The Milosevic trial is a travesty

Political necessity dictates that the former Yugoslavian leader will be found guilty - even if the evidence doesn't

It is two years today that the trial of Slobodan Milosevic opened at The Hague. The chief prosecutor, Carla Del Ponte, was triumphant as she announced the 66 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity and genocide that the former Yugoslavian president was charged with. CNN was among those who called it "the most important trial since Nuremburg" as the prosecution outlined the "crimes of medieval savagery" allegedly committed by the "butcher of Belgrade".

But since those heady days, things have gone horribly wrong for Ms Del Ponte. The charges relating to the war in Kosovo were expected to be the strongest part of her case. But not only has the prosecution signally failed to prove Milosevic's personal responsibility for atrocities committed on the ground, the nature and extent of the atrocities themselves has also been called into question.

Numerous prosecution witnesses have been exposed as liars - such as Bilall Avdiu, who claimed to have seen "around half a dozen mutilated bodies" at Racak, scene of the disputed killings that triggered the US-led Kosovo war. Forensic evidence later confirmed that none of the bodies had been mutilated. Insiders who we were told would finally spill the beans on Milosevic turned out to be nothing of the kind. Rade Markovic, the former head of the Yugoslavian secret service, ended up testifying in favour of his old boss, saying that he had been subjected to a year and a half of "pressure and torture" to sign a statement prepared by the court. Ratomir Tanic, another "insider", was shown to have been in the pay of British intelligence.

When it came to the indictments involving the wars in Bosnia and Croatia, the prosecution fared little better. In the case of the worst massacre with which Milosevic has been accused of complicity - of between 2,000 and 4,000 men and boys in Srebrenica in 1995 - Del Ponte's team have produced nothing to challenge the verdict of the five-year inquiry commissioned by the Dutch government - that there was "no proof that orders for the slaughter came from Serb political leaders in Belgrade".

T o bolster the prosecution's flagging case, a succession of high-profile political witnesses has been wheeled into court. The most recent, the US presidential hopeful and former Nato commander Wesley Clark, was allowed, in violation of the principle of an open trial, to give testimony in private, with Washington able to apply for removal of any parts of his evidence from the public record they deemed to be against US interests.

For any impartial observer, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that Del Ponte has been working backwards - making charges and then trying to find evidence. Remarkably, in the light of such breaches of due process, only one western human rights organisation, the British Helsinki Group, has voiced concerns. Richard Dicker, the trial's observer for Human Rights Watch, announced himself "impressed" by the prosecution's case. Cynics might say that as George Soros, Human Rights Watch's benefactor, finances the tribunal, Dicker might not be expected to say anything else.

Judith Armatta, an American lawyer and observer for the Coalition for International Justice (another Soros-funded NGO) goes further, gloating that "when the sentence comes and he disappears into that cell, no one is going to hear from him again. He will have ceased to exist". So much then for those quaint old notions that the aim of a trial is to determine guilt. For Armatta, Dicker and their backers, it seems that Milosevic is already guilty as charged.

Terrible crimes were committed in the Balkans during the 90s and it is right that those responsible are held accountable in a court of law. But the Hague tribunal, a blatantly political body set up and funded by the very Nato powers that waged an illegal war against Milosevic's Yugoslavia four years ago - and that has refused to consider the prima facie evidence that western leaders were guilty of war crimes in that conflict - is clearly not the vehicle to do so.

Far from being a dispenser of impartial justice, as many progressives still believe, the tribunal has demonstrated its bias in favour of the economic and military interests of the planet's most powerful nations. Milosevic is in the dock for getting in the way of those interests and, regardless of what has gone on in court, political necessity dictates that he will be found guilty, if not of all the charges, then enough for him to be incarcerated for life. The affront to justice at The Hague over the past two years provides a sobering lesson for all those who pin so much hope on the newly established international criminal court.

The US has already ensured that it will not be subject to that court's jurisdiction. Members of the UN security council will have the power to impede or suspend its investigations. The goal of an international justice system in which the law would be applied equally to all is a fine one. But in a world in which some states are clearly more equal than others, its realisation looks further away than ever.

>>>>>>I'm sick of ancient regional ethnic conflics being blamed on 'Western interests.<<<<<

If there were no interests, why Germany and United States meddled into the Balkan mess before the hell broke loose, while the hell was raging and after the peace has setled?

To point to the most obvious:

1. Forcible change of Yugoslavia borders was approved by international community led by Germany and the U.S. although it was against Helsinki accord. Both Germany and U.S. were signatories of Helsinki accord.

2. U.S. Ambassador Warren Zimermann persuaded Bosnian Muslim leader to retract signature on a EU-brokered peace plan and as a result Bosnian civil war broke out

3. PR firms such as Rudder Fin and Hill & Knowlton were given permission by US DOS to accept one side of Balkan conflict as a client and refuse the other. As a result, the most vile smear campaign ensued, fanning the flames of Balkan conflict ("genocide" "holocaust" "belsen in bosnia" "death camps"

4. Clinton administration sided with Iranian Mullahs to secretly arm islamists in Bosnia. US military cargo planes were used to haul arms to Bosnia in breach of UN EMBARGO

5. NATO bombed Bosnian Serbs although Bosnia is not NATO member country nor attacking another NATO country. It was against NATO charter.

6. Clinton administration was behind the largest ethnic cleansing of the 1990's , expulsion of more than 250,000 Serbs from Krajina region in 1995.

7. Clinton administration armed and equipped terrorists in Kosovo in a bid to provoke war.

8. Clinton administration deliberatelly caused war over Kosovo under false pretense of "humanitarian intervention"

9. International community condones ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and violation of human rights of all non-albanian citizens in Kosovo province.

10. Last but not least, support to jaundiced justice of the Hague, instead of trial of criminals in domestic courts ensures the ethnic hatreds will continue in the next generation.

When all else fails, follow the money. So far, more than 100 Billion was spent to stabilize Bosnia, and bilions were spent for destruction of Serbia infrastructure. All this expense could be saved if there was no meddling from the outside. No one spends billions without having good reason. if they do, please let me know, I could put a billion or two to good use.

"If there were no interests, why Germany and United States meddled into the Balkan mess before the hell broke loose, while the hell was raging and after the peace has setled?"

Because if no one "meddles" and all hell breaks loose then everyone turns around and says "Why didn't we do anything?" To suggest that Yugoslavia was of huge economic interest is beyond absurd.

"Forcible change of Yugoslavia borders was approved by international community led by Germany and the U.S. although it was against Helsinki accord. Both Germany and U.S. were signatories of Helsinki accord."

Croats and Muslims wanted to leave Yugoslavia and Serbs didn't. Their differences were irreconcileable regardless of what any outsider said or did. To blame it all on others is to deflect attention away from those who used violence to achieve their aims.

"U.S. Ambassador Warren Zimermann persuaded Bosnian Muslim leader to retract signature on a EU-brokered peace plan and as a result Bosnian civil war broke out"

The Croats withdrew their signature first, Muslims second. In fact there are some who claim that nothing was actually signed at all - merely an agreement to talk some more. The Serbs were laying claim to Bihac for God's sake! How do you think a workable agreement was in place?

"PR firms such as Rudder Fin and Hill & Knowlton were given permission by US DOS to accept one side of Balkan conflict as a client and refuse the other. As a result, the most vile smear campaign ensued, fanning the flames of Balkan conflict ("genocide" "holocaust" "belsen in bosnia" "death camps""

There were many exagerations in the war - but the Serbs lost their own PR war by seizing 2/3 of Bosnia and cleansing the East and North. That's what won the Muslims so much sympathy, not Rudder Finn.

"Clinton administration sided with Iranian Mullahs to secretly arm islamists in Bosnia. US military cargo planes were used to haul arms to Bosnia in breach of UN EMBARGO"

If there's no UN embargo leaving the Muslims almost defenceless against the JNA-backed Serbs then there's no Iranian arms shipments. Sorry if the USA didn't allow the Serbs to dominate the battlefield!

"NATO bombed Bosnian Serbs although Bosnia is not NATO member country nor attacking another NATO country. It was against NATO charter."

UN did bugger all so it was left to NATO. Speasking of which, Serb aid to the war in Bosnia (weapons, Arkan etc)was technically illegal as well.

"Clinton administration was behind the largest ethnic cleansing of the 1990's , expulsion of more than 250,000 Serbs from Krajina region in 1995."

Could have sworn those were Croat troops who carried out Operation Storm. Guess they were actually Marines. Croats were going to invade Krajina regardless of Clinton's green light. 200,000+ troops had massed since 1992 for the attack. You seem to think that no one in the Balkans was able to make any decisions on their own without permission from the USA or Germany. Lack of permissiom sure didn't stop the Serbs from doing what they wanted and it wouldn't have stopped the Croats either. USA wanted a balance of power and so they backed the Croats. Doesn't mean it wouldn't have happened regardless. A violent end to the Croatian stalemate was inevitable.

"Clinton administration armed and equipped terrorists in Kosovo in a bid to provoke war"

Bull. Weapons came from Albania and exiles in the Weat. I've seen no proof of US-government sanctioned aid. Serb oppression of Albanians was all the need the KLA needed to pick a fight. Again you pretend that the policies and actions of the participants was of no influence on the war.

"Clinton administration deliberatelly caused war over Kosovo under false pretense of "humanitarian intervention"

They went in to prevent another Bosnia and the whining that would come with not stepping in were it to happen. You probably think it was to build pipelines and open Starbucks.

"International community condones ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and violation of human rights of all non-albanian citizens in Kosovo province."

You can't police 100% of the place and eliminate ethnic hatreds that stem from a long history of bloody conflict and animosity. Again, to blame it all on the West is overy simplistic but convenient for Serb nationalists who want no responsibility for what happened.

"Last but not least, support to jaundiced justice of the Hague, instead of trial of criminals in domestic courts ensures the ethnic hatreds will continue in the next generation."

They kill eachother to the tune of 60,000-100,000 and hatred will continue because of a UN/NATO trial. Uh huh.

"When all else fails, follow the money. So far, more than 100 Billion was spent to stabilize Bosnia, and bilions were spent for destruction of Serbia infrastructure. All this expense could be saved if there was no meddling from the outside. No one spends billions without having good reason. if they do, please let me know, I could put a billion or two to good use."

Yup, the West started at least three wars so they could blow $100 billion+ just for the hell of it. It's not the West's fault that some wanted independence and some didn't.

Take some responsibility for your own actions!

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.