MILOSEVIC TRIAL DISCUSSION ARCHIVE

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 March 04, 2003 at 2:06 am
  KL

  I don't know what you have against Bulgaria or Buckley and I hear thatHillary now switched from go to wait.

  But I think you're being too smart by half. Gossip is flying rampant, who knows what to believe.

  Except, we now have a President , and control of the congress, and the backing of the people sans trumpted up demonstrations led by kooks. W, unselfishly, knows exactly what he thinks needs to be done, and he will do it. Everthing else is mute and todays' noise.

  In my opinion the die is cast.
  
  J P
  US, Wis

• Tuesday March 04, 2003 at 2:08 am
  Unbold Ok?
  
  J P
  US,Wis

• Tuesday March 04, 2003 at 3:36 am
  Yes, J P, I think you are right. It doesn't matter what Bulgaria was. Bulgarians may have wanted to become a Soviet republic, but Milosevic made some comparable suggestions during the Kosovo bombing to join the Ukraine, Belarus and Russia. I think it is very good that the US stretches its hand to Bulgaria. However, considering the whole setting, the move is ludicrous. The US has done its best to destroy Serbia, it has spat on Greece in order to win Turkey, and now that the US lost Turkey, the US turns to Bulgaria. Bulgaria isn't worth much when two of its most important neighbours, Serbia and Turkey, have been alienated from the US. I think this, in turn, shows that conquering the world isn't going to be just 1-2-3 to the US either. It appreciates some friends. However, Bulgarians may be a lot of things but they are not stupid, so they know full well that this courtship is going to last only as long as the US is in its present predicament. There is no reason to gloat.

  Pera, I was just about to say the same thing about Fikret Abdic. His conviction would have been out of place in ICTY, so he had to be tried in Croatia.

  When one assumes that the crazier the ICTY's procedures are and the more hatred it arouses, the better the ICTY fulfils its purpose, there is plenty of telltale signs for those who have eyes to see. First, of all, the ICTY indicts the peacemakers and lets the warmongers unindicted. There is enough evidence to suggest that Tudjman was bellicose enough to merit his reputation. So he wasn't indicted. His hate value was high enough as it was.

  The same applies to Izetbegovic: the hatemonger par excellence, as was his right-hand man, Naser Oric. No question of indicting them: there was simply no need.

  Instead we have Milosevic on trial. His crime was turning soft, only "a little too late".

  Against Seselj there might be something, and certainly he talks tough enough. But exactly that might explain why it took so long to indict him. The indictment was sealed when he was running out of his hate value.

  And the really big hatemongers, the main architects of the campaign, the Western powers, are and will be at large for ever. That also gives enough protection to the Croats who cooperated with them. In Kosovo, the ICTY may similarly be after the paper tigers.

  So the greatest crime is not hate, it is the lack of hate. This is so preposterous to the common people who still think in terms of right and wrong that the right camouflage needed an ad hoc tribunal to implement the plan. I think Milosevic sounds quite convincing in his assurances of being a peacemaker. But even he doesn't seem to be clever enough to realize that that was exactly why he was so useless and had to be got rid of.

  And there is at least one hint that this hate is designed to reinforce the separation of the former Yugoslav republics. Tudjman wasn't indicted. Tudjman had done his job. He used his personal influence to include the following paragraph in the Constitution of Croatia (Art. 141 § 2):

  "It is prohibited to initiate any procedure for the association of the Republic of Croatia into alliances with other states if such association leads, or might lead, to a renewal of a South Slav state community or to any Balkan state form of any kind."

  I think this simple paragraph speaks volumes, when one tries to guess at the real function of the ICTY. It is the legal obligation of the Croats to block the formation of former Yugoslavia, and that sanctions hate, if necessary. And we know that hate is necessary as long as the ICTY stands. (The Constitution can be viewed at http://www.usud.hr/html/the_constitution_of_the_republ.htm#VII ).

  So the US got the division it wanted. Now the US may regret it. As long as the Balkans are in shambles, especially at its most valuable transport juncture=Serbia, Turkey, Bulgaria, Macedonia and even Greece are marginalized in any European reconstruction, and talking them back to Europe is going to sound hollow.

  Even the word Belgrade has become a turnoff in propaganda. Now that propaganda has been so effective, the hard reality starts to emerge. Belgrade wasn't chosen the capital of Yugoslavia for nothing. It lies on the main waterway in Europe, the Danube, and it is a major crossing for railway and road traffic. This explains why the Allies bombed Belgrade: reportedly, Tito wanted to stop the German rail traffic to Greece (as we were told in one post). The Yugoslav considered making Sarajevo the capital, because it was even more central, but the place was just too mountainous.

  And the larger the American sphere of influence becomes in the world, the more the US will drive itself to situations like this where it conflicts its own long-term interests. The political situation will change ever more rapidly, so your former enemies will change into your new friends. This means the Americans won't be in a position to bug anybody so thoroughly as they have now done to the Serbs.

  So maybe we got our multipolar world after all. I think it would be ultimately in everybody's interests to the make the most of this multipolarity. Now that the US is dividing the world into Order and Disorder, to make the most of the sitution, everybody would benefit if the World of Order doesn't turn into one gigantic World of Disorder.

  On the other hand, now that everything in the world depends on the US, one can only be amazed at the level of the American reporting. I hardly need to say that the NYT article is a case in point. Who are these people fooling? And why? Don't the White House read these papers? If they are the ones who decide what the big media should publish, how can they avoid being brainwashed by their own propaganda? And even if the White House knows the truth, wouldn't it be in its interests to spread the truth a little wider? The global economic actors, ex hypothesi the American ones, have to have accurate information, so this "de la Brosse" mentality will harm the American competitiveness. Or is it really so that the those who are in the know can right of the mainstream media as just as big crap as we do?

  The game is getting so complicated I guess no-one has the big picture, and the messy reporting is getting too a little much even to the best-equipped decision-makers. Let's see how they lost sight of the big picture in the Balkans (or South Eastern Europe, as it is neutrally called). To revitalize South Eastern Europe it is important to get Serbia back to its feet. But as I said, the Serbs are too pissed off. And even if one accepts the argument that the Serbia had to be bombed so it could be rebuilt again, which would stimulate the economy, how can the masters expect the Serbs to jump for joy when they can rebuild something somebody else destroyed only so it could be built again?

  Some push still has to come from abroad. Only, then we can meet with the problem Amy Chua referred to. The capital broadens the ethnic tensions. However, in Eastern Europe, the ethnic tensions appear in a somewhat different form that in the Far East. The "Westerners" have the money, and as long as they are blonde, the local population won't feel this thing is something new which doesn't belong to them.

  For this simple reason alone, from all the "outsiders", Greeks may have the most chance of creating something lasting in Serbia, and this hasn't escaped the Greeks either, who would also benefit from normalized relations with Serbia, which is the gateway to Central Europe.

  To defend the EU, let it be said that the UE must have taken this into account too. The trans-Balkan pipeline cannot be the only one of the many so-called Tran-European Networks in the Balkans. It is obvious why the pipeline got the most attention, but the connections that run in the north-south direction may be even more important.

  And to defend even the US a bit, all the fault of undermining Serbia's place in Europe isn't due to the US and Nato. I think the European credibility suffered greatly when the Council of Europe (the human rights organization) expelled Serbia and accepted Azerbaidjan. It is understandable that in time of need, one turns to the US instead of this wishy-washy Europe.
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Tuesday March 04, 2003 at 3:44 am
  As if to underline the obvious problems of the world conquest, the latest Townhall column by Jack Kemp starts by saying: "Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai, for whom I have the greatest respect, is in a real political jam."
  
  J N
  Finland

• Tuesday March 04, 2003 at 3:50 am
  And as if to show how absolutely out of touch the French really are, Jean-Arnault Dérens wrote a damning article about Kosovo in February's Le Monde Diplomatique. The article ended with these words:

  "Finally, Kosovo in 2003 represents the same ticking bomb as in 1999. The only difference is that the international community is now directly involved in the crisis, although it would be satisfied with an illusory peace and the ability to forget about Kosovo and the Balkans. Like in 2000 and 2001, a confrontation with the international community might take the form of new armed clashes in the peripheral Albanian inhabited regions, especially in Presevo Valley in the south of Serbia."
  
  J N
  Finland

• Tuesday March 04, 2003 at 3:55 am
  An unofficial translation of the Le Monde article can be viewed at http://www.kosovo.com/erpkim28feb03.html#1 . Read it. You will agree that it may be easier to nuke France than to solve the Kosovo mess. At least, it is more tempting.
  
  J N
  Finland

• Tuesday March 04, 2003 at 4:23 am
  I think at this stage of the discussion we could just as well aim at the whole picture. That sells best. These Trans-European Networks are not some sinister conspiracy stuff, even if the stories about the trans-Balkan pipeline may have suggested otherwise. Trans-European Networks (TENs) are built not only for crude oil but also for transport, telecommunications, electricity etc.

  To check how the situation look like in October 2001 for the crude oil transmission lines in the Balkans, you can check Map 8 in the European Commission report, which can be viewed at http://europa.eu.int/comm/energy_transport/library/tren_se_en.pdf . You can see that one pipeline starts from Vlorë (if I'm not mistaken) in Albania, one from Varna in Bulgaria, one (under construction) from Thessaloniki in Greece.

  The trans-Balkans pipeline is not on the map, because it was not even under construction. I think it has been called Corridor 8. Anyway, you see that the EU has a lot of plans for the coming European integration in this front too. It is no secret.
  
  J N
  Finland

• Tuesday March 04, 2003 at 5:14 am
  

  Important, it may be not to confuse transport, delivery, consumption with ownership.

  We must also remember war is not inevitable, my father was 18 years old when war broke out and not knowing what better thing to do when his plans to continue his education were shattered, decided to try to end the war as soon as possible by volunteering, six months later he was recovering from a serious wound in a hospital.

  I don't know what the end resort of this war, as many others will be and nobody can answer this question, but when things don't work the way they were suppose to, the question of who initiated the conflict will be asked. Several months ago the US Congress gave president Bush all the power he asked to wage war.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Tuesday March 04, 2003 at 7:29 am
  

  Bulgaria is the only country I know where the heir to the throne is also its prime minister.

  
  
  G C
  USA

• Tuesday March 04, 2003 at 9:37 am
  Vera

  RE: 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.

  Victory in this case is defined not by Judge May's verdict. Rather victory will be defined by the verdict of free people the world over.

  So far it appears that SM is doing extremely well. The sole defenders of the HumWarrior sinister conspricy tales are paid hacks and a ever dwindling group of fanatics.

  The great paradox is that the Tribunal hearings are convincing people that SM is innocent and the HumWarriors are guilty.
  
  AP V
  NY
  NY

• Tuesday March 04, 2003 at 9:55 am
  
  “Demonstrations led by kooks”

  This comment above puzzled me as I read Adam Nicholson’s article: ‘The happiness that violence will bring’ in today’s Telegraph quoted below. Not being familiar with familiar American English: Who and what are “kooks”?

  Are they for example the members of last Saturday’s 10,000 crowd at the pro-war rally in downtown Houston’s Jones Plaza?

  "There was scarcely a black face in the crowd. The white people were wearing buttons: "Saddam Kiss My Gashole", "Want Peace? Kill Saddam!" and "Iraq First, Then France". You can buy these buttons on a Republican website where you will also find: "Give War A Chance", "To Hell With Iraq, Let's Bomb Hollywood", "Chiraq is full of Crap", "Happiness is a President with Character", "If You Enjoy Freedom, Thank A Veteran" and "Gun Control is Hitting Your Target". Then there is the pay-off: "Re-Elect Bush.com" and "It's Not Gonna Be Close This Time... Re-Elect Bush 2004"

  How does all the Anglo/US guff at the ICTY about a “Greater Serbia” and ‘the despicable nationalism of the Serbs’ square with this?

  "What a wonderful hostile crowd," retired Air Force Major Ellis Buchanan told them. "What a wonderful hostile conservative crowd." They cheered. He told them that America was the only nation with the power and ability to "bring some balance and peace in this world".

  Jackson Lee, a Democrat member of the House of Representatives, then tried to make her case against military action. According to the Houston Chronicle, she was "greeted with a mix of cheers and boos as she approached the podium. 'I take your opposition with respect and acceptance,' she said. 'I come today to share with you that I, too, am an American and that I love this country.' " The crowd then started chanting "USA! USA! USA!" so that Ms Lee could no longer be heard. She went to sit down and the crowd took up "Bush! Bush! Bush!”.

  Could the hysterical crowds at Adolph’s rallies have been much more frightening: And these people have the cheek to equate Milosevic with Hitler incarnate?
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Tuesday March 04, 2003 at 10:07 am
  JP: Look before your leap: I think you probably read the posts too fast. You seem to get confused. You have done this before. Take your time when reading. If you do this too often your head will be filled with nothing but misinformation. That is not being informed.

  The article I posted about the Bushies and Bulgaria was not written by me. It was written by Maureen Dowd.

  As for William Buckley.......I have no opinion accept that he licks his lips with his tongue while his mouth is wide open in a most distracting manner and this gesture is very annoying. I am sorry to have confused you. It is my opinion that Buckley as one of the Washington elites looks down his pointed nose on Serbia and Croatia not much caring who was bombed. I offered the column by Ms Maureen Dowd, to illustrate my point. Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia, Croatia who cares?

  As for Hillary Clinton, the latest New York Post, you should like this paper, has just reported that Ms. Cllinton has decided she will go along with the Bushies plans to blow up Iraq.

  
  
  Kathryn Love
  SJC
  USA

• Tuesday March 04, 2003 at 10:30 am
  Peter:

  In my area, one anti war protestor had a man come up to her and threaten to slit her throat. These are good people who have gone mad.Most have never been in the military and would not think of going.

  One on CSPAN, someone whose name I forgot, was accused of being a chicken hawk and he responded “Being in the miliary is a safe place to be, it takes courage to be in a government building.”

  Just think how much better off the world would be if we had good, moral leaders who could capture the crowd into a state of hysteria..

  Sometimes I think this has all turned into a Democrat vs. Republican war. Blowing up Iraq would mean blowing up the democrats and no one would question the legitamcy of the Bush presidency any more.

  
  
  Kathryn Love
  SJC
  USA

• Tuesday March 04, 2003 at 11:56 am
  KL
  If W isn't a good moral leader, who is? I would like some examples.

  Some would say gullible Carter. Not wanting to get laughed at, how about Milosevic, Putin and whatever that guys name' is that speaks for Italy.

  No one wants to blow up Iraq or the Democrats. Seems the goal is to re-educate a slew of people, starting in Iraq, along with pulling the diplomas of 3/4 of the Democrats especially the baby choppers.

  We can't have a 'world ' teaching hatred and giving degrees to wanna be suicide bombers. There's many ways to skin a cat and providence has chosen W to do it. As a moral leader he'd rather let this cup pass, but can't.
  
  J P
  USA. Wis

• Tuesday March 04, 2003 at 12:56 pm
  Gogol, you said something potentially very relevant, but would you elaborate a bit more? When you say that energy consumption doesn't equal ownership, do you mean that the fact that the networks cross several countries makes the ownership a relevant problem?

  Could the task of the ICTY really be to turn the people's legal conscience on its head and thus to irritate people to the point of hating each other? As the Milosevic trial proceeds, the Serbs may have learned to hate the Croats a bit more, because the Croats got off the hook too easily. The Croats hate the Serbs for putting the Croats in a position where the Croats have to be talked out of the tribunal, which was actually meant for the Serbs. But still, the tribunal is reserved for those who have not done enough to arouse inter-ethnic hatred. Milosevic may not hate Croats, but his trial is such a piss-off that many of those who watch it have learned to hate them.

  If this sounds crazy, can anyone deny that the tribunal is like an isolated speck in the legal universe? Rade Markovic said he had been tortured. May replied that it was beside the point what had happened to the witness in Yugoslavia. One of the witnesses admitted he had killed Arkan. A Serb lawyer demands the witness should be indicted. What has happened? If anything, those who should do something haven't made too much noise.

  So it is obvious the tribunal is completely cut off from any legal interface with other courts. It is a world on its own. That is the only way the tribunal is going to work and fulfil its purpose.

  Still, there is a fine distinction between Milosevic and Seselj. Milosevic is an outspoken critic of the tribunal. He is probably also innocent. Seselj is an even more outspoken critic of the tribunal. But that doesn't mean Seselj is necessarily innocent too. But maybe their cumulated effect will convince enough people that the tribunal is a fraud, so it really doesn't matter.

  And as bad as the planned attack on Iraq may be, it has had a lot of positive effects as well. It has made clear to everyone that the international community doesn't necessarily let the US speak for other states. Insofar as the preparation for the attack on Iraq was precipitated by the unsigning of the ICC Statute, the campaign against Iraq has forced the ICTY to vacillate between its US sponsors and its role as a springboard to the ICC.

  Such moral dilemmas have allowed even the European countries speak more freely. The Telegraaf in the Netherlands commented on the Milosevic trial in a way that you would not expect to read in any major American newspaper. The showdown between Chirac and Bush gave Le Monde the leeway to speak its mind about the disaster in Kosovo.

  Let us hope there is a seachange. This moral conflict may even come to a head when the ICC and the US Saddam court clash in the post-Saddam Iraq, if that day ever comes.
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Tuesday March 04, 2003 at 1:51 pm
  

  First amiciKay (NATO) is increasing the pressure on May (NATO) by repeating any one reads the transcripts in the future will see clearly how a blotched job the tribunal, the chamber, the presiding judge did in confronting the very indulged prosecutor. Legal parlance for you're screwing up big time > Poor May (NATO) facing a whimsical Nice (NATO) who need to accommodate another ambassador professor (this time the US ambassador to Yugoslavia Gailbarth) who can't be examined because his schedule but next week even if that is in violation of the rules of early disclosure. But, Kay (NATO) had filed a motion few weeks ago, in that regard including the report the ambassador is introducing as witness and yet May (NATO) had not received it, had not idea about it, as before another mysterious flaw in the tribunal bureaucracy. May (NATO) was nervous today, very nervous and Mr. Milosevic very well informed and effective in cross examining the Croat in charge of Croatia's Commission on Missing and Displace People.

  The point with the pipe lines and the many corridors bring energy by land from the Caspian Basin to the Western markets is that eventually the American companies are expected, alt-ought it is becoming increasingly doubtful, to own the oil of the region. The owners will dictate what means of transportation and how the oil will be delivered. The Black Sea is not an alternative since the Bosporus Straits are clogged up to capacity. Russia has very decent routes open and could build more including the port of Murmansk, not unknown to Western fleets, to bring oil from Siberia to the thirsty West. But these alternatives are not reassuring enough to Wall Street, which wants to sleep at night knowing the oil flows in pipes lying in holly NATO land, where the ants don't make noise at night.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Tuesday March 04, 2003 at 1:56 pm
  

  Forgive my mistakes, I am tired, overworked and more than fed up with the situation here in the States, the endless talk about terorism and Saddam,while a whole world is falling apart to be replaced by the unknown!

  Heil Bush!
  
  G C
  Conn., USA

• Tuesday March 04, 2003 at 2:23 pm
  

  Kosovo Albanian leader transferred to UN war crimes court
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Tuesday March 04, 2003 at 2:46 pm
  JP

  It must be hard to defend "W". His moral high ground comes from religious zeal,that will destroy the US separation of church and state. Calling the UN a debating society, 'you would think his writers could find him a new prase,'will put the US outside looking in. The lies that gave Clinton NATO help in Serbia will not work again. It's too bad he still has two years to inflict damage on the world,before he is kicked out of office.
  
  Pertti Lindroos
  Quesnel
  BC Canada

• Tuesday March 04, 2003 at 2:53 pm
  Not only will Hillary Clinton "go along" with the Bushies' plans for Iraq, she will urge them on in state of heightened euphoria, just as she egged on her so-called husband before just before the bombing of Serbia actually began. If you recall, she and Chelsea were on a little trip at the time and Hillary talked to her hubby from one of the planes she was flying on to make sure he wouldn't lose heart to bomb Serbia. Hillary and Albright are held up to little American girls as ROLE MODELS! -- what fine exampels they make...
  
  Anna Pullinger
  Californ-eye-eh

• Tuesday March 04, 2003 at 2:55 pm
  If "W" says NUKULAR one more time...

  I swear I'll throw something at my TV. Is he that stupid or is he just trying to fit in with the good ol' boys?
  
  Anna Pullinger
  Californ-eye-eh

• Tuesday March 04, 2003 at 3:02 pm
  

  Jari, I think that you are pushing some things related to the ICTY to far. My opinion is that the ICTY's role is to provide cover up for the NATO/USA/GB/German/+... coalition. Nothing less and nothing more. They are involved in the pure obstruction of justice operation code named ILLEGAL BUT LEGITIMATE. The assumption that it has a role to change the people's legal conscience on its head is wrong. They are trying to look legally correct as much as possible. They are bending over their backs to keep this image but of course they can't.

  I agree that possible war against Iraq and bad experience form the last Balkan wars has broth some good consequences. What we now know is that United Europe has achieved a significant integration of its economies, but that politically they have not moved forward much. During the Former Yugoslav cries they behaved as an amorphous mass incapable to take a unified strong stand against the USA and NATO. This was very painful experience, because mass created in the Former Yugoslavia is also a European mass needed to be cleaned and paid for. Additionally Europe has disappeared as a political factor from the map of the world. Europe has not changed, but attitude of France and Germany has. They realized that they can not wait for the European Union to become politically integrated and have sound unified policy towards the world, but that they have to act alone and protect their own interests. Brits never hesitated to take this position. On the other hand this can be just my wishful thinking. Both France and Germany were always trying to have good relationship whit the Muslim world and this is may be continuation of their traditional policy. They can afford to be more restrained that the USA since they haven't faced the 9-11 type of an attack yet.

  When it comes to Mr. Seselj, he is certainly guilty of hate crimes. May be some real, too. There is ample evidence of that. He just could not stop blabbering. He has done grate damage to the Serbian tradition of tolerance and respect for others. If he is convicted of the proven crimes I do not mind. What I like about his accusation is that the hate crime is added to list of crimes for which the ICTY is responsible to prosecute. So, every thing that Mr. Tudjman, Mesic, Izedbegovic and company have said hateful against the Serbs is criminal. Mr. Mesic even admitted some of his hateful statements in the tribunal. There are some Canadian journalists and media commentators that are now alleged hate criminals for what they have hatefully said against the Serbs. Just to mention one Mr. Margolis. Of course the king of the hate criminals in the Former Yugoslav wars is Mr. Jamie Shea. After accusation of Mr. Seselj, Mr. Shea should start packing for the Hague. When Mr. Holbruck have said: "We used Croats as our junk yard dogs.", he committed a hate crime. I have no doubt that in his future cross-examinations Mr. Milosevic would use any hateful statement that a coross-exemined witness has said to point out that the witness is a war criminal.

  Mr. Seselj's surrender to the Hague coincides with the renewed campaign to push forward an idea that Vovodina should be given autonomous status within Serbia or even succeed from it. One of the strongest points that Mr. Milosevic has on its side is that there was no ethnic cleansing of killing during his rule in Serbia. By accusing Mr. Seselj for doing ethnic cleansing of Croats from Vojvodina the Hague prosecution is trying to undermine this strong point of Mr. Milosevic. The additional service that the Hague is providing for the USA is political pressure on the countries in the Former Yugoslavia, especially Serbia. If Serbia does not deliver Mr. Mladic, Vjovodina will succeed.
  
  Pera Bora
  Ottawa
  Canada

• Tuesday March 04, 2003 at 3:09 pm
  While in office, how many wars, upheavals, and war plannings one has to conduct?
  
  Pero Peric
  Canada

• Tuesday March 04, 2003 at 4:40 pm
  PL

  If moral high ground from doesn't come from a religious base, then from where? Where did the 'founding fathers' or for that matter the 'knights of the round table get their 'morals'.

  Separation of church and state means 'the state shall not prohibit the free exercise of religion' like old fat George the brit did. Name me one the '10 commandment' that is not morally sound?

  I hope the present Democratic endorsed interpretations of the constitution regarding separation are struck down. What's happening is 'religion' is being destroyed because of it. Putin realizes the value of religion and is attempting a revival in Russia.

  AP
  Actually W says nukular and hears nuclear. After all, its always the other guy that has the accent. Funny you picked up on nukular and not the 'smirk' on his face.

  PT
  Thanks for the 'button' link, I laughed at the examples you mentioned. Did you know, for something to be funny, it must be based on truth, or else it bombs. Ave W
  
  J P
  USA.Wis

• Tuesday March 04, 2003 at 5:00 pm
  Almost every time they discuss bombing of Iraq (on western tv programs)...somebody pops up with an example of a "briliant" action of NATO inYugoslavia-where bombing campaign "prevented a great humanitarian catastrophy" - so it served it's purpose - did a good job.Every time I hear it,it shakes my whole "everything". But then,...what happens ? Nobody ever denies it.Nobody even comments it. Whatever we discuss here,whatever seems to be cristal clear to every person with a minimum sence of logic (over here) - doesn't in fact work at all - out there- in a real (western) world.What kind of clash is that ? A clash of what ? First,I was thinking about media and information,but it isn't as simple as that. There is something like general truth about the subject of Yugoslavia that seems to be totaly accepted.It's like some hitory books were written,before the history happened - now it's already perfectly clear.Arguments ,whatever they are,seem to be totaly irellevant. They can't break through however strong and logical they are.. This trial has a certain role in it - but not a central role,I'm affraid.It's just an operational sequence.Some kind of confirmation.It doesn't matter what happenes over there - it's the trial itself in a function of having a trial.That's enough - the rest is already done. Pretty dark picture - but if we want to fight it,we better see it as it is : totaly perverse.
  
  milan c.
  netherlands

• Tuesday March 04, 2003 at 5:17 pm
  JP,

  That's because I try never to look at him if I don't have to -- that recitation he does every time, that s-t-u-d-i-e-d recitation (somebody has taught him how to read a speech to sound s-i-n-c-e-r-e, but one wonders why they haven't taught him to pronounce "nuclear" correctly so I assume it's deliberate), is hard enough to bear, but to watch him doing it is too much.
  
  Anna Pullinger
  Californ-eye-eh

• Tuesday March 04, 2003 at 5:39 pm
  Yesterday, after Judge May and Nice yaped about upcoming witnesses, for about what seems to be an hour, Milosevic had a question, and was cut off, cut off, cut off by Judge May.

  Nice had repeadily said, para phrase, 'we must have enough time to successfully convict the accused'. ..? Milosevic thought this was all about getting at the truth, not a conviction, and asked Judge May to explain, Judge May was again perplexed, and stumbled on. They are having a 'kangaroo' trial on Milosevics' dime and he never get the microphone.

  If there one thing the world believes in, it's fair play and that's why Milosevic won immediately after the 1st few 'witnesses'.
  
  J P
  USA.Wis

• Tuesday March 04, 2003 at 6:08 pm
  Which country really poses the greatest danger to world peace in 2003 North Korea, Iraq or The United States?

  TIME asks for readers' views at this link:

  TIME
  
  Pero Peric
  Canada

• Tuesday March 04, 2003 at 6:14 pm
  

  I have listened yesterday to a report from Afghanistan very carefully. It came out that our success in Afghanistan is that we, i.e. our puppet government there, is controlling Kabul and a ring around it of 15 kilometers in depth. If I am correct it leaves a lot of free space for terrorist recruiting, training and drug production for the USA market. Osama Ben Laden may be more secure in Afghanistan than in Pakistan after all. The last woman was thrown out of the Afghan government two weeks ago. Women doctors are not allowed to work and every woman has to be dressed in CHADOR, again. This is how much Afghan people has got from our great project of launching the Vietnam type war in the USSR backyard. Afghan people under communism had more western type rights + social rights, complements of communism, than they have after our instigation of war against USSR and our liberation of Afghanistan. Even if it is true that this helped us defeat USSR how this justifies distraction of the Afghanistan in the process.

  J.P.If we "accomplish this much" in Iraq are you going to be happing. Some experts on Iraq have told me that when the next free elections are held in Iraq that the Fundamentalist Islamists would win majority with out any effort.

  To his credit Mr. Bush II has not committed any Hanky/Panky yet in order to start an Iraqi war, like Markale III or Baby incubators II or pitting various ethnic and religions groups against each other in the brutal civil war in order to get in and execute Humanitarian Intervention II. Ironically, his attempt to get approval from the Security Council and if he does not get one and starts a war may make him more obvious war criminal than immoral Mr. Clinton. It would be interesting to see if he is going to cry: "In justice!", at the time.
  
  Pera Bora
  Ottawa
  Canada

• Tuesday March 04, 2003 at 6:19 pm
  

  Gogol, I am glad that Mr. Kay has reminded Mr. May, in public, that people in the West, although cut off from Mr. Milosevic trial, courtesy of Wild Western media, are reading tribunal transcripts and that they know who he and troika really are. So, Mr. May can not count that in his native and beloved GB his colleges and people devoted to democracy, freedom and justice do not know how low he has fallen. As a consequence Mr. May's return home can be at least uncomfortable. He would have to face people who knew him as an honest man before he joined the ICTY tribunal.

  I am just wandering how long Europe needs to realize that it should start working hand in hand with Russia and that Russia is a natural member of the European Union and that it extends Europe from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean regardless of geography. Russia always wanted that. Russia needs a strong partner in order to develop. It is a huge market and has a lot of oil and gas to offer which is these day better then money. One way or the other Russia will eventually re-take its important place in the world. It would be good for Europe to be considered a helper of this process, rather than the other way around.

  Why Europe is waiting for the USA to build pipe lines through some unreliable corridors over Muslim states, requiring constant USA/NATO military protection, when it can get all the oil that it needs via its reliable European/Russian territories, beats my mind. The only answer to this question for me is vanity. Europeans know that once when Russia becomes strong it will start over shadowing nations like GB, France and Germany. Haven't European leading countries wasted whole twentieth century on forcing Russia to stumble on its way towards progress. It is contra productive and waste of time. Russia has placed the first man in the orbit any way.
  
  Pera Bora
  Ottawa
  Canada

• Tuesday March 04, 2003 at 6:44 pm
  
  Mr Morality

  Blair portrays himself as a supremely moral person even challenging Christian leaders, such as the Pope, opposed to war without a specific UN sanction. Let us examine the validity of his claim to moral righteousness in the light of his response to a reader’s question on such matters in the Independent on Sunday: 2 March 2003:

  This is how he answered:

  Sending our forces into action is the hardest decision any prime minister ever makes. I've done it twice in major conflicts, and, there was opposition and understandable concern on both occasions.

  The first time was when our forces intervened in Kosovo to halt the barbaric ethnic cleansing of Kosovan Albanians, who were Muslims, at the hands of Milosevic, another brutal dictator. The international community had tried hard by peaceful means to control the orgy of killing and expulsions that he had unleashed on the Balkans but failed.

  Our military action was not without mistakes. Innocent people died. I deeply regret that. But the ethnic cleansing was halted. Milosevic was kicked out by the Serbs and is now on trial for war crimes. The Balkans now has the chance for a better future. I don't think anyone could fairly say we were wrong to intervene.

  ‘One must tell the truth’: is a universally accepted cardinal rule for moral behaviour. How does Blair score on this measure?

  Blair is privy to the finest intelligence services in the world: CIA/FBI/MI5/MI6 … so he knows exactly what is what in foreign affairs.

  In his answer above note first how he takes this opportunity to crow, for the umpteenth time, of how his military intervention in Kosovo has improved the situation there, about how it has created a “chance for a better future”. He claims “the ethnic cleansing was halted.”

  From intelligence reports he must know that as things stand: Kosovo has no chance for a better future for Kosovo’s remaining minority populations. He must also know that the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo’s minorities was massive and still ongoing.

  Blair - now an avowed warrior against Islamic terror - boasts that Milosevic is “on trial for war crimes” but remains silent upon the fact that the Leaders of the erstwhile Islamic terrorists in the Balkans are not.

  These are MASSIVE LIES to add to those he made previously about fictitious Serb atrocities in Kosovo. Trust-me Tony gets a NO vote on this one.

  What do we make of this “… our forces intervened in Kosovo to halt the barbaric ethnic cleansing of Kosovan Albanians, who were Muslims, at the hands of Milosevic, another brutal dictator.”

  It may be claimed that the evidence suggests that the Serbian province of Kosovo was under an attack from an insurgent Islamic terrorist army. Milosevic’s forces may have been brutal in their crackdown on these terrorist forces including Mujahedin and al-Qaeda but not as brutal as Anglo/US forces in Afghanistan. But the big lie is in equating Milosevic with Hussein. Milosevic was not a dictator and he did not attack territories outside his own. Milosevic did not cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands - as did Hussein - in Kosovo although Trust-me Tony would like you to believe so. Any proper audit will reveal a figure of a few thousand - less than those killed by the KLA/Nato alliance.

  Morality score still nul point.

  Now for the double-speak: “Our military action was not without mistakes.” In other words ‘The RAF deliberately dropped unguided cluster bombs from three miles high. Consequently some hit hospitals, schools, houses, markets … killing and injuring innocent women and children in the most horrible manner.’

  How many points would you give Mr Morality for his “mistakes”? Still Nil?

  Now we’re on to the killing another moral cardinal rule is ‘Thou shalt not kill: except perhaps in self-defence. So how does Mr Morality do on this one?

  Blair’s errand boy Paddy Ashdown, rewarded with the ‘vice-regency’ of Bosnia, gave evidence at the ICTY that Milosevic was guilty of disproportionate use of force in combating Islamic terrorism in Kosovo especially with his use of tanks.

  Blair ringed Heathrow with tanks during a recent terrorist ‘scare’. If this was not an exercise in propaganda then Blair was going to use these tanks to fire on any terrorists who emerged at the airport regardless of “collateral damage”.

  Blair’s Defence (should it be Attack?) Minister Hoon states that “in the right circumstances” nuclear weapons will be used against Iraq - a non-nuclear power. Making what seems, but only seems, a contradiction in the Independent on Sunday referenced above Blair said: “We do have nuclear weapons but have never used them and have no plans to use them.” Note this is not the same as saying ‘Nuclear weapons will not be used against Iraq’ such is the slippery language of Mr Morality.

  The ‘unplanned’ “right circumstances” being, for example I imagine, hand-to-hand fighting in Baghdad, a city of five million people, where thousands of British soldiers may become casualties? Remember Stalingrad: more than two million dead!

  And now for some new chilling killing techniques:

  The US is preparing to use the toxic riot-control agents CS gas and pepper spray in Iraq in contravention of the Chemical Weapons Convention … The revelations leave the Bush administration open to charges of double standards at a time when it is making Iraq's suspected arsenal of chemical and biological weapons the casus belli … A special working group of the Federation of American Scientists concluded last month that using even the mildest of these weapons to incapacitate people would kill 9 per cent of them. It added: "Chemical incapacitating weapons are as likely as bullets to cause death." By Geoffrey Lean and Severin Carrell: The Independent 2 March 2003

  Is it a moral act for Blair to ally British forces to forces intending to use outlawed poison gas?

  Beware of holier than holy Mr Morality, “whiter than white” Trust-me Tony whose much practised stock-in-trade is portraying sincerity. Note his dodgy dossier on Iraq, his many massive lies about the Serbs and Kosovo, his support for Islamic terror in Kosovo, his use of cluster bombs, Cheriegate, the Ecclestone £million, Mittal’s steelworks and the Hinduja passports enquiry, the release of Pinochet, his denial of democracy in repudiating 90% of electors wishes not to go to war without a specific UN sanction, his disgraced ministers: Vaz - who never once visited Kosovo while it was his responsibility - Robinson, Mandelson (twice), Byers …

  This is not the record of a moral man.
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Tuesday March 04, 2003 at 7:25 pm
  

  Milane, your post is dark and truthful, but remember the tribunal transcripts are there for everybody to see and read. Also a lot of valuable visual and audio evidence is recorded and stored for the coming generations to see. The world is better with these transcripts and other records than without them. Most importantly this evidence is gathered and stored in one place together. Its use and miss use is recorded at the same time. The ICTY has its positive side. The supporters of the tribunal very well understand this, but their assessment that it will exonerate them and their deeds is wrong.

  For the Serbian government the trials of the ICTY are providing extremely valuable evidence for the case filed in the International Court of Justice in the Hague against NATO bombing, provided that they do not blink and abandon the case.

  I agree with Jari that the Allies are afraid of the Former Yugoslav states reunification. This is theirs biggest nightmare. The best solution for all of them is to reunite and accuse the NATO allies of instigating the wars of Yugoslav dissolution, by supporting criminal elements in former Yugoslav republics against Yugoslav Constitution, AVNOI Agreement, Agreement of Versai, UN Charter and so on. Why would they do that? The Western states are guilty of the case at point. There is no statute of limitations for war crimes. Everybody in Yugoslavia lost a great deal. The only way to get money to rebuild from the West is to win a court case against these countries. The accused countries have money and resources to finance and re-build Yugoslavia. The process will bring real reconciliation to the countries of Former Yugoslavia. Above all the case is easy to win. It is case of picking money dropped on the ground. Why this will not happen? Because there is too many selfish, nationalistic idiots at the top of the Former Yugoslavs states and they are paid in person by the West and they think that they have made money out of the Yugoslav dissolution. But this possibility is never to go away due to the lack of statute of limitations for the War Crimes and availability of the International Court of Justice in the Hague, which is recognized by all the member states
  
  Pera Bora
  Ottawa
  Canada

• Tuesday March 04, 2003 at 7:38 pm
  Morality of War as well as legality of armed conflict are defined in the UN Charter. I.E. Chapter VII. War without S.C. autorization is an iligal awr, therefore crime against peace. Grantet, one may perceive from personal standpoint morality, however, morality is also an expression for international law. How one could disregard international law and take highgrond to morality is beyond my apprehension. Any comments?
  
  Carla Berg
  Austria

• Tuesday March 04, 2003 at 8:14 pm
  If people look back at the disintegration of Yugoslavia logically they will see that it was the West and intially Slovenia and Croatia who wanted to break away from Yugoslavia and later BiH and Macedonia. Therefore,Kucan,Tudjman,Izetbegovic and Gligorov are responsible for the "death of Yugoslavia" as people like to say,not Milosevic How can Milosevic be responsible for the "death of Yugoslavia" when Serbia wasn't the one who wanted to break away??? It makes no sense. And then this ridiculous claim of "aggression" by Serbia on Croatia and BiH" when Serbia was simply helping to protect their Serb populations. Tudjman's government was infested with Ustasas (Gojko Susak,Mate Boban) and Tudjman himself was a big rascist. Izetbegovic wrote his Islamic declaration in the 1970's,stating that "Christians and Muslims cannot live together". He was a member of the Muslim Youth group during the Second World War,a pretty much pro-fascist group. And in the end,the Serbs are compared to the Nazis and Tudjman and Izetbegovic as "democrats". What a laugh! Izetbegovic proceeded to get international recognition for Bosnia in 1992,without even ASKING what the Serbs thought about it. He believed as Muslims and Croats wanted to separate from Yugoslavia,that it was enough. However,according to the Yugoslav consitution,ALL 3 ethnic groups had to have a majority vote on independence and this was not the case. Izetbegovic at Lisbon had the chance to save BiH from a bloody civil war but he did not take it and instead dragged Bosnia through another 3 years of turmoil.
  
  Ryan Mircic
  St.Albans
  UK

• Tuesday March 04, 2003 at 8:25 pm
  What the hell is happening with that war criminal Nasir Oric? There has been plenty of covergae linking him to atrocities on Serbian civilians in eastern Bosnia. He should have been one of the first to go to the Hague. Instead,here we are,7 and a half years after the war ended and he is still sitting in Tuzla. Izetbegovic; why isn't he in the Hague? The government of the Republika Srpska gave the Hague evidence linking Izetbegovic to war crimes in BiH over a year ago and still no response from the Hague. Apparently,the evidence weighed a total of about 50lbs. The Hague Tribunal is a court parallel to Nuremberg which has one objective: To be a victor's court,nothing more. In Nuremberg,every single person who stood trial was from the Axis powers. Although not every single prisoner in the Hague is a Serb,probably about 80% of them are. How on earth can this be a court of "justice", in that case? Milosevic is charged with war crimes because he was a POLITICAL FOE of the West,whereas Tudjman and Izetbegovic weren't. That's why Tudjman was never indicted and why Izetbegovic will most probably never be indicted.
  
  Ryan Mircic
  St.Albans
  UK

• Tuesday March 04, 2003 at 9:08 pm
  .PB

  In Afghanistan the US helped in the fight to drive out the USSR. It was in our interest to contain 'communism'. We only had a handfull of advisors there with a selected handout of crutial weapons, but in no position to dictate anything. When the USSR realized the stupidy of the conflict and area, they threw in the towel, giving the Afghans a second freedom chance. But in a tribal culture, the Taliban won out. You can show the horse the water, but you can't make him drink.

  Now, the Taliban has been dispersed, the Afghans have still a 3rd try. It's up to them, but the culture may not be advanced enough to see the 'light' of free choice and freedom. Their heads have been filled with mush since 500+ad and we can't babysit forever.

  In Iraq, we have a more sophisticated society but there the problem is that they are intimidated by radicals. As is Egypt. Algeria also would have fallen in the election to the fanatics a few years ago, but for government interdiction. It happened in Iran and if not for Atta Turks' army it would have happened in Turkey. The octopus of decapitators has to be rooted out, everywhere, for gornments to function and not decay as in the middle-east for the last 1400 years.
  
  J P
  USA,Wis

• Tuesday March 04, 2003 at 11:02 pm
  

  J.P. Thanks for confirming my statement that the USA got involved in Afghanistan in its own best interest the first and the second time. Not in the best interest of the Afghan people. First the USA went in to contain communism and it has chosen as its protegees Islamic Fundamentalists in a hope that they will bring more freedom to the Afghans. What a naivete? Then you went in Afghanistan the second time. Not to protect poor Afghans from Taliban but again yourselves. Who is to tell that you have chosen again the best people to bring to power that will bring freedom to the poor Afghans. It is not that Taliban got on top because they were simply stronger and smarter they were successful because you choose to help them and equipped them to win.

  Are you telling me that Afghan communists were endangering the USA from Afghanistan? Or it was actually later Taliban and may be Neo-Taliban that controls rest of the Afghanistan except for Kabul.

  When it comes to Iran there is enough evidence allover the public space hinting that over throw of Sah was French/American operation. He was too dangerous, though not a communist. He was one of the founders of OPEC and he was pushing for the prices of oil to be increased. And while he was in control of the Gulf there was no need for the USA fleet to get involved.
  
  Pera Bora
  Ottawa
  Canada

• Wednesday March 05, 2003 at 3:44 am
  Pera, I may be pushing things, but I am not sure if I go too far. The tribunal was established before the Western states had that much to hide, and the Kosovo bombing was certainly not entertained at that point. Isn't saying that Izetbegovic and Tudjman were Western allies and thus were not indicted the same as saying that they hated the Serbs as much as the West did (for whatever reason)? Whether they really were such Western allies is a moot point. It may be that this is also an ICTY-created illusion. I am in no doubt that the Croats and the Muslims have their grievances against the West too, although they are eclipsed by the wrong done to Serbia.

  As to standing the legal conscience on its head, the man on the street of course will always believe in wrong and right. But listen to Peter Taylor's comments on Tony Blair, for instance. If the legal conscience hasn't been stood on its head somewhere, what is happening then? I agree that the ICTY is doing its best to look like a normal court, but that is only to stop people asking some common-sense questions about the whole drama, in other words to intimidate them.

  Similarly, the tribunal refuses any interaction with other courts, so it won't look bad in comparison. And what is the academic craze called deconstruction, if not turning anything familiar upside down? This is science.

  And there is more stuff to substantiate what I am saying. Of the war-time leaders, Tudjman is dead, Izetbegovic is too old. Milosevic is the only one who is still capable of performing the job. So he has to eliminated. He is one of the few politicians who had a political career in the unified Yugoslavia. In his old days he may get too nostalgic for the past, and now that his counterparts in Bosnia and Croatia are gone, it is safest to lock him up. One can read something like that in Nice's statement that enough time is needed to convict him.

  It is a mystery why the prosecution needs so much time for the Croatia part of its case, thus curtailing the Bosnia part to a minimum. Maybe they trust the earlier case law of the tribunal. The Krstic judgment confirmed the Serbs killed 7,000-8,000 Muslim men and boys in Srebrenica, so there is no need to argue about that in the Milosevic trial.

  It is clear that the opinion industry especially in the US is "passing the brush" as best as it can. There is no reasonable explanation for this, really. The Americans just love their faulty reporting.

  Not that they won't have to pay for it at some point. This reminds one of the Enron scandal and the other book-keeping scandals in the US. The firms kept telling the investors what they wanted to hear, till the end came. This is Clinton legacy at its most gripping.

  Sure, the tribunal's transcripts and the videos are available for reference for the future generations. The question is who is going to go through it. The prosecution material alone will amount to about 100 meters by the time the trial is over. It is possible that this is one of the reasons the prosecution wants to protract the trial as much as possible. Maybe it was May that got cold feet.

  Uniting the Yugoslav people is just as utopian as bringing Nato to justice. Maybe these two trends are related, maybe not.

  Court-martial has been floated. Gogol's post from yesterday brought me back on the ground: only those who resist unlawful orders will be court-martialled in the national martial courts. It is probably on this assumption that the West has practically ignored the war crimes convictions in Serbia, too.

  When the bombing was over, the US considered its job fulfilled. Now it was Europe's turn to rebuild. But does it have to go like that? Were the Europeans supposed to rebuild and keep quiet, not criticizing all the destruction? The more the Europeans now rebuild, the more they want to prevent something like this happening again, and I guess that is also one of the reasons we are seeing this kind of reaction from Chirac and friends.

  The US doesn't want to hear it. Neither does it want to hear anything about the solution that the genuine international community has in store for dealing with war crimes. A lot of this NYT garbage on the Milosevic trial is designed to keep the attention away from the ICC. Whenever the ICTY is mentioned, for instance, it is always presented as an American tribunal. The ICC is conspicuous (hopefully) by its absence in the reporting. This is to make sure that when the US clashes with the ICC in the future, the Americans will have no clue what the opposite side is talking about and will react as violently as they do to everything else.

  On the other hand, it is also wrong to believe that the Europeans are privy to the truth. Far from it. Their prejudice towards the Balkans even surpasses the American prejudice. Besides, the Europeans have been taught not to question too many things. One is constantly reminded that the transfer of Milosevic contradicted the Yugoslav law. Well, that is a pity. If one would go through all the procedures followed in the accession of many of the present member states to the EU, one might notice that the national laws have been broken on a regular basis. The British, for instance, will tell you how they were tricked by the EU lobby on more than one occasion.

  It is the same almost everywhere. And I guess the European docility is one of the reasons this discussion takes on an American website.

  Conversely, once in the Union, the Soviet Union may indeed have guaranteed the rights of its republics better than the EU. The Soviet constitution at least provided for the possibility to leave the federation, as did the Yugoslav constitution, by the way. The basic legal documents of the EU make no provision for quitting the European Union.

  To come back to something Gogol said, on the other hand, when the individual republics did leave the Soviet Union, they were only exercising they rights, even if most of the whole Soviet population might have favoured the Soviet Union.

  And let us straighten out one thing before it becomes a misconception. The Greeks may be the best pals for Yugoslavia at the moment, but the Greeks are in it just as much for themselves as anything else. In fact, when Macedonia became independent, Greece started using economic sanctions against it until some matters were sorted out, like the disagreement about the national symbols. It was the European Commission that took Greece to the European Court of Justice for thus undermining the European humanitarian policy and overstepping the Common Foreign and Security Policy. Greece won the case, because it had refused to sign the Maastricht Treaty, where this Common Foreign and Security Policy was codified, expressly in protest against Macedonia.

  So the Greeks don't necessarily love the Serbs and other Slavs. The Greeks protested against the Nato bombing mainly for messing in the Greek hinterland.

  Not that the Greeks hadn't noticed a long time before that the US wasn't acting in line with the Greek interests. When the US started planning the trans-Balkan pipeline, the pipeline only consolidated what had been called in some geo-strategic maps the "Oriental Axis", running through the Balkans peninsula in the east-west direction. This is what I mean by spitting on Greece. It was in the Greeks interests to consolidate the "Orthodox Axis", which runs in north-south direction.

  The pipeline is important, but its importance is symbolic as much as anything else. Sure some were privy to the project and made some money, like the Malaysians who had bought Northern Albania in the knowledge that the pipeline would cross there.

  Only, now it seems what the Americans may have won in the short-term with this pipeline business, they are now busy losing it all on the political plane.

  About Bulgaria being the only country where the heir to the throne is the country's prime minister, have you checked the Faisal family in Saudi Arabia?
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Wednesday March 05, 2003 at 4:42 am
  Jari:

  I appreciate all your research the the fine job you do on this forum but I have to disagree with you in your last post.

  JARI: Maybe the government of Greece is not a friend to the Serbs,I really have no idea, but the people have been very kind. I have been in Greece and I know first hand. All I had to say was that I was a Serb and there was always a very warm and supportive response.

  Here in the States there is a close relationship between Serbs and Greeks. Serbs know their friend throughout these hard times and before have been the Greeks. I cannot tell you how much support Serbs have received from them. They share a harsh history of enslavement by the Ottoman Empire and the invasion of the Germans. They share in their belief in the Orthodox religion.If you heard what has been said to me by some Greeks, you would know why I feel it is necessary to defend their friendship to the Serbian people..

  Goodnight Jari, I am going to bed, it is late. I hope tomorrow is a nice day for everyone.

  Someone said there are two super powers. The United States and the people. I believe the Greek people are on the side of the Serbs. I thank them for that.

  
  
  Kathryn Love
  SJC
  USA

• Wednesday March 05, 2003 at 4:54 am
  Well, diaspora is one thing. I don't want to undermine the companionship that exists there. But if Macedonians in Macedonia are any indication, the Greeks won't hesitate to trample on more toes than I may be doing here. I have seen some of the arrogance with my own eyes, but let's leave it there.
  
  J N
  Finland

• Wednesday March 05, 2003 at 6:51 am
  And more on nukes and France in Townhall columns: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/tonyblankley/tb20030305.shtml . The "worries" are getting more serious. As the columnist remarks, his reference may have been written tongue in cheek, but the columnist Tony Blankley is certainly making his best to turn it into something more. Remember you read it hear first.

  On another front, Turks and Greeks seem to be inching toward some kind of agreement on the status of Cyprus: "a new Cyprus Republic, which will be a federation made up of two constituent states, a Greek Cypriot state and the Turkish Cypriot state." This would enable Cyprus to join the EU later this year, according to Kofi Annan. Well, that is progress. I am sure the US will welcome this.
  
  J N
  Finland

• Wednesday March 05, 2003 at 7:11 am
  If you read Mr Blankley's column on France and the nukes and you don't know what he is talking about, here is a hint. First of all, much is made about the fact that France has sold weapons to Iraq. I'm sure they have, I'm sure they have. It is good someone keeps reminding us of this, so we won't have to wonder where Saddam actually got his weapons. Nobody would ask uncomfortable questions about the British and American arms sales to Iraq.

  Secondly, France is selling arms to "rogue states". This means that the American-style division of the world into rogue states, failed states and messy states (to borrow the terminology of Thomas L Friedman) isn't just some individual expert opinion, not even the foreign policy of some individual country, but the basic tenet of international law.
  
  J N
  Finland

• Wednesday March 05, 2003 at 9:34 am
  Ms. Carla Berg,

  You said you wanted comments?

  “Charter. I.E. Chapter VII. War without S.C. autorization is an iligal awr, therefore crime against peace.”

  Well, didn’t we see one crime already? Bombing of Yugoslavia!

  It seems that people have short memory and clamor nowadays about war with Iraq without UN approval.

  Well, U.S has done it once!
  
  D. Jovanovic
  USA

• Wednesday March 05, 2003 at 9:38 am
  Speaking of nukes. I found this bit on the web.

  NK Missile Warhead Found in Alaska

  By Ryu Jin Staff Reporter

  The warhead of a long-range missile test-fired by North Korea was found in the U.S. state of Alaska, a report to the National Assembly revealed yesterday.

  ``According to a U.S. document, the last piece of a missile warhead fired by North Korea was found in Alaska,’’ former Japanese foreign minister Taro Nakayama was quoted as saying in the report. ``Washington, as well as Tokyo, has so far underrated Pyongyang’s missile capabilities

  I wonder who invented this bit of news and for what purpose?
  
  D. Jovanovic
  USA

• Wednesday March 05, 2003 at 9:47 am
  To Jari on Cyprus,

  The EU is committed to the accession of the (internationally recognized) Greek part of Cyprus no matter whether or not there is a deal to reunite the island. A reunification deal will ensure that the Turkish Cypriots will also enter. As for the US, no Administration has done much to promote reunification and it is not clear that such an event per se is seen as strategically important to them. What appears to be a strategic objective of both Clinton and Bush Administrations is that Turkey continues to be a loyal US ally and that at the same time it enters the EU and plays the role of a Trojan horse hindering effective political and financial EU cohesion antagonistic to the US.
  
  Pythagoras C
  Greece

• Wednesday March 05, 2003 at 11:45 am
  I have long lost the belief that there is something as “International Justice”. The quotes from Tony Blair how “bombing stopped the atrocities in Kosovo” pronounced only recently make my blood boil.

  How can a responsible statesmen, head of a grand civilized country lie so openly and blatantly to English people?

  Is the language for the masses so corrupted to be void of any truth?

  Consider these today’s headlines and tell me which is the “atrocity” and which is not?

  Israeli Troops Kill 3 in Separate Incidents in West Bank and Gaza By JAMES BENNET

  GAZA, March 4 - In separate shooting incidents and clashes, Israeli forces killed three Palestinians today, as the White House issued a rare caution to Israel over its treatment of Palestinian civilians.

  On Monday, while arresting a leader and several members of the militant group Hamas in a refugee camp south of here, Israeli forces killed eight Palestinians, including gunmen who engaged in a firefight. Among the dead was a pregnant woman, killed when a wall fell on her as soldiers demolished the home of a neighbor, an Islamic Jihad militant.

  Bomb Explodes on Bus in Israel, Killing at Least Eight

  By JAMES BENNET with TERENCE NEILAN

  JERUSALEM. March 5 - At least eight people were reported killed and many wounded today in a suicide bombing on board a bus in Haifa in northern Israel. Some Israeli news media reports put the death toll as high as 11.
  
  D. Jovanovic
  USA

• Wednesday March 05, 2003 at 1:00 pm
  Pythagoras, I obviously don't know all the ins and outs of the Cypriot question. Israel and Yugoslavia are bound to keep one busy enough, but all these things seem interconnected. Here is my view. It is remarkable that the perennial Cypriot question inches close to a solution now that the US needs something to buy the Turkish vote. Even before, the "international community," i.e. the US, has been very longsuffering with the Turkish part of Cyprus, considering that Turkey took it by force and Turkey is the only country in the world that has recognized the Turkish Cypriot republic. Turkey has even threatened to annex the nothern Cyprus to itself.

  The US has indeed been very understanding. When Saddam tried something similar in Kuwait, the international community reacted in a rather different way, and still is.

  Funny enough, it is the Greek part that has to pay for this anomaly in Cyprus, because the EU is hesitant to let Cyprus join the EU as long as the status of Cyprus is supposedly unresolved.

  I brought up the Greek self-interest in the Balkans so that we won't have any illusions. The potential for ethnic tension, which Amy Chua has written about, is there even between the Greeks and the Serbs. Make no mistake about it. But under the present circumstances it is preferable to solve the kind of problems Serbia is having on a "sub-regional level", i.e. in this case in cooperation with the Greeks. It has worked marvelously for Estonia, which has profited from Swedish and Finnish investments. Estonia has once in a while even insinuated that it doesn't need to join the EU.

  As to the "real" function of the ICTY, I think it was founded to reinforce the separation of the former Yugoslav repubics. This is what one must concluded once one accepts the argument that the only way Milosevic could have saved himself from The Hague would have been to recognize Croatia right away and apply for a separate UN membership as soon as possible. From what I have gathered, the whole Croatia segment of the prosecution's case in the Milosevic trial revolves around the continued presence of the JNA in the newly independent republics. The war crimes the JNA committed are then imputed to Milosevic, because he was president of Serbia, which was the heart of the Yugoslav Federal Republic, which was the patron of the JNA, which was still stationed in Croatia and Bosnia, where the nationalist troops attacked it as a provocation etc. etc. etc.

  It can be no coincidence that the ICTY was founded shortly after it became clear that the state succession would be the core problem in Yugoslavia. So the tribunal was founded to reinforce the separation of the republics.

  How well it has done its job can be seen from the recent reactions to the Seselj appearance. It seems that Seselj is OK, because he is a Serb and the Serbs are practically the only ones who get dragged to this tribunal. If we turn this reaction around, the Croats and the Bosniaks are bad, because they don't get indicted. This increases inter-ethnic suspicion, which in turn reinforces the separation of the states.

  You can disagree with me if you want. But consider another conspiracy theory of mine: MI6 must be helping Milosevic. That would explain why the case has sometimes gone a bit too swimmingly for Milosevic. (Finally he got tired and blurted out that he knew who killed Arkan.) Making Milosevic appear too good nurtures the frustration the people feel at the stolidity of the tribunal, which in turn foments inter-ethnic hatred, which in turn reinforces the separation of the republics.

  And if you want some "proof" that the tribunal has managed to turn things on their heads, consider this. In Israel, someone gets court-martialled for disobeying unlawful orders. In Yugoslavia, the head of state gets transferred to The Hague, because Serbia has admitted it was guilty of war crimes by convicting war criminals in its own courts.

  For this reason alone, the ICTY has to be kept quite separate from any other court. One might have nasty complications if the tribunal were mixed with some other court.

  By the way, I just realized what the difference was between the Soviet constitution and the Yugoslav constitution. The Soviet constitution allowed the republics to quit the union. The Yugoslav constitution allowed the constituent peoples to quit the federation. That is why the Yugoslav (or Serb, I can't remember which) parliamentary committee got bogged down in the plan for repartition of the Yugoslav territory between peoples. Remember that Zimmerman nixed the Cutilheiro plan because he didn't want it to set a negative precedent for the breakup of the Soviet Union. These two states were indeed built up on quite different lines. What was good for the Soviet Union, was applied to Yugoslavia, with less than satisfactory results. Zimmermann has admitted he might have been wrong. By the way, the Izetbegovic "unsigning" of the Cutilheiro plan must have looked a good idea for Bush II when he pondered on fate of the ICC Statute.
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Wednesday March 05, 2003 at 1:07 pm
  UN Charter, reply, That is exactly my point.NATO so called "HUMANIRAIN WAR" was an ILEGAL WAR, and as such is on the records. Politics aside, arguments and Blairs personal MORALITY, are NOT LAW.ILEGAL ACT of war will remain so, unless changed.
  
  Carla Berg
  Austria

• Wednesday March 05, 2003 at 1:12 pm
  I understand that 100 meters of the tribunal submissions can be intimidating to any one who wants to learn about Mr. Milosevic trial, but the backbone of the trial is what is said in the trial chamber i.e. the trial transcripts. The number of them is still decent. I am only worried about the transcripts from the private/secret sessions. 100 meters of submissions is quite a haystack but the truth in this case is not a needle it jumps out as soon as one starts reading cross-examination transcripts and faces unjust rulings by the judges and hilarious requests and submissions from the prosecution. Just the number of the secret sessions speaks enough on its own.
  
  Pera Bora
  Ottawa
  Canada

• Wednesday March 05, 2003 at 1:30 pm
  JP Wis.

  Your founding fathers separated church and state to allow religious freedom without the fanatic religious right ie:the archbishop in Georges England, or Jerry Falwell in our time having state power to control thier lives.

  Your patriot act, thanks to another god fearing man, Ashcroft, is justified as needed to protect the people in time of danger. I do not remember any democratic country passing laws that give so much power to police since Hitler gave birth to the SS, using the same justification.
  
  Pertti Lindroos
  Quesnel
  BC Canada

• Wednesday March 05, 2003 at 5:02 pm
  PL

  Every president will have a religious leaning or be an atheist. Many of ours were deeply religious, Even Clinton and Hillary sang the tune on Sundays. What's the problem?

  Worse is that they've been trying to take away our right bear arms. Australia had to turn theirs in and I'm under the perception that Canada recently went the same route. You and the Ausies my friend are the ones living in a police state.

  As for the Patriots Act, we are at war you know, and the enemy has penetrated within. Lousey comparison as Hitler had no excuse.
  
  J P
  USA.Wis

• Wednesday March 05, 2003 at 6:01 pm
  The Soviet constitution allowed the republics to quit the union. The Yugoslav constitution allowed the constituent peoples to quit the federation.

  Remember that Zimmerman nixed the Cutilheiro plan because he didn't want it to set a negative precedent for the breakup of the Soviet Union.

  Jari, this is one very important issue and it boils down to the core of the problem. I do believe the US wanted to prevent the Serbs from changing the borders of the YU-republics under any circumstances. Imagine the Russian 'minorities' around the former Soviet satelite republics demanding the right to self-determination on the Serb precedent. Must have caused some nightmares at the Pentagon. Containment of Russian expansion and influence in the region was on top of their agenda and it still is and always will be. Was the US successfull? The very existence of the Bosnian Serb Republic speaks against it. I have read about some demands to abolish the Bosnian Serb Republic, strengthen the federal institutions and so on. Is this another attempt by the US to correct the mistakes made in the past?
  
  Aleks Stajic
  Germany

• Wednesday March 05, 2003 at 6:25 pm
  Some Methuselahes simply can't get it ,but it's no ploblem fol us.Golden Soviet times ale gone,new useful enemy is needed to pleselve welfale flom tellolistic activities like thinking and questioning.The nation is patient and unified. Some othel Methuselahs ale lost in theil imagination.Like Sontag who wanted to taste Amelican histoly in Hamingway's cout of wal collespondent flom anothel Eulopean wal,Meths ale dleaming blave Spanish spilit in Belglade.If they would open theil eyes maybe they could see what has left of it .NGO witch B Kovacevic-Vuco ,doughtel of Spanish fightel and led genelal .GO satyl A Vlahovic ,Djin's ministel fol plivatization ,blothel's nephew of one "Spaniald".Childlen of led winnels(occupiels of othel's kitchens and bedlooms) ol led buleauclats -Kandic ,Biselko, had a stlong leason fol deep hatled :Sloba kicked them out flom coasy chails so they had to become new democlats and human lights defendels.Labus ,Fulblight stipendist(janical), is lailwayman's son at least. It's not hald to undelstand stluctule of Selbian society.But,it is absolutely impossible fol Methes to undelstand that "old guald " (led is invisible) lespects Kostunica . I don't know why Methuselahes plovoke us flom Voyvodina when they don't want to see us "excanged".

  Littol Jali ,youl Milena didn't want to make you that angly .Just littol bit.Don't you toltule Andy!Velges omnia collumpit.
  
  milan masic
  selbia

• Wednesday March 05, 2003 at 7:15 pm
  Carla Berg,

  No doubt you've heard a lot of squawking from the imperialist camp lately, charging that the UN is somehow losing "relevance", or "importance" by refusing to sanction undeclared wars. You hear this rhetoric all the time. And of course the imperialists do not mean the UN should always conveniently ignore its own charter, but only when it is in the interest of one or two permanent Security Council members. It's not clear whether the UN becomes really any more relevant to the global powers, or anyone else for that matter, if the UN decides to only uphold its charter when weaker states like Iraq are in violation, but this does form useful propaganda for the world's policeman, as well as a convenient pretext for unopposed aggression. It's dubious that the US and Britain would urge the UN to ignore its own charter, however, were any of the other three permanent members to use the opportunity to start a few wars of their own.

  What to make of this? The imperialists' suggestion is that the UN, somehow, is still relevant even after ignoring its own charter, and all that entails, such as refusing to introduce and support a resolution which would condemn the unilateral use of force, such as that perpetrated by the US and Britain in the Balkans and Iraq. The suggestion too, is that the UN is relevant by condemning aggression by only some of the nations some of the time.

  Hollow rhetoric from the imperialist camp nothwithstanding, the UN will always be there, and upholding the same double standards noted above. The UN might not give the US full approval for a war, but that hardly means that a resolution condemning unilateral aggression on the part of the US and Britain et al will follow. In the end, the UN will only have succeeded in disarming Iraq and collecting enough intelligence data to benefit the US and Britain's war enormously. What imperialist would really want to leave an organization like that? The Anglo-American squawking at the UN is an act, and a cynical one at that. Both the US and Britain are desperate to appear not as outright imperialists, but rather as part of something called the "international community". But it's not too clear they can manage to carry out this deception successfully, especially at a time when their acts of "consultation" amount to nothing other than intimidation, extortion, and bribery.
  
  Nico Tarzanovic
  CAN

• Wednesday March 05, 2003 at 9:00 pm
  Jari, the ICTY is indeed so autistic in every possible aspect, except perhaps the PR (see wrist-slaps to the media from both Nice and May). Legally, they are in a self-imposed limbo. The latest example: when our local District Court, where a law-case is being held re the Arkan's murder, requested info on K-2, a self-confessed participant in the murder, the ICTY answered that their witness has been granted a lifelong protection and therefore is unable to appear at this other trial. Our press reported that one of the lawyers at the trial claimed back on Feb. 4 his initials to be 'A.S.'. Nevertheless, it seems he's out of touch for our justice. I wonder what are other criminals waiting for, why don't they also apply to 'testify' and get protected. The ICTY slowly emerges as the law unto itself, untouchable by any court of appeal, its only natural enemy the ultimate dry-out of funds.

  After 3 totally insignificant witnesses, there came one Ivan Grujic, the Head of the Croatian Office for the Missing and Displaced Persons, who started to testify about exhumed and identified persons, people exchanged during and after the civil war, quoting numbers. I was genuinely interested, wanting to hear numbers and lists of names by the individual sites within CRO. Grujic started seriously, going through the lists in the Indictment, correcting mistakes in names and years of birth, so I thought there will be finally presented a no-nonsense witness who will tell his bit of truth. But, no. His precise lists and neat charts started to sound fishy when a large number of 'ethnically unidentified' started to appear. That was the first sign. The second was the low number of 'displaced persons', having in mind that only from the Western Slavonia there were more than 52,000 Serbs expelled in 1991 and 1992. But when it became clear that these lists do not include anything beyond 1992, pretty much like the Indictment itself, the testimony became what it really was - an isolated and distorted section of reality in a vacuum, autistic as much as the Indictment and the 'Tribunal' are. One can not be so precise as to correct individual names in the lists from 'Mate' to 'Matija' and the year of birth from 1929 to 1930 and at the same time sloppily leave these lists incomplete, both by omitting the significant number of Serbs or else muddling their ethnicity, or even worse, to exclude completely the major killings and expulsions in 1993 and 1995 perpetrated against the Serbs. Of course that the Croat 'defenders' (the newspeak expression for army and police) as well as civilians did get killed in the civil war, but the same happened to the other side, and to omit that from those tidy multi-coloured charts is not so tidy and expert-like at all. I lost any further interest in listening to this 'expert' and when Milosevic started to cross-examine him, it only confirmed my misgivings: the witness proceeded to quote his 'precise' percentages, according to which only 1.41 % of the total Serb population of CRO has been expelled during the whole war. When asked whether he was aware that many Serbs who did try to return to CRO after the war had to leave again, Grujic had the nerve to say he could see no reason why would someone run away from 'a democratic country'. Numerous cases of mainly old people who did return and got beaten and/or killed by 'local patriots' are on the record, but not in the documents of this 'expert', who explained this was not a job of his Office. According to the 'precise' Grujic, only some 3,000 Serbs have been expelled, and less than 300 killed. And the infamous Lora prison in Split, a place of torture and killings of numerous JNA soldiers, was included in his documents, but obviously with sharply reduced numbers, and the Zagreb Fair pavilion 26 with its hundreds of imprisoned and killed was not even listed in the 'precise' documents of this witness. And this line of questioning did concern the period 1991-92; but when Milosevic started to mention Operations Flash & Storm, May switched off his microphone. The truth revealed by this witness was that CRO was allowed to perform all this research by itself, without any control from the 'international community' and that's why the results obtained were so distorted.

  Robinson was indisposed last week and finally altogether failed to appear two days ago, and the remaining tandem is not authorised to make rulings, so there will be no sessions until Monday. Nice exploited the rest of the session to try and squeeze out more time to present his case. Well, I should say he got himself into this tight spot, because no amount of time could help present his case. Nice seems to think more written statements without the cross-examination, more cut-and-paste statements from other trials and more 'expert' witnesses-employees of the ICTY would do the trick. He is really desperate for some change, since his live testimony is mostly a rather bad play-back. Just consider this one example of the cross-reference from two recent testimonies: ITN journalist Paul Davis said that the shelling of Dubrovnik by the JNA was unprovoked and that some 1,000 shells fell onto the town as he managed to count. But, the next witness, Lieutenant-General Colm Mangan said the shells were falling around Dubrovnik, and only two fell on the town itself; he also confirmed that the fire was being opened against the JNA from the town. Does anybody from the Prosecution bother to read the statements of their own witnesses beforehand? These are at least two years old and could have been checked until now. I admit there's a lot of paperwork involved, but they could at least try to read that and co-ordinate the efforts of their witnesses to sling mud.
  
  Vera Martinovic
  Belgrade
  Yugoslavia

• Wednesday March 05, 2003 at 9:33 pm
  I found some of the above remarks directed towards Greece as comical as they were disturbing. I don't know if anybody in Serbia expects Greeks to have so much love for Serbs, or any other Slavic nation for that matter, they would abandon their own national interests. Serbs might well have done that for the rest of Europe at various times in their history, and look at what they got out of it. Perhaps it's useful to recall that there weren't a whole lot of nations willing to stand shoulder to shoulder with Czechoslovakia at one time, even though they were more than capable of doing so.

  Whatever one makes of the common ties between the countries during the Balkan Wars and afterward, Greeks made the much wiser decision of forming a national state after the Balkan Wars, while Serbs opted for some sort of Panslavist nightmare. While the one nation was eventually integrated into various European and international institutions, the other chose to enslave herself in a political folly of somebody's wishful thinking. Given this background, no sane person can blame Greeks for wanting to make at least some kind of distance.

  What useful purpose is served by examining whether Greece should have, or could have done more to demonstrate solidarity with Serbia? If you go down that road, you have to be fair, and compare Greece to the behaviour and activities of the rest of Europe. The Greek military did not participate in the bombing campaign; the Greek government did not provide training and weapons to the KLA terrorists, the Greek population overwhelmingly opposed the war, and that's a lot more than can be said for a whole line of other European states, including a great number which are not even members of NATO or even the EU.

  I'm fairly sure the overwhelming majority of Serbs still regard their relations with Greece as far better than with most any other European state, including some that are allegedly "neutral" while actually supporting the Albanian mafia and thousands of "Kosovo Albanian ASYLUM seekers"

  
  
  Nico Tarzanovic
  CAN

• Wednesday March 05, 2003 at 10:44 pm
  To Alex Stajic:

  You wrote:
  ” I do believe the US wanted to prevent the Serbs from changing the borders of the YU-republics under any circumstances. Imagine the Russian 'minorities' around the former Soviet satelite republics demanding the right to self-determination on the Serb precedent.”

  I did not understand Alex, what you are comparing here. Please correct me if I am wrong. As I see it; it seems that Serbs in Croatia before going to the state of Serbs Slovenians and Croats and into union with Serbian and Montenegrin Kingdom already had a federal state, and that state was sanctioned by all of the Croatian Constitutions before and during of two Yugoslavias. Which was not a case with any of USSR’s Republics

  In order to point differences between USSR minorities and Serbian minority in Croatia I am going to cite the part of the newest Croatian Constitution pertaining to foundations of Croatian state, and original speech of Andrija Hebrang on the Antifascist Council of National Liberation of Croatia (Today Croatian Parliament - “Sabor”) - (I did not translate this speech as it is original and I leave it to somebody more capable in translating)
  I will just bold the text which points to federation in Croatia.
  

  Couple other points:
  “Croatian Constitution does not refer to “AVNOJ”he Antifascist Council of National Liberation of Yugoslavia) and does not refers to the foundation of third Yugoslavia (AVNOJ 1943).
  It refers only to “ZAVNOH” (the Antifascist Council of National Liberation of Croatia) and it does not refers to the Third council which was held in Topusko (Krajina) in 1944 which clearly defined Croatia as federal state(The speech which I cite down below)
  The Croatian constitution only refers to The Second Council which was held in Town Plaski (Krajina) in the October 1943. The significance of that Council is that “Second ZAVNOH” proclaimed that the Istria belonged to Croatia and it shall be taken from Italy.

  So in Croatian Constitution - there is no borders constituted by “AVNOJ” They did not recognize AVNOJ as the Parliament of Yugoslavia, even though at that time ZAVNOH decisions were directed by AVNOJ and in Croatian favour.

  Supporters of the Croatian secession exploited mixing these two things.

  Another interesting point in Croatian Constitution; which I underlined is the referral to new “European International order” - Why would somebody cite this in the Constitution” - btw Pavelic’s first sepeach on April the 10 refers to new international order.

  Croatian Constitution - “I. HISTORICAL FOUNDATIONS

  The millenary identity of the Croatia nation and the continuity of its statehood, confirmed by the course of its entire historical experience within different forms of states and by the preservation and growth of the idea of a national state, founded on the historical right of the Croatian nation to full sovereignty, manifested in:
  - the formation of Croatian principalities in the seventh century; :
  - the independent mediaeval state of Croatia founded in the ninth century; :
  -the Kingdom of Croats established in the tenth century; :
  -the preservation of the identity of the Croatian state in the Croatian-Hungarian personal union; :
  -the independent and sovereign decision of the Croatian Parliament (Sabor) of 1527 to elect a king from the Habsburg dynasty; :
  -the independent and sovereign decision of the Croatian Parliament of the Pragmatic Sanction of 1712; :
  -the conclusions of the Croatian Parliament of 1848 regarding the restoration of the Triune Kingdom of Croatia under the authority of the Banus grounded on the historical, national and natural right of the Croatian nation; :
  -the Croatian-Hungarian Compromise of 1868 on the relations between the Kingdom of Dalmatia, Croatia and Slavonia and the Kingdom of Hungary, grounded on the legal traditions of both states and the Pragmatic Sanction of 1712; :
  -the decision of the Croatian Parliament of 29 October 1918 to dissolve state relations between Croatia and Austria-Hungary and the simultaneous affiliation of independent Croatia, invoking its historical and natural right as a nation, with the state of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs, proclaimed on the former territory of the Habsburg Monarchy; :
  -the fact that the Croatian Parliament had never sanctioned the decision of the National Council of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs to unite with Serbia and Montenegro in the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (1 December 1918), subsequently (3 October 1929) proclaimed the Kingdom of Yugoslavia; :
  -the establishment of the Home Rule (Banovina) of Croatia in 1939, by which Croatian state identity was restored within the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, :
  - establishing the foundations of state sovereignty during the course of the Second World War, by the decisions of the Antifascist Council of National Liberation of Croatia 1943), (as opposed to the proclamation of the Independent State of Croatia (1941), and subsequently in the Constitution of the People's Republic of Croatia (1947) and all later constitutions of the Socialist Republic of Croatia (1963-1990),
  on the threshold of the historical changes, marked by the collapse of the communist system and changes in the European international order, the Croatian nation by its freely expressed will at the first democratic elections (1990) reaffirmed its millenniary statehood.” - End of cite. Andrija Hebrang - Speech =-ZAVNOH (theAntifascist Council of National Liberation of Croatia)

  "Da je ovisilo o svima njima (kvislinzima), Jugoslavija - a to znaci iHrvatska - bila bi Hitlerov vazal... Da je o njima ovisilo, ne bi danas Hrvatska i ostale zemlje Jugoslavije išle ususret pobjedi, slobodi i ljepšoj buducnosti, ne bi se Jugoslavija danas (1944.!) ubrajala u saveznicke zemlje, u pobjednicki blok Sovjetskog Saveza, Engleske i Amerike ... Hrvatska je svojom borbom stekla pravo na samoodredenje, pravo da upravlja sobom, da ima svoj sabor kao vrhovni zakonodavni organ i nosilac suvereniteta, i da ima svoju narodnu vladu...I mi, drugovi, udaramo sada temelje i pocinjemo izgradivati slobodnu, demokratsku FEDERALNU DRŽAVU HRVATSKU ,kao ravnopravnu clanicu Demokratske Federativne Jugoslavije(DFJ) ... Tko može biti protiv takve Federalne Države Hrvatske (FDH) ...? Protiv nje su u prvom redu ustaše. Ali ustaška ce vlast u NDH postojati samo dotle dok postoji hitlerovska Njemacka. NDH ce biti pokopana ruševinama III. Reicha!.... Živjela slobodna, ujedinjena i demokratska Federalna Država Hrvatska! ...Živio Hrvatski sabor! ...Živjela naša narodna vlada na celu s maršalom Jugoslavije drugom Titom!..."
  (Andrija Hebrang na III. zasjedanju ZAVNOH-a u Topuskom 8 - 9.5.1944. - ZAVNOH, dok. 1944/II ,str.604-7)
  
  Pero Peric
  Canada

• Wednesday March 05, 2003 at 10:55 pm
  Sorry even though Jari supplied a link to Croatian Constitution I I should've pointed it too: Croatian Constitution
  
  Pero Peric
  Canada

• Thursday March 06, 2003 at 12:55 am
  Have any of you heard of the Independent Committee in War Crimes in the Balkans?
  
  Dan B
  Canada

• Thursday March 06, 2003 at 5:12 am
  What if the russian majority on the Krim declared an independent 'Krim Republic' and secession from Ukraine with the final goal to join the Russian Federation. I have no problem with this scenario, as far as I remember the Krim was a present from Nikita Khrushchev to the Ukraine. Like the Krajina was a present from Tito to Croatia. But for some people at the Pentagon and State Departement this would represent a real nightmare scenario, that could provoke other Russian 'minorities' to do the same. For example in the Baltic republics, where there is a large russian population as well. So the US had to prevent the Serbs from setting a negative precedent in regard to the Soviet Union.
  
  Aleks Stajic
  Germany

• Thursday March 06, 2003 at 7:01 am
  
  The 'War Crimes' Scam

  Critics will contend that 'impunity' ended when four KLA terrorists were indicted by the Hague Inquisition last week for torturing and murdering Serbs and Albanians. Specifically, Empire's favorite sycophants, the Human Rights Watch, said the indictments "defeat the claims of the Tribunal's critics that it was ignoring abuses committed by Kosovo Albanian rebels." Well, no it does not. Had the 'Tribunal' been truly interested in 'abuses' by the KLA, it would have indicted Hashim Taqi, Agim Ceku and Ramush Haradinaj long ago. That's assuming it is a legitimate institution to begin with, which it isn't. Given the Inquisition's political nature, assuming that the small-fry KLA were indicted specifically to create a pretense of fairness would not be far-fetched at all.

  Yet another great analysis from Nebojsa Malic exposing the false prototype being made of Kosovo - offered by Blair and other so-called western ‘dignitaries’ - for an attack upon Iraq.
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Thursday March 06, 2003 at 7:33 am
  Aleks, there was no in 1917 Republic Ukraine-Russian Federation, which ceded its rights to USSR, then during existence of the USSR there was a Ukraine as Ukraine-Russian state and in 1990 Ukraine Constitution neglected Russian part of the federation and formed independent Ukraine.

  If that was the case then Serbian Autonomy Regions (SAO) in Croatia would be a precedent.

  There should be no nightmare for anybody here. If the federation dissolves, states, which formed federation, become independent. In Yugoslavia’s case it would be
  Krajina was not Tito’s present to Croatia, since all Croatian Constitutions until 1990 named Croatia as state of Croatian and Serbian people’. Dalmatia was present promised and taken from Italy and given to Croatia by UK and US thank to Serbian King, and Serbian contribution in WWI.
  
  Pero Peric
  Canada

• Thursday March 06, 2003 at 7:38 am
  Alex, read this cite from Croatian Constitution carefully:
  "-the decision of the Croatian Parliament of 29 October 1918 to dissolve state relations between Croatia and Austria-Hungary and the simultaneous affiliation of independent Croatia, invoking its historical and natural right as a nation, with the state of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs, proclaimed on the former territory of the Habsburg Monarchy;"

  Do you see that complete nation disappeared from that State?
  
  Pero Peric
  Canada

• Thursday March 06, 2003 at 9:38 am
  

  A few quotes from World - AP Europe article:

  "Slobodan Milosevic's wife will go on trial next week..."

  "Mirjana Markovic is accused of illegally providing their grandson's nanny with a state-owned luxury apartment in Belgrade in 2000."

  "Milosevic and his wife wielded enormous power in Yugoslavia..."

  No comment I will only drink myself to oblivion.
  
  j m
  s

• Thursday March 06, 2003 at 12:58 pm
  

  Deafening silence:

  The 20th suicide attempt among terror suspects kept at the US naval base in Guantanamo, Cuba, is a reminder to the world of the despair felt by the inmates, who are cut off from the outside world and are kept in the dark about their future.

  
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Thursday March 06, 2003 at 1:07 pm
  "Mirjana Markovic is accused of illegally providing their grandson's nanny with a state-owned luxury apartment in Belgrade in 2000." The crimes of the great "dictator" continue to be exposed! What would be the accusations against a REAL dictator??? Try substituting the name of a real dictator here -- "The Shah of Iran's wife is accused of illegally...blah blah blah" or how about "The wife of Stalin is accused of blah blah blah"
  
  Nikole J
  Canada

• Thursday March 06, 2003 at 3:24 pm
  

  Prosecution seeks another year to finish its case against Milosevic

  The overwhelming evidence requires it.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Thursday March 06, 2003 at 3:26 pm
  To Jari, Kathryn & Nico on Greek - Serb relations.

  On the peoples level, as Kathryn eloquently points out, there are deep historical links and understanding between the 2 peoples and the links are as strong in the native populations as in the diaspora. By talking with countless people and reading the Greek press, I can say that the Greek people passionately protested against the bombing because of these historical links and because they were able to see through and be disgusted by the organized western anti-Serbian propaganda, not because of the bombing directly threatening any narrow Greek interest. Neither was anti-Americanism a significant motive (at least outside the far left). Before the war, Greeks generally liked Blair and Clinton (being sympathetic to him in the Monica scandal) and believed in a non-aggressive US cooperating with the EU and promoting peace. Now most Greeks would spit on Clinton and Blair and their trust of Washington policies has sunk to zero.

  On a governmental level, I agree with Nico that that the Greek government in 1999 was constrained by obvious EU and NATO allegiances and there was little more they could have practically done to express their dissatisfaction. As for Greek governments' motivation in their relations with Serbia, they have by and large honored the historical links, partly because of the power of public sentiment and partly because of the realization that the links will continue to be strong and will forge a renewed strategic alliance as Serbia reemerges as an assertive regional power.

  In the context of Jari's comments on Greece's policy of self-interest and potential arrogance vis a vis Slavs, I first note that the relations of Greek people and governments with Slav Macedonia can in no way be extrapolated to understand or predict relations between Greece and Serbia. Slav Macedonians and Serbs have little in common in Greek eyes. Second, while the policy promoted by Greek foreign minister Samaras on FYRO Macedonia before 1993 could arguably be considered arrogant, policies and attitudes have vastly changed, especially after 1996. Besides, Greece has legitimate grievances against certain Slav Macedonian unfounded arrogant historical and cultural claims. In the last few years the controversy has been wisely downplayed by both sides. FYRO Macedonia politicians have now apparently understood that the dangers to their sovereignty and national identity lie to their west (Albanian violent expansionism) and east (Bulgarian historic claims), not their south.
  
  Pythagoras C
  Greece

• Thursday March 06, 2003 at 3:31 pm
  

  One reason for the trial's slow progress is the amount of time the judges grant Milosevic for cross-examination in an effort to appear fair. A prosecution spokeswoman says Milosevic has spent more hours questioning prosecution witness than the prosecutors have.

  Could the blockheads explain that under rule 92 bis the prosecutor introduces a written report of the witness's testimony and that the accuse cross examines it, therefor the cross examination is much longer than just dropping the report on the desk of the court. Nobody is forcing the crooked prosecutor to use rule 92 bis, that was and is their choice and if they wanted to they could examine their witnesses live without the reports. They got what they wanted and they don't like. Too bad.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Thursday March 06, 2003 at 3:49 pm
  Apologies for not responding to posts addressed to me - will do so at a later point. Thought I would mention Transitions Online since they have a number of articles just out about Serbian refugees writen by good journalists like Hedl.
  
  Daniel King
  Yugoslavia

• Thursday March 06, 2003 at 8:17 pm
  

  Yesterday the following story was big news on ABC and it was presented on Nightline. When I visited today the Nightline WWW page the mention of the story was still there but the link to the details was not working anymore. All the other links on this page are working. What is going on America?

  The URL is: http://abcnews.go.com/Sections/Nightline/

  The name of the story is: The President's Men

  The available short description of the story:

  Wednesday, Mar. 5; In 1997 a group of conservatives outlined a foreign policy strategy for regime change in Iraq. Several now hold key positions in the Bush administration. Has the group had undue influence?

  What I remember: The group has forty members. Ten of them have made to the inner circle of the President Bush. Some of the key players are: Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz , Richard Perle and Bob Woodward (Watergate investigative journalist). The program is to change rouge regimes around the world. They have pressured Mr. Clinton to take more aggressive position towards Iraq. They have tremendous influence on Mr. Bush.
  
  Pera Bora
  Ottawa
  Ivanka

• Thursday March 06, 2003 at 8:35 pm
  Pera.. check out

  http://www.newamericancentury.org/. In particular look at the names at the bottom of the Statement of Principles page, and the date at the top of that page. Then browse widely the material at this site. I think you will then know what is going on in America.
  
  Ian Davis
  Waterloo
  Ontario, Canada

• Thursday March 06, 2003 at 9:53 pm
  Ian, thanks this is exactly what was discussed on Nightline. I encourage all posters to read the URLs that Ian is pointing to.
  
  Pera Bora
  Ottawa
  Canada