovitelja
i nalogodavaca tek 15. januara 1992, a kukavna Generalna skupština UN,
pod komandom SAD koje su upravo u to vreme potpuno preuzele UN pod
svoje, prima taj secesionisticki entitet u UN. Ako ima ikakvog smisla
govoriti o bilo kakvoj legalnosti diplomatskog priznavanja
jugoslovenskih secessionistickih entiteta za nezavisne države (postoji
nekoliko rezolucija Generalne skupštine UN kojima se osuduju i ne
priznaje protivustavna nasilna komadanja država!!) onda se o tome može
govoriti samo nakon prijema takvih entiteta u UN. Dakle, kada je rec o
Hrvatskoj – samo nakon 22. maja 1992.
Prema tome, Miodrag Jokic je pristao da na sebe primi nepostojecu
krivicu. Ponovimo: "ratni zlocini" tehnicki se mogu pociniti samo u
oružanom sukobu (ratu) medunarodnog karaktera. U gradanskom,
unutrašnjem sukobu kriteriji za prosudivanje postupaka državnih organa
cija je dužnost da zaštite državu i narod od unutašnjih separatista,
secesionista i terorista su drukciji, manje zahtevni, od onih koji se
moraju poštivati kada je rec o oružanom sukobu (ratu) izmedu država. Te
situacije su, kao što rekosmo, "pokrivene" zajednickim clanom 3 sve
cetiri Ženevske konvencije i Dopunskim protokolom II, a ne ostalim
odredbama ženevskih konvencija i haškim konvencijama iz 1907. To bi
trebalo da zna svaki student prve godine prava. Ovde nije mesto da se
detaljnije govori o tim pravnim propisima. Sigurno je to poznato i
Karli del Ponte, ali ta žena ne vodi racuna ni o cemu vec da se dodvori
svojim gazdama koji je izdašno nagraduju za njen "rad". Ono što
zaprepašcuje jeste ponašanje Miodrga Jokica, ponašanje koje je
nedostojno visokog oficira JNA, makar bivšeg. Verovatno odgovor na
pitanje kako je došlo do toga da se upusti u necasnu rabotu sa
tužiulaštvom "tribunala" leži u pritiscima na njega od strane onih
politickih faktora u aktuelnoj vlasti kojima je glavni cilj pokoravanje
svim zahtevima koja dolaze od mocnika izvana, onima kojima je cilj
potpuno podredivanje zemlje stranim interesima i kompromitacija ne samo
njene oružane sile nego i naroda kao takvog.