 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
- Saturday March 01, 2003 at 5:25 am
The American dream will be a tough sell, and the tougher it is to sell it, the more power the US will use and turn it into a nightmare, making it even harder to sell. A very accurate assessment of what is happening with the US-led globalization can be found in Liu's comment on Thomas L. Friedman recent statements at http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/EB25Dj01.html . For those who have read Amy Chua's writing on Globalization and Ethnic Conflict, this is a must read. For instance, it reminds us that North Korea was nuclearized thanks to the US. Similarly, before 9/11 the US supported Islamist fundamentalism in China! Also, Liu's writing is instructive in commenting on Friedman's terminology. The World of Disorder, as opposed to the World of Order, is divided from now on into failed states, rogue states, and messy states.So for discussions like this, it may be a consolation that the US is on a self-defeating course, because no-one is supposedly crazy enough to hear us. It is a fact that the US will push the UN aside, but it will have to hush up too many things to be able to palm itself off as a success. The Milosevic trial is a case in point, and with it, the whole Balkans fiasco. This in turn is a dent to its freedom-of-speech and open-society agenda.
In this context, it is interesting to consider in what respects Iraq is an opposite of Kosovo. Certainly the US involvement in both areas started at about the same time under the Bush I administration. Politically, they were convergent at that time. The New World Order was not a Clintonian idea: it was the trademark of the Bush I. The idea was to ensure the US hegemony and get rid of some bothersome little regimes which supposedly didn't know what was best for them.
But Yugoslavia was more of a quagmire than anybody had anticipated. In Iraq it was enough to bomb the country. In Yugoslavia, every battle opened up a rift somewhere else. And finally, when it came to the bombing and it was time for the US to take over the lead, the US found itself intervening on behalf of fascists, marxists and islamist fundamentalists. Its original purpose had been only to promote market economy! So the propaganda went into overdrive to sell the mess as a humanitarian intervention. When it couldn't be sold, it just had to be hushed up, at the risk of counteracting its own ideals.
The US bit off more than it could chew. It is true that Milosevic bit off more than he could chew as well, but somehow one can forgive him more easily than the US. Milosevic was wrong to stand up to the US military might and use his people as pawns in this inane battle against the only remaining superpower, but the US was just as wrong to proffer any easy solutions to the complex Yugoslav politics. Milosevic may have been a headache, but so was Clinton. If he wanted a regime change, why doesn't he say it? With Clinton, it was cat-and-mouse all the time. And no matter what the faults of Bush Jr., I like his straightforward style of calling a spade a spade. When he wants a regime change, he says it. Now he should muster up the courage to call Kosovo a failure and act accordingly. Putting off what is inevitable will only buy him time.
The deeper one dives into the Yugoslav breakup, the more difficult it becomes to say who was wrong. Milosevic has his faults, let's make no mistake about that. Let us consider what happened after Serbia refused to apply for separate UN membership. I have made the point before, but let us see what exactly happened.
Ironically, the Croatia indictment focuses on the period when Milosevic could have looked his best. The UN was protecting the Serbs in the UN-protected areas. The international community had pressured Croatia to enact a Constitutional Law that would have ensured Serb autonomy within Croatia. What happened when Yugoslavia refused to apply for UN membership and was shut off from the General Assembly? For starters, the UN troops in Croatia looked like idiots. Were they now to protect the Serbs, when the Serb leadership didn't define its policy toward the Croatian state (by considering itself as the only legitimate successor state of the SFRY, thus leaving the door open for a reconquest) and was shut off from the General Assembly, which could have looked after the Serb interests? It was obvious the Croatian state and its Western backers couldn't live in uncertainty for ever, and the international troops couldn't keep the lid on the Croat nationalism much longer.
In this perspective, one doesn't have to have much sympathy with the hypothetical Milosevic plan to resettle the Croatian refugees in Kosovo. He should have saved their butts while they were still in Croatia. All the legislation and international troops were in place, but the Serb leadership must have thought it had no need for such effeminate rubbish. Hence, it was also preposterous for Milosevic to nitpick about the UN Charter later on.
But this still doesn't mean that he committed crimes. It is just stupendous to see how the prosecution is trying to get him nailed in the trial nonetheless. They are making the most of the procedural antics. For instance, they don't allow Milosevic enough time to do the background checks on the prosecution witnesses. He should have been in the position to find out about Okun's past, which Gogol was able to do on Internet in a few minutes. We have gone through this before. Milosevic is clearly losing the procedural game, but it is becoming equally obvious that the trial is busted.
The Milosevic trial was going from bad to worse. The prosecution had exhausted all the dirty tricks it could use. When even the hush-up strategy wasn't working, the prosecution resorted to a mix of information explosion and secrecy. New indictees started coming to The Hague, and now we have the Seselj trial coinciding with the Milosevic trial. Whatever chances Milosevic would have had on his own will be lost when he gets associated with Seselj. Seselj's theatrics about the Croatian language variant being incomprehensible are going to bode nothing good for the chances of either of them.
But here again, it is the tribunal that is "diseased throughout". The Human Rights Watch said that the Plavsic sentence should correct the impression of the tribunal anti-Serb bias. Here, again, the HRW is more interesting in what it denies than what it says. How can anyone, let alone the honourable persons of HRW, deny the anti-Serb bias of the tribunal? Even if it were true that the tribunal is only doing its job in Serbia, why isn't it doing its job elsewhere?
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Saturday March 01, 2003 at 7:07 am
Not matter how much you turn the issue around you land on the same departing point, the end of the USSR.
It is about the mastery of the World and stopping any powerful challenge to this goal, this is what is all about.
For 50 years they lied about the USSR and when this was not possible any more another danger was invented. Do we need a 5 year old child to explain it to us?
Any 5 year old in this forum, please come forward!
Gogol Charlemagne
Conn., USA - Saturday March 01, 2003 at 2:48 pm
U.S. Diplomat's Letter of Resignation
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/27/international/27WEB-TNAT.html
Pera Bora
Ottawa
Canada - Saturday March 01, 2003 at 4:54 pm
At least some decency:
Middle East - AP Turkey Rejects U.S. Troop Deployment Plan
Gogol Charlemagne
Conn., USA - Saturday March 01, 2003 at 7:29 pm
(On Seselj)
Jari,
I think you might be wrong about Seselj. First of all, Milosevic and Seselj trials are not coinciding (why would you say that?). Milosevic will be deep into defence stage before Seselj trial starts. The established practice of the Tribunal points to this. (Unless, of course, you have information suggesting otherwise.) Do you know how long has Krajisnik been waiting? And still no trial. Even if they do coincide, I don’t understand how will that cause problems for Milosevic. What do you think will come out of Seselj trial that will be so damaging for Milosevic? Seselj indictment is even weaker than Milosevic’s, so it should be even easier to dismantle. This can only help Milosevic, no?
As for Seselj’s ‘theatrics’ about language, I think that he is making a very important point. Of course, it is played to the audience in Serbia, and Seselj is renown for his theatrical style of politics. But isn’t the Tribunal also a theatre? With the dress code for example (as rightly pointed out by Seselj), and with numerous other antics daily performed, also to a target audience? Seselj is very knowledgeable and skilled in both ‘theatrics’ and legal matters. He will use that accordingly to defend himself, or rather, to attack as he already did. Unlike Milosevic, he pursued career in the legal profession. No one should doubt that he will thoroughly study the Tribunal’s rules and look for legal loopholes and precedents. He will study other proceedings, relevant points in the international law etc. He will play for the audience, but you can also expect serious legal arguments that even someone like May won’t be able to disregard. He will be prepared the best one can be. He even doesn’t want to ask for a temporary release so he can study.
But to return to the language issue. The rules stipulate that ‘An accused shall have the right to use his or her own language’. Seselj made it clear that the only language he understands is Serbian. Now, we know very well that he also understands Croatian and Bosnian (Bosniak?), bar some new-speak words invented recently in order to make those two languages less like Serbian. But if those languages are recognised as separate, why insistence that they are the same? And this is the hearth of the matter. Language issue has been used extensively during the past decade in the former Yugoslavia to further various political goals. It was difficult to claim that there is an ancient indigenous Bosnian nation if it hasn’t got it’s own language. In Croatia the language has been used as a tool of ethnic cleansing. Also, it is perfectly normal and legal in Croatian courts to have documents translated from Serbian to Croatian. (Yet when Seselj asks for it, it is ‘theatrics’!?) If we view the Tribunal as a inseparable part of the Yugoslav tragedy, if we accept that in some way the Tribunal aims to confirm ‘the official truth’ about that tragedy, we can not disregard the language issue. And how the Tribunal deals with this issue? By inventing concoction called Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian language! So anything goes? After depriving the accused of their dignity why not strip away their national identity? I actually have even better propasal for the Tribunal: allow use of English only. Like in the good old colonial days.
Seselj will insist on Serbian and Serbian only. He certainly does not want to get into position Milosevic is in where, because of some knowledge of English, he is now forced to accept documents in English, untranslated. It is enough being overwhelmed with millions of pages, let alone having them in a language which is not your first. In this way, using quantity rather than quality, the Prosecution wages a psychological war against the defendant. Milosevic at the beginning refused to accept ANY documents from ‘the other side’, but later, true to his form and character, changed that position. He allowed the Prosecution an advantage he can never beat.
Seselj, on the other hand, will not make such mistakes. He co-operates fully, starting from the decision to surrender voluntarily. He, actually, made the first move by buying a plane ticket to the Hague, even before he was formally charged. (He is now seeking a refund!) Unlike with Milosevic, the Prosecution is the party that will have to do catching-up. Seselj in the Hague is all good news!
Robert D
London
UK - Saturday March 01, 2003 at 8:12 pm
(On Šešelj)
To those who don't have a good knowledge of Serbo-Croatian.
Among the words he said he didn't understand there is also
POGANI (a literal translation would be "bad people"), and
PAGANI (heathens).
At Miloševiæ's trial will see historians. I think Šešelj wants to bring in liguists. He is being persecuted for what he did as well as for what he said. And he spent some time in prison for the latter.
They deserve him.
m k
l - Saturday March 01, 2003 at 9:00 pm
For some very decent reading on this matter I would recommend Wilhelm von Humboldt's On the National Character of Languages
Gogol Charlemagne
Conn., USA - Sunday March 02, 2003 at 12:27 am
Gogol; I want to congratulate to you on the assumption that Turkey is the only hope that will reject US plans on the invasion on Iraq, and your post on: Wednesday February 26, 2003 at 5:37 am.I copied and send your post (without asking you for permission) to friends who called me immediately after Turkey's parliament decision; quoting that you already predicted that.
Gogol! For all of these who think that we are bunch of crooks on this forum; your post, with a logical outcome and prediction about Turkey’s parliament vote outcome, showed that there is some brain here; on this forum, as oppose to mainstream media.
I would like to hear now, from mainstream media supporters on this side.
This is Gogol’s (ours?) first real score, is it?
Pero Peric
Canada - Sunday March 02, 2003 at 1:10 am
It seems I haven't miss that much by not watching last week's sessions on account of being too busy. According to what I've heard from people who did watch and from those bits and pieces in our press, these last 3 witnesses fall into this vast category of 'I have nothing to testify about, yet I'll do it nevertheless'. Their presence at least gave the pleasure to the Prosecution and the judges to address one of them as 'Ambassador', which largely contributed to the pompousness of the proceedings, very much as the silken robes do. The fact that both the title and the clothing are forms with no substance didn't bother this little theatre.I managed to see some half an hour at the very end of the cross-examination of that 'Ambassador', Herbert Okun, on Friday. The man has an agenda all right, but that was hardly the agenda of the organization which he ostensibly represented back then, the UN. Check his CV that Gogol provided. In that piece of his answering he managed to repeatedly spit on his organization and to show where exactly did he stand.
I started watching when Milosevic was grilling Okun, a caustic tortoise-like old man with inflated self-esteem, about the attack of CRO against the UNPA zones (Operations Bljesak and Oluja and other minor assaults that preceded them). These events are already so well-documented, yet old man Okun tried to re-write even that. Milosevic quoted numerous UN resolutions, harsh warnings and admonitions by the Secretary-General and by the Chairman of the General Assembly, issued after each of these attacks. All those written documents, issued the very next day after the attacks in question, had almost identical wording: the Croatian Government has to stop attacking and must withdraw. After reading each document, Milosevic would ask Okun whether he remembered this being issued and/or said. Okun tried to wriggle out by muddling the issue, 'explaining' how these zones were bordering with B&H, where clashes were under way… When Milosevic pointed out there was never a single reference to B&H, Okun then changed his tune: yes, there were 'incidents', 'conflicts', 'attacks from both sides' (?!). The problem was that the wording of these UN documents was all too clear: no reference either to the Serbs from Krajina attacking Croats, only the other way around. Yet, the ex-UN official tried to deny the UN documents, repeating ever more feebly to the very end of the cross-examination that these were incidents and attacks from both sides. Of course he would say so, remember whose 'Ambassador' he was, and who planned, organized, supported and helped carry out these stormy-weather Operations. Great witness; the Prosecution exhibited his self-important 'dear diary' notes, where he hinted how influential Milosevic must have been. This would make their case ironclad, I'm sure.
The feebleness of the last three witnesses was further confirmed by the lack of any comments from the CIJ, except for Okun. In the absence of any significant testimony, Ms Armatta gave vent to the presentation of a 'deadly' document, obviously ordered & paid for by the Prosecution, which covered how vile Milosevic used the media for propaganda purposes. Read for yourselves, the CIJ titled their review 'The War of Words: Expert Report on Propaganda Released'. The 'expert' from the title is an obscure French professor from Reims, and the 'report' is something he penned, 97 pages long and dealing with YU media in the service of evil. I haven't read the 'expert report' itself, only the CIJ review, but it seems the good professor never saw much of our TV or read much of our press, if any. More like it, he got his theses already cooked from the likes of Kandic & Biserko. I was there and I did watch these TV programmes and read those newspapers. There was never a discriminatory language used when talking about non-Serbs. The only qualifications used were 'Albanian separatists/terrorists/extremists', never 'the Albanians' as a whole people. The same goes for the Croats or the Muslims: they were never called Ustashe or Turks respectively. In fact, the language used particularly on TV was that rigidly politically correct one, right-from-the-Constitution, boring and righteous, never derogatory. Those who doubt that may find the proof nowadays on TV B92: they have running jingles, all bearing the title 'ANEM for Professional Journalism' and all of them giving examples of how it was on the RTS, with bits and pieces of old news and broadcasts, supposedly demonstrating how the national TV was spreading nationalistic propaganda. And you know what? Even they were not able to find a single example of that; all those one-minute jingles consist of blunders on the air by incompetent journalists, of muddled footage with ill-placed comments. Not a trace of propaganda, unless the 'patriots' from ANEM consider as propaganda stating a simple fact that NATO attacked our country. Yes, almost all those working for the RTS were grossly incompetent, but that's all. Their attempts at propaganda, consisting of some poorly-worded comments, were also incompetent. Maybe the incompetence was their crime, that's why they were bombed? I recommend to the French 'expert' to take a look at those jingles.
His quotes in the CIJ review are almost all totally wrong: there were never 'exaggerated and false messages of ethically based attacks by Bosnian Muslims and Croats against Serb people'; in fact, our TV reported extremely scarcely about anything, they were always too conservative and overly cautious in their coverage and particularly in showing any atrocities. You could count on the fingers of one hand anytime any dead body had been shown; I remember seeing more dead bodies of the KLA killed by the police, these were shown sometimes. And the 'Nazi propaganda techniques' drawing on the 'Serbian mystique' , 'indissolubly linked to the Orthodox religion'? Nonsense. There were hardly any religious references; those that I remember were coming from the Bosnian Serb officials, they were the religious ones; now with the new pro-Western Government there is a virtual flood of religious broadcasts, I joke about knowing the name of each Archimandrite. And who introduced religious instruction into schools? - Djindjic & Co. Accusing Milosevic of that is simply a gas.
I've never heard the story of 'Muslims feeding Serb children to animals in the Sarajevo zoo' and certainly not on TV. Why it's so terrible to use the word 'Ustashe', when the Croats themselves were proudly using it for their own units? What's the problem with the term 'Albanian terrorists', when these persons were carrying out terrorist actions and were of the Albanian ethnicity? Why not using the words 'Mujahedin fighters', when the individuals in question were Mujahedins from Arab countries, came to Bosnia to fight and cut heads? Why not showing a narrow column of thick black smoke rising from otherwise undamaged Dubrovnik pavement, so clearly a tyre burning?
The stupid premise of 'official Serbian propaganda' reaching more than 3.5 million people every night, the false claim of the 'lack of access to alternative news' (we had satellite TV, radio, Internet, opposition & foreign press, all spewing real heavy-duty anti-Serb propaganda), all lead to the silly conclusion of 'it is surprising how great was the resistance' (massive demonstrations, draft dodging). Professor, what is your point? Is there a point? The ICTY seems to think there's one. Or they are just in need of anything. Wait and see the 'expert report' on history which is being prepared, together with 'expert witnesses' on the same subject.
Vera Martinovic
Belgrade
Yugoslavia - Sunday March 02, 2003 at 6:46 am
Pero,
Thank you. The backlash of Turkey's deputies is not yet unleashed. US pressure will be unbearable bringing perhaps (it is my hope) a self induced explosion. Worries of the Turkish stock market collapsing at its opening on Monday plus American pressures to have anther clean vote, the silent almighty Turkish Military, all that tells me it is not over yet, but getting very close.
Gogol Charlemagne
Conn., USA - Sunday March 02, 2003 at 1:46 pm
Found something funny (silly) on the Domovina web page.What is Hogerhand?
The Hogerhand People's Front is a civil defense militia. Its function is the pre-emptive defense of the Dutch coast against a possible invasion by Armed Forces of the United States. Notice of this invasion was given in the so-called 'Hague Invasion Act' which president Bush signed on August 2nd 2002. As part of a US offensive against the International Criminal Court, this invasion act is in effect a declaration of war - against both international law and the Netherlands, as the nation hosting the Court.
We consider it unlikely that the Dutch government will order either its diplomats or its armed forces to take effective action against our ally. Therefore we, as citizens, are taking this defense into our own hands.
The Hogerhand People's Front operates entirely within the law. Consequently, our militia is not armed with conventional weapons. The only weapon we can bring to bear upon the overwhelming firepower of the US Army is our willpower. This willpower is embodied in our simple motto, trans corpus mortuum: 'over my dead body'!
Inspired by this motto, unarmed civilians guard the Dutch beaches around the clock, forming a human shield against the absurd invasion plans of our ally on the other side of the Atlantic. This shield may also serve as a mirror to our American friends, in which they can hopefully see how detached they have become from reality.
Join the Militia at http://www.hogerhand.nl/home_e.html
If people would put as much effort as this in efforts following what is actually happening in the the Courts the world could become a better place.
Peter Varavejke
Belgium - Sunday March 02, 2003 at 2:29 pm
Another question about propaganda in the Serbian media would be this.Why would Milan Martic have written that infamous letter asking for coverage of events in the RSK in the Serbian media if the Serbian media was indeed producing anti-Croat propagnda inorder to fan the flames of war?
His letter suggests that if anything there was inadequate coverage in the Serbian media of events in the RSK. How can you have propaganda in reference to something you aren't even talking about?
Andy Wilcoxson
Washington, United States - Sunday March 02, 2003 at 4:32 pm
Mr. Peter Varavejke,I am glad that there is such a formation in Holland. Sadly, however, I as an American of Serbian descent see that only few follow or care about ills done to a small nation like Serbia.
Hague court only prosecutes Serbs. Bobetko is too old to be tried. How convenient! Yet the sentence to Biljana Plavsic is 11 years. She is 72 like I am. Is she or I going to live long enough to see justice prevail?
D. Jovanovic
USA - Sunday March 02, 2003 at 6:19 pm
Or maybe Bobetko knows too much to be tried. Maybe he would embarass the Americans by exposing the details of their complicity.http://www.cdsp.neu.edu/info/students/marko/feral/feral172.html
Andy Wilcoxson
Washington, United States - Sunday March 02, 2003 at 6:20 pm
"I've never heard the story of 'Muslims feeding Serb children to animals in the Sarajevo zoo' and certainly not on TV.
Vera I am pleased that you have not seen the above story on the Serbian TV program.
I have heard it on CNN in the context like: Look what Serbs are saying against the Moslems.
Pera Bora
Ottawa
Canada - Sunday March 02, 2003 at 6:39 pm
The Serbian media, to there own shame, hardly covered the Croatian operation Flash, just to keep people in Serbia calm, compliments of Mr. Milosevic. There was no need for Mr. Milosevic to create fear propaganda; Croats and Moslems did there killing of the Serbs fearsome and public enough. But in order for the Serbs to be guilty of everything they had to have Nazi stile propaganda and the ICTY delivered goods recently.
This is one of the reasons why I do not like Mr. Milosevic and I am at the same time against the ICTY and Mr. Milosevic's trial.
Pera Bora
Ottawa
Canada - Sunday March 02, 2003 at 6:40 pm
---------------------- Pero I knew a long time ago that Gogol was one very bright person.The first day I came on this forum.D. Jovanovic:
Will you live long enough to see justice prevail? Too bad the Milosevic trial is not televised. The western media, the Institute of War & Peace (aka as a professional smear machine ) print what they want people to think and believe. The people who were fed false information should have an opportunity to see and listen to the trial and judge for themselves. I always believed everything my government told me up until the breakup of Yugoslavia. Most people have not had the experience to say “Not so.” We have had that experience.
Events have now taken place that I never dreamed could have happened. God knows what is going on right now that we do not know about. So...maybe the day when the truth will come out is not too far away.
Iraq was our ally at one time, and now is our enemy. Iran was our ally and then enemy and now we want our ally back. Russia was our enemy and now our ally. Germany and Japan were the greatest enemies of all and then both became our ally, and right now Germany is teetering on the brink of enemy again. China (?) enemy or ally.....our corporations are making great profits from our enemy/ally China. Oh and do not forget France. The wheel turns.
So keep hoping. William Buckley thought it was Croatia we bombed. What does he care...Croatia or Serbia? Read the New York Times column written today by Maureen Dowd, the snickering about Bulgaria.
I read the posts on the forum and I think “Serbia will receive justice, when so many know the truth, it is bound to come out.” This forum is not like others. You can read facts, history and thoughts without hateful smears and it should stay that way. That is how you are received as credible. My thanx to you, Gogol, Jari, Andy, Peter, Pera, and Vera (who I believe is a writer and teases us) and all the rest who participate on this forum in good faith. People like you will bring justice to Serbia.
Kathryn Love
SJC
CA/USA - Monday March 03, 2003 at 2:40 am
Kathryn, what did Maureen Dowd write? I would be very interested. The point about William Buckley is important, and I will come back to that again.I was going to come back to the "self-defeating course of the US" and say something like: wait another five years, and then "Tell me we were wrong. It is amazing how things start happening, when they do start happening". Turkey turned down the US deployment the same day. Gogol was right to point that out well in advance.
I still differ on the Soviet Union. It is easy to point out the mistakes that were made in the collapse of the Soviet Union, but there are many success stories as well, and one doesn't have to go very far from here to find them. The Baltic states are a success story. Ask them if they want the Soviet Union back. Ask them if the Western stories about the Soviet Union were lies. I knew a Lithuanian who saw the tanks coming to Vilnius and whose father had been in Siberia for owning too much land.
It is true that the US screwed up after the collapse of the communist rule, and if we are to believe Soros, the US never was even serious about helping them. And Mr Zbig has made it quite clear that he enjoyed the Russians begging the US for help and being in a position to turn it down.
However, Estonia has been a success, and that is not thank to the American support, but the Swedish and Finnish support, and a lot of hard work on their own. They won the Eurovision Song Contest, and as I said, Finland has never been even close (this is tongue in cheek, but only a bit).
The US was not the only one who screwed up. A lot of the blame falls on Gorbachev as well. He is a lot like Bush Jr. When all the indicators and all the advisers are against something, you can say that they should trust God. I think the beautiful outcome of the Soviet collapse is a warning to Bush what happens when you lead by faith alone.
It is true that the collapse of the Soviet Union meant the collapse of the bipolar world as well, and hence the collapse of the UN for all practical purpose. But Gogol, as you said (if I got you right), people choosing their domestic policies for foreign policy objectives is like eating genetically modified food. There is no looking back, but it is surprising how few people (if any) have any idea how to proceed after the collapse.
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Monday March 03, 2003 at 3:03 am
Let us revisit the parallels between Iraq and Serbia once again. Bush is right to call a spade a spade, and a regime change a regime change, but is that "weapons of mass destruction" rubbish calling a spade a spade? There is something fishy going on here. It is now obvious that the US is using the WMD as a pretext to keep looking for something and not quitting until one has found it. One reasonable explanation is forgotten in the process: what you are looking for may not exist, especially when you haven't told what exactly you want to find.But it is still good the Bush administration calls a spade a spade. Powell is clearly hoping that a clear objective would avert the war: if Saddam steps down, there will be no war. Of course, that may cost Powell his face: it is still possible there will be no war, even if Saddam stays. After the Turkish vote this seems ever likelier. In other words, stating the goals as explicitly as Powell has done makes the refusal very easy.
Now the parallel with Serbia. Serbia is also told to keep looking for something until it is found: Mladic. The US knows he can't be caught, but don't let that get in the way of a good story.
So what does the US want this time? A regime change? It looks like it, and the less sense it makes, the likelier it is. They got rid of the federal presidency that way. But the US still keeps insisting on the impossible. Is is Djindjic's term this time? Is this to pave the way to Kosovo independence? Wasn't Djindjic the American dream man after all?
But the US can be so incredibly stupid. It is making a fuss about the New Europe. It was truly shocked to find out that it didn't have Turkey in its pocket. Wasn't it obvious for the Turks that the New Europe was a lot of rubbish?
Here, amazingly enough, the interest of Turkey and New Europe converge. Turkey has been applying for the EU membership for I don't know how long. Bulgaria is a EU applicant. What do these states have in common? Answer: they are situated "behind" Serbia. To appreciate how important this is, one only has to remember that during the bombing, the Bulgarian trucks couldn't pass through Serbia, so they had to go through Rumania instead and the Rumanians didn't fail to notice they could make some extra money this way. Serbia is an important gateway to Europe. For road transport it is ideal, because the country is flat and big, so you don't need border controls inside it.
But as long as Serbia remains the kind of unsolved mystery, the border controls are still necessary when you enter the country and when you leave it. For those who haven't been in border controls in Eastern Europe, I can only say: use the air plane.
So it is easy to blame the European "arrogance" for keeping these countries that have suddenly become the New Europe out, but could the US at least try to understand that the tribunal is not going to help the integration of Serbia, and hence a lot of other countries, to Europe? If you wanted to find the best way to piss off the Serbs, the tribunal is the best answer. If and when they enter the "European structures", they will remember it. If the US had wanted Yugoslavia to enter market economy smoothly, it should have stimulated the countries surrounding Yugoslavia. I saw a street interview in Belgrade after the DOS came to power. She said that now Yugoslavia has the chance to become the same kind of basket case as Bulgaria.
The lies à la HRW are not going to do any good. These people are not stupid. They are certainly brighter than you think. So the first step in the confidence-building measures is to stop the bullshit.
And you don't have to be situated behind Serbia to get the negative fallout (figuratively speaking) of the Kosovo bombing. As William Buckley demonstrated, the reputation of the whole Balkans is tarnished. Including Croatia, no matter how much the Croatians are now in denial.
J N
Finland - Monday March 03, 2003 at 3:19 am
Robert, it is good you corrected me. It is also good you agree that Milosevic makes too many compromises and ends up losing. I gather that Seselj hasn't appointed a lawyer either. At least Milosevic has given Seselj something to emulate.But insofar as the trials are about political perceptions, the Seselj theatrics are not boding well. You see how easy it is to distort anything Seselj is trying.
But there is no doubt the prosecution is the one that should be spat upon. Look how it may be arguing the Milosevic complicity in the war crimes in Croatia. FRY refused to recognize Croatia and apply for a separate UN membership. The JNA stayed in the country: it simply is not possible to withdraw troops from a country where they have been stationed for decades in a short time. Remember the precedent of the Soviet troops in East Germany and Poland. So when the JNA stays in the country and there is no formal agreement for their withdrawal, the Croatian troops attack the JNA to provoke them and say that the JNA is there to establish a Greater Serbia. Milosevic was President of Serbia at the time, and even if wasn't in control of the army at that time, he was a few years later, which shows that he was in a factual control of the army before: otherwise he would never have become a commander-in-chief (at least in name) later on. That means that he is ultimately to blamed for the war crimes the JNA committed, and insofar as the presence of the JNA can be qualified as aggression, it doesn't matter what the Croats did to provoke the JNA.
It is of course easy to cricize the laggish policy in regard to the recognition of Croatia, but these are only "non-justiciable political questions".
Maybe the US got scared of the progress made without its participation in the Cutilheiro plan or the "Lisbon Agreement" (hopefully the spelling is about right), and to bar Serbia from any independent redrawing, the Serbs had to be stopped. In fact, Serbia was only acting on the advice of the Serbian parliamentary committee, but the advice was a no-no for the US, because it referred to the AVNOJ documents which said that the Yugoslav federation was not between states but between peoples. The US couldn't care less what the AVNOJ said. They were communists, and they all the communist vestiges had to go. Sure, the present borders between the republics were the work of the AVNOJ too, but in fact AVNOJ only reinstated the original Yugoslav borders, which had been obliterated during the royal dictatorship.
J N
Finland - Monday March 03, 2003 at 3:37 am
Does anyone have a link to the Cutilheiro Plan? Does anyone have the subsequent plans Vance-Owen, Vance-Stoltenberg and the 49%-51%?
J N
Finland - Monday March 03, 2003 at 4:50 am
To be fair, it is not easy to be an American. I discovered this link while searching the web for the Cutilheiro Plan. On this Bosnian Croat site, the US is accused of propping up a prostrate Bosnian Serb Army and insisting that the Serbs get their more than fair share.The site also accuses Ashdown of concocting the Tudjman's "napkin map" and fomenting anti-Croat feeling abroad. On the other hand, the site also takes distance from Tudjman's expansionist ambitions in Bosnia. Maybe that is too much in that these two arguments seem to contradict each other.
The site also criticizes the Muslims for posturing as the privileged victims, while the Muslims "ethnically cleansed" 150,000 Croats. Remarkably enough, the site also gives the number of Muslims that were "cleansed" from the Croat areas: 50,000. As we know, the anti-Serb propaganda (read: ICTY) hushes up both these figures, so both groups end up as privileged victims.
The site also contains interesting tidbits like: "The greatest number of Bosnian Muslim refugees found their shelter in Croatia, more than in any other country in the world."
I think this is an interesting site (to put it diplomatically). At this stage of the discussion it may be interesting to consider the conflict from differing points of view. Hopefully, this change of perspective also does more justice to the Serb view.
J N
Finland - Monday March 03, 2003 at 4:51 am
Just read the New York Times article on the Milosevics trials and its mind boggling Stalinist propaganda again. What a shame for Western (US) journalism. I hope mr de la brosse (or somebody else) is taking note and preparing to write a book about this.
Peter Varavejke
Belgium - Monday March 03, 2003 at 5:04 am
The article is an eye-opener. It admits that they were some concerns that Milosevic would turn the trial into a mockery of justice. It says that the trial is almost too fair. I couldn't agree more. It hurts me to see how well the tribunal goes through the motions, when after a year, it still isn't clear what the prosecution actually charges the accused for (or "defendant" as the article says). The indictment has been called crazy. It is no wonder that no matter how relieved, the Americans want to make some changes in the Saddam tribunal (oh that "consider it done" mentality).Bosnian Croat link also quotes Attorney Nobilo's closing arguments at General Blaskic's trial. It says that Tudjman and Milosevic never made an agreement on the partitioning of Bosnia. I think that exonerates Milosevic just as much as it does Tudjman - and his general.
J N
Finland - Monday March 03, 2003 at 5:09 am
Except Blaskic was found guilty by ICTY.OK, I gotta go.
J N
Finland - Monday March 03, 2003 at 5:36 am
Jari,
I can only say I wish the reforms begun by Gorbachov had succeeded and had not ended in the destruction of the USSR when he lost his reigns to Yeltsin. The World does not need to be bipolar, neither unipolar. It is in fact the opposite which is desirable, a great variety of cultures, nations and peoples. That is also under attack. It will become the cause of futures wars and of serious consequences. The ICTY is part of that war and it is failing on matters of justice, on matters of foreign policy it is not clear yet.
Gogol Charlemagne
Conn., USA - Monday March 03, 2003 at 5:52 am
In plain English: the NYT's article by Marlise Simons is full of crap!
G C
USA - Monday March 03, 2003 at 6:10 am
Interesting, what a coincidence, the article talks about the fear of the prosecution for running out of time, when today Mr. Nice (NATO) is arguing to the court, minus Robinson (COLONIAL) who is unwell today and will be tomorrow, arguing for more time. Under rule 15 the court can seat even when one member is absent, but it can't make any rulings.
So far the day as been very interesting. The NYT's article not withstanding.
Gogol Charlemagne
Conn., USA - Monday March 03, 2003 at 6:37 am
Carla, look!
This article will not appear in the NYT.
Gogol Charlemagne
Conn., USA - Monday March 03, 2003 at 6:39 am
The incident highlights the criminal nature of Israel?s longstanding and murderous campaign against Palestinian civilians in the territories occupied illegally since 1967 and the fact that it is government-directed with the military authorities fully aware that their actions are illegal. It further reveals how the security forces work to ensure that their attacks kill as many people as possible and provides irrefutable evidence of the crimes against humanity committed by the Israeli state.
G C
USA - Monday March 03, 2003 at 8:30 am
Peter Varavejkewho takes the NYT seriously these days ?.....why waste the time and energy.......more and more Americans agree, circulation at NYT has dropped steadily in the last decade.......
AP V
NY
NY - Monday March 03, 2003 at 8:40 am
Kathryn,I agree with you that Gogol is one very bright person, as many others at this forum.
Unfortunately, we live in times when national sovereignty is respected by our government only when it's convenient. I’m sure Turkish parliament can vote, but does it really matter?
Here is the proof.
Dusom Sarajlija
USA - Monday March 03, 2003 at 10:00 am
"The greatest number of Bosnian Muslim refugees found their shelter in Croatia, more than in any other country in the world."Which Muslims and in which part of Croatia?
Does their total include Fikret Abdic's Muslims who were expelled from Bosnia by Izetbegovic's Muslims and who went to live with the Serbs in the RSK?
Andy Wilcoxson
Washington, United States - Monday March 03, 2003 at 11:52 am
Andy, it seems that both the Croats and the Serbs have been lied to about each other, and Paddy Ashdown seems to have been his masters' errand boy in the process. When you see the ICTY from the Croat viewpoint, the tribunal is just as bad. Fewer Croats may have been sentenced, but if you consider the whole setting, every sentence is still just as outrageous.And not to exclude Muslims, Fikret Abdic is a case in point. The fate of Abdic looks as bad from the Croat, the Serb and the moderate Muslim viewpoint, as Walter has been pointing out. Maybe Izetbegovic and his supporters were the only winners.
It may be fun to watch Seselj and Milosevic blast the tribunal, but this may play into the hands of those who want to pit the Croats and the Serbs against each other. No matter how bright Seselj is, he is not going to win. Or does someone believe Seselj has any chance of winning? The Krstic judgment was "satisfied" that probably 7,000-8,000 Muslim boys and men were killed in Srebrenica, and to this day there is no evidence, not one shred, to back that. So whatever Milosevic and Seselj do, it won't change the outcome.
Unless the tribunal experiences a thorough reform, it doesn't matter what the defendant does. It is alarming how the NYT article, for instance, compares the tribunal favourably to the national criminal trials. The sotry goes like this: in a petty theft case the defendant wouldn't have as much leeway etc. The fact is that these are no petty theft cases. These cases change the fate of whole nations. Hearing such crap from some from the Sierra Leone tribunal isn't necessarily going to reassure anybody.
Instead, those who are unhappy about the tribunal should understand that the grievances are shared by others as well. It is difficult to see what use the tribunal has anymore, but maybe it is meant to reinforce the ethnic hatred among the different parties wars and thus keeping the post-Yugoslav states separate and preserve the shaky division of former Yugoslavia. A lot of the hatred is real and justified, but there is also a lot of pseudo-hatred, especially among us outside Serb sympathizers, which is based on the assumption that to be for the Serbs is to be against someone else. The recent concerns from Holland indicate that one can even join forces with the Dutch, which I would never have thought possible.
Besides, I concede defeat. I thought that the Turkish vote would deal a blow to the US. It is more likely that the US hardly noticed what was going on. This is beginning to look as if the US takes Iraq first, then it has some unfinished business in another former ally, Turkey.
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Monday March 03, 2003 at 6:37 pm
A role of the defendants like Mr. Milosevic and Mr. Seselj in the ICTY is to prove that judges, prosecution and rest of the staf are incopetent, partisan, unfair and wrong. The main reason is to put right information in the ICTY record for the future analyzes, that would be done, and demonstrate that the right information was readily available in the public record for every one who wanted to know the truth. Mr. Milosevic is doing an excellent job in this area. Of course the judges will ignore everything that speaks in Mr. Milosevic's favor when it comes to making a judgement. His main strength is that he knows that he can not win this case.
Mr. Milosevic or Mr. Seselj statements or actions can not dramatically change Serbian/Croatian relationships. They are bad as they are with out these two. Having said that, most of the Serbs have demonstrated that they can live in peace with Croats the opposite remains to be proven yet.
The case of Mr. Fkret Abdic is curtail in proving that the war in the former Yugoslavia was not only avoidable but that it was instigated and supported from outside Yugoslavia. Mr. Abdic has clearly demonstrated that Muslims can live with Serbs and Croats in peace even during the war. And this is his biggest war crime. He had especially good relationship with the Serbs in Krajina as Andy has pointed out. He was not prosecuted for the real war crimes but invented ones. To avoid public disaster later on he was not tried by the ICTY but by Croatia, courtesy of NATO/USA. He was jail to prevent him from running in the latest Bosnian elections.
Pera Bora
Ottawa
Canada - Monday March 03, 2003 at 7:18 pm
amici curiae Mr. Kay (NATO) warned the court today the record left in regard the introduction of written evidence by way of witnesses under rule 92 bis is likely to come under criticism, Future legal readers of the record will certainly find much at fault. I have to suspect the article in the NYT coincidence in suggesting the trial chambers is so fair when even the advisers to the court are warning of the contrary. The same applies for the issue of extending time for the prosecution beyond May 16. Obviously the Office of the Prosecutor has a direct line to the NYT. Surprised?
Gogol Charlemagne
Conn., USA - Monday March 03, 2003 at 7:43 pm
I have made a major error in my previous porst.
Moderator can you please remove my previous post.
So here it comes again corrected:http://www.un.org/icty/plavsic/trialc/judgement/index.htm If there are still people on the forum that expect Mr. Milosevic to be released, please read the Sentencing Judgement in Plavsic case. The panel of judges is the same as in Mr. Milosevic case. The stile of the judgement in Mr. Milosevic case would be of the same kind and "quality". Just a short comment of the following quote from the Sentencing Judgement: QUOTE: "14... In March 1992 the Bosnian Serbs signed the Cutileiro Plan which provided for a sovereign BH, based upon principles of canonization and ethnic identity, but the Bosnian Muslims rejected the plan. A Bosnian Serb police force was then established... COMENT: Just two sentences but full of the intentional omissions. The Cutileiro Plan was not a plan regulating relationships only between Serbs and Muslims but Croats too. All three sides signed the Plan. Muslims first signed and then rejected it. For the tribunal it is of no consequence that Serbs and Croats presented a majority when combined. So majority of the people of BH were for the Cutileiro's Plan. It is one/third truth that at that time Bosnian Serb police force was established, because all three sides at this time established their police and the Croatian army entered Bosnia at the same time. The stated facts by me are in the public domain and they have been presented to our honorable judges , but they still chose to ignore them, just to make Serbs guilty. Who can trust after these oversights our impartial Misters May(NATO). Kwon (QCCUPIED) and Robinson(COLONISED).
Pera Bora
Ottawa
Canada - Monday March 03, 2003 at 8:13 pm
It was a short two-liner that caught my eye while reading our press the other day, but it didn't quite register then: Claude Jorda resigned and was replaced by some American judge. Today I checked at the ICTY site (http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/2003/p735-e.htm) and it's true: both Jorda and his Vice Mohamed Shahabuddeen resigned and were replaced; the new President of the ICTY as of 11 March will be one Theodor Meron (US) and the new Vice-President as of 26 Feb. is one Fausto Pocar (Italy). Both previous incumbents have resigned and no reason why has been provided. Claude Jorda is that same President of the 'Tribunal' who avoided to acknowledge his superior authority over detainees and instead wrote back in his letter to the Freedom Foundation of 27 Nov, 2002 that 'your request does not fall within the province of the President of the International Tribunal'. Remember, it was that emergency situation of Milosevic's extremely deteriorated health, preventing him to attend sessions, and the Freedom Foundation wrote to Jorda complaining about the failure of the Trial Chamber III to ensure proper medical care and requesting provisional release. Jorda answered after 44 days (and when it's not and emergency situation, he probably answers within 6 months). When he did answer, it was only to say it was not his business, 'Trial Chamber III is taking due considerations' and 'Mr Milosevic is receiving close medical attention of a high quality from the medical staff of the United Nations Detention Centre' (a general practitioner, plus a nurse coming daily to give him a pill, both absent on weekends).So, Jorda did a lousy job being a President of that dressed-up circus featuring Balkan beasts and now he resigned (anyone knows the reason?). Somehow I doubt he resigned over the moral dilemma arising from presiding this phoney institution, perhaps he just switched to an even more cushy job. Interesting, though, the national composition of the successors. Are these two practising for the future tribunal for Saddam Hussein?
YES, Robert, I couldn't agree more: each of your points re Seselj's trial went in to the hilt. He's that crazy & clever buffoon with the guts to tell the truth and to mercilessly ridicule 'the Institution', disregarding his own destiny. He doesn't have the serious 'heroic' image to preserve like Milosevic, who is equally clever but lacks that healthy touch of craziness. They didn't assign May on Seselj, though; he got 'judge' Schomburg, a humourless stickler for legal procedure (I watched him few times in the Stakic trial). May occasionally demonstrates emotions, he's at times fuming or scornful, but Schomburg never flinches from machining away his Prozess without a facial expression other than blank. Remember, he was the judge who wished a happy birthday to Stakic (it was his slava) and managed to deliver the line of 'it may sound cynical to you, but we wish you all the best and may justice be dispensed to you by this Trial Chamber', without being even slightly embarrassed. So, Seselj will have a non-reacting, even non-comprehending target of his pranks, which he will exploit to the maximum. Even on the first day, Schomburg failed to register fully the mockery made re their dress code; he started to earnestly quote a regulation explaining who decreed such robes. Of course, Seselj will just enact the buffoon role, he will seriously glitch their mechanism as well and show it for what it really is: a paper dragon. Jari, you know, when winning is absolutely impossible, one goes down like a human, not like a mouse. If one can have fun along the way, all the better.
Vera Martinovic
Belgrade
Yugoslavia - Monday March 03, 2003 at 8:37 pm
Vera, if i am correct, Jorda wants to be the president of the ICC.
Dan B
Canada - Monday March 03, 2003 at 9:02 pm
Vera, thank you for your remarks. I enjoyed reading them as usual.Based on their actions of the past week, the prosecution may as well wave the white flag. Their reversion to introducing insignificant testimony from journalists and pro-imperialist paperweights marks a futile and hopeless retreat.
The introduction of a report attacking "Serbian propaganda", from some unknown Frenchman, is yet another laughable stunt, and a throwback to the same tired tactics too. How many pages would a report on French hate propaganda against Serbia in the last 13 years take up? Isn't 97 pages about the same length as Dentist-Historian Cohen's book "Serbia's Secret War"? There is a typical example of the kind of intellectual material published by the leading academic institutions in the "NATO" world when Serbia is in question.
The irony here, of course, is that Hague Tribunal serves as a major instrument of hate propaganda against Serbia; hiding behind a legal veil rather than an academic or journalistic one, and therefore a part of an overall NATO campaign of destabilising that country - which at present doesn't have a functioning government, nor a legitimately approved constitution. Which is just as well, as the nations of NATO have proven time and again that they refuse to recognize the Serbian nation's sovereignty even when signing agreements which explicitly state otherwise. It really matters little what name the Serbian nation adopts, the same conditions apply.
The indictment of token and numerically insignificant military or terrorist figures from the non-Serbian communities in the former Yugoslavia does not serve as credible support for NATO Fuhrer Robertson's claims about Hague Tribunal impartiality etc. Rather, it is indicative of the methods in deception which the Tribunal employs in addressing public perception of its nefarious activities.
So sorry if that contradicts anybody's attempt to ponder whether there are indeed any straws for MODERATES in the NATO world to clutch at.
Nico Tarzanovic
CAN - Monday March 03, 2003 at 9:43 pm
Part of the role of American newscasters is to keep the American public from hearing and understanding the depth of world critcisim re their Iraqi position. The issues are not explored nor presented in depth. They do this because they have accepted and adopted the fear that if they explore these topics, they'll be branded anti-American and face hostility from the government and political leaders, their own executive upper-management, advertisers, the military, and American industrial leaders who want to secure oil sources of supply. The general public doesn't want to hear criticism, either. Much of the older American male population has served in the military and the rest of the population knows someone, a relative, son of a friend, etc., who is in the military now. They expect the media they read to "support our boys." All of the public, in most countries, uses labels to simplify their understanding of issues. Those who want war use this to make a connection that anyone who is anti-war is automatically "left wing", and therefore, is subversive, too.I was listening to an American financial news interview show on the weekend discussing what stocks to purchase, etc. The interviewer said that the word on the "street" was that Exxon, of all of the American oil companies, was in the best position to benefit from the regime change in Iraq. He speculated whether this was a good moment to buy. Obviously, American oil interests want a share of what France and Russia currently control. The speakers on this show also seemed to agree in consensus that control of oil in the hands of a few large companies was not an impediment to competition nor did it encourage unfair practices. One speaker concluded with the comment, "the business of America, is business."
Walter Trkla
Kamloops BC
c - Monday March 03, 2003 at 10:47 pm
Moderator:It is really hard to read posts that are so wide it takes l5 minutes to scroll across each one.
Please fix it?
Kathryn Love
SJC
USA - Monday March 03, 2003 at 11:37 pm
Dusom Sarajlija: Thank you for the article. The world seems to be getting more unsettled every day. I wish the war hawks would stop and think. Germany had the greatest army in the history of the world but most of the world was against it. Germany ended up in shambles.Jari:
I only saw the end of William Buckley’s appearance on one of the cable shows. When I turned it on he was saying, “When we bombed Croatia.” He was not corrected.He said a few words about Iraq and I could not tell if he was for or against bombing. He probably said “Croatia” inadvertently but I do not think he much cares whether it was Croatia, Serbia or Bulgaria.
The following gives me some inkling as to what the U.S. government thinks of the Balkans. I hope Bulgaria realizes the bubble will burst and France will be back in favor.. Here is part of Maureen Dowd’s column.The title is “Bush’s Warsaw War Pact.”
The diplomatic motorcade pulled up to the White House yesterday with great fanfare. The two Marine guards at the door of the colonnaded West Wing saluted smartly. TV cameras pressed close to get pictures of the vital American ally alighting from the black sedan for his one-on-one with President Bush.
It was a summit of the two great strategic partners, America and Bulgaria.
Bulgaria?
As the world's only remaining superpower was conferring honor upon one of its only remaining friends, America smashed through the global looking glass.
To get Saddam, the Bush administration has dizzily turned the world upside down and inside out.
Our new best friends are the very people we used to protect our old best friends from. During the cold war, we safeguarded Old Europe from the Evil Empire. Now we have embraced the former Soviet Bloc satellites to protect us from the Security Council machinations of our former paramours France and Germany. NATO was created to protect Western Europe from the Communist hordes - namely the Bulgarians, who tried to outdo the bizarro Albanians as the most Stalinist regime in Eastern Europe and were renowned for the "thick necks" who did wet work for the K.G.B.
The U.S. is now in the process of wooing the "minnows" - as some in the Pentagon disparagingly call the small countries that could deliver the votes for a Security Council resolution on going to war with Iraq.
It's the battle of the pipsqueak powers: we dragoon Bulgaria to offset France dragooning Cameroon.
The Bulgarians used to be the lowest of the low here. In 1998, just before the visit of the Bulgarian president, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel met with President Clinton. The visit was so icy that a Clinton aide joked to reporters about Mr. Netanyahu: "We're treating him like the president of Bulgaria. Actually, I think Clinton will go jogging with the president of Bulgaria, so that's not fair."
Now Secretary Don Evans flies off to Bulgaria to discuss trade, and Rummy hints we may move U.S. troops from Germany to Bulgaria.
In diplomatic circles, our new allies from Eastern Europe are dryly referred to as "Bush's Warsaw Pact." As one Soviet expert put it, "Bulgaria used to be Russia's lapdog. Now it's America's lapdog."
The Bulgarians were such sycophants to Russia that in the 60's they proposed becoming the 16th republic of the Soviet Union.
There is more but I did not want to take up too much space. This is from the New York Times Columns. If you want I will post the remaining but I am not too successful in giving the click on here.
href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/26/6opinion/DOWD.ht2ml“ please click on it.
Btw: Hillary Clinton is now agreeing with Bush’s Iraq policy. Remember that she said she was the one who told her husband to bomb Kosovo. He was in not in any position to say no to her. He is a very weak individual.
Kathryn Love
SJC
USA