Croatia Homeland war – Croatia, the War, and the Future

Croatia must not yield to Serbia’s intimidation

ICJ Trial Chamber 2008

Croatian online news portal Vjesnik reports Friday 27 April that Slobodan Homen from Serbia’s ministry of Justice gave a statement to Serbia’s Evening News in which he said:

“We are very interested in achieving an agreement on relinquishing the cases for war crimes. Croatia has 1500 such cases against Serbs, and we only have 40 against Croatians. We are close to completing the final version of the text, and when elections are over, talks on withdrawing the lawsuit for genocide will commence”.

Talks on withdrawing reciprocal international lawsuits between Croatia and Serbia for genocide will commence as soon as elections are over in Serbia, said Homen, the secretary of Serbian ministry of justice.

The Serbian Evening News reported that Croatian and Serbian departments of Justice are currently conciliating the text of a bilateral agreement regarding relinquishment of war crimes lawsuits that are currently before the courts in Serbia and Croatia.

Homen said that initialing of such a document is the main prerequisite for agreement to end the reciprocal proceedings before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for genocide.

The main hearing for genocide in Croatia is expected to commence at the ICJ during the first half of 2013.

In July 1999 Croatia filed a case for genocide against Serbia. The genocide as it occurred during the Serb aggression in Croatia 1991 – 1995, Croatian War of Independence. In 2008 ICJ ruled it has jurisdiction to hear the case.

In 2010 Serbia filed a countersuit against Croatia. Croatia must file its additional reply to Serbia’s counter suit by 30 August 2012.

Serbia’s countersuit contains material on Serbian-Croatian relations with accent on World War II and the killing of Serbs in the Jasenovac camp during that war.

By extending the timeline addressed in this ICJ case to WWII Serbia seems to be looking at justifying or mitigating its main role in genocide in Croatia during 1991 – 1995. That is, telling the world: look what Croatians did to our people in 1941 – 1945!

How abhorrent!

If Serbia’s countersuit is anything to go by, then it is plainly clear that Serbia has no intentions of admitting any wrongdoing, any genocidal rampage against Croatia, ever.

Let’s hope that Croatia’s current government and the Opposition see this and that Croatia does not withdraw its genocide claim against Serbia in the ICJ. By withdrawing Croatia would give into Serbian intimidation when there is absolutely no reason for Croatia to feel guilty.

Today’s Croatia, Croatia of 1991 – 1995, cannot be answerable for events that occurred in 1941, if not for any other reason then for the fact that 1941 Croatia was not a united political entity, but split into three major opposing and antagonistic factions: pro-Fascist, pro-Communist and neutral. Serbia’s unrelenting ways of painting the whole of Croatian nation as being anti-Serb are abominable, and inherent in its countersuit at the ICJ.

This is one of the main reasons why Croatia must pursue with the genocide case against Serbia at the ICJ – to clear its name and do justice for the individual victims and to do justice to the nation of Croatia once and for all. Croatia must never forget that, as opposed to WWII events, the 1991-1995 years were about 94% of Croatian people voting to secede from communist Yugoslavia and Serbia employing genocidal aggression in order to try and stop Croatia from achieving independence. Ina Vukic, Prof. (Zgb); B.A., M.A.Ps. (Syd)

Nope! Croatia cannot be a friend of the ICTY court!

Croatia is liberated from Serb occupation August 1995, dr Franjo Tudjman congratulates the forces

ICTY Appeal Chamber has February 8 rejected the application by the government of Republic of Croatia for Friend of the court (amicus curiae) status in the Ante Gotovina and Mladen Markac appeal.

Knowing the attitude that the ICTY seemed to have saddled itself with from its beginnings – don’t trust people because all are guilty – such a rejection, albeit saddening and troublesome, comes with no real surprise. Given that the ICTY Prosecution went on a rampage against the whole of the Croatian leadership with its theory of joint criminal enterprise (i.e. that Croats drove the Serbs out of Croatia in August 1995 at the end of the liberating Operation Storm) the chance of Croatian State being approved as a Friend of the court was slim.

Brief timetable of submissions:

18 October 2006, ICTY Trial Chamber refused Croatia’s application for amicus curiae status/ to intervene in the case, assist the court;

This application – refused;

16 December 2011 Croatia files another submission for amicus curiae status – marked confidential;

30 December 2011 the Prosecution files a response to Croatia’s submission – marked confidential;

3 January 2012 Croatia files a reply to the Prosecution’s response – marked confidential.

Croatia’s claim, among others, was that since the Trial Chamber had named in its April 2011 judgment against Gotovina and Markac several members of the government at the time, then the government has a right to intervene and explain its position.

Nothing wrong with that logic, as far as I can see. Indeed, if a third party is named in a court’s guilty judgment, without being heard, one would assume that third party has a right of reply – at least. But, the logic of natural justice seems to elude many sectors of the ICTY.

Of course, the Prosecution claimed that States do not have the right to intervene or file statements of interest!

The mind boggles! Why does the ICTY have a right to point the finger at States (or its top government officials as a group) then, if its case is against individuals!?

Tthe Appeals Chamber has found that allowing Croatia’s national interests to enter into the case (Croatia’s application as amicus curiae) is beyond the scope of issues on Appeal.

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!

The issues on Appeal are centred around joint criminal enterprise concocted by the Trial Chamber not only against Gotovina or Markac, but against government leaders of Croatian state, who represent national interests in anyone’s books, except the ICTY’s.

The contradictions in all of this are staggering. The court and the Prosecution judge Gotovina and Markac individually for a joint enterprise, which according to the court was planned and executed by a group of people it names, and yet that group has no right to defend or explain itself in the same court. No doubt in my mind: the Prosecution at the ICTY has strapped blinkers on and refuses to even acknowledge fairness, or look sideways where the full truth lies or may lie. Ina Vukic, Prof. (Zgb); B.A., M.A.Ps. (Syd)