KK-Forum,
legger ut noe svært viktig fra TFF
Knut Rognes
******************
http://www.transnational.org/pressinf/2000/pf100MilosevicNoHague.html
Why Milosevic won't get to the Hague
PressInfo # 100
October 11, 2000
By Jan Oberg, TFF director
Western politicians insist that Slobodan Milosevic must be brought to the
Hague
Tribunal and stand trial as a war criminal. Media and commentators raise
the issue
time and again. But there are reasons to believe that this is make-believe.
The
indictment of Milosevic leaves much to be explained - for instance, why he
is indicted
only for crimes committed in 1999 but not before - and certain Western
countries
would hardly want him to be on record in the Hague with a few things that
he may
know about them. The West would therefore do wise to drop this issue now
and let
Yugoslavia deal with Milosevic.
It seems that few have bothered to read the text of the indictment of
Milosevic and
four other high-level government officials of Thursday May 27, 1999. Among
other
things it states:
"As pointed out by Justice Arbour in her application to Judge Hunt, "this
indictment is
the first in the history of this Tribunal to charge a Head of State during
an on-going
armed conflict with the commission of serious violations of international
humanitarian
law".
The indictment alleges that, between 1 January and late May 1999, forces
under the
control of the five accused persecuted the Kosovo Albanian civilian
population on
political, racial or religious grounds. By the date of the indictment,
approximately
740,000 Kosovo Albanians, about one-third of the entire Kosovo Albanian
population,
had been expelled from Kosovo. Thousands more are believed to be internally
displaced. An unknown number of Kosovo Albanians have been killed in the
operations by forces of the FRY and Serbia. Specifically, the five
indictees are
charged with the murder of over 340 persons identified by name in an annex
to the
indictment.
Each of the accused is charged with three counts of crimes against humanity
and
one count of violations of the laws or customs of war."
Limited indictment and dubious facts
As will be seen, Milosevic is indicted for activities limited to the period
January 1 and
late May 1999, i.e. during the local war between Kosovo-Albanian forces
(KLA/UCK)
and various Serb/Yugoslav forces and for activities during NATO's bombings
which
started on March 24 and went on for 78 days.
At the time the Tribunal could not know any precise facts or numbers. What
we do
know today from public, reliable sources is that a considerable part of the
information
about killings and ethnic cleansing was exaggerated or false. At the time
of the
indictment, facts could not be verified by independent sources as there
were virtually
nobody on the ground - except presumably intelligence people. OSCE observers
have stated that there was nothing going on as long as the Verifier's
mission was
present (up to the bombing) that could be defined as a systematic ethnic
cleansing
campaign. Documents revealing the existence of the much talked-about
"Operation
Horseshoe" have not been brought to light.
The wording is also doubtful. Sure, some were "expelled" - but how did the
Tribunal
know at the time who fled because of being expelled, because of rumours,
because
there was a local war, because NATO's bombs were falling, because Albanian
leaders encouraged them, or because of some other reasons. Furthermore, it is
extremely unlikely that 740.000 could be equated with "about one-third,"
meaning
there were way over 2 million Kosovo-Albanians alone in Kosovo, or almost
2,4 in
total. There are no data on any side supporting such a figure.
Be this as it may, it is conspicuous that the crimes are limited in time to
1999. It is
highly likely that Milosevic could be charged with war crimes committed
since 1991
when the wars broke out in Slovenia and Croatia and 1992 and onwards in
Bosnia-
Hercegovina. However, this is NOT what the indictment focuses on. One would
also
believe that the Hague Tribunal investigators would have been able to
collect more
and stronger evidence, interview more witnesses and victims, and identify a
larger
number of bodies concerning the crimes committed earlier - and thus present
a more
solid indictment - than for crimes committed during the months and weeks
when the
Tribunals experts must have been writing the indictment and having much
less hard
evidence.
It looks like the timing of the indictment could have been influenced by
the situation
and the following consideration: NATO's bombing would be somewhat easier to
justify if the head of state at the time, the opponent whose forces NATO
was trying to
kill on the ground, would be considered a war criminal in the eyes of the
world and,
thus, made morally inferior.
But how come the Tribunal did not indict him for what could well be much
worse
atrocities, including Srebrenica? One guess is that that would have created
some
difficulties for the West, the United States in particular. Milosevic was
the strongman
with whom Western diplomats had repeatedly met. They had done deals and made
agreements with him. He was the only one in rump-Yugoslavia at the time who
could
"deliver" and guarantee stability, and his signature was on the Dayton-Paris
Agreement of December 1995. His country was recognized as the Federal
Republic
of Yugoslavia, FRY, by powerful countries in the early months of 1996. He
had been
helpful by not reacting when the West assisted Croatia in driving out some
250.000
legitimate Croatian citizens of Serb origin from various parts of Croatia
in 1995. As
late as autumn 1998, Richard Holbrooke negotiated a cease-fire and withdrawal
agreement with Milosevic - which he honoured while KLA/UCK moved into the
areas
from which the FRY Army withdrew. The obscure OSCE Verifiers' Mission was
allowed into the country, Milosevic conniving at its heavy CIA element.
In short, the other side of the Milosevic coin was pretty obvious: he was a
man useful
to the West, if for no other reason than that the West saw no one else with
whom to
do (better) deals during most of the 1990s.
Who else could be indicted - and what about comparable crimes?
Had Milosevic been indicted for crimes committed all through the 1990s, it
would
become impossible to not also indict Croatia's Franjo Tudjman (who
everybody knew
was seriously ill at the time but still running Croatia) and Bosnia's
president Alija
Izetbegovic, both of whom were commanders-in-chief of their respective
countries'
forces and from time to time appeared in uniform, something Milosevic did
not. The
point is not whether they can be judged as "equally big" or "smaller" war
criminals
than Milosevic; the point is that atrocities were committed by their side
too, for which
they should also be on indicted due to their military rank.
If all the three guarantors of the Dayton deal would have been indicted,
the legitimacy
of that deal and the Dayton process would have evaporated. It looks like a
politically
tainted indictment produced on short notice. How could the West have
indicted an
ally who had "delivered" time and again.
In addition, the mentioned 340 people killed is 340 too many, for sure. But
make a
comparison: NATO decided to give priority to saving NATO pilots' lives and
conducted its raids from a height of 5-10 kilometers which - unavoidably -
would
cause "collateral damage". This was a deliberate choice: Yugoslav lives were
considered less valuable than NATO lives and many more than 340 innocent
Yugoslav citizens lost their lives due to this deliberately chosen and
completely
irresponsible policy of the alliance.
Furthermore, 340 dead people during what was also a regular war between
regular
forces in the Kosovo province is, for an international comparison, quite a
small figure.
An estimated 100,000 had been killed in Algeria's internal conflicts while
the same
moral West turned a blind eye. Many more were killed in e.g. the
Ethiopian/Eritrean
conflict at the time. And one hardly wants to mention the at least 1000
times higher
figure of innocent Iraqi civilians who are the victims of a UN decision and
the policies
of the United States and Great Britain in particular.
Karadzic and Mladic also unlikely to end up in the Hague
As recent as October 8, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, repeated on
CNN that
she will continue to insist on Milosevic being extradited. On October 10,
NATO's
Secretary-General, The Rt. Hon. Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, stated that
"we look
forward to new policies being enacted by the new government to strengthen
democracy in Yugoslavia and build cooperation with the international
community,
including on the issues of war criminals."
This should be seen as part of a game. Why have Mr. Radovan Karadzic and
General Ratko Mladic not been arrested and brought to the Hague? It is
inconceivable that forces of the world's strongest alliance (an alliance
that set out to
quite systematically destroy a European state) should be physically unable,
over the
last five years, to arrest them.
One can only speculate, but I believe it is likely that many in the West
would feel very
uneasy about a situation in which people like Karadzic and Milosevic would
stand
trial in the Hague and - cameras running - speak into a microphone about
their
deal(ings) with various Western diplomats, governments and envoys. They could
probably offer spicy details as to what suggestions were made to them for
accepting
certain policies and playing certain roles at various points since 1991.
They could
probably also tell a few stories about how they cooperated with other
ex-Yugoslav
leaders, including friends of the West in the region, using double and
triple standards,
to fool the West and organizations such as the EU, OSCE and NATO.
The issue begs another obvious question seldom asked by media: why have no
high-
.level Kosovo-Albanian military or political leaders been indicted? One must
hypothesize that the answer is: because the West intervened on their side and
because the UN and NATO/KFOR work intimately with them every day now.
We have also conveniently forgotten that the War Crimes Tribunal statutes
make
clear that an indicted person shall be presumed innocent until proven
guilty. While
there are certainly very good reasons to believe that Slobodan Milosevic
can be
found guilty of a series of crimes, it is the Tribunal's norm that no one
shall be treated
as guilty before the Tribunal so judges. This point is repeatedly ignored
by the press
and by politicians who participate in the Hague Tribunal game. Also, why is
the
Hague Tribunal, financed and run as it is predominantly by the US, seldom
seen in
the light of the fact that the United States itself consistently refuses to
sign the draft
treaty on a new truly international criminal court?
There are enough questions to be asked. One wonders why so few journalists
- and
law experts - do?
Milosevic should be handled by Yugoslavia
With the new leadership under Vojeslav Kostunica in Belgrade, Yugoslavia
hopefully
will move step-by-step towards democracy, accountability and a status as a
state
governed by law. As such, there are no reason to demand of it what neither EU
governments, the US nor any NATO member would accept: namely that it should
not
be able to handle its own criminals the way they ought to be handled. There
is, in
summary, many reasons why Kostunica has said long ago and repeated now that
Milosevic will not be extradited to the Hague. It's entirely understandable
and does
not mean that Milosevic will not be charged with crimes in his country.
As Milosevic' actions probably makes a very good example of war crimes, it
is a pity
that the Tribunal made such a bad case out of it to the extent that the
Tribunal has
lost credibility. Somebody responsible for the Tribunal should come out
with some
good answers to the perfectly legitimate questions and issues raised here and
elsewhere.
The West would do wise to drop this untrustworthy "conditionality" now. It
will only
poison its relations with Yugoslavia. Milosevic was a dream bully who could
conveniently be blamed for anything. That too presents the West with a
considerable
problem.
Equality of all who are subject to a legal system is central to its
integrity and
legitimacy. There must not be one law for the powerful and another law for
the rest. If
the US doesn't see that point, the EU should. But one must fear that this
issue will be
just one among many around which new Yugoslavia and the West will clash in
the
future. More about that in the next PressInfo.
© TFF 2000
******************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Oct 13 2000 - 14:44:41 MET DST