Comment at end

21st November, 2009

“You want the truth? You can’t deal with the truth”

STOP IT … just stop it … the STOP THE WAR gang. You talk outrageous rubbish and some of us have had enough.

In case you are a martian visitor, you should know that there is an INQUIRY into the Iraq war. It is about to move into the “interview” period. It is NOT a trial, as its chairman Sis John Chilcot keeps reminding the forgetful.  Just as bloody well!

Half the British press and its ignorant, know-all commenters is inhabited by creatures who should be banned from life from ever sitting on a jury in our “innocent until proven guilty” society. The former prime minister has already been found guilty as charged at this NON TRIAL. And he hasn’t even appeared yet!

This is an appalling position for ANY opiner of integrity in our country. These people and their witch-hunt make me thoroughly ashamed. They should be ashamed of themselves. Of course they’re not.

For instance, Carne Ross, one of the high-and-mighty, know-all ‘Troof Seekers’ is at it again.

He’s right about ONE thing – the Iraq Inquiry is a waste of time.

As I and others (Rentoul) have argued, nothing will satisfy those who see Tony Blair as a criminal, “war” or otherwise, except a good old-fashioned hanging, in this capital-punishment-free zone. That, or if they’re feeling generous, his appearance at the International Criminal Court .

The deranged Blair-hating/hunting/baiting Peter Oborne is also in full flow at Stirrers United, The Daily Mail. (More about that in another post.) As is the discredited Andrew Gilligan with ‘leaks’ at the “leak-addicted Telegraph. Gilligan himself admits in another Telegraph article that these new disclosures “shed no new light”.

So shurrup then, idiot!

Tony Blair and Colin Powell, US Secretary of State outside Number 10 Downing Street

THE INSANITY OF BLAIR’S ‘WAR CRIMES’ ACCUSERS

As you’ll have noticed I’m not given to exaggeration. Except admittedly at times, in praise of Mr Blair. And that’s usually just to balance the antis’ antics.  I’d be far more dispassionate if THEY were. But clearly these people are mentally deranged.

You DO SEE what we have here at this Guardian article, don’t you?

We have people who see EVIL in the former prime minister. Not just ill-judgement, or a propensity to being easily led. They see him as EVIL. They are convinced of it.

They are insane. INSANE!

Blair – a “war criminal”? Tony Blair is no more a war criminal than is my Aunt Fanny. Admittedly,  I lack an Aunt Fanny. But if I had one she’d be as much of a war criminal as Mr Blair, I’m sure.

• He is a peace-maker and vanquisher of murderers, even where Britain gains nothing, as in Sierra Leone.
• He is a saviour of the ethnically cleansed in Kosovo.
• He is the ONLY Prime Minister to have brought peace to Northern Ireland after decades of the Troubles.
• He has spent two years building the Palestinian infrastructure from the ground up, and is highly praised even by Palestinians for his efforts. All this despite testing leadership from those in power on all sides.
• He is a devoutly religious man who cares about and understands others. He has started a Faith Foundation to try to bring the religious together.
• He is trusted by people right across the world.
• He is mooted by world leaders as the ONLY leader they wanted as EU president. They are disappointed, as they should be that A.N. Other has been chosen.
• He is not Robert Mugabe, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or numerous other world leaders who actually DO kill their own peoples.

He is NOT a war criminal.

CARNE’S COUNSEL OF DESPAIR – “IT IS INCONCEIVABLE … ‘REDUCTIONISM‘ DOESNT WORK.”

PARDON?

Excerpt:

“There is another truth that no one wants to see revealed: that government, whether honestly led or not, cannot understand the reality of places like Iraq, let alone master it as an occupier. Government can function only by reducing a complex and ever-changing reality into simplified policy choices, prepared by officials like me, and presented and defended by ministers.

It is inconceivable that such reductionism can accurately capture the intricacy of a place like Iraq. But without it, government cannot operate. At home, the inevitable policy errors can be corrected by feedback from governed to government – through Parliament, the press and civil society. In foreign policy, no such feedback loops exist. Government may occasionally get policy right, but this is more by chance than by judgment.

My guess is that the Chilcot inquiry will not offer this uncomfortable conclusion.”

Well, of course they won’t, Mr Carne. To do so would be a counsel of despair. AND leaders, REAL leaders DON’T despair. They decide.

Yours is an ANTI-GOVERNMENT – ANY GOVERNMENT – CRY.

And you, smart-alec Carne – YOU know ALL the right questions, do you?  Everything that will open up to our enemies domestic and shared and security information? All concerns and agreements across pan-national politics? YOU are the judge of what should and should not be in the public domain? YOU are the judge of the whys and wherefores, ifs and buts?

As someone once said, “You want the truth? You can’t deal with the truth”.

THE TRUTH

1. Tony Blair is NOT a war criminal.

2. No-one, not even a politician some people detest, is ANY kind of criminal unless and until tried AND found guilty.

3. Criminality of ANY sort is not to be judged by those with axes to grind.

4. The anti-Iraq war/anti-war/ anti-Blair people are largely anti-government.

5. The antis are anti EVERYTHING that does not suit their agenda and beliefs.

6. The Iraq Inquiry will be waste of time, money and effort unless such INSANE people get this result.

7.  They won’t, of course

8. Nor will they get their longed-for trial at The Hague.

9. In conclusion, we will have to put up with their LIES forever. They, you see, are NEVER wrong. (See Rentoul – “Preparing for a Whitewash”)

‘What is the purpose of the Chilcot inquiry? Its stated objective is to “learn lessons” from the planning and execution of the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq. If only this were true, because this is what the British people demand, but reading between the lines, there appears a more insidious intent.

From 1998 to 2002, I was the UK’s Iraq “expert” on the UN Security Council. I resigned from the Foreign Office after giving evidence to the Butler inquiry in 2004. That inquiry produced an ultimately comforting outcome: that while the intelligence used to justify the war might have been exaggerated, it was not deliberately manipulated. The establishment might have made mistakes, but in the final analysis it could be trusted.

That Sir John Chilcot served on the Butler inquiry is like trying the same crime twice with the same judge and jury – not a credible standard for truth-seeking. Nor would a truth-seeker allow the inquiry’s staff to be headed by the civil servant who was in a senior position in the foreign and defence policy secretariat of the Cabinet Office during Britain’s military occupation of Iraq.

Meanwhile, many of those giving evidence will have a deep interest in confirming the government’s narrative, for they are deeply implicated in having implemented it. One little-discussed disgrace of prewar policy-making is that there was never a proper review of the available options. Witnesses will no doubt claim to Chilcot that there were none and that sanctions “were not working”. This is not true: the government’s internal assessments up to 2002 confirmed that sanctions had prevented Iraq from rearming with any significant stocks of conventional weapons or WMD.

To know that there were non-military ways to undermine Saddam requires detailed insight into government policy and the prevailing circumstances. Most of those in a position to know will have little interest in revealing this complexity at the inquiry, for to do so will demonstrate their own complicity in ignoring those choices.

But ministers and officials should be asked why, for instance, we were unwilling to pressure Turkey to close off illegal oil exports across its south eastern border, which were a crucial source of revenue for Saddam’s regime. Why did Tony Blair not raise the issue of Syria’s illegal export of Iraqi oil when he visited Damascus in October 2001? Weeks before the war began, and when ostensibly the UK was still pursuing peace, why did ministers tell Parliament that British aircraft were doing nothing unusual in the “no-fly zones” covering northern and southern Iraq, when US officials were briefing the American press that their – and presumably our – aircraft were engaged in “softening up” Iraqi defences for the imminent invasion?

Other questions require a profound knowledge of the complex UN Security Council resolutions that framed the weapons inspections and sanctions regime, almost all of which were originally drafted by British officials. One resolution in particular established the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), the weapons inspection body, in 1999. During those negotiations, the UK and US insisted that UNMOVIC required at least six months of inspections before it could reach a view on the degree of Iraqi disarmament and report to the UN Security Council. If this was the allied view in 1999, why did that change in 2003, when inspectors were given just weeks to visit hundreds of sites across a large country, sift thousands of documents and then deliver their judgments? Will the inquiry have the resources or inclination to address these issues? They are central to understanding the policy issues that led to war.

The inquiry will probably focus on the senior officials. But much of the policy-making detail is known best by more junior officials who were immersed in Iraq day in, day out. Will the inquiry have the time to interview these officials thoroughly? Will these officials, many of whom are still in government, be guaranteed protection if they reveal accounts at odds with the official version?

Few are the officials genuinely knowledgeable about the twists, turns and options of long-term Iraq policy. At the MoD, there was one so authoritative on the complex questions of weapons inspections and WMD programmes that at the UK mission in New York we insisted on his presence in our briefings of UN Security Council diplomats. He is sadly no longer around to offer the inquiry his testimony. His name was David Kelly.

Given these weaknesses, why has the Chilcot inquiry been generally accepted as legitimate? The government’s motives are clear: it wishes to distance itself from decisions which many of today’s cabinet supported, it seems, on the nod and without asking for the full picture. In reviewing the advice of the attorney general on the legality of the war, was the cabinet not made aware of the view of the Foreign Office legal advisers, who had told the attorney general and foreign secretary that the planned war was in fact an illegal war of invasion?

The opposition’s motives are less clear, but still discernible. They, too, supported the war, supposedly because they believed the government’s claims about WMD. But they failed to question the government in detail before the invasion and only began to do so when it became clear how disastrously the invasion and occupation had been planned. What the opposition parties want from the inquiry is evidence that they were misled, thus absolving them of blame. What they do not want is confirmation of what clearly was the case: that they – and by implication Parliament – were incapable of scrutinising government and holding officials to account in the gravest of circumstances.

There is another truth that no one wants to see revealed: that government, whether honestly led or not, cannot understand the reality of places like Iraq, let alone master it as an occupier. Government can function only by reducing a complex and ever-changing reality into simplified policy choices, prepared by officials like me, and presented and defended by ministers.

It is inconceivable that such reductionism can accurately capture the intricacy of a place like Iraq. But without it, government cannot operate. At home, the inevitable policy errors can be corrected by feedback from governed to government – through Parliament, the press and civil society. In foreign policy, no such feedback loops exist. Government may occasionally get policy right, but this is more by chance than by judgment.

My guess is that the Chilcot inquiry will not offer this uncomfortable conclusion. Instead, grave officials, soldiers and ministers will offer evidence; sober mandarins will sit in judgment upon them. Revelations will be made; errors and failures will be uncovered. The ensuing and weighty “Chilcot report” will make recommendations for greater scrutiny, more accountability, fact-checking and planning mechanisms.

But look at the players, read the pre-ordained if unadmitted script, and the show that we are about to witness becomes clear – it is, after all, for our benefit. The purpose? To confirm that our democracy, Parliament and government function as they should. Government may get it wrong sometimes, and may even sometimes be dishonest, but it is ultimately perfectible and capable. The country is secure in its hands; safe can be our sleep.’

Carne Ross was a British diplomat from 1989-2004.

(Apologies for highlighting their madness, too. It is highly contagious. Nothing except THEIR desired result from Chilcot will satisfy them. They are NOT TRUTH seekers, but THEIR OPINION seekers.)

1. The Chilcot inquiry will not alter that. We will be treated, once again, to a display of the most corrupt members of an utterly corrupt establishment, on both sides of the inquiry, exculpating themselves of the most serious crimes in the canon; we will be treated to their transparent attempts to manipulate and deceive us with lies, half truths and evasions into believing that Tony Blair and his posse are innocent of any criminal intent. It will not work. Indeed, it could well backfire, because just as the truth is obvious, repeated attempts to distort it produce more and more obvious lies.

But the large number of us who have lost all faith in our political establishment, indeed, hold it to be criminal, and the Chilcot inquiry to be nothing more than an institutional perversion of the course of justice set up to conceal criminal intent, will not forget the Iraq war in a hurry. It has poisoned the credibility of our political system. I believe that poison cannot be purged unless the Nation as a whole confronts the truth, and given that the Chilcot inquiry is another milestone in attempting to suppress it, I do not believe that will happen until the system itself is called to account, and seriously altered, so that the destiny and integrity of a nation cannot be hijacked by the personal ambition of one man. One day, that will happen, either by consent or by force, but it will happen, and we’ll look back on the Chilcot inquiry, and wonder how we ever allowed such a miserable, incompetent and criminal gang to lead our country so disastrously astray. A naked and incompetent display of corruption at the highest levels can only hasten that end.

The 14 people listed here as having been indicted to appear before the ICC one of whom Omar al-Bashir is the President of Sudan is listed as a ‘fugitive’. But Al-Bashir is due to stand as a presidential candidate in 2010. Hardly due to keep his profile low, then.

Al-Bashir is the first sitting head of state ever indicted by the ICC.^[10] However, the Arab League and the African Union condemned the warrant. al-Bashir has since visited Egypt and Qatar. Both countries refused to arrest him and surrender him to the ICC upon arrival.

International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavian Leader

Former Bosnian Serb leader Karadzic appears at International Criminal Tribunal in The Hague. Follow us on twitter at http://twitter.com/itn_news

ON THE OTHER HAND from this Russia Today YouTube channel

Karadzic attends tribunal amid claims of bias trial

Former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic has appeared in the Hague for his trial on Tuesday. Karadzic boycotted the first three days of the hearing, citing that he did not have enough time to prepare for his defense. He has been charged with two counts of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity linked to the war in former Yugoslavia in the early nineties. Karadzic has maintained his innocence, and refused to enter a plea.

Most of the commenter here think Karadzic is a good guy – a hero even. If nothing else this shows the difficulties in keeping all the people happy all the time. An impossible dream.

• Spymasters now facing Iraq Inquiry
• Rentoul: “Prepare for a Whitewash”

ETCETERA

Seldon on Blair’s numerous projects (largely unpaid) since leaving office. Titled “Neither shy nor retiring” it says that he will bounce back from his disappointment over the EU post with more determination. I wonder who exactly chose the sub-title. It does not chime with the rest of the article.

So, it turns out Felicien Kabuga, he that is said to have masterminded the Rwandan genocide has a very special wife. Josephine Mukazitoni is special indeed. She has stood by his fugitive man for years and has now won an appeal that will see her husbands assets “de frozen” – if all goes to plan.

That Kabuga has eluded justice for all these years even with such a hefty amount of money (US$ 5 million) on his head does not surprise a soul. As a rich businessman with direct and indirect contacts with the pre-genocide regime in Rwanda, he made money and it is his own money and his connections that have kept him out of prison for this long – sadly, it might as well keep him out for life.

When you have both someone so rich that they can buy their own freedom, and someone very willing to provide it at the right price, then as a prosecutor, as experience has shown, it is better to find another route.

There is every likelihood Mukazitoni will win her case against the Kenyan government because while Kenya as a UN member has the obligation to help trace Kabuga, it does not have the right to freeze his assets. And this is surely what her well paid lawyers will be trying to point out.

And this is not even the big question. The question is, how has Kabuga, a simple man born in unknown Muniga-Mukarange, Byumba, managed to stay out of the dock for all these years even when he has been romoured to be living in Kenya – a few miles from where he is wanted for genocide?

Call it what you want but there seems to be a big correlation between being rich and eluding justice. Remember Radovan Karadzic, he lived among Serbs as a general, a traitor and also a traditional healer. Sometimes when things fall apart, it is difficult to know who is who and as long as they know what they are doing, we may never know for sure.

A continuación una cronología de los hechos relacionados con el juicio en la La Haya contra el ex líder serbobosnio Radovan Karadzic:

Jul 21, 2008 – Karadzic es arrestado. Funcionarios serbios informan que ha estado viviendo por varios años con un nombre ficticio en Belgrado, haciéndose pasar por un curandero que practica medicina alternativa.

Jul 31, 2009 – Karadzic realiza su primera aparición ante el Tribunal Penal Internacional para la ex Yugoslavia (ICTY, por su sigla en inglés) y dice que ha sido secuestrado y teme por su vida. Expresa que prefiere estar a cargo de su propia defensa que traspasar esa responsabilidad a otro abogado.

Oct 21 – Karadzic informa que no acudirá al inicio del caso, argumentando que no tiene suficiente tiempo para preparar su defensa.

Oct 26 – Karadzic se niega a asistir al inicio de su juicio por crímenes de guerra y explica que no está preparado.

Oct 27 – Radovan Karadzic lideró una campaña para que los musulmanes bosnios “desaparezcan de la faz de la Tierra” y buscó forjar un Estado de una sola etnia para los serbobosnios, dijeron los fiscales al tribunal de la ONU. Mientras, Karadzic boicotea el proceso judicial por segundo día.

Nov 2 – Karadzic accede a presentarse al día siguiente ante el tribunal de crímenes de guerra de La Haya, pero sólo para solicitar más tiempo.

Nov 3 – Karadzic acude a una audiencia, pero sostiene que necesita 10 meses más para preparar su defensa porque se ha visto abrumado por 1,3 millones de páginas de documentos. La corte levanta la sesión e informa que más tarde tomará una decisión sobre cómo proceder.

Reuters (Escrito por David Cutler, Mesa Editorial de Londres; Editado en español por Marion Giraldo)

]]> http://sottoosservazione.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/udienza-procedurale-karadzic-in-aula/ Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:40:55 +0000 sottoosservazione http://sottoosservazione.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/udienza-procedurale-karadzic-in-aula/

Per la prima volta Karadzic si presenta in aula. Chiede più tempo. Contraria l’accusa

AFP-Meldung vom 27.08.2009 (Auszug):

Der frühere bosnische Serbenführer Radovan Karadzic gibt dem Westen die Schuld für den Bosnien-Krieg. Einige Länder hätten “eine kleine Nation benutzt und missbraucht”, um ihre eigenen militärischen und strategischen Ziele durchzusetzen, erklärte Karadzic in einem schriftlichen Interview mit der Nachrichtenagentur AFP. Der Zerfall des ehemaligen Jugoslawiens und der Krieg in Bosnien seien von den “Großmächten” schon lange im Vorfeld geplant gewesen, behauptete Karadzic, der derzeit im UN-Gefängnis in Scheveningen bei Den Haag einsitzt. Er hoffe, das sein Prozess die “Wahrheit” über die Ereignisse in Bosnien ans Licht bringen werde.

Karadzic nannte die von ihm beschuldigten Länder zwar nicht direkt. In der Vergangenheit hatte der 64-Jährige aber versucht, über das UN-Kriegsverbrechertribunal Dokumente aus Deutschland, Frankreich und den USA zu bekommen. Wie aus einem kürzlich veröffentlichten Antrag hervorgeht, wirft er ihnen unter anderem vor, von Waffenlieferungen an die Armee von Bosnien-Herzegowina trotz eines UN-Waffenembargos gewusst zu haben. Er hoffe, dass sich vor Gericht zeigen werde, wer “wirklich” für das Leid der Opfer des Bosnien-Krieges verantwortlich sei, sagte Karadzic AFP. Sollten die Zeugen der Anklage die Wahrheit sagen, werde der Prozess seine Unschuld beweisen.

Karadzic zeigte sich zugleich “tief enttäuscht”, dass das Gericht eine Anhörung über die nach seinen Angaben erfolgte Zusicherung von Straffreiheit durch den früheren Balkan-Gesandten Richard Holbrooke abgelehnt habe. Er habe die Existenz der Vereinbarung beweisen können, sagte Karadzic. Er verweist seit seiner Festnahme auf eine Immunitätsvereinbarung, die er im Juli 1996 mit Holbrooke in Belgrad getroffen haben will. Holbrooke, der mittlerweile US-Sonderbeauftragter für Afghanistan und Pakistan ist, bestreitet hingegen, dem früheren Serbenführer Straffreiheit im Falle eines Machtverzichts zugesichert zu haben. (…)

(Gesamten Artikel lesen)

Je n’arrive pas à choisir entre la bête pensante et le penseur sauvage
(Radovan Karadzic 0 – Claude Lévi-Strauss 1)

Pre-packaged hamburgers produced by Fairbank Farms and sold in states in the northeastern United States are being cited as responsible for the deaths of 2 people and illness in dozens. The meat is suspected of being tainted with a dangerous strain of E. coli bacteria. The beef has been recalled, New York Times. Check the federal food safety information website, foodsafety.gov, for more information about recalled food.

Ex-Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic is calling for more time to prepare for his self-defense in his trial for war crimes at a UN tribunal at the Hague, BBC News. He is accused of committing 11 war crimes, including the genocide of 8,000 Muslim men and boys at Srebrenica in 1995, during the 1992-1995 Bosnian war. After the break-up of Yugoslavia in the 1990s, Serbs, Croats, and Muslims all fought over land. The war ended in 1995 when the country was split up into three mostly autonomous ethnic regions by the Dayton Accords.

Water rationing will begin in Caracus, the capital city of Venezuela, today.  Water is in short supply in Venezuela due to drought and poor infrastructure maintenance, CNN International.

Open letter to Amnesty International from Ed Vulliamy, 30 October 2009

To whom it may concern:

I have been contacted by a number of people regarding Amnesty International’s invitation to Professor Noam Chomsky to lecture in Northern Ireland.

The communications I have received regard Prof. Chomsky’s role in revisionism in the story of the concentration camps in northwestern Bosnia in 1992, which it was my accursed honour to discover.

As everyone interested knows, a campaign was mounted to try and de-bunk the story of these murderous camps as a fake – ergo, to deny and/or justify them – the dichotomy between these position still puzzles me.

The horror of what happened at Omarska and Trnopolje has been borne out by painful history, innumerable trials at the Hague, and – most importantly by far – searing testimony from the survivors and the bereaved. These were places of extermination, torture, killing, rape and, literally “concentration” prior to enforced deportation, of people purely on grounds of ethnicity.

Prof. Chomsky was not among those (“Novo” of Germany and “Living Marxism” in the UK) who first proposed the idea that these camps were a fake. He was not among those who tried unsuccessfully (they were beaten back in the High Court in London, by a libel case taken by ITN) to put up grotesque arguments about fences around the camps, which were rather like Fred Leuchter’s questioning whether the thermal capacity of bricks was enough to contain the heat needed to burn Jews at Auschwitz.  But Professor Chomsky said many things, from his ivory tower at MIT, to spur them on and give them the credibility and energy they required to spread their poisonous perversion and denials of these sufferings. Chomsky comes with academic pretensions, doing it all from a distance, and giving the revisionists his blessing. And the revisionists have revelled in his endorsement.

In an interview with the Guardian, Professor Chomsky paid me the kind compliment of calling me a good journalist, but added that on this occasion (the camps) I had “got it wrong”. Got what wrong?!?! Got wrong what we saw that day, August 5th 1992 (I didn’t see him there)? Got wrong the hundreds of thousands of families left bereaved, deported and scattered asunder? Got wrong the hundreds of testimonies I have gathered on murderous brutality? Got wrong the thousands whom I meet when I return to the commemorations? If I am making all this up, what are all the human remains found in mass graves around the camps and so painstakingly re-assembled by the International Commission for Missing Persons?

These people pretend neutrality over Bosnia, but are actually apologists for the  Milosevic/Karadzic/Mladic plan, only too pathetic to admit it.  And the one thing they never consider from their armchairs is the ghastly, searing, devastating impact of their game on the survivors and the bereaved. The pain they cause is immeasurable. This, along with the historical record, is my main concern.  It is one thing to survive the camps, to lose one’s family and friends – quite another to be told by a bunch of academics with a didactic agenda in support of the pogrom that those camps never existed. The LM/Novo/Chomsky argument that the story of the camps was somehow fake has been used in countless (unsuccessful) attempts to defend mass murderers in The Hague.

For decades I have lived under the impression that Amnesty International was opposed to everything these people stand for, and existed to defend exactly the kind of people who lost their lives, family and friends in the camps and at Srebrenica three years later, a massacre on which Chomsky has also cast doubt. I have clearly been deluded about Amnesty. For Amnesty International, of all people, to honour this man is to tear up whatever credibility they have estimably and admirably won over the decades, and to reduce all they say hitherto to didactic nonsense.

Why Amnesty wants to identify with and endorse this revisionist obscenity, I do not know. It is baffling and grotesque. By inviting Chomsky to give this lecture, Amnesty condemns itself to ridicule at best, hurtful malice at worst – Amnesty joins the revisionists in spitting on the graves of the dead.  Which was not what the organisation was, as I understand, set up for.  I have received a letter from an Amnesty official in Northern Ireland which reads rather like a letter from Tony Blair’s office after it has been caught out cosying up to British Aerospace or lying over the war in Iraq – it is a piece of corporate gobbledygook, distancing Amnesty from Chomsky’s views on Bosnia, or mealy-mouthedly conceding that they are disagreed with.

There is no concern at all with the victims, which is, I suppose, what one would expect from a bureaucrat. In any event, the letter goes nowhere towards addressing the revisionism, dispelling what will no doubt be a fawning, self-satisfied introduction in Belfast and rapturous applause for

the man who gives such comfort to Messrs Karadzic and Mladic, and their death squads.  How far would Amnesty go in inviting and honouring speakers whose views it does not necessarily share, in the miserable logic of this AI official in Belfast?  A lecture by David Irving on Joseph Goebbels?

Alistair Campbell on how Saddam really did have those WMD? The Chilean Secret Police or Colonel Oliver North on the communist threat in Latin America during the 70s and 80s?  What about Karadzic himself on the “Jihadi” threat in Bosnia, and the succulence of 14-year-old girls kept in rape camps?

I think I am still a member of AI – if so, I resign. If not, thank God for that. And to think: I recently came close to taking a full time job as media director for AI. That was a close shave – what would I be writing now, in the press release: “Come and hear the great Professor Chomsky inform you all that the stories about the camps in Bosnia were a lie – that I was hallucinating that day, that the skeletons of the dead so meticulously re-assembled by the International Commission for Missing Persons are all plastic? That the dear friends I have in Bosnia, the USA, the UK and elsewhere who struggle to put back together lives that were broken by Omarska and Trnopolje are making it all up?

Some press release that would have been. Along with the owner of the site of the Omarska camp, the mighty Mittal Steel Corporation, Amnesty International would have crushed it pretty quick.  How fitting that Chomsky and Mittal Steel find common cause. Yet how logical, and to me, obvious.  After all, during the Bosnian war, it was the British Foreign Office, the CIA, the UN and great powers who, like the revisionists Chomsky champions, most eagerly opposed any attempt to stop the genocide that lasted, as it was encouraged by them and their allies in high politics to last, for three bloody years from 1992 until the Srebrenica massacre of 1995.

Yours, in disgust and despair,

Ed Vulliamy,
The Observer

Open letter to Amnesty International from the Society for Threatened Peoples International (STPI), 30 October 2009

You are a genocide denier, Professor Chomsky !

Dear Professor Chomsky,

Dear Friends of Amnesty International,

Once again you find yourself invited to appear in a public forum, this time in Belfast. In the past, Belfast was a city with a long-standing reputation for discrimination against the Catholic population, but today those of us who are familiar with the city’s past history of conflict, crime and disorder are pleased and relieved that the Protestants and Catholics of Northern Ireland have finally emerged from a long dark tunnel.

The focus of our human rights organisation’s work is the support that we give to minority groups who have been the victims of genocide and dispossession. The two guiding principles inspiring us are that firstly we work with the people “Von denen keiner spricht” – the people no-one talks about, and secondly we are “Auf keinem Auge blind” – never turning a blind eye.  We believe that “persecution, extermination and expulsion, the establishment of concentration camps and rape camps are always and everywhere crimes, now just as they were in the past.  Irrespective of which government is responsible and on which continent and in which country those crimes are being perpetrated. The legacy bequeathed to us by all the victims of yesterday is an obligation to come to the assistance of the victims of today”.

You, Professor Chomsky, choose to ignore those precepts.  You call genocide genocide when it suits your ideological purposes.  Who could condone the murkier aspects of American foreign policy or fail to condemn the way that policy has supported and encouraged crimes against humanity? But you express your criticism of the crimes of the recent past in a perverse way, that makes genocide the almost exclusive prerogative of organisations with close links to the US. It is only then that you consider it to be genocide.  And it is only your political/ideological friends who are apparently incapable of committing genocide.

That was the situation in Cambodia.  While the international press was reporting how the genocide of the Khmer Rouge had eliminated one in every three or four of that country‘s inhabitants, you were laying the blame for those crimes at the door of the US.  That was shameful and in any reasonable person stirred memories of Holocaust denial elsewhere in the world.

In the same way you have denied the genocide perpetrated in Bosnia-Herzegovina by Serb forces who killed not only Bosnian Muslims but along with them Bosnian Serbs and Croats as well who had chosen to remain alongside them, in the besieged city of Sarajevo for example.

To deny the fact of genocide in Bosnia is absurd, particularly when both the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in The Hague and the International Court of Justice, also in The Hague, have had no hesitation in confirming that that genocide was perpetrated in Bosnia, above all at Srebrenica.

For the benefit of the apparently unpolitical and ideologically uncommitted Friends of Amnesty International we are prepared once again to provide a summary of the facts of genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina. And we should like to remind you of them, too, Professor Chomsky, in your denial of genocide:

1. 200,000 civilians interned in over one hundred concentration, detention and rape camps.

2. Many thousands of internees murdered in concentration camps including Omarska, Manjača, Keraterm, Trnopolje, Luka Brčko, Sušica and Foča.

3. Members of the non-Serb political and intellectual elites systematically arrested and eliminated.

4. Approximately 2.2 million Bosnians displaced, exiled and scattered to the four corners of the globe.

5. Many thousands of unrecorded deaths still missing from the official statistics, including children, the elderly and sick and wounded refugees.

6. 500,000 Bosnians in five UN so-called “safe areas” (Tuzla, Goražde, Srebrenica, Žepa, and Bihać) and other, fallen, enclaves such as Cerska besieged, starved, sniped at, shelled and many of them killed over a period of as long as four years in some cases.

7. A four year-long artillery bombardment of the sixth UN safe area, the city of Sarajevo, killing approximately 11,000, including 1500 children.

8. Massacres and mass executions in many towns and municipalities in northern, western and eastern Bosnia (the Posavina, the Prijedor area and the Podrinje).

9. Hundreds of villages and urban areas systematically destroyed.

10. The entire heritage of Islamic religious and cultural monuments, including 1189 mosques and madrassas, destroyed, and extensive destruction of Catholic religious monuments including as many as 500 churches and religious houses.

11. Remains of approximately 15,000 missing victims still to be found, exhumed and identified.

12. 284 UN soldiers taken hostage and used as human shields.

13. Over 20 thousand Bosnian Muslim women raped, in rape camps and elsewhere.

14. 8376 men and boys from the town of Srebrenica murdered and their bodies concealed in mass graves.

The history of Kosovo is familiar to people who know Southeastern Europe: After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, Kosovo was annexed to the Serb-dominated Kingdom of Serbs, Croatians and Slovenes (1918). Following the original occupation and then again in the 1920s, 1930s and 1950s Yugoslavian and Serbian governments expelled the Albanians to Turkey where well over one million people of Albanian origin live today. After the gradual dismantling of Kosovo’s autonomy, proclaimed too late by Tito, Slobodan Milosevic’s army and militia killed some 10,000 Albanians and forced half the population – roughly one million people – to flee.  The NATO military intervention, some specific aspects of which must certainly be condemned, halted the killing and expulsions. 

Someone like yourself, Professor Chomsky, who on various occasions has shown himself unwilling to acknowledge genocide and goes so far as to deny it forfeits all credibility.  That is why we question your moral integrity and call on you to stand up before the public in Belfast and apologise for those hurtful comments of yours concerning the Cambodian, Bosnian and Kosovar victims of genocide.

Yours sincerely,

Tilman Zülch

President of the Society for Threatened Peoples International (STPI)

Von Mirnes Kovac (Sarajevo), veröffentlich bei “Islamische Zeitung” am 30.10.2009:

Radovan Karadzic hat 14 Jahren seiner Strafe gestohlen! Heute ist er 64 Jahre alt und hat sich dem Verfahren auch nach seiner Festnahme wiederholt entzogen. Zuerst wurde seine Festnahme verzögert und heute müssen wir auf den Anfang des Prozesses warten… Ist der international Gerichtshof (ICTY) vorsichtig, damit es nicht zu möglichen Klagen gegenüber die hypothetische Verletzung seiner “Rechte” kommen könnte?

Aber in Wirklichkeit wissen wir, dass es sich beim Fall Karadzic um ein Podest handelt, auf dem die erlegte Bestie ausgestellt wird, mit dem man den Dörflern beweisen will, dass die Gefahr vorüber ist. Aber ist sie das? Europa will nicht erkennen, dass der Prozess gegen Radovan Karadzic bis zu einem gewissen Grad auch ein Prozess gegen sich selbst ist. Unser Kontinent hat im Zusammenhang mit Srebrenica sogar Schwierigkeiten damit, das Wort “Völkermord” auszusprechen.

Denn wäre es nicht zu so einer nachlässigen, wenn nicht gar parteiischen Haltung seitens Europas gegenüber dem Übeltäter (von 1992 bis 1995) gekommen und hätte es nicht gleichermaßen die Erwartungen gegeben, dass Bosnien-Herzegowina hätte binnen weniger Wochen zerschlagen werden können, dann wäre der Übeltäter überhaupt nicht möglich gewesen. Am Ende des Tages kam es zu dem Verbrechen nicht irgendwo am Nordpol, sondern im nächsten Vorhof Europas.

Europa, mit all seinem Establishment und Zögern, ermöglichte die Verbrecher, wenn es sie nicht gar hervorbrachte. Das jetzige Verfahren gilt ihm, denn die in Bosnien-Herzegowina gegründete serbische Entität war seine Schöpfung – aber auch den Europäern! Niemand in Bosnien kann noch Gerechtigkeit von Seiten Europas erwarten! Unsere einzige Hoffnung ist die Verhinderung weiterer Ungerechtigkeiten. Der Übeltäter ist nur der Vertreter derjenigen, die ihm ermöglicht haben zu sein, was er ist.

Als einer der bekannten britische Historiker des letzten Jahrhunderts, A.J.P. Taylor, 20 Jahre nach Beginn und 15 nach dem Ende des 2. Weltkriegs “The Origins of the Second World War” schrieb, stellte er die “Nürnberg”-These in Frage. Demnach seien allen Schlechtigkeiten dieses Weltkonflikts Hitler und seiner Bande zugeschrieben worden.

Taylor wurde des Revisionismus, der Fehldeutung und anderer Irrtümer beschuldigt. Aber das Buch eröffnete viele Kontroversen und es schloss sich eine lange Debatte an. Der Mann war kein isolierter, radikaler Fanatiker, sondern ein bekannter Gelehrter, der den allgemein anerkannten Mythos der Schuldzuschreibung für ein solch großes kriminelles Unterfangen auf eine Person oder deren engsten Personenkreis durchbrach.

Taylors Ansatz kann auch im Fall Karadzic benutzt werden. Aus dem, was wir jetzt beobachten können, scheint sich zu ergeben, dass der große Teil des europäischen “Establishments” wohlwollend auf seine “Leistung”, das heißt der Republika Srpska (serbische Entität in Bosnien, die auf Genozid und “ethnischer Säuberung” aufgebaut wurde), blickt.

Der Prozess in Den Haag ist deutlich als ein Verfahren erkennbar, welches um der Geschichtsschreibung willen geführt wird. Aber kann sich Europa überhaupt eomem Fall vorstellen, in dem Kriegsverbrecher (jene, die für Massenmorde verantwortlich sind) den Verlauf der Gerechtigkeit diktieren? Oder, schlimmer noch, nach Verbüßung ihrer Strafe in vollem Glanz und mit staatlichen Ehren heimkehren dürfen? Ministerpräsident Milorad Dodik, der sein einziges Regierungsflugzeug entsandte, um die frühere Kriegsverbrecherin Biljana Plavsic (Karadzics Nachfolgerin auf dem Thron) sicher und mit allen Ehren heimzuholen, sandte eine erschreckende Botschaft für die Zukunft. Nicht nur für die bosnische, sondern für die gesamteuropäische. Beobachten wir eine neue Politik des “Appeasement” gegenüber jenen, die öffentlich Kriegsverbrecher und ihre Untaten loben?

Mit dem Karadzic-Prozess vor dem Internationalen Kriegsverbrechertribunal urteilt Europa über sein “Establishment” und dessen falsche Appeasement-Politik – willentlich oder nicht. Es wäre in der Lage gewesen, den Völkermord in Srebrenica zu verhindern und viele andere Kriegsverbrechen in Bosnien-Herzegowina, bevor es zu spät gewesen wäre! Diese Politik ermöglichte es Karadzic, sein Volk ins Verderben zu führen.

Die Opfer von Völker- und Massenmord in Bosnien verlangen keine Rache für die gegen sie begangenen Verbrechen; sie wollen nur das gleiche, was Europa nach dem 2. Weltkrieg wollte: die Verhinderung ähnlicher Zustände in der Zukunft. Kurz gefasst bedeutet dies die Denazifizierung von Bosnien-Herzegowina und besonders jenen Teils, der als Serbische Republik angesehen wird. Denn die Saat des Verbrechens ist noch fruchtbar!

Durch den bisherigen europäischen Ansatz wurde dieser nur beiseite geschoben und es steht zu befürchten, dass ihre Aufgehen nur eine Frage der Zeit ist.

On Monday I produced pieces on the Virginia man caught with his pants down and a potential rethinking of ‘too big to fail.’ I also tried to uphold the international potential Newsy possesses – typically neglected by staff members – in proposing/advocating, writing, and producing a script about the beginning of Radovan Karadzic’s genocide trial.

Capstone is moving along: the interview last week went well so now it’s just producing that script/video. We’re also hoping to find another arts interviewee in time to produce and run our final piece within the next two weeks.

On the same day that the trial of Radovan Karadzic began in the Hague, war criminal Biljana Plavsic, who succeeded Karadzic as President of Republika Srpska was released from prison, after having served seven of the eleven years to which she had been convicted by the ICTY for her role on the war in Bosnia.

These two events occurred just a few days after the failure of the Butmir talks, the latests initiative to overcome the current political situation in Bosnia, which some define as crisis, but I prefer to define as deadlock, because, unlike in a crisis, the current situation perfectly serves on of the parts involved. While the current situation doesn’t satisfy anyone, doing nothing, leaving things as they are is clearly beneficial for the leadership of the Serb entity.

Headed by Milorad Dodik, the government of the Republika Srpska is actively working towards the disintegration of Bosnia by systematically obstructing the process of decision making, proving by its behaviour that any power-sharing is worthless when the actors are not willing or at least complied to share power.

Upon her release from prison in Sweden, Bijlana Plavsic flew to Belgrade in the jet of the government of the Republika Srpska, and upon her arrival, was warmly received by Milorad Dodik. The image of this encounter are striking: the past and the future holding hands, like a mother and her son.

Both were, at a certain point, considered by the international actors involved Bosnia as moderate politicians worth backing. This tells a lot about the fallacy of the opposition between moderates and hardliners when it comes to Serb nationalism. Their moderation, Plavsic’s as well as Dodik’s, proved to be merely tactical. Through their seemingly moderate policies, when compared to those of Radovan Karadzic and his supporters, they gave a very important contribution to advance the cause of pursuing with the goal of disintegrating Bosnia and reinforcing the homogeneous ethnic composition of the serb entity.

During the war, Plavsic, aka the ‘iron lady’, was known by her extreme nationalism and her outright racism. A Professor of Biology, Plavsic had no problem in abusing the authority of science to justify her racism, by presenting ‘ethnic cleansing’ as “a perfectly natural phenomenon” and claiming that the Bosnian Muslims were “genetically deformed material”:

“That’s true [i.e. her imagination that the Bosnian Muslims were originally Serbs]. “But it was genetically deformed material that embraced Islam. And now, of course, with each successive generation this gene simply becomes concentrated. It gets worse and worse, it simply expresses itself and dictates their style of thinking and behaving, which is rooted in their genes…“

This was the ‘moderate’ politician who, after the war the international actors chose to back. And when she voluntary surrendered after being indicted by the ICTY, her ‘moderation’ seemed to be confirmed.  Thus, Plavsic had as her defense witnesses prominent figures such as Madeleine Albright and Carl Bildt, whose testimony was an important mitigating factor for the judges (here, see note 20). Plavsic went as far as showing remorse and appealing for reconciliation, and the sincerity of her words was confirmed by the statement of the witness Elie Wiesel.

In fact, by pleading guilty on the count of persecutions as a crime against humanity, she managed to obtain a bargain in which the prosecution dropped all other charges, including two counts of genocide. Her plea thus represented not a positive step towards reconciliation, but a lost opportunity to prove that a genocide was committed in Bosnia, by the Serb forces against the Muslims.

Early this year, Plavsic retracted her confession, in an interview to the Swedish Vi magazine :

“I sacrificed myself. I have done nothing wrong. I pleaded guilty to crimes against humanity so I could bargain for the other charges.”

By pleading guilty on crimes against humanity so that she could get away with genocide, Biljana Plavsic sacrificed herself for the sake of the Nation, but her sacrifice was obviously not as hard as the one she thought it was right to impose on her own co-nationals. Indeed, for the sake of ‘Greater Serbia’ considered that the dead of as much as half the total ethnic Serb population would be a worthy sacrifice:

“There are 12 million Serbs and even if six million perish on the field of battle, there will be six million to reap the fruits of the struggle“.

So, through her ’sacrifice’, not only she managed to get her sentence substantially reduced, but she also avoided a conviction of genocide that would contribute to highlight the illegitimacy of the very existence of Republika Srpska.

If we look at the concept of legitimacy as springing from the founding act of any politically organized society, what do we see? We see the need to deny genocide, because legitimacy is the glue that binds people together in a politically organized society, while genocide is the ‘original sin’ upon which Republika Srpska was built. If someone like Bijlana Plavsic, or Milorad Dodik for that matter, chose to oppose the warmongering faction led by Karadzic, it was because they understand that violence was merely an instrument among others to achieve a goal.

Until now, the only conviction on the account of genocide by the ICTY was the case of General Radislav Krstic, the commander of the Drina Corps. However, his conviction for genocide covered solely the case of the Massacre of Srebrenica. The chance to get a conviction for genocide on a wider area than Srebrenica was also missed at the trial of Momcilo Krajisnik, in which the prosecution failed to establish the Krajisnik genocidal intent ( read Bosnia’s ‘accidental’ genocide, by Edina Becirevic. Krajisnik was convicted to 27 years in prison, but acquitted of genocide, and as a result of his appeal, the sentence was reduced to 20 years, overturning the convictions in several charges.

This appeal revealed major flaws in the prosecution’s strategy and sparked the fear that similar or even greater difficulties will be faced to convict Radovan Karadzic of genocide(about this debate, read ‘What Karadzic Prossecutors learnt from Krajisnik Trial’, by Simon Jennings).

Thus, bearing in mind the failure of the International Court of Justice (about this, read ‘The ICJ and the decriminalisation of Genocide‘, by Marko Attila Hoare, and ‘Vital Genocide documents concealed‘, by Florence Hartmann), and the fact that Ratko Mladic is still at large and most likely will never be captured, the trial of Radovan Karadzic represents the last chance to establish through international law, the full extent of the genocidal character of the aggression against Bosnia-Hercegovina (about this, it’s worth reading this post by Kirk Johnson at Americans for Bosnia).

The stakes are high. The result of this trial cannot but have an important impact on the Republika Srpska. It is not at all a matter of ‘collective guilt’, since guilt is always individual, but it is a matter of political legitimacy. The political identity of the serb entity is being built now as if it was an alien land, but the past keeps coming back and the urge for justice won’t go away so easily, as the case of the Spanish Civil war highlights.

However, for something to change in the current trend of ’smooth’ disintegration, it is necessary that what is called the international community, meaning the relevant international  players in Bosnia, should make a serious reflection on what went wrong on their approach both of the conflict and of the post-conflict phase. That reflection is not at all happening and the result is clearly shown in the predictable failure of the Butmir talks.

Nonetheless, I do believe there are grounds for hope, for the simple reason that the future is not written in the stars but is rather built in the present and can always be changed. I believe real change must come from within the Bosnian society. Imposed solutions have already proved their limits, but international support for change will always play a crucial role. But for change to happen, we must stop waiting for a miracle, because time is not working on our side.

El otro día en el Tribunal Penal Internacional para la ex Yugoslavia (TPIY) con sede en La Haya (Holanda), se empezó a juzgar a uno de los mayores criminales que ha dado Europa desde el fin de la Segunda Guerra Mundial, me estoy refiriendo a Radovan Karadzic, presidente de la Republica Serbia de Bosnia durante la Guerra de Bosnia entre 1992 y 1996, Karadzic está acusado de crímenes contra la humanidad, crímenes de guerra y genocidio cometidos principalmente contra población civil bosnia de religión musulmana, entre acciones famosas suyas fueron la orden de cometer la masacre de Srebrenica y el asedio de Sarajevo, uno de los más largos de duración en la historia moderna ya que duró entre 1992 y 1996 que tuvo más de 50.000 fallecidos entre civiles y militares bosnios.

Radovan Karadzic

Aunque formalmente se ha iniciado el juicio contra Karadzic, se ha ausentado en sus primeras sesiones con la excusa de que tiene que preparar su defensa ya que según él, no ha tenido el suficiente tiempo para leerse el expediente que le dio el Tribunal que confirmaba todos los actos horribles que cometió durante su mandato en Bosnia, a mi que diga esto me parece lamentable ya que hay que recordar que lleva 15 meses arrestado en La Haya y que he tenido el suficiente tiempo teniendo incluso la ayuda de abogados en estos 15 meses, y ahora pensando sobre este tema, no ha tenido solamente un año y tres meses Karadzic para defenderse, ha tenido muchísimo tiempo, concretamente 13 años desde que dejó el poder en 1996, aunque hay que decir que estos 13 años, la gran mayoría de ellos ha estado recluido como una especie de gurú de medicina alternativa llegando a cambiar su aspecto exterior para que lo le capturasen, es increíble lo que llegan a hacer los criminales de guerra con el objetivo de no tener que estar en un juicio contra ellos.

Ratko Mladic junto con Karadzic durante la Guerra de Bosnia

Hay que recordar que por la acción gubernamental de Radovan Karadzic provocó que centenares de personas fueran asesinadas, expulsadas de sus hogares o hechas prisioneras en campos de concentración contra los musulmanes bosnios, ordenó muchas de las masacres con ayuda de otros generales genocidas como cabe citar a Ratko Maldic y genocidios durante los años que estuvo al frente de Bosnia, todas estas acciones la cometió con el permiso del Presidente de Yugoslavia y de Serbia en aquellos años, Slobodan Milošević, otro criminal de guerra que tuvo mucha suerte con el Tribunal Internacional ya que debido a sus maniobras de retrasar el proceso contra él, se murió en su celda sin una sentencia condenatoria, habiendo pasado ya cinco años encerrado sin finalizar el juicio.

Terrible imagen del Asedio de Sarajevo

A esta lentitud del proceso judicial quiere que se conduzca Karadzic aunque lo va a tener complicado ya que los jueces del Tribunal no van a consentir que vuelva a ocurrir lo mismo que con Milošević y se quede finalmente sin sentencia por los crímenes realizados, a esto hay que añadir que aunque los juzgue la ONU, esta organización no estaba cuando se cometieron ni la masacre de Srebrenica donde murieron 8000 musulmanes bosnios ni en el conjunto de la Guerra de Bosnia donde se calcula que murieron al menos unas 100.000 personas, no entiendo cómo ni la ONU ni la OTAN pudieron consentir durante un tiempo que se cometieran crímenes contra la humanidad, genocidios y demás crímenes de guerra cometidos contra civiles en su gran mayoría, frases de Karadzic de aquellos años se hicieron famosas debido a la crueldad y al sentimiento de asesinar a miles de personas por el hecho de ser musulmanes, una de ellas dice “Los musulmanes desaparecerán de la Tierra”, frase que me parece horrible y dicha por un psicópata con aires de grandeza como lo es Karadzic.

Así para concluir espero el Tribunal no admite más sandeces de este criminal de guerra y vaya más rápido a la hora de enjuiciar ya que como sigan a este ritmo actual, este asesino morirá en la cama de su celda sin tener sentencia condenatoria contra su persona, toda la comunidad internacional no puede volver a fallar como lo ocurrido en las masacres durante la Guerra de Bosnia, ya que esta guerra trajo a Europa, genocidios y crímenes contra la humanidad que a los europeos nos sonaban muy de lejos, cabe citar el de Camboya, en esos momentos ocurrían desgraciadamente a menos de tres horas en avión de las ciudades europeas. Esperemos que en el futuro no vuelvan a ocurrir y que de una vez por todas, todos los genocidas y asesinas cumplan sus condenas como lo dictan las normas internacionales.

Kommentar von Marc Hoch, erschienen am 27.10.2009 in der Süddeutschen Zeitung (Auszüge):

“Wie lang und schwer der Weg zur Gerechtigkeit ist, wissen am besten die Opfer von Radovan Karadzic. Dieser skrupellose und moralisch verdorbene Mensch, dessen Gesicht zum Symbol geworden ist für die Gewalt auf dem Balkan, konnte sich eine (gefühlte) halbe Ewigkeit seiner Verhaftung entziehen.

Zu einer Zeit, als die Verbrechen des Bosnien-Krieges längst bekannt waren, lebte er unbehelligt als Wunderdoktor im Verborgenen und in der Freiheit wirrer Gedanken. Für seine Opfer war das eine Qual, und auch für das Ideal der Gerechtigkeit sind die 14 Jahre, die von der ersten Anklage bis zum Prozessbeginn vergangen sind, eine Schande. Dafür sind viele verantwortlich.

Schuld daran tragen nicht allein die Serben, die ihre kriminelle Führerfigur – bei Strafe ihrer internationalen Ächtung – im Untergrund versteckten. Auch der Westen hält seinen Anteil.

In den Jahren nach dem Krieg wäre es für die Nato mit ihren immerhin 60.000 Soldaten in Bosnien leicht gewesen, Karadzic zu verhaften. Doch in den westlichen Hauptstädten fehlte dazu der politische Wille, was die frühere Chefanklägerin Carla del Ponte sarkastisch als Katz-und-Maus-Spiel beschrieben hat: “Die meiste Zeit haben die Katzen (der Westen) sich die Augen verbunden, sodass die Mäuse (die Kriegsverbrecher) von einem Loch zum anderen liefen.” (…)

Der Druck auf das Tribunal ist diesmal viel größer als vor dem Milosevic-Verfahren. Doch die Ankläger haben ihm zu Recht widerstanden, weil es ihnen um mehr geht, als ihren wichtigsten Angeklagten wie einen Strauchdieb abzuurteilen. (…)

Karadzics Schuld als demagogischer Hintermann der Bluttaten zu zeigen, ihm zu beweisen, dass er mit anderen den Plan der ethnischen Säuberungen verabredete und umsetzte – das ist das große Ziel dieses Prozesses. Noch einmal sollen die Gräuel der Bosnien-Kriege in aller Brutalität und Komplexität erfasst werden, um gegen Geschichtsfälschung und Legendenbildung, die vor allem auf dem Balkan wuchern, die Macht der Fakten zu setzen. (…)”

(Gesamten Artikel lesen)

The Times /UK, Oct 28, 2009

David Charter in The Hague

Radovan Karadzic has refused to enter pleas

Image :1 of 2

Radovan Karadzic showed his contempt for international justice by shunning his own trial again yesterday, but the chilling threats he made before Europe’s worst atrocities since the Second World War still echoed around the UN courtroom.Judges in The Hague refused to let Dr Karadzic’s boycott disrupt the proceedings any further and the prosecution took full advantage. If the presence of the bereaved Mothers of Srebrenica who crowded the public gallery was not enough, transcripts of phone taps from 1991 reminded the court who they were dealing with.

Continues >>

 

Profile: Radovan Karadzic

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8322507.stm

BBC – Page last updated at 12:08 GMT, Monday, 26 October 2009

Radovan Karadzic in 1992 (left) and in a photo released on 22 July 2008

Radovan Karadzic is accused of having direct responsibility for the worst atrocities of the Bosnian war – which have been described as the worst crimes committed in Europe since World War II.

The 2008 arrest of the former Bosnian Serb leader came after he spent nearly 13 years on the run – during which time Serbia came under increasing international pressure to catch him.

He was eventually found living disguised, under a false name and working as a New Age healer in Belgrade in July 2008. A bushy grey beard and thick glasses had transformed his appearance.

He was arrested and handed over to the UN’s International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague.

Accused of leading the slaughter of thousands of Bosnian Muslims (Bosniaks) and Croats, he faces 11 counts of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and other atrocities in the Bosnian war of the 1990s.

When he first appeared before the tribunal in August 2008, Mr Karadzic failed to respond to the charges against him and the court entered pleas of not guilty on his behalf.

The 64-year-old, who is defending himself, tried to delay his trial’s 26 October start date, saying he had not had enough time to prepare. He boycotted the opening of his trial.

The court’s judges asked the prosecution to abbreviate the original charge-sheet, which Mr Karadzic said amounted to more than one million pages of testimony.

He had previously refused to recognise the legitimacy of the court, calling it a “bastardised judicial system” and an instrument of Nato, whose sole intention was to “liquidate” him.

Protected in hiding

The UN says Mr Karadzic’s forces killed at least 7,500 Muslim men and boys from Srebrenica in July 1995 as part of a campaign to “terrorise and demoralise the Bosnian Muslim and Bosnian Croat population”.

He is also accused of orchestrating the shelling of Sarajevo, and the use of 284 UN peacekeepers as human shields in May and June 1995.

After the Dayton accord that ended the Bosnian war, the former nationalist president went into hiding – possibly in the mountainous south-eastern area of the Serb-controlled part of Bosnia, protected by paramilitaries.

Mr Karadzic says Dayton’s chief architect, US diplomat Richard Holbrooke, promised him immunity from prosecution in exchange for quitting the political scene. Mr Holbrooke denies any such deal was struck.

International pressure to capture Mr Karadzic mounted in spring 2005, when several of his former generals surrendered, and a video of Bosnian Serb soldiers shooting captives from Srebrenica shocked television viewers in former Yugoslavia.

Belgrade announced several arrests in connection with the video, which was first shown during the war crimes trial of former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic.

In early 2007, Nato troops in Bosnia-Hercegovina raided the homes of Mr Karadzic’s children, saying they believed Sasa and Sonja Karadzic to be part of a network supporting their father.

‘Head of state’

Mr Karadzic was born in 1945 in a stable in Savnik, Montenegro.

His father, Vuk, had been a member of the Chetniks – Serb nationalist guerrillas who fought against both Nazi occupiers and Tito’s communist partisans in World War II – and was in jail for much of his son’s childhood.

His mother, Jovanka Karadzic, described her son as loyal, and a hard worker who used to help her in the home and in the fields. She said he was a serious boy who was respectful towards the elderly and helped his school friends with their homework.

In 1960 he moved to Sarajevo, where he later met his wife, Ljiljana, graduated as a doctor, and became a psychiatrist in a city hospital.

He also became a poet and fell under the influence of the Serb nationalist writer Dobrica Cosic, who encouraged him to go into politics.

Years later, after working briefly for the Green Party, he helped set up the Serbian Democratic Party (SDS) – formed in 1990 in response to the rise of nationalist and Croat parties in Bosnia, and dedicated to the goal of a Greater Serbia.

Less than two years later, as Bosnia-Hercegovina gained recognition as an independent state, he declared the creation of the independent Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Hercegovina (later renamed Republika Srpska) with its capital in Pale, a suburb of Sarajevo, and himself as head of state.

Mr Karadzic’s party, supported by Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic, organised Serbs to fight against the Bosniaks and Croats in Bosnia.

A vicious war ensued, in which Serbs besieged Sarajevo for 43 months, shelling Bosniak forces but also terrorising the civilian population with a relentless bombardment and sniper fire. Thousands of civilians died, many of them deliberately targeted.

Bosnian Serb forces – assisted by paramilitaries from Serbia proper – also expelled hundreds of thousands of Bosniaks and Croats from their homes in a brutal campaign of “ethnic cleansing”. Numerous atrocities were documented, including the widespread rape of Bosniak women and girls.

Reporters also discovered Bosnian Serb punishment camps, where prisoners-of-war were starved and tortured.

War crimes were also committed against Serb civilians by the Bosnian Serbs’ foes in the bitter inter-ethnic war – Europe’s bloodiest since World War II.

Mr Karadzic was jointly indicted in 1995 along with the Bosnian Serb military leader, Ratko Mladic, for alleged war crimes they committed during the 1992-95 war.

He was obliged to step down as president of the SDS in 1996 as the West threatened sanctions against Republika Srpska, and later went into hiding.

While on the run, he managed to get a book published in October 2004 by a former associate, Miroslav Toholj. Miraculous Chronicles of the Night, set in 1980s Yugoslavia, tells the story of a man jailed by mistake after the death of former Yugoslav strongman Josip Broz Tito.

In May 2005, investigators reported two separate sightings of Radovan Karadzic – allegedly with his wife Ljiljana in south-eastern Bosnia and then with his brother Luka in Belgrade – as his mother was dying of cancer in Niksic, Montenegro.

Video: Prosecutors begin Karadzic trial – 28 Oct 09

Al Jazeera

…

Karadzic ‘led ethnic cleansing’

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8327210.stm

BBC

Page last updated at 17:28 GMT, Tuesday, 27 October 200

Prosecutors at the genocide and war crimes trial of ex-Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic have branded him the leader of an ethnic cleansing campaign.

The court ruled the trial in The Hague could resume despite Mr Karadzic boycotting it for a second day.

In opening remarks, prosecutors said Mr Karadzic had “harnessed the forces of nationalism, hatred and fear” to pursue his vision of a state without Muslims.

Mr Karadzic denies all charges, which relate to the Bosnian war of the 1990s.

The former Bosnian Serb leader, who is representing himself at the trial, says he still needs at least nine months to prepare his defence.

Separately, former Bosnian Serb President Biljana Plavsic – convicted of war crimes – has been released.

Plavsic was the highest ranking official from the former Yugoslavia to have pleaded guilty for her part in the Bosnian War. She was sentenced in 2003 to 11 years in a Swedish jail.

But a Swedish court has allowed her early release for good behaviour.

‘Hatred and fear’

At The Hague, Mr Karadzic, 64, faces two charges of genocide and nine more of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The former president of Republika Srpska, head of the Serbian Democratic Party (SDS) and commander of the Bosnian Serb Army has refused to enter pleas, but has said he will co-operate with the court to prove his innocence.

In opening remarks at his trial, the prosecution labelled him the “undisputed leader” of Serbs responsible for carrying out atrocities during the 1992-1995 conflict.

“This case is about that supreme commander, a man who harnessed the forces of nationalism, hatred and fear to implement his vision of an ethnically separated Bosnia: Radovan Karadzic,” prosecutor Alain Tieger said.

Mr Karadzic had “ethnically cleansed vast portions of Bosnia and Hercegovina” during the war, Mr Tieger said, describing him as a “hands-on leader who maintained direct contact”.

“In the course of conquering the territory that he claimed for the Serbs, his forces killed thousands of Bosnian Muslims and Croats, imprisoned thousands more in squalid and brutal camps and detention facilities, and forced hundreds of thousands away from their homes,” the prosecutor said.

Mr Tieger said that as well as witness testimony, some of the evidence against Mr Karadzic would come from intercepts of his own phone calls and transcripts of his speeches.

He quoted Mr Karadzic as saying before the war that Serb forces would turn the Bosnian capital, Sarajevo, into “a black cauldron, where 300,000 Muslims will die”.

Mr Tieger said witnesses who survived the long siege of Sarajevo would describe living “in constant fear, day after day, for years, knowing that they or their loved ones were targets”.

Empty chair

Announcing the court’s decision to proceed in his absence, Judge O-Gon Kwon said Mr Karadzic had chosen not to exercise his right to be present and “must therefore accept the consequences”.

He said the court would consider imposing a lawyer to represent Mr Karadzic if he continues to boycott proceedings.

Mr Karadzic is not due to give his opening argument until next week.

His legal counsel in Belgrade said he would reject any counsel imposed by the court.

Another of his legal advisers, Kevin Jon Heller, said that from the scope of the trial – thought to include 1.2 million pages of evidence, numerous crime scenes and hundreds of witness – it was understandable why Mr Karadzic, who is not a trained lawyer, had stayed away.

Mr Karadzic was taken to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague last year, after 13 years in hiding.

He was indicted in 1995 on two counts of genocide and a multitude of other crimes committed against Bosnian Muslim, Bosnian Croat and other non-Serb civilians during the 1992-1995 war, which left more than 100,000 people dead.

The charges relate to several events, including the campaign of shelling and sniper attacks on Sarajevo during the 44-month siege of the city, in which some 12,000 civilians died.

Mr Karadzic is also accused of being behind the massacre of more than 7,000 Bosniak (Bosnian Muslim) men and youths in Srebrenica in July 1995, and of attacks on more than a dozen Bosnian municipalities in the early stages of the war.

He faces a maximum sentence of life in prison if convicted.

Correspondents say the judges want to complete the trial by 2012, conscious that the trial of former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic ended without a verdict after four years when he died in custody.

Prosecutors have abbreviated the scale of their case, and will call fewer witnesses and include alleged crimes in fewer locations.

………………………………..

]]> http://bosnienidag.wordpress.com/2009/10/28/bildts-relationer-med-tva-storserbiska-krigsforbrytare/ Wed, 28 Oct 2009 03:17:19 +0000 bosnienidag http://bosnienidag.wordpress.com/2009/10/28/bildts-relationer-med-tva-storserbiska-krigsforbrytare/

Expressens Tonchi Percan klargör Carl Bildts relationer med de storserbiska krigsförbrytarna Radovan Karadžić och Biljana Plavšić:

..Carl Bildt och Biljana Plavsic var ett politiskt par i Bosnien mellan 1995 och 1997. Deras gemensamma projekt lyckades: att avsätta Radovan Karadzic.

..När Carl Bildt kom till Bosnien som Högste representant i januari 1996 var Biljana Plavsic vicepresident i Republika Srpska. I krig och i fred stod hon i Radovan Karadzics skugga.
Karadzic å sin sida stod i vägen även för Bildt; om det inte vore för honom hade Bildt gått till historien som mannen som fixade fred på Balkan. Men medan Carl Bildt marscherade mot sitt internationella genombrott beordrade Karadzic sina styrkor att inta Srebrenica. Efter massakern i Srebrenica – av Haagtribunalen klassad som folkmord – vägrade USA, Frankrike, Storbritannien och Tyskland att skriva under det fredsfördrag som Bildt hade kommit överens om med Slobodan Milosevic.
I stället bestämde sig stormakterna att tåga in Bosnien med 60 000 soldater för att straffa serberna. Det var då, efter det att Natostyrkan tagit över Bosnien, som det obegripliga inträffade. Soldaterna vägrade gripa Radovan Karadzic och överbefälhavaren Ratko Mladic, bägge två ansvariga för folkmordet. Natoledningen hänvisade till soldaternas säkerhet.

När Carl Bildt anlände till sitt kontor i Sarajevo i januari 1996 var det uppenbart att ingen rört ett finger för att hjälpa svensken. Han sågs som en civilist. Jag var där på kontoret den dagen. Inte en penna, inte en telefon, inte en dator fanns på kontoret.
Den som gjorde det svåra jobbet åt Bildt var Biljana Plavsic.
Hon gjorde det som Natostyrkan inte vågade göra: avsatte Radovan Karadzic från presidentposten och övertog den själv. Som president avsatte hon sedan även Ratko Mladic samt en polischef som var lojal med Karadzic.
Karadzic och hans män försökte därefter mörda Plavsic. Den internationella styrkan lyckades vid flera tillfällen rädda hennes liv. Flera statskupper mot Plavsic stoppades i sista stund och ett inbördeskrig mellan bosnienserberna var nära att bryta ut.
Utan Biljana Plavsic hade Carl Bildt inte lyckats med sitt uppdrag i Bosnien. Jag tror att såväl Bildt som Plavsic själv blev överraskade när krigstribunalen år 2000 väckte åtal mot henne.
Bildt borde givetvis ha avstått från att rösta om Plavsics frigivning med tanke på hur nära han stod henne..

©mørland/the times

The genocide trial of former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadžić began today at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in The Hague.
Karadžić faces 11 charges, including genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, which relate to the Bosnian War of the 1990s. He denies all of the charges.
Now 64, Karadžić had been in hiding for 13 years before being taken to The Hague for trial, which opened 14 years after the events to which it refers, and is expected to last until 2012. Karadžić announced on Thursday that he did not intend to attend the opening day, and it began without his presence. As he plans to defend himself, the trial could not continue.
Karadžić says he needs more time to prepare, and the trial has been adjourned until tomorrow to allow the judges to consider their options. If Karadžić fails to attend repeatedly, a defence lawyer may be assigned to him in order to allow the trial to continue in his absence.
The start date has been delayed twice, and a request by Karadžić for a further 10-month delay was rejected. He has also attempted to request that the charges be dropped on the grounds that former US mediator Richard Holbrooke offered him immunity in 1996 if he retired from public life. The court rejected this appeal.

Pressemitteilung der Gesellschaft für bedrohte bedrohte Völker (GfbV):

Gemeinsam mit überlebenden Opfern des Völkermordes in Bosnien demonstriert die Gesellschaft für bedrohte Völker (GfbV) zu Beginn des Prozesses gegen den mutmaßlichen Kriegsverbrecher und ehemaligen Präsidenten der Republika Srpska, Radovan Karadzic, am Montag vor dem Internationalen Kriegsverbrechertribunal in Den Haag. Die etwa 150 Srebrenica-Mütter und Delegierte von Opferverbänden, die direkt aus Bosnien-Herzegowina angereist sind, erwarten von dem Prozess, dass der Gerechtigkeit endlich Genüge getan wird. Die GfbV hofft, dass dadurch die Wiedervereinigung des geteilten Bosniens einen Schritt vorankommt.

“Der Westen muss die in Dayton festgeschriebene und von Karadžic herbeigeführte unmenschliche Teilung Bosnien-Herzegowinas als Folge des Genozids rückgängig machen”, fordert Tilman Zülch, Präsident der GfbV International. Nachdem sowohl der “Internationale Strafgerichtshof” (IStGH) als auch das “Internationale Strafgericht für das ehemalige Jugoslawien” (ICTY) (beide in Den Haag) Armee und Polizei der Republika Srpska für den Völkermord in Bosnien–Herzegowina verantwortlich gemacht haben, steht mit Radovan Karadzic nun einer der drei Hauptkriegsverbrecher wegen des gleichen Verbrechens vor Gericht.

Die GfbV bedauert, dass die Vereinigten Staaten und die europäische Staatengemeinschaft, insbesondere Deutschland, Frankreich und Großbritannien, mit dem Dayton-Abkommen (1995) die von Karadžic, Miloševic und Mladic eroberte und von Nichtserben ethnisch gesäuberte sog. Republika Srpska anerkannt und somit die Rückkehr von 60 % ihrer Bevölkerung und die Wiedervereinigung des im Krieg verwüsteten und zerstörten Bosniens unmöglich gemacht haben. Unter schwierigsten Bedingungen haben nur 6 % der Vertriebenen die Rückkehr gewagt.

Statt in Dayton die Einheit Bosnien-Herzegowinas mit seiner 500-jährigen multireligiösen Tradition wiederherzustellen, wurden die Verantwortlichen für Krieg und Völkermord belohnt. In der quasi unabhängigen bosnischen Teilrepublik Srpska dominieren bis heute in Behörden, Polizei, privatisierten Firmen, Justiz und Regierung hunderte von Personen, die führend an den Kriegsverbrechen beteiligt und für Massenvertreibung und Flucht der nicht-serbischen Bevölkerung, Massenvergewaltigungen, die Errichtung von Konzentrations-, Internierungs- und Vergewaltigungslagern, zahlreiche Massaker – unter vielen anderen auch in Srebrenica – sowie die Aushungerung und Bombardierung von sechs UN-Schutzzonen verantwortlich waren.

(Gesamte Pressemitteilung lesen)

weitere Pressemitteilung der GfbV:

Gemeinsam mit überlebenden Opfern des Völkermordes in Bosnien wird die Gesellschaft für bedrohte Völker zu Beginn des Prozesses gegen den mutmaßlichen Kriegsverbrecher und ehemaligen Präsidenten der Republika Srpska Radovan Karadzic am Montag vor dem Internationalen Kriegsverbrechertribunal in Den Haag demonstrieren. Etwa 150 Srebrenica-Mütter wie auch Vertreter der Opferverbände aus Prijedor, Brcko, Zvornik, Kotor Varos, des Verbandes der Lagerhäftlinge und der vergewaltigten Frauen aus Visegrad und Foca werden in Begleitung der GfbV-Sektion Sarajevo und Srebrenica direkt aus Bosnien-Herzegowina anreisen. Sie erwarten von dem Prozess, dass der Gerechtigkeit endlich Genüge getan wird. Die GfbV hofft, dass dadurch die Wiedervereinigung des geteilten Bosniens einen Schritt vorankommt.

Karadzic werde nun für die Gräueltaten seiner Truppen wie Massaker, Bombardements eingeschlossener Städte, Massenvergewaltigungen und -Vertreibungen zur Verantwortung gezogen. Das müsse jedoch auch bedeuten, dass den Opfern seiner Verbrechen so gut es geht Wiedergutmachung geleistet werde, forderte der Präsident der GfbV International, Tilman Zülch. “Vertriebene müssen endlich zurückkehren können, und die durch die so genannten ethnischen Säuberungen entstandene Republika Srpska muss aufgelöst werden.” Dies sei Voraussetzung für eine tragfähige Versöhnung der Volksgruppen. (…)

“Die Richter dürfen nicht zulassen, dass Karadzic aus dem Gerichtssaal einen Zirkus macht”, sagte Zülch angesichts der Weigerung des Angeklagten, vor dem Tribunal zu erscheinen, weil er sich angeblich nicht ausreichend auf den Prozess vorbereiten konnte. “Wer vier Jahre Zeit hatte, eine Vielzahl Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit anzuleiten und zu begehen, wer die Verantwortung für die Zerstörung von 1.178 Moscheen und Medresen trägt, wer sechs UN-Schutzzonen bombardieren und aushungern ließ, der sollte schon in der Lage sein, die Berichte über diese Verbrechen innerhalb eines Jahres zur Kenntnis zu nehmen.”

(Gesamte Pressemitteilung lesen)

Why would he not attend his own trial? Apart from the opportunity to take the piss.