Anti-Semitism, racism and Srebrenica genocide denial

The justice or injustice of a cause may in large part be measured by the ethics displayed by those who uphold it. The ongoing campaign to whitewash the former regimes of Slobodan Milošević and Radovan Karadžić and to justify their genocidal crimes against the Bosniaks is about as unworthy a cause as it is possible to imagine; consequently, the people who wage it do so in the most dishonest and malicious manner possible. Their campaign is fundamentally an expression of hatred – for Bosniaks, Croats, Albanians, anti-fascist Serbs, Jews and others who opposed the genocide. So their tactics are of the most hateful kind, involving systematic character assassination and racist and anti-Semitic abuse of those who speak about the genocide and the ideology that gave rise to it.

Most recently, a libellous and racist hate-campaign has been waged by the genocide-deniers - above all, Islamophobic far-right elements in North America - against members of the Institute for the Research of Genocide, Canada (IRGC) which, among other things, campaigns against Bosnia genocide-denial. This campaign has accelerated following the decision last month of the Canadian authorities to deny entry into Canada of Srđa Trifković, a man who regularly engages in hate speech against Islam and Muslims. Trifković had been invited by a Serbian students’ organisation at the University of British Columbia to give a speech at one of their meetings, but was barred from Canada because he had been an official of the wartime regime of ‘Republika Srpska’, hence

‘for being a proscribed senior official in the service of a government that, in the opinion of the minister, engages or has engaged in terrorism, systematic or gross human rights violations, or genocide, a war crime or a crime against humanity within the meaning of subsections 6 (3) to (5) of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act.’

[I had personally written to Professor Stephen J. Toope, President of UBC, urging him to prevent Trifković from giving his talk. While I respect the right of genocide deniers to engage in genocide denial, I draw the line at allowing inciters of hatred against ethnic or religious groups to speak at universities, as I consider this an infringement on the rights of staff and students at the universities in question to work and study free from the fear of persecution or harassment. However, it was the Canadian authorities, not the UBC, that ultimately prevented Trifković from speaking.]

Supporters of Trifković responded to their setback with a campaign of personal defamation directed against members of the IRGC. The anti-Muslim hate-site ‘Gates of Vienna’ denounced the IRGC as ‘Jew-haters’, though without being able to quote a single anti-Semitic statement made by any of its members. This smear was a repeat of one levelled by Trifković himself against Professor Emir Ramić, the IRGC’s chairman, on the website of an extreme right-wing organisation, ‘The Lord Byron Foundation for Balkan Studies’, run by former Canadian ambassador James Bissett. Trifković accused Ramić of being a ’Jew-hating jihadist’ - again, without being able to produce a single piece of evidence that Ramić was either anti-Semitic, or that he supported jihad [since the articles in question are extremely libellous, I'm not going to link to them].

The basis for the accusation was the claim that Ramić was a member of the editorial board of a Bosnian journal called ‘Korak‘, that has published some viciously anti-Israel articles. The articles in question were, indeed, viciously anti-Israel. But Ramić is not a member of the editorial board of the journal in question, so the accusation is totally false. The second basis for the accusation is that Korak‘s editor, Asaf Džanić, is a member of the IRGC’s board of directors. Yet, as anyone can see from the IRGC’s website, its board of directors is very large and diverse, numbering over 120, and includes several eminent Jewish members, including the famous Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel. Most of these members, including Džanić, are in the capacity of an ‘International Team of Experts’. The website also carries a powerful defence of the IRGC from the smears of Trifković and the ‘Lord Byron Foundation for Balkan Studies’, written by the Israeli writer Marjan Hajnal – also a member of the IRGC’s board of directors. The smearing of the entire institute as ‘Jew-hating’ and its director as ‘jihadi’ is, therefore, a desperate clutching at straws on the part of the Srebrenica deniers.

The ‘Lord Byron Foundation for Balkan Studies’ has also accused Ramić and the IRGC of ‘Holocaust denial’. Again, not a single piece of evidence was produced to substantiate this very serious charge. In fact, the charge of ‘Holocaust denial’ was made after the IRGC had weeks earlier published, and prominently displayed on its website, an article marking Holocaust Memorial Day and paying tribute to the victims of the Holocaust, which made clear

‘The Holocaust of World War ll was the despicable, systematic process of torturing and murdering nearly six million European Jews, by German Nazis. Approximately two-thirds of nine million European Jews were murdered throughout that particular Holocaust.’

The irony of such smears is all the greater in that Trifković himself, unlike Ramić, is on record as having made anti-Semitic statements. Trifković has stated:

‘To claim that the traditional Right is “anti-Jewish” is to imply that it is gripped by an irrational prejudice. Such accusation is untrue and unfair.

It is true, however, that the traditional Right is inevitably antipathetic to certain modes of thought and feeling, to a peculiar Weltanschauung and the resulting forms of public and intra-communal discourse, which are quite properly perceived as specifically Jewish.

Historically, Talmudic Judaism’s insistence on the Jews’ racial uniqueness — emphasized by the ritual and dietary laws of Talmudic Judaism and on its view of Christians as idolaters — has ensured that a Jew steeped in his own tradition could not view traditional European or American conservatism with sympathy. His tradition was a form of elaborate survival mechanism based on the zero-sum view of a world divided into “us” and “them.” The Gentile was “the Other” ab initio and for ever.

In addition, since the late 1800’s the Jews have had a disproportionate impact on a host of intellectual trends and political movements which have fundamentally altered the civilization of Europe and its overseas offspring in a manner deeply detrimental to the family, nation, culture, racial solidarity, social coherence, tradition, morality and faith. Spontaneously or deliberately, those ideas and movements — Marxism (including neoconservatism as the bastard child of Trotskyism), Freudianism, Frankfurt School cultural criticism, Boasian anthropology, etc. — have eroded “the West” to the point where its demographic and cultural survival is uncertain. The erosion is continuing, allegedly in the name of propositional principles and universal values, and it is pursued with escalating ferocity.’

The extreme right-wing and viciously racist and Islamophobic American commenter Julia Gorin has apologised for Trifković’s anti-Semitism in the following manner:

‘While virgin eyes (mainstream readers and anyone not experienced in sorting out the intricacies and boundaries of what is and isn’t OK to say about Jews) will read the paragraphs as “anti-Semitic,” the views expressed aren’t unlike what I and any number of other Jewish conservatives have written in an effort to tame the Jewish predisposition toward cynicism about, and dismantling of, the traditional values of, yes, white-established societies… It’s not reading that would be palatable to the mainstream, but conservative readers — including Jewish conservatives — are known to have a slightly higher tolerance for truth, even when Jews don’t come out smelling like roses.’

Thus, Trifković and Gorin have no problem with anti-Semitism, but do have a problem with those, like Ramić and the IRGC, that oppose Srebrenica genocide denial. Gorin’s apologia for Trifković’s anti-Semitism was made in the course of an article denying the genocide at Srebrenica. Again, unlike Ramić, Gorin is an unabashed anti-Albanian, anti-Croat and anti-Bosniak racist. Commenting on a recent obituary of the Croatian journalist Chris Cviić, a long-standing resident of the UK and recipient of the OBE, which stated ‘He is survived by his widow, Celia, and a son and a daughter’, Gorin commented

In response to a story in the British rag-sheet The Daily Star about the alleged activities of Kosovo Albanian immigrants in the UK, entitled ‘Kosovan squatters stole my loo’, Gorin commented

‘Ah, the Albanian specialty: invading someone’s home and stripping it bare. (See Kosovo, Serbia.) Then they get to do it again at the UK government’s expense. What the hell are they going to do with the toilet? Do they even know what it’s for?’

Racists like Gorin typify the Srebrenica deniers. Another Srebrenica genocide denier, Nebojša Malić of Antiwar.com, has also made racist statements about Albanians, describing them as ‘medieval barbarians‘.

Srebrenica denial and anti-Semitism frequently go hand in hand. The anti-Semite, Holocaust denier and associate of Julian Assange who goes by the name of ‘Israel Shamir’ is a Srebrenica denier and has written

‘Many war atrocity stories are just stories – from Srebrenica to Kosovo “killing fields”, from Saddam Hussein’s WMD to Belgian babies on German bayonets of the WWI, from Kuwait’s incubator to anti-communist inventions of the Black Book.’

Shamir was one of a group of Srebrenica deniers, including Edward S. Herman and Diana Johnstone, who wrote an open letter to the Serbian parliament calling on them not to recognise the Srebrenica massacre.

Srebrenica genocide denial tends to go hand-in-hand with the denial of the genocidal crimes carried out by Serbian Nazi quislings and collaborators during World War II. When the Milošević and Karadžić regimes waged their war for a Great Serbia in the 1990s, a major element in their propaganda was the equation of the entire Croat and Bosniak nations with the Ustashas (Croatian fascists) of World War II. The reality was that the Serb, Croat and Bosniak nations during World War II were all divided between anti-fascists and quislings or collaborators. Thus, the Nazi-quisling camp included Croat Ustashas, Serb Nedićites and Ljotićites and Muslim soldiers of the SS Handžar Division, while the anti-fascist Yugoslav Partisans comprised Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks and others. But the Great Serbian nationalists of the 1990s waged a hate-campaign against Croats and Bosniaks, seeking to equate the entire Croat and Bosniak nations with the Ustashas.

One man who saw through this propaganda early on was the Jewish American medical doctor Philip J. Cohen. As Philip told me when I met him back in the mid-1990s in the US, he approached the Bosnian genocide as a Jew who knew the history of the Holocaust and the failure of the world to prevent it, and felt strongly that something similar should not be allowed to happen again. He was not in the slightest bit taken in by the Serb-nationalist campaign to equate all Croats and Bosniaks with the Ustashas, and responded to it by researching and writing the book Serbia’s Secret War. This book traced the history of anti-Semitism in Serbia and the role of Serbian quislings and collaborators in the Holocaust. It therefore demolished the myth that in the former Yugoslavia, it had only been Croats and Bosniaks who had produced quislings, or engaged in anti-Jewish actions. And although Cohen was not a professional historian or academic, the book is very good.

Needless to say, Cohen does not in any way deny the crimes of the Croatian Ustashas against Jews, Serbs or others. But his exposure of the crimes of Serbian quislings against Jews in World War II led to his being the subject of an anti-Semitic denunciation by a Serb nationalist writer called Vasilije Todorović, who published an open letter in 1996 claiming (falsely) that

‘Cohen, this self-serving Jew, has even managed to condone the killing of 60,000 Jews in WW II, by the very Croatians from whom he receives his major support. I believe you Jews call this, Chutzpah!’

‘How astonishing that for 46 years the Roman Church and its Vatican failed to recognize Israel. Now this upstart Jew, Philip Cohen, defends their actions.’

‘There are no Spielberg movies made about these brave Serbian families who saved Jews. At the opening of the Holocaust Memorial Museum, Serbs were totally ignored as the Museum honored a Roman Catholic woman for saving the lives of 6 Jews.’

‘Cohen omits the documents that reveal that Jews also joined the Ustasha and the Partisans and murdered numerous loyalists Serbs. In Cohen’s personal secret war against the Serbs, no mention is made that many of the Croatian Nazi officers had Jewish wives.’

Todorović’s article was written fifteen years ago, but the attacks on Cohen for having the temerity to write of the activities of Serbian Nazi quislings have continued. Two years ago, the amateur Serbian-American historian Carl Savich attempted to smear Cohen by claiming that he hadn’t even written his own book:

‘Philip J. Cohen is a medical doctor, a dermatologist with no background or training in history, let alone the World War II history of Serbia. Moreover, he has no knowledge of the Serbian, Croatian, or Bosnian languages. How could he have written Serbia’s Secret War, which required a detailed and exhaustive analysis and research of Serbian language documents? Such a massive undertaking would require a thorough knowledge of the historical debates and nuances involved in the issues examined. Cohen couldn’t have written it. And he didn’t write it. Cohen was the front, the front man in a Croatian propaganda hoax. Because Croatia was a satellite, proxy, and client state of the U.S., Cohen received U.S. support and backing. The screed buttressed the anti-Serbian U.S. infowar and propaganda war.’

Savich claimed that Serbia’s Secret War had actually been written by a Croatian historian called Ljubica Štefan. He offered not a shred of evidence for his allegations.

I can personally testify that Cohen is the author of Serbia’s Secret War. At the time he was writing it, I met him at a seminar at Yale University, where I was studying at the time, and he asked me to assist him in working on the manuscript to his book. Consequently, I read his manuscript, made comments on it, then stayed with him at his home for two or three days and helped him work through some of the documents he had yet to analyse. Although Philip did not read Serbo-Croat himself, he told me he had benefited from a lot of assistance, in translating documents, from the Croatian writer Anto Knežević. Having spoken with him at length and seen his library and archive, I know for a fact that Savich’s allegations are complete fabrications.

‘Other prominent Jews would apply the same techniques against the Serbian Orthodox population’

Savich is not a real historian and has no qualifications in history other than a Master’s degree, so it may not be surprising that his treatment of historical fact is less than professional. But he is also himself ready to engage in anti-Semitic writing. Here is a comment he wrote on the history of Austro-Hungarian rule in Bosnia:

‘One consequence of the Austrian occupation of Bosnia was that Sarajevo and other Bosnian cities were flooded with over 9,500 bureaucrats and administrators and commercial and trade interests. Many of these were Ashkenazi Jews. Austrian Jews sought to benefit from the annexation and occupation of Bosnia. Racism and bigotry are based in self-interest. The racist attack against Orthodox Serbs by the Jew Freundlich can be explained in this way. His moral outrage is selective and self-interested. Austrian Jews would gain economic advantages by the Austrian occupation of Bosnia. Remarkaby, Roy Gutman, Anthony Lewis, Susan Sontag, James Rubin, and other prominent Jews would apply the same techniques against the Serbian Orthodox population, i.e, professing a disingenuous concern for the human rights of the Albanians and Bosnian Muslims, at the same time ignoring the genocide and repression of the Palestinian population by the zealous Zionist nationalist government in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, which were being illegaly settled by Jewish settlers. There was little concern for the human rights of the Palestinians, Kurds, or Basques. There is a dictum: Follow the money trail. Self-interest goes a long way in explaining the bias. Thus, under Austrian occupation, there were thousands of occupation administrators and bureaucrats, many of whom were Jewish.’

Savich is himself an apologist for the Nazi-quisling Nedić regime that ran German-occupied Serbia, claiming that it had ‘no choice in the matter of its collaboration’, that it was no different from the Judenräte in occupied Poland and the Soviet Union, and that it played no role in running concentration camps. All these claims are false.

Savich’s smear, of course, targeted not only Cohen, but also Ljubica Štefan. Štefan is listed among the ‘Righteous among Nations’ at Israel’s Yad Vashem, the Holocaust Martyrs’ and Heroes’ Remembrance Authority in Jerusalem, as a Croatian who protected Jews during the Holocaust. This is what Savich has to say about her (again, without producing any evidence whatsoever):

‘Although she lived most of her life in Serbia, she was an ethnic Croatian. She lived and worked in Belgrade. She knew the Serbian language. She had access to Serbian documents and archives. Also, as a hack historian, a pseudo-historian, someone below the radar, she did not have to concern herself about academic or scholarly accountability. Moreover, everything that appears in the Cohen text also appears in propaganda screeds published by or attributed to Štefan when she worked for the Croatian Government Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Štefan worked closely with Croatian ultra-nationalist Franjo Tuđman in rehabilitating the Ustasha regime and engaged in historical revisionism by attempting to equate Serbia’s role during the Holocaust with that of Croatia’s Ustasha NDH government.’

So Savich, who has no academic qualifications beyond a Master’s degree and who is an apologist for the Nazi-quisling Nedić regime, accuses Štefan, who was a tenured professor at a Belgrade faculty and who actually protected Jews during the Holocaust, of being a ‘pseudo-historian’ guilty of ‘historical revisionism.

Anti-fascist Serbs, as much as non-Serbs, can become victims of racism when they oppose the activities of the Serbian extreme-right. The Serbian human-rights activist Sonja Biserko of the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia, a frequent victim of physical harassment and defamation at the hands of Serbian fascist thugs and their rag-sheets, is periodically denounced by them as a ‘lesbian’. But she has also been denounced for supposedly not being of pure Serbian racial stock. Thus, an anonymous Srebrenica genocide denier – whose genocide denial subsequently led to him being banned by the proprietor of Modernity Blog – challenged my description of her as ‘Serbian’ in the following terms:

‘Serbian, eh? Funny thing is, Sonja Biserko keeps her biographical details well hidden. A wiki page lists her as Croatian, whereas a poster on some forum claims that:

‘her brother was a member of Croatian troops, so called “Zbor narodne garde” and was killed in fight with Krajina Serbs.‘

The anonymous creep in question challenged me to confirm or deny the truth of his rumours. This sort of malicious gossip always puts us in a difficult position, as however unlikely it is that such rumours are true, we cannot formally deny them unless we know for certainty that they are false. Readers may recall the rumour that former Bosnian president Alija Izetbegović recruited for the SS during World War II; no evidence has ever been produced to substantiate this claim, so we have to assume that it is false, particularly given the seriousness of the charge. But I cannot say for absolute certainty that it is untrue.

However, having now researched the matter, I can say for absolute, 100% certainty that Biserko’s brother was not a member of the Croatian armed forces, and was not killed in combat with Serb forces. He was not even present in Croatia during the war. As for the claim that Sonja is ‘Croatian’ rather than Serbian; since she is a Serbian citizen, was born in Belgrade and since her father was an ethnic Serb, the smear entirely rests on the fact that her mother is an ethnic Croat. The suggestion being that any Serb whose background isn’t 100% ethnically pure is ‘not really’ Serb at all.

The idea that someone’s patriotism can be called into question on the basis of their ‘alien’ ethnic background has been a favourite of the far right since the Dreyfus Affair. In reality, people from ethnically non-Serb or mixed backgrounds, including ethnic Croats and Bosniaks, have often become hardline Serb nationalists, or supported the Milošević regime – examples are Emir Kušturica, Jovan Zametica, Franko Simatović and Mihalj Kerteš. The Serbian fascist leader Vojislav Šešelj was frequently accused of being an ethnic Croat, on the grounds that ‘Šešelj’ is a Croat surname – he was pathetically reduced to obtaining a certificate from the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts (for which he allegedly paid a small sum in Deutschmarks) to ‘prove’ he was ‘genuinely’ Serb.

As a footnote, the smear against Sonja was posted on the ‘Aaronovitch Watch’ malicious-gossip site, about which I have recently written, and is entirely characteristic of the sort of material that is posted there. Biserko’s smearer was actively encouraged to post malicious rumours about me as well by the blog’s proprietor, the Guardian columnist and Crédit Suisse stockbroker Daniel Davies (interestingly, Crédit Suisse is the same company for which the late Richard Holbrooke worked). Evidence suggests that Davies may not be entirely neutral in former-Yugoslav matters; he has spoken of his friendship with the blogger Splintered Sunrise, a sympathiser of the neo-Nazi Serbian Radical Party; and of Christopher Deliso, author of a viciously Islamophobic propaganda tract about Balkan Muslims significantly entitled The coming Balkan caliphate (which I have dissected), which itself draws heavily on the ‘work’ of Srebrenica genocide deniers, in particular Darko Trifunović, but also Nebojša Malić. Davies has also stated that during the war in the former Yugoslavia,

‘I actually had a certain amount of sympathy for the Serbian Republic (though not the Bosnian Serbs)’.

Davies’s friend Splintered Sunrise has himself described Biserko as an ‘agent of imperialism’ in a comment on the Lenin’s Tomb blog (the comments are no longer visible online, but I possess the print-out). A further example of demonisation and character assassination that is entirely characteristic.

http://www.bosnia.org.uk/news/news_body.cfm?newsid=2491 The Break-Up of Yugoslavia Srđa Popović, Peščanik (Belgrade), 23 September 2008, The Bosnian Institute, 2-7 October, 2008. An authoritative account of the conspiracy by Slobodan Milošević, Borisav Jović and Veljko Kadijević to break up the former Yugoslavia and carve out a Great Serbia Part I – We pretend to resist their pretended secession Serbs do not prize the truth. It is thought here that to rely on the truth, and to depend on it, is to be naive, stupid and weak. Sreten Ugričić ‘The wars of the 1990s on the territory of the former Yugoslavia were caused by separatist efforts on the part of Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina unconstitutionally to separate from Yugoslavia, which the SFRY Presidency tried to prevent by use of the JNA’s military power, in order to protect the country’s constitutional order and territorial integrity.’ This, more or less, is the basic argument of Milošević’s propaganda, which he used from time to time to justify his actions. This argument also formed the basis of his defence before the Hague tribunal. Lastly, this argument is a monumental falsity, the parapet behind which Serb nationalism hides to this very day: hailing Karadžić and Mladić as heroes, because they were only defending the Serb people, which the separatists were attempting to wrench from the Serbian motherland; and insisting on the assertion that Serbia was not involved in the war, and that the conflict was in the nature of a spontaneously created civil war in which the JNA was merely trying to separate the warring parties and protect the people. The falsity of this thesis can best be proved by a thought experiment in which we assume that the SFRY managed to survive (let’s say through an outside military intervention, something that according to his own testimony in the BBC programme The Death of Yugoslavia Karadžić greatly feared). In the context of such an experiment, the role and activities of Slobodan Milošević, Borisav Jović and Veljko Kadijević (as well as many others who implemented their orders) would have qualified according to the laws of that very same SFRY as high treason punishable by death. The thought experiment that we propose is to formulate the elements of the indictment according to which Milošević, Jović and Kadijević would have been tried in a Yugoslav court, in accordance with the Yugoslav laws then valid, had they not succeeded in destroying the SFRY. The charge against them would have included the following: Slobodan Milošević, in his capacity as President of the Presidency of the Central Committee of the League of Communists of Serbia (before 16 July 1990) , President of the Socialist Party of Serbia (from 16 July 1990), and President of the Republic of Serbia (from 9 December 1990), Borisav Jović, in his capacity as President of the Presidency of the SFRY (from 15 May 1989) and Vice-President of the Socialist Party of Serbia (from 16 July 1990), and Veljko Kadijević, in his capacity as Federal Secretary for National Defence in the period from 15 May 1989 to 8 October 1992 formed a conspiracy in order, by abusing their political authority, 1. unconstitutionally and illegally to alter the national composition of the JNA, place the JNA under their effective control, and use it in the pursuit of the following aims: 2. forcibly to overthrow the governments of Slovenia and Croatia; 3. forcibly to overthrow by a military coup the highest federal governmental bodies - the Federal Executive Council ([Savezno izvršno v(ij)eče or] SIV) and the Presidency; 4. forcibly or by unconstitutional means to alter the borders of the SFRY, by excluding the Republic of Slovenia and the Republic of Croatia from the SFRY by an unconstitutional order of the Presidency; 5. forcibly or by unconstitutional means to change the borders of the Republic of Croatia, by instigating, and politically and militarily organising, an armed rebellion in Croatia; which caused the death of a large number of people, placed human lives in danger, and was accompanied by great acts of violence and extensive destruction; and by so doing they each individually, and collectively together, committed an extended criminal act on the basis of Article 136, § 1, and of Article 116, §§ 1. and.2,. in the most serious forms, punishable by Article 139 of the Criminal Code (Official SFRY Journal, no. 44/76). The criminal acts cited contain the following dispositions: Article 136 says: 1. Whoever creates a conspiracy, circle, group or other association of persons for the purpose of perpetrating criminal acts as defined by articles 114 to 119, § 2., Articles 120 to 123, Articles 125 to 127 and Articles 131 to 132 of this law, or who creates a group for the purpose of moving or directing the citizens of SFRY abroad to commit hostile activities against SFRY, will be punished by imprisonment for no less than five years. Article 116 says: 1. Whoever commits an act designed forcibly or unconstitutionally to separate part of the SFRY’s territory, or to add part of this territory to another state, will be punished by imprisonment of no less than five years. 2. Whoever commits and act designed forcibly or unconstitutionally to alter the borders between the republics and the autonomous provinces will be punished by imprisonment of no less than one year. Article 116 incriminates as an autonomous action the preparatory activity and the attempt to change borders. Article 139 says: For committing a criminal act - according to Article 114, Article 115 § 1, Articles 116 to 121, Articles 123 to 128, Article 132, and Article 136 § 1. of this law - that causes the death of some person, or places human life in danger, or is accompanied by great violence and extensive destruction, or has endangered the security, economic and military capacity of the country - or in other exceptionally grave cases - the perpetrator will be punished by imprisonment of no less than ten years or by death, Article 118, § 3. determines what is considered preparatory activity in the case of such actions. Article 118, § 3 says: When the law prescribes punishment for the preparation of a certain criminal act, the preparation may consist of acquisition or activation of the means for execution of the criminal act, removal of obstacles to the execution of the criminal act, negotiations, planning and organising with others to commit the criminal act, as well as other activities serving to create the conditions for immediate execution of the criminal act, but which do not represent the act of execution. The facts pointing to the execution of this act are based almost exclusively on Borisav Jović’s diary, published under the title 'Poslednji dani SFRJ' [“The Last Days of the SFRY”, (Belgrade, Politika 1995), and Veljko Kadijević’s memoirs Moje viđenje raspada - vojska bez države [“My View of the Break-Up - an army without a state”] (Belgrade: Politika 1993). The credibility of the facts which these contain, and which relate to the creation of a conspiracy, derives (a) from the essential concordance of their testimonies; (b) from the fact that they testify to their own actions; as well as (c) from the fact that one cannot conceive of a credible motive for their own [false] self-incrimination. In addition, not only did Milošević never deny the claims by Jović and Kadijević, but their books were also published by the Politika publishing company over which Milošević had full control. It is true that, at his trial in The Hague, Milošević denied during the hearing of the witness Stjepan Mesić that he had ever read Jović’s book. This assertion is contested, however, by Miodrag Marović in his book Politika i istina [“Politics and the Truth”] (Belgrade: Helsinški Committee for Human Rights 2002, p.331): ‘Mihajlo Marković said – and the media published-- that Milošević had handled Jović’s manuscript.’ Finally, the plans and intentions of the conspirators, as they themselves describe them, were concretely realised during the subsequent political and military events. Let us now turn to the activities by means of which they accomplished certain essential elements of these criminal acts... http://www.bosnia.org.uk/news/news_body.cfm?newsid=2491

http://www.bosnia.org.uk/news/news_body.cfm?newsid=2491 The Break-Up of Yugoslavia
Srđa Popović, Peščanik (Belgrade), 23 September 2008, The Bosnian Institute, 2-7 October, 2008.

An authoritative account of the conspiracy by Slobodan Milošević, Borisav Jović and Veljko Kadijević to break up the former Yugoslavia and carve out a Great Serbia

Part I – We pretend to resist their pretended secession

Serbs do not prize the truth. It is thought here that to rely on the truth, and to depend on it, is to be naive, stupid and weak.
Sreten Ugričić

‘The wars of the 1990s on the territory of the former Yugoslavia were caused by separatist efforts on the part of Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina unconstitutionally to separate from Yugoslavia, which the SFRY Presidency tried to prevent by use of the JNA’s military power, in order to protect the country’s constitutional order and territorial integrity.’

This, more or less, is the basic argument of Milošević’s propaganda, which he used from time to time to justify his actions. This argument also formed the basis of his defence before the Hague tribunal. Lastly, this argument is a monumental falsity, the parapet behind which Serb nationalism hides to this very day: hailing Karadžić and Mladić as heroes, because they were only defending the Serb people, which the separatists were attempting to wrench from the Serbian motherland; and insisting on the assertion that Serbia was not involved in the war, and that the conflict was in the nature of a spontaneously created civil war in which the JNA was merely trying to separate the warring parties and protect the people.

The falsity of this thesis can best be proved by a thought experiment in which we assume that the SFRY managed to survive (let’s say through an outside military intervention, something that according to his own testimony in the BBC programme The Death of Yugoslavia Karadžić greatly feared). In the context of such an experiment, the role and activities of Slobodan Milošević, Borisav Jović and Veljko Kadijević (as well as many others who implemented their orders) would have qualified according to the laws of that very same SFRY as high treason punishable by death.

The thought experiment that we propose is to formulate the elements of the indictment according to which Milošević, Jović and Kadijević would have been tried in a Yugoslav court, in accordance with the Yugoslav laws then valid, had they not succeeded in destroying the SFRY.
The charge against them would have included the following:

Slobodan Milošević, in his capacity as President of the Presidency of the Central Committee of the League of Communists of Serbia (before 16 July 1990) , President of the Socialist Party of Serbia (from 16 July 1990), and President of the Republic of Serbia (from 9 December 1990),

Borisav Jović, in his capacity as President of the Presidency of the SFRY (from 15 May 1989) and Vice-President of the Socialist Party of Serbia (from 16 July 1990), and

Veljko Kadijević, in his capacity as Federal Secretary for National Defence in the period from 15 May 1989 to 8 October 1992

formed a conspiracy in order, by abusing their political authority,

1. unconstitutionally and illegally to alter the national composition of the JNA, place the JNA under their effective control, and use it in the pursuit of the following aims:
2. forcibly to overthrow the governments of Slovenia and Croatia;
3. forcibly to overthrow by a military coup the highest federal governmental bodies - the Federal Executive Council ([Savezno izvršno v(ij)eče or] SIV) and the Presidency;
4. forcibly or by unconstitutional means to alter the borders of the SFRY, by excluding the Republic of Slovenia and the Republic of Croatia from the SFRY by an unconstitutional order of the Presidency;
5. forcibly or by unconstitutional means to change the borders of the Republic of Croatia, by instigating, and politically and militarily organising, an armed rebellion in Croatia;
which caused the death of a large number of people, placed human lives in danger, and was accompanied by great acts of violence and extensive destruction;

and by so doing they each individually, and collectively together, committed an extended criminal act on the basis of Article 136, § 1, and of Article 116, §§ 1. and.2,. in the most serious forms, punishable by Article 139 of the Criminal Code (Official SFRY Journal, no. 44/76).

The criminal acts cited contain the following dispositions:

Article 136 says:
1. Whoever creates a conspiracy, circle, group or other association of persons for the purpose of perpetrating criminal acts as defined by articles 114 to 119, § 2., Articles 120 to 123, Articles 125 to 127 and Articles 131 to 132 of this law, or who creates a group for the purpose of moving or directing the citizens of SFRY abroad to commit hostile activities against SFRY, will be punished by imprisonment for no less than five years.

Article 116 says:
1. Whoever commits an act designed forcibly or unconstitutionally to separate part of the SFRY’s territory, or to add part of this territory to another state, will be punished by imprisonment of no less than five years.

2. Whoever commits and act designed forcibly or unconstitutionally to alter the borders between the republics and the autonomous provinces will be punished by imprisonment of no less than one year. Article 116 incriminates as an autonomous action the preparatory activity and the attempt to change borders.

Article 139 says:
For committing a criminal act - according to Article 114, Article 115 § 1, Articles 116 to 121, Articles 123 to 128, Article 132, and Article 136 § 1. of this law - that causes the death of some person, or places human life in danger, or is accompanied by great violence and extensive destruction, or has endangered the security, economic and military capacity of the country - or in other exceptionally grave cases - the perpetrator will be punished by imprisonment of no less than ten years or by death,

Article 118, § 3. determines what is considered preparatory activity in the case of such actions.
Article 118, § 3 says:

When the law prescribes punishment for the preparation of a certain criminal act, the preparation may consist of acquisition or activation of the means for execution of the criminal act, removal of obstacles to the execution of the criminal act, negotiations, planning and organising with others to commit the criminal act, as well as other activities serving to create the conditions for immediate execution of the criminal act, but which do not represent the act of execution.

The facts pointing to the execution of this act are based almost exclusively on Borisav Jović’s diary, published under the title 'Poslednji dani SFRJ' [“The Last Days of the SFRY”, (Belgrade, Politika 1995), and Veljko Kadijević’s memoirs Moje viđenje raspada - vojska bez države [“My View of the Break-Up - an army without a state”] (Belgrade: Politika 1993).
The credibility of the facts which these contain, and which relate to the creation of a conspiracy, derives

(a) from the essential concordance of their testimonies;
(b) from the fact that they testify to their own actions; as well as
(c) from the fact that one cannot conceive of a credible motive for their own [false] self-incrimination.

In addition, not only did Milošević never deny the claims by Jović and Kadijević, but their books were also published by the Politika publishing company over which Milošević had full control.
It is true that, at his trial in The Hague, Milošević denied during the hearing of the witness Stjepan Mesić that he had ever read Jović’s book. This assertion is contested, however, by Miodrag Marović in his book Politika i istina [“Politics and the Truth”] (Belgrade: Helsinški Committee for Human Rights 2002, p.331): ‘Mihajlo Marković said – and the media published-- that Milošević had handled Jović’s manuscript.’
Finally, the plans and intentions of the conspirators, as they themselves describe them, were concretely realised during the subsequent political and military events.

Let us now turn to the activities by means of which they accomplished certain essential elements of these criminal acts... ....
http://www.bosnia.org.uk/news/news_body.cfm?newsid=2491

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.