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.

Agreed that the locals should take responsiblity for their our actions.

However, in the case of Yugoslavia, Clinton supported the most extremist elements possible. Whenever there was a chance at achieving peace, The Clinton White House actively scuttled the peace plan and convinced both the Bosnian Jihadists & the KLA to take even more extreme positions.

Clinton spent some 5 billion on Alija Iztbegovic's un-elected regime. All the while Clinton sidelined the moderate Muslim, Fikret Abdic, who just happened to have won the Presidential election.

Instead of supporting the legally elected Bosnian President Abdic, Clinton supported the xenophobic Iztbegovic.

The locals bear much blame, but the Clinton White House bears just as much for their lavish support of the most extreme elements out there.

A book recommendation for the weekend:

No escape zone by Nick Richardson

London : Little, Brown, 2000

Reveals the experiences of Fleet Air Arm pilot Nick Richardson after being shot down behind Serb lines during a mission over Gorazde. Lined up to take out two Serb tanks on a ridge above the town, Richardson's sea Harrier was hit by a missile and he was picked up by a group of Muslim militia. DR1313.8 RIC

The book is about 1994 Gorazde episode when British SAS was fighting on Muslim side and requested air support. The catch? SAS operated under the guise of UN observers.

It was not only local savages killing each other, it was Brits and others helping them do it more efficiently.

As you said, we should take our own responsibility.

The problem is that there never really was a working peace to "scuttle." Serbs wanted a united Yugoslavia, then a Greater Serbia. Muslims and Croats wanted independence.

This statement has me puzzled: "Clinton spent some 5 billion on Alija Iztbegovic's un-elected regime. All the while Clinton sidelined the moderate Muslim, Fikret Abdic, who just happened to have won the Presidential election."

Isn't Abdic the tycoon/warlord near Bihac who allied himself with the Serbs and fought against the V Corps along with the BSA? I've never heard of him winning any elections. On the contrary, he was viewed by most Muslims as a traitor. Where do you get your info from?

"The locals bear much blame, but the Clinton White House bears just as much for their lavish support of the most extreme elements out there."

No, not "just as much." Not even nearly as much. If you want to talk extremists, there's plenty: Arkan, Mladic, Karadzic, the Jokers, HVO, Oric, etc. Most of whom were not sponsored by the West. They had their own agendas and persued them regardless of whether they had a stamp of approval.

The Balkan wars were fought by nationalists out to grab land, not by some suit in Washington or Berlin.

Let's not pretend the SAS fought like they were BiH. They primarily just stood around and reported back to Sarajevo UN HQ or London as to what was going on. It's not like the UK/USA/NATO bombed the Serbs around the clock.

If the UK/SAS wanted to help Muslims kill more affectively, as you claim, then they didn't do much in support. The Muslims had chronic arms shortages throughout the war and, if I'm not mistaken, Gorazde was one of the three towns in Eastern Bosnia full of refugees driven out from elsewhere - land the Muslims never reclaimed. The SAS was active around Screbrenica as well, and we both know who won there!

The few SAS-directed airstrikes in 94-95 were meant to simply hold the Serb advance at bay - not to help the Muslims turn the tide. If helping the Muslims were the goal then a few AT-4 rockets, artillary pieces and more ammo would have seen the numerically superior Muslims break out of the UN safe areas and drive the Serbs back to the Drina. But it never happened.

Trust me, DTA: If the US/UK wanted to help Muslims kill Serbs they'd have done more than just launch a few airstrikes on their behalf.

The Danish used Leopard tanks against the Serbs in 1994: In 1994, the Danish squadron garnered international attention during Operation Bøllebank, when the troops defeated Serbian militia forces in battle.

More discussion on this with article that mentions Serb children vulnerable to Muslim shelling: http://army.ca/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=000095;p=0 "By finally shooting back, Moller and his troops destroyed bridges of confidence and trust that they painstakingly had built to the Serb side. The Danes had built a four-mile road for Serb children to use in walking to school from the nearby village of Pelemsi, so they would remain safe from Muslim shelling."

And despite the efforts of the CIA/SAS/NATO/UN/Denmark the Serbs still overran Eastern and Northern Bosnia including 2/3 Safe Areas with UK/US aircover and kicked ass until August 1995. Go figure!

Oh and Serb civilian losses from NATO airtrikes were minimal. So much so that Karadzic didn't even make a big deal of it at the time. I still haven't seen any figures on the matter.

There was a retired British Captain writing to a website called Spy magazine - unfortunately his letter isn't up anymore, but I quoted it on FR and could possibly find it again if I can retrieve posts of 2 years ago - who said that Goradze was initially taken over by Muslim forces and Mujahedeen who then stayed in Serb homes. When the Serb forces and civilians were preparing a comeback, the Muslims burned the houses and blamed Serbs while CNN was filming.

The man also wrote how foreign mercenaries were being brought in under cover of humanitarian groups and even the Red Cross.

Was it also part of the cunning Muslim plan to lose the other 90% of Eastern Bosnia while holding on to Gorazde, Zepa and Screbrenica?

I know all about Muslims burning Serb houses, raiding villages and Muj volunteers arriving to carry out atrocities. Greek and Russian mercenaries killed their share on the Serb side as well. But c'mon - when Muslim control in the region is reduced down to three over-crowded towns with constant ammo shortages, you have your work cut out for you in playing the victim.

"By finally shooting back, Moller and his troops destroyed bridges of confidence and trust that they painstakingly had built to the Serb side. The Danes had built a four-mile road for Serb children to use in walking to school from the nearby village of Pelemsi, so they would remain safe from Muslim shelling."

I read the full article from the link you posted. You basically isolated a lone quote about Serb children and Muslim shells and ignored the rest about Serb forces blasting UN peacekeepers and even destroying a Swedish APC. How Noam Chomskyish of you.

It was common Muslim tactics to get near UN troops and provoke the Serbs in order to draw fire towards the UN and get the Serbs in trouble. If you don't believe me, I can link to Hague testimony by a Ukrainian soldier who was in Sarajevo - testifying that he heard outgoing mortar fire next to the UN compound in Sarajevo which was located in the part of Sarajevo controlled by the Muslim army.

Anyhow, one earlier attack might not have been caused by the Serbs:

"In one incident, on March 18, Serb fighters destroyed a Swedish armored personnel carrier with an antitank missile and six tank rounds in the northern town of Gradacac. Moller reported it, clearly blaming the Serbs -- but U.N. officials in Zagreb contended that the source of the attack was unknown."

The Muslims did frequently try to coax the Serbs into shooting at UN troops. Gen. MacKenzie reported as much in Sarajevo. But the Serbs shot at UN troops a lot more than the Muslims tried to draw Serb fire.

It's kinda like the marketplace massacre in Sarajevo that many blame on the Muslims. It may very well be true - the Muslims very likely fired that mortar shell. But how does one dismiss the other few thousand shells that landed in Sarajevo? All fired by Muslims?

Likewise, every Serb shot at a UN post was not the result of Muslim fire.

The US and other powers favored an independence referendum in Bosnia & Hercegovina even though signs were evident that such a vote would likely lead to civil war. Why was no constitution demanded, protecting the rights of all groups, but primarily the minorities? The same thing in Croatia: Why no constitution to protect everyone's rights? In Kosovo, the US once again pushed for an independence referendum, knowing that the demographics would lead to eventual breakup. The "Great Powers" do influence these matters, much to the detriment of the Balkans, as history so clearly reveals.

Abdic had been painted as a 'tycoon/warlord' by Iztbegovic and Clinton........but He was a legitmate politician in BiH.

He won the election to the Bosnian Presidency garnering many non-Muslim votes. (because he was a moderate)

In a 'mysterious' turn of events, Iztbegovic took Abdic's place. Iztebegovic tears up the Lisbon Agreement (under Zimmerman's advice) and what could have been solved without war wasn't.

Ultimately Abdic felt so strongly about Iztbegovic's destructive extremism, that he organized some 10,000 to 20,000 Soldiers to fight against Iztbegovic's xenophobia.

Of course, the fanatics in Iztbegovic's SDA over in Sarajevo did all they could to discredit Abdic. Abdic and his thousands of Muslims fighting allied with the BSA was proof positive that it was Iztbegovic who was the racist extremist.

Indeed, Clinton's White House pumped some $5 billion into Iztbegovic's regime coffers. Much of that was pumped in after 1995, the fact remains that a staggering amount of money was sent by Clinton to Iztbegovic.

My point is simply that there were moderate alternatives for Clinton's White House to support. Before Clinton's active support, the moderates were in trying to stop escalation of violence. By supporting the extremists, Clinton undermined a peaceful solution. joan has lots of data sources on Abdic and so forth

And if the Power that Be don't allow for an independence referendum then they're denying self-determination, are they not? Most Muslims wanted to break away and Serbs didn't. A clash was inevitable. A constitution with guaranteed rights (which I agree should have been insisted upon) would still have left Serbs living in countries they wanted no part of. The fires of nationalism was stoked since the death of Tito and so some sort of partition was going to happen.

And in Kosovo, the two sides again held irreconsible positions, which was addressed in 1999 by a proposed referendum in three years to buy some time. If the demographics would lead to eventual breakup then what is everyone supposed to do? Deny the majority what they want?

Abdic won the 1990 election (by something like 43% to 37%) but, as you said, his support stemmed mainly from non-Muslims, leaving the biggest demographic in Bosnia with their wishes unaddressed. They didn't want to be part of a Serbia-dominated Yugoslavia. Same reason why Croatia and Slovenia jumped ship.

I'm curious as to how Iztbegovic took Abdic's place. Was it some sort of a coup or through foreign recognition?

As for the Lisbon Agreement, I'm not sure a working peace was in place at all. Zimmerman reportedy told Iztbegovic that "if you don't like it don't sign." In other words, he hadn't signed in the first place. The Croats, if I'm not mistaken, had already turned the plan down when the Muslims did.

It seems to me that even if Abdic were president, you'd still have the same grievences in place.

Abdic and the presidency is a strange issue to say the least. From http://www.diacritica.com/sobaka/dossier/abdic.html:

"In the Bosnian federated system, the republic was ruled by a presidency of five members, and the one who received the largest number of votes would become its chair. Abdic outscored Izetbegovic rather handily (Abdic received 1,010,618, with a good share of support among Serbs and Croats, to Izetbegovic's 847,386, mostly among Muslims). For mysterious reasons which have never been adequately explained, Abdic abstained from taking the head of the presidency, granting it instead to Izetbegovic. Abdic in return had his lieutenant Alija Delimustafic named Interior Minister.

In the Spring of 1992, as the Serbs and Muslims entered into a tense stand-off in downtown Sarajevo, Abdic was drawn into the fray. Izetbegovic was held by the Yugoslav People's Army (JNA) from May 2nd to May 3rd, in what his party rather hysterically described as a "kidnapping". In fact, a Bosnian militia was then holding a JNA general prisoner, and a local commander planned to use Alija as bait to free his colleague. During the crisis (which was broadcast on television, as Izetbegovic called in to a live news broadcast from "captivity" and spoke on the air to his deputies), Abdic arrived in Sarajevo. Later, members of the SDA accused Abdic of attempting to take advantage of Izetbegovic's absence to stage a coup d'etat. It was a rather fanciful charge, especially as Abdic had voluntarily passed over the high office which was his due, and the very nature of the crisis would lead one to think that the members of the Bosnian presidency should be close to the seat of government."

So....why did Abdic not take is place at the head if the DSA? Any idea what his version of events are?

The SDA was Izetbegovic's party - the Bosnian constitution provided for the seven members of the collective presidency deciding amongst themselves who would be the president. After some wheeling and dealing, Izetbegovic got the nod for the top spot, and various posts within the government were handed out, as agreed, to the various parties, to include Abdic's faction of the SDA.

It's neither as complicated nor as underhanded as our Serb friends would have us believe, and it's a recurring topic in their attempt to rewrite the history of Bosnia.

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.