 MILOSEVIC TRIAL DISCUSSION ARCHIVE |
| JURIST >> LEGAL NEWS - WORLD LAW >> Discussion >> Milosevic Trial Discussion Archive |
—————————————————————————————
Former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic is on trial for war crimes in the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia at The Hague. This marks the first time a head of state has been personally prosecuted before an international criminal court.
Is Slobodan Milosevic getting a fair trial?
————————————————————————————
NOTICE: Comments posted to this discussion board are solely the responsibility of individual posters, and not of JURIST, its owner, operators, host or staff. JURIST reserves the right to block or remove posts that are in violation of law or that advocate illegal acts, that are obscene, disruptive, defamatory, threatening, harassing or abusive, that are in breach of intellectual property rights, rights of publicity or rights of privacy, that are advertisements or solicitations, or that are not related to the topic being discussed.
————————————————————————————
- discussion archive
- Tuesday February 10, 2004 at 2:17 am
Jim - excellent points, thanks, will do some reading. Regarding science: Einstein's general relativity theory does deny Newton's; likewise, quantum mechanics denies not only mechanics, but all of physics, including Einstein's, who vehemently protested against it and died in denial of it. In short, Einstein and then the Copenhagen's quantists were not mere 'revisionists', but 'deniers' - the way Newton denied, not merely revised Aristotle's Physics.
You said: "Einstein’s physics was never described to me [...] as “denying” Newtonian physics. Rather Newtonian physics was said to account very neatly for a certain range of physical phenomena, but not all, and Einstein’s work to account for a different range of phenomena."
That is an old problem with the schools - lying for comfort, a condition of teaching. In fact, however, genuine science learned to live with many theories about the same fact. Following the example of mathematics in the late 1800s, modern science admitted that (a) it cannot provide any real knowledge and (b) that it cannot even be the path to real knowledge. For just that which is essential in knowing - namely, truth, lies outside science.
Unlike 'natural sciences', history deals with 'things lived'. It is not a science - cannot verify its theories via controlled experimentation - but the employment of sciences in recording and studying practical human experience - the exercise of our free-will. It's about what "We the People" did, in fact and in deed, for better or for worse.
The schools = the first media, often confuse science and technology. Technology was always ahead of science - it has a science of its own, now a serious problem as technology advances way faster than science. People are still being fooled into believing that science drives technology, when it is just the opposite.
The problem with science is that it advances in 'quantum leaps', through devastating revolutions, much as human history goes. The Church knew her kid very well, reason why it fought hard against the use of science in politics - it still does. The Church argued that scientists must be isolated in monastic Ivory Towers until their 'knowledge' matures politically - science has no need of a moral compass because it does not deal with that we ought to know.
The reassuring things you here about science - integrity, consistency, steady evolution, seamlessly integrating the past, proceeding without any appeal to authority, precise and accurate, speaking the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, underlying everything we do and think... All these belong not to science, but to mathematics - the mother of all religion, the lingua franca of humanity.
Wondering why there is no Popular Prize for mathematics? Look around and you'll see math, not science, behind everything that matters in life - always there, never changing, getting better and better. Ultimately, history is about recording how humanity evolves by adapting to its mathematical spirit.
John North
Canada - Tuesday February 10, 2004 at 3:37 am
So much for academic freedom in America. University of Pennsylvania or this so called university, is about to fire Professor Gill-White for defending Slobodan Milosevic. Professor Gill-WhiteDr.Helen Caldicott’s new book “The New Nuclear Danger: George W. Bush's Military-Industrial Complex” banned in America as foreign propaganda.
Gill-White on Yugoslavia The US involvement in Yugoslavia (my research shows that the US and the mainstream media lied about practically everything, here).
Gill White concludes that the supposed oppression of the Kosovo Albanians at the hands of the Serbs had been entirely fabricated. For more details go to U of Penn
Walter Trkla
Kamloops
Canada - Tuesday February 10, 2004 at 5:29 am
Would it not be a good move for President Milosevic, Mr Seselj, Fikret Abdic, Mr Krajisnik, and Mr Martic to insist that the Tribunal refer to them as “Yugoslavs?”All were born “Yugoslavs” and all fought spiritually, politically, and in some cases militarily, to protect Yugoslav unity.
Their defence would be that they (a multi-ethnic/religious alliance) were defending Yugoslavia against dangerous nationalist secessionists backed by foreign powers.
In Britain it is up to the person completing a census form to describe their national origin. I believe the same was also true of the former Yugoslavia; people could declare themselves to be Serbs, Croats, Yugoslavs etc. And this was accepted by the authorities.
By reviving the “Yugoslav” nation, the defence would succeed in exposing the Tribunal for what it is: a continuation of US/German aggression against Yugoslavia and Yugoslavs.
For the past 13 years the Americans have been busy cleansing the world of the word Yugoslav, so that today it no longer exist in Atlases, Encyclopaedias, websites, trade directories etc.
The Prosecution is also afraid of “Yugoslavia,” which is why they refer to it as “Greater Serbia.”
President Milosevic, and his companions, should declare themselves “Yugoslavs” and tell world that they are proud of their actions in defence of their multi-ethnic/religious nation.
Michael Thomas
London
UK - Tuesday February 10, 2004 at 7:34 am
With reference to the issue under scrutiny by this JURIST Forum -whether or not mr. Milosevic is "getting a fair trial at The Hague" - I hereby relay the following message datedBelgrade, 09 February 2004
TO THE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS - TO ALL ITS ORGANS, AGENCIES AND BODIES;
TO THE GOVERNMENTS AND PARLIAMENTS OF ALL UN MEMBER STATES;
TO ORGANIZATIONS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, LAW AND PEACE;
TO POLITICAL PARTIES, MEDIA AND GENERAL PUBLIC
Freedom Association from Belgrade, acting as National Committee for the Liberation of President Slobodan Milosevic has honour to submit to your attention the document entitled “MEASURES TAKEN ONLY AGAINST SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC IN THE SCHEVENINGEN PRISON AND AT THE HAGUE TRIBUNAL, IN CONTRAVENTION OF THEIR OWN RULES, GUARANTEES AND RIGHTS” written by our organization and by the family of President Milosevic.
For the sake of peace, human rights, legality and justice, in the name of the International Law and democracy in the international relations, respecting the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international instruments protecting human rights and principles of judiciary and for the pure humanitarian reasons, we expect your immediate reaction to the facts described in the document.
We call upon the UN Security Council to act now against the severe violations of human rights performed by its subsidiary organ, ICTY. We will welcome all reactions aiming to accelerate such a move of the Security Council.
Please inform us about your reactions.
Our contacts:
phone: +381 63 88 62 301;
fax: +381 11 630 549
and e-mail: slobodavk@yubc.net
are 24 hours available also for obtaining additional information.
With due respect, on behalf of the Freedom Association Managing Board
www.wpc-in.org / www.sloboda.org.yu / www.icdsm.org
----------------------------------------
MEASURES TAKEN ONLY AGAINST SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC IN THE SCHEVENINGEN PRISON AND AT THE HAGUE TRIBUNAL, IN CONTRAVENTION OF THEIR OWN RULES, GUARANTEES AND RIGHTS
Obstructing and avoiding visits of physicians.
Banning the physicians from publishing their findings on his health condition and on the causes of its deterioration.
Preventing the family from visiting in the duration allowed to all other detainees (between 7 and 15 days a month) and reducing it to 3 days a month.
Refusing almost all visits of the world public figures, acquaintances, friends, politicians etc.
Censoring and restricting visits from Yugoslavia - of friends, Party colleagues, SLOBODA National Committee members engaged in defending Slobodan Milosevic in Yugoslavia.
Preventing the members of ten different national committees for the defence of Slobodan Milosevic that have been established in the world, as well as the members and the leadership of the International Committee for his defence from contacting and visiting
Preventing the family from being alone with him, which is not otherwise a practice when other detainees are concerned.
Banning the family from visiting at the time of the Serbian elections.
Banning all telephone communications before, during and after the Serbian elections, except with the family.
Obstructing contacts and the work with lawyers.
Listening in to conversations with the lawyer.
Deliberately keeping him for many hours within the court building with the explanation that “the transportation was being late”.
Unannounced alterations in the sequence of witnesses.
Closing the proceedings for the public during the examination of witnesses who might compromise NATO and the Tribunal.
For nearly two years the trial is being held day in and day out. Such a practice has never been recorded in the history of the judiciary since it came into existence. Only as of a month ago the trial was being held for three days a week, after the physicians had emphasized that he cannot withstand it, but he is hardly withstanding even that effort, because his health has been severely damaged in prison.
On account of the whole-day sojourn at the court, he has no time at all to rest during the trial days, nor to go out and have some fresh air and walk (exercise), nor to have regular meals.
He has no conditions for work and trial preparations either. His cell has been swamped with trial materials, often received in the evening, on the eve of a trial day. This excludes the possibility of a timely and proper preparation for the trial. At the same time, such practice is in contravention of the Tribunal’s rules.
He has been often given materials in English, although according to their own rules each detainee has to be given materials required for his defence in his mother tongue.
The trial materials are of such volume that he would need another 50 years to make a full use of it.
Preventing the Defence from preparing, as compared to the preparation of the Prosecution. The preparation of the Prosecution lasted at least 4 years, he was allotted 3 months to prepare! In addition to this, the Prosecution was being prepared by several hundreds of people, and him alone is to prepare the Defence.
Moreover, he has been brought to The Hague by force, illegally and in contravention of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The materials had been handed over to him, requiring by its volume a multi-year labour of a large expert team, as was the case with the Prosecution, prepared for at least 4 years with the logistic, financial, organizational and personnel support of the governments of NATO member states. The Prosecution’s case has been prolonged several times, and he was allotted three months to prepare his defence alone, in prison, without personal and telephone contacts and with no time nor conditions for medical treatment. A large number of witnesses were employees of the Prosecution, which is in contravention of their own rules. Even larger number of witnesses was bribed or blackmailed people. Without adjudication, the Tribunal reached a decision to prevent his Party from contacting him at the time of the elections, which is a direct interference of an institution otherwise illegitimate with the politics and the internal affairs of a sovereign state and in this case with its citizens’ will. Visits and contacts assessed as unsuitable by the Tribunal are banned with no explanation, again in contravention of their own rules. Slobodan Milosevic has been brought to The Hague with poor health condition, and in the Scheveningen prison it has been ignored, inadequately treated and drastically deteriorated under the inhuman treatment (for several months, cameras and spotlights had been constantly on in his cell) and by the lack of medical treatment during his stay there. Nothing has been done to improve his health condition, quite the contrary. The Tribunal banned all the physicians, the Yugoslav as well as the Dutch ones, from publishing their reports on his condition. Only after the physicians’ warning that his life has been directly threatened the workload at the Tribunal itself was reduced. For what reason such savage and inhuman measures were taken consciously and deliberately under the auspices and in the name of the United Nations?
For what reason his defence has been prevented so obviously and brutally? Why ONLY he has the right to visits for just three days a month when all other detainees at The Hague have 15 days each month? Why the Tribunal officials have to be present ONLY at his visits? Has the United Nations given the mandate to the Tribunal and entitled it to interfere also with the internal Yugoslav politics and even with the election? If The Hague Tribunal is a UN institution, is this organization aware of the treatment given in its name to a human being, a sick man, a former head of state? As a founder of The Hague Tribunal, the Organization of the United Nations is directly responsible for the operations, operating procedures and methods applied by its institution. Therefore, it bears responsibility also for any wrong done and harm caused by its institution to any one man and people in general. The Organization of the United Nation is obliged to provide public answers to these questions.
The UN Commission for Human Rights in Geneva has not done much for the protection of human rights over the past years, but while “protecting” this heritage it has caused a lot of misfortune throughout the world. We demand for this institution to speak out now in relation to the illegal, inhuman treatment of Slobodan Milosevic in their own institution. How is justice being defended by the United Nations with publishing every word presented by the Prosecution and its collaborators and at the same time hiding and censoring everything coming from the Defence? Complete testimonies of the witnesses for the Prosecution have been published, blackmailed and corrupt as a rule and mainly untruthful individuals, and the public has been denied the expounding of Slobodan Milosevic, a brilliant defence admired by anyone who heard it. On this occasion we are not raising a question of the rationale and legitimacy of The Hague Tribunal, because it has no legitimacy, its rationale is nowadays already clear to everybody and it will go into history as black as it is, together with all its protagonists. We demand for the UN and the UN Commission for Human Rights, as well as all international organizations for the protection of human rights to react to a crime that was being perpetrated against Slobodan Milosevic in its most brutal form, unknown to modern civilization.
In Belgrade, 09 February 2004
SLOBODA/Freedom Association - National Committee for the Liberation of President Slobodan Milosevic
and the family of President Milosevic.
(relayed as received by)
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K - Tuesday February 10, 2004 at 8:06 am
Michael Thomas Seselj never called himself a Jugoslav and he never fought for Jugoslavia. That you have wrong.In 1991 about 4 percent of people called themselves Jugoslav (you can see this on the page). Do you really think that those people you write about put Jugoslav on census form? But I have to say it is good idea anyway.
Ivko Rig 'Milosevic is responsible for the damage done to Serbian people during his rule' - Yes certainly. Like Mr Bush is responsible for United States today, Blair for England and Sroder for Germany. Buck stops there!
'you do not care for reasons of this damage' Not correct I do care. The reasons are that Milosevic could not be elected in peacetime. I dont blame him. It is something that leaders from United States and England did to get election win before. I do not say that he started war and I do not say that he is guilty of genocide. This is important when he saw what was going to happen he used situation to his advantage. Milosevic was helped to be re-elected by policies of West including early recognition of Croatia and Bosnia. Dont forget Jugoslavia had about 2 years to solve its problem before West became really involved. Her leaders including Milosevic did nothing. After this through mistake and bad intentions Western states like Germany and US supported Croatia and Bosnia.
You talk about elections. They were not fair elections. Elections where state media and all television were telling Serbs lies. Every day propoganda on television. One day Bosnian Serbs our brothers next day they are typcial dumb Bosnians. (That was time Milosevic and Karadzic disagreed).
Fair elections where thousands of votes came from Kosovo to vote for SPS when Albanians were boycotting elections? You are also forgetting when Milosevic tried to steal 1996 elections and then gave up. He also tried to steal 2000 elections except we decided that it was enough. Not good record really is it? Be honest.
The last election was fairest ever in Serbia. Even SPS official said this few days ago. You see I dont feel need to repeat what most of you here are saying every day. That does not mean I do not understand international involvement in fall of Ju. It means I dont think you at Jurist understand responsibility of Milosevic or more precisely how much responsible Milosevic, Tudjman is. In the end this was our crisis and when we start killing each other are we surprised when birds fly from outside to take nice bits of flesh from us?
Joel Askamit we must agree to disagree. You are a religious nut and Im a rational human being maybe we can agree on that at least. You really are creepy.
Mr Peric so I am not consistent. I am not a politician and I dont have problem backing down. So yes I supported protests against wars in Croatia, Bosnia, and protests in 96,97. And yes at same time I believe that hard but fair action against Slovenia could have made solution without blood of Bosnia, Croatia - including Krajina, Kosovo and so on. I love Jugoslavia and would do anything to save people from suffering. After Slovenia it was too late.
"Serbs have never been in bigger danger to disappear" - You are against nationalism but yet you care that Serbs might disappear. Yes dont tell me Mr Peric that only nationalists care about their country! What kind of rubbish is that? In fact opposite was true in 90's in Jugoslavia. Nationalists wanted to destroy Jugoslavia.
A confederation each republic with its parliament to make smaller laws. JNA would stay together. Very small local defence borders allowed. Economy decided on national level. Foreign relations on national level. In fact inside usual definition of confederation. No borders should not be changed. I dont see what big deal is. If grown men cannot deal with this in grown up way they should not be involved in politics.
Unless what you are using reference is Slovenian offer for Confederation I am not sure how your history lesson is relevant to Slovenes offer. Everything can be negotiate.
A nation, which does not have history... anachronism? How can nation have no history? Or do you have measurement of what time considered history. Would United States be considred example for having no future? Not good sentence.
Mr Peric I do not find your argument convinces but really. If you know there is a danger of war man has responsibility to do everything to stop it. Confederation, eat pig shit, suicide, anything. That is honorable. What is cowardly is to blame history, laws, the West or anything to escape responsibility of our leaders who let this terrible thing happen to our people.
I say if people want to support Milosevic at trial its fair but please let us be realistic about his responsiblity as well.
Arandjel Pasic
Jug - Tuesday February 10, 2004 at 9:05 am
Wonderful weed indeed...phuff..pfah..Soros provied me..ahhh!
Arandjel Pasic
Jug - Tuesday February 10, 2004 at 9:43 am
Mr. Arandjel Pasic,Would you kindly inform me about your view on the allegations raised against the ICTY for severe violations of human rights, as set out above (February 10, 2004 at 7:34 am)?
If you believe that measures taken against mr. Milosevic in the Scheveningen Prison and at The Hague Tribunal may jeopardize the fairness of his "trial", then what should we - the public - do about it?
Thank you,
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K - Tuesday February 10, 2004 at 12:09 pm
Following Godfred Louis-Jensen's post to illustrate the quality of medical care provided to Serbs at The Hague.Citizens' Association "The Committee for National Solidarity", Tolstojeva 34, YU-11000 Belgrade, Yugoslavia (1-23-2001)
Distinguished Sir/Madam
The citizens' association, The Committee for National Solidarity, addresses to you with an appeal that you urge your Government, the Parliament, the relevant institutions, organizations and media, for the permission that Mr. Radislav Krstic, the General of the Army of the Republic Srpska (Bosnian Serb Republic), be transferred to the Military-Medical Academy in Belgrade. An urgent re-amputation of his right leg, above the knee, is demanded, that is expected to be followed by a precarious post-operative recuperation. Regarding the previous experiences with the medical services provided by the Hague Tribunal, and in particular the death of General Djukic immediately after his release from the imprisonment in Hague, the sudden death of Dr. Kovacevic (later investigations revealed that he was not given the necessary emergency medical aid), the alleged suicide of Mr. Slavko Dokmanovic in his cell and Gen. Krstic's personal experience (from the beginning of his stay in the Hague prison he was deprived of the proper medical treatment), General Krstic refuses to be subjected to the necessary operation if it is performed by the medical services of the Hague Tribunal. This may lead to a tragic outcome. Last month, a member of our Committee visited General Krstic in the prison, and was shocked by his overall physical condition, as well as with the conduct of the prison's medical department. We fear that, if an immediate action is not undertaken, the consequences for the health and life of Mr. Krstic may be tragic. Today, we have received a stirring plea from his only daughter, Tamara Krstic, and decided to turn to you for help.
Jela Jovanovic
Secretary general of the Committee for National Solidarity
M Donne
Canada - Tuesday February 10, 2004 at 12:26 pm
Statement of the Daughter of General KrsticPlease, help my daddy. My daddy, Radislav Krstic, the general of the Army of the Republic Srpska, has been in the United Nation's confinement in Sheweningen for the past twenty six months. Right now, his health is in a very bad condition. He is an invalid, since his lower leg has been amputated, and the stump was additionally wounded in the course of his arrest. Due to the inadequate and inefficient medical treatment in the prison, the infection of the bone has developed, with the high risk of gangrene, and the above-the-knee operation, as well as the post-operative treatment, that would take place in the environment that he is at now. A plead to all the good people, throughout the globe, to help my daddy by raising their voice. I plead to the United Nations, to the International Red Cross, to the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights.... Please, help that my daddy does not die in Sheweningen. I address the Board of Judges of the Hague Tribunal, and to the prosecutors in my daddy's process - do not say that he 'refuses to use the prothesis' - no, he can not wear it, it hurts, - do not say that he 'does not want to drink your medicines' - no, you have overdosed him so that he fainted, - do not tell him to flush his wounds by water - no, there is no such thing in the world. And so much more. That is why I appeal to you to let my daddy to try to get his cure in his country. As a guarantee, I offer to stay in his cell until he returns to Sheweningen to prove his innocence.
His only daughter,
Tamara Krstic
Belgrade, 22.01.2001
M Donne
Canada - Tuesday February 10, 2004 at 2:16 pm
I ask once more, where are the high priests, the moral priests of INTERNATIONAL LAW, have they not seem the UGLY TRUTH?
COWARDS!
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La - Tuesday February 10, 2004 at 2:26 pm
Gogol they do nor care!
Dakic Ana
Serbia - Tuesday February 10, 2004 at 2:57 pm
Pasic.Could you refer me kindly please to the official offer from Slovenia or Croatia for confederation?
As far as I know - and please correct me if I am wrong - the confederation offer was only used during elections - They needed to sway their public too for their goals; independent state for which support was already promised in Baden (Germany) in 1989 to Croat delegation - and weapons for a war preparation where already on their way 1989.
As soon as Slovenia and Croatia formed parliament (Same goes to Bosnia) - they proclaimed independence - they put nothing at the negotiating table, not even independent state as a state of its citizens, not even any sort of Serbian autonomy. They offered at the negotiating table in June in 1995 (5 years later -and a month before they ethnically cleansed Krajina) local administration to two municipalities Glina and Knin. Do you understand what it was? - It was the same thing as Kosovo would proclaim independence and took the whole Serbia under its jurisdiction and throwing Serbs out of constitution (This was in fact very similar to offer in Rambue - but instead of Kosovo parliament NATO would rule) -Was it coincidence or they were used to such a type of negotiations with Serbs.Then again if you have confederation - you have borders inside state - which borders should not be changed? Borders, which confine national sovereignty or something else?
In Yugoslavia we already had JNA together and republics' parliaments alone (except in Serbia) made constitutional and all other laws.
You are saying that International affairs would be on national level. All economy, international affairs, was already in the hands of Croats and Slovenes - for the record one can refer to Walter Trkla post above (Friday February 06, 2004 at 9:47 am) - What makes you think that they would negotiate that.
I am convinced that even if all Serbs and Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Macedonia had accepted Tudjman as president (like we choose to abandon Serbian king in 1945 and elect between two Croats; Subasic and Tito) and we had accepted all these Croats and Slovenes from Tito's, and after Tito’s time that we would have had a very small chance to preserve Yugoslavia.
Pasic, when I referred to you, as a nationalist I meant any person who support a national state, as oppose to NOW which goal is to destroy a national state.
Any state in Europe was formed as a national state. It comes from sovereign rights of a nation. Yugoslavia as a nation conglomerate was able only to remain as a state if warranted equal sovereign rights to each nation. Slovenes and Croats did not feel in Yugoslavia that they could express their national rights equally. They felt that they were forced in Yugoslavia in 1918 and in 1945. As defeated nations in order to avoid reparations and preserve national recognition they accepted Yugoslavia as a needful evil, and only as a step towards full independence.
When German rose back from the ash as Fenix (As Croats saw it) they mutually grabbed the chance; Germans to expand their influence and come back on a military and political world scene, and Slovenes and Croats to gain their full independence. Fulfillment of their goals was over destroyed Yugoslavia and both Slovenes and Croats were granted support (All of that what I wrote was said by Croatian politicians with exception of Rambue).
Could you imagine today that Rugova comes to the parliament of Serbia as President of Serbia saying that he would hopefully destroy Serbia - not even willing to take the oath and you are still forced to accept him as a president?
What Milosevic should’ve done, if he wanted to preserve Yugoslav laws, Yugoslav people, Serbian people, Croatian land, Serbian land, Albanian rights?
Pasic who cares what he wanted? - Did he do what was in duty bound?
Pero Peric
Canada - Tuesday February 10, 2004 at 3:13 pm
Gogol Charlemagne: Are you, perchance, the person who used to post on the NY Times Balkan forum as "nopasaran"? I recall that he was also a resident of Shangri-La.
Adrian Justinson
Seattle - Tuesday February 10, 2004 at 4:56 pm
Adrian
That is correct. Are you still posting there?
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La - Tuesday February 10, 2004 at 6:36 pm
BBC WORLD Tv had a clip on Serbian natioanalism and closed it with a warning about future violence. One more sign another war is being considered.
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La - Tuesday February 10, 2004 at 9:10 pm
Gogol: I still am posting on the NY Times, under my old "unter" moniker, which has survived countless purges. Unfortunately, we have lost many good commentators over the years. You should pay us a visit sometime, your comments are valued.
Adrian Justinson
Seattle - Wednesday February 11, 2004 at 1:07 am
Today's session was simply unbelievable. During the cross-examination the witness Diego Enrique Arlie admitted that the Peter Hoenfelner, the then presiding ambassador at the UN hid a document by Butros Butros Gali. I would urge you to watch the session from this Tuesday. It was a clear victory for Milosevic. The witness accused Mr. Vance and Mr. Owen and even Butros G. of wanting a greater Serbia..... .
Dan B
Canada - Wednesday February 11, 2004 at 2:18 am
Godfred - thanks for relying the message in your Tuesday February 10, 2004 at 7:34 am
My humble answer to the two impassionate questions:
1) "For what reason his defence has been prevented so obviously and brutally?"
The US has only one aim at the Hague: bringing the ICC into total disrepute. Since ICTY is the foundation of ICC, the worse is Milosevic treated as the Hague, the better. The US worked very hard to be in a win-win situation at the Hague. Until recently, it seemed they achieved just that. Milosevic guilty - yes, but the trial was obviously unfair; if acquitted - yes, such courts are no good, you see; Milosevic dead before conviction - the best outcome; for nothing would make ICTY look worse that Milosevic dead because of lack of medical care - a serious human rights offense, right?
Nobody can deny that the US did everything it could to smear the Court. From the beginning, it humiliated the Prosecutor, acknowledged she was a NATO asset, showing that ICTY is anything but independent and competent. The US undermined the legality of the Milosevic Trial as much as it could, short of physically beheading the accused on CNN. I really don't know what else could one possibly do more to completely undermine the ICTY, hence ICC.
2) "Why ONLY he..." -- Because he is the first head of state - the landmark for personally prosecuting heads of state before an international criminal court. That's what ICC is supposed to do permanently and universally - a "no, no, no" since the Treaty of Westphalia (1648), which gave rise to the the First World Order.
What mortifies the US is not a cave terrorist, but the ICC. On July 2002, Westphalia went out for good and with it the notion that a few leaders rule the world. That's over. There may be delays, but no turning back. In this sense, I do believe that nothing is more important today than to ensure Milosevic gets a fair trial.
There are Trials and there are Errors. Rest assure, the US seriously regrets the Nuremberg Error.
John North
Canada - Wednesday February 11, 2004 at 6:57 am
Has anyone noticed how much more civilised and orderly the Milosevic show trial has been since that dolt May has been away over the last two days? Maybe May should just butt out and leave things to Mr Robinson.
Arandjel Pasic
Your harping on about Milosevic betraying YU is tiresome, son. Firstly, you should get an alarm clock, wake up, have a coffee and get your synapses into an active state as they seem to have been inactive for quite some time:
1. YU was originally a country of Serbs, Slovenes and Croats. These were originally the constituent peoples of YU. All others were ethnic minorities. Tito added the newly defined Bosnian Muslims and the Macedonians as further constituent peoples. 3+2=5 constituent peoples.
Under the YU Constitution, each of the said peoples had a right to self determination and none of the republics could change the status quo without the agreement of its constituent peoples. Agreement for secession of Croatia was never given by the Serbs, who were also a constituent people under the former Croatian constitution and the Serbs were illegally WRITTEN OUT of the Croatian constitution by Tudjman and co, but not out of the YU constitution. Hence, Croatian secession was illegal and since the Croats KNEW it was illegal they armed themselves for a violent secession which they carried out.
Similarly for rhe Muslims and Croats and Muslims in Bosnia. They also seceded illegally and by force as they did not have the agreement of the Bosnian Serbs.
Now, if the YU presidency was responsible for protecting the sovereignty of YU, presumably through its control of the JNA, then the YU presidency failed by failing to exercise control of the JNA. The reason it could not exercise control is because the presidency had secessionist members in it and the JNA simply began to disintegrate because the brotherhood and unity principle went down the plug hole. The JNA could have taken control and installed martial law but it didn't because of mass defections and because nobody knew who could be trusted and who couldn't. So far the failure is on the part of the YU, not the Serbian presidency, and on the part of the JNA.
Now follow carefully... Milosevic preached the right of all the constituent nations in each of the republics to either secede or to remain in YU. I hope that's clear to you?
That was in line with the YU constitution and the Serbian constitution which ceded power to the YU constitution on that issue. But the secessionists, aided and abetted by the indecently hasty recognition and acceptance by the FREEDOM LOVING WEST as NEW sovereign states, despite not having fulfilled the requirements of statehood on an international level, did not want that! And if they argued the legality of their case they were doomed. They chose WAR as a means of getting their way.
The crap about a "confederation" was nonsense as that implied giving them the right to dismiss the YU constitution and rearrange things so they could do what they liked anyway. They could then have LEGALLY suspended the constituent peoples clauses of their own confederate constitutions as the YU constitution would no longer apply. In effect they would get what they managed to do ILLEGALLY and by force. So a confederation was not an option also as it would leave too many Serbs in areas where the secessionists did not want Serbs. It did not suit the Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia either as it would take them out of the YU sphere which is where they wanted to remain, as was their right guaranteed by the YU constitution and the respective republican constitutions. THAT IS THE RIGHT THE SERBS FOUGHT FOR! The same right the FREEDOM LOVING WEST had given the Croats and Muslims who wanted to seced from YU. The Serbs had EXACTLY THE SAME RIGHT TO SECED FROM Croatia and Bosnia and on the same basis.
Now how did Milosevic wage the fight for that right? He maintained the right for YU to exist minus the secessionists. The freedom loving West denied him and those who stuck to the YU concept the right to maintain that concept. They lobbied for the dismissal of YU from the UN, tried to force it to reapply as a NEW state and so on. Milosevic recognised that once the new states were given sovereignty, rump YU had to get its forces, the JNA, out of those states as it would be an aggressor army which did not belong there according to the fait accompliis IMPOSED on him and the Serbs. But prior to the order for the JNA withdrawal, the JNA retained its defence and protection of the constitutional right of the CONSTITUENT peoples in the Croat and Bosnian republics to self determination by agreement. The secessionists did not want an agreement because they did not have a legal leg to stand on and resorted to force and the "might is right" principle which the FREEDOM LOVING WEST encouraged, and even assisted by supplying the force themselves!.
Milosevic at the time could not ORDER the YU presidency or the JNA to stop the forceful secessions. The principle in Slovenia and in Croatia and Bosnia was if you want to go that's fine but you can't force those who don't want to go. Hence the rump JNA protected those who wanted to stay in rump YU, as well as itself, from attacks by the secessionists. And that was on the orders of the rump YU presidency not Milosevic. You can't blame Milosevic if the disintegrating JNA and subsequently the rump JNA were unsuccessful AND WERE FORCED OUT BY THE FREEDOM LOVING WEST.
As for eating shit under a confederation as you put it, there are plenty of Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia who got to eat nothing at all, precisely because they were slaughtered ! The secessionists wanted a war because it was the ONLY way they could get what they got for their foreign mentors who wanted as much territory as they could get from compliant stablekeepers.
The Milosevic types who held to a by then extinct YU principle and cause were in the way. You may have suffered as a result of Milosevic sticking to the YU principle, the principle of equality of rights and constitutional law which you so yearn for nowadays but... HEY!... you're not alone. There are plenty in the Hague who are suffering for believing precisely in the same principle.
And the ICTY will make sure we ALL end up eating shit, whether we are YU or not! So stop moaning about it and cast the blame where it belongs.
Milosevic didn't start the secessions, Milosevic didn't arm the Croats, Slovenes and Muslims before the shit hit the fan, Milosevic didn't control the YU presidency, Milosevic didn't control the defunct JNA, Milosevic didn't support the West in the FREEDOM LOVING Wests aiding and abetting of crimes and force against YU and against its people, against its constitution, against the Helsinki Act and againsts dozens of other international laws and norms.
Milosevic made the mistake of relying on international and constitutional law, something which is now irrelevant as you see in Iraq. And something which you also see is irrelevant at the Hague. By convicting Milosevic, you justify ALL the misdeeds above and you condemn the rule of international law and norms to oblivion.
You're welcome to eat shit if you so choose but it's definitely not on my menu. I prefer grass, myself, being sheepish as I am.
David
Oztralia - Wednesday February 11, 2004 at 7:07 am
Godfred Louis-Jensen from Copenhagen ( if he is not yet a payed lobbyist of Greater Serbia and Milosevic’s family he should ask for a pay check? ) asked Arandjel:
“Would you kindly inform me about your view on the allegations raised against the ICTY for severe violations of human rights, as set out above (February 10, 2004 at 7:34 am)? If you believe that measures taken against mr. Milosevic in the Scheveningen Prison and at The Hague Tribunal may jeopardize the fairness of his "trial", then what should we - the public - do about it? Thank you”My reply:
Would you kindly inform me about your view on the fact that “wage levels for teachers in Macedonia are barely at subsistence level and have been frozen at about 140 euros for the past 10 years. The Ministry of Education has opposed calls for a 5 percent increase as “unreasonable.”?”
If you believe that this fact may jeopardize their right for meaningful existence, then what should we - the public - do about it?
And now let me answer your question to Arandjel:
Public has more important injustices to deal with, one of them being to try to survive after crimes Milosevic has done to the public, so public apologizes for being unable to address grievances of selfish dictator and gangster. When public solves much more urgent problems like feeding their children, public promises she will address Milosevic too.
Satisfied?
Reply to Ana and M P
Sasvim sam smetnuo sa uma da nosim Drazino prezime, da sam ranije znao rekao bih nesto i o gibanici. Nego vidim i Pasha nam se javlja kao dokaz koliko su se trudili da nam obogate nasledje. Nema Srbin sta da brine pored tako plodnog okruzenja.
Dakle mnogi neznani i znani junaci su doprineli...
I kako stvari stoje morace jos mnogo da zapnu, jer nam sadasnja situacija nista ne valja. Zato objavljujem:
Nacertanije nacionalnog programa obnove srpske nacije za 21 vek
usvojeno na svesrpskom otadzbinskom saboru, uz ucesce najumnijih srpskih glava:
Clan 1. Otvoriti granice, pozvati narod iz Afrike, Azije, Amerike, Latin Amerike, Albance, Engleze, Svedjane, da dodju da jebu u choporima. Proglasiti moratorijum na moral! Gogol brate Srbine dodji, znam i na koga bi navalio. (Good choice, those near the lake first get moonlight). Ian Davis, Quebec brothers come, here you are most needed!
Samo sex sa svima Srbina Spasava. Only Sex with all Saves Serbs.
Walter Trkla is right ( trkla baba lan… ), "Goran is neither a Communist nor a Socialist". I accept his critique that I am not a good representative of the socialist idea, I never claimed I am, I just support it with all my heart, I am not fighting for leading position, I am an ordinary man. On the other hand there are things out of which pie cannot be made. We should not forget that this discussion is not among the Angels, but with Serbian nationalists, so "prema svecu i tropar".
I pustite sirotog Arbena, sta vam je skrivio, vi ste ti koji izazivate. Vi ste ta nacionalisticka bagra, vi to sve provocirate. Ne bi on imao sta da se javlja kada biste vi ovde pricali kako da makedonski ucitelji nemaju 150 eura platu vec deset godina. I sta, ko krivo vam je sto vam Arben jebe majku. Sta bi onda radile ove kurvice po svetu nego odgovarale Arbenu. Inace Trkla moji komentari nisu upereni ni protiv jedne seksualne grupe. Recimo to sto Mrya I Pera vole da rade, ja bas zastupam misljenje neka ih bas su slatki, pustimo ih, da im ne smetamo, neka se deca igraju. Mozemo cak I da im kupimo jednu plutajucu patku da se igraju u kadi. Ja podjednako ciljam sve pod uslovom da su nacionalisticki olos. Eto samo toliko u ovom javljanju. Jos da se prekrstim, pa da mi Bog dusu spase.. A i Boga smo se siti najebali, u sred zemlje Sumadije. Tolko nam Bog treba da prasta grehe svih ovih kurvica po svetu, kao i popova Svetog nam Srpskog Arhijerejskog Sinoda Pravoslavne Crkve poput Pahomica I slicnih.
You can also think of it in scientific terms. I believe nationalism is associated with a certain fixation in development on, lets guess, the anal stadium. Does anyone have some insights into the sexual background of nationalism and patriotism? That's really an interesting subject to explore. Posle se cudimo recniku Laneta Gutovica, retko talentovanog I pametnog sunarodnika. Doslo coveku do grla od velikosrpske bagre. Zgadili ste se svima. Ne moze da se zivi od vas vise, sve ste zatrovali. Neciste duse. Sto se ne ugledate malo na Mryju I Peru, kako su se lepo skrasili. Navucite lepo hozn-tregere pa na badnje vece kod Pahomija. Sto kaze veliki srpski nacionalista Bora Chorba: Srbin je lud, Srbin je proklet, jednom ga nataknes on hoce opet. Pa kako i ne bi? Ma mozda je to neki novi Sveti Mirotochivi. Koliko se nacionalisticke bagre nakupilo, da covek coveku ne veruje.O logici cetnickih kurvi:
Zamislite koja je to kurva ova Ana iz Californije. Kao javlja se sirotica da protestvuje sto sam opravdano nazvao Trklu fasistom, i onda u istom pasusu nastavlja sa Drazom Mihajlovicem. Koja si ti kurva Ana. Prava cetnicka kurva. Ziv je Draza, umro nije, dok je kurvi iz Srbije u Kaliforniji i M P u Panami da im bude makro ( da nam zivi zivi rad )! Sta sad, odjednom chetnici vise nisu kurve?! Nego sta su?
What a bitch is this Ana from California. She protests I rightly called Trkla fascist, and then proceeds with fascist quisling Draza Mihajlovic. What a bitch you are Ana. Real chetnik bitch. “Draza is alive, he didn’t dye, as long as there are hookers from Serbia in California and M P from Panama to be their pimp!”
A. Turcotte: Wait, just wait, who waits finally gets it.
M P from Panama, yet another Greater Serbia “hero”, he threatens me physically. I wonder would Turcotte and others from Greater Serbia lobby, now in their spirit, ask M P from Panama, if he is so brave like other Serbian nationalist heroes who have run away from every battlefield, M P himself as far as to Panama; would you ask him now to rent an apartment in Prishtina, if he is so valiant. And that would make much more sense than asking me, because it is his ideology that made it dangerous for people to travel around the Balkans. But that further illustrates the misery of nationalists. In the final analysis they have no brain, so they can only resort to their fists. By the way I am not insulted by your stupid remark, you cannot insult me, you should know it. I believe your mother is a nice lady. But you can never know how the kids would turn out. Even very nice people can be unlucky with their children. Jedino da se nadamo da te neka Meksikanka malo uljudi.
By the way, I don't remember anybody threatened Arben, what further shows the essence of nationalism. They actually don't care at all about their nation, THEY WANT TO TERRORIZE HER, they are not that much against the "foreign" element, but against the domestic. In one word, they are sadists.
This time I really say goodbye! My time is precious, and chetniks are starting to get mad, but I don't want to be the excuse for their psychiatric problems! So, please forgive me for not replying to any further comments!
Finally I take the opportunity to thank Josef Crow. Your remark is very dear to me. Thank you! I hope you are doing fine there too. All the best! I wish luck and happiness to Arandjel, though he will maybe have to consider at some point to redirect his precious energy to future of his and other children. I hope Arandjel you will get in touch with the WSWS one day. Needless to say my behavior and way of debating is my own choice, no doubt that nobody in socialist movement would approve it, least of all the WSWS, the WSWS being the most refined and courteous on Internet.
By the way, for all those who might think that part of my postings were in breach of certain norms of public conduct, I must remind you that I am only a good pupil of the great Serbian educator Vuk Stefanovic Karadjic who liked the language that people speak, and was not a hypocrite. Kako lepo rece u onoj seriji: "Zahvalite gospodaru na njegovoj milosti, a ja vama jebem I oca I majku!"
Mislim da smo se razumeli velikosrbi. Uzivajte jedni u drugima! Adios para siempre!
Perhaps I might only add one more citation from the WSWS that was published on 9th February and concerns Yugoslav nationalism.
Goran Mihajlovic
Yugoslavia - Wednesday February 11, 2004 at 7:08 am
Nuremberg:
FDR, Morgenthau, Stimpson, Eisenhower, Churchill and others were all for lynching. The scope of the lynching, top leaders or the whole German nation was the question. Then another bunch including Truman wanted a short trial before hanging.
Robert Jackson destroyed his future by advocating a full trial, nevertheless flawed, in a revengeful and lynching climate. When Jackson asked for evidence on the crimes committed by the Germans who were so obviously guilty none could be produced. Eventually the trials began well behind schedule.
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La - Wednesday February 11, 2004 at 7:42 am
Carla del Ponte: Karadzic is in Belgrade
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La - Wednesday February 11, 2004 at 7:43 am
Today's correspondence on the failure of nationalism in Yugoslavia, from the WSWS. (Emphasis added by me):
Correspondence
------------------------------------------
Correspondence on the failure of nationalism in Yugoslavia
Correspondence on the failure of nationalism in Yugoslavia
9 February 2004
Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author
Regarding your article, “Milosevic trial sets precedent: US granted right to censor evidence” (31 December 2003):
I would be very grateful to Paul Mitchell if he could list the human rights abuses by Serbia that the USA exploited as a pretext for yet another proxy war. I was born in 1949 and all my life the USA has been at war. Do you [portray] Izetbegovic to be a perfect democrat, as does Catherine Samary, an expert-ignorant and journalist-actionaire of le monde-diplomatique?
What I cannot figure out is why do the Trotskyists hate Yugoslavia? We stood against Stalin, didn’t we? All alone! And still all alone Milosevic stands against American nazi imperialism!
Best regards
OD
The United States government and its allies in NATO claimed they bombed Yugoslavia in 1999 to prevent human right abuses. Politicians and officials exaggerated figures of Serbian atrocities against ethnic Albanians and compared the Kosovo civil war to the Nazi Holocaust.
US Defence Secretary William Cohen told CBS News in May 1999 that 100,000 men were missing, and “may have been murdered” and David Scheffer, US war crimes envoy claimed that more than 225,000 ethnic Albanian men were missing.
No sooner had the war finished then these lies began to unravel. A press spokesman at The Hague war crimes tribunal, Paul Risley, told reporters, “The final number of bodies uncovered will be less than 10,000 and probably more accurately determined as between two and three thousand.”
There are many articles on the World Socialist Web Site about the lies put out by Western governments to justify their intervention in Yugoslavia. You will not find one that suggests “Trotskyists hate Yugoslavia,” as your email claims. The Marxist movement does not analyse phenomenon in moralistic terms like hatred. It has always addressed the terrible legacy of capitalism and Stalinism scientifically and historically in order to provide the peoples of Yugoslavia and the Balkans with a perspective to overcome it.
Yugoslavia broke with Stalin in 1948, but its leadership never broke with the nationalist perspective of Stalinism.
Despite the conflicts between Tito and Stalin, the Communist Party of Yugoslavia (CPY) still upheld the anti-Marxist and anti-internationalist perspective of national socialism that constituted Stalin’s theory of building “socialism in one country.” This theory was in direct opposition to the perspective of a Socialist Federation of the Balkans that was formulated by Marxists in the nineteenth century and developed by Leon Trotsky.
Svetozar Markovic, the founder of the Serbian socialist movement, developed the concept of a socialist federation of the Balkans in the 1870s. The first congress of Balkan Social Democratic parties in 1910 called for a Balkan federation “to free ourselves from particularism and narrowness; to abolish frontiers that divide peoples who are in part identical in language and culture, in part economically bound together; finally to sweep away forms of foreign domination both direct and indirect that deprive the people of their right to determine their destiny for themselves.”
In his theory of Permanent Revolution, Trotsky insisted that in countries with a belated bourgeois development only the working class could bring about democracy and national emancipation. Trotsky elaborated this perspective for the Balkans saying, “The only way out of the national and state chaos and bloody confusion of Balkan life is a union of all the peoples of the peninsula in a single economic and political entity, on the basis of national autonomy of the constituent parts. Only within the framework of a single Balkan state can the Serbs of Macedonia, the Sandjak, Serbia and Montenegro be united in a single national-cultural community, enjoying at the same time the advantages of a Balkan common market. Only the united Balkan peoples can give a real rebuff to the shameless pretensions of Tsarism and European imperialism.”
Stalin and his faction attacked this perspective by claiming that nationalism in the Balkans was inherently revolutionary because it rested upon the peasantry. They shifted the CPY from its earlier proletarian internationalist position towards one that encouraged national and ethnic separatist movements and in the process deposed the entire CPY leadership in 1928.
Tito rose to power in the CPY and came to lead the resistance to Nazi occupation. However, he came into conflict with the proposals to install a popular front government in Yugoslavia as part of the redivision of the world agreed between Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin in 1944. With the CPY-led partisans enjoying mass support, the bourgeois representatives resigned, and in November 1945 the Federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia was proclaimed.
Tito started negotiations on a Balkan Federation with Bulgaria and supported a revolutionary uprising in Greece, but this perspective was soon abandoned under pressure from Moscow in favour of pan-Yugoslav nationalism. The prospect that backward Yugoslavia could pursue a self-contained socialist development in a divided Balkan region was impossible from the start, as the Trotskyist movement recognised. It posed the question, “The alternatives facing Yugoslavia, let alone the Tito regime, are to capitulate either to Washington or to the Kremlin—or to strike out on an independent road. This road can be only that of an Independent Workers and Peasant Socialist Yugoslavia, as the first step towards a Socialist Federation of the Balkan Nations. It can be achieved only through an appeal to and unity with the international working class.”
This question and the analysis made by the Trotskyist movement can be found in The Heritage We Defend—A Contribution to the History of the Fourth International by David North.
Faced with growing economic problems and increasing threats from Moscow, the Tito leadership at first tried to accommodate itself to imperialism, and later to manoeuvre between the two superpowers. In 1950 Tito’s government supported US imperialism in the Korean War and also supported Moscow’s suppression of the Hungarian Revolution in 1956.
When Tito died the bureaucracy increasingly turned to free market policies with Slobodan Milosevic, a protégé of the West, setting up the Milosevic Commission in 1987 to justify the introduction of IMF “structural adjustment” programmes. The austerity measures sparked off strikes and other mass protests by the Yugoslav working class. Seeking to divert the class struggle, ex-Stalinist bureaucrats such as Milosevic, Tudjman in Croatia and Izetbegovic in Bosnia promoted nationalist sentiments, while seeking support from Western governments. Despite his elevation to guarantor of the Dayton Accords that ended the Bosnian conflict, Milosevic came into conflict with the US. Washington had concluded that the dissolution of Yugoslavia could not proceed whilst the Serbian ruling elite strove to preserve a unitary state in which it played the dominant role.
This brings us to your criticism of Katharine Samary, a supporter and election candidate for the French Ligue Communiste Revolutionnaire (LCR, Revolutionary Communist League). The origins of the LCR lie in a split in the Fourth International in 1953, a few years after Tito split with Stalin. Michel Pablo was a leader of the Fourth International in the late 1940s and early 1950s who, under the difficult circumstances facing the Marxist movement at the time, developed the theory that Trotskyism could never win the leadership of the working class and could only act as advisers and “left” critics of the existing social democratic, Stalinist and petty bourgeois nationalist organisations. The dissolution of the Trotskyist movement was prevented by the intervention of James P. Cannon and the American Socialist Workers Party and the publication of the “Open Letter” opposing Pablo in November 1953, which led to the establishment of the International Committee that today publishes the World Socialist Web Site.
The LCR and its co-thinkers in the United Secretariat have followed Pablo’s liquidationist and demoralised course for half a century and Samary is no exception. In 1992, just as Yugoslavia descended into civil war the United Secretariat magazine proclaimed, “The wretched people of Bosnia await their relief from the troops of the United Nations.”
In her book Yugoslavia Remembered published in 1995 Samary blamed the dissolution of Yugoslavia on its ethnic differences saying, “The creation of a Yugoslav state should have brought an end to the rivalry between the communities but the religious, cultural and linguistic differences were too great to maintain peace.”
Rather than identifying the failure to establish a socialist federation as the main lesson to be learnt from the destruction of Yugoslavia Samary concluded, “the main lesson here is that no serious alternative politics in this region can avoid explicit support for the right of self determination for all the peoples of former Yugoslavia.”
During the Kosovo civil war, Samary and other LCR members sent a letter to Le Monde declaring, “Stop the bombings, self determination for Kosova!” It complained that “not one of the governments which have supported the NATO air strikes are willing to wage war against the Serb regime to impose independence for Kosova” and argued for the creation of “a multinational police force (including Serbs and Albanians) within the framework of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which would oversee the application of a transitional agreement.”
In an interview during the Kosovo crisis with the International Socialist Group in Britain led by Alan Thornett, Samary said, “It is impossible to present any kind of coherent and progressive ‘solution’ at the moment. Every day brings fresh evidence of an uncontrolled dynamic which is degrading the conditions for progressive struggles. So we should busy ourselves with the urgent solidarity tasks, and maintain our critical spirit in the face of all proposals for ‘action’ which actually make the disaster worse. And, at the back of our minds, we should continue working on a number of long-term questions which are essential to a solution to the whole Yugoslav crisis.”
Since the civil war Bosnia and Kosovo, as the World Socialist Web Site foresaw, have become ethnically pure statelets run as Western protectorates and subject to local mafias. Learning nothing, Samary merely complained to delegates at last year’s European Social Forum that the Balkans were subject once again to the same “structural adjustment programs” previously imposed by the IMF.
However one cannot counterpoise to Samary’s support for Bosnian and Kosovar separatism the rosy picture you paint of little Yugoslavia standing all alone against Stalin, still less Serbia (or even Milosevic) standing against US imperialism. The future of the peoples of what was Yugoslavia depends on the struggle for the socialist federation of the Balkans in unity with the working class of Europe and throughout the world.
See Also:
Why is NATO at war with Yugoslavia? World power, oil and gold
[24 May 1999]
How the WRP joined the NATO camp
Imperialist war in the Balkans and the decay of the petty-bourgeois left
[14 December 1995]
Marxism, Opportunism and the Balkan Crisis
[7 May 1994]
The Balkans
[WSWS Full Coverage]
Goran Mihajlovic
Yugoslavia - Wednesday February 11, 2004 at 7:46 am
Unter, (Adrian)
Good to hear from you. Remember PAUKE ( aragna, spider)? Shall he come across give him my regards,
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La - Wednesday February 11, 2004 at 8:02 am
Another coward leaves the scene: Goodbye Goran whoever you are!
Mrya Antonov
Rossija - Wednesday February 11, 2004 at 8:03 am
CORRECTION:
See Also:
Why is NATO at war with Yugoslavia? World power, oil and gold
[24 May 1999]
How the WRP joined the NATO camp
Imperialist war in the Balkans and the decay of the petty-bourgeois left
[14 December 1995]
Marxism, Opportunism and the Balkan Crisis
[7 May 1994]
The Balkans
[WSWS Full Coverage]
Goran Mihajlovic
Yugoslavia - Wednesday February 11, 2004 at 8:08 am
Goran Mihajlovic,since you may be `leaving´ this Forum (?) I will not hesitate to say, that although I do understand and respect the fact that "the public" may have different priorities, I am hardly satisfied by your answer (February 11, 2004 at 7:07 am).
For that matter I do not believe, that you would have thought so either.
I have been appreaciating many arguments of yours - as far as they were not stated in the Serbian language, which I do not read! - but I find it necessary for this JURIST Forum to focus on the "fairness" of the ICTY "trial" (in spite of other problems, other aspects in this world).
Thank you anyway for answering! I honestly think that we shall be hearing more from you, - and I trust that a lot of people (if not the entire public?) would welcome that...
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K - Wednesday February 11, 2004 at 8:10 am
Arandjel PasicJoel Askamit we must agree to disagree. You are a religious nut and Im a rational human being maybe we can agree on that at least. You really are creepy.
And yet Goran is the only one who thinks your rational and sweet. Talk about creepy.
Joel Aksamit
Cleveland Mo
USA - Wednesday February 11, 2004 at 8:20 am
Goran , do not assume , shows you're nothing but a meaningless fart who gets to conclusions based on assumptions , and its yet another f..up for your mosquito brain , for your info I wasn't born in Serbia or Yugoslavia , my parents were forced by "intelectuals" like you to leave their homeland , I am concerned about my heritage and "nothings" like you that have no respect for women and think that you can go around insulting every one who doesn't agree with you can walk away with it , have news for you and yes you deserve somebody beat the shit out of you , one more thing "braveheart" Mexican women have nothing to do with your frustrations so you better start respecting others 'cause you ain't worthed the hair around "Speedy Gonzales'" balls , PEDAZO DE MIERDA !!!!
M P
Panama - Wednesday February 11, 2004 at 8:28 am
Del Ponte turns down a marriage proposal | 13:48 | SRNA BELGRADE -- Wednesday - Hague Tribunal Prosecutor Carla Del Ponte has formally turned down a marriage proposal and returned a parcel of gifts to a hopeful suitor. Retired waiter Radivoje Milutinovic has spoken to media only to describe his proposal to Del Ponte as a peace mission. In return, he asked the prosecutor to pardon all Tribunal indictees. The 56-year-old Montenegrin, who now lives in the Vojvodina town of Horgos, showered Del Ponte with gifts including a picture of legendary Montenegrin leader Petar Petrovic Njegos, local sweet paprika, a wreath of garlic, bottles of Serbian sljivovica and Montenegrin wine and a 28 page marriage proposal. He has been officially notified to collect the returned gifts from the Belgrade office of the Hague Tribunal tomorrow. There has been no comment from Del Ponte. HASTA LA VICTORIA FINAL!! BY ANY MEANS!
Mrya Antonov
Rossija - Wednesday February 11, 2004 at 8:49 am
Excelent post ! -David-It would be suficient to swing any jury in the Hague but you are talking to the "Mind and Hart"conquered by the Fort Brag effort, to a lost soul - 1 of thousands generated by that $100.000,000 oficially aloted by the US Congress.......... - where did that money go? - Mainly in the pockets of the most active agitators and traitors..........
-Arandel was not one of them. -He was one of thousands of lower rank others who may be got a computer maybe some cash to stay active and inspired during "the Revolution" .......And they were promised much more ..... - So much more that their heads were spining......And the most lucrative promise was a " position" in a new "Democracy"
But no mater how wide the "democracy" is there is always shortage of "positions" . ............ And they kept on fighting -earning those "positions" - OOH ! and then there were the conditions on those promises: -Arrest Milosovich.- Deliver him to Hague. - Drop the charges against NATO................. -Drop the pants and enjoy the reality.......
-Still in a haze, poor soul Arandel still fighting for a "position"...........-
vytas abrutis
phila
PA, USA - Wednesday February 11, 2004 at 9:33 am
Washington, with strong British backing, to curb the powers of Carla Del Ponte:http://www.guardian.co.uk/yugo/article/0,2763,1145277,00.html
Looks like Carla is striking back with het Karadzic in Belgrade claims!
Peter Varavejke
Belgium - Wednesday February 11, 2004 at 11:30 am
The US / British UNSC proposal to curb Del Ponte's power (Guardian article noted above by Peter Varavejke) is very interesting, but what are the motives behind it and its implications? My understanding is that anorgasmic Carla lost her post in the Rwanda tribunal largely because she started pursuing alleged war crimes by Tutsis (the supposed "good guys"). Is she now sidelined because in her zeal she was about to indict Thaci, Ceku and/or other darlings of the empire?
Pythagoras Crotoniatis
Greece - Wednesday February 11, 2004 at 12:31 pm
Oh!!Carla Carla that much swimming to drowm on the beach ! you should've listen when I told you "da mettere un calcio al tribbunale" now you're getting to be ¿Carla who ? skinny favor done to you by the Empire . Hope you learn the lesson .
M P
Panama - Wednesday February 11, 2004 at 1:13 pm
Bye Goran! We will all miss you very much!Joel Aksamit: you are not alone, I agree with you, evolution is fraught with difficulties. A design argument has no difficulties, except that the people don't like the notion of God.
Adrian Justinson: Welcome. I'm madmerv2 from the nyt forum, good to see that you've come here, I guess D. Jovanovic told you about it. Now we just await obilic. On the other hand, it would be no good if SC, turdko, and dils tagged along!
P M
USA - Wednesday February 11, 2004 at 1:18 pm
Critics said the move was an attack on Ms Del Ponte because of her refusal to bow to political pressure. She resists political pressure but the judges, the corrupt judges don't ! Alles Klar!
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La - Wednesday February 11, 2004 at 1:43 pm
David one reason why I dont debate so much with you because I dont think you will listen at all. You completely decided what happened. You will not listen to my argument. Anyway I respect your opinion even if it is wrong. Here we are.First all events you put I saw with my own eyes. I will pick points that are closer to fact and not opinion in hope to get you to think about them.
1 In name it is correct in fact Jugoslav / Serbian King rule was not equal Kingdom. This gave historical reason for Slovenes / Croats to have seperatist ideas.
Legality of secession not relevant because if somebody wants to leave you can not stop them (reality not legality). It is like blaming wife for leaving in marriage. Most cases it is both sides to blame not one who leaves. That is why new agreement to live toether should be found. Especially with wife wanting to take children with her (Serbs in Croatia).
So yes that means to discuss new agreement like Confederation. You are wrong here. A confederation would mean that Serbs in Croatia or Croats in Bosnia example would be able to stay in Ju. We knew the dangers what happened before. It is not crap to talk about possible solution before violence. It is helping people to stay in their houses helping them not to have throtes cut. Milosevic had obligation to discuss Slovenian proposal for the people but he did not care. He said 'let the Slovenes have their state'. Is that words of Jugoslav? But Milosevic rejected confederation straight away. That was mistake if he (you and other people) believe that confederation was first step to independence. I have good answers for you.
First they got independence anyway with thousands of people killed hundreds of thousands thrown from houses. The rejection of confederation without thinking about it failed terribl way and caused worst possible thing to happen. How can anybody say it was wrong to consider confederation?
Second Jovic / Milosevic could have negotiated on some issue economic matters maybe and got what they wanted on other matters example no territorial defence force apart from JNA and so.
Third Jovic / Milosevic / Serbia could go to international community and tell them how they are happy to compromise and demand unconditional support for Jugoslavia from them. Even bring some international negotiator in. Internationalise problem. If suspicious ones are right about Croats and Slovenes then Serbs look like good guys. They (Serbs) were ones who tried to help and keep it peaceful.
As I say it was only later that international community supports independence. In early days Serbia / Jugoslavia could have got more support.
At time of Slovenia it was not the fault of Presidency for sending in boys with toy guns to secure Jugoslav borders. (Actually we dont know complete truth who sent kids and why but Serb Jovic was boss at time). We know how close Jovic was with Milosevic. Borislav Jovic was in charge of Presidency until middle of 1991. Stipe Suvar was Croatia representative. Suvar was Communist not Croatian nationalist like Mesic who came after. So you mistaken to think there were members of presidency who blocked. By way remember that Slovenia declared independence before Croatia. When Slovenia was allowed to go Jugoslavia died.
In Hague as you saw Milosevic accused Markovic of sending troops into Slovenia! This is evidence that Markovic tried to save Jugoslavia and Milosevic wanted Jugoslavia without Slovenia where Serbia (his men) could dominate on Presidency.
The JU principle was not where Serbia could dominate other republicsl. Ju principle was that allowed Serbs to stay under umbrella of Jugoslavia, keep Kosovo and give equal rights for all republics / peoples. I know what the JU principle is because I supported it. Milosevic did not.
Peric We dont have an official document because the idea was rejected before being considered by the Serbian side.
You contradict yourself when you say it was used for (what?) elections. If election policy is to keep Jugoslavia as confederation and people vote for Jugoslavia then they did not want independence. It makes not sense.
It also does not make sense that George Bush / United States in 1990 and 1991 if I remember tried to keep Jugoslavia together. What is this Baden agreement? Sounds like a German town. So I think you are talking about policy of Germany only. Germany 1 country out of whole world in 1989 supporting independence. Not enough. We know Germany supported Croatia. If you talking about something more serious then please educate me.
Then you forget that Croatian Serbs did not want to talk to Croats about autonomy or anything else. According to some witnesses at Hague this was Milosevic instruction. Of course all this was too late. I will not bother to answer these argument because it is obvious that Croatia did very disgusting things. But fact is that the whole thing should be stopped in 1990, not after Parliaments made in Slovenia and Croatia. This is my argument.
What borders are you talking about? What is complicated about Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia and Montenegro. Of course you are not talking about Prevlaka penisula. You want to talk about ancient rights to land. You want to question if Krajina should belong to Serbia or Slavonija etc etc.
You see I dont have problem with Serbs living in Croatia or Croats living in Serbia if their rights are protected. Who gives damn where stupid borders are if they still live in same country and have full rights? Only nationalists will have problem but they always have problem of some kind. By making all these problems for confederation are you saying that it was easier that all these people died in war instaed?
I agree with a lot of last part you write. But for answer to what Milosevic should have done see what I write to David. He should tried to keep Slovenia with negotiation. If it failed go straight to international community, get a Zimmerman or somebody to sign an agreement to force Slovenes to back down. If they do not threaten JNA action and tell West at the same time. Then send in JNA hard to Slovenia and force confederation. All time trying to get public in Croatia and Slovenia on the side of their sons in JNA and 'selling' deal in nice way to all Jugoslavs.
Look what Croatia did with help of Germany. You dont think some good thinking from Serbia could do same. You dont think some in Serbia maybe didnt want keep Jugoslavia and that was the problem? The answer - The power elite in each republic Milosevic, Tudjman, Kucan wanted same thing -more power. Only idiots like me were left to support Jugoslavia but least I know why and who destroyed country.
Arandjel Pasic
Jug - Wednesday February 11, 2004 at 3:39 pm
Pasic you wrote: "You want to talk about ancient rights to land. You want to question if Krajina should belong to Serbia or Slavonija etc etc."If today Canada says that Quebequa are not any more a nation in Canada and changes Constitutions accordingly - Would you say that it was ancient right for French people to claim equality?
I do not have either a problem with Croats living in Serbia. Croats are today and they were until 1945 a national minority in Serbia
Serbs have been a nation in Croatia even before Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, Serbs from Krajina and Bosnia did not need Yugoslavia to become a nation.
You wrote:"You want to question if Krajina should belong to Serbia or Slavonija etc etc. "
NOT AT ALLSerbs in Croatia should have the same rights as they did before Kingdom of Serbs Croats and Slovenes was formed
You wrote:"What borders are you talking about? What is complicated about Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia and Montenegro. " Nothing was complicated about Serbia (except that two of its provinces were in the position of rulling), Nothing was complicated Montenegro borders -
Croatia - was a land of Croats and Serbs.Bosnia was a state of Muslims, Croats and Serbs even though one of these three became a nation in 1974 - before that it was a state of Serbs and Croats. In 1991 became a state of Muslims and Croats.
You were supporting Yugoslavia - which Yugoslavia did you supported?
Yugoslavia as it was before 1974. Yugoslavia as it was before 1990 or after.
Pero Peric
Canada - Wednesday February 11, 2004 at 4:09 pm
Pythagoras, with such a intelligent name you have to analyse little bit deeper. It's because she turned down a marriage proposal from the retired waiter Radivoje Milutinovic, if you don't it know yet.
Panayoti Karamezakis
Island - Wednesday February 11, 2004 at 4:12 pm
February 10th at the Hague (half of it anyway):http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg021004.htm
Can anybody here fill me in on what happened in the last two sessions on the 10th? The video I was watching got cut off.
Andy Wilcoxson
Washington, United States - Wednesday February 11, 2004 at 4:33 pm
The transmission went blank (blue)
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La - Wednesday February 11, 2004 at 5:46 pm
John North: I am intrigued by your comments on science and mathematics in your post dated Tuesday February 10, 2004 at 2:17 am.Many, many years ago I devoted some time to thinking about such things and regret to say that I found the development of mathematics exhibits the same flaws as you seem to describe for science.
In ancient Greece the Pythagoreans believed in the omnipotence of the natural numbers. When it was discovered that the square root of the number ‘two’ could not be expressed as the ratio of two integers - leading to the discovery of irrational numbers - the knowledge was suppressed on pain of death. Does this not foreshadow the battles between the earth centred and sun centred astronomers of the medieval age?
Euclid’s Fifth Postulate puzzled mathematicians for centuries until it was discovered during the nineteenth century that it could be replaced or ignored leading to alternative and still useful but not necessarily consistent geometries: one of which - Riemann geometry - was used in Einstein’s relativity theory. Riemann geometry has not replaced Euclidian geometry it is an alternative. Riemann geometry does not deny Euclidean geometry but it is inconsistent with it.
Einstein’s mathematics yielded the famous relationship between matter and energy: Energy = Mass x Velocity of light x Velocity of light. Would the search for an atomic bomb have proceeded without such an indication?
Clerk Maxwell’s mathematical theory of electromagnetism predicted the existence of radio waves before the scientist Hertz performed the experiment to detect them. Would Hertz have looked for these radio waves in the absence of Clerk Maxwell’s mathematical prediction? Likewise Oliver Heaviside’s mathematical calculus of ‘p’ operators predicted the behaviour of the transmission of electrical signals in cables leading to practical technological solutions to enable trans-Atlantic cable signalling. So there are at least few examples of science driving technology.
The examples above are of applied mathematics. Pure mathematics - the formal manipulation of symbols according syntactical rules - has also yielded technology-driving results I believe though I cannot recall any at this moment except the opinion of one of England’s foremost mathematicians Alfred North Whitehead: "It is no paradox to say that in our most theoretical moods we may be nearest to our most practical applications."
In contrast, his collaborator on Principia Mathematca, Bertand Russell rebuked those ‘formalising’ mathematicians of the Hilbert school, seeking perfect truth thereby, when he opined that they were like watchmakers who were so obsessed by the prettiness of their watches that they forgot that the purpose of watches is to tell the time! In 1931 Goedel put an end to the ‘games’ of the formalists by proving that their quest for ‘perfect truth’ was impossible.
Personally I believe that the distinction between pure and applied mathematics is false. Unless the axioms upon which the discourses of pure mathematics are based conform to the properties of physical phenomena such as the properties of number then such mathematicians play meaningless games.
Pure mathematics certainly cannot tell us anything about truth in the ‘real’ world. The truths of pure mathematics relate only to the axioms of the system being studied and these are regarded as uninterpreted in the ‘real’ world.
There is one branch of mathematics which if applied to the Trial of Milosevic would cause huge damage to the case for the prosecution: Formal logic which I believe is used by a few lawyers:
The argument, put in non formal terms, is very simple: If General Radosavljevic, the Serbian commander of the forces attacking the KLA stronghold at Racak, is not guilty of murdering the 42 Racak victims listed in the indictment Then it follows that neither is his supreme commander: Slobodan Milosevic.
The OTP of the ICTY has announced that General Radosavljevic is not to be charged with any war crimes. Thus, de facto, General Radosavljevic is not guilty of war crimes at Racak.
Thus by the implication above Slobodan Milosevic is not guilty of war crimes at Racak.
Peter Taylor
Herts/UK - Wednesday February 11, 2004 at 6:02 pm
Peter,
I hope I am wrong, but General Radosavljevic may have just being following orders, we might still see the reversal of Nuremberg, where der Führer Prinzip rejected as a defence, it may be re-instated to incriminate the big fish and exonerate the small fry, is it not what is reproached to Carla del Ponte?
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La - Wednesday February 11, 2004 at 6:13 pm
The argument, put in non formal terms, is very simple: If General Radosavljevic, the Serbian commander of the forces attacking the KLA stronghold at Racak, is not guilty of murdering the 42 Racak victims listed in the indictment Then it follows that neither is his supreme commander: Slobodan Milosevic.The OTP of the ICTY has announced that General Radosavljevic is not to be charged with any war crimes.
brilliant, wonder if the 2 Judges are embarassed enough by May's antics to agree ?
AP V
NY
NY - Wednesday February 11, 2004 at 6:34 pm
The Imperial Proconsul is fired for Infamy!"Infamy, infamy they got it in for me" cries Montgommery when in fact it seems he had it in for his secretary.
I wonder if the Serbs regret that they 'sold' Milosevic to those who mistreat them like this and for how much longer they'll put up with it?
Don't expect the new Proconsul to be any better. You're in the Empire now.
Peter Taylor
Herts/UK - Wednesday February 11, 2004 at 6:59 pm
Great article David but you should heed your own advice as you said it would fall on deaf ears. I think Arandjel is a decent person sometimes confused with the language but that is OK I admire his tenacity if not his logic. He just does not understand that it takes two to tango.Goran assumes that human beings can be classified like insects. He tends to label people as good or bad depending on how they defend justice. To him one is a fascist if he/she presents evidence that supports his ethnic group. The fact that I identify myself with Yugoslavia and the Serbian role in that entity does not mean that I place it beyond good or evil. I recognize a greater duty than that of promoting its interests. I wish to expose the lies that are used to advance the interests of tyrants be they of the right or left wing pervasion.
Goran’s words are empty things and he is only a socialist-so long as he makes the rules. He criticizes Capitalism for its moral decline, I applaud that, but your words are hollow because of their vulgarity and for that reason you and AQ have something in common.
Goran does not realize that making people forget their differences while working towards a common goal is not only the aim of socialists but also of nationalists. That is my aim as a citizen of Canada. As Lincoln said “house divided against itself cannot stand”. This was true of Yugoslavia as it is true of this planet. Standing up for Yugoslavia or this planet is a good argument for nationalism and internationalism. Many people on this forum have united to work for International justice, which in the end benefits all of us. The fact that we show the international community as complacent and abrogating its responsibility does not makes us Fascists.
Extreme nationalism or socialism or Capitalism or any ism is at its worst when one takes them to extremes. Take Goran for example, obviously intelligent, will not move people to a wider loyalty -the whole world by being as Anna stated a lout.
Nations are a twentieth century reality and are muddling towards some form of interdependence and no single nation should have dominance over the end synthesis. The question is how do we build on these realities so that special political, economic and social interests do not build them. By answering this question we might be able to avoid aggression for profit and injustice
Walter Trkla
KLamloops BC
Canada - Wednesday February 11, 2004 at 8:11 pm
Arandjel
You forget that Croatia and Slovenia, under German tutelage, agitated the mess in Kosovo BEFORE their secessions. THEY wanted a mess. You forget that Zimmerman aided and abetted the Croatian secession, so why would he support confederation? You forget that Zimmerman scuttled the Kutileiro plan in Bosnia which would have prevented the war in Bosnia at least. You forget that Zimmermandid NOTHING to stop Operation Storm. You forget that Croatia was allowed to keep troops in Bosnia while the JNA was forced to leave. You forget that the West WANTED a war over Kosovo (does the name Rambouillet mean much to you?) because it was the only way they could get into the rest of the country. You forget that Paddy Ashdown is the Viceroy of Bosnia, now a 10 year old tradition with another few decades to go because THE FREEDOM LOVING WEST wantS it to go on.
i KNOW IT'S TEMPTING FOR YOU TO FIND A SCAPEGOAT ON WHOM ALL YOUR TROUBLES COULD BE DUMPED, AND YES, MILOSEVIC MAY HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO SOME OF THOSE TROUBLES, but not in the way you suggest. For all I know he may be an asshole, most politicians are, but not for the reasons you outline.
Why don't you for instance start demanding that the MUCH BIGGER ASSHOLES who contributed to your problems face trial?
By going for the smaller fish you let the big fish off the hook. Small fish are not going to provide much of a meal for you, and you WILL go hungry again very quickly, whether I listen to you or not. And yes, I am listening to you but your logic is based on wishful thinking inconsistent with the reality of the GLOBALISTS predatory actions, akin to UNFRIENDLY CORPORATE RAIDS AND TAKEOVERS. If YU was not a good indicator for you, maybe Iraq will give you a reality check when you finally disgorge the Milosevic hook you've bitten.
Here's how it's done. Pay a bit more attention where you're going and how you've got there: 'Transplanting Democracy'
David
Oztralia - Wednesday February 11, 2004 at 8:53 pm
Venezuelan ambassador Arlie's evidence is best summed up as: "It wasn't a civil war in Bosnia because the UN put sanctions on Serbia"! Mind boggling logic!
When Milosevic said that the sanctions were put on because a crucial report By Bouthros Gali had been withheld from the UN session, Arlie called the report a FAKE, despite NEVER having seen the report! Goes to show how smart this guy is. Robinson confirmed the report as authentic. The rest of Arlie's testimony, riddled with emotive cliches about genocide and the like was from "media reports" because the UN reports were unreliable. LOL LOL
The video in English, but not in BCS, then went down late in the session because someone probably pulled the plug to save the show from further embarrassment. And they have the gall to say Milosevic is turning the show into a circus? LOL LOL
Indeed, he's making them look like clowns, that's for sure! Fancy bringing a dimwit like Arlie to testify in the last hours of the "other side's case"! But then again, I guess dimwits like Arlie get paid to do as their told and to parrot stuff rather than for their intelligence and integrity.
So far I make it ZERO witnesses for the other side this year.
By the way Frank Trigelaar, can you make the rest of the video available in English post haste, I'm so hooked on this "NATO's Police Academy" show. Can't wait for Part II to start.
David
Oztralia - Wednesday February 11, 2004 at 9:07 pm
Mr. North:
Regarding your post of Monday February 09, 2004 at 4:20 am -- In my 'Vagabond Pages' under the title "How Many Jews ..." I came to a conclusion totally opposite the one advocated by Mr. Zundel. However, I don't sustain that Holocaust denial should be considered a crime, even if, in my opinion, Mr. Zundel doesn't act in good faith. In my opinion, lies concerning History shouldn't be a topic for criminal investigation but is the domain of the universities (to avoid suspicion of political manipulation). Let's judge History through evidence and logic, not through the courts.Mr. Zundel cannot deny that Nazism killed the Jews, he cannot deny the genocide, through he denies the Holocaust's scope. In the Milosevic trial, all who stand for Milosevic deny that genocide happened, especially because the testimonies of secret witnesses replace evidence.
In cases linked to Nazism, we have all seen the pictures of mountains of corpses. Nobody denied their authenticity, the wagons of hairs, dentures, crutches, aches, aches, aches, which had to belong to somebody. Most of the pictures came from Nazi sources or from reports practically simultaneous with the Allies' entrance. The battlefields were still smoldering; there was no time for fabrication. If the mass killing was not carried out through gas chambers, does Mr. Zundel offer another efficient alternative? Himmler declared (I quote from memory): "The Final Solution is our most glorious achievement which has to remain forever a secret." Mr. Zundel remains obedient to Himmler's order.
W. Markiewicz
Canada - Wednesday February 11, 2004 at 9:10 pm
Correction:
Sorry -- I mispelled 'ashes' in the last paragraph. It should read "...ashes, ashes, ashes, which had to belong to somebody."
W. Markiewicz
Canada - Wednesday February 11, 2004 at 10:09 pm
Robinson: Yes Mr. Milosevic, please continue.Milosevic: Thank you Mr. Robinson. Mr Arlie, let it be clear: I am fully challenging your assertion that the general secretary of the UN at the time, that is to say Boutros Ghali, misinformed you, and that when you say that the secretary in some cases withheld information, that is a completely unfounded accusation leveled against the then secretary general. Are you aware of that or not?
Arlie: No, I believe that, if that would have been the case, I think that Mr. Boutros Ghali would choose another lawyer besides the accused.
Milosevic: I don't understand your answer. I am quoting you, Mr. Arlie, because you say- have provided this information.
Arlie: Your honor--
Milosevic: You also express a lack of confidence in the secretary general and the Security Council, and everybody, except for what you have been saying all along yourself, in terms of what you say happened.
Arlie: Your honor, when the accused referred before to a group, I would like to tell you about a group- meant one hundred and ten countries of the United Nations, all the aligned countries of the United Nations-- him, the members of the aligned, who were accepted into the Security Council, kept always in confrontation. So that was not the opinion of only five members or non-aligned members of the Security Council. To illustrate for the court, your honors, allow me, I will tell you only three things, which I don't want to extend more: Mrs. Ogata was the highest official of the United Nations in charge of the humanitarian affairs. On March 18th, informs the secretary general of the emerging tragedy, the imminent danger to the population of Srebrenica. It took two weeks for the secretary general to inform the Security Council. The night that we were at there, debating, the Security Council's officially safe areas, the Secretariat already knew fully well that Srebrenica had already capitulated, even though they kept-- they did not inform the Council that such and such was the case. A third case: when the new resolution for all the safe areas-- the secretariat withdrew the terms of reference that had been prepared by Madame Ogata, and the secretariat itself-- which were excellent terms of reference to (inaudible) safe areas --they were withdrawn by the secretariat at the instruction of the secretary general. That's what I was-- uhh- when I address the issue of the lack of cooperation-- of misinformation of (inaudible)-- this is what I am referring to, sir.
Milosevic: Mr. Arlie, since you've mentioned Mrs. Ogata now, and her letter that you showed here, are you aware of the fact that it was actually the other way around, that it was quite different from what you've been trying to say all along as you show this letter, because she says: 'During the course of three telephone conversations I had with President Milosevic on passage of relief convoys to eastern and central Bosnia, and in particular to Srebrenica.' Do you know that there has not been a single case, whatsoever, that Serbia, and I personally, and I was the one whom Mrs. Ogata addressed, turned a deaf ear to requests put forth by the UNHCR, in order to facilitate the passage of humanitarian convoys. Every humanitarian convoy that went through Serbia was approved, and not a single one was prevented from carrying out their mission. You do not have one single case that Serbia presented any kind of obstacle to humanitarian aid. On the contrary, Serbia made very effort to make it possible for humanitarian convoys to come through. Do you know that Serbia itself sent convoys to Serbia, including Sarajevo, including the Muslims in Sarajevo. So what have you been trying to prove with this letter, as far as Serbia is concerned, and as far as I am concerned personally. You do not have a single case that we did not---
Robinson: --you must allow the witness to answer the question that you've raised.
Arlie: Your honors, I sort of understood, that was a statement rather than a question, and I know, will you please correct me if I'm wrong.
Robinson: I think that the substance of his question is that Serbia did not present any kind of obstacle to humanitarian convoys coming through.
Arlie: Your honor, Serbia provided all the tanks, ammunition, armament, uniforms, fuel, to precisely, to the proxies who were preventing the humanitarian assistance from arriving.
Milosevic: That is an absurd assertion, Mr. Arlie, but let's move on. You say, in connection with this lack of information, which is impermissible, and you state that it was Boutros Ghali and his services. In paragraph thirty, you say: 'The filter became excessive in the case of the former Yugoslavia. Then the filter turned into a damn, for the containment of information that limited and prevented the arrival of valuable information to the Security Council in real time. Even on issues affecting the lives of thousands of people.' Are you accusing the secretariat, or rather Boutros Ghali, of having committed a crime?
Arlie: Your honor, in the documents that I presented, the general (inaudible) admits that months before we even knew that Srebrenica was about to fall, the secretariat knew about it, and that's precisely what I'm referring to, that the information was not pulled out on time. I hardly doubt that the Security Council would have done much more had it been provided information, but the situation was not that dire the month before, as it was in April 1993.
Milosevic: In relation to Ghali, you spare no accusations, even insulting terms. In paragraph 42, when you say that he did not come to informal consultations of the UN, you call Ghali's behavior, perverse, 'perverse, to define such a practice. I can only use the term 'perverse' to define such a situation.'
Robinson: What is the specific question that you're putting to the witness?
Milosevic: Does that mean that Ghali was concealing information and providing misinformation about things that had to do with the lives of thousands of people, and that he behaved in a perverse way? You describe the behavior of the general secretary, at the request of a body which aspires to be a body of the United Nations.
Arlie: Your honor, almost eleven years ago, I raised my hand to approve the creation of this tribunal. And it was precisely, under the case such as a person as the accused, not to consider the secretary general. So I have to say in my deposition, and I have to repeated it, that at the time I was very critical of the lack of candidness, to use a term, by the secretariat, and some of the major countries, to provide, to admit, and to provide the real information on real time to the Security Council.
Milosevic: Alright, Mr. Arlie. You are no less harsh in assessing the behavior of envoys in negotiations, such as Cyrus Vance and Lord David Owen. In paragraph 148 of you statement, you say 'Negotiations were ongoing at the time of David Owen and Cyrus Vance. A territorial division of an apartheid character was proposed by them, and by Milosevic.' So according to what you say, the two of them, together with me, created apartheid in Bosnia-Hercegovina, and that is a crime, isn't it? How did you get that idea?
Arlie: The security, the non-members, always said, that it should not be the outcome that Bosnia-Hercegovina should be divided along apartheid lines, which precisely what the United Nations fought for years before, the great victors, and the United Nations was a victor against apartheid.
Robinson: Um, Mr. Milosevic is, however, asking, what is the specific basis of your conclusion that he was proposing a division based on apartheid.
Arlie: Your honors, the accused had proceeded a policy of endless conversations and negotiations with the Security Council and some of their mediators, and perfectly were informed by Mr.-- first of all Mr. Owen and Mr. Vance, precisely of what the ambitions of the Serb party were, because at the time, even included, from the beginning, Srebrenica, as part of what they called later the Republika Srpska. That's what I'm referring to. And that part came, that part came from Milosevic himself.
Robinson: Yes, Mr. Milosevic, continue.
Milosevic: Even that is not correct, that it came directly from me. And I asked you a question, by quoting you directly, because you say 'Territorial division of an apartheid character was being proposed by them.' So it's Owen and Cyrus Vance. And then you add, 'and by Milosevic.' That's what I'm telling you. So the two of them, together with me, created some kind of an apartheid.
Arlie: I think I've already replied, your honor, to that question.
Robinson: Yes Mr. Milosevic.
Milosevic: Well do you know, Mr. Arlie, that the Vance-Owen plan precisely envisaged the cantonization of Bosnia, which hardly overlapped with the ethnic pattern of the population in Bosnia-Hercegovina. Partly it did coincide, but partly it did not coincide at all. So that was the basic premise of the Vance-Owen plan, that we all supported, to create any kind of an apartheid. Afterall, that plan still exists and can be seen.
Arlie: You honor, precisely the part that did not coincide with ethnic grounds was the area of Srebrenica, and I think the main part of this conflict knows what they did about it. It was precisely to remove the people from Srebrenica, to far away, that was precisely the region that did not fit exactly into the ethnic partition. Srebrenica was the, was a, the part that paid for this.
Milosevic: Mr. Arlie, in paragraph 150, 51, and 52, you say 'The area of Srebrenica to the Serbs was of strategic importance, both for the Serbs and the UN negotiators. Because Srebrenica had to be in Serb-held territory in order to secure a peace deal. It would become part of Greater Serbia. Such a premeditated course of action can be easily established by just following the reports that secretary general Boutros Ghali never shared with the Council non-permanent members, who were the only ones that would have opposed such a course, as well as by reading the directives he provided to UNPROFOR, not to assist in the protection of enclaves.' So this is what you said, in terms of the responsibility of UN negotiators, I assume you include Owen in that, and the secretary general, and the permanent members of the Security Council. So this is a premeditated course of action, as you put it. Is that right?
Arlie: Your honors, I think I haven't put in writing my position, in order for it to be altered, in the way it is presented, by Mr. Milosevic.
Milosevic: I haven't altered anything, Mr. Arlie. I just quoted you.
Robinson: Do you stand by what's in your report?
Arlie: Yes, sir.
Milosevic: So in your opinion, Owen, Vance, and Security Council, together with me, created some kind of a basis for a Greater Serbia. Is that what you're alleging? There's a lack of seriousness in that, Mr. Arlie. Doesn't it look that way to you?
Arlie: No, it doesn't look that way at all to me. From the first negotiations, and the outcome, that came from the peace resolution at the end of the conflict, reflected precisely what was intended to be, which was an ethnic partition of Bosnia, which unfortunately took place at the end.
Milosevic: Are you saying now that the Dayton agreement was also misconceived, the ones that brought the war in Bosnia to an end, achieved peace. Is that what you're claiming, Mr. Arlie?
Arlie: No, no, I don't know how the accused thinks about it; I feel very relieved that fortunately peace was brought by the people who were humiliated and damaged for such a long time. But I don't think that the causal issue is at stake, that is only to (inaudible)...
Robinson: Proceed Mr. Milosevic.
Milosevic: Please take a look at paragraph 46 of your statement, the UN mission, you say, you actually refer to the enclave, the safe areas, and then you say '--the effects of such designation, it should be clearly and emphatically recorded that the establishment by the Security Council of safe areas in no way undermines the proposed settlement details of the--'
Robinson: Now Mr. Milosevic, I think we are having difficulty finding that, did you say paragraph 46?
Milosevic: Yes, in the report of the mission to the Security Council, his mission, or rather the mission of his group. You say 'in no way undermines the proposed settlement details of the Vance-Owen plan. It is not a plan to create new a different international boundaries withing Yugoslavia.' So you, like all members of the mission, supported the Vance-Owen plan; does that mean that by giving your support in writing, by way of an official document, you supported apartheid actually, by way of supporting the creation of a Greater Serbia, because in this report of yours, you actually support the Vance-Owen plan.
Arlie: Your honor, I could not follow the paragraph that he's quoting.
Robinson: --paragraph 46 of your statement, paragraphy 46 of the report to the Security Council. Mr. Nice is that---
Kwon: Tab 50, page 11.
Arlie: Yes, 46, I have it here.
Robinson: Have you read the paragraph?
Arlie: Yes.
Robinson: Are you in a position now to answer the question raised?
Arlie: Yes, your honor. I am. The whole process the non-aligned members of the-- we always endorsed all the peace plans that were proposed, especially the Vance-Owen plan. This was always-- we could not but hope that-- for peace, but at the same time, we were demanding that some force of action be taken in the Security Council. And we considered that the compatible, especially compatible with the situation of the Security Council-- that nothing else could be achieved. And unfortunately at the end, I believed, the Kosovo agreement-- actually corroborated the ethnic partition of a country, setting a terrible precedent for humanity. I believe so, sir.
Milosevic: Well, I assume that you're not testifying here about your convictions, but it has become obvious here that you are testifying about your convictions. So, you supported the Vance-Owen plan, although you said before that that the Vance-Owen plan was, or rather that Vance and Owen together with me were creating a division which constituted apartheid. That plan, if you don't know that, Mr. Arlie, was made by the three parties in Bosnia-Hercegovina. Yugoslavia supported that, as it supported all other peace plans. In that respect, you cannot find any difference between the positions upheld by the Security Council and the positions held by Yugoslavia. Because Yugoslavia, Serbia, and I personally, supported all peace plans. Are you aware of that?
Arlie: I am very much aware, your honor, that Srebrenica was always an issue-- in discussion. The Serb side always wanted to have Srebrenica, which was, wanted to have always on the Serb side. And that is what happened: Srebrenica today is on the Serb side.
Milosevic: Do you know that these maps are the result of the final negotiations held in Dayton, on the basis of the finally adopted position, which was on the basis of the proposal of the Contact Group: 51% to 49% between Republika Srpska and the Federation of Bosnia-Hercegovina, and that proposal by the Contact Group had been put forth months before that. You remember that, don't you?
Arlie: Your honor, at the moment of Dayton, already the situation created by the atrocities committed by the Serb side on Bosnia-Hercegovina, had already settled the issue. There was no option but for the Bosnia-Hercegovina government to accept those terms, especially knowing that nobody else is going to do anything about it.
Milosevic: Mr. Arlie, since you were not in Dayton, you probably don't know that all options were on the table and that there weren't any questions that were reserved, so to speak, and that could not be discussed. The Dayton agreement is the result of consensus of three parties that participated in it, as well as the representatives of the Contact Group, and the host country, the United States. I assume that you know that, and that you don't need me to explain it to you.
Arlie: Your honor, I don't know if the Kosovo-- the Dayton agreement is part of what you would like me to consider in the time that I've been given. If you want me to, I will go into it.
Robinson: Well, answer to the extent that you can. Briefly.
Arlie: I stand by what I said before, I believe that at the outcome, people were being ravaged, the country was being destroyed, subject to genocide, all kinds of crimes against humanity, and the situation settled, but the Serb side, with the support of Belgrade, had made it that possible. And there were no other options but for the representatives of Bosnia-Hercegovina to sign. There are many books written about what happened there, and I'm sure your honors know all about it. But there is one item-- fact-- that remains standing, that at the end, Bosnia-Hercegovina, one of the newest countries of the United Nations, was partitioned along ethnic considerations, and I stand on that.
Milosevic: Alright Mr. Arlie, you stand by facts that cannot be corroborated in the field actually, but let us move on, because our time is not unlimited. In paragraph 35 you say the non-permanent members therefore often relied on media sources, '--information services, they were usually more reliable than the secretariat.' So, since you were very poorly informed in the Sercurity Council, you received information from the media, is that right?
Arlie: Your honors, if the courageous photographers and journalists had not brought to the pages of the world what's happening in Srebrenica, even though the United Nations knew, we didn't know, poor or no attention would have been provided. And it was international media, precisely, in Great Britain, that provided this information. The media was following, actually were the greatest allies that the non-permanent members had, they had more people on the ground covering up and being objective and independently providing information. That was not the only source, of course, but it was the one that resounded more, and particularly Srebrenica, was not massacre in April 1993, because of their feat that these greatest journalists provided to world opinion.
Milosevic: Why there was not a massacre in 1993 is something that is clearly testified about. There is a lot of evidence about that, but I'm not going to take up more time, because you obviously don't know about it. If you received the information from the media, can one therefore infer that you did not differ substantially from millions of people who received their information by watching television, listening to the radio, and reading the newspapers. Can we therefore conclude that you are no better a witness than any other listener of the radio, or any other person who read the newspapers, watched television, and so one?
Arlie: Your honors, had it not been for this information, General Morillon probably would not have appeared in Srebrenica, and he did. And when you compound the news that were circulating around the world, and immediately General Morillon went into Srebrenica, that made it impossible for the Security Council not to meet. And I must tell your honors, that had it not been becasue the non-aligned council had presented a resolution to...no resolutions were being created....were being circulated.
Milosevic: That's not true, but as we have occasion to hear General Morillon here in this courtroom, I don't suppose there's any need for you to testify in place of General Morillon. Now tell me please, since you're speaking about the media, and the fact that you were informed thereof, do you agree with the observation made by David Owen, which he presents in his book, and I'm going to quote from that book, and it is linked to the media, and here's what he says: 'In this stage of the propaganda war via its relations with the public, has become a feature of the war in Bosnia-Hercegovina. The documents registered with the ministry of justice of the United States of America, have shown that the-- that Croatia paid a Washington company for relations with the public, Ruder Finn Global Public, 10,000 dollars a month plus expenses for it to project a favorable image of Croatia, to the members of Congress, to the Administration, and the news. And for their part, the Bosnian government paid for services rendered in placing comments and columns by writers-- letters to the editor--' and then it goes on to state all the activities undertaken, I haven't got the time to quote Lord Owen in full on all these communiques, interviews, and all the rest, granted to the press, through official letters and so on--
Robinson: You must now put a specific question.
Milosevic: So, Lord Owen concludes that 'in the international committee for the former Yugoslavia, we did not have a means by which to respond to something of that nature' so he means to this media propaganda that Owen is indicating, so are you bearing that in mind or not, and do you agree with him or don't you?
Arlie: Your honor, I believe that's for Lord Owen to respond for himself, I cannot respond for Owen, but I can, if you like, make a couple of comments.
Robinson: If you wish to. Briefly.
Arlie: Had Belgrade not been under sanctions, most probably would have hired a public relations firm, but they were under sanctions. Had the former Yugoslavia kept the prestige it had for so many years until this conflict started, they would not have needed any kind of public relations to help them. Yugoslavia was, before the accused came in, a very respected and prestigious country in the international community
Milosevic: Well why then did the Bosnian government need experts for public relations, and paid agitators and lobbyists in Congress, and in the media in general, in the West? Why did they need that, if what you say is true?
Arlie: Well, I am not privy to why Bosnia had or had not. That's for them to respond, your honor.
Milosevic: Alright, but having in mind the propaganda war that Lord Owen mentions, can you say with certainty that the media information upon which you based your knowledge about the events in Bosnia, were always true and correct and reliable?
Arlie: Your honors, I cannot comment on the propaganda war. What I comment on is the ethnic cleansing war, the massacre war, and the crimes and atrocities being committed. That I can report. I cannot report on the propaganda war.
Milosevic: Tell me now, please, because in the report that I quoted from, and this is your own report, paragraph 46, whereas we can see you say nice things about the Vance-Owen plan, whereas in the statement that you gave following an assignment from the opposite side, you say the worst things about the peace plan. So, what knowledge did you gain in the meantime that influenced this change of opinion on your part?
Arlie: Your honor, I really don't understand the question.
Robinson: Repeat the question. Clarify it.
Milosevic: Mr. Arlie, in your statement, the one that I quoted from, saying nice things about the plan, and you gave that statement at the request of the opposite site, that is to say Mr. Nice. Now in your report, you say favorable things about that same Vance plan, so I'm asking you now, from the time you made favorable statements about the plan, what changed your opinion, what influences were you working under that made you change your opinion about the plan?
Arlie: The behavior of the accused, fundamentally. The systematic boycotting of the process. The creation of the image that the accused was going to be the main party, was really going to be put in effect for a stop to the conflict.....
P M
USA - Thursday February 12, 2004 at 1:21 am
Did anybody here manage to watch the February 11th proceedings live? I have been trying to watch the recording on the bard.edu website, but since it is not time coded it is practically impossible to watch.I really don't understand why they have so many problems with the video lately. Half of the 10th was cut off, and the 11th is impossible to watch because it isn't timecoded.
The Tribunal put up Wesley Clark's transcripts within 48 hours, and the LiveNote system at the tribunal produces the transcripts in real time, so I don't understand why the tribunal's website can't provide the transcripts in a more timely fashion. I don't understand why it should take 2 - 8 weeks for the tribunal to put up the transcripts.
It really seems as if they are trying to conceal what is going on there.
If somebody can fill me in on what I missed on the 11th it would be appreciated. I was able to watch the first hour or so, and I saw Mr. Nice's re-examination of B-1804, and I saw the first few minutes of Mr. Brunborg's examination-in-chief.
Andy Wilcoxson
Washington, United States - Thursday February 12, 2004 at 1:27 am
The Iraq war was the topic on Larry King Live Wednesday 11th of February. Senator Warner of course justified the war while Feinstein said that she was hooped by Bush’s lies. Condoleezza Rice, as if speaking to morons, lied through her teeth and Grandfather Larry asked pabulum questions of Condi as he called herNo one said that this war brutalized and demoralized the men doing the killing, no one said that what they are doing is foul, and no one said that what they are doing is murder for profit. Feinstein did express her concern for the dead young Americans and thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens who have been killed.
This path of glory is foul with self interest. David Kay America’s Chief Weapons Inspector who did not find any weapons but supports the government action summed it all up with these words as his interview ended “my wife warned me that I should not make a mistake of being unemployed’. No Mr. Kay you saved your job for the next hoax These people, including Larry King, are like a festering boil on humanity they need to be lanced.
Martin Luther King Jr.’s words apply to international justice when he said that injustice is “Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all its tension exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.”
Walter Trkla
Kamloops
Canada - Thursday February 12, 2004 at 2:20 am
The Milosevic trial is a travesty
Political necessity dictates that the former Yugoslavian leader will be found guilty - even if the evidence doesn't
Neil Clark Thursday February 12, 2004 The Guardian
It is two years today that the trial of Slobodan Milosevic opened at The Hague. The chief prosecutor, Carla Del Ponte, was triumphant as she announced the 66 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity and genocide that the former Yugoslavian president was charged with. CNN was among those who called it "the most important trial since Nuremburg" as the prosecution outlined the "crimes of medieval savagery" allegedly committed by the "butcher of Belgrade". But since those heady days, things have gone horribly wrong for Ms Del Ponte. The charges relating to the war in Kosovo were expected to be the strongest part of her case. But not only has the prosecution signally failed to prove Milosevic's personal responsibility for atrocities committed on the ground, the nature and extent of the atrocities themselves has also been called into question.
Numerous prosecution witnesses have been exposed as liars - such as Bilall Avdiu, who claimed to have seen "around half a dozen mutilated bodies" at Racak, scene of the disputed killings that triggered the US-led Kosovo war. Forensic evidence later confirmed that none of the bodies had been mutilated. Insiders who we were told would finally spill the beans on Milosevic turned out to be nothing of the kind. Rade Markovic, the former head of the Yugoslavian secret service, ended up testifying in favour of his old boss, saying that he had been subjected to a year and a half of "pressure and torture" to sign a statement prepared by the court. Ratomir Tanic, another "insider", was shown to have been in the pay of British intelligence.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1146238,00.html
Dan B
Canada - Thursday February 12, 2004 at 5:50 am
Dan B, of course that the “Milosevic trial is a travesty”, no need for you to shout ‘EUREKA’ about that. The point is: what do you actually suggest should be done? I think it is about the time that all of you spell it out. How should the question of responsibility for Yugoslav tragedy be dealt with? Is Milosevic one of those who should be taken to account? Who else from Yu and internationally? Lets see if our list is the same…
Godfred Louis-Jensen, I appreciate the tone and the content of your last posting, hence your prophecy that “we shall be hearing more from you” has come true. The point is that even this single topic that bothers you more than any other problem in the world, that is to say ‘the "fairness" of the ICTY "trial" (in spite of other problems, other aspects in this world)’, CANNOT BE SOLVED SATISFACTORILY INDEPENDENTLY OF THOSE ‘other aspects in this world’ . That is the key point! Great many partial problems or private problems all hinge on the resolution of the class struggle, that is to say on the fundamental characteristics of the social formation, on the question is the power in the hands of the working class and vast majority of population, or in the hands of few monopolists. So you are wasting your time on correspondence with UN, because that kind of protest politics is certain to be in vain. If you want to achieve something for real, and not just to talk, then help the formation of socialist movement in Europe centered around the WSWS and the International Committee of the Fourth International. Ironically socialism could be the only hope of Milosevic for justice, because there is indeed a lot of injustice for him. For example all of the Serbian opposition was worse nationalists than he, and if they were on power, maybe they would be the accused ones now. So, only the victory of socialism and by that means the victory of mankind would be able to put the things into the right perspective. Not speaking of the fact that socialism would certainly mean a kind of abolition for some crimes of the past, since nobody is criminal by definition, but by social circumstances. In one word you need to change the weapons, those you use at present are ineffective.
Arandjel,
I would like to point to some, in my opinion, weaknesses in your argument:
1. Your position seems to be centered around Yugoslav nationalism, what is thousand times better than Serbian nationalism, of course, but still is a nationalistic perspective. The article I posted explains well that even Yugoslavia is not a viable solution, but that a larger federation of socialist states of Balkan, with further perspective of uniting across Europe; what as we can witness bourgeois is not able to accomplish, or accomplishes in distorted manner:
“Capitalist globalization means a “Europe without borders” only for the corporate bosses, while the workers remain straitjacketed within national boundaries. We reject the reactionary utopia of returning to a French national project-unviable even under Mitterrand 20 years ago-and fight for a socialist United States of Europe, with complete freedom for workers of every race and nationality to travel, work and live where they wish.”
2. You give too much credit to one versus the other petty-bourgeois politician (Ante Markovic, Panic…). That is of course widespread mode of thinking in the middle class in Yugoslavia and elsewhere, specially is a part of heritage of Titoism. Just read the daily comments on the B92 which endlessly rotate illusions from this to that petty-bourgeois professor, like among gods in the Greek mythology. In fact they are all substantially the same, and have no independent say in politics, because they have no viable social class behind them, they are like actors, dressed better or worse, with differences which melodramatic story to say today, and to which boss from big capital to lean to, and so on. They are not capable of doing anything good. In centering on negotiations of few leaders of former republics you loose from the perspective more fundamental processes. To save the time, I quote few paragraphs, which contain the key facts about our history that are virtually unknown to our citizens:
“When Tito died the bureaucracy increasingly turned to free market policies with Slobodan Milosevic, a protégé of the West, setting up the Milosevic Commission in 1987 to justify the introduction of IMF “structural adjustment” programmes. The austerity measures sparked off strikes and other mass protests by the Yugoslav working class. Seeking to divert the class struggle, ex-Stalinist bureaucrats such as Milosevic, Tudjman in Croatia and Izetbegovic in Bosnia promoted nationalist sentiments, while seeking support from Western governments. Despite his elevation to guarantor of the Dayton Accords that ended the Bosnian conflict, Milosevic came into conflict with the US. Washington had concluded that the dissolution of Yugoslavia could not proceed whilst the Serbian ruling elite strove to preserve a unitary state in which it played the dominant role.”
So whatever the temporary balance of power, confederation or anything, under the pressure of reactionary economic policies and lacking the conscious working class as the only backbone who could support Yugoslavia, I am afraid that it is a great illusion that it would be much different. For example almost all the opposition was much worse, more nationalistic than Milosevic, even those who pretended to be civilized like ‘gradjanski savez’ or democratic party in its early days, later joined the most reactionary forces like Serbian Renewal movement. The same happens today, some people endlessly attach themselves to rotten causes. They harboured illusions in Micunovic’s Democratic Center, Korac’s Social-democratic Party…, and then election came, and those politicians all abolished their parties in exchange for few parliamentary seats on the list of Democratic Party. That's the essence of petty-bourgeois politics. The only viable way to prevent the war, and solve all other problems, economic, cultural… is to work within the working class, raise her consciousness, organize a revolutionary Marxist party in the unity with international movement of the working class. What other basis you see? Which social layer? Could it be the spoiled parasitic middle-class? Endless incarnations of Vuk Draskovic, Micunovic and all others, or new not yet discovered “experts”, “intellectuals”…? Indeed, this is the question for everyone on this forum: What is the way out of the basement of Serbian politics?
…a little bit coarse, but I hope the main points are clear. Despite Godfred’s kind invitation, my research will not allow me to participate much longer. Today on the WSWS the new article on Yugoslavia:
Dutch leaders involved in NATO bombing of Yugoslavia testify at The Hague
Goran Mihajlovic
Yugoslavia - Thursday February 12, 2004 at 7:32 am
Goran Mihajlovic says... "Indeed, this is the question for everyone on this forum: What is the way out of the basement of Serbian politics?"
You can expand that to include WORLD politics! No need to be too parochial about our perspectives, is there? You won't fix Serbia without fixing the wider and more dominant problem. Serbia is a victim to a much bigger malaise.
One, but only ONE means is NOT to buy into the validity of ICTY-like institutions and the GLOBALIST propaganda designed to cover up and LEGIYIMISE their misdeeds.
That is precisely why some of us "serb nationalists" (where is Serbia by the way LOL?) disagree with the charade in the Hague and the lynching of Milosevic for things he has or hasn't done, AND for which others have MUCH GREATER responsibility.
Opposition to and denial of the validity of the current Hague charade and its lies, together with the search and DEMAND for TRUTH, is in itself a step in mounting a resistance. So what's your beef against the so called "serbian nationalists"?
As for Serb TV being a "legitimate target" and Milosevic knowing about it, Jamie Shea was quite categorical and on public record in claiming that RTB WASN'T a target: 'Lies About Targets'The lies never end!
David
Oztralia - Thursday February 12, 2004 at 7:55 am
Goran MihajlovicWhere is report from Pristina Kosovo? Do you believe so little in your own words that you can not do such a simple thing? Or you are just coward with big mouth? Which is it?
A. Turcotte
Ottawa, Canada - Thursday February 12, 2004 at 8:08 am
Does anyone have any info on why May is away this week? I missed the chamber's explanation.
David
Oztralia - Thursday February 12, 2004 at 8:09 am
Thank you P MJoel Aksamit: you are not alone, I agree with you, evolution is fraught with difficulties. A design argument has no difficulties, except that the people don't like the notion of God.
Ironically much like this trial discussion, facts are dismissed and name calling replaces debate when otherwise 'rational human beings' are challenged in their long held positions. Simply replace nationalist or fascist with religious nut and these poor fools think they have made some irrefutable point.
Sadly it seems as though most people much prefer to be labeled fascist. Perhaps they feel more comfortable defending themselves against such a charge. I personally good give a flip less, but it says much about those you are debating. Especially when it sends someone into an incoherant rant.
Joel Aksamit
Cleveland Mo
USA - Thursday February 12, 2004 at 8:40 am
DAVID, in your ‘perspective’, why not start destroying machines, because they are guilty for workers being exploited and deprived of rural wonderland? What is “GLOBALIST propaganda?” Is globalization of production bad, incidental and reversible process? And is the alternative to that globalization chetnik knife and national states of 19th century? I don’t see other alternative in your postings. Just empty phrases that purport to sound radical, but are actually completely benign for the present world order, in the same way like the prehistoric tribal warriors with their spears are not a threat to the tanks and aeroplanes. For you this word ‘globalisation’ is a mystical term, object of fixation, seems to me, that serves the purpose to supplement your lack of understanding for the world politics. Why is nobody interested in your ‘great truth’? Why more people care about economy? “What's [my] beef against the so called "serbian nationalists"?” Exactly that “search and DEMAND for TRUTH” is not their agenda. Because the tragedy was caused by nationalism as a response to economic inability of the ruling classes, yet you now want to use it to justify exactly that same nationalism! You have seen that behind this is Draza Mihajlovic. Are you too his follower? Do you envisage the opposition to ‘globalization’ as flocking around fascist quislings? Don’t hide your nationalism behind the worry for the truth and the care for the world.
Since ‘globalization’ is such a fixation for you, Mrya and possibly others, I post here the link to the article that scientifically treats this subject and what is most important, delineates the real opposition to the ruling order from its caricature.
“The great question today is not to roll back development to some largely mythical age of isolated national economic life-it is this: who is going to control the global economy, whose interests are going to determine how its immense technical and cultural capabilities are utilized? The only social force capable of organizing the global economy in a progressive fashion is the international working class.”
Goran Mihajlovic
Yugoslavia - Thursday February 12, 2004 at 8:46 am
Goran Mihajlovic, I was not shouting EUREKA, but simply providing a link to an article, and the name of the article is The Milosevic trial is a travesty.
Dan B
Canada - Thursday February 12, 2004 at 9:03 am
I agree with mr. Turcotte above, where is your report goran? Since you concider yourself a man of the world, it would be a simple task for you and by the way, what happened to your language? Have you washed your mouth?
Mrya Antonov
Rossija - Thursday February 12, 2004 at 9:23 am
Dear A. Turcotte from Ottawa, Canada (and Mrya from the bathtub):
I have already posted to you the “report from Pristina Kosovo”, but the problem is that it seems that you have apparently attended the same school as some others on this forum who have the problem with “too many words”, so please don't blame me for your illiteracy. If you are interested in my report, read again my postings, and hopefully you will find it.
If on the other hand, your level is too low to understand and recognize my report, then I don't know whom should you blame except Joel Aksamit’s “Almighty”.
Goran Mihajlovic
Yugoslavia - Thursday February 12, 2004 at 9:34 am
Whatever respect I had for socialist/communist movement I had you just managed to destroy. If you are the example of the better world that rule of the workers shall provide I shall fight to the end to prevent it. And I believe workers would fight you too.
A. Turcotte
Ottawa, Canada - Thursday February 12, 2004 at 9:36 am
PS. Have you actually visited physically Pristina in the last 5 years?
A. Turcotte
Ottawa, Canada - Thursday February 12, 2004 at 9:36 am
Goran
You really should get yourself a life, man.
I couldn't give a flying fak about your anti-Serb nationalist or your pro-Marxist obsessions.
Let me spell it out for you again since you're either blind, deaf or have serious problems understanding the SIMPLEST fact: NOT ALL OF US HERE ARE SERBS OR SERB NATIONALISTS.
Repeat: NOT ALL OF US HERE ARE SERBS OR SERB NATIONALISTS.
Are you getting that simple message or would you like it repeated again?
Come to think of it, why are you still here after you said your goodbyes? ....
"why not start destroying machines"
"is the alternative to that globalization chetnik knife"
"You have seen that behind this is Draza Mihajlovic."
"Do you envisage the opposition to ‘globalization’ as flocking around fascist quislings?"
Man, oh man, you have some serious mental dislocation there, buddy. You fall off your Marxist soap box a few times or what?! Your bipolar world of Marxists or Fascists simply indicates a bipolar cerebral disorder. Take a pill.
David
Oztralia - Thursday February 12, 2004 at 9:49 am
BTW ... Mark today as another day for Slobo! Morillon=0! Diary investigator=-1! OTP=Disaster!
David
Oztralia - Thursday February 12, 2004 at 9:59 am
Arben Q (Goran "the nutcracker" M)=0
... ....
! - Thursday February 12, 2004 at 10:31 am
The Milosevic trial is a travestyPolitical necessity dictates that the former Yugoslavian leader will be found guilty - even if the evidence doesn't
Neil Clark Thursday February 12, 2004 The Guardian
It is two years today that the trial of Slobodan Milosevic opened at The Hague. The chief prosecutor, Carla Del Ponte, was triumphant as she announced the 66 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity and genocide that the former Yugoslavian president was charged with. CNN was among those who called it "the most important trial since Nuremburg" as the prosecution outlined the "crimes of medieval savagery" allegedly committed by the "butcher of Belgrade".
But since those heady days, things have gone horribly wrong for Ms Del Ponte. The charges relating to the war in Kosovo were expected to be the strongest part of her case. But not only has the prosecution signally failed to prove Milosevic's personal responsibility for atrocities committed on the ground, the nature and extent of the atrocities themselves has also been called into question. Numerous prosecution witnesses have been exposed as liars - such as Bilall Avdiu, who claimed to have seen "around half a dozen mutilated bodies" at Racak, scene of the disputed killings that triggered the US-led Kosovo war. Forensic evidence later confirmed that none of the bodies had been mutilated. Insiders who we were told would finally spill the beans on Milosevic turned out to be nothing of the kind. Rade Markovic, the former head of the Yugoslavian secret service, ended up testifying in favour of his old boss, saying that he had been subjected to a year and a half of "pressure and torture" to sign a statement prepared by the court. Ratomir Tanic, another "insider", was shown to have been in the pay of British intelligence.
When it came to the indictments involving the wars in Bosnia and Croatia, the prosecution fared little better. In the case of the worst massacre with which Milosevic has been accused of complicity - of between 2,000 and 4,000 men and boys in Srebrenica in 1995 - Del Ponte's team have produced nothing to challenge the verdict of the five-year inquiry commissioned by the Dutch government - that there was "no proof that orders for the slaughter came from Serb political leaders in Belgrade".
T o bolster the prosecution's flagging case, a succession of high-profile political witnesses has been wheeled into court. The most recent, the US presidential hopeful and former Nato commander Wesley Clark, was allowed, in violation of the principle of an open trial, to give testimony in private, with Washington able to apply for removal of any parts of his evidence from the public record they deemed to be against US interests.
For any impartial observer, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that Del Ponte has been working backwards - making charges and then trying to find evidence. Remarkably, in the light of such breaches of due process, only one western human rights organisation, the British Helsinki Group, has voiced concerns. Richard Dicker, the trial's observer for Human Rights Watch, announced himself "impressed" by the prosecution's case. Cynics might say that as George Soros, Human Rights Watch's benefactor, finances the tribunal, Dicker might not be expected to say anything else. Judith Armatta, an American lawyer and observer for the Coalition for International Justice (another Soros-funded NGO) goes further, gloating that "when the sentence comes and he disappears into that cell, no one is going to hear from him again. He will have ceased to exist". So much then for those quaint old notions that the aim of a trial is to determine guilt. For Armatta, Dicker and their backers, it seems that Milosevic is already guilty as charged.
Terrible crimes were committed in the Balkans during the 90s and it is right that those responsible are held accountable in a court of law. But the Hague tribunal, a blatantly political body set up and funded by the very Nato powers that waged an illegal war against Milosevic's Yugoslavia four years ago - and that has refused to consider the prima facie evidence that western leaders were guilty of war crimes in that conflict - is clearly not the vehicle to do so.
Far from being a dispenser of impartial justice, as many progressives still believe, the tribunal has demonstrated its bias in favour of the economic and military interests of the planet's most powerful nations. Milosevic is in the dock for getting in the way of those interests and, regardless of what has gone on in court, political necessity dictates that he will be found guilty, if not of all the charges, then enough for him to be incarcerated for life. The affront to justice at The Hague over the past two years provides a sobering lesson for all those who pin so much hope on the newly established international criminal court. The US has already ensured that it will not be subject to that court's jurisdiction. Members of the UN security council will have the power to impede or suspend its investigations. The goal of an international justice system in which the law would be applied equally to all is a fine one. But in a world in which some states are clearly more equal than others, its realisation looks further away than ever.
· Neil Clark is a writer specialising in east European and Balkan affairs
Dakic Ana
Serbia - Thursday February 12, 2004 at 10:35 am
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1146238,00.html
Dakic Ana
Serbia - Thursday February 12, 2004 at 10:38 am
When Goran does not write, as socialists would label, like a moral degenerate he actually makes some sense (article Thursday February 12, 2004 at 5:50 am).However, much of the WSW article that Goran provided a link to is without evidence, a lot of claptrap and paraphrasing the Western Media. No wonder towards the end of his life when there were so many different interpretations of Marx’s ideas, Marx wrote: “Of one thing I am certain; I am no Marxist.”
Walter Trkla
Kamloops BC
Canada - Thursday February 12, 2004 at 12:08 pm
Ana and David, The Gardian article is for sure a turn around in reporting of the trial of Mr. Milosevic. Even the main player is named, Mr. Soros. This guy is really reach. He can buy a court for him self. I think that we finally have an answer to the question posted yesterday: "Why poor Carla has to go?" She promised to deliver mountains and she did, but they were mountains of Bull.
Pera Bora
Ottawa
Canada - Thursday February 12, 2004 at 1:14 pm
Pero Peric I supported the Jugoslavia that would prevent war and refugees. A confederation should have been given a chance. Do you agree?You are unnecessry complicating situation. Which Jugoslavia did you support? .
David 'you forget that Croatia and Slovenia, under German tutelage, agitated the mess in Kosovo BEFORE their secessions. THEY wanted a mess.' No I didnt forget -they made rational decision they wanted to have say in where federal budget was going. Nationalists in Slo and Cro also hid behind this argument but many people do hide behind argument when they mean something else. Here as well.
You forget that Zimmerman aided and abetted the Croatian secession, so why would he support confederation? - No I didnt you forgot that I take event from 1990. In 1990 Zimmerman position and US position was to keep Jugoslavia together. Offer of confederation was made before US changed position. You have it wrong way round. Check chronology of Jug crisis on some internet site if you dont believe it but I remember.
As for rest of your argument I told you before that Jug died when Slovenia was allowed to go. My opinion is war would happen on bigger or smaller way after 1990-91. Key was to stop Slovenia then Jug still had chance. You should face my argument and tell me how it is wrong in 1990 not to go ahead to 1992+ when game was over.
David I dont think President of my country Serbia, Jugoslavia is a small fish. He is big fish. Biggest fish in this country, in whole Balkans. Im sorry other big fish arsewhole like Tudjman didnt get charged by tribunal as well. Yes Im sorry that crimes like bombing of RTS, train, cluster bomb market and so are not punished. W Clarke, Clinton is war criminal and who gave order for these bombing should be put also in the Hague. All of them should go small and big fish. And I would put them in same room in prison. After what they did they deserve to feel some of pain they gave to people. But probably they would laugh anyway.
Goran I think I asked people at Jurist what they think should be done. Usually reply is something like 'country should be left to put in court own suspects'. This forgets one small fact. There is no law in Balkan countries there is only government. Government will make sure judges know if suspect should be guilty or no. Look at Croatian court system. It is joke.
To answer your points. I know that my view is different from Socialistic one. Real socialist one not stupid SPS or JUL fantasy. You are right about Markovic, Panic. In the end they are making neoliberalistic economic. Probably you will agree with me that this was one reason for bad situation of Jugoslavia just before breaking up. More of same was not necessarily solution of the problem. But as long as capitalistic policy was followed actually and no idiot like Tudjman, Cosic tried to turn it into ethnic struggle, there was chance that workers across Jugoslavia would see each other as brothers. Jugoslav nationalism might not be answer but it was based on peaceful history. Serbian, Croatian nationalism has bloody history and has more tribal feeling.
Your quote is very important point. I tried to tell people at Jurist before that Milosevic was not anti globalist that they believe. As article says he privatised Telecom. I also know smaller fact other people dont know. People forget that Milosevic was banker. Banker agent of capitalist system turn hero of anti globalist cause:) I fight to tell everyone that he never had any political belief. Only power. But now here comes me to criticise you. You called Milosevic right wing before I think. I think you know this is not true. If only he had any political belief. He at some times used retoric that was attract to right wing, he sometimes did same to attract left wing - although I dont know if we really had left wing.
Your comment about Serbian political sene today are true. I said this before at Jurist I am not fan of DOS. Those parties are big disapointment to people because they behave in same way to Milosevic.
There is a problem with political culture in Jugoslavia and I dont know way out of basement of Serbian politics. When you look at what is happening now with our leaders is it surprise that we went to war against each other? They are really bad with negotiations. All of them push until the end supporting own side. They must play bad poker. Attitude is destroy everything before letting other player beat you. Whole country is being destroyed around us Jugoslavia yesterday and Serbia today but they cant make deal. Tommorow we could have Radical government.
'Because the tragedy was caused by nationalism as a response to economic inability of the ruling classes' - yes that is where I agree with Socialist philosophy on Jugoslav case.
What research you doing Gorane? Does anybody here find interesting that my opinion is always discredit by some Soros comment or love of the West or selling of Milosevic but everybody else at Jurist has right to an opinion? Why is it like that? So Mr Trkla it isnt surprise to you that I must struggle if nothing good comes.
vytas abrutis think I dont know that you have obsession with marajuana or to imparsonate me? People like you very silly not because you dont know anything about Balkans but because after 15 years watching Balkan crisis you still cant spell name of Milosevic, never mind my one :) Bravo
Does anybody have information what Plavsic will testify about against Milosevic?
Arandjel Pasic
Jug - Thursday February 12, 2004 at 1:15 pm
GogolIn my haste to advertise the appalling behaviour of the US ambassador to Serbia I overlooked the significance of your remark. I allude not to Montgomery’s sexual misconduct but to his interference in the government of Serbia: matters for which he was not fired. Strange how many Americans go absurdly moralistic over the sight of half a bare breast - and not all of that - while remaining calmly detached about interfering in the affairs of other nations to the extent of tearing the citizens of these nations literally limb from limb for no good reason. Clearly morality has a different meaning in american english.
Sadly I agree with your shrewd observation. The original and wise court procedure enunciated by Justice Goldberg the original chief prosecutor of the ICTY - that of building cases from the crime scene through the chain of command to those ultimately responsible - was overturned by Arbour. Now del Ponte seeks to change the definition of words such as “committed” and “genocide” in order to bolster her cases. In any civilised society such a court would be shut down on these grounds alone.
My purpose in posting such comments as those about Racak is that eventually by such means the truth may dawn. But I fear it will not be soon. In spite of my prompting my brother-in-law still believes that the Serbs destroyed the ancient bridge at Mostar, still believes the Serbs are worse than the Nazis and still believes total US casualties in Iraq amount to no more than 1,000. Rudder Finn and the BBC have a lot to answer for. However I remain convinced that Historians worthy of the name will eventually have the last word and they will not look kindly on the likes of Blair, Cook, Robertson, Short, Shea, BBC - mostly one time self professed communists - Clinton, Cohen, Albright, Clark, Holbrooke, Rubin, Thaci, Ceku, Haradinj, May, del Ponte, Arbour …
Most of us here can see that the ICTY is nothing but a show trial with political objectives. The main objective being to pin the blame for the tragic events in the Balkans during the tenth decade of the twentieth century mostly on the Serbs and on Milosevic in particular: regardless of the facts.
How many Mujahedin head choppers do you expect to appear before Judge May and his like? Blair the great humanitarian, Blair the scourge of terrorists - pull the other one!
Peter Taylor
Herts/UK - Thursday February 12, 2004 at 3:12 pm
Andygreat story on that buffoon the Venazulan Ambassador's testimony at the ICTY.
Everyone should chk it out at:
www.slobodan-milosevic.org
The Ambassador's testimony is a hoot. He may be a joke of a witness, but at least he got his per diem.
AP V
NY
NY - Thursday February 12, 2004 at 4:13 pm
Goran Mihailovic,Fully sharing Peter Taylor's conviction that "Historians will have the last word" I also believe that for all the narrowness of their minds the likes of Arbour, del Ponte, May etc. are not entirely blind for that perspective either!
The JURIST Milosevic Trial Discussion may not be some weapon of mass destruction - but it is not inefficient either; and this Forum has most certainly contributed towards the notion of the ICTY as merely a "show trial with political objectives."
The value of our postings -including statements like that of the SLOBODA/Freedom Association (as relayed on February 09, 2004 at 7:41 am) - lie to a considerable extent in the process of their formation.
I think we could be proud of what has allready been achieved (after all Peter Taylor's brother-in-law (who may rely too heavily on impressions from BBC or whatever?) may by some strange coincidence be the very last person in Britain, or in the world at large to remain unconvinced of the value of seeking the truth).
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K - Thursday February 12, 2004 at 4:46 pm
If this man is a war criminal where is all the evidence? by John Laughland 24 August 2002, Mail on SundayIn the great film with Marlene Dietrich and Charles Laughton, the “Witness for the Prosecution” appears in court and gives exactly the opposite testimony from what was expected. You would not know it from our media - which passed over the event in silence - but the same thing happened at The Hague recently, in the most important war crimes trial since Nuremberg, that of the former Yugoslav president, Slobodan Milosevic. One of the prosecution’s star witnesses said precisely the opposite of what he was supposed to say, dealing what seemed like a fatal blow to a prosecution case which was already reeling from several previous blunders. The star witness in question was Rade Markovic, the former head of the Yugoslav secret services. Before he appeared in the witness box, the media universally hailed him as the insider who would finally give the clinching testimony that Milosevic had personally ordered the persecution of the ethnic Albanian population of Kosovo. This is the single issue which NATO uses to justify its otherwise illegal attacks on Yugoslavia: without it, the moral justification for NATO's war in 1999 completely disappears. The urge to hear Markovic's testimony was all the greater because the prosecution's last "star witness" had been a severe embarrassment. Ratomir Tanic had presented himself as another "insider", and had claimed that he had actually been present when Milosevic gave the genocidal order. Under cross-examination, however, Tanic was shown to be an agent of the secret services of various Western countries, and to be so unfamiliar with the corridors of power that he could not even say what floor in the presidential palace Milosevic's office had been on. The embarrassment over Tanic was equalled only by that caused when an Albanian witness produced a list of names, which he alleged was of Albanians whom the Serb police were to execute. On closer examination, the list turned out to be a fake: the spelling mistakes were so numerous that only an Albanian could have written them. Enter, therefore, Radomir Markovic, the secret police chief who knew more about what was going on in Yugoslavia than anyone else. But, in painstakingly detailed testimony lasting nearly three hours, he told the court that Milosevic had never ordered the expulsion of the Albanian population of Kosovo; that the former president had repeatedly issued instructions to the police and the army to respect the laws of war, and to protect the civilian population, even if it meant compromising the battle against Albanian terrorists; and that the mass exodus of Albanians during the Nato bombing was caused not by Serb forces but instead by the Kosovo Liberation Army itself, which needed a constant flow of refugees to maintain the support of Western public opinion for the Nato campaign. "Did you ever get any kind of report," Milosevic asked him,"or have you ever heard of an order, to expel Albanians from Kosovo?" "No, I never heard of such an order. Nobody ever ordered for Albanians from Kosovo to be expelled," Markovic replied. "Did you receive any information about any plan, suggestion or de facto influence that Albanians were to be expelled?" asked Milosevic. Reply: "No, I never heard of such a suggestion to expel Albanians from Kosovo." "At the meetings you attended, is it true that completely the opposite is said, namely that we always insisted that civilians be protected, and that they not be hurt in the process of anti-terrorist operations?" "Certainly," said the witness. "The task was not only to protect Serbs but also Albanian civilians." "Is it not true that we tried to persuade the flow of refugees to stay at home, and that the army and police would protect them?" the former president asked. "Yes, that was the instruction and those were the assignments." "Do you know that the Kosovo Liberation Army told people to leave, and to stage an exodus?" "Yes," said Markovic. "I am aware of that." The media greeted this stunning evidence with complete silence. Indeed, it even failed to report the most extraordinary assertion of all made by Markovic, namely that he had effectively been tortured by the new pro-Western authorities in Belgrade, in order to make him testify against Milosevic. Markovic claimed that the new Minister of the Interior in the Western-backed government in Belgrade had taken him out to dinner and offered him release from prison - where he has been incarcerated for over a year now - and a new identity in a country of his choice, if only he would agree to testify against his former boss at The Hague. As Slobodan Milosevic tried to point out in his cross-examination - until he was interrupted by the judge, that is - it clearly falls under the terms of the United Nations' definition of "torture" to imprison someone in order to force them to co-operate. Markovic also alleged that the Tribunal's own prosecutors had falsified and embellished the written statement he had given them. These were amazing allegations. With them, the whole prosecution case seemed to crumble. But even more stunning was the reaction of the British presiding judge, Sir Richard May. A judge is supposed to be a neutral arbiter between the prosecution and the defence: May, by contrast, has distinguished himself throughout the trial by his belligerence towards Milosevic, who is conducting his own defence, and in particular for his habit of interrupting Milosevic, even sometimes switching off his microphone, whenever the former Yugoslav leader's cross-examination shows up inconsistencies in a witness' evidence. As May listened to Markovic, he tried desperately to stop him making these allegations against the Prosecutors and their allies in Belgrade. When Markovic began to describe his ordeal at the hands of the new Yugoslav government, May silenced him, saying to Milosevic, “This does not appear to have relevance to the evidence which the witness has given here. We are not going to litigate here with what happened to him (i.e. Markovic) in Yugoslavia when he was arrested." And when Milosevic insisted that the Tribunal's own investigators had falsified Markovic's written evidence, May interrupted him tartly by saying, "That is not a comment which it is proper for you to make." In Judge May's book, therefore, it is irrelevant if the prosecution is lying, or if it is an accomplice to torture. Judge Richard May is no stranger to political activity, like the prosecutor, Geoffrey Nice, he is a committed Socialist: he stood as a Labour Party candidate for Finchley in the general election in 1979, where his Conservative opponent was none other than Margaret Thatcher. As a judge on the Midlands Circuit in the 1980s, he would dine out on this story, for which he enjoyed the admiration of his left-wing colleagues. But even this happy admission of political bias could not have prepared anyone for the way he would react to Markovic's shocking claims. It gets worse. The Tribunal's priorities now seem so distorted that they see Milosevic's "political crime" of resisting NATO as worse than the crimes of physically torturing people to death. On 31st July, the Tribunal ordered the release from custody of a man called Milojica Kos. Kos had served four years of a six-year sentence for murder, torture and persecution as a guard at the notorious Omarska camp in Bosnia, which was compared at the time to a Nazi concentration camp. But the president of the Tribunal, Claude Jorda, said that Kos would be released early because of "his wish to reintegrate himself into society, his determination not to re-offend, his irreproachable conduct in detention, his attachment to his family, and the possibility of exercising a profession again." No such tolerance will be shown to Milosevic. These events have provided spectacular proof of what critics have always said - that the International Criminal Tribunal is a political kangaroo court in the hands of the West. But political manipulation can work both ways. Tony Blair has been a vigorous supporter of a clone of the Yugoslav tribunal, the new International Criminal Court. But why shouldn't the new court be as politicised as the present one? Plenty of anti-Western countries, like Iran, Sudan and Zimbabwe, have signed the new ICC treaty. If they decided to prosecute Tony Blair for attacking Iraq, say, there is little to stop them - especially since the ICC defines "aggression" as a war crime. On his next trip abroad, therefore, Mr. Blair might be wise to pack his toothbrush.
Dakic Ana
Serbia - Thursday February 12, 2004 at 5:47 pm
Today 12 February 2004 is the second anniversary of the beginning of the trial of Slobodan Milosevic, President of Yugoslavia, who stood (stands) in defense of his country against the imperialist powers of NATO.
Judge May (NATO) is missing (!)
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La - Thursday February 12, 2004 at 6:40 pm
One of my cousins was a member of the MUP. He has been to Kosovo and told of his experience to me and other members of my family. He saw many atrocities commited by the MUP and paramilitaries, although he claims that he was not involved.The stories are very difficult for me to accept even though I trust my cousin's word. It is clear that the orders came from very high up in the chain of command. What really bothers me is that many of the Albanian victims were children, women and the elderly. Military age Albanian men were very difficult to capture so orders were given to execute anyone that was thought to be Albanian. Why were these orders given by what I thought was a disciplined Army? Brutal execution and rape were common during the early part of the bombing. Throats were slit of people and their animals and they were thrown down drinking wells in order to polute the water supply. The purpose was to terrify the Albanian population in hopes that most would leave Kosovo and never return. I am deeply ashamed of this behavior by my people. All serbs should be ashamed of this. What can we Serbs do in order to repair our reputation?
Ivan G
Cleveland
Ohio - Thursday February 12, 2004 at 7:32 pm
Ivan G... " Military age Albanian men were very difficult to capture so orders were given to execute anyone that was thought to be Albanian."
All 2000 of them, even if they were Serbs, right? LOL
Have you tried self-mutilation as a measure of your atonement?
Arandjel Pasic
Croatia and Slovenia wanted to know where the federal budget was going? They KNEW because THEY were in charge of it. Zimmerman wanted to preserve YU? Yes, Zimmerman was a nice honest fellow. Much like the US ambassador to Iraq who gave Saddam Hussein the green light to invade Kuwait so they could turn around, bomb him, plant themselves in Saudi Arabia to protect the Royal Family and better control their own business interests in the Middle East. You really don't want to believe EVERYTHING you hear. Reading between the lines would assist in getting a more realistic picture.
Oh yes, WMDs are still to be found in Iraq, but there are plenty of WMDs in Britain and the US... Weapons of Mass DIS-information. And there are plenty of victims of that too, including you (assuming you don't function in their service yourself).
In your case, when we speak of Soros, we speak of one of these weapons SPECIFICALLY applied to Eastern Europe, just as the same weapons are applied in the West and in Asia and where the Western public is deceived in a manner similar to yourself. But the deeds are always done and then justified through propaganda and the power of mass propaganda. Check out Goebbels' strategy and you'll find the exact replication of it today.
And by the way, I suppose Milosevic as a banker also may have arranged a billion plus dollars from the Vatican banks for Croatian and Slovenian financing of arms imports from Britain and US so they could secede?
He's a shifty son of a bitch that Milosevic! How he managed to turn NATO's case at the ICTY on its head will go down in legal history as a miracle. But in fact it is no miracle. It's simply that the FACTS, even in the OTP's documentation show the opposite of what NATO is trying to prove. Did you catch the part about Galbraith, US ambassador, caught in plain lies under oath? Milosevic and Tapuskovic cornered him and destroyed his evidence to such an extent that May had to intervene by shouting and screaming at both Milosevic and Tapuskovic to cover up the embarrassment.
What does that tell you about Zimmerman maybe telling you the "official truth" of wanting to preserve YU? About as much as the ICTY trying to bring truth, justice and reconciliation to the suffering people of YU!
Religion was supposed to be the opium of the people, now it's "democracy, free trade and humanitarianism". As long as the people wander around in some sort of stupor, that will do. Pick your own choice of drug of the day, as long as we can make a buck or three out of it. Everything else is "collateral damage".
David
Oztralia - Thursday February 12, 2004 at 7:32 pm
Ivane, If you are Ivan (or Arben) I hope your cousins testified on trial of Milosevic. If they did not than there are two conclusions: either they are lie about those crimes or they are cowards for not sticking to their words and testify as insiders. Please let us know what crimes they saw, what were places, how many people died etc.As for what orders were given let us remind you to Radomir Markovic, the secret police chief who knew more about what was going on in Yugoslavia than anyone else. But, in painstakingly detailed testimony lasting nearly three hours, he told the court that Milosevic had never ordered the expulsion of the Albanian population of Kosovo; that the former president had repeatedly issued instructions to the police and the army to respect the laws of war, and to protect the civilian population, even if it meant compromising the battle against Albanian terrorists; and that the mass exodus of Albanians during the Nato bombing was caused not by Serb forces but instead by the Kosovo Liberation Army itself, which needed a constant flow of refugees to maintain the support of Western public opinion for the Nato campaign. "Did you ever get any kind of report," Milosevic asked him,"or have you ever heard of an order, to expel Albanians from Kosovo?" "No, I never heard of such an order. Nobody ever ordered for Albanians from Kosovo to be expelled," Markovic replied. "Did you receive any information about any plan, suggestion or de facto influence that Albanians were to be expelled?" asked Milosevic. Reply: "No, I never heard of such a suggestion to expel Albanians from Kosovo." "At the meetings you attended, is it true that completely the opposite is said, namely that we always insisted that civilians be protected, and that they not be hurt in the process of anti-terrorist operations?" "Certainly," said the witness. "The task was not only to protect Serbs but also Albanian civilians." "Is it not true that we tried to persuade the flow of refugees to stay at home, and that the army and police would protect them?" the former president asked. "Yes, that was the instruction and those were the assignments." "Do you know that the Kosovo Liberation Army told people to leave, and to stage an exodus?" "Yes," said Markovic. "I am aware of that."
Details please! Open-ended speculations as somebody told somebody are NOT admissible in court even ICTY.
PS I am PROUD to be Serbian especially after hearing 2 years of bull at ICTY, finally my Serbian conscience is at peace.
Dakic Ana
Serbia - Thursday February 12, 2004 at 7:37 pm
And I beleive G stans for Ivan Govno (shit)
- Thursday February 12, 2004 at 7:42 pm
By the way: MY cousin Nesa (Nenad) was a member of the army at Kosovo. They were given STRICT orders to respect customs of war under a treat of court marshal. Nobody was allowed to put a foot out of line.
Dakic Ana
Serbia - Thursday February 12, 2004 at 7:57 pm
IVAN !-The Serbs on this board a mainly NATIONALISTS, - Chetnicks some fashists and one socialist...........
vytas abrutis
phila
PA, USA- Thursday February 12, 2004 at 8:07 pm
IVAN!book a flight to hague ! -IMEDEATELY! - The prosecution over there is in a desperate need of witnesses..... - The KosovA fase is over but with a killer evidence like THIS they'l find a way to put you on the stand.............- The other good Serbs allready did their part by sending the ousted President to hague in the first place because he is doing a dam good job of cleansing the Serbs from all that slime.............
-The Serbs on this board a mainly NATIONALISTS, - Chetnicks some fashists and one socialist...........
vytas abrutis
phila
PA, USA- Thursday February 12, 2004 at 8:21 pm
"One of my cousins in Albania was a member of the KLA. He has been to Kosovo and told of his experience to me and other members of my family because he saw it with his very own eyes. He saw many atrocities commited by the KLA and paramilitaries, although he claims that he was not involved. The stories are very difficult for me to accept even though I trust my KLA cousin's word. It is clear that the orders came from very high up in the chain of command, Thaci and Albright. What really bothers me is that many of the Serbian victims were children, women and the elderly. Military age Serbian men were very difficult to capture so orders were given to execute anyone that was thought to be Serbian or not supporting the KLA. Why were these orders given by what I thought was a disciplined Army? Brutal execution and rape were common during the early part of the bombing. Throats were slit of people and their animals and they were thrown down drinking wells in order to polute the water supply. The purpose was to terrify the Serbian population in hopes that most would leave Kosovo and never return. I am deeply ashamed of this behavior by my people. All KLA Albanians and their mentors should be ashamed of this. What can we KLA Albanians do in order to repair our reputation?"
Ivan G
Pristina
Serbia- Thursday February 12, 2004 at 8:30 pm
Ivan G
Pristina
Serbi_A- Thursday February 12, 2004 at 10:03 pm
Ivan, where have you been? We have been waiting for you for ages to open our eyes. But what your cousin told you is nothing compared to what my Serbian friend told me. They raped sistematically for years. They never used condoms (sanctions, you know). Then they came back and killed all of their own children and ate them after drinking their blood. They drank it with slivovica. When they were hungry again they started to eat each other. Then you started to whine about being cleansed.A question for you my friend: do you think it is time for pigs to turn into sheep? Thank you for your kind answer. And bear in mind that I do not hate Serbs but I do despise some of them (by now you will know which ones of them). Or, will you?
ivko rig
- Thursday February 12, 2004 at 10:58 pm
Putin Laments Death of the Soviet Union
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La- Thursday February 12, 2004 at 11:17 pm
Freeserbia.tribunal.com and the Bard college videos do not work. Each link is not accessible. Any information?
Dan B
Canada- Thursday February 12, 2004 at 11:21 pm
What a zoo. Ivko you are wrong , they found the canibal in Germany not in Kosovo. Vasile
Vasile Ian
NJ- Thursday February 12, 2004 at 11:51 pm
Gogol Zbigniew Brzezinski predicted this in a live TV interview around 1991. He said that the Soviet Union will disolve first and regroup later into a different type of political and economic structure.
Vasile Ian
NJ- Thursday February 12, 2004 at 11:55 pm
Gogol Zbigniew Brzezinski predicted this in a live TV interview around 1991. He said that the Soviet Union will disolve first and regroup later into a different type of political and economic structure.
Vasile Ian
NJ - Thursday February 12, 2004 at 8:07 pm