ICTY – Croatia, the War, and the Future

CROATIA: Poaching In The Hague – An Interview With Nika Pinter

May 22, 2021 by inavukic 2 Comments

REDUCING FACTS TO FIT A MYTH – A HORRIBLE MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE

Book Covers “Poaching in the Hague” by Miroslav Tudjman. Portrait Photo of Nika Pinter (C) by B. Čović/ Glas Koncila

Interview by Ina Vukic

(Interview in the Croatian language can be accessed by clicking this link/ preuzmite injercju na hrvatskom jeziku)

In 2019 the late Professor Dr. Miroslav Tudjman wrote a book which should be compulsory reading, not only for those interested in the tangled story of the Croat-Muslim War of 1992-1994, but also in the work of the Hague Tribunal (ICTY), its evidently biased approach in the case of the so-called Herceg Bosna Six (Jadranko Prlic, Milivoj Petkovic, Bruno Stojic, Slobodan Praljak, Berislav Pusic and Valentin Coric) and in the wider problems of supranational criminal justice.

Readers may remember that in May of 2013 the ICTY Trial Chamber pronounced these six defendants guilty of the so-called Joint Criminal Enterprise and its Appeal Chamber confirmed this verdict on 29 November 2017. As the Appeal Judges pronounced its guilty verdict, General Slobodan Praljak, one of the six defendants, committed suicide in front of the sitting court, the televised images of which suicide circled the world in a shock that rocked the very foundations of the ICTY’s delivery of justice. As he consumed the poison in the courtroom Slobodan Praljak faced the judges and said: “Judges, Slobodan Praljak is not a war criminal. With contempt, I reject your verdict!“

The ICTY case against the Herceg Bosna Six is now remembered principally for the act of suicide of General Slobodan Praljak, televised and in open court. But Dr Miroslav Tudjman’s lucid investigation of the judicial process should leave any objective reader with another impression, namely of the systematic and cumulative unfairness of what transpired. In that light I interviewed Nika Pinter, A Croatian former court judge who also served as an attorney on the General Slobodan Praljak’s defence team in the Hague, at the ICTY.

Miroslav Tudjman’s book “Haški krivolov”, which was published in 2019, aroused great interest around the world and was recently published in English with the title “Poaching in the Hague”. How much do you think the very title of that book contributed to the public’s significant curiosity?

The title of Dr. Tudjman’s book is intriguing and certainly, under such a title, arouses curiosity about the content provided to the reader. The title suggests that actions in the criminal process were carried out in an incorrect manner and contrary to the rules of criminal procedure. The book shows how a verdict should not be written and how criminal proceedings should not be conducted. I hope that the book will be read and also read by people who are prone to their own theses and who support the myths about the “division of Bosnia”, the myth of aggression of the Republic of Croatia against Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH), the myth about a plan of Croatian politicians during the war to annex part of BiH.

In your opinion, why is this book by Dr. M. Tudjman so important and to whom is it mainly directed?

I don’t think the book is intended for any specific reader profile. It is addressed to all readers who are interested in the facts about the Hague verdict in the Prlic et al. case and how the facts on the basis of which the verdict was rendered were established in the proceedings. I want to believe that the book will be a stimulus to historians and experts in criminal law and procedure for an analytical approach to the criminal proceedings conducted before the Tribunal in The Hague.

A great deal of effort has been put into writing the book. It was necessary to read a significant number of pages of court records, closing letters of the defence, review hundreds of documents in order to make a comprehensive analysis. The work paid off, because we got facts placed in order in one place. And those facts are a response to the myths we have been hearing for years about the alleged meeting in Karadjordjevo, about the alleged division of Bosnia and Herzegovina, about the alleged existence of a joint criminal enterprise.

With its content, the book indisputably shows that the conclusion in the verdict, in relation to the joint criminal enterprise, is based on the reduction of facts. The conclusion about the existence of a fact cannot be derived from a part of a document, but the whole document must be read and then the facts from the document must be connected with the events to which they refer and put in context. Selectivity in the choice of the content within a document leads to a reduction of facts, and reduced facts are unreliable, leading to erroneous determination of decisive facts and factually unfounded conclusions and then to wrong application of law.

Drawing a conclusion at will and not from the facts presented in the criminal proceedings cannot lead to a fair and factually based verdict. The book clearly shows this only on a segment, an important segment, of the existence of Joint Criminal Enterprise (JCE).

Witnesses on whose testimonies the court based its decision in relation to the JCE are elaborated in detail in the book, their testimonies, allegations, interpretations. And then they are contradicted by evidence that refutes their allegations. Just the facts.

Dr. Miroslav Tudjman says: “The indictment and the verdict on the Joint Criminal Enterprise are not based on material facts but on interpretations of written documents (primarily presidential transcripts), on the testimonies of witnesses who were not direct participants in certain events but their interpreters, on expertise and conspiracy theories (Karadjordjevo is the crowning proof of a conspiracy, about which there are no witnesses or records)”.

Do you think that the content of this book actually justifies the widespread opinion in the world that the Hague International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia was largely defined by political efforts rather than hard evidence of the crimes that many Croats were accused of?

I think so, indeed. The verdict ignored the defence evidence and the conclusions in the verdict were based on the allegations in the indictment and the actions taken by the policy of the Croat people in BiH and the Republic of Croatia were assessed outside the context of peace talks, conferences and requests of international representatives. This is my conclusion as a defence counsel in the case, and by analysing the testimony of witnesses and documents, Dr. Tudjman concluded the same in the book. In presenting the book, I referred to Resolution No. 827 adopted on 23 May 1993, by which the UN Security Council established the ICTY and adopted its Statute, and strongly emphasised that the judges, the prosecutors and the staff be significantly equipped with experience in criminal procedure (extracted from provisional verbatim record of the three thousand two hundred and seventeenth meeting Held at Headquarters, New York, on Tuesday, 25 May 1993, at 9 p.m).

Ms. Madeleine Albright, as the representative of the United States, reminded all, among other things, of the statement she made in previous sessions: “This will be no victors’ tribunal. The only victor that will prevail in this endeavour is the truth. “(S / PV.3175, p. 11)” (This will not be a victorious court. The only winner that will prevail in that endeavour will be the truth).

However, the aim of the investigation was not to establish the facts about the responsibility of the accused persons, but the Prosecutor used the reverse method of bringing about charges. He first decided who to charge, and then he went in search of evidence and only those that support his thesis. As I have also been a prosecutor for a significant part of my life, I know that the facts are first established by evidence, which then shows or points to the perpetrator. In this case it was the other way around.

The proceedings were not conducted as proceedings in a criminal case, nor were the judges professionals with experience in criminal procedure and the winner was certainly not the truth.

International criminal tribunals seek the twin goals of domestic catharsis and bringing culpable individuals to justice. Based on your extensive experience at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, how do you see this balance being struck in practice?

My position on this is visible from the answers I have already given here and that position is that there was no possibility of achieving a balance in bringing individuals before the court. Dr. Jadranko Prlic’s defence counsel, Michael G. Karnavas, on his blog ( http://michaelgkarnavas.net/blog/2017/12/05/praljaks-defiance/ ) regarding the Appeal Chamber verdict in the text entitled General Praljak’s honorable defiance, among other things, wrote:

“…when the ICTY website, outreach material, and exhibition posters depicted the narrative below (or a variation of it) before, during, and after the trial, and while the appeal was pending:

The republic’s [BiH’s] strategic position made it subject to both Serbia and Croatia attempting to assert dominance over large chunks of its territory. In fact, the leaders of Croatia and Serbia had in 1991 already met in a secret meeting where they agreed to divide up Bosnia and Herzegovina, leaving a small enclave for Muslims.

… Bosnian Croats soon followed, rejecting the authority of the Bosnian Government and declaring their own republic with the backing of Croatia. The conflict turned into a bloody three-sided fight for territories, with civilians of all ethnicities becoming victims of horrendous crimes.

In light of these claimed facts on the ICTY website, can it be said that the accused in Prlić et al. truly enjoyed the presumption of innocence? For years this text has been part of the ICTY narrative for public consumption. It was not drafted by accident. Nor is it likely that it was posted and paraded about without the express approval of the presidents of the ICTY. Incidentally, sitting on the Appeals Chamber in Prlić et al. were two former presidents (Judge Theodor Meron and Judge Fausto Pocar) and the current president, Judge Carmel Agius…”

I believe that with this quote from the lawyer Karnavas, whose position I fully share, I explained why there was no balance and why its achievement was not even wanted when bringing individuals to court.

In relation to guilt by chain of command, the former Chief Prosecutor at the Hague, Louise Arbour, said in an interview published by PBS during her tenure that “What this statute actually provides is the fact that these acts– genocides, crimes against humanity, violations of the laws in customs of war–thought they were committed by a subordinate does not relieve his superior of criminal responsibility, if the superior knew or had reason to know that the subordinate was about to commit such acts, or had done so and the superior failed to take the necessary and reasonable measures to prevent such acts, or to punish the perpetrators, thereafter. So that, in a nutshell, is the doctrine of command responsibility. It’s the responsibility of superiors, it’s a concept that originates in army settings, in military settings. But in a civil administration setting it would apply to any person who has control over a subordinate (who committed crimes). He can be personally criminally liable if he knew or should have known that the subordinate was committing crimes and failed in his duty of supervision to stop him.”

You are a lawyer by profession, and you have dealt specifically with criminal law, how do you see the fact that the indictments of the Hague Tribunal were often based not on the commission of a war crime but on the so-called command responsibility and were you satisfied with the manner and evidence with which the Hague Tribunal tried to prove command responsibility? Namely, as a lawyer, are you satisfied with the thoroughness of the evidence that the court requested from the prosecution, and if you were not professionally satisfied, why?

My many years of experience in criminal law cannot reconcile with the way in which criminal responsibility of a superior (command responsibility) is established in proceedings before the ICTY. The basic criterion in determining guilt in criminal proceedings is the objective effect of the criminal offense (actus reus) and the subjective component on the part of the accused (mens rea).

To claim that a commander is responsible for issuing combat orders is beyond the process and life logic.

We are talking about war. In war, the commander issues orders in order for them to be carried out. It can by no means be an element of a crime. But an order does not in itself prove an order for a crime. In order to be responsible, the commander must be informed of the crime, so he must know about it. I agree with Louise Arbour on the definition of command responsibility “if the superior knew or had reason to know that the subordinate committed such acts or did so and the superior did not take the necessary and reasonable measures to prevent such acts or to punish the perpetrators thereafter”. The verdict does not indicate any evidence linking the accused directly to the crime, or that he may be charged with failure to go unpunished within his authority. The evidence provided by the prosecutor in the proceedings does not allow such a conclusion even by applying the method utilising indications. The links to close the chain of indications are missing, which, after making a closed circle, do not allow any other conclusion except that the commander knew about the actions of the subordinate and did nothing to prevent crimes or punish the perpetrator.

In the criminal proceedings against the senior military commanders, I am of the opinion that the decision on the responsibility of the superior should have been made by the military court, and as General Praljak insisted. The basis for the criminal responsibility of the commander is marked with three Cs – Command, Communication, Control. If one of the elements is missing, it cannot be claimed that the commander is responsible. The prosecutor did not provide evidence of the existence of all three elements of C.

The criminal proceedings, in the way they were conducted and approached primarily by the prosecutor, resembled the proceedings before the International Commission for the establishment of crimes, where descriptions, feelings, assessments, and political condemnations are sufficient.

To clarify, at no point were the crimes denied, they were undisputed. It was disputable whether the accused knew about these crimes, whether they were responsible for them and whether they ordered them.

This book by Miroslav Tudjman deals in particular with the analysis of the Hague Tribunal’s proceedings in the case of Jadranko Prlic, Bruno Stojic, Slobodan Praljak, Milivoj Petkovic, Valentin Coric and Berislav Pusic, the so-called case of the Herceg Bosna Six. Can it be concluded from that book that the Hague Tribunal rendered a wrong verdict of guilty for these six and for Joint Criminal Enterprise and if your answer is affirmative why do you think or assess it that way?

The content of the book gives an affirmative answer to this question. Yes, in relation to the Joint Criminal Enterprise, the verdict was not rendered on the basis of the facts available.

The book systematically and analytically deals with why there was no basis for a JCE conviction. I have nothing to add to the analysis given in the book. It should certainly be emphasised that the Trial Chamber Presiding Judge in relation to JCE gave his extensive opinion in which he explained why in this particular case there is no basis for claiming the existence of JCE. The judgment in the first-instance proceedings, in the Trial Chamber, was not rendered unanimously.

The verdict was handed down on a significant reduction of documents, contents of which went in favour of the defence and refutation of the claim about the existence of JCE. This was especially true of the evidence related to the attacks and offensives of the BIH Army and the participation of the Mujahideen in its ranks.

As a lawyer, you were personally on General Slobodan Praljak’s defence team. During the trial and appeal, did you experience protests that justice and the truth about Croatia’s efforts in the war on the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina would be denied or incomplete?

Yes. Decisions on the admission of defence evidence, the admission of segments of individual documents, the selective approach to the admission of defence evidence and the non-selective approach to the admission of prosecution evidence often frustrated me. All the effort put in with the best intention of presenting all the facts, so that the Chamber would have a chance to reach a proper verdict, seemed futile, but we did not give up. In the end, yes, it was in vain.

The proceedings before the Tribunal are a compilation of two legal systems, Common law and Civil law. However, the basic principles of criminal procedure remain the same, the prosecutor must base his accusation on the evidence and its content. The manner in which the indictment was filed, just contrary to the principles of criminal procedure, shifted the burden of proof to the defence.

The prosecutor came from the Anglo-Saxon legal field with the aim of winning, regardless of the facts. The defence had matured in a legal order in which the goal is to establish the facts, and the prosecutor and the court and the defence have that obligation. And it is not a question of winning the process at any cost, but of establishing the facts with evidence. In the legal order I come from in criminal proceedings there is no maxim rule that the goal justifies the means. The goal is not to indict at all costs or to obtain a conviction at all costs. We have not advocated a thesis, if the facts do not support the allegations of the prosecution, then that’s worse for the facts.

In one of her presentations, I can now not determine exactly whether written or oral, journalist and author Visnja Staresina referred to the professor of international law at Paris Oest, Alain Pallet, and his position published in Vecernji list on September 27, 1997:

“In our continental legal system, the investigation is conducted by the prosecutor and the investigating judge, the prosecutor is not autonomous, but is under the control of the judge and when the investigating judge assesses reasonable suspicion, he submits the file to the prosecutor to decide whether to indict. It is the task of the investigating judge to establish the truth. In the American system, with an adversarial procedure, in which the investigation is entrusted to the prosecutor, he tries to find all the evidence that is against the accused, and not to establish the truth.”

Can you explain the concept of Joint Criminal Enterprise and whether this concept is accepted in other countries, e.g. Australia, USA, UK?

Yes, but only in brief, because countless papers have dealt with the concept of JCE. I refer to Prof. Mirjan Damasca (Yale School of Law) who wrote that the JCE doctrine was built by the ICTY. The Hague tribunal, first the prosecutor and then the court, resorted to the construction of the JCE institute because the institute of indirect command responsibility (Article 7, paragraph 3 of the Statute) proved flawed and insufficient to prosecute all those it sought to prosecute. crimes committed. Therefore, he derived the doctrine of JCE from Article 7, paragraph 1 of the Statute 27. (Dr. Mirjan Damasca. On the criminal law analysis of the charges before the Hague Tribunal against high officials and military commanders of the Republic of Croatia for a “joint criminal enterprise” in Operation Storm. // Round table. Zagreb: Croatian Academy of Legal Sciences/ University of Zagreb, Faculty of Law, 2005., pp- 1.-39.)

I found it difficult to accept this form of criminal responsibility.

The “basic” type, or first category of JCE, encompasses all defendants who act with a common purpose and have the same criminal intent within a common plan in committing the crimes provided for in the ICTY Statute. The mildest form of JCE concerns cases in which crimes do not arise from common goal of the JCE but are nevertheless a natural and foreseeable consequence of its realisation.

The accused must voluntarily participate in one aspect of the joint plan which does not necessarily imply that the accused personally committed any acts of the criminal offenses from the Statute but can also be in the form of helping or contributing to the realisation of a common goal.

As far as I am aware, and I think I am informed enough, JCE is a creation of the Tribunal and this concept is not accepted in other criminal justice systems.

JCE, – would not be accepted in the court proceedings of the said States. Judicial systems based on the presumption of innocence and the provisions on the properties that evidence must have, equality of all sides in the proceedings and the requirement of a fair trial would not allow the application of this concept as accepted by the ICTY.

I believe that the reason is in the fact that the criminal responsibility of a criminal association must include evidence of a criminal agreement, the individual responsibility of each member of the criminal association with specific limits of responsibility of all members of the association and their intentions and degree of guilt. All these elements do not matter in JCE.

If the JCE doctrine as accepted by the Hague Tribunal were accepted as the ruling doctrine, the circle of military and political persons, which can be covered by criminal proceedings under international law, would be wide with criminalisation of political decisions or decisions of high military commanders.

Since this is a criminal procedure, the JCE doctrine is not in line with the basic requirement of criminal responsibility, the existence of actus reus and mens rea. Individual criminal responsibility cannot be inferred from generalised allegations. A common criminal purpose, a significant contribution to a common plan or purpose must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The accusation must be based on facts and not on a political decision.

Dr. Miroslav Tudjman writes about the extensive evidence favourable to Croatian defendants that the court rejected in that process. Can you give some examples?

It is true that Dr. Tudjman in his book wrote exhaustively about the rejected documents, that is, only about those documents about the existence or rather the non-existence of JCE, in relation to the documents presented to witnesses, and whose statements he analysed.

The defence pointed to double standards in the admission of evidence throughout the proceedings. The prosecutor introduced the documents obtained from the Croatian State Archives without hindrance and they were accepted by the decision of the panel, while the documents from the same source, when submitted by the defence, were rejected. The majority of the panel adhered to the position of the prosecutor.

Perhaps best of all about General Praljak’s approach to the introduction of defence evidence is the separate opinion of the Trial Chamber President on the decision to accept or not to accept documentary defence evidence.

The President of the Trial Chamber, in his separate opinion, points out that the defence followed the instructions for the introduction of documents, so it is unclear why the prosecutor opposes the introduction of 65% of the proposed documents, especially since the vast majority of documents were obtained from the prosecutor. According to the presiding judge, it is unreasonable for the prosecutor to claim that the documents are inauthentic and unreliable, especially when the prosecutor submitted them to the defence.

With regard to documents relating to the treatment of Muslims, the arming of Muslims and the training of BIH Army members, the President of the Trial Chamber disagrees with the majority’s decision that they are irrelevant. The arguments of the defence that these documents refute the JCE, because the Republic of Croatia assisted BiH in the fight against the common enemy, are acceptable.

General Praljak’s defence proposed 73 documents relating to the fact that the BIH Army had initiated conflicts against the Croatian Defence Council (HVO). Most chambers have decided not to introduce certain documents as evidence because they are geographically outside the scope of the indictment. When all the documents between the prosecutor’s arguments that the HVO attacked the BIH Army and the defence’s arguments that the BIH Army attacked the HVO are added up, these documents are essentially JCE.

The President of the Trial Chamber, when asked how the Chamber will decide on the probative value of the theory of defence if it does not accept defence’s documents, points out in his separate opinion that the rejection of defence’s evidence can be interpreted as one side’s theory already having been accepted.

Photos of Mostar showing the locations of the sniper’s victims were proposed by the defence to be considered together with the findings of the prosecution expert and related to General Praljak’s questions to the expert witness and witnesses who were hit by the sniper. All in order to determine the position of the sniper and whether it is possible that a shot was fired from the area under the control of the HVO. The photos were rejected by a majority decision.

The approach of the majority in the chambers in the decision to accept the written statements of General Praljak’s defence witnesses is almost identical.

In a separate opinion of the Trial Chamber President on the decision to accept written witness statements under Rule 92, it was noted that the Chamber received the defence’s request on 14 September 2009 and had more than a year to accept the summaries or statements of 155 witnesses.

It took the Trial Chamber more than a year to eventually accept only 4% of the statements, all after General Praljak’s defence had completed its case.

It has been said on many occasions that there were problems with court translators and interpreters in the Hague Tribunal. Some of their mistakes seem astounding. Can you also give a few examples of these errors?

From the very beginning of the process, we pointed out the problem of translations. The official languages of the court were English and French. Ninety percent of the documents referring to the time and events in the indictment were written in Croatian or Serbian. The accused spoke Croatian, the witnesses mostly spoke Croatian. Translation was therefore a key factor in the proceedings.

When it comes to translation, interventions in translation were necessary in the hearing itself at the time of simultaneous translation, in the minutes of the hearing and in the translation of documents into the official language of the court. Court interpreters have shown remarkable effort to translate the spoken words accurately.

In criminal proceedings, it is also important to understand a small nuance of language or slight variations in terminology in order to get a fair and accurate impression of the witness statement. In ICTY trials, where testimonies are translated simultaneously, the panel is often deprived of this important opportunity. During the trial, there were many cases where translations and / or language problems were quite obvious. Despite the best efforts of the translator and the reactions of the defence in the event of some noticeable errors in the translation, minor errors went unnoticed, not to mention some linguistic nuances that could not be properly understood (Example is in this extract from ICTY Transcropts: T. 23108:7 – 23108:17, 3 October 2007, Witness DW:

MR. KOVACIC: I’m sorry, I apologise but now I recognise the problem. Judge Trechsel asked me why do I think that the question was capricious? Because this is the terms as my Croatian was translated. It was wrongly translated. I used a term in Croatian “kapciozno” which in our theory includes — which in our theory — which in our theory means leading, because there is a response included in the question. So this word which is here in translation, capricious, is absolutely wrong. Sorry, Judge. It’s a misunderstanding on this part.

JUDGE TRECHSEL: Yes, and I’m very happy.

MR. KOVACIC: I do think your question was leading.

JUDGE TRECHSEL: I accept that and I apologise.-

T. 44256:25 – 44257:6, 2 September 2009:

JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Praljak, let me add something so you can know what my position is. The difficulty we all have here is that we’re working in several languages, and each language has its own nuances, and sometimes there’s storms in the teacup just because of translation problems. The words expressed by one person are not necessarily completely translated into another language with all its nuances, and sometimes there could be misinterpretation.)

Written translations required corrections. Because of such problems, the Trial Chamber is sometimes simply unable to fully comprehend some details of testimony or citations that could be critical to a proper assessment of the evidence.

Example: The prosecutor offered General Praljak’s post-war interview as evidence, according to which, according to the prosecutor, the general said that the policy of the Serbs in BiH was closer to the Croats than the Muslim one. Simply, unity is out of the question. He also played a video of the interview at the hearing.

The allegation “Unity is out of the question” does not exist in the original text, nor is it recorded in the minutes of the hearing, but it is stated in the transcript of the video translated into English and submitted as evidence by the prosecutor.

In fact, in the Tribunal, where many lawyers and participants in the proceedings were unable to read or understand the original evidence, the meaning of “reasonable doubt” was not appreciated given the distance from the original evidence.

Another example: The Prosecutor introduced a document on the return of a unit from the H.V. Hrvatinic Brigade as evidence of the involvement of the Republic of Croatia in the armed conflict in BiH and the presence of the Croatian Army (abbreviated as H.V) in BiH. Time was spent proving that H.V. abbreviation in this case was not an abbreviation for the Croatian Army, but the initials of the person after whom the unit was named (Hrvoje Vukcic Hrvatinic).

In relation to translations Dr. Tudjman concludes in his book:

It is time for the methods of forensic linguistics to address the Hague processes. It is to be assumed that the results of these analyses will rather confirm the views of the defence that demanded them, than the beliefs of the Prosecution and the judgments of the judges who considered linguistic and semantic problems to be just a “storm in a glass of water”.

Would you like to add something else about Dr. Miroslav Tudjman’s book or about your conclusions regarding the Hague Tribunal verdict in the case of the “The Herceg Bosna Six”?

I would like to point out, not as crucial but significant indicators, about the understanding of the Trial Chamber or those who wrote the verdict about the area they were making decisions about.

Volume 2 of the judgment, paragraph 5, footnote 7 states “Prozor, which means ‘window’ and is also called Rama, 7 is the entry point from Herzegovina into Central Bosnia.”

In the same Volume 2 of the judgment in paragraph 670. It is stated “The river Neretva flows through Mostar in a north-east direction.”

There is no place for desires and goals in criminal proceedings. Criminal proceedings have the task of establishing the facts and should remain uninfected by political, social or any other influences or motives.

The conclusion regarding the verdict as a whole my words would be the final words of General Praljak on November 29, 2017 at 11:35 AM: Judges, Slobodan Praljak is not a war criminal. I reject your verdict with contempt.

————

„Poaching in the Hague“ is available through AMAZON in both print and Kindle versions.

St. George Society, Dobriše Cesarića 9, 10000 Zagreb, Hrvatska, https://nsf-journal.hr/

PRESS RELEASE AVAILABLE HERE (PDF)

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Berislav Pusic, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bruno Stojic, Croatia, Haški krivolov, Herceg-Bosna, Herceg-Bosna Six, ICTY, International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia, Jadranko Prlic, Milivoje Petkovic, Miroslav Tudjman, miscarriage of justice, Nika Pinter, Poaching in the Hague, Slobodan Praljak, Valentin Coric

Croatia: To Claim Back Justice Sold Via Giving Amnesty To Serb War Criminals

December 4, 2020 by inavukic 10 Comments

In any global or international community agenda small countries suffer and are left to their own devices to live with consequences that are often harsh, that more often than not, mean that someone ends up with their human rights brutally violated.

On the point of global pressure where someone ends up a victim of human rights usurpation, I am transported back to Croatia 1997/1998 when, highly pressured by the international powers (in particular the European Union and Bill Clinton’s or Democrats’ America) to make deals in the process of reintegrating (liberating) the remaining parts of Croatia occupied by the brutal and murderous Serb aggressor. The deal included the granting of amnesty to hundreds of Serbs from prosecution for suspected and evidenced war crimes committed against Croatian people. And so, the Croatian authorities at the time caved into this pressure in which the international community was insisting that Serbs’ human rights must be protected, that they must be allowed to live without fear of prosecution or retribution if they returned to Croatia (most of these war criminals had already fled Croatia into Serbia)! The human rights of Croatian victims of Serb aggression, of war crimes, were not as important.

Scandalous!

Some twenty years later, today, the situation Croatia is faced with is that Serb war criminals or suspected war criminals are moving freely, living in Croatia, among their victims! Protected! So, it is not unusual to come across in Vukovar, for instance, Serb rapists, murderers, torturers who have returned to live in that area. Of course, whether on justice or humanity’s level, this is not acceptable! This naturally causes perpetual protests and distress on the side of Croats. And what does Croatia’s Prime Minister Andrej Plenkovic do? He takes Croatian Serb leaders who in Croatia chase after Serbia’s interests rather than Croatia’s, Milorad Pupovac, Boris Milosevic (and others), whose brothers, sisters etc are among those brutal Serb aggressors from 1990’s, as coalition partners in government! Talk about rubbing salt on open wounds!

For the duration of Pupovac being a part of Plenkovic government Nikola Kajkic, an investigating officer with Croatian Police Unit for War Crimes, was suspended from duties in July 2018 just as his investigation into executions by Serbia’s forces at Ovcara farm (Vukovar, November 1991) was showing up irrefutable evidence for war crimes for several Serb nationals (some of whom live in Vukovar or nearby!)! He is still fighting the bent courts to get his job back; he remains unemployed and a sore in the Serb and Croatian government eyes. Kajkic courageously continues (via various independent media outlets) to bring out various concrete details and names of Serbs, who now live in Vukovar or elsewhere in Croatia, who had murdered, raped or tortured Croatian people during the Serb aggression against Croatia in the 1990’s.

As to an impending global “Great Reset” lots of people are talking about these days Croatian government and authorities need a great morality and justice reset and start paying priority attention to the victims of Serb war crimes. It is evident, twenty years on, that the 1997/1998 grant of amnesty to Serb war criminals is reaping havoc and unbearable distress and injustice in Croatia. So, let’s revisit how this tragic move to grant amnesty to war criminals came about and gave licence to Serb torturers, rapists and murderers to roam the streets of Croatia today under the protection of the internationally (including Serbia) weaved pressures and tricks.

Since the hostilities resulting from Serb aggression in 1991, the Ministry of Justice of the Croatian government had maintained lists of suspected Serb war criminals, numbering as many as 3,000 at one point. These official lists had frequently been criticised by the international community pushing for amnesty of Serb war criminals in Croatia for inaccuracies and uncertainties. In February 1997, a Vinkovci newspaper published a list of suspected war criminals including 1,200 names. At the same time, pressured by international forces who, under a pretence it wanted to achieve peace, obviously favoured the aggressor more than the victim, the Croatian government had passed several laws granting amnesty for those who engaged in certain acts relating to the war in 1991 and thereafter. The laws granted amnesties to all those who committed “criminal acts during the aggression, armed rebellion or armed conflicts, in or relating to the aggression, armed rebellion or armed conflicts in the Republic of Croatia . . . during the period from 17 August 1990 to 23 August 1996” (Law of General Amnesty). The law expressly excluded those who had committed “flagrant violations of humanitarian law having the character of war crimes.” The passage of the law was followed by the circulation of a list of ninety-six persons who were then in detention on charges of armed rebellion.

After promulgation of the amnesty law, the Croatian government continued to retain a list of 311 Serb war crimes suspects. This list was criticised for inaccuracies and errors by the Serbian side, saying some of the named were already dead.(So what, posthumous trials are not a thing of impossibility) The existence of this list of war crimes suspects had not been embraced by the Serb Executive Council (the assembly of the Eastern Slavonia Serb leadership) and on the minds of many Serbs in Eastern Slavonia who contemplated decisions as to whether to remain in Croatia. As a result, Transitional Administrator Jacques Paul Klein requested the Croatian government to produce a smaller list, with those who are not on the list being de facto amnestied. In March 1997, Mr. Klein received a new list of 150 names which he passed on to the Serb Executive Council, which, in turn, notified those on the list. This list contained the names of those who have been convicted in absentia for crimes against international humanitarian law, those who had been indicted for such crimes, and those who were otherwise suspected of having committed such crimes. (“Amnesty,” UNTAES Bulletin, No. 28, March 1997)

The negotiations over the lists and amnesty laws raised several fundamental human rights concerns. First, throughout negotiation over the size of the list, it was claimed that the standards for inclusion on the war crimes list were not made clear. Even after the list had been given to Mr. Klein, the grounds for inclusion on the list allegedly remained unclear, especially for those who have not already been indicted or tried in absentia. So claimed the international community involved in pressuring Croatia for amnesty of Serbs. The same international community insisted that an effective safeguard would be for Croatia to refer war crimes indictments to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) for prior review.

But what does one do when one knew and now knows that ICTY’s crimes indictments were often political rather than based on clear evidence! One would insist on protecting one’s own people – victims of crimes that were seen on daily basis against Croatian civilians and armed forces.

UNTAES’s (UN Transitional Administration of Eastern Slavonic, in Croatia) insistence that the government of Croatia provide a “final” list of suspects also raised serious human rights concerns for Serb aggressor, evidently diminishing the importance of Croatian victim human rights. “Now, we have asked the Croatian Government for a final list very soon and before the elections. The list should have those names who, we believe, would possibly be indicted by the War Crimes Tribunal at The Hague if there was enough evidence. By that definition, everyone else is automatically amnestied,” said Mr Klein in “Elections announced for 13 April: an interview with TA Jacques Klein,” UNTAES Bulletin, No. 25, February 1997.

If those who commit war crimes are to be held accountable for their crimes, it is unclear in what sense any list of suspects provided by the Croatian government could have been considered final. If sound legal principles were to govern the indictment and trial of suspected war criminals, the Croatian government should have indicted those against whom sufficient evidence of such crimes was gathered, regardless of whether this evidence came to light before or after a “final” list was prepared. Indeed, several Croats, including relatives of those who were killed or “disappeared” during and after the siege of Vukovar told Human Rights Watch/Helsinki of their discomfort over what they perceived to be “private” negotiations between UNTAES and the Croatian government regarding the length of the list of suspects. They feared such negotiations might result in the removal of war crimes suspects from the list, as a matter of political expediency, rather than through a judicial process that would have determined the absence of an evidentiary basis for prosecution (Human Rights Watch/Helsinki interviews, Zagreb, February 23, 1997).

Human Rights Watch/Helsinki recognised that the list of suspected war criminals had powerful political force: it said that it intimidated Serbs in Eastern Slavonia while appeasing Croats who have lost family members in that region. Given the political nature of the list, UNTAES may have felt compelled, as the administrative body of the region, to address it in a political context. However, entering into (or appearing to enter into) negotiations over who will or will not be prosecuted for war crimes, politicises a process that should be subjected solely to legal considerations. These negotiations ran the risk of compromising not only UNTAES’s credibility but also the legitimacy of any future proceedings against suspects, as there will be suspicions that some Serbs were dropped as suspects in a political “deal” engineered by UNTAES. At the least, the controversy and negotiations over the number of names on the list has distracted attention from the fundamental rights to due process and fair trial.

The list, in the meanwhile, continued to raise more questions than it answered. Only in early March 1997 did it become clear that the list comprised only those who faced indictments in the courts of Osijek and Vinkovci. As a result, Serbs who perpetrated crimes in Eastern Slavonia who were not included on the “final” list were still faced with the possibility of indictment on charges relating to serious violations of humanitarian law for acts carried out in other jurisdictions, such as those of Knin and Sisak.

The temptation to suspend justice in exchange for promises to end a conflict had arisen with respect to the international community pressures work in Darfur, Uganda and in Croatia in 1997/1998, and threatened to recur elsewhere as parties and mediators struggle to negotiate peace deals. Indeed, to get parties to the table, blanket amnesties have often in the past been offered to those responsible for horrific human rights abuses. Supporters of amnesties argued that those bearing the greatest responsibility for atrocities have no interest in laying down their arms unless they believe that they will not face criminal charges. Others have argued that while justice is important, it should take a back seat to peace!

In the short-term, it is easy to understand the temptation to forego justice in an effort to end armed conflict. However, Human Rights Watch research over the past 20 years in many different countries has demonstrated that a decision to ignore atrocities and to reinforce a culture of impunity may carry a high price. While there are undoubtedly many factors that influence the resumption of armed conflict, and it is not asserted that impunity is the sole causal factor, Human Rights Watch research shows that the impact of justice is too often undervalued when weighing objectives in resolving a conflict.

Foregoing accountability, on the other hand, often does not result in the hoped-for benefits. Instead of putting a conflict to rest, an explicit de jure amnesty that grants immunity for war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide may effectively sanction the commission of grave crimes without providing the desired objective of peace. All too often a peace that is conditioned on impunity for these most serious crimes is not sustainable. Even worse, it sets a precedent of impunity for atrocities that encourages future abuses.

In Croatia, for example, amnesty provisions failed to consolidate the hoped-for peace, that is, amnesties did not lead to the called for “forgiving and forgetting.” Serbia still denies aggression against Croatia, Croatia is helping it in attempts to equate victims with aggressors, while Croatian people are increasingly angry at this injustice. The so-called peaceful reintegration of Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Syrmia (1995-1998) that rested upon amnesty given to Serb war criminals is anything but peaceful, for a great majority of Croatian people. It has kept the terrible wounds of Serb aggression wide open.

And so, twenty years on the Serb fight to protect their war criminals in Croatia from prosecution is still a current and pressing issue acting against the victims’ rights. Cover ups, suspensions from duties such as the one experienced by Nikola Kajkic are encouraged by the government that has as its Deputy Premier Boris Milosevic, a hard-core politician actively pursuing the interests of Serbia rather than Croatia on Croatian soil. Of course, Milorad Pupovac is his main ally and, it seems, Croatian Prime Minister Andrej Plenkovic and the remainder of his cherry-picked team! With them, Croatian national interests of defending the values of Homeland War and its victims have been lost, or rather, tossed away while wounds are still unhealed. Is this not a ground for a “Great Reset” in Croatia, starting with ditching the General Amnesty laws that protect criminals and aggressors? Justice has been short-changed in Croatia, thanks to international community pressure, it is time Croats started to look inside their country’s borders rather than outside if peace with justice is to prevail. Otherwise, fuelling fears for escalated unrest remain justified. Ina Vukic

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Baranja and Western Syrmia, Croatia, Great Reset, Human rights watch, ICTY, Jacques Klein, Nikola Kajkic, Peaceful Reintegration of Eastern Salonia, Shortchanhing justice for peace, UNTAES

Croats, ICTY and Communist Yugoslavia Counterintelligence

December 21, 2017 by inavukic 10 Comments

Robin Harris (L) Visnja Staresina (C)
Zeljko Tanjic (R) (Rector of Croatian Catholic University)
Photo: Screenshot

11 December 2017 saw the launch of journalist Višnja Staresina new book titled “Hrvati pod KOS-ovim krilom – završni račun Haaškog suda”, translated into English the book title would read: “Croats under the wing of Communist Yugoslavia Counterintelligence Service – The Hague Tribunal’s Final Account”. The book presents as compelling reading particularly as it contains presentations of the manipulations, falsifications, fabrications, mounted court processes, unjust verdicts, politically motivated indictments brought before the court, the Hague Tribunal ICTY, that were designed and executed to damage and convict Croatian people of crimes they had not committed, crimes that fall under the doctrine, of joint criminal enterprise, where the convicted person does not even need to be indicted of having personally committed any crimes.

A comprehensive review of this book was delivered by Robin Harris in Zagreb, Croatia at the book’s launch and it reads as follows:

I was honoured to be invited to speak at the launch of this important book.

Višnja Starešina is a knowledgeable and authoritative commentator on the activities of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia – the ICTY – and on the political background. She is a fearless journalist of great integrity, and her conclusions should be studied by those in charge of the affairs of this country.

The book could not be more timely or more necessary. Croatia today feels stunned and abandoned, a sensation only increased by the clearly well planned international move to crush dissent in the social media. It is natural that people are asking why Croatia finds itself in this position. Hrvati pod KOS-ovim krilom (Croats under the wings of Yugoslav Counterintelligence Service) provides at least part of the answer.

I shall summarise the arguments of Višnja’s book, adding a few observations of my own. But before that I cannot avoid commenting on the orgy of self-congratulation with which the ICTY terminated its twenty-four years of work. The Croatian President spoke tactfully though eloquently in defence of Croatia on that occasion. But the picture that the ICTY judges and officials painted of their own achievements is so grotesquely misleading that it cannot go unchallenged.

The ICTY has been an expensive failure. It has done the bare minimum that was expected of it – but slowly, incompetently, working through dishonest compromises, heavily politically influenced, following an immoral programme of equalising guilt between the constituent parties. From starting out as a modest attempt to uphold standards of justice that the international community was too weak and divided to impose by force – it became – as those recent vainglorious speeches show – a self-declared paradigm for future conflict-resolution by international courts. The judgements of the Tribunal, even if sometimes merited on other grounds, were not in fact reached by processes, or according to standards, which would have been acceptable in any developed country – let alone in Britain, which so heartily endorsed the ICTY conclusions.

A classic example is the creation of the concept of the Joint Criminal Enterprise, which in its most extended – and least defensible – form, was used to achieve a guilty verdict in the recent case against the Croat Six from Bosnia and Herzegovina. That was an unjust judgement. It may be accepted – just as the weather tomorrow may be accepted – but it does not need to be respected, and neither does the institution which delivered it.

Two other brief preliminary points:

First, contrary to the claims of the Tribunal’s admirers, its record does not demonstrate that international justice is a useful means of righting international wrongs. Only one significant indicted war criminal was delivered to the court before Operation Storm. It was only after Croatia, with US support, achieved military victory against the Serbs, that the ICTY had any chance of operating at all. This makes it ironic, to say the least, that the Tribunal then sought to indict the very political and military figures whose success made its work possible.

Second, the work of the Court, as Višnja shows, was subject to sustained manipulation by outsiders, not least by the JNA Military Intelligence, the KOS. The assumption that the further away justice is delivered from the concerned parties, the purer it will be, has been shown to be false. That lesson extends beyond the realm of courts. Even small countries, like Croatia, cannot expect better, but rather worse, treatment, if they surrender their interests to multilateral, international bodies, than if they seek bilateral, state-to-state agreements. Sovereignty is important, however small your state.

So let me turn directly to the book. There are eleven chapters and a final and important epilogue. The book examines events on the ground and arguments in the Tribunal both chronologically and thematically.

Chapter one describes the origins of the Hague Tribunal, an organisation which from its modest beginning in 1993 expanded to an annual budget of 270 million US dollars with a staff of a thousand people.

Visnja Staresina and her book cover

Chapter two provides an overview of the close but murky relationship between the Tribunal and the different state intelligence services. An especially important role seems to have been played by British, Australian and Canadian personnel. Particular focus applies here to Graham Blewitt, an Australian, with an anti-Croat track record, who from the Tribunal’s establishment in 1994 to the raising of the last indictments at the end of 2004, was the effective chief of investigations. Višnja suggests that Blewitt served as a guarantee that, the British policy of sharing Serbian and Croatian guilt for the war, as a precondition for the new erection of some new Balkan state association under Serb hegemony “would prevail (p.27). [..jamstvo da će se u politici optuživanja provoditi britanska politika podjele srpsko-hrvatske krivnje za rat, kao preduvjet za ponovnu uspostavu neke nove balkanaske državne asociajicije pod srpskom hegemonijom].

I shall offer a comment on that subject later.

The other intelligence service whose plans and interests were of great importance was the JNA Kontra-obaveštajna služba, or „KOS“. Its head, General Aleksandar „Aca“ Vasiljević, it is suggested, had, well before the outbreak of hostilities in 1991, inserted key agents into what would soon be warring entities. From these positions, KOS agents could do far-reaching damage, while putting the blame onto someone else. A well-known instance is Operation Labrador – the bombing of the Zagreb Jewish graveyard and attempted bombing of the Jewish Community Centre in August 1991. But there were kennelfuls of Labradors, only some of which have ever been tagged and identified.

Chapter three is about Vukovar. Vukovar is crucial to the work – and to the failure – of the Hague Tribunal, for as Višnjna notes:

„Uz malo truda, sintezom zločina nad Vukovarom, nad ratnim zarobljenicima i civilima poslije zauzimanja grada i etničkog čišćenja na cijelom okupiranom području istočne Slavonije i Baranje nakon uspostave lokalnih vlasti, moglo se napraviti i vrlo uvjerliv slučaj genocida – najtežeg zločina koji podrazumijeva politički planirano istrebljenje nekog naroda ili etničke grupe s određenog teritorija“. (p. 43) (Translation of quote: With a little effort, synthesis of crimes against Vukovar, against prisoners of war and civilians after the city’s occupation and ethnic cleansing across the whole of the Eastern Slavonia and Baranja region after the establishment of local authorities, a very convincing case for genocide could have been made – the worst of crimes that imply politically planned extermination of some peoples or ethnic group from a certain territory)

Responsibility for the crimes was quickly transferred to local Serb officials – notably Slavko Dokmanović, who conveniently later committed suicide. JNA involvement, by contrast, was minimised, while the role of Četnik paramilitaries was stressed.

Chapter four deals with events and investigations in the Lašva Valley and in Northern Hercegovina.

I found this chapter extremely revealing. Having read Charles R. Shrader’s excellent book, The Muslim-Croat Civil War in Central Bosnia, and having interviewed many Bosnian Muslim and Croat refugees in 1993, I thought that I knew the situation pretty well. But I did not, until now, grasp the full military rationale for the Muslim military campaign in Northern Hercegovina. Nor, despite at the time hearing various unsubstantiated allegations, did I grasp the extreme and extensive savagery of the mujahedeen – who were imported, deployed and controlled by the Army of BiH in its campaign to expel Croats. The Bosniak intelligence service, the AID, sought to conceal that connection. But their success in doing so raises other large questions – about the seriousness of the work of the Tribunal Prosecutor’s investigative team 9; about the involvement of other agencies – including the British – in downplaying the mujahedeen atrocities; and about the total failure of Croatia, then and since, to publicise the persecution of Croats.

By contrast the (equally real) crimes committed by Croat forces in the military campaign in the Lašva Valley, notably at Ahmići, were vigorously pursued by the Prosecution. The cases relating to these operations were used first to assert a degree of command responsibility unwarranted by realities, resulting in the 45 year sentence (later sharply reduced) against the HVO general Tihomir Blaškić. They then served to allege, in the judgement against Dario Kordić, the existence of a politically-determined plan of ethnic cleansing of non-Croats. This was the foundation of the indictment against „Prlić and others“, which involved President Tuđman and the Croatian state.

As is described in chapter five, no such extended line of responsibility was established by the Prosecution against Serbia for crimes committed in pursuit of ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Hercegovina. The Serb concentration camps were an embarrassment because they were created and commanded by JNA, including KOS, officers. Višnja Starešina provides documentary proof of the responsibility of the KOS and of General Vasiljević for these camps. It was necessary to ensure, therefore, that investigation of these facts was frustrated, as indeed it was – by a series of politically convenient and timely deaths.

Chapter six deals with the background to another equally timely death – that of Slobodan Milošević.

The Tribunal’s investigative staff had invested suspiciously little effort in the case against Milošević and Serbia. The Prosecution was, therefore, now desperate for convincing evidence, and when this became available through the good offices of Vasiljević and the KOS networks concessions were willingly made. Instead of sitting beside Milošević on the bench of the accused, as had originally been envisaged, Vasiljević now appeared in 2003 as a major prosecution witness. Moreover, reliance on Vasiljević and on the new post-Milošević government in Serbia for documentation – the Tribunal’s own efforts having been so limited and fruitless – allowed Belgrade to provide just what was necessary and no more. Documentation was redacted and filtered – unlike that supplied wholesale by Croatia under President Mesić. Great efforts were made to deflect blame away from the Yugoslav state, military and intelligence authorities onto Milošević. And then Milošević, himself, on Saturday 11 March 2006, obligingly died before a judgement was reached.

With chapter seven the story returns to Vukovar. The Hague Prosecutor was less interested in pursuing this case, once the Serbian state, the JNA and the KOS became the Prosecutor’s allies in the case against Milošević, of which Vukovar was now just one element. In Belgrade, a criminal case was also now brought. But significantly – as the book notes – while that in The Hague was entitled „Vukovar hospital“ which involved the whole process of identifying and selecting patients up to and including their liquidation, that before the Belgrade court was entitled simply „Ovčara“, in other words removing the first part of the crime in which the JNA and the KOS, that is the Yugoslav state, were the perpetrators. This would not have mattered so much if the Belgrade trial had not been the scene for the preparation – and suppression and distortion – of evidence for the trial in The Hague. This soon became apparent in the way the ICTY indictments were framed.

This chapter also covers the detailed circumstances of the Vukovar Hospital crime, as vividly described in Višnja’s documentary. It shows JNA involvement right up to the moment of the executions. It describes the performance orchestrated by the KOS for media consumption.

To my mind the key fact is the arrival on the evening of 19 November at about eight o’clock of General Vasiljević and other JNA military intelligence officers at Negoslavci, a few miles from Vukovar. The JNA already had a full list of all those inside the hospital. The next day they were to be evacuated. There is, naturally, no evidence of what was actually said at this meeting. But it is as clear as day that its purpose was to decide on which categories of enemy – all of course were regarded as „Ustaše“ anyway – should be subjected to particular kinds of torture and interrogation, and then liquidated.

Vukovar deserves to be regarded as a crime on the level of, and with similar purposes to, that of Srebrenica – which is the subject of chapter 8. Again the connection with former JNA and KOS officers is evident. The methods and chains of command are similar – in the Srebrenica case via Mladić to Karadžić. But while that chain of command was exposed, it was concealed in the case of Vukovar.

Chapter nine examines why the KOS was such an important player. The answer is: because the JNA was indeed, as the book says, „the last defence-bunker of communism and Yugoslavia“(p. 205). As the rest of the structures started to crumble, particularly in Croatia and Slovenia, the JNA, and what can be described as its „brain“, the KOS, became effectively the new power centre.

Chapter ten deals with the indictments against Croats connected with the military operations, Medački džep in 1993 and Storm/Oluja in 1995. It illuminates the unprofessional practice of the Hague Prosecution, notably in the use made of Savo Štrbac and his misnamed NGO „Veritas“ in researching alleged crimes. Chapter eleven deals with the recent case of the Croatian six.

What strikes me in these cases is the complete absence of realism. Wars are never completely clean. But there are degrees of dirt. Moreover, a set of moral rules apply – the rules that over centuries became known as „the laws of war“, from which the different Geneva and Hague Conventions and eventually the ICTY emerged. According to these traditional understandings, there is a difference between aggression and defence, between regaining one’s own territory and capturing someone else’s, and between letting civilians leave a potential battle field and driving them out of their homes. That residuum of moral good sense and legal tradition was effectively discarded in the first instance hearing of the case against Gotovina and others.

Similarly, in the case of the Croat Six, an elaborate, artificial structure of decision making and blame was devised to entangle in shared criminality people who had little or nothing to do with events on the ground. There is no credible evidence that President Tudjman sought to recreate the Croatian Banovina, or that he organised ethnic cleansing, or that he ever agreed with Milošević to divide up Bosnia – which is, indeed, a lie worthy of and perhaps stemming from the KOS. Again one is struck by the lack of understanding of the real significance of decisions made and the limited range of options available. No allowance was made by the Tribunal when assessing Croatian state policy for the fact that Croatia received no assistance from Bosnia when its territory was attacked – nor that without the HVO, and the operationally independent unit of Herceg-Bosna, the new Bosnian state would have been totally overrun in the first months of Serb aggression. No credit was given for the fact that without Croatia’s military action in 1995, Bosnia would now probably be a Serb fiefdom, with much of the Muslim population cowering in camps. No mention was made, except in passing, that even during Muslim-Croat hostilities half a million Muslim refugees were being fed and housed in Croatia – an extraordinary humanitarian gesture demonstrating practical good will from the Croatian state and people.

The book touches in many places on the role of British policy. I would like to add my own comment on this.

British state policy in the early 1990s was, indeed, as is described in this book, a continuation of that traditionally pursued by Britain of resisting German influence in South Eastern Europe, which had for many years also involved looking favourably on Serbia and Serb-dominated Yugoslavia. This was reflected in British Government hostility to Croatia, to which a certain amount of wartime nostalgic sympathy for the Partisans and the Serbs also contributed. It was, however, a quasi-automatic reaction rather than a thought out response, a result of laziness in the absence of leadership. The proof is that had Mrs Thatcher been Prime Minister in 1991 not John Major it would have been different. So explanations of state behaviour dependent on traditions of state interest are never entirely satisfactory.

Under Tony Blair, for example, there was a change in attitude – not towards the new Croatian state, which was now viewed – as I am sure Mr Blewitt viewed it – as a kind of Ustaša revival – but towards the Muslims in Bosnia. Previously, London had viewed the Muslims with no sympathy at all, as at the time of Srebrenica. I remember the military briefings blaming the Muslims for their own predicament.

Britain was also the main political force behind bringing and pursuing the Gotovina case. This, though, was not driven by British state interest, but rather a desire to spite the Americans, who had been proved right in pushing for the military option against Belgrade. Britain is now well disposed towards to Croatia. This is not primarily because of a change in interests but a change in UK government personnel.

Finally, in assessing the motivation of the Tribunal, particularly in later years, it is important not to forget that ideology became increasingly dominant. The doctrine and practice of universal jurisdiction, as a central element of global governance, has been pressed by America – until the election of President of Trump – and by the EU. It is also backed by powerful international financial interests. This globalist anti-national programme is arguably the single most important factor driving world events. Its adherents regard Croatia as the antithesis of what they want the new world order to look like. Croatia is a small, recently created, state, committed to national identity and to the Catholic faith and tradition. Today’s doctrinaire internationalists certainly view Croatia with at least as much contempt and hostility as did Karl Marx. That should be a badge of pride; but the badge is also, and will always be, a target.

————————————–

(Dr Robin Harris is a British historian, author and publicist worked as close adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher herself from 1985, writing her speeches and advising on policy. By the close of her premiership, he was probably the most trusted member of her political team at Downing Street, and he left Number Ten with her.)