FYI: Two worth giving a look: 

"Milosevic's Death in the Propaganda System," Edward S. Herman and David Peterson, ElectricPolitics.com, May 14, 2006

“Open Letter To Democracy Now! Milosevic's Trial and Death,” Dimitri Oram, Swans, May 22, 2006  

Friends:

Strongly recommend: "One-sided reporting that is delaying an end to the killing," Jonathan Steele, The Guardian, May 5, 2006.

 

My one caveat is that I strongly suspect that the so-called “Darfur Disconnect” greatly exceeds anything that Steele is capable of uttering. 

 

The next time an American (or a Canadian or an Israeli) presses the world about the “responsibility to protect,” be sure to ask of him or her when the last time was he/she pled with the world to intervene in their territory.

 

This Darfur thing may have been the most successfully P.R.-managed and serialized “crisis” since Kosovo's (ca. 1998-1999) and Bosnia-Herzegovina's before then (ca. 1992-1995).

 

Though it plays a helluva lot better in the English-speaking media when it's a “war of the rich” than any kind of competing story out of Africa.  No doubt about it.

 Still.  Just remember to sex-it-up.  And sex-it-up real good. 

 

 

 

Postscript.  For those of you interested in a summer research project: Try to determine how many "spikes of activity" the coverage of the "Crisis in Darfur" underwent over the course of the past 36 months.  For example, how many different times reports about the Darfur states in the western Sudan claimed that the crisis was escalating, reaching genocidal proportions, and the like, and invoking the imperative to "do something" about it.  Notice, too, how closely correlated were the "spikes of activity" in media coverage, on the one hand, with what was being reported about the crisis---but especially the "genocide" bit: Who was committing genocide?  Against whom? And who was advocating for more coverage of the crisis?  More action?  Last, remember that, throughout the entire period this conflict has been featured in the English-language media, with plenty of hand-wringers over the peculiar American moral failure of not taking strong enough action to prevent genocide in the Sudan, other conflicts were taking place with entirely different sets of characters and story lines.  An in at least some of these, no one could fairly accuse the Americans of failing to take strong enough action.  Since in fact the Americans were the perpetrators.

 

 

Graeme.

 "...but was a plant by the KLA.[snip]"

 I never said that Racak was "a plant by the KLA".  What I did say (or imply) was that the Racak 'massacre' scenario was touted by the infamous William Walker (of El Salvadoran death squad fame) as being a massacre.

 I again ask you to read the articles I linked in my latest message.  They are well researched, well buttressed with facts and footnotes and answer many of your criticisms.

 Personally, I'm a little miffed with many of the aspersions you have gratuitously hurled at me (something to the effect that I know more about matters in Yugoslavia than others).  Surprise, surprise, maybe I do.  Maybe I can actually read and write the language.  Maybe I actually know (and have a history) in that country.  You should reserve your personal attacks and limit yourself to attacking what is actually being stated and NOT what YOU perceive as being said.

 Don't know that I have defended Milosevic other than to state that many of the charges leveled at him (and the Serbs, in general) could just as well have been leveled at the 'Bosniaks', Ustasha and 'Kosovars' AND WEREN'T!  On the one hand you say that you are a peace lover and yet you seem to accept that Agim Ceku is the Kosovar PM (when he should be rotting in a cell in the Hague).

 You state that you believe in international courts and I would too...if the procedures and rules were anything akin to those known in most accepted courts.  The ICTY (which forms the precedent for the ICC) accepts anonymous testimony, hearsay and even double hearsay testimony, unsubstantiated media reports as testimony.  If YOU would willingly submit yourself to such a course, well, you have my condolences.  I, personally, want to have the right to face (and cross examine) my accusers.  I, personally, would never submit myself to a court that would admit hearsay evidence (he said, she said) simply because the probative value of such is minimal or less.

 I too know people who opposed Milosevic...when he was in power.  When he was defending not only himself but also Yugoslavs in general they supported him to a degree.

 I guess what it comes down to is that tho you do seem more receptive to points of view that are in opposition to the mainline NATO/US/Clinton line, you STILL rely far too much on questionable (Soros/IWPR/NATO) sources.  The problem with pathological liars is that, even when they tell the truth, having established a record of playing fast and loose with the truth in the past there is no way that you can trust ANYTHING they say.  The Boy who cried Wolf paradigm.

The other members of Ranta's team didn't make contradictory comments  becuase they were professionals who did their work and didn't go parading around the Western media making vague charges. If Ranta really wanted to be professional and not get involved in implicating the Serbs or interfering with the ICTY's work why didn't she keep her mouth shut until the investigation was done and then give the report not just her vague assertions about stuff like ballisitics which she is not qualified to speak on?
  What is so "grand" about the asumption that NATO leaders pressured Ranta? It seems a perfectly logical idea or assumption from the available evidence although it has not been proven. Likewise, the EVIDENCE not anyone's ideology point to Racak as a setup. Some of it I've reviewed, there is much more.   
  I don't doubt that your friends are good people or that you are as well. My concern is that you (pl) are/were basing your opposition to the former Yugoslav gov. partly or largely on NATO disinformation. If your friends were so opposed to western neoliberal imperialism and the NATO bombing did they oppose the "democratic Opposition"  which was funded by NATO bloc money, intimately connected to NATO bloc players and interests and ran on a neoliberal platform (even if the  opposition didn't advertise the platform as much as they could have) Why did some of your friends run out to smash up the same TV station that NATO bombed? I think putting Milosevic in the same category as the NATO bombing and Western neoliberal imperialism is nonsense and it's exactly what the NATO powers want. It's a great way to undermine resistance, lower opposition to the NATO bloc powers. Why fight for a gov. or a state that is just as bad as whatever the NATO Bloc program has in store? How can you compare a person to an action, actually a criminal campaign (the NATO bombing) or a destructive ideology (western neoliberalism)?  I do not see anything concrete that you have presented against either Milosevic or the Yugoslav gov. that was accurate. You have given so far as evidence 1)A garbage article from IWPR based on Suljagic's interpretation of a forged document 2) Some of the various statements Ranta made to the press which are NOT supported by the Finnish Report (and the report mentioned that all deaths except one were not close range among other points) 3) general claims with no specifics that you have borrowed from the NATO media. I also see no point in your statement that groups funded by foreign powers are not always wrong. I was obviously talking about this specific case. I said,"The platform and agenda of the opposition and the role of the NATO bloc in funding and supporting this group [in Yugoslavia] were clear to those who followed it." I would argue that you and your friends did not do so carefully enough. I do not think you realize the degree to which NATO"s strategy depended on pure lies and fabrications. Do you have any charges to present against Milosevic based on clear and genuine evidence versus on hearsay spin from some group funded by Soros and the US state dep.?    
 Another problem is that you put people who "reflexively disbelieve" NATO in the same category as people who "reflexively believe" NATO. So we have the 2 extremes, those who reflexively disbelieve a serial liar and criminal and those who reflexively believe the serial liar and criminal. Do you see a problem with this scenario?    
  I assume you are somewhat unfamiliar with Malic's work and ideas. He was never pro-Milosevic but he did support Milosevic's battle against the ICTY kanagroo court because that was about the truth not about Milosevic. The same is true of my arguments. It is not about Milosevic. It's about the truth. We're basically in agreement but I did have those problems with your claims and now I voiced them.  Anyways, that's  probably my concluding comment.

 

 Here is an article on what the US was doing in Sudan back in the late 1990s. This is highly relevant and sheds light on the current Darfur campaign.

The Guardian (London)

                                  May 1, 1998

SECTION: The Guardian Features Page; Pg. 20

LENGTH: 662 words

HEADLINE: Comment: Stop this war now;
The US could remove the threat of starvation for thousands of Sudanese

BYLINE: JONATHAN STEELE

BODY:

    WELCOME to the 1980s. Long live Ronald Reagan. Remember the
scenario - a
rebel group being trained and armed by the CIA to topple a sovereign
government,
cross-border incursions from secluded camps, and the whole
de-stabilisation
exercise backed by international sanctions and a massive propaganda
campaign.

    It sounds like Nicaragua or Angola circa 1984. In fact it's Sudan
1998. As
British television screens show emaciated children and warn of imminent
famine,
it is as well to put the crisis in context. Although the main cause is
three
consecutive years of drought, the potential for disaster is exacerbated
by Sudan
's civil war.

    Astonishingly, when the cold war is over and one might have thought
the lone
superpower would eschew such tactics, Sudan's conflict involves the
United
States and its long experience in military subversion. Madeleine
Albright, the
US Secretary of State, has won a reputation as a hawk. Tough statements
about
capturing Bosnian war criminals and condemnation of the Afghan Taliban
for their
treatment of women have earned her approving headlines.

    But here she was in Uganda in December visiting areas close to the
Sudanese
border, becoming the first senior American to meet the rebel leaders,
and
publicly pledging "to work to isolate the Sudanese regime". Standing
next to
her, Uganda's President Yoweri Museveni thanked the Americans for being
a
regional fire-brigade: "They have got a lot of experience in various
places, and
I'm sure we can benefit. They give us support, equipment, radios and so
on for
the army." It is an open secret that some of this crosses the border
and that
the CIA also uses Eritrea for efforts to aid the opposition in the
east. Sudan's
crime is to have an Islamic regime which the United States has branded
as
fundamentalist and a supporter of terrorism: Sudan had a visa-free
system for
Arab nations which meant it became a handy regional refuge.

    In fact, Sudan's human rights record is far from brilliant, but
this has
never been a reason for US de-stabilisation elsewhere. The Sudanese
government
is no more severe on opposition parties and the independent press than
are the
neighbouring governments of Eritrea, Ethiopia, and Uganda which
Washington
supports. Sudan respects women's rights far more fully than Saudi
Arabia, and
the royalist regimes of the Gulf or the Islamic governments of Iran and
Afghanistan.

    The conflict in southern Sudan is not a simple case of a largely
Arab north
against a largely Christian south, since there are numerous ethnic
divisions
among southerners.  The government in Khartoum has agreed not to impose
sharia
law in the southern federal regions set up under the new constitution.
It has
offered a referendum on secession. Desultory peace talks have been held
with the
rebels of the Sudanese People's Liberation Army under international
auspices,
although the last round was sabotaged by Mrs Albright's sabre -rattling
on the
border which emboldened the rebels. With new talks due in Nairobi on
Monday, it
is crucial that the rebels accept the ceasefire which the Sudanese
government
has offered.  The 350,000 people most at risk of starvation live in
rebel-held
areas.  Even without a ceasefire, aid is arriving thanks to United
Nations-brokered airdrops which the government has authorised after
initial
concern that the food would go to enemy forces.

    If the government accepts more daily flights than the current four,
the
worst will be over, provided people have a chance to plant seeds for
the coming
season. "There is time to avert catastrophe. We are at the beginning of
what
could become a deep famine, but we're not there yet," says Marie
Staunton, the
deputy director of the British arm of Unicef.

    The only hope of preventing famines in the future has to be peace.
Unless
the United States takes a neutral position, drops the double standards
and stops
arming one side against the other, the chances of compromise are nil.

Graeme,

 Please don't get me wrong, I'm not perturbed with you.  I have found that you have occasionally (as have I, I fear) put forth some statements that could have used more buttressing.  However, tho you may not have said "I also disagree that any nation would quietly allow itself to be dismembered, but I never said this so I don't see a problem."  you did, I thought, infer that Yugoslavia responded with violence to its dismemberment.  Well, that's kinda suggesting that, alternatively, Yugoslavia could (and maybe should) have acceded voluntarily to its own disincorporation.

 Nice to know your Canadian.  Studied up there at University of Western Ontario many long years ago.  Loved Canada and Canadians, most of 'em seemed at least a bit brighter and better educated than most of my own countrymen down here.

 So, don't go away mad...I just was thinking you weren't really hearing me.  I don't think ANY of the participants in the Wars of Yugoslav Dissolution were blameless but I did (and do) get particularly irked when I read much of the crap that comes out when things like Milosevic's death are written about.  "It was all the fault of the Serbs."  "Serbs are 'murderous assholes'.  'The poor, innocent Kosovar Albanians.' Etc., ad nauseam.  No one had clean hands, all were abusers when the circumstances lent themselves to it.  However, we should not forget that we DID favor Al Qaeda (and then, voila, 9/11) in Bosnia and Kosovo.  We did favor the Croatians and HELPED THEM commit war crimes (ethnic cleansing especially).  If we are screaming about the war crimes committed by one of the participants then we should scream just as loudly (and sanction just as heavily) all the other sides as well since all were guilty.  The extent of the guilt is a matter of question but I simply don't continence excoriating (and sanctioning and punishing) the Serbs while we make sweetheart deals with others at least as culpable.

Calling me a right-winger would be incorrect; calling me a liberal is just insulting. I do not support the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. I don't believe we have anything near the full story about what happened in the Balkans in the 1990s. I don't agree with the extremely one-sided demonization/victimization narrative of the Serbs as aggressors and everyone else as victims or bystanders propagated by elite interests and the media. I certainly don't agree with the criminal Richard Holbrooke (Kwangju, anyone?). I'm simply trying to draw out better arguments from you for what I think are some thus far poorly established points.

I also disagree that any nation would quietly allow itself to be dismembered, but I never said this so I don't see a problem. Sessessionist movements, whether right or wrong, often lead to horribly bloody situations. I can imagine my own country (Canada) possibly being an exception if Quebec ever does actually try to separate, but this is far from clear. The fate of Anglos and Indigenous (and sovereigntist Francophones) would have to be sorted out, and this process may be violent.

The problem in Yugoslavia was partially a legal one - the republics could secede, the provinces and ethnic enclaves could not. The Krajina and what became Republika Srpska were of course largely Serbian in the first place precisely to keep the federation together. You can imagine similar situations in other countries. Constituent SSRs were allowed to secede from the Soviet Union in 1991 but not autonomous republics within the RSFSR (what is now the Russian Federation). Hence Chechnya etc., and the ongoing difficulties with ethnic Russian minorities in Latvia and Estonia. The problems must not necessarily lead to war and civil/ethnic strife, but this is determined by the dynamics of the individual situation; clearly, they often do. Obviously foreign power interference just makes things worse.

Anyway, I don't disagree with much of what you say here so I'm not sure there is any point continuing with this subject. Perhaps we have simply misunderstood each other on certain points thus far. I will read your links but I really don't think they will change my opinion about the breakup of Yugoslavia, which is already probably more or less the same as yours.

"Fifth, Putnik was writing about what the Finnish report said. How are his charcaterizations of it "flatly false"?"

He described the report as "conclusively proving" (or something to that effect) that Racak wasn't a massacre but was a plant by the KLA. This is indeed flatly false. All I ever said was that the report was inconclusive. No team members have ever made contradictory statements about Ranta's remarks, and as for whether she was politically motivated to implicate the Serbs: she refused to outright say whether she thought there was a massacre at Racak or not, apparently on the grounds that she didn't want to interfere with the ICTY investigation. Hardly the words of a vicious anti-Serb extremist. The fact is that the head of the investigating team has made public remarks that don't tend to support the Racak-as-plant theory. She may be lying, wrong or whatever. But this has to be established with facts, not wished away. 

Look, for the record, I think Racak probably wasn't a massacre, at least the way it was described by NATO. There are a lot of questions about it that make me question the dominant narrative, to say the least. But making grand assumptions about things (Ranta must have been pressured, incompetent or whatever) because your ideology has made it unthinkable that Racak even could have been a massacre is as problematic for me as unthinkingly accepting NATO's story.

The rest of what you write I basically agree with. I recommend Chomsky not because he is necessarily 100% right about Yugoslavia (about which he is hardly an expert), but because he so decisively demolishes the case for war against Serbia in 1999 even while accepting some of the stories (true or false) about Milosevic and Yugoslavia. He also recommends Johnstone's book, by the way, even if he doesn't agree with her conclusions on every point.

As for "being strongly against the Yugoslavian government:" so was I. So were all of my friends in Belgrade, some of whom helped storm the TV building in 2000. They are good people, and as opposed to the NATO bombing and Western neoliberal imperialism as they were to Milosevic. You don't have to agree with the enemy of US power to be opposed to the unlawful use of that power against that enemy. Lots of opposition groups are foreign-funded. The American revolutionaries were funded by France. The Yugoslav Partisans in WWII were aided by the Western powers. This doesn't ipso facto invalidate said opposition.

Again, of course we have to treat what NATO/NED etc. say with great caution. This is a truism. We should treat whatever anybody says (especially anybody with any power) with great caution. But this isn't the same thing as "disbelieving" anything a certain group or individual says just because you don't like them (the US press does this all the time). Quoting NATO doesn't mean you agree with NATO, or are "furthering its disinformation" or whatever. Chomsky quotes Wesley Clark all the time, in his effort to discredit the '99 campaign.

I agree with your analysis of NATO's strategy vis a vis Serbia. I just don't think you have to be pro-Milosevic (my problem with Malic, for instance) in order to be anti-NATO. One can certainly be anti-Saddam Hussein without being pro-US military.

The reasons for the focus on Schiavo were obvious. They had nothing to do with "the American President's sentiments [being] genuine and true and expres[ing] the will---not only of the American public, but the world public as well" - I would doubt that the will of the world public ever factors into Bush's calculations - but were more related to simple politics, a fact that became so blatant even the right eventually backed off of the issue.

I suppose the point you are trying to make is that Darfur is a similar scenario on a much larger scale. Given that it is being focused on over many other comparable or even worse situations, I can see your point, but nonetheless this doesn't make Darfur an issue unworthy of attention independently of how it is actually being covered. In addition to this of course, the fate of one PVS person, however tragic, isn't really comparable to hundreds of thousands of murdered people in Darfur, as I'm sure you're aware.

Dear Graeme,

 

To put an end to this, obviously, unproductive discourse I will leave you with the following.

 

First, I don’t believe you to be a ‘right-wing nut’, quite the contrary.  It was mostly the so-called ‘liberals’ who howled from early on in full voice for the massacre of the Serb ‘murderous assholes’ (Holbrooke).  This even though the plans for the dismemberment of Yugoslavia were begun and championed under Reagan (Kirkpatrick and Dole) and instituted under Bush I (recognition of Croatia and Slovenia in contravention of the Helsinki Final Act).

 

Secondly, I believe we are arguing at cross purposes.  I am NOT contending that the Serbs were any sort of angels; what I AM contending though is that, due to the disproportionate amount of disinformation and propaganda the Serbs have been put in an incomparably bad position and ANY argument made to the effect that they may NOT be evil incarnate is considered, especially by the cruise-missile left, as apologia and ‘revisionist’ history.  Much like the Shrub is now saying that those that are trying to point to the contention of Iraq’s possession of ‘WMDs’ and its ‘connection’ to Osama and 9/11 are ‘revisionist’ history.

 

Thirdly, I AGREE that war, any war, is a brutal murderous business and civil wars, by their very nature, are among the bloodiest and most brutal.  A quick look at our Civil War (1861-1865) should prove this to be true.  Any examination of virtually any civil war demonstrates a similar level of brutality.  All that being said, I have to DISAGREE with your premise that virtually ANY nation would consent to its own dismemberment quietly.  The case of Czechoslovakia truly is an aberration.  However, if you were to look into it a bit more deeply you would see that Czechoslovakia disintegrated along its natural fissure lines, Czechs on one side and Slovaks on the other.  The situation in Yugoslavia was completely different for a wide variety of reasons.  Among them is that Yugoslavia was torn apart along post-WWII political and not ethnic boundaries.  Where it was approved of and allowed for say Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina to secede from Yugoslavia the Serb areas of Krajina in Croatia or Republika Srpska in Bosnia were denied this self same ‘right’.  “What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.”

 

Lastly, I highly suggest that you read the articles cited below to gain a better understanding of the points Dimitri and I have been trying to make.

 

The Origins of the War in the Balkans

 

The U.S.-NATO Military Intervention in Kosovo

Friends:

A superb commentary by John Pilger: "The War Lovers," New Statesman, March 27, 2006 (as posted to the Information Clearing House). 

Makes me wonder how many crusading Matt Freis, Michael Ignatieffs, Samantha Powers, and David Rieffs there are out there, "intoning," as Pilger puts it, "not so much their love of war as their sales pitch for it on behalf of the court to which they are assigned"?

Imagine what kind of socio-psychological malady lies behind this ardent desire to serve the Emperor!

Imperial Court Weavers---every last one of them.

 

 

 

First, my apologies for misreading Petersen as Peterson and all that. Second, the Der Spiegel piece really appears to be just their reading of the ICTY's prosecution report and as I've said before it's old and contradicted by evidence from the trial.  Third, the Finnish team's expert report by people who are professionals is obviously more important than Ranta's vague statement at a press conference (I believe that she also claimed that she considers ALL killing a "crime against humanity") or her later staements to the newspapers based on an investigation that we all agree was highly compromised. Fourth, the Finnish team's report as opposed to Ranta's claims to the public basically matches the reports done by Belorussian and Serbian experts. Fifth, Putnik was writing about what the Finnish report said. How are his charcaterizations of it "flatly false"? What's in the report is in the report regardless of what Ranta may have said to the press at some other point in time. And  if Ranta's statements and the report are wildly different then I say we can acuse Ranta of propagating disinfo. or at the very least say she was representing herself only and not the finnish team or her colleagues.  There is a lot of additional evidence that Racak was not a massacre. i do not have time to get into it here now and I cannot unfortunately post active links to this site. We can get inmto it more later or else I can leave it alone for the moment. We both presumably agree that there  is a lot of evidence it wasn't what the NATO powers said it was and that it was used to pave the way for the Rambouillet ultimatum and the NATO bombing.

 The Milosevic-MUP connection is false. What is the evidence that it is true? It's just one of those things that everybody says becuase it's part of the official story. If it was true why would IWPR (and more importantly the ICTY prosecution) have to come up with a false document?
 There are a lot of things that might sound like "paranoid conspiracy theories" to members of the public that are true (MKULTRA, the Contra-crack connection, project paperclip, a lot of stuff from folks at Z for that matter) it doesn't make them false. I said earlier to treat the NED, NATO etc. stuff with great caution. I must emphasize this. I certainly agree that we should examine the evidence and we must do it very carefully. Needless to say, the mass media and the western press often don't make things that contradict the dominant line too readily accessible. Something is true or false based on evidence and not just becuase someone says it but we must still be skeptical of the claims of outrageous liars like NATO, NED, and so on. No one claimed you were pro-nato. One can be highly critical of NATO and repeat things that are NATO disinformation. I've done it as have many others. 
Regarding Chomsky, he was pretty strongly against the Yugoslav Gov. He repeated some very harsh claims against it in his book New military Humanism, claims which haven't checked out. He stated that the ICTY indictment of Milosevic was "long overdue", made passing reference to Milosevic's "atrocities", the "diastrous policies" of the Yugo. gov. and so on all without presenting serious evidence but instead relying on claims made by some of the most biased or compromised sources around. NC made supportive remarks about a grossly corrupt and foreign funded opposition, failed to really challenge the charge that the Serbs engaged in a campaign of atrocities or ethnic cleansing in Kosovo despite ample evidence and some common sense that this was not the case. He even cheered the "Democratic opposition" (complete W/paramilitaries) when it stormed into power (W/ NATO support and after massive western intervention in the Yugoslav elections) on a neoliberal program. The platform and agenda of the opposition and the role of the NATO bloc in funding and supporting this group were clear to those who followed it. The info. was accessible to those who checked the web, there were a bunch of details in the western press and even the New York Times ran an article with good info. People tried to bring this to his attention but he dismissed it or downplayed it. Johnstone wrote a piece with a contrary opinion. He exposed the NATO hypocrisy, the US and Western role in atrocities elsewhere, the damaging effects of the NATO bombing and so on. But he also failed to properly challenege the claims made against the enemy gov. and he repeated some of those claims in passing despite evidence to the contrary.  He does and has done lots and lots of good work and I learned a great deal from it and am grateful but he's also not infallible and I believe he made some serious errors in some of his work on yugoslavia. The point is that Milosevic was being attacked not for who he was but becuase of Serbia and the easiest way to attack and demonize Srbia, the Serbian/Yugoslav peoples and the gov. program which was not sufficiently neoliberal and pro-Empire and far too independent was to attack Milosevic. The NATO bloc powers and their presses did that, they played on splits between the people of FRY and between the Serbs themselves, they played a large role in building up a corrupt opposition (although a lot of ordinarty people in it were genuine folks who just wanted a better life), they played a huge role in getting this opposition into power and when Djindjic et al got in they did what they could to turn Serbia into a vassal state. The war crimes accusations  have nothing to do with holding Serbian war criminals accountable. It's about a different agenda entirely and this agenda is continued after Milosevic's death just as it was after his illegal extradition to the Hague.

Thank you Graeme for your lucid comment. You made the point much more eloquent than I did.

David,

Again I am not sure what point you're making with the Terri Schiavo rant. While I often disagree with you, I do not expect you to sink to such level in order to trivialize Darfur. I hope that is not your intention.

As noted before, you seem to have the habit of reflexively dismissing the "main stream" media's preoccupations as propaganda regardless of the merits of the situation in question. So 1+1 must = 3 since the main stream opinion is that it is 2. At least to me that seems to be the message you convey with your various commentaries.

You accuse the media and the government of more interested in politics than humanitarinsm by over blowing Darfur(no doubt true for many in the government and SOME in the media) But I may just turn the table around and accuse you of the same.

I fail to see how Congo somehow negates Darfur as a legitimate concern. Following that logic why aren't you dismissing the Palestinians as whiners? No matter how bad Israeli occupation is it doesn't compare to Congo or Darfur.Why beating your chest over Jenin? After all there were only 70 or so deaths comparing to fatalities in the thousands in Darfur. 

Your complaint about the media's neglect of Congo strikes me as insincere.Based on your apparant modus operendi, if and when Congo receives the attentions it deserves you would be the first one to accuse the media of uterior motives(which may very well be true but it is secondary)

In addition to being morally reprehensible, your apparant unwillingness to take a firm stance against the thugs in Karthom,--I would not go as far as calling you an apologist, but it comes close with your derisive tone,-- only succeeds in making your opinions irrelevant and lends credence to the right that leftists are more interested in U.S bashing than human rights. I hope your position is not typical of the left or Kristol and his ilks would have a free hand in framing the issue.

Finally, many human right activitists have raised the red flag about Darfur way before the Bush administration takes any interest. If you recall there has been(is?) a great deal of reluctance to label Darfur as "genocide" from the admin. Apparantly a genocide would madate interventions and the U.S was(still is?) not willing to commit to any real action other than verbal condemnations. The reality seems to contradict your insistance that the admin is dying to find an excuse to intervene.

Friends:

 

When the case of Terri Schiavo became the focus of intense legal, political, media, and public attention back in October, 2003, and then again especially in the weeks prior to her death on March 31, 2005, do you suppose that the reason for this attention was the unique attention-worthiness of this single case of a woman living in a permanent vegetative state?  And that, in the words of the American President (March 21, 2005), "our society, our laws, and our courts should have a presumption in favor of life. This presumption is especially critical for those like Terri Schiavo who live at the mercy of others"??? 

 

Why then, and how, did this particular PVS become attention-worthy?  Was it because the American President's sentiments were genuine and true and expressed the will---not only of the American public, but the world public as well?  And what about the remainder of the PVSes residing in the United States of America?  While the fate of Terri Schiavo was deemed attention-worthy, were these 10,000, or 25,000, or 50,000 other PVSes whom nobody heard a word about therefore attention-unworthy? 

 

 

 

If I may comment here, I think the two of you are arguing at cross-purposes; David is trying to explain *why* and *how* situations like Darfur are covered by the US press; bwong is concerned that this focus misses or ignores what *should* be done in crisis situations, be it Darfur or anwhere else.

For my own two cents, I understand David but I think I rather share bwong's concern. Darfur may not be alone on the Hunger Map, but there is a lot more going on in Darfur than hunger: systemic rape, massacres and ethnic cleansing shouldn't be ignored no matter where they occur, who the alleged victims and perpretrators are, or what vested interests are at play. David, I think your writing on this topic is useful and badly needed, and is an important counter to the extremely propagandistic coverage of the situation by the likes of Kristof. However, agreeing with you on the vast majority of what you write above, I would still ask you the question: what *should* be done about Darfur? I understand the power and political issues involved, but silently standing by to make a point about how media manipulation works doesn't sound like much of a solution either.

Realizing that a balanced view of the various "crises" in the world probably isn't a likely eventuality at the moment, shouldn't we do what we can, where we can? Isn't a focus on Darfur at least a focus on somewhere? We may ignore the Congo, West Timor, Central Africa at el, but isn't that better than ignoring all of these AND the Sudan? Or are you claiming that the situation isn't really that bad in Darfur? Or that it probably is very bad but forcible intervention would very likely only make it worse?

You ask "why are so many people struggling for survival in sub-Saharan Africa held up to standards that the rich folk dwelling in relative peace within their regions of the world refuse to observe?", and this is a good question, but one may also ask "why do those rich people refuse to help the poor when they are being slaughtered?" As bwong says, I doubt whether these victims would particularly care who they are saved by.

You also note that

"In the States (and elsewhere as well), whole consciousness-raising campaigns have been predicated upon---far less the existence of a horrific situation in the Sudan, than upon the chance that these campaigns have created for individuals and movements to condemn Arab eliminationists and to spout phrases such as “Never again,”" 

and this no doubt accurately describes the behaviour of certain cynical Western elites and their allies in the press, but I think it does a disservice to the many committed activists and people of good faith throughout the West who really do care about the crimes being committed in the Sudan and would like to help in whatever way they can to suggest that this description applies to *everyone* concerned about Darfur. Yes, there are other crises to focus on, and yes, power interests dictate which ones get covered, but this doesn't mean Darfur isn't a crisis worthy of attention in and of itself, regardless of these externalities.

For an historical analogy, consider that it may have been in the US and UK's interest to decry the brutality of the Nazis 65 years ago while ignoring their own crimes, but this doesn't mean the very real victims of the Nazis didn't deserve help, even if it was only the hypocritical Western powers (along with the USSR of course) who could come to their aid. It was important then (as it is now) to expose this hypocrisy, but surely not to the extend of advocating remaining silent about Nazi crimes unless and until our own states were perfect. A similar case can be made for Darfur today (not that Darfur is clearly the world's worst crisis the way Nazi aggression in Europe was, or that the Sudanese are even close to the the power of the West the way Nazi Germany was vis a vis the Allies, but I feel the comparison is still valid). 

Perhaps you can comment on this.  

First of all, I said Petersen, not Peterson (referring to Soren, not David). I don't think that any of the people you listed are "reprehensible." By "the rest" I meant the administrators of UNMIK, NATO etc. who are able to casually dismiss accusations against Ceku for blatant power interests while focusing so much on Milosevic.

As for your claims: if you want to attack Ranta's credibility, go ahead. I agree she's not a ballistics expert, and she may quite likely be wrong. But I also referred to the Der Spiegel investigation, the UN etc. My point isn't that Racak definitively was a massacre but that Putnik's characterization of the Finnish investigation into the incident was flatly false. You can't go around saying the Finnish team "conclusively proved" there was no massacre when the lead investigator says the exact opposite in the press and then accuse other people of propagating disinformation. My problem with Putnik is that he seems to simply ignore any information that contradicts his beliefs.

Saying Ranta wasn't "under oath" is a similar type of argument: so what? Would you take what she said more seriously if she were? Do you seriously expect her to change her position 180 degrees the minute she steps into a courtroom?

What you write above about IWPR is mostly fine, because you are attempting to debate points based on evidence. I don't know much about the details of the Milosevic-MUP connection, and it may indeed be an entirely false accusation. But if it is false it is false because of the evidence, regardless of which website it comes from or whether NATO agrees with it or not. The problem I have with the way Putnik and (to a certain extent) you are arguing is the way you both tend to adopt paranoid conspiracy theorist-type arguments: "NATO said that! It can't possibly be true!"

The same goes for accusing me of "repeating NATO disinformation:" I am doing no such thing. I am providing sources which may clash with what you and Putnik believe (sometimes just for the sake or argument), but this isn't the same thing as arguing on behalf of NATO. For the record, I am definitely NOT pro-NATO on this issue. I don't know how many times I have to say this. 

It is important of course to recognize who funds what and all the rest but this isn't conclusive evidence of anything. Sometimes it is in the interest of power to tell the truth (almost always selectively of course), sometimes not. You have to establish that something is false because it is demonstrably untrue, not because the NED funded it. It doesn't make any more sense to reflexively disbelieve NATO than it does to reflexively believe it. Sometimes Rumsfeld quotes Amnesty International. Does that mean AI is lying when it talks about Abu Ghraib?

Not EVERYTHING NATO says is a lie just because NATO said it. Not everything is disinformation. Again, I mention Chomsky, whose The New Military Humanism and A New Generation Draws the Line both demolish NATO's arguments using *mainly NATO sources.* Just running around screaming "NATO lies!" isn't going to convince anybody of anything. You can cite all the underground websites you want but you have to argue against power on its own terms if you want to have much success.

 

 

   Graeme., you repeated stale disinfo. from several grossly compromised sources: IWPR which i commented on earlier, Helen Ranta's old statements to the press (not under oath) on a grossly compromised investigation at racak and she is a dental expert not a ballistics expert so not qualified, and a  stale newspaper piece on a 6 yr. old report from the ICTY's prosecution investigators on racak. You mix garbage like this in with some perfectly reasonable points. In some cases you attribute statements to Putnik that he did not make or you take things entirely out of context. You say we can still search for the truth together and that should not be based on ethnicity or ideology but should involve compassion. you make a plea to move on rogether but then you say you think that "petersen et al are reprehensible" providing no reason for this quite strong and hostile statement and without defining who et al is. (Diana Johnstone? Joihn Laughland? Nebojsa malic? Putnik? me?)
I didn't say you had to take my word for anything. I said to read the transcripts. I mentioned the website slobodan-milosevic.org because it carried summaries of the testimony which were basically accurate in my opinion and checked out well against the transcripts. Like I said read the reports and the transcripts for yourself. The fact is you are not familiar with the trial and you are still repeating NATO disinformation. Why for instance, did you post that hysterical IWPR piece trying to link Milosevic to  CRoatia and Bosnia and the massacre at srebrenica? IWPR is funded by NAtional endowment for Democracy, SOros, US state dep. british foreign office etc. Its funders, its agenda and its bias should make it obvious that it is not a credible source on these matters. Read Babovic's testimony (cross-examination) for yourself and you'll see the kind of fraud he is. He testfied on June 13 & 16, 2003. Check the Trial link David posted up top.    Likewise, Suljagic's hyped "Milosevic link" to Srebrenica was disproven by witness testimony and a lot of other documents including the Dutch report on Srebrenica. Check the document and you will see that the document is not signed, it is not stamped, it is not on official letterhead, it is typewritten. Anyone could have produced this and it has the look of a blatant forgery. When a grossly biased reporter like Suljagic working for an institution of NATO propagnda (IWPR) funded by the NATional Endowment for Democracy, the US state dep. and the like produces this pathetic "document" following a biased article which quotes the NATO Kangaroo court ICTY prosection and indictments and doesn't show much else you really should be able to smell the stench of West Bloc Disinfo.
 I do not share your optimism in regards to International courts given the volume of disinformation and the tremendous disparities in resources. the ICC is off to a terrible start

Bwong:

You may mistakenly ascribe to me a "derisive tone concerning a very horrific situation," etc. ("I still don't get it").  There is nothing I can do about this.  The last time anybody checked, the corridors of the U.S. Department of State, Harvard University and the International Crisis Group, the New York Times, and, last, the new International Criminal Court in The Hague, were not undergoing humanitarian crises.  Nor were the people whose livelihoods are tied to these institutions severely undernourished, without shelter, food, or potable water.  So where you ascribe to me positions that I myself do not hold, I will simply ignore them.  Rather than respond.

My derision is directed toward the manipulators of horrific situations.  And I don't just mean the political manipulators, either.  For example, whatever roles may be assigned to sub-Saharan Africa in long-range U.S. Government planning scenarios.  But also the moral manipulators---the people heralding from the North, the "satisfied" (green) regions of the world for whom horrific situations are not just horrific situations in need of understanding and assistance.  But objects to be dominated.  And above all objects over which to sit in moral judgment. 

The point in sharing the Interactive Hunger Map that the World Food Program maintains (and I honestly can't say how accurate it is---so let's just assume that it is an approximation of the contemporary world) is that an examination of sub-Saharan Africa shows not only multiple severe crises, but the greatest concentration of them, geographically, in the contemporary world.  Why are so many people struggling for survival in sub-Saharan Africa held up to standards that the rich folk dwelling in relative peace within their regions of the world refuse to observe?  And by whom?  Who's to sit of judgment of whom?  And why, out of all of the people struggling for survival in sub-Saharan Africa, have the rich folk selected the "Crisis in Darfur"?  Well.  Look at how the "Crisis in Darfur" has been framed (e.g., the eliminationist Arab nationalists of Avineri's commentary---Khartoum's willing executioners).  Then, look at how much coverage this particular crisis has received.  Do you suppose there is any correlation between the amount and nature of the coverage this crisis has received, on the one hand, and how the crisis has been framed, on the other? 

In the States (and elsewhere as well), whole consciousness-raising campaigns have been predicated upon---far less the existence of a horrific situation in the Sudan, than upon the chance that these campaigns have created for individuals and movements to condemn Arab eliminationists and to spout phrases such as “Never again.”   

Though, Bwong, to be perfectly honest: I believe that you do "get it." 

 

David,

It is late and I am somewhat slow. So I will be brief.

I still don't see what your point is.

Are you arguing that there is NO human suffering in Darfur or that some Western officials advocate interventions with uterior motive?

If it is the latter I have already said that it does not surprise me because NO power would take a position in any crisis situation without self serving reasons, what you say about  "white" interventionists  having vested interests equally applies to the Arab  league "non interventionists", for example. This should be self evident to anyone who shares Chomsky's view on the nature of nation states.

But it does not follow that there is not a real humanitarian crisis in Darfur that deserves interventions (I don't mean carpet bombing, mind you). I doubt that the victims would feel more digified being killed and raped by Arabs than perhaps be saved by "Whites" who may have uterior motives. I think your insinuation is bordering on racism.

Whether the interventionists are truly interested in human rights does not concern me. The point is real people are being raped and murder on a daily bais in Darfur. To snidely dismiss this horrible event "cause célèbre" is frankly, offensive.

I don't know what  point you're trying to make with Kristof's article. You have not provided any evidence to counter his factual claims(like there is no mass killing, systematic rape and burining of villages) Are you trying to highlight that the article is "Arab bashing" because he suggested Arab Chuvanism played a role in the massacres and that the Arab league had been very quiet about it? Well if that is your point (I am not sure) I must say you have some very strange priorities and that your observation is about as clever as Israeli apologists noting that some critics of Israel are anti-semites.

I also cannot see why there are worse abuses and disasters in Africa elsewhere is an excuse to ignore Darfur. Well by that logic it is fair to question why the Palestinian situation becomes the left's "cause célèbre". Afterall  if you go by your hunger map the West bank is nowhere on the radar and there are worse human right abuses by neighbouring countries like Egypt and Iran.

Sorry if I sound harsh. But with due respect I take great exception to your derisive tone concerning a very horrific situation.

Friends:

The very last two sentences of my opening paragraph ("Reply to Bwong and Graeme") ought to read: Perhaps as early as the fall of 2003.  But certainly no later than the spring of 2004.

Sorry.  But the software is preventing me from making these corrections in the text of the post.  Where they belong.

Bwong and Graeme:

Take a look some time at the Interactive Hunger Map that the World Food Program maintains on its website.  Aside from the ten "Hot Spots" (somewhat arbitrary, though by no means completely), take an even closer look at the four maps for West Africa, East Africa, Central Africa, and Southern Africa.  In these four geographic zones alone, you tell me how may green-colored (i.e., from zero through 4% of the population at risk from lack of nourishment), yellow-colored (5-19%), orange-colored (20-34%), and red-colored (35% and up) countries the World Food Program is reporting.  And then please try to explain to me the whys and the hows the "Crisis in Darfur" was selected as the "cause célèbre" (Samantha Power's own phrase---"Dying in Darfur," New Yorker, Aug. 30, 2004) for the Great White Interventionists, almost all of whom herald from the decidedly green regions of the World Food Program's Interactive Hunger Map.  Perhaps as early as the fall of 1993.  But certainly no later than the spring of 1994.

(Hint: See "Darfur - exposing Arab goals for what they are," by Shlomo Avineri, reproduced below.  It provides---as in betrays---the single best short explanation not only for why the "Crisis in Darfur" was selected as the "cause célèbre" of the day.)

Now.  I will grant both of you the case that other factors are involved.  But my experiences in the world make it very difficult for me to accept that it is the sufferings of humanity that have been packaged and sold under the banner of the "Crisis in Darfur."  And if you can stomach a first-class Moral Tartuffe on this one, also take a lool at "Genocide in Slow Motion," by Nicholas D. Kristof, in the February 9 New York Review of Books.  (Apologies, in case this link has ceased to work.)

 

The Jerusalem Post
August 3, 2004, Tuesday
SECTION: OPINION; Pg. 15
HEADLINE: Darfur - exposing Arab goals for what they are
BYLINE: Shlomo Avineri
HIGHLIGHT: Genocide, racism and political hegemony. The writer is professor of political science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

The EU and the UN have finally decided to take the first timid steps to try to put an end to what it happening in Darfur in the Sudan.

The recent report by Human Rights Watch on Darfur corroborates the worst suspicions of those who have followed developments in western Sudan. There have been killings on a massive scale, expulsions, the systematic torching of villages and - last and not least - the use of rape as a weapon of intimidation and humiliation against the province's black population.

These are not just the depredations of unruly Arab militias. They are the instruments of the Arab-dominated government in Khartoum in its war against the black, non- Arab population of the province.

This is, of course, not the first time Sudan has been involved in violence against its non-Arab population. For decades the Sudanese government has been trying to suppress an insurrection of black tribes, mainly the Dingas, in the South. In that case Khartoum was trying to impose Islamic law on the Southerners, who are mainly Christians and animists.

In Darfur, those oppressed by the Sudan government are themselves Muslims. But in both cases, the Khartoum government has been engaged in oppressing and brutalizing black, non-Arab population groups.

International public opinion - obviously slow to react, as in the case of Rwanda, to a horror in a far away land, where the victims are blacks and the details appear murky - has, however, overlooked the wider context in which these actions have occurred.

ONE OF the characteristics of Arab nationalism - epitomized in the official ideology of the Arab League - has been to view the region as exclusively Arab. Obviously, the majority of the population in the arc stretching from Morocco to Kuwait are culturally and linguistically Arab.

Yet by calling it "the Arab region," Arab nationalist discourse states not only a demographic fact but also presents a normative entitlement: In the book of mainstream Arab nationalism, there is only one legitimate nation- bearing people in the area - the Arabs.

This exclusivist, hegemonic aspect determines much of Arab politics.

Hence there is no Arab voice accepting the rights of the Kurds in northern Iraq for self-determination; hence the difficulties of Algeria in accepting the Berbers - and their language - as a legitimate political component of the country; hence the violent opposition to the attempts of the Christian Maronites to mold a slightly different identity for Lebanon; hence the angry response in Egypt when the issue of the Christian Coptic is raised. The Egyptian riposte has consistently been that there are no minorities in Egypt.

It is in this context that the deep unwillingness to accept the legitimacy of Israel has to be understood.

If any nation in Central or Eastern Europe were to maintain that it has the monopoly of being a Staats-Nation (to use a historically discredited German term), nobody would accept it - and international opinion would, justly, brand it as racist and chauvinistic.

This, however, is at the core of the belief system of Arab nationalism. The violence in Sudan - as well as the current violence in Iraq, aimed, among others, also against Kurdish autonomy - is just a more violent expression of the same pernicious thread running though dominant Arab political thinking.

No wonder the Arab League, so vociferous on other issues, has been silent.

What is happening in Darfur is much worse than what Slobodan Milosevic tried to do to the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. Nobody wants to see the international community involved in another humanitarian war in Africa.

But the issue in Darfur is not just a need for more or quicker humanitarian aid. It is the consequence of a deep, far-reaching version of ethnocentric Arab nationalism, and it has to be robustly confronted, intellectually and politically, for what it is.

 

 

 

Thanks for the article, but I think you two are really misreading me. I KNOW about the double standards. I KNOW Agim Ceku is a bloodthirsty monster, perhaps the single worst criminal in the entire sordid story, fighting against Serbs in two separate wars not because he is a nationalist but because he evidently just hates Serbs. Yes, he should be locked up immediately and the key should be thrown away. Harudinaj and Thaci should join him. So should Oric (he is there actually) and various Croats and Bosnian Muslims, and probably some more Bosnian Serbs too. I am *not* in favour of the ICTY only or mainly focusing on Serbs, and if it continues to do so I think the whole thing should be shut down, okay? But I am also not willing to accept the self-serving fiction that Serbs are purely victims and all the other sides are purely aggressors. As I said before, this is the mirror image of the dominant framework, and is just as skewed (if nowhere near as common).

Look, I've been to Serbia, and Croatia, and Slovenia. I  have friends in these places. I've talked to the people there. From what I can tell people on all sides were victims throughout that whole fucked up decade, and the disintegration of Yugoslavia was one of the worst tragedies of the latter half of the 20th century (helped along only too eagerly by the Western powers, as is usually the case). But everybody did some things they shouldn't be proud of either. This doesn't mean I don't think the search for the truth shoud continue, but really, it shouldn't be about sectarian lines or competing ethnicities or whatever, but about compassion for everyone involved. Can't we try to move forward somehow?

I also think Petersen et al rest are reprehensible. What I would REALLY like to see are Clinton, Blair and the rest lined up wearing prison shackles and explaining themselves to the world. But it's usually the lower-level dealers that go down, not the Mafia dons. That's just the way things work. Some gangsters truly are untouchable. Remember Bush's promise to invade The Netherlands should even a single US serviceman ever be brought to The Hague?

I don't know what the answer is. I don't think we should throw away International Law just because it is being subverted at the moment (like everything else) to power interests. After all that's how the UN (and arguably even the US Constitution) started out, but things can change. I think the "special tribunals" should be scrapped and the ICC used instead, and indictments should only be issued based on votes in the General Assembly on the recommendation if INTERPOL and the world's various police forces. It still won't be perfect. It will still be open to the manipulation of power interests (like everything else). But I just don't think criminals should be able to get away or hide under the protection of the state, no matter who they are, just because they are leaders: why should only the biggest criminals get to go free? Beter to start somewhere. I really think the concept of international courts has potential. Why not try to reclaim the idea rather than simply give it up to the powerful?

By the way I know about Medak too. It was Canada's largest combat operation since Korea (they had several brief firefights with Serb forces as well in Bosnia). What do you want me to say? I'm not an advocate for Croatia!

"I am not clairavoyant or psychic. I did, however, follow the trial and that is something you did not do judging from your responses. You may look at the transcripts which you see David posted a link to above."

So did plenty of people in the Western press. So did the prosecutor, who appears pretty confident Milosevic would have been found guilty. Why should I take your opinon over theirs? Their biases and agendas are obvious at least. 

"Likewise you can see reports from the trial at http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org. They have ben pretty accurate and certainly nothing like the grotesque pro-NATo apologetics and distortion one sees at the CIJ or SENSE news or IWPR or the mainstream press."

"Accurate" in this sense being a subjective thing of course (i.e., you agree with them). The fact that they are "nothing like" NATO distortion by itself doesn't say much.

"First, does a sovereign country have the right to defend itself from attack on its own territory?"

Yes, but who attacked Yugoslavia? These were secessionist wars, remember? It was a choice to respond with military force, not a necessity. Furthermore, even self-defense isn't blanket justification to do anything. We all know that self-defense is routinely invoked to justify all kinds of crimes, and even in genuine cases, law and morality apply. 

"I mean, probably there were some crimes and violations committed by the Sandanista army during the 1980s as it fought the Contras. Does that mean the Sandanista leaders should be put in trial for "war crimes" under the principle of "command responsibility"?"

Yes. If international law is to have any meaning, it must be applied equally. If there were abuses and crimes that could be proven, anyone involved in them should be prosecuted for them. This goes for the Sandinista treatment of the Miskitos and everything else (real crimes, not invented ones). Innocence and guilt aren't pre-determined by ideology, even if it is an ideology I happen to agree with. Nothing excuses violating human rights, even if yours are also being violated. I will say though that state leaders have special responsbility for the actions taken by those under their command, moreso than in nonstate organizations.

"Second, Yugoslavia filed charges against hundreds of its soldiers. Obviously, this was a serious response to crimes committed. Of course, no country can actually arrest every single person responsible for every single crime their forces commit in a war. But the Yugoslav government did at least try."

If this is true it's a step in the right direction. But I'm not convinced. Governments just don't do that, unless they are compelled to. 

"In contrast US leaders blatantly sanctioned torture, war crimes etc."

Again, contrasting something to something else much worse to make it look good only by comparison isn't much of an argument. 

"I have not seen ANY evidence that US soldiers were well-acquainted with international law or the like. If you have some feel free to share it."

As I said above, consult the US Army manuals. Dept. of Defence spokespeople talk about the "utmost care" US troops take in adhering to the rules of combat all the time. I give such talk about as much credence as I give to the military command of any other state (very little), but they still talk about it. 

"There was NO document produced despite unprecendented access to Yugoslav archives showing that the Vj forces were told to commit even one crime."

Of course not. Do you suppose you can find a document anywhere linking Bush to Abu Ghraib? Nobody is ever "told" to commit a crime. That's not how it works.

"As for the opposition press one must treat sources funded by thre NATional endowment for democracy, the US state dep. etc with great caution. I never said the whole opposition were stooges of the CIA but key elements were/are bought out and acting in the interest of foreigh powers. The G17 wrote the neoliberal program for the "democratic opposition" and they went about enacting it after they took over in 2000."

All well and good but B92 broadcast interviews with Chomsky during the bombing of Belgrade for God's sake. Hardly the model of pro-Western interventionism. 

"As for Srebrenica, Diana Johnstone and numerous others including Ed Herman and David Petersen did reject the term of "genocide" so do I and I think Chomsky should as well."

I don't. I think Chomsky's case is much more effective and powerful by refusing to even be drawn into such unwinnable debates. The point is, the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia was grossly and obviously wrong EVEN IF MOST OF THE CLAIMS ABOUT THE SERBS WERE TRUE! (I'm not saying they were.) This is the point I think we should all be focussing on. Professional crime-denying only gets everybody into a lot of trouble, and for no good purpose.

"Read my lips, "The JNA was withdrawn from Slovenia and Croatia in 1991-1992; it was withdrawn from Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1992."

I can read, thanks. When did I say otherwise?

"Well, unsurprisingly enough, it usually IS "the strongest side in the conflict" which is LEAST LIKELY to commit crimes. As was the case in our own Civil War, it was the irregular forces, both Union and Confederate but particularly Confederate who committed by far the greater number of egregious crimes, especially against civilians and surrendered and unarmed combatants. By their very nature, irregular forces are LEAST LIKELY to adhere to any ‘laws of war’."

Actually this would be extremely suprising. In fact it is absolutely preposterous. Up until now I have at least respected your arguments but this is practically obscene. Did the Maquis and the Yugoslav Partisans commit more crimes in Europe than the SS? Has the Iraqi resistance killed hundreds of thousands of American civilians in Iraq? Did the Chechens obliterate Moscow? Did the Timorese Falantil level Jakarta? Did the NLF carpet bomb New York? Did Vietnamese Special Forces massacre the population of Des Moines, or cut off the heads of infants in Chicago? Did the PKK destroy hundreds of Turkish towns? Did Mayan fighers exterminate tens of thousands of Guatemalan soldiers? I can easily go on. Even your Civil War analogy is absurd. Ever hear of the March to the Sea?

Generally, crimes of war are directly proportional to one's ability to a) commit them, and b) get away with them; in other words, directly proportional to one's power. This is pratically a universal constant of war. Individual irregular "units" might be more likely "per capita" to engage in low-level crimes, but they will never approach the awesome destructive power of official state forces. Not because they are better people, but because they simply don't have the resources. Any modern air force is capable of destruction on at least an order of magnitude greater scale than any terrorist or paramilitary group that has ever existed could ever conceive of, and in a much shorter time frame. How many guerrilla groups have depleted uranium, or thermobaric bombs, or WMD, or bunker busters, or cluster bombs, or fighter bombers, or cruise missiles, or strategic bombers, or white phosphorous, or ICBMs, or napalm, or aircraft carrier battle groups? As I said, it would be highly suprising to me if the most powerful side in a conflict (any conflict) ever got more than it gave.

Anyway, Milosevic also had access to the MUP, both in Bosnia and Kosovo, or is it your contention that the head of government of Yugoslavia controlled neither his own military nor his own interior ministry? See http://www.globalpolicy.org/intljustice/tribunals/yugo/2003/0619milosreb.htm for a claim linking Milosevic to MUP activities in Srebrenica.

"...the JNA (as well as the Union forces) were responding ‘legally’ (we can debate this elsewhere but you get my drift). The way that it was represented in the Western press was that the JNA had ‘attacked’ variously Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo. This is as mad an argument as that the National armed forces ‘attacked’ the Confederate states; that National forces were stationed in the Confederate states goes without question…until their secession they too were part of the National state…just as was the situation in Yugoslavia."

Yes, as I noted above. I know how the Western press reported it, and it was largely wrong. But the genocide of Native Americans was mainly conducted on the national territory of the United States, often (at least nominally) in response to actual attacks by Natives. There was nothing particularly *illegal* in this sense about official American suppression of what were mainly legally American citizens who represented a threat to the state. As I said, national sovereignty is no excuse for evil. Union forces did attack the Confederate states by the way. This isn't in question, whatever you think of the moral or legal issues involved.

"WRONG! This was the statement coerced from Ranta (under extreme US pressure) before the forensic investigations were even completed. The final report of the Finnish forensic team absolutely disproved the ‘massacre’ designation."

No, it's not wrong. I've already explained the problem with the "massacre" claims. You are clearly letting your ideology get in the way of the facts. Ranta made her position clear in an interview with the Dutch newspaper NRC Handelsblad in March 2001 (in which she said she wanted to dispell some of the "nonsense" that had been published about the Racak investigation):

"If we had found nothing in the ditch... then it would have been entirely a set-up by the Albanians... But lying there were bullets, bullet shells, and even still a body part of one of the victims. That this was lying here was important, and how it was lying even more important."

According to Ranta, the physical evidence was consistent with a massacre, not a set-up. See http://www.fair.org/press-releases/racak-update.html.

Don't get me wrong, I have my own problems with the investigation. For one thing, it wasn't conducted until 9 months after the incident is alleged to have taken place; during most of that time British troops controlled the area. In regular courts of law that might very well make the evidence unreliable and inadmissable. Then there are Thaci's claims that the incident was a firefight. There are also other indications that something other than the official story happened that day. But nothing has been "absolutely disproven [or proven]" at all. At least one of the dead was determined to have been shot at close range. Others may or may not have died in combat. But your certainty is troubling. When confronted which bothersome facts you resort to completely unsupportable claims like "Ranta was pressured by the US." She may have been, but how do you know? Was she under "extreme pressure" when she gave her interview to the Dutch newspaper, when she described attempts to portray the event as anything other than the murder of civilians "nonsense?"

"As far as the dead being civilians…how do you determine that an irregular combatant is a combatant and not a civilian? Irregulars seldom wear uniforms. Civilians bearing arms (and using them) self define as ‘combatants’. Again, you unwittingly use another piece of imperialist disinformation to form your opinion."

Why is it more logical to assume it was all a setup? If you found dead people lying in the street would you immediately suspect the whole thing was a frame-up? It may very well be that some of the dead were combatants, but this is pure speculation. The German magazine Der Spiegel's investigation of the controversy concluded that

"U.N. investigators concede that perhaps half the victims were aides to or sympathizers with the KLA," the report says. Though "defenseless civilians at the time of their deaths," these victims had also "carried out attacks and assassinations of Serbian officials and establishments or had approved of them [emphasis mine]." Just "a few days before the massacre," the report says, some of these victims "fought against the advancing Serbs" near Racak. (According to the Geneva conventions, it is a crime to deliberately kill unarmed enemy sympathizers or prisoners of war.)"

Again, I must emphasize: "defenceless civilians at the time of their deaths... [under international law] it is a crime to deliberately kill unarmed enemy sympathizers or prisoners of war." I'm beginning to wonder if your definition of war crimes is so narrow that it's no suprise you are denying so many of them. It doesn't matter what the political affiliation of civilians are, they are still civilians: if al-Qaeda were to blow up only Republican former soldiers in Iowa, it would hardly be any less of a crime than if they killed Green Party pacifists in Berkeley. Civilians are civilians.

I'm not claiming to know the whole truth about Racak but it is far from clear that those killed were "irregular combatants bearing arms" at the time of their death, and it is absolutely preposterous to label such uncertainty "unwitting [reliance on] imperialist disinformation." My opinion is based on the facts, such as are available; what is yours based on?

"Okay, just what happened? As far as Srebrenica is concerned, the so-called UN ‘safe haven’ had been used as a base for military operations by the Izetbegovic government. Nasir Oric, the commander of the Srebrenica garrison, had been leading raids against the surrounding Serb villages, massacring approximately 3,000 Serb civilians over a period of years. The very existence of an armed military garrison in a so-called ‘safe haven’ was in stark violation of the very terms of the ‘safe haven’ agreement."

I'm aware of all of these facts. It's like you think I'm some kind of right-winger or something.

"Additionally, over 5,000 of the supposedly ‘genocided victims’ of Srebrenica were listed as ‘missing’…many of these ‘missing’ have subsequently turned up alive and well or were KIA in other actions at other times and places in Bosnia."

I know, but that still leaves quite a few people who were killed. Herman and others have concluded that the real numbers might be something more like 700-800 killed, many of whom likely died in battle but some of whom were executed (for God's sake, there is video evidence in at least a few cases). So the crime was grossly exaggerated, yes. Now, suppose somehow it was determined that actually *only* 2 million Jews were slaughtered in the Holocaust. 6 million is unquestionably a gross distortion of 2 million. Would that make the Holocaust okay? What if the number was only, say, 800,000? 500,000? Where is the cutoff point for making the crime acceptable? Obviously I'm not comparing Srebrenica and the Holocaust, but come on: accurately counting the dead and saying there were no dead are two *vastly* different things.

"As regards the ‘breadline massacres’ it is more than slightly suspicious that the media were advised by the Izetbegovic government to be present at the market for the first massacre and were there when the massacre occurred. In regards to the Markale market ‘massacre’, an article by David Binder shows conclusively that bomb crater teams (British and Russian) both agreed that the crater could NOT have been caused by a mortar round fired from ANY Serb positions but that this conclusion was PREVENTED from being entered into the record by the US forces."

Could be. Again, imagine some Nazi crimes being disproven. Important to the historical record, yes, but hardly the end of the story. I do find it rather interesting that you are constantly implying unspeakable evil on the part of the enemies of the Serbs (Izetbegovic shelled his own people to appeal to the Western press), but imply be extension that no Serbs ever did anything wrong. It's like you are the exact mirror image of the gross distortions and exaggerations from the other side.

"But, what I am trying to point out is that much of what you base your opinion on is, quite literally, disinformation."

This is pure dogma speaking. You don't know what I base my opinions on, and only resort to such straw man implication because you don't like my conclusions. As I said, I base my opinions on facts.

"It is almost impossible NOT to do so because that disinformation (and, the exclusion of any contrary information) is so pervasive."

Except for the enlightened few, eh? Sounds familar...

"If you’ll remember, Madeleine Albright, at the time US Ambassador to the UN, was waving around satellite photos ‘proving’ that there were mass graves and a massacre at Srebrenica. However, just like Joe McCarthy and his ballyhooed list, Albright never allowed anyone to see those photos and, more to the point, with the fine toothed combing of the area NONE of these ‘mass grave sites’ were produced. Certainly, there were ‘mass graves’…however, the point that is never made that many of those in the mass graves were Serbs…many massacred by Oric’s murderous crew."

I know.

"One must be extremely careful in dealing with a situation where the waters have been as muddied as here."

Absolutely. This applies to us all.

"I've read the testimonies from Srebrenica survivors." Yes, and hardly a 'disinterested party' I would posit."

This is just bizarre. Would you describe the testimony of Jewish Holocaust survivors "hardly 'disinterested parties'?" The testimonies I am referring to don't speak of a grand Serb plan to exterminate their loved ones: they are confused, rambling and sometimes contradictory reports of eviction and lonely marches through the cold wilderness, as is common in the recollections of traumatized victims. They do speak of crimes: some directly witnessed, some indirectly witnessed, and some hearsay. They are in and of themselves not overwhelming proof of anything. But they do constitutre valid evidence of the event. For you to so cavalierly dismiss them reinforces once again my impression that you simply discard anything that doesn't fit in with your narrative. Do you honestly think they are all just making it up?

"Again, let's look back at the Civil War. According to the accepted (Union) history, there were no rapes committed on Sherman's march. However, talk to the residents of Georgia whose descendents still live there, the story is much different."

That's my whole point: "According to Yugoslav authorities, there were no rapes committed by Serb forces in Bosnia. However, talk to the residents of Bosnia and and the story is much different." Why are the long-dead residents of Georgia more trustworthy than still-living women in Bosnia?

I'm not as trusting of Sherman as you are. It was his intent, after all, to "make Georgia howl," and he succeeded. Rape is a tool of warfare. Was then, is now. No surprise it was used throughout the South in the 1860s (and the Balkans in the 1990s).

"In so vast a movement of men it is IMPOSSIBLE to account for each and every one (command responsibility be damned) and those troops that even temporarily slipped the leash of their superiors could and sometime did abuse the population IN CONTRAVENTION OF THEIR ORDERS. What I'm saying here is that, yes, there probably WERE instances of murder and mayhem at Srebrenica BUT I also contend that it was not ordered or sanctioned by Mladic or any other commander."

Ah, so now Mladic is innocent too is he (there "probably" was murder at Srebrenica?)? Who's your next client, Arkan? See above for a convenient list of invading armies who "contravened their orders," just as they were fully expected to. The Abu Ghraib prison guards and the My Lai soldiers also just "temporarily slipped the leash of their superiors" right? Are you fucking kidding me?

Read the US army manual on the rules of engagement vis a vis civilians: all very nicely spelled out, having been gone over with a fine-toothed comb by tons of lawyers, making sure nothing untoward is officially recommended. But we all know what kind of behaviour is unofficially sanctioned. Your claims that Yugoslav and Serb forces were the sole exceptions to this rule in the history of warfare just ring hollow, I'm sorry.

It may very well be that it is impossible to account for each and every soldier in wartime, even if the military and political leadership are as pure as the Dalai Lama, but that is why command responsibility can't be "damned:" Jesus, even Israel found Sharon "indirectly responsible" for Sabra and Shatila. Is it so much of a stretch to hold the Serbian leadership to the same lofty standards? Again, Bush is responsible for the conduct of those under his command in Iraq, Aghanistan etc. Waging an illegal war in the first place is the major crime, but the conduct of his soldiers in those wars is a valid issue itself. This principle should apply universally, if it is to have any meaning at all.

Dimitri,

Thank you for your comment.  I truly appreciate it.

Graeme,

To show you what I (and I believe) Dimitri are trying to say about the skewed and perverted take on the entire Yugoslav/Serbia/Kosovo, I append below an article which, I believe, demonstrates just how warped the view is.

"B92 (Belgrade)

March 23, 2006

PETERSEN ASKS FOR DISREGARD OF CEKU INDICTMENT

PRISTINA -- Thursday - UNMIK chief Soren Jessen-Petersen is urging international community to disregard Interpol's warrant for the arrest of Kosovo PM Agim Ceku.

A letter that was brought to the notice of AP news agency reportedly cites Petersen as saying that UNMIK does not admit the validity of the warrants against Agim Ceku and Hasim Taqi.

AP did not specify who was the recipient of the letter, but reveals the UNMIK chief's assertion that the UN had jurisdiction over Kosovo and that the warrants against Ceku and Taqi were violating this principle. Petersen reportedly said that the Interpol warrants for the arrest of Ceku and Taqi had to be set aside because both had to be allowed to move around freely.

Ceku's visit to Brussels, during which he talked to Javier Solana and Jap de Hop Shefer, indicates some countries have already accommodated Petersen's request. Ceku said that NATO would stay in Kosovo after the issue of its future status is resolved, adding that he could not rule out outbursts of violence during the status-defining process, but that they were highly unlikely. Ceku said the solution for Kosovo would be what the majority want it to be and that the minority would accept that solution, because theywould realize that it will suit their interests as well.

"As you are well aware, we are a European state with a clear orientation towards EU and NATO membership. We are very pleased that the EU has opened a European perspective for Kosovo and we have a clearly defined plan for European integration. We are using this agenda for the development of Kosovo as well. I am glad to have talked to Solana in Brussels and to have convinced him that in Kosovo we are thinking of nothing but the European perspective and development of Kosovo in line with European standards. I hope we shall become part of the EU very soon", said the former KLA commander.

Serbia has issued an international warrant for Ceku's arrest on count of war crimes charges. Hasim Taqi is also charged with war crimes by the indictment rasied at the District Court of Pristina."

In direct opposition of what was done with Milosevic, i.e., his indictment essentially by NATO during NATO's illegal attack on his country, here we have the (allegedly) impartial UNMIK chief Petersen pressing for the international community to disregard Interpol's warrant for the arrest of Ceku.

"Petersen reportedly said that the Interpol warrants for the arrest of Ceku and Taqi had to be set aside because both had to be allowed to move around freely."

Gee, and I'm sure Milosevic wanted to be "...allowed to move around freely." so that he could have had the medical attention it is now obvious he was entitled to and did not receive.  Ceku, let us remember, also committed egregious war crimes and crimes against humanity during the Croatian "Operation Storm" which lead to the single largest event of ethnic cleansing between WWII and the NATO/KLA inspired 1999 Kosovo exodus.  I urge you to read Scott Taylor's description of the Canadian peacekeeper's experience in the Medjak pocket in Krajina.

 

 

Bwong:

 

Again, please read the recommended piece.  The fact is that the US, Britain and Belgium supported the RPF invasion of Rwanda and have continued supporting the RPF even today as it massacres its way through the Congo. Rwandan pres. Paul Kagame got training at Leavenworth. It was the RPF which shot down the plane with Rwanda's president which started the major massacres of 1994 off and the RPF is repsonbsible for many of them even though they have ALL been blamed on Hutu. Yes, we are VERY priveallged to be able to use the library or internet to try to discover the truth. What always amazes me is that most of the Left would rather recite nonsense from the NY Times and attack the odd critical article that comes along. It's not that I am saying that the the West should have intervened in 1994 or shouldn't have intervened in 1994. I'm saying the West DID intervene in 1994, it intervened earlier and it is STILL intervening today and its intervention has always been toxic and detrimental. The West intervened in forcing multiparty elections and structural reforms on Rwanda, it intervened ibacking the RPF invasion from Uganda, it intervened in legitmiating that invasion and demonizing the rwandan Gov.'s attempt to fight it (no, i am not claiming the Rwandan Gov. was w/out sin or even particularly good), it intervened by forcing a grossly distorted gov. sharing scheme on the Rwandan Gov. which gave disproportionate power to the RPF (tutsi dominated), it intervened by using the supposedly neutral UN force to destabilize the Gov. more, it intervened by withdrawing  most oft he peacekeepers when they were needed most and the US intervened by blocking more peacekeepers from coming. The RPF for its part publicly opposed a peacekeeping mission from at least the end of April on. There is much, much more but please read the piece. And don't buy the line that everyone was hacked up with machetes. From what i hear many, probably most people died due to modern weapons --guns, tanks etc.  the idea that in modern time (1994) nearly 800,000 people were hacked up with machetes is just the hollywood version of Africa.

 

 

 Putnik:

 

   Basically, you are right on.

 

Graeme:

 

  I am not clairavoyant or psychic. I did, however, follow the trial and that is something you did not do judging from your responses. You may look at the transcripts which you see David posted a link to above. Likewise you can see reports from the trial at http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org. They have ben pretty accurate and certainly nothing like the grotesque pro-NATo apologetics and distortion one sees at the CIJ or SENSE news or IWPR or the mainstream press. But feel free to contrast them with the transcripts. Regarding Yugoslav war crimes (real and alleged): First, does a sovereign country have the right to defend itself from attack on its own territory? I mean, probably there were some crimes and violations committed by the Sandanista army during the 1980s as it fought the Contras. Does that mean the Sandanista leaders should be put in trial for "war crimes" under the principle of "command responsibility"? Do you remember the screeching about "genocide" against the Miskito Indians? Second, Yugoslavia filed charges against hundreds of its soldiers. Obviously, this was a serious response to crimes committed. Of course, no country can actually arrest every single person responsible for every single crime their forces commit in a war. But the Yugoslav government did at least try. In contrast US leaders blatantly sanctioned torture, war crimes etc. I have not seen ANY evidence that US soldiers were well-acquainted with international law or the like. If you have some feel free to share it. The testimony I referred to came from defense witnesses Stevanovic, Farkas, Gojovic and numoerus others. If you want me to find the dates of testimony and further names I can do that. There was NO document produced despite unprecendented access to Yugoslav archives showing that the Vj forces were told to commit even one crime.  As for the opposition press one must treat sources funded by thre NATional endowment for democracy, the US state dep. etc with great caution. I never said the whole opposition were stooges of the CIA but key elements were/are bought out and acting in the interest of foreigh powers. The G17 wrote the neoliberal program for the "democratic opposition" and they went about enacting it after they took over in 2000. As for Srebrenica, Diana Johnstone and numerous others including Ed Herman and David Petersen did reject the term of "genocide" so do I and I think Chomsky should as well.  The claims I am making may be unpopular but that doesn't make them wrong.  I am interested in telling the truth and engaging in open debate. Doubtless, I am not answering some of your questions and there is muc more but we can continue later. 

 

 

 Bwong:

 

   It seems pretty clear that you have not read either of the pieces I recommended above and below. (In the interst of disclosure keith snow is a friend of mine.) I cannot yet post active links to this blog (or I would have done so) because of some  mixup and probably I'll have to getr a new password and start again which I will do eventually. I did however tell you where to go to get the pieces and the one on Congo is posted right on Znet under the Africa section the one on rwanda is at http://www.allthingspass.com.  Regarding Darfur, I never tried to "simply dismiss the horror of Darfur out of hand" nor did I " write off Darfur because of suspect U.S motives". I have no doubt that people are being killed there and that the Sudanese government is responsible for some very nasty stuff.  I do, however, question the media version of Darfur very strongly given some of my knowledge, the forces behind the media and the pattern of orchestrated media hysteria.  i believe i asked you if you knew anything about the history of US involvement in Sudan, Dyncorp in Darfur etc. I am assuming from your answer that you do not.

"One can honestly debate what kind of actions to be taken."
 

 One cannot honestly and accurately debate the actions to be taken if one is working from false or grossly distorted premises. I hold that the dominant narrative, repeated not only by the corporate press but also overwhemlingly by the alternative media is one-sided, laced with glaring  omissions, distortions and false assumptions.

 

" The Chinese are cozying up to the Sudanese goverment"

Where have I said anything in praise of China's actions in Sudan or elsewhere and why are you acting as if I did?  

"I am not sure why he(and you) is lamenting the fact that Congo has not been getting main stream attentions. This is a paradox, because if it does get any such attention it would be automatically and reflexively dismissed by the same people as mere U.S propaganda."

 You do not seem to understand what I am saying at all. Please read the piece on Congo I mentioned above. If the US or Western press covered Congo's suffering at all that would be a step in the reight direction. But does that mean we wouldn't be allowed to question Western media coverage at all? You are making emotional arguments and not presenting any evidence to support your claims.

"I think some of what I read here (regarding Ruwanda, Darfur) is beyond "cautious". It is like the European left in the 1950's who dogmatically rejecting all testimonies of Stalin's atrocities as imperialist lies"

 I never "dogmatically rejected" all claims of atrocities in Darfur, Rwanda or elsewhere. I never even (nondogmatically) rejected all claims of atrocities. I do however question the official line strongly and believe there is much more to the picture than we are being shown.

“Oh come now, are we really going to get into a "who's the bigger victim" game here? There were aggressors and victims on all sides. The JNA had the arms and resources of a state behind it; every other side had to make do with a makeshift army, especially at the beginning of the various wars. It would be peculiar indeed if the strongest side in the conflict was the one least likely to commit crimes and most likely to be victimized.”

 

Okay, here we go again, history time.  Read my lips, “The JNA was withdrawn from Slovenia and Croatia in 1991-1992; it was withdrawn from Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1992.”  You also say, “It would be peculiar indeed if the strongest side in the conflict was the one least likely to commit crimes and most likely to be victimized.”  Well, unsurprisingly enough, it usually IS “the strongest side in the conflict” which is LEAST LIKELY to commit crimes.  As was the case in our own Civil War, it was the irregular forces, both Union and Confederate but particularly Confederate who committed by far the greater number of egregious crimes, especially against civilians and surrendered and unarmed combatants.  By their very nature, irregular forces are LEAST LIKELY to adhere to any ‘laws of war’.

 

“Yes, the JNA more or less reflected the ethnic makeup of Yugoslavia: largely, though certainly not predominantly Serb, and certainly not a Serb force. And there are Arabs in the US Army in Iraq. Look, I'm not arguing for the standard party line here. I don't for a minute believe the JNA was trying to establish a Greater Serbia or any such nonsense, but was trying to keep the country together. But like the Northern forces in the US Civil War, it wasn't perfect just because it had the imprimatur of the state behind it.”

 

I never contended that the JNA (or the Union forces) were perfect; what I was trying to point out was, however, that the JNA (as well as the Union forces) were responding ‘legally’ (we can debate this elsewhere but you get my drift).  The way that it was represented in the Western press was that the JNA had ‘attacked’ variously Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo.  This is as mad an argument as that the National armed forces ‘attacked’ the Confederate states; that National forces were stationed in the Confederate states goes without question…until their secession they too were part of the National state…just as was the situation in Yugoslavia.

 

“That's not true. Helena Ranta, the lead investigator, said she couldn't comment on whether or not a "massacre" took place because that was a legal term and the forensic science could't determine that, but that Racak was a "crime against humanity," and there was no doubt that civilians were killed there. On the other hand, Hashim Thaci has said the incident was a firefight. But the Finnish report was inconclusive at best.”

 

WRONG!  This was the statement coerced from Ranta (under extreme US pressure) before the forensic investigations were even completed.  The final report of the Finnish forensic team absolutely disproved the ‘massacre’ designation.  As far as the dead being civilians…how do you determine that an irregular combatant is a combatant and not a civilian?  Irregulars seldom wear uniforms.  Civilians bearing arms (and using them) self define as ‘combatants’.  Again, you unwittingly use another piece of imperialist disinformation to form your opinion.

 

“Yes but see this is what I mean. The babies-from-incubators story was made up out of whole cloth by the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador with coaching from a US PR firm. To compare that to the Srebrenica and Sarajevo massacres makes you look like a Holocaust denier. Srebrenica, camps and various other crimes absolutely did happen (hardly "non-events"): they might have happened radically differently from the way they are perceived and commonly talked about, but these things still happened. I've read the testimonies from Srebrenica survivors. They don't necessarily prove the dominant narrative, but they don't say "gee, nothing happened, we just went for a walk and the Serbs gave us flowers" either. You mentioned earlier the confustion that persists in the US about 9/11, but 9/11 did happen. Crimes that are subverted and exaggerated and taken out of context they might be, but they were still crimes.”

 

 “…Srebrenica, camps and various other crimes absolutely did happen (hardly "non-events"): they might have happened radically differently from the way they are perceived and commonly talked about, but these things still happened….”  Okay, just what happened?  As far as Srebrenica is concerned, the so-called UN ‘safe haven’ had been used as a base for military operations by the Izetbegovic government.  Nasir Oric, the commander of the Srebrenica garrison, had been leading raids against the surrounding Serb villages, massacring approximately 3,000 Serb civilians over a period of years.  The very existence of an armed military garrison in a so-called ‘safe haven’ was in stark violation of the very terms of the ‘safe haven’ agreement.  Additionally, over 5,000 of the supposedly ‘genocided victims’ of Srebrenica were listed as ‘missing’…many of these ‘missing’ have subsequently turned up alive and well or were KIA in other actions at other times and places in Bosnia.

 

As regards the ‘breadline massacres’ it is more than slightly suspicious that the media were advised by the Izetbegovic government to be present at the market for the first massacre and were there when the massacre occurred.  In regards to the Markale market ‘massacre’, an article by David Binder shows conclusively that bomb crater teams (British and Russian) both agreed that the crater could NOT have been caused by a mortar round fired from ANY Serb positions but that this conclusion was PREVENTED from being entered into the record by the US forces.

 

Again, I’m not trying to make excuses for the Serbs nor contend that they were lily white and pure as the driven snow…hardly.  But, what I am trying to point out is that much of what you base your opinion on is, quite literally, disinformation.  It is almost impossible NOT to do so because that disinformation (and, the exclusion of any contrary information) is so pervasive.  If you’ll remember, Madeleine Albright, at the time US Ambassador to the UN, was waving around satellite photos ‘proving’ that there were mass graves and a massacre at Srebrenica.  However, just like Joe McCarthy and his ballyhooed list, Albright never allowed anyone to see those photos and, more to the point, with the fine toothed combing of the area NONE of these ‘mass grave sites’ were produced.  Certainly, there were ‘mass graves’…however, the point that is never made that many of those in the mass graves were Serbs…many massacred by Oric’s murderous crew.  One must be extremely careful in dealing with a situation where the waters have been as muddied as here.

"I've read the testimonies from Srebrenica survivors."  Yes, and hardly a 'disinterested party' I would posit.  Again, let's look back at the Civil War.  According to the accepted (Union) history, there were no rapes committed on Sherman's march.  However, talk to the residents of Georgia whose descendents still live there, the story is much different.  Granted, I DON'T believe that Sherman gave orders to or approved of his troops raping the civilians but, have you heard of the 'bummers'?  In so vast a movement of men it is IMPOSSIBLE to account for each and every one (command responsibility be damned) and those troops that even temporarily slipped the leash of their superiors could and sometime did abuse the population IN CONTRAVENTION OF THEIR ORDERS.  What I'm saying here is that, yes, there probably WERE instances of murder and mayhem at Srebrenica BUT I also contend that it was not ordered or sanctioned by Mladic or any other commander.

 

I know exactly what you mean bwong. I feel bad for those old guys for what they had to go through but to portray them as somehow heroic (or worse, that we owe our "freedom" to them - are people really that grossly ignorant of history?) is a bit much. The thing is, it's rarely the vets themselves who talk about war in that way. If they do talk about it all, its typically not to glorify it, but something to the effect of how immature they were back then but they had a duty or whatever. It's only people who know nothing about war who try to make it into something grand and heroic.

Nuremberg was victor's justice but its not like just the Italians were prosecuted or something. It's not just that Milosevic is being singled out for the ICTY but that he wasn't even the main bad guy in this story. I'm no defender of Milosevic but for the West to so blatanly play sides and pick one to prosecute not for what it did but because it was in their way really reduces the legitimacy of the Court, in my eyes.

It would be as if California, Massachusets and New York tried to secede from the US, the US sent in federal troops to prevent this from happening, Canada and Europe armed and supported the secessionist states, atrocities were comitted on all sides, then in the aftermath only the US President was prosecuted, all so that Europe could bring the rebel states and eventually the US itself into the EU on its terms. Clearly something would be wrong there. That said, I do agree that the substance of Milosevic's actions should be addressed regardless of the context, if only to make that case better. I agree that "others were bad too" isn't much of an argument, if that's the *entire* argument. I certainly think there is more that can be said however.

I understand what you mean about David but I don't really think that's exactly what he's saying. Perhaps he can answer himself to clarify.

All I would say it that if outright Western intervention is only likely to make things worse (as is often the case), then intervention isn't the answer.

"I challenge you to prove your contention without using US/NATO disinformation.  Yugoslav forces were withdrawn from Bosnia rather early on (1992).  I can prove that the JNA forces for far more sinned against than sinners."

Oh come now, are we really going to get into a "who's the bigger victim" game here? There were aggressors and victims on all sides. The JNA had the arms and resources of a state behind it; every other side had to make do with a makeshift army, especially at the beginning of the various wars. It would be peculiar indeed if the strongest side in the conflict was the one least likely to commit crimes and most likely to be victimized.

Just because something comes from the US or NATO doesn't mean it is disinformation. Chomsky pretty comprehensively refutes the NATO case for war in 1999 relying almost exclusively on NATO and US sources, for instance. Most of the information they release is actually reliable, it's just spun to death.

"You must recall that the JNA were not Serbian forces but were manned by people of all different nationalities (one of the senior JNA generals was a Yugoslav of Hungarian parentage)."

Yes, the JNA more or less reflected the ethnic makeup of Yugoslavia: largely, though certainly not predominantly Serb, and certainly not a Serb force. And there are Arabs in the US Army in Iraq. Look, I'm not arguing for the standard party line here. I don't for a minute believe the JNA was trying to establish a Greater Serbia or any such nonsense, but was trying to keep the country together. But like the Northern forces in the US Civil War, it wasn't perfect just because it had the imprimatur of the state behind it. 

"As regards Kosovo, do you consider the US Civil War as being the "War of Northern Aggression"?"

That might be an accurate interpretation if you were a Southerner, just as the various wars of the former Yugoslavia could perhaps be characterized as "the War(s) of Serb Aggression" or something to that effect if you were a Bosniak or Kosovar or whatever. It depends on your point of view. If you were a Northerner the US Civil War was a war to liberate the slaves. Similarly if you were a Serb the wars of the 1990s were to save Socialism and the Federation. I don't think any of those interpretations are wholly accurate but they all have something to them. The YU case is infinitely more complex of course, but that's the analogy you gave.  

"Should Lincoln, Stanton, Grant and Sherman have been tried for war crimes?"

Absolutely. "National sovereignty" doesn't equal "immunity from all crimes," as I argue above. In both the US and YU cases there were legal or pseudolegal bases for separation. The federal authorities weren't necessarily correct in trying to prevent the secessionists from attempting to leave. 

"Even the much ballyhooed 'massacre' at Racak (the event that sparked the 78 day illegal bombing of Yugoslavia) has definitively been ruled as NOT being a massacre by the very Finnish forensic team who performed the autopsies."

That's not true. Helena Ranta, the lead investigator, said she couldn't comment on whether or not a "massacre" took place because that was a legal term and the forensic science could't determine that, but that Racak was a "crime against humanity," and there was no doubt that civilians were killed there. On the other hand, Hashim Thaci has said the incident was a firefight. But the Finnish report was inconclusive at best. 

"Not only that but, as you may or may not be aware, during the firefight at Racak there were 2 TV crews and OSCE observers on the scene and no one of them saw or documented a massacre and the TV crews and observers withdrew along with the Yugoslav forces at the end of the firefight."

All I know is that the report couldn't conclusively determine whether a massacre had occurred or not. This is similar to the Israeli outcry over the Western press using the term to describe its actions in Jenin in 2002: technically no massacre took place, but crimes certainly did. 

"Were there instances of atrocity and brutalization? Certainly. And numerous Yugoslav troops who were caught were tried and jailed for their crimes (coincidentally, a far greater proportion than of US troops who have committed documented war crimes in Iraq, btw)."

Really, and where are your figures? Who committed proportionally more crimes? What documentation do you speak of? As far as I know no US soldiers have been prosecuted for war crimes so if even a single Serb has your comment is technically true but perhaps without much weight. I highly doubt that Serbia & Montenegro, unique in all of human history, has captured and sentenced each and every soldier (its own citizens) who committed a crime while in uniform during operations which according to itself (or its previous incarnation, Yugoslavia) were perfectly legal.

"By that self-same logic (command responsibility) should essentially the entirety of the US government at the time as well as the leaders of the other NATO countries be jailed and tried for obvious and blatant war crimes (bombing of civilian targets hundreds of miles from the scene of military action in Kosovo; bombing of foreign embassies and missions; use of internationally disapproved weapons (DU, cluster weapons on civilians), bombing of numerous clearly marked hospitals, etc.?"

Absolutely. 

"Contrawise, try this one on for size.  What would have been the reaction had Serbia commissioned a truck bomb to be parked at the CNN facilities (where US Army psyops troops were actively involved in 'spinning' the 'news' from Kosovo), in retaliation for the destruction of RTS in Belgrade?"

Probably a massive US aerial attack. What's your point? The US behaves illegally all the time? No arguments here. 

"Do you think the American public would appreciate the fact that, by virtue of US psyops troops being present and actively 'spinning' the news, CNN had become a 'legitimate military target' (which was the excuse used to justify the bombing of RTS)?"

No. That was a crime. I've seen that building and the memorial there, and the bridges that were bombed over the Sava. You don't have to convince me how terrible it is. 

"Graeme, I'm not trying to be unduly rough on you but, I'm getting more than slightly tired of having the same propaganda recycled endlessly."

I know, and I'm trying to fight it just as much as you are. I just think we have to be completely honest and open about everything *every* side did or we leave ourselves open of being accused of apologia for Serb crimes, and so on. 

"You must be aware that the propaganda and demonization of the Serbs is/was quite pervasive. It is much like the situation you have today where, years after even Bush has admitted that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, a sizable proportion of the general population and the troops in Iraq are under the impression that they are there "to avenge 9/11"."

Yes, I certainly am. 

"Just as virtually everyone could tell you how the Iraqi troops threw babies out of incubators onto the floors of Kuwaiti hospitals (though this never happened) so to 'everyone' can tell you about 'Serbian rape camps' and the Srebrenica massacre (a non-event just as were the breadline massacres in Sarajevo)."

Yes but see this is what I mean. The babies-from-incubators story was made up out of whole cloth by the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador with coaching from a US PR firm. To compare that to the Srebrenica and Sarajevo massacres makes you look like a Holocaust denier. Srebrenica, camps and various other crimes absolutely did happen (hardly "non-events"): they might have happened radically differently from the way they are perceived and commonly talked about, but these things still happened. I've read the testimonies from Srebrenica survivors. They don't necessarily prove the dominant narrative, but they don't say "gee, nothing happened, we just went for a walk and the Serbs gave us flowers" either. You mentioned earlier the confustion that persists in the US about 9/11, but 9/11 did happen. Crimes that are subverted and exaggerated and taken out of context they might be, but they were still crimes.

Propaganda can come from both sides, don't forget. If we ever want to change public perception about the wars that destroyed the former Yugoslavia, we can't be afraid to honestly look at *everything* that happened. Serbs (like everybody else) did some truly, truly heinous things in those wars and it is both foolish and counterproductive to pretend otherwise. Apologists for US power already like to portray Serbs and their defenders as head-in-the-sand crime deniers; let's not give them any more ammunition to do so. 

Remember all the flak Chomsky got when The Guardian (falsely) implied that he used the word "genocide" in quotations when referring to Srebrenica? Here's the thing: Chomsky didn't deny that genocide happened there (unlike some other people here, which is another troubling tendency); he doesn't use quotations. He simply says there is a hell of a lot more to the story than "evil Serbs and innocent everybody else," citing Diana Johnstone etc. For this he and others are vilified. Denying crimes outright is only likely to elicit even harsher reaction from such quarters; it does our cause no good. 

"What I am saying, however, is that so much emphasis has been so predominant in the western media framing the Serbs as being the sole violators and the Croatians, Bosnian Muslims and Kosovars as being the sole victims that the entire picture has been fatally flawed."

Yes, absolutely. With this I totally agree. Serbs were absolutely victims, and various factions on all sides were absolutely aggressors (indeed Tudjman, Izetbegovic et al likely deserve a lot more blame than Milosevic for how things went, but they had Western favour and he did not).

"There were atrocities aplenty on all sides, as there are in any civil war (just read the history of numerous slaughters and rapes in our own civil war)."

Yes, as happens in virtually all wars. Yet another reason to be fervently anti-war as one's default position, as far as I'm concerned.

Well this will take some time to properly respond to but I see it is a good discussion and probably worth pursuing. Following your format...

"I have to add that Serbian atrocities were frequently played up and at times fabricated while the atrocities of the other sides were downplayed or ignored altogether by the press and Western politicians."

Absolutely.

"And yet later on you do make your judgement and assume his guilt anyways. Why? When did the notion of "innocent until proven guilty" become so subversive?"

Milosevic was certainly entitled to a fair trial, no question. It is my own personal belief that Milosevic was no angel and shares some responsibility for the crimes that occurred during the 1990s. I wasn't commenting on whether he was legally guilty of the specific crimes with which he was charged.

I'm afraid you have me at a disadvantage vis a vis the history of the Croatia and Bosnia wars. All I'll say is that I'm skeptical. It seems odd to me that the leader of Yugoslavia should have no control over the JNA; I'm also rather suspicious that all of Milosevic's opposition can be tarred as having links to paramilitaries but not his ruling party.

Numerous criminals have signed onto peace proposals and "condemned" all kinds of crimes. This in and of itself doesn't mean much. The US also has laws about war criminals. We see how often they are enforced.

As for Kosovo: yes, it was a civil war. Yes, the KLA was backed by foreign powers. But this doesn't excuse all Yugoslavian actions there. Civilians were killed, on both sides. These are crimes. There may not have been a "campaign of crimes," but I doubt you can find a "campaign of crimes" anywhere. The US assault on Fallujah met certain military objectives. So did the Russian destruction of Grozny. I hope you aren't arguing in favour of these actions simply because there was strategic logic behind them.

"There were individual soldiers who committed crimes and excesses..."

Entire villages were burned in Kosovo. That sounds like more than the actions of a few individual soldiers. Indeed, that sounds suspiciously like the "few bad apples" routine we always hear about Abu Ghraib, and which we often (rightly, I think) condemn. I see no reason to give Yugoslav forces any more benefit of the doubt than I would the US Army. 

"...a great deal of evidence was presented that the army and police gave many, many orders to respect international law, that the police and soldiers were well acquainted with those laws and generally respected them and that those who didn't were put on trial."

Okay but you can say the same thing about the US in Iraq. I'm sure most American soldiers don't go out of their way to kill innocent civilians. Similarly, some have even been put on trial for their abuses. Certainly the US military has thousands of lawyers whose sole mission is to disseminate the laws of war to the troops. That these laws are routinely broken nonetheless says more about the nature of war than it does about the lack of regulations and orders.

"In comparison, Bush's attack on Iraq was a blatant act of international aggression (based on lies) against a sovereign nation thousands of miles away that never posed a threat to the US. The entire operation and the ongoing occupation of Iraq was/is illegitimate, a crime against the peace and an utterly unnecessary monstrosity."

Absolutely, and I am not remotely comparing Kosovo and Iraq in that sense. But you can make a similar argument about the Iraq war not being anywhere near as bad as Operation Barbarossa: comparing a very bad thing to something obviously much worse is a pretty weak moral argument in favour of it.  

"It is also obvious that torture, violations of international law and horrendous war crimes were all sanctioned by US officials at top levels. Proving that US leaders are guilty would not be difficult at all."

It may seem obvious to us but a legal case would still have to be presented. This wouldn't necessarily be an easy thing to do. Again, I'm not comparing the crime of the Iraq War itself with the Yugoslav-Kosovo conflict, but am considering individual or group crimes. Consider the well-publicized incident of the US Marine executing an unarmed man in Fallujah. Was that specifically Bush's fault? Did he sign the order to execute unarmed people? I would argue that he is guilty for ordering the troops into Iraq to begin with, and therefore shares responsibility for what happens as a result of those orders. Similarly for Milosevic. Of course there is a great deal of difference between what happens in one's own state and foreign adventurism half a world away but national sovereignty isn't a blanket excuse to do whatever the hell you want: Milosevic was the head of government responsible for the actions taken by soldiers nominally under his command. In any event, this is a harder case to make. Leaders can always claim their orders were misinterpreted or crimes were committed by "rogues," or unofficial combatants, or whatever. Indeed, insulating leaders from responsibility is partly the point of the chain of command.

"Proving that Milosevic was guilty is a task the ICTY even with all its resources could not do. The evidence simply wasn't there."

Again, prosecuting heads of governments has little precedent. You need access to government files and records, which may not be forthcoming. I'm not convinced its as easy as you seem to think it is.

Keep in mind I'm not arguing in favour of the ICTY here. I'm just saying that Milosevic wasn't some magical national leader who never got blood on his hands during wartime (he would be the first).

"I had in mind the existence in Serbia of very hostile foreign-funded orgs and groups like the Humanitarian law Center, B92, IWPR, (all funded by the NED) and many others."

Yes and Milosevic was certainly nowhere near Saddam's level of autocracy or brutality. But the fact that something is foreign-funded doesn't mean it should be dismissed entirely. It is natural for foreign powers to get behind things they think might weaken their enemy. This doesn't mean B92 et al didn't have a great deal of support within Yugoslavia. I have several friends in Belgrade who were very much opposed to Milosevic and utilized the resources of some of the groups you mention from time to time while he was in power, which is also natural. I guarantee you not all opposition to Milosevic came from the CIA.

"Is innocent until proven guilty an outdated concept or is trial by media enough in this day and age?"

See above.

"You did say earlier that Milosevic was " a particularly brutal" player so that would tend to indicate Milosevic and not the Serbs or Serb forces in general."

Yes, as I hope I have explained above.

"Your guess is not correct."

Really, so you can see the future? Great, so who should I put money on for the World Series this year? 

"I did follow the trial and they did not have any serious evidence against him. They would have had to form a guilty verdict and base it on SOMETHING had he lived and they just didn't have anything."

Okay, so which is it: is the ICTY a totally subservient tool of NATO policy (in which case they could *invent* something to convict him on pretty easily if they had to) or is there an independent judiciary there, in which case he would have eventually been vindicated (if he was in fact not guilty of all charges), which rather undermines the first point?

"He also would have been around to contradict them had he lived."

Who cares? Milosevic was probably one of the least credible people in the entire Western world by the time of his death. Rightly or wrongly, he had been established as evil incarnate by the Western press. His words would have no more sway in the West than Saddam Hussein's. 

"The ICTY assumed that Milosevic would not be so stubborn and that they could break him and have him confess as they did with others, or that they could get another lawyer(s) to represent him and sabotage his case but they were not able to do so."

How do you know? Are you clairvoyant as well as psychic? I'm not saying that is an unreasonable supposition but see above for the problem with such an assumption about the ICTY.

"Those who followed the trial could see how they were exposed."

You mean like all those Western journalists who report (and thus inform the entire Western public on the issue) how Milosevic "intimidated his victims with his sheer force of personality?" 

"That includes a large section of Serbia and many people outside the country."

Again, the West could hardly care less about Serbia. Anybody who says anything positive about Milosevic is automatically a grieving Serb nationalist pining for Greater Serbia or a crackpot and thus easily dismissed. 

"The fact is that due to Milosevic's efforts at the trial there now exists a large body of evidence showing the criminality of both the ICTY and the NATO powers and a more accurate lok at the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s."

And when is any of this evidence going to come out I wonder? When Clinton and Blair are brought to the dock? 

"The ICTY played and still plays a large role in demonizing the Serbs and supporting outside intervention in Yugoslavia. Check out Herman and Petersen's piece on the NY Times service to total propaganda up top."

I absolutely agree. Much more work has to be done to counter this propaganda and bring a more balanced and nuanced account of what happened during the breakup of the former Yugoslavia into the open. I just don't think arguing on behalf of Milosevic is a particularly effective way to do this. 

"They killed him is a perfectly logical deduction based on the evidence."

I see. And would this be your closing argument at the murder trial of "they?" I haven't seen the forensics, have you? Milosevic got special favours at Scheveningen, who knows how he got sick. He was an old man, with lots of health problems. All I heard was that he had a mysterious drug in his system. Okay. Who knows how it got there? I don't believe he did it to himself but who knows. Perhaps the ICTY was complicit in his death, but its not like Russia is the only place in the world where they have heart medicine. Anyway, people die in prison all the time. Is is always the state that kills them?

"There is SO much disinformation on Yugoslavia, Milosevic and everything else connected to the topic that it makes your head spin."

I totally agree. The truth is hard to find here. But one can be TOTALLY against Western reconstruction of Balkan history for its own ends without being a Milosevic fan, just as one can be TOTALLY against the ongoing US destruction of Iraq without being a Saddam Hussein fan. There are lots of lies about him going around too, don't forget. Doesn't mean he was a nice guy (again, I'm not comparing them directly but you see what I mean I hope).

"Western intervention from the 80s on caused the horrendous massacres of 1994 "

Western interventions set up the dynamics that eventually led to the genocide in 1994, that I understand. But it is quite different from implying that it has control of the dynamics once it has developed and can turn it off by flicking a switch. History cannot be undone once it is set in motion. Whatever the West's complicity was in creating the conditions that led to the genocide ten years down the road, I don't see how it follows that the West should not have stepped in when the killing was well under way in 1994. Though you haven't said so explicitly, but this seems to be implied since we are talking about Darfur.

I agree that it is important to critically understand the Western role in Ruwanda and that the main stream narrative reinforced by Holliwood does not do justice to historty.But this does not have any bearing on whether the West should have intervened in 1994. It is a privilege for us to be able to hit the library or the internet to find out the truth abouth history, the people who were being hacked to pieces in the killing fields of Ruwanda had no such luxury.

"Regarding Darfur, it IS very clear that the West doesn't give a damn about "genocide" in Africa at all. They use it as a pretext to obscure their own actions and those of their clients, in order to loot the continent and in order to gain support for military intervention.."

I fail to see how whether the U.S actually gives a damn about human right in Africa matters. Which State would intervene in a situtation(no matter how genuinely deserving) without some self serving reasons? China? Russia? The Arab league? I am surprised that any regular reader of Znet would have any illusion about the moral imperative of nation states.

If we insist that we can only support interventions if all the state particpants are acting out of good will than we would be against all state actions, peroid. This is an absurd position.The U.S participated in WWII also out of self interest too. But that is not an argument that it should not have been done.

What matters is whether the OUTCOME of an intervention would be more desirable than the current situation.

The point is the Sudanese is carrying out daily masscres and rape in Darfur,--whether you choose to call it "genocide"  is just sematics. Anyone who is not blinded by ideology would want to see something done. One can honestly debate what kind of actions to be taken. But I am quite shocked by self described leftists, who are supposed to stand up for freedom, human right and dignity, simply dismiss the horror of Darfur out of hand because the U.S may have a vested interest in confronting the thugs in Karthom.This unfortunate behaviour of SOME on the left only lends credence to the accusation that the left is not really interested in justice, only in U.S bashing.

To write off Darfur because of suspect U.S motives is like dismissing genuine Palestinian grievences against Israel by pointing at the fact that Arab countries all have their own axes to grind with Israel and the Neo Nazi types who hitch on the Palestinian bangwagon because of their own racist agenda.

The Chinese are cozying up to the Sudanese goverment. No mention of Darfur. I suppose unlike the heagemonic U.S., the Chinese are motivated by international solidarity with the Arabs rather than oil.

I think your mention of Congo is disingenuous. It is one thing to alert the public about Congo, quite another to use it as an excuse to whitewash/downplay other abuses elsewhere. Moreover, going by the logic that we always have to take an opposite position to "offical line" regardless of its merit which Peterson SEEMS to be arguing from time to time(as I said before I am  sometimes at a loss reading him because of the abrupt style) I am not sure why he(and you) is lamenting the fact that Congo has not been getting main stream attentions. This is a paradox, because if it does get any such attention it would be automatically and reflexively dismissed by the same people as mere U.S propaganda.

"The least we can do is treat the official line with caution. Given the record of the US and its (neo)colonial buddies, isn't that reasonable?"

Caution. Yes. But I think some of what I read here (regarding Ruwanda, Darfur) is beyond "cautious". It is like the European left in the 1950's who dogmatically rejecting all testimonies of Stalin's atrocities as imperialist lies.

 

Graeme,

 You say "...given that Yugoslav (not just Serb paramilitary) forces carried out crimes in Bosnia from 1992-96 (as did Muslim and Croat forces) and Kosovo in 1998/99 (as did Kosovo Albanian forces), I think it is fair to say that he at least bears a certain degree of responsibility for these crimes, in much the same way that Bush bears responsibility for war crimes committed by US forces in Iraq."

 I challenge you to prove your contention without using US/NATO disinformation.  Yugoslav forces were withdrawn from Bosnia rather early on (1992).  I can prove that the JNA forces for far more sinned against than sinners.  You must recall that the JNA were not Serbian forces but were manned by people of all different nationalities (one of the senior JNA generals was a Yugoslav of Hungarian parentage). As regards Kosovo, do you consider the US Civil War as being the "War of Northern Aggression"?  Should Lincoln, Stanton, Grant and Sherman have been tried for war crimes?  Even the much ballyhooed 'massacre' at Racak (the event that sparked the 78 day illegal bombing of Yugoslavia) has definitively been ruled as NOT being a massacre by the very Finnish forensic team who performed the autopsies.  Not only that but, as you may or may not be aware, during the firefight at Racak there were 2 TV crews and OSCE observers on the scene and no one of them saw or documented a massacre and the TV crews and observers withdrew along with the Yugoslav forces at the end of the firefight.  Were there instances of atrocity and brutalization?  Certainly.  And numerous Yugoslav troops who were caught were tried and jailed for their crimes (coincidentally, a far greater proportion than of US troops who have committed documented war crimes in Iraq, btw).

 By that self-same logic (command responsibility) should essentially the entirety of the US government at the time as well as the leaders of the other NATO countries be jailed and tried for obvious and blatant war crimes (bombing of civilian targets hundreds of miles from the scene of military action in Kosovo; bombing of foreign embassies and missions; use of internationally disapproved weapons (DU, cluster weapons on civilians), bombing of numerous clearly marked hospitals, etc.?  Contrawise, try this one on for size.  What would have been the reaction had Serbia commissioned a truck bomb to be parked at the CNN facilities (where US Army psyops troops were actively involved in 'spinning' the 'news' from Kosovo), in retaliation for the destruction of RTS in Belgrade?  Do you think the American public would appreciate the fact that, by virtue of US psyops troops being present and actively 'spinning' the news, CNN had become a 'legitimate military target' (which was the excuse used to justify the bombing of RTS)?

 Graeme, I'm not trying to be unduly rough on you but, I'm getting more than slightly tired of having the same propaganda recycled endlessly.  You must be aware that the propaganda and demonization of the Serbs is/was quite pervasive.  It is much like the situation you have today where, years after even Bush has admitted that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, a sizable proportion of the general population and the troops in Iraq are under the impression that they are there "to avenge 9/11".  Just as virtually everyone could tell you how the Iraqi troops threw babies out of incubators onto the floors of Kuwaiti hospitals (though this never happened) so to 'everyone' can tell you about 'Serbian rape camps' and the Srebrenica massacre (a non-event just as were the breadline massacres in Sarajevo).

 Now, I'm not about to say that the Serbs were some kind of angels who never touched a hair on the head of a non-combatant nor that nary a single rape was committed by Serb forces.  What I am saying, however, is that so much emphasis has been so predominant in the western media framing the Serbs as being the sole violators and the Croatians, Bosnian Muslims and Kosovars as being the sole victims that the entire picture has been fatally flawed.  There were atrocities aplenty on all sides, as there are in any civil war (just read the history of numerous slaughters and rapes in our own civil war).

 

 

"People who wish to convince us that Milosevic was undeservingly dealt with should come up with a better argument.The substance of Milosevic's action must be addressed regardlesss of how others got away"

 

  I have done that in my answer to Graeme and also earlier.  Others have done it as well. Check out some of the links posted up top esp. Nebojsa Malic's piece as well as John Laughland's piece in the Guardian. Quite simply the media, the ICTY and so many others lied outrageously about Milosevic, his actions and the events in former Yugoslavia and they are still doing it. The last thing they deserve is a helping hand from anyone else on the Left.

Regarding Darfur, it IS very clear that the West doesn't give a damn about "genocide" in Africa at all. They use it as a pretext to obscure their own actions and those of their clients, in order to loot the continent and in order to gain support for military intervention. The suffering in Congo has been going on for a long time, it's far worse and it gets virtually no coverage certainly far less than Darfur. Please check out the znet piece by keith snow and david barowski on Congo's suffering. please also check out the expose on Hotel rwanda that i mention below. Western intervention not some alleged "lack of intervention" is what's destroying Africa. Darfur gets coverage while Congo doesn't in both cases due to powerful corporate and geopolitical interests.  Did you really fail to notice the massive amounts of oil in Darfur, Sudan?  Would you like evidence that the US was long working to destabilize Sudan and this is just another phase of that? Are you aware that Dyncorp got a contract to assist the AU's mission in Darfur? Does one really take the Western media at face value after all their lies about "genocide" in Bosnia and Kosovo, the threat of Iraq etc.? The least we can do is treat the official line with caution. Given the record of the US and its (neo)colonial buddies, isn't that reasonable?  

 

 

  Graeme:

 

  This is my reply or partial reply to you below. My answers appear in brackets.
 

Dimitri: perhaps I should clarify. What I really meant to say above is that it wasn't just *Serbs* who were to blame for the various atrocities and crimes that occurred in Bosnia, Kosovo etc. As far as I know no one (at least no one serious) claims that no Serbs committed war crimes in any of these wars.

 [This (above) is in my view correct and I have no problem with it. I have to add that Serbian atrocities were frequently played up and at times fabricated while the atrocities of the other sides were downplayed or ignored altogether by the press and Western politicians.]

However, this isn't the same thing as saying Milosevic himself ordered the crimes, oversaw them, funded them, helped carry them out or whatever, I agree. I apologize for my confusing the issue. I must be honest, I've read a bit on this issue (including some of the links above) but I don't really know the specific nature of all of the charges against Milosevic and therefore can't really say if I think he is guilty of them or not.

  [And yet later on you do make your judgement and assume his guilt anyways. Why? When did the notion of "innocent until proven guilty" become so subversive?]

However, given that he was the head of government at the time, and given that Yugoslav (not just Serb paramilitary) forces carried out crimes in Bosnia from 1992-96 (as did Muslim and Croat forces) and Kosovo in 1998/99 (as did Kosovo Albanian forces), I think it is fair to say that he at least bears a certain degree of responsibility for these crimes, in much the same way that Bush bears responsibility for war crimes committed by US forces in Iraq, regardless of whether he personally ordered them or not. Directly linking heads of state or government to specific acts isn't an easy task, as even Saddam Hussein's trial is demonstrating.

  [The meaning of the phrase "Yugoslav forces" is unclear. Milosevic never controlled the JNA which was, at any rate, withdrawn from Bosnia by mid-1992 and from Croatia earlier. There certainly were various factions that came from former Yugoslavia and even from the federal republic of Yugoslavia and did join in the fighting and commit crimes. These included Muslim fighters and extremists from Sandzak, paramilitaries from Serbia and Albanians from Kosovo. The Serb paramilitary groups were generally connected to the various ("democratic") opposition groups in Serbia but not to either Milosevic 's party Socialist Party of Serbia or to the Serbian Radical Party. Milosevic and the Yugoslav government had put in orders that any citizen from the territory of FRY who committed war crimes should be arrested and put on trial and a number of trials were conducted in Yugoslavia. The VRS (the Bosnian Serb Army) was not under the control of Milosevic or the FRY (neither were the forces of RSK) and it was not his responsibility to deal with the crimes committed by it. He did condemn the shelling of Sarajevo and backed just about every peace proposal that came out. In 1994, he went so far as to institute a blockade (with the exception of humanitarian aid) on  Republika Srpska for the failure of its leaders to accept a peace proposal. For this he was widely criticized and attacked by a number of other Serb leaders. Regarding Kosovo, the forces of FRY were directly involved there but the action was legitimate. The Yugoslav government was fighting a secessionist group of terrorists (even the US State Dep. once agreed) on its own territory and the actions of Yugoslav forces were actually pretty restrained in the face of numerous provocations. The KLA became a major player overwhelmingly due to the US and Germany which gave it lots of support and even diplomatic legitimacy. It was natural that the Yugoslav army would fight the KLA during the NATO bombing and it was their right and duty to do so. The claim that Yugoslav forces carried out a campaign of crimes in Kosovo 1998/99 is overwhelmingly pro-bombing propaganda. There were individual soldiers who committed crimes and excesses but a great deal of evidence was presented that the army and police gave many, many orders to respect international law, that the police and soldiers were well acquainted with those laws and generally respected them and that those who didn't were put on trial. In comparison, Bush's attack on Iraq was a blatant act of international aggression (based on lies) against a sovereign nation thousands of miles away that never posed a threat to the US. The entire operation and the ongoing occupation of Iraq was/is illegitimate, a crime against the peace and an utterly unnecessary monstrosity. It is also obvious that torture, violations of international law and horrendous war crimes were all sanctioned by US officials at top levels. Proving that US leaders are guilty would not be difficult at all. Proving that Milosevic was guilty is a task the ICTY even with all its resources could not do. The evidence simply wasn't there.]          

 Chain of command and plausible deniability sometimes makes this difficult. Yet few seriously doubt that Saddam is responsible for crimes against Shiites, Kurds, etc. (which certainly went beyond "people accused of treason," unless you believe entire villages can be accused of treason), whatever evidence may have been destroyed since they occurred.

  [I did not mean to imply that SH was only responsible for crimes against people accused of treason. I do believe that the Iraqi government was responsible for serious crimes against the Shiites, Kurds and others. I had in mind the existence in Serbia of very hostile foreign-funded orgs and groups like the Humanitarian law Center, B92, IWPR, (all funded by the NED) and many others. The Iraqi Baath Government never would have allowed anything remotely like that and dealt harshly with any perceived opponents.]


This is why I don't believe Milosevic is innocent of the charges against him (in general), though as I said I don't know all the details. I certainly don't believe all of his actions were just (he may have been popular but so are many strongmen and criminals).


[It would be useful to know what specific actions of his you believe were unjust or criminal and whether he actually committed them. You state that "I don't really know the specific nature of all of the charges against Milosevic and therefore can't really say if I think he is guilty of them or not" but then you state that you don't think he's innocent. Is innocent until proven guilty an outdated concept or is trial by media enough in this day and age? ]

"Particularly brutal" refers to the actions some Serb forces took during these wars; this shouldn't be read as my implying that Serbs are especially or uniquely evil but that some truly heinous things were carried out by Serbs during these times. Again, whether Milosevic was personally responsible or aided these acts in any material way would of course have to be established. I was confusing "Serbs" in general with Milosevic in particular. Thanks for pointing out my error.

  [Thanks. You did say earlier that Milosevic was " a particularly brutal" player so that would tend to indicate Milosevic and not the Serbs or Serb forces in general.]

 However, where did I claim that he was "undoubtedly a war criminal" or compare him to Saddam Hussein?

 [You didn't state that he was "undoubtedly a war criminal" Jeremy Scahill did. I wasn't referring just to you but to many people on the left who seem to throw in some passing bash or assumption of guilt without providing any evidence. it seemd to me you or someone else posting was implying a comparison of SH and SM. At any rate what I said about problems with the comparison still stands. ]


I don't know what evidence they had. It seems to me a rather foolish course to take to try someone without having any evidence. Trials often take a long time, especially when they have few legal precedents and the details are worked out as they go along. My guess is the ICTY Prosecutors thought they had enough to convict Milosevic and probably would have, had he lived: if the court is as beholden to the whims of NATO as it seems to be the eventual verdict could hardly have been in doubt, whatever the evidence.

  [Your guess is not correct. I did follow the trial and they did not have any serious evidence against him. They would have had to form a guilty verdict and base it on SOMETHING had he lived and they just didn't have anything. He also would have been around to contradict them had he lived. His death was good for them in both those regards. The ICTY Prosecutor announced the Milosevic indictment during the height of the NATO bombing in an act designed to garner support for NATO. That indictment was not enough so they then came up with the Bosnia and Croatia indictments and added them on afterwards. The ICTY assumed that Milosevic would not be so stubborn  and that they could break him and have him confess as they did with others, or that they could get another lawyer(s) to represent him and sabotage his case but they were not able to do so.]   


I highly disagree with your statement that Milosevic "exposed the ICTY and NATO as war criminals" (I hardly see how the ICTY is a war criminal); as you say, there was a highly effective media blackout about the case.

 [Those who followed the trial could see how they were exposed. That includes a large section of Serbia and many people outside the country. The fact is that due to Milosevic's efforts at the trial there now exists a large body of evidence showing the criminality of both the ICTY and the NATO powers and a more accurate lok at the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s. The ICTY played and still plays a large role in demonizing the Serbs and supporting outside intervention in Yugoslavia. Check out Herman and Petersen's piece on the NY Times service to total propaganda up top.]  

 "They killed him" sounds like paranoid conspiracy theory. The exact details of how he died have yet to be established.

  [Please check out David's posts from up top. They killed him is a perfectly logical deduction based on the evidence. Either he was being poisoned by someone in the ICTY or they simply denied him the opportunity to address serious health problems by going to Russia. Either way the fact is he died in ICTY custody due to ICTY actions. A paranoid conspiracy theory is the one that states Milosevic was somehow taking a specific drug which he somehow managed to sneak into a maximum security prison and take despite the presence of guards and constant surveillance and although he took his medicine in front of the guards and that he was taking this drug in the belief that he would be able to appeal to the ICTY and go to Moscow for treatment and from there stage a "James Bond" kind of escape.]
 

  I could go on and on. There is SO much disinformation on Yugoslavia, Milosevic and everything else connected to the topic that it makes your head spin. My view has changed to be more favorable of Milosevic during the trial as I saw the prosecution come up with nothing and an alternate version of history formed. If you have more specific questions ask and I can try to answer them. 


 

Grame, You're right on about WWI. It was basically a comeptition among Imperial powers.Rhetorics aside it had zero relevance to freedom or other high principles invoked to justify the war on "our" side. It didn't make a difference who won for the people who lived under colonial rules.As a typical and telling example of what the war was about, consider this. Before WWI Germany had colonies in China, after it lost the victors decided that instead of returning these territories to the Chinese they gave them to Japan as a reward!

WWI was a profoundly stupid and pointless war. Every year I suffer jingoism overdose during remebrance day here in Canada. They are still speaking admirably of 16 year olds who were so eager to be cannon folders that they inflated their age in order to enlist in WWI. It is as if they were some kind of heros, rather than just dumbasses suffering from the delusion of granduer.

I agree with you on the Balkens and Milosevic.

Regarding the legitimacy of the international tribinal. Granted that it is victor justice, but so was Nuremberg.Just because Serbs were alledgedly singled out does not mean that Milosevic shouldn't be in the dock.The fact that Stalin was basking in post war glory did not in any way vindicate Hitler and his hench men.

People who wish to convince us that Milosevic was undeservingly dealt with should come up with a better argument.The substance of Milosevic's action must be addressed regardlesss of how others got away.

IMO David some times has a ptoblem of almost appearing to be apologizing for atrocities committed by "them" just because "we" haven't been forthright about "our" responsibility. For example, his postings on Darfur are almost offensive as far as I am concerned.It is as if he is arguing that Darfur was an exaggeration or worse, made up for teh purpose of Arab bashing becuase "we" do nothing in Congo. At least to me his writing conveys such an impression(sometimes it is difficult to figure out exactly what he is trying to say because of his prose)

World War I was fought by competing European power blocks. The war was initiated by the Austrian reaction to the assassination of Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo, and the successive Russian/German/British and French responses to the same, eventually culminating in all-out war. Germany was not uniquely or even especially responsible for this outcome. Austria-Hungary and Russia were the most responsible; Germany came to its ally's aid, as did Britain and France. The French were looking to punish the Germans for the humiliation of the 1870 War (German troops on the streets of Paris), and so insisted on ridiculously harsh economic reparations (against the wishes of Woodrow Wilson and others) that Germany was forced to pay only because it lost. These reparations, combined with the Depression, fed German resentment and nationalism in the 1930s, and we all know where that led. The ICTY indicted Milosevic for Kosovo first, then went back in time from there for some reason. But he didn't really "push Albanians out;" the exodus didn't begin until after the NATO bombing began. NATO is responsible first and foremost for the humanitarian catastrophe that followed in the Spring of 1999. The Yugoslav leadership and KLA share the rest of the blame fairly equally, in my opinion, though some may say the KLA deserves the lion's share.

 

 

 The interventionist propaganda has been fueled not only by the tale of "genocide" in Bosnia and the demonization of Milosevic and the Serbs but also by the official story of genocide in Rwanda , 1994. I recommend highly the piece "Hotel Rwanda: Hollywood and the Holocaust" for a look at why this official story is very wrong, why active Western intervention from the 80s on caused the horrendous massacres of 1994 and why the distorted official narrative allows for real mass atrocities and war crimes to continue and go unpunished even supported. You can find the piece on the site http://www.allthingspass.com. This is a story that deserves MUCH more attention. i need to go now but will write when i have more time.

 

 Graeme:

  I will answer your latest when I get back.

 

Rudy:

 

Check my post "the left didn't follow the trial" for what's wrong with the "milosevic started pushing out the Albanains " line

 

I was refering to the majority of posts opposed to the public at large.

The NYT/Discovery channel has been running a four hour "downfall of Milosevic" special for the past few days.  It gives the impression that Milosevic was brought to the Hague specifically for his crimes in Kosovo.  Had he not started pushing Albanians out, he would not have found himself in the trouble that he did. 

But changing subjects slightly, Graeme, how is Germany unjustly blamed for starting WWI? 

Dimitri: perhaps I should clarify. What I really meant to say above is that it wasn't just *Serbs* who were to blame for the various atrocities and crimes that occurred in Bosnia, Kosovo etc. As far as I know no one (at least no one serious) claims that no Serbs committed war crimes in any of these wars.

However, this isn't the same thing as saying Milosevic himself ordered the crimes, oversaw them, funded them, helped carry them out or whatever, I agree. I apologize for my confusing the issue. I must be honest, I've read a bit on this issue (including some of the links above) but I don't really know the specific nature of all of the charges against Milosevic and therefore can't really say if I think he is guilty of them or not. However, given that he was the head of government at the time, and given that Yugoslav (not just Serb paramilitary) forces carried out crimes in Bosnia from 1992-96 (as did Muslim and Croat forces) and Kosovo in 1998/99 (as did Kosovo Albanian forces), I think it is fair to say that he at least bears a certain degree of responsibility for these crimes, in much the same way that Bush bears responsibility for war crimes committed by US forces in Iraq, regardless of whether he personally ordered them or not. Directly linking heads of state or government to specific acts isn't an easy task, as even Saddam Hussein's trial is demonstrating. Chain of command and plausible deniability sometimes makes this difficult. Yet few seriously doubt that Saddam is responsible for crimes against Shiites, Kurds, etc. (which certainly went beyond "people accused of treason," unless you believe entire villages can be accused of treason), whatever evidence may have been destroyed since they occurred. This is why I don't believe Milosevic is innocent of the charges against him (in general), though as I said I don't know all the details. I certainly don't believe all of his actions were just (he may have been popular but so are many strongmen and criminals).

"Particularly brutal" refers to the actions some Serb forces took during these wars; this shouldn't be read as my implying that Serbs are especially or uniquely evil but that some truly heinous things were carried out by Serbs during these times. Again, whether Milosevic was personally responsible or aided these acts in any material way would of course have to be established. I was confusing "Serbs" in general with Milosevic in particular. Thanks for pointing out my error. However, where did I claim that he was "undoubtedly a war criminal" or compare him to Saddam Hussein?

"If the ICTY had a shred of serious evidence that Milosevic was a war criminal would the trial really have gone on for four years? Do you really think if they had any evidence it would have been put in virtual media blackout the way it was? The fact is Milosevic exposed the ICTY and its NATO paymasters for the war criminals that they were and that is why they resorted to killing him."

I don't know what evidence they had. It seems to me a rather foolish course to take to try someone without having any evidence. Trials often take a long time, especially when they have few legal precedents and the details are worked out as they go along. My guess is the ICTY Prosecutors thought they had enough to convict Milosevic and probably would have, had he lived: if the court is as beholden to the whims of NATO as it seems to be the eventual verdict could hardly have been in doubt, whatever the evidence. 

I highly disagree with your statement that Milosevic "exposed the ICTY and NATO as war criminals" (I hardly see how the ICTY is a war criminal); as you say, there was a highly effective media blackout about the case. Most people probably barely remembered there even was a trial going on until they heard about his death. "They killed him" sounds like paranoid conspiracy theory. The exact details of how he died have yet to be established. The only possible reason to kill him would be if they feared an independent judiciary actually finding him not guilty for lack of evidence, which would of course be a horrible PR fiasco (not just for the ICTY but for the ICC and international war crimes tribunals in general, a big thing at the UN these days), but this again begs the question of why try him in the first place if they didn't think they had a solid enough case to win.

By "majority" I assume you mean the majority of the people who have posted here, not any kind of majority of commentators on Milosevic in general.

There are some who believe Milosevic was innocent (see above), though I'm not one of them. The case can still be made however that he *was* brought unjustly before the ICTY (it was certainly against the laws of Serbia and Yugoslavia to do so), and that the ICTY itself is little more than a Kangaroo Court where victor's justice plays itself out. Any court that only indicts leaders from one side in a conflict doesn't have much legitimacy, IMO (especially when that court essentially acts as an extension of policy for the most powerful side involved in said conflict). Milosevic's crimes (whatever they were) are not lost or downplayed just by saying "others were bad too;" what was lost and downplayed by his trial was any semblance of what actually happened in the former Yugoslavia. Whatever the legitimacy of the court, if the ICTY had any hard evidence against Milosevic it should by all means have presented it (as it should have against Tudjman, Izetbegovic, Ceku, Harudinaj etc.). The point isn't to say that Milosevic was perfect or never did anything wrong, but that to focus only on him is not only unfair but a gross distortion of justice, and presents a terrible precedent for any possible future reconciliation between the various parties involved. The situation is somewhat analogous to the Treaty of Versailles, in which Germany was unjustly blamed for WWI simply because it lost. We all know where that led.

Rudy:
You yourself very well may misread in this fashion the bulk of the comments to have preceded yours ("So again, if I am to," March 17).  But I must remind you that this (whatever this is, exactly) does not constitute a "majority viewpoint" about Slobodan Milosevic, the breakup of Yugoslavia, or the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.  Indeed.  In terms of sheer numbers, this (again, leaving exactly what this is loosely defined) expresses a radical minority viewpoint.    

 

So again, if I am to understand the majority viewpoint, it isn't that Milosevic is innocent or that he was unjustly brought before the international tribunal, it is that others ALSO responsible for atrocities were not ALSO brought before the same tribunal.  Is this correct?

 What I'm afraid of, if that is correct, is that in that message, Milosevic's barbarianism (or those under his command) is lost or downplayed by effectively saying "others were bad too." 

 

 

 

 

Friends: 

For anyone interested in a document that was drafted in the hope of countering the reigning (as in abjectly, mindlessly, and indeed totalitarianly reiterated---and for these past seven days, without interruption) descriptions and depictions of the wars over the breakup of Yugoslavia, perhaps best summarized by the American thug Richard Holbrooke’s agenda-setting words, “Milosevic started four wars,” I very strongly recommend:

The 'Butcher of the Balkans'?  The Crime of 'Joint Criminal Enterprise' and the Miloševi? Indictments at the International Criminal Tribunal at The Hague (Expert Witness Report prepared at the request of Slobodan Miloševi? and his legal team), David Chandler, University of Westminster, U.K., 2006 

 

 

Milosevic's great crime was that he made a certain effort to preserve Yugoslavia or what could be preserved of it and to avoid the worst neoliberal reforms. An independent Yugoslavia did not fit into the new Europe or the American empire and THAT was why it had to be destroyed and Milosevic demonized. Regarding the claim that Milosevic was "particularly brutal" or that "no one" claims he was innocent of the tribunal's charges against him that is unture. A number of people inside and outside of Serbia believe he was innocent of the Tribunal's claims against him (read some of the links at the top) and I am one of them. I find it amazing that even well-intentioned people on the Left who oppose the US/NATO policy and deplore the demonization of the Serbs continue to claim without providing any evidence that Milosevic was "undoubtedly a war criminal" or "particularly brutal"  and "no one claims he was innocent". If the ICTY had a shred of serious evidence that Milosevic was a war criminal would the trial really have gone on for four years? Do you really think if they had any evidence it would have been put in virtual media blackout the way it was? The fact is Milosevic exposed the ICTY and its NATO paymasters for the war criminals that they were and that is why they resorted to killing him.I also find the comparison of Saddam Hussein and Milosevic largely inaccurate and THAT is one of the main reasons the media uses it. Milosevic and his party won multiparty elections numerous times and never invaded anyone. He allowed fierce opposition including numerous "independent" groups and media funded by hostile Western powers and players (e.g. george Soros, the NED, etc). Saddam Hussein ran a one party military dictatorship and did invade Iran and Kuwait  (albeit either with US support or following provocation). He did not deal lightly with those accused of treason and there seems to be plenty of evidence that SH was responsible for at least some war crimes and murders. The tribunal could not find any evidence that Milosevic was.   

I think Graeme does a better job addressing your (Rudy's) query than I.

I just want to add something by way of a little history between Rudy and myself.

You accused me of demonising Israel when I pointed out that Israel had not signed up to the nuclear weapons non-proliferation treaty (NPT), yet at the same time the US elite are condeming Iran of nuclear proliferation - without proof - which has signed up to the NPT.

My comment was not strictly speaking, 'demonisation', it was a matter of record. There are no two (three or a thousand) sides to the question: Is Israel signed up to the NPT? It is also a matter of record that Saddam was murdering Kurds and Shias while being supported by the US, as well as invading Iran - a war that cost 100,000s of lives.

Certainly, the question of the civil wars in the former Yugoslavia is more complex. But then, that's my point. Milosevic - who I would not support at any level - has been 'demonised', in that he has been given a negative role in the civil wars of such magnitude that he could not possibly have fulfilled it unless he had superhuman powers. He has been called the greatest war criminal since Hitler. What is the purpose of this?

It is to close down debate, and alternative constructions of former Yugoslavia history that expose a more critical role of the West's involvement in the region. It amounts to scare tactics to throw people off of anything but acceptance of the simplistic and convenient history that is fed them. Hitler and horrifying human history generally is opportunistically used, becoming a scarecrow in the field (ouch!) of critical debate. Debate is polarised - there are the politically correct, who lipsync monolithic history with the great hate-figure of history attached, and there are the demonised who question the extreme ideological restrictions on debate over the past, present and future.

I'm not saying that Milosevic was justified in his actions or innocent of all charges, but then that makes him a pretty ordinary Western politician.

 

Rudy, 

The point isn't just that there are two sides to every story, but that the real story often gets obscured by the interests of power. Case in point, Milosevic. The reality is that he was one (particularly brutal) player in a complex, convoluted story of murderous leaders, Great Power interference, ethnic rivalries, economics, history and media manipulation on all sides. The official line is that Milosevic was personally to blame for the entire destruction of Yugoslavia, started all four of its wars by himself, and personally planned every single rape, murder, ethnic expulsion and other imaginable crime that happened there in the 1990s. See Jan Oberg's piece Peterson links to above for a hilarious (and satirical) rendition of this view. Needless to say, the reality is infinitely more complex, and the Western powers themselves have a great deal of repsonsibility for said Balkan disintegration, as (of course) do the leaders of Croatia, Bosnia, Slovenia, the Kosovo Albanians, etc. 

Nobody is saying that Milosevic's actions were just, or that he was innocent of the charges against him (the real ones, not the imagined ones), but portraying the story simply as Milosevic = criminal and everybody else = victims is patently false. There are many criminals in this story, and many victims. Bringing only Serbs up on War Crimes charges while their equally criminal counterparts of other nationalities die free men or are allowed to run for political office has very little to do with justice, and lots to do with Great Power concerns.

Your point about shifting loyalties may be obvious, but it is no less criminal (or hypocritical) for the United States to support a dictator and then 'suddenly' discover he is evil incarnate as its interests change. I would say the change in this case had very little to do with the way Saddam treated his people or his neighbours, since this didn't really change from the period when he was a US client to the period when he became the second Hitler (there's that media manipulation again). Most of those actions were precisely *in* US interests, or he wouldn't have stayed a US client for long. But regardless, what you describe as "US interests" are in fact of course not the interests of the Amercan people, but of of the tiny narrow elite that makes decisions, allegedly on their behalf. This is a rather important distinction.

If I am to understand you correctly, you're saying the prevailing position is to simply show that there are two sides to every story and friendships change.  To address the later first, think about your personal life, people come and go on varying terms.  The same can be said for international relations.  Why Saddam was a U.S. ally at one point and then became an enemy is a no brainer once someone take into consideration Saddam's actions torwards his own people, Iran, Israel, the Palestinians, and Saudi Arabia.  Those actions were counter to U.S. interests.  Thus, Saddam was no longer a U.S. friend.

To address the first issue, consider a murder.  There is the murderer and the victim.  Two sides to every story.  Does that make the murder justified?  Absolutely not.  So, just because Milosevic has his side of the story, doesn't mean he was just in his actions.  Which raises another question, are people saying Milosevic was innocent of the charges levied against him, or was he justified in those actions?

Rudy said, "What I'm trying to ask is, are people supporting Milosevic because he was, and they are a Socialist?"

I can only speak for myself, but I believe many people here would agree with my position, in that I don't see this blog as support for Milosevic. It's aim is to produce a counter to the ideologically opportunistic constructions of the struggles in the former Yugoslavia and the convenient demonisation of Milosevic that that has entailed.

As the Counterpunch piece says, the US State Dept once considered the Kosovo Liberation Army a terrorist organisation. Why and when did that perception conveniently change? Saddam was an ally. Why and when did that change. Iran was an ally. Why and when did that conveniently change? Why do these changes conveniently get glossed over by official voices? Etc, etc...

 

In the case of Serbia's Socialist Party, Ivica Dacic, maybe. Here, the disinterested parties seem to want to show that there were some political agenda by prosecuting Milosevic instead of the regime in Turkey.. Milosevics death is really convenient, it seem the US prosecution won't have to proof any charges while it rewroted a part of history..

"The president of Serbia's Socialist Party, Ivica Dacic, said Milosevic had successfully protected Serbia's national and state interests during his defense."

 What I'm trying to ask is, are people supporting Milosevic because he was, and they are a Socialist?

 

 

Paul Craig  Roberts at counterpunch had a decent piece on Milosevic  as well, I'm posting the link but I get validation errors so it might not go through.

http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts03132006.html 

The following UK Guardian newsblog produced the usual uncritical response to a Hague Tribunal practicing a radically contained and conveniently manufactured agenda.

The first four comments on this blog questioned this. The comment option has at this moment been inhibited!

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/archives/2006/03/11/closure_perhaps_but_no_justice.html

Rudy: 

Sorry.  But I don't understand your question.  Slobodan Milosevic was on one side (with many factions) throughout a series of many-sided civil wars.   At least through 1995, what was contested was the fate of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and the place of its six Republics and so-called "nations," "nationalities," and the like, either within the SFRY or a successor state or states. Decisions taken by external powers, including the European Community, and great individual powers such as the United States, to recognize as facts one from among a group of possible settlements to these contests, even though, on the ground, the facts themselves were still contested, and violently, greatly exacerbated the wars.  When writers today (and for years now) echo the kind of claims being put forwards by figures such as the American negotiator (a term I use advisedly) and former Ambassador to the United Nations, Richard Holbrooke, to the effect that “Milosevic started four wars,” this is merely to impose an account upon the civil wars that destroyed the former Yugoslavia that holds instead that there never were civil wars, but rather wars of aggression launched from Serbia.  What this amounts to is saying that there were no civil wars over the fate of Yugoslavia---because Great Power proclaimed there wasn’t, and it’s easier to take the side of Great Power, after all. 

From where I sit, it doesn't appear that Milosevic enjoyed any support at all.  (Excluding his old Socialist Party friends and loyalists, and the like.)  But especially not "outside of Serbia."  And among the Western powers in particular. 

On the contrary.  Slobodan Milosevic very well may have been the single most successfully demonized figure in recent decades.

 

Only Angels demonize like this.  Angels with Big Guns.

 

   

 

 

 

 Hopefully this post will not distort the text format again. In it we again see a supposed "human rights" organization both lying outrageously in the interests of the powerful and ignoring a major human rights violation. Indeed, considering this is the second death in ICTY custody in less than a week it's outrageous even for NATO apologists like HRW to pretend there's nothing wrong.  That the tribunal could deny a sick man medical treatment literally killing him while HRW cheers both the institution and the trial is truly monstrous. HRW has long ago revealed itself to be little more than a contemptible tool of empire and the liberal elite in this case and so many others but for HRW to produce the statement below is enough to make one nauseous.

Milosevic Escapes Judgment, Not Justice Process

(New York, March 11, 2006) – The former Yugoslav president, Slobodan Milosevic, has died before a verdict could be rendered on his alleged crimes, but overall his trial at the war crimes court in The Hague represents an advance in the cause of international justice, Human Rights Watch said today.

“Milosevic may have escaped judgment, but he did not escape the process of justice,” said Richard Dicker, director of the International Justice program at Human Rights Watch. “The victims of the Balkan wars deserved the satisfaction of hearing a verdict read against him in court, and they will never get that. But Milosevic died under indictment, stripped of his powers, with a long and official enumeration of his crimes on record for posterity.”  
 
Milosevic’s four-year trial before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia had amassed enormous evidence of his role in genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity committed during the ethnic cleansing that he set in motion between 1992 and 1999 in Bosnia, Croatia, and Kosovo. His death denies the tribunal the opportunity to render a verdict, but it does not undo more than 10 years of the tribunal’s work to bring him and other high-level officials to justice.  
 
“Milosevic’s death sets back efforts to show that ethnic cleansing was the product not of an ethnic group but of the designs of individual leaders,” said Dicker. “His trial laid bare the massive evidence of his crimes, but his victims will now be denied a formal judgment on his guilt.”  
 
The lengthy trial was plagued by delays caused by both the size of the prosecution’s case and by Milosevic’s seemingly intentional delaying tactics. The court also ordered repeated adjournments in order to respond to Milosevic’s health problems.  
 
Milosevic insisted on representing himself, and his cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, as well as his extensive defense case, seemed designed to score political points in his native Serbia. Yet as public attention to the trial waned and the cumulative weight of the evidence grew, Milosevic’s objectives were clear.  
 
“Milosevic was not trying to rebut the charges against him but to conduct a political offensive,” said Dicker. “His main defense strategy was to draw out the proceedings in the hope of securing his place in the hearts and minds of Serbs.”  

 

"The president of Serbia's Socialist Party, Ivica Dacic, said Milosevic had successfully protected Serbia's national and state interests during his defense."

I'm wondering, does this have anything to do with support for Milosevic outside of Serbia? 

 

David:

 

     Thanks and feel free to delete the problematic post.  

Dimitri:

I would like to try to fix the formatting problem that an earlier post (i.e., "Autopsy performed on Milosevic remains.  Was he poisoned?" March 12) seems to have caused for this ZNet Blog.

The first thing I’ll do is re-post here a more current version of the same AP report by Anthony Deutsch that you had posted.  (See below.)

But we may need for you to delete the problematic post.

Would you mind deleting the post titled "Autopsy performed on Milosevic remains.  Was he poisoned?"?

Thanks. 

 

And whatever else you do---don't be deterred from posting as much as you like.

The Associated Press
March 12, 2006 Sunday 6:14 PM GMT

HEADLINE: Autopsy performed on Milosevic amid possibilities of poisoning, suicide
BYLINE: By ANTHONY DEUTSCH, Associated Press Writer
DATELINE: THE HAGUE Netherlands

Dutch pathologists performed an autopsy on Slobodan Milosevic's remains Sunday amid claims by the former Yugoslav leader's supporters that he was poisoned and acknowledgement by the chief U.N. war crimes prosecutor that he could have committed suicide.

Milosevic, 64, had been ailing throughout the trial, suffering from high blood pressure and headaches. He asked the tribunal for permission to seek treatment in Russia, but that request was denied.

Milosevic was found dead in his cell Saturday morning, abruptly ending his four-year U.N. war crimes trial for orchestrating a decade of conflict that killed 250,000 people and tore the Yugoslav federation asunder. No verdict will be issued.

In Serbia, hundreds of Milosevic followers lit candles in his memory of their fallen hero at Socialist Party branches. Flags flew at half-staff outside party headquarters in Belgrade.

Elderly women sobbed and kissed Milosevic photographs, adorned with black cloths of mourning, while nationalists signed condolence books for the late Yugoslav president, declaring him a defender of "Serb honor."

But Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice called Milosevic "one of the most malign forces in Europe in quite a long time."

"Some feel that they wish there had been the opportunity to bring him to justice and to have the final verdict of history be in the courts, but I think the final vedict of history about Milosovic is pretty clear," Rice said after leaving Chile.

War crimes tribunal President Fausto Pocar said he ordered the autopsy and a toxicological examination after a Dutch coroner failed Saturday to establish the cause of death. Serbia sent a pathologist to observe the autopsy at the Netherlands Forensic Institute, which is controlled by the Dutch Justice Ministry.

Outside the tribunal on Sunday, Milosevic's legal adviser showed reporters a six-page letter he said the former leader wrote Friday claiming that traces of a "heavy drug" was found in his bloodstream, and he feared being poisoned.

The letter alleged that a drug used to treat leprosy or tuberculosis was found in his blood during a Jan. 12 medical exam, Zdenko Tomanovic said.

"They would like to poison me," the lawyer quoted Milosevic as telling him.

Tomanovic also complained that the court rejected the Milosevic family's request that an autopsy be conducted outside the Netherlands.

Milosevic's older brother, Borislav, said the family did not trust the tribunal to carry out an impartial autopsy. He also blamed the tribunal for his brother's death because it rejected his request to get medical treatment in Russia, which offered assurances that Milosevic would be returned to finish his trial.

The letter, dated March 10, was addressed to the Russian Embassy. A one-line English language cover note asked the embassy to forward the letter to the Russian foreign minister.

Tomanovic said he saw the jailed Serb leader Friday at 4:30 p.m. Milosevic's body was found the next morning.

The tribunal earlier said there were no outward signs of suicide or unnatural causes of death.

But chief prosecutor Carla Del Ponte said suicide could not be ruled out until the autopsy results were released no earlier than Monday. Both of Milosevic's parents committed suicide, as did a fellow war crimes defendant last week.

"You have the choice between a normal, natural death and suicide, and of course it could be possible," she said. "It is a possibility."

However, she said talk of suicide or poisoning was just "rumors."

Del Ponte also said Milosevic's death deprived victims of justice and made it more urgent to catch and extradite other Balkan leaders implicated in atrocities.

"It is a great pity for justice that the trial will not be completed and no verdict will be rendered," Del Ponte said.

Del Ponte said the trials of eight other suspects indicted for the massacre of some 8,000 Bosnian Muslims at Srebrenica in 1995 will help establish the record on Milosevic's involvement in the worst slaughter in Europe since World War II.

She said it was "more urgent than ever" to arrest former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic and his top military officer, Ratko Mladic, who were indicted in 1995 on charges of orchestrating the massacre. Both remain at large.

The president of Serbia's Socialist Party, Ivica Dacic, said Milosevic had successfully protected Serbia's national and state interests during his defense.

"He has fully defeated Carla Del Ponte's accusations that Serbia and Serbian nationals are genocidal and that they have ethnically cleansed the people of the former Yugoslavia," Dacic said.

Milosevic's death came nearly five years after he was arrested by Serb authorities and extradited to The Hague as the first sitting head of state ever to be indicted for war crimes.

His health problems caused numerous long recesses in his trial on 66 counts of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Del Ponte said the trial was close to completion this spring. After 466 trial days, only 50 days remained, she told reporters at the U.N. Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.

Del Ponte said the case against Milosevic was strong. In June 2004, the three judges rejected a defense motion to dismiss the case, which she said confirmed there was "sufficient evidence capable of supporting conviction for the 66 counts."

Milosevic died less than a week after former Croatian Serb leader Milan Babic committed suicide in the same prison in Scheveningen, a suburb of The Hague. Babic, once a Milosevic ally, was a key prosecution witness.

A leader of beguiling charm and cunning ruthlessness, Milosevic was reviled by the United States as "the butcher of the Balkans" but was a hero to many Serbs, despite losing four wars and impoverishing his people in the 1990s while trying to create a "Greater Serbia" linking Serbia with Serb-dominated areas of Croatia and Bosnia.

World leaders who dealt with Milosevic and many victims of the Balkan wars lamented that no verdict would be reached.

"I am sorry that his trial will not be completed, and that he did not acknowledge and apologize for his crimes before his death," former President Clinton, whose decision to authorize NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999 helped bring Milosevic down, said in a statement.

"Nevertheless, his capture and trial will serve as a reminder that egregious crimes against humanity will not be tolerated."

Milosevic was accused of being behind a brutal campaign of ethnic cleansing against non-Serbs during the wars that erupted as the Yugoslav federation began breaking apart in 1991, and his death was cheered by many in the Balkans.

Milosevic's trial and Saddam Hussein's war crimes proceeding in Iraq were widely seen as together constituting the most important legal test for the international community since German and Japanese leaders were tried after World War II.

Both trials were sharply criticized for frequent interruptions and the ability of the defendants to use the courtroom as a stage to launch vitriolic anti-Western diatribes. Reveling in the spotlight, Milosevic insisted on being his own defense lawyer.

He was able to lead Serbia for 13 years despite a crumbling economy and increasing international isolation. He once described himself as the "Ayatollah Khomeini of Serbia," assuring his prime minister, Milan Panic, that "the Serbs will follow me no matter what."

But in the end, his people abandoned him: first in October 2000, when he was unable to convince most Yugoslavs that he had staved off electoral defeat by Vojislav Kostunica, and again on April 1, 2001, when he surrendered after a 26-hour standoff to face criminal charges.

 

 

 

 

Report: Milosevic's Blood Had Drug Traces  AP

7 minutes ago

THE HAGUE, Netherlands - Traces of a drug used to treat leprosy and tuberculosis were found in a blood sample taken in recent months from former Yugoslav President
Slobodan Milosevic, a Dutch news report said, citing an unidentified "adviser" to the U.N. war crimes tribunal.

The report came hours after Milosevic's legal adviser showed journalists a letter the late Serb leader wrote Friday, one day before his body was discovered in prison, alleging that he was being poisoned.

The report was on the text service of the Dutch state broadcaster, NOS. It did not identify its source further.

Dutch doctors conducted an autopsy Sunday on Milosevic's remains, but the results were not expected to be released until Monday.

The tribunal spokeswoman said she could not comment on the news report. "We don't have any information. We simply have to wait for the results" of the autopsy report, said Alexandra Milenov.

Doctors found traces of the drug when they were searching for an answer to why Milosevic's medication for high blood pressure was not working, the report said.

Milosevic was examined last January, according to his legal aide, Zdenko Tomanovic.

The NOS report did not identify the drug found in Milosevic's blood "in a test done in recent months," but said it could have had a "neutralizing effect" on his other medications.

Earlier, Tomanovic said Milosevic had been "seriously concerned" about being poisoned.

His letter, dated March 10, was addressed to the Russian Embassy asking for help.

Milosevic had appealed to the war crimes tribunal last December to be allowed to go to a heart clinic in Moscow for treatment. The request was denied. He repeated the request as late as last month.

Milosevic underwent frequent medical examinations by doctors and specialists appointed by the tribunal and by Serb doctors brought at his own request. Detailed reports were routinely submitted to the judges.

Tomanovic said he saw the jailed Serb leader on Friday at 4:30 p.m. His body was found the next morning, and by 11 a.m. the letter was delivered to the Russian Embassy.

 

My apologies for distorting the text format with my last message. I'm not sure how exactly I did it or quite how to fix it. Also in regards to your earlier posts you are right. Members of "the left" have been among the most hysterical defenders of the official line. I think I misspoke when I said contributors earlier, I meant some of the people whose work Znet posts or has posted. As for Znet's regular contributors most of them have not written much on Yugoslavia or Kosovo for a while I think.

Autopsy Performed on Milosevic's Remains

By ANTHONY DEUTSCH, Associated Press Writer 41 minutes ago

THE HAGUE, Netherlands - Dutch pathologists performed an autopsy on Slobodan Milosevic's remains Sunday amid claims by the former Yugoslav leader's supporters that he was poisoned and a statement by the chief U.N. war crimes prosecutor raising the possibility he committed suicide.

Milosevic, 64, had been ailing throughout the trial, suffering from high blood pressure and headaches. He asked the tribunal for permission to seek treatment in Russia, but that request was denied.

Milosevic was found dead in his cell Saturday morning, abruptly ending his four-year U.N. war crimes trial for orchestrating a decade of conflict that killed 250,000 people and tore the Yugoslav federation asunder. No verdict will be issued.

War crimes tribunal President Fausto Pocar said he ordered the autopsy and a toxicological examination after a Dutch coroner failed Saturday to establish the cause of death. Serbia sent a pathologist to observe the autopsy at the Netherlands Forensic Institute, which is controlled by the Dutch Justice Ministry.

Outside the tribunal on Sunday, Milosevic's legal adviser showed reporters a six-page letter he said the former leader wrote Friday claiming that traces of a "heavy drug" was found in his bloodstream, and he feared being poisoned.

The letter alleged that a drug used to treat leprosy or tuberculosis was found in his blood during a Jan. 12 medical exam, Zdenko Tomanovic said.

"They would like to poison me," the lawyer quoted Milosevic as telling him.

Tomanovic also complained that the court rejected the Milosevic family's request that an autopsy be conducted outside the Netherlands.

Milosevic's older brother, Borislav, said the family did not trust the tribunal to carry out an impartial autopsy. He also blamed the tribunal for his brother's death because it rejected his request to get medical treatment in Russia, which offered assurances that Milosevic would be returned to finish his trial.

The letter, dated March 10, was addressed to the Russian Embassy. A one-line English language cover note asked the embassy to forward the letter to the Russian foreign minister.

Tomanovic said he saw the jailed Serb leader Friday at 4:30 p.m. Milosevic's body was found the next morning.

The tribunal earlier said there were no outward signs of suicide or unnatural causes of death.

But chief prosecutor Carla Del Ponte said suicide could not be ruled out until the autopsy results were released either late Sunday or early Monday. Both of Milosevic's parents committed suicide, as did a fellow war crimes defendant last week.

"You have the choice between a normal, natural death and suicide, and of course it could be possible," she said. "It is a possibility."

Del Ponte also said Milosevic's death deprived victims of justice and made it more urgent to catch and extradite other Balkan leaders implicated in atrocities.

"It is a great pity for justice that the trial will not be completed and no verdict will be rendered," Del Ponte said.

Del Ponte said the trials of eight other suspects indicted for the massacre of some 8,000 Bosnian Muslims at Srebrenica in 1995 will help establish the record on Milosevic's involvement in the worst slaughter in Europe since World War II.

She said it was "more urgent than ever" to arrest former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic and his top military officer, Ratko Mladic, who were indicted in 1995 on charges of orchestrating the massacre. Both remain at large.

Milosevic's death came nearly five years after he was arrested by Serb authorities and extradited to The Hague as the first sitting head of state ever to be indicted for war crimes.

His health problems caused numerous long recesses in his trial on 66 counts of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Del Ponte said the trial was close to completion this spring. After 466 trial days, only 50 days remained, she told reporters at the U.N. Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.

Del Ponte said the case against Milosevic was strong. In June 2004, the three judges rejected a defense motion to dismiss the case, which she said confirmed there was "sufficient evidence capable of supporting conviction for the 66 counts" of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity on which he was indicted.

Milosevic died less than a week after former Croatian Serb leader Milan Babic committed suicide in the same prison in Scheveningen, a suburb of The Hague. Babic, once a Milosevic ally, was a key prosecution witness in his trial.

Del Ponte denied that the two deaths could deter the surrender or arrest of other fugitives. In addition to Karadzic and Mladic, four other suspects remain on the tribunal's wanted list.

A leader of beguiling charm and cunning ruthlessness, Milosevic was reviled by the United States as "the butcher of the Balkans" but was a hero to many Serbs, despite losing four wars and impoverishing his people in the 1990s while trying to create a "Greater Serbia" linking Serbia with Serb-dominated areas of Croatia and Bosnia.

World leaders who dealt with Milosevic and many of the victims of the Balkan wars lamented that no verdict would be reached.

"I am sorry that his trial will not be completed, and that he did not acknowledge and apologize for his crimes before his death," said former President Clinton, whose decision to authorize NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999 helped bring Milosevic down.

"Nevertheless, his capture and trial will serve as a reminder that egregious crimes against humanity will not be tolerated," Clinton said in a statement released by his New York office.

Milosevic was accused of being behind a brutal campaign of ethnic cleansing against non-Serbs during the wars that erupted as the Yugoslav federation began breaking apart in 1991, and his death was cheered by many in the Balkans.

Milosevic's trial and Saddam Hussein's war crimes proceeding in Iraq were widely seen as together constituting the most important legal test for the international community since German and Japanese leaders were tried after World War II.

Both trials were sharply criticized for frequent interruptions and the ability of the defendants to use the courtroom as a stage to launch vitriolic anti-Western diatribes. Reveling in the spotlight, Milosevic insisted on being his own defense lawyer.

He was able to lead Serbia for 13 years despite a crumbling economy and increasing international isolation. He once described himself as the "Ayatollah Khomeini of Serbia," assuring his prime minister, Milan Panic, that "the Serbs will follow me no matter what."

But in the end, his people abandoned him: first in October 2000, when he was unable to convince most Yugoslavs that he had staved off electoral defeat by Vojislav Kostunica, and again on April 1, 2001, when he surrendered after a 26-hour standoff to face criminal charges.

Dimitri:

At least according to Associated Press, here is an answer to your query ("Not the first ICTY death in custody either," March 11):

Associated Press Worldstream
March 11, 2006 Saturday 8:07 PM GMT
HEADLINE: 11 war crimes suspects indicted by U.N. tribunal have died
BYLINE: By The Associated Press
DATELINE: BELGRADE Serbia-Montenegro

Eleven war crimes suspects indicted by the U.N. tribunal for the former Yugoslavia have died:

March 11, 2006: Slobodan Milosevic was found dead in his bed at the U.N. prison near The Hague.

March 2006: Milan Babic, 50, a Croatian Serb convicted of war crimes during a Serb rebellion against Croatia's independence, was found dead in his prison cell after an apparent suicide.

May 2003: Momir Talic, a Bosnian Serb general charged with genocide, died at the age of 61, following his release from the U.N. detention facility after doctors diagnosed him with cancer.

March 2003: Mehmed Alagic, a Bosnian Muslim general indicted for war crimes against Serbs and Croats during Bosnia's 1992-1995 war, died of a heart attack at home during a temporary release from the U.N. custody.

August 1998: Milan Kovacevic, a Bosnian Serb charged with crimes against humanity, died in the U.N. court's detention facility at the age of 57. His family claimed he was denied medical assistance and died painfully from a ruptured aorta.

June 1998: Slavko Dokmanovic, a Croatian Serb indicted for war crimes during the Croatian war, hanged himself in his cell at the U.N. detention facility.

April 1997: Djordje Djukic, Bosnian Serb general charged for his role in the shelling of Sarajevo, died shortly after being released from the U.N. detention center as terminally ill from pancreatic cancer.

Four other Serb war crimes suspects died before they were extradited to The Hague:

April 2002: Vlajko Stojiljkovic, Serbia's former police chief who served under Slobodan Milosevic, shot himself in the head in front of the parliament building in the capital, Belgrade, saying in a suicide note he did it because of his refusal to be handed to The Hague. The tribunal sought him for crimes during the 1998-1999 Kosovo conflict.

October 2000: Janko Janjic, a Bosnian Serb wanted for alleged rape during the Bosnian war, committed suicide and wounded four German soldiers with a hand grenade while resisting arrest by NATO troops in Bosnia.

January 1999: Dragan Gagovic, a Bosnian Serb accused of raping and torturing Muslim women, was shot to death by French NATO troops in eastern Bosnia while resisting arrest on war crimes charges.

July 1997: Simo Drljaca, a Bosnian Serb suspect, was killed by British commandos trying to arrest him.

 

 Milosevic's death follows the recent and rather mysterious "suicide" of  former Republika Srpska Krajina leader Milan Babic. Neither of these were the first deaths in ICTY custody.   Milan Kovacevic and Djordje Djukic died after being denied medical treatment and Slavko Dokmanovic  also died in his cell, another alleged "suicide". All Serbs, all dead in ICTY custody. Then there are the various "indicted war criminals" and/or their "supporters" who were shot by NATO troops while "resisting arrest" (according to NATO troops and their spokesmen). As far as I know all Serbs also. That the ICTY has not been denounced by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty and various other so-called human rights groups speaks volumes about the cooptation of such human rights groups and the role they play in legitimating various kinds of imperial violence (even while denouncing other kinds of imperial violence) and helping construct the official narrative.
 

Dimitri:

As at least one of the principals behind the International Committee To Defend Slobodan Milosevic described Milosevic's death in custody today, the Tribunal's refusal to permit Milosevic to seek the medical care he had been requesting since last December at Moscow's Bakoulev Scientific Center for Cardiovascular Surgery was "tantamount to murder."  (About which, see "Decision on Assigned Counsel Request for Provisional Release," February 23, 2006.  "[T]he Chamber notes that the Accused is currently in the latter stages of a very lengthy trial, in which he is charged with many serious crimes, and at the end of which, if convicted, he may face the possibility of life imprisonment. In these circumstances, and notwithstanding the guarantees of the Russian Federation and the personal undertaking of the Accused, the Trial Chamber is not satisfied that the first prong of the test has been met—that is, that it is more likely than not that the Accused, if released, would return for the continuation of his trial" (par. 18).  So Milosevic didn't get to travel to Moscow for medical care.  And some 16 days later, he wound up dead.  The wreckage of the ICTY's prosecution of its star defendant notwithstanding, the ICTY outlives its star defendant.  With the ICTY's help.) 

I agree with your assessment overall ("The Left didn't follow the trial," March 11).  And not only didn't the Left follow the Milosevic trial.  Or even familiarize itself with the fundamental injustices of the entire ICTY apparatus.  But, disgracefully, the Left (if usage of the term has any merit at all) frequently led the cheers for ICTY-type injustices, having spent the past 15 years propagating accounts of the breakup of Yugoslavia that often read as if they had come straight from the Office of the Prosecutor's press kit.  

By the way, you mention "many on the left (including some Znet contributors)...." 

Pray tell: Which ZNet contributors do you have in mind?  

 

The tragedy is that so few people followed the trial or understand what went on at all. Instead most leftists and activists continue to rely on and parrot the same grossly compromised, unreliable and hysterical sources that made the NATO bombing possible. Take for instance, the "ethnic cleansing" of kosovo. Ms. Prentice's testimony simply confirms once again that there was no Serb campaign of ethnic cleansing against the Albanians. When will people accept that the Yugoslav government did not launch a campaign of ethnic cleansing against the Albanians in Kosovo? Given not only the testimony of Prentice but also 1) The large exodus of Serbs, Roma and others from Kosovo during NATO's bombing campaign (pecentage wise more Serbs than Albanians left Kosovo) 2) the presence of tens of thousands of Albanians in Belgrade itself throughout the war and even today 3) the testimony of key defense witnesses and the exhibition of hundreds even thousands of documents to the effect that the VJ issued orders to respect international law and that there was a policy of punishing and prosecuting those soldiers who did commit war crimes 4)the glaring inconsistencies and outright lies exposed in the testimony of Albanian witnesses (indeed for so many prosecution witnesses quite regardless of ethnicity) for the ICTY prosecution 5) the testimony of both defense and prosecution witnesses including documentation that the KLA was planning to stage an exodus of ethnic Albanians from Kosovo (and that the KLA and Albanians criminals were even engaging in massive pressure against fellow ethnic Albanians to force them to comply) 6) the outrageous campaign of lying, deception and pro-NATO bombing propaganda that the press engaged in and continues to engage in on nearly all matters concerning Yugoslavia 7) the fact that OSCE, German and British documents show no sign of a plan to ethnically cleanse Kosovo etc., given all that why (apart from ignorance, fear or indoctrination) do so many on the left (including some Znet contributors) continue to claim the FRY government launched a campaign of ethnic cleansing against the Kosovar Albanians? This has nothing to do with liking Milosevic or hating him. It's just a question of information and honesty.

 

 

 The ICTY killed Milosevic, pure and simple. He suffered from high blood pressure and a heart condition. The ICTY refused to allow him to go to Russia for treatment despite his complaints of diziness and a roaring pressure in his ears recently. The ICTY pushed on at a breakneck pace and adopted tactics that would raise anyone's blood pressure. From the large number of outright liars and NATOcrats testifying for the prosecution to the endless documents given Milosevic at the last moment to the judges cutting off his microphone, placing arbitrary limits on his examinations and cross-examinations, the many outrageous restrictions placed on him and so much more the ICTY's ways would drive anyone crazy. I really believe most people in that position would have given up or gone much sooner. This death conveniently saves the ICTY the trouble of fabricating a guilty verdict which they had NO evidence for. None. Although the trial did see lots of evidence against NATO, the KLA, Croat and Bosniak forces, and even the various "democratic opposition" leaders and their paramilitaries(so beloved by the West and even the Left),
folks like Djindjic and Draskovic.