Carla departs…finally

Montgomery is flawed in two areas here. First, he talks about the high legal standards of the ICT. This is nonesense. It had much lower thresholds of evidence than any other court on the planet. Who else, for example, woudl have a sociologist brought in to accuse them of war crimes as Seselj has. And the hearsay rules have been abandoned altogether. I know one prosecutor's assistant who told me frequently how some of the lawyers openly joked about the process.
Montgomery's second error is claiming Milosevoc's photo with red berets somehow constitutes proof of complicity in war crimes. If this is the case, will Montgomery consider General Wesley Clark guilty of war crimes for the photo of him and Mladic together.

'The U.S. government helped to subsidize the initial broadcasts of the trial because we mistakenly believed it would help to educate everyone about what happened and Milošević’s role. However, the initial witnesses presented by the Prosecution against him lacked credibility and the end result was that Milošević was gaining popularity in Serbia during the trial rather than losing it.'
That statement by Monty says it all. The US is paying big bucks to brainwash the masses, to make them agreeable to American interests, whatever they may be. They do this all over the world. That, Monty, is precisely the reason that 'America' is a dirty word in most of the world. Instead of trying to spread truth, justice, and liberty, your country serves interest groups, no matter how corrupt and immoral they may be.
The America of Jefferson, Lincoln, and Woodrow Wilson has been usurped by corrupt lobbyists. It's really a great shame.

To add to Wim's already excellent posting, the ICTY is largely seen as a joke by Serbs, including those fully committed to democracy, European integration, and a distancing from Serbia's authoritarian past. I fondly remember living in Serbia back in 2002 where every morning my Serbian friends and I would watch "Slobo's Morning Talk Show" (his Hague trial) while eating breakfast. It was better than any scripted comedy or cartoon. Everyone of my friends thought Milosevic was a thug, but to see him dance around the attempted indictments of the tribunal just reinforced the already perceived notion that the ICTY was nothing more than an attempt at legalistic surrealism.

Added to this are the notions that the Hague has a rotating door policy for many non-Serb indictees. Haradinaj can seemingly come and go as he pleases, which infuriates ordinary Serbs.

However the main problem with the ICTY, as Wim clearly points out, is that is appears to be more of an attempt by the Western powers to legitimize their own actions than properly seeking justice and truth. We're not interested in "sorting out the facts", and we're even less interested in trying to understand the reasons behind everyone's actions. We're interested in trying to find a legal basis for exonerating the allied condemning the enemy for the history books to chronicle. At least at Nuremburg the presiding tribunal experienced internal divisions and conflicts of interests. Here, the tribunal are the very governments that exploited internal crises in a dying Yugoslavia for their own ends, and now seek to legalize their own actions by condemning their opponents.

Until the ICTY is either completely refashioned to be absolutely impartial, or its mandate simply ends, requiring all future trials to be conducted in host countries, I'm afraid we will not see Mladic or Karadzic.

Lenard: "Horrendous price of war Serbs put on their neighbors." There would not be a Serb presence in Bosnia had they not fought back. Read Alija Izetbegovic's Islamic Declaration to see what's waiting for Christians in Bosnia.

You also may recall that the Serbs there signed a treaty at Lisbon in 1992 that would have averted the war. The Muslims persuaded by the Americans withdrew their signature. The whole war could have been avoided right then and there. Ironically the Muslims ended up getting less in the end then they would have got in Lisbon.

Croatia, had a strong part to play in the Bosnian bloodshed as well as her troops were there fighting both Serbs and Muslims at different points of the war. It's interesting you did not bring that up.

Are you also going to justify Jasenovac the Croatian concentration camp for Serbs? Do you think the Serbs would have fought in Croatia had the Croats not tried to exterminate them during WWII. Read former Croatian president Franjo Tudjman's "Impasses of Historical Reality" and you will clearly see Croatia's attitude toward minority rights.

Moreover, if you think there were no crimes committed against Serbs, then what happened to all the Serbs that lived in Krajina, western Bosnia, and southern Kosovo?

Just like Czechs and Slovaks, Serbs and Montenegrins as well as Macedonians separated in good will. Slovenia was not a difficult break either. In fact, Serbs and Slovenes have a very good strategic relationship now. However, the Serbs nor any other nation can separate peacefully with people who are determined to dominate or murder them.

The reason the Hague Tribunal was not successful is that it was totally biased against one side. Crimes against humanity should always be brought to justice, but what the Hague gave us instead was selected justice based on politics.

Politics can cloud justice, but it cannot cloud the truth.

The main problem of the ICTY was not Carla, but its mission to prove the Western interventions right. That's why they want leading politicians like Milosevic for the tribunal and that's why they wanted to put his actions in the different regions together in order to prove some improbable "great Serbia" complot.

Each side in ex-Yugoslavia believed that they fought for a just cause. They might break a few rules to reach their goals, but who cares? Not their people. That is my problem with mr. Montgomery's triumphality about the Red Berets video. If you want to convince Bosnia's and Croatia's Serbs that Milosevic was wrong it won't help to show that Milosevic sent or supported Red Berets. As long as they believe that Croatia wanted to cleanse its Serbs and Bosnia wanted to create a Muslim dictatorship they will believe that their fight and its support from Milosevic were justified.

I believe that the tribunal should concentrate on clear cut war crimes like the Srebrenica massacre or the sadist rulers of Foca. It is here that the tribunal is the most convincing and has the best preventive effect.

For the political dimension a kind of investigating truth commission is more suitable. But this will mean that all parties will have to open their files: including the US, the EU and its member states. In this light I find it very discouraging that testimonies by top US officials for the ICTY are often secret.

There is a third category: crimes that made some sense from a military point of view. These are for example the ethnic cleansings and the bombing of Sarajevo. Problem is that many people see these as necessary evil - just like Guantanamo. Even the ICTY accepted this in the Nasir Oric case. For that reason I believe the court should focus on those of these cases that were specially brutal.

It's not surpising to me that Montgomery is talking about Red Berets as a fact, proven and known. In fact, allegation was made that Milosevic was a sponsoring them while there were fighting, but never proven. Montgomery is more content with going for an official line of his former emloyer, I guess.
The fact is, it's a SPECULATION, and not an established FACT. (note to self, re-read Franz Kafka's "The Trial")
Others would find video showing Paddy Ashdown inspecting armed Kosovo Albanians lined-up before him promissing them help from British Government, more priceless. He was not there privatelly, but on behalf of British government. (some would say that video proves that KLA was in "clandestine service" to British government). Paddy rushed letter to the Tribunal explaining that those were Kosovo Albanian civilians, who had weapons only to have something to give up, should Serbian forces show up and demand them to give in the weapons. To many, it was strange that they were carrying arms around, rather then showing Mr. Ashdown "catche" of weapons that they've collected for such purpose, especially, that there were no Serbs in vicinity. I guess, they wanted to be ready to disarm immediatelly, should Serbs appear. So, Paddy rushed the letter that was read in the Tribunal. Why would any court choose to read letters in the midle of the trial that are not relevant to the case (weather they were KLA or civilians, neither implicate, nor vindicate Milosevic) have not been explained, but, oh, well...
The FACT is there was a video showing a British official inspecting group of ARMED Albanians, promissing them help from his government. Many find that priceless.
Or some other videos shown, such as Reuter's footage showing OSCE Observers on the hill near Racak all day, while several observers testified that they were not there at all, etc. Priceless.
I could go on and on. With the statements from number of witnesses for the prosecution.

The court heard how KLA leader Ramush Hajradinaj claimed, “The agreement signed by Holbrooke has saved the KLA. The arrival of the OSCE verifiers in Kosovo has enabled the revival of the UCK [KLA]”.
And simmilar statements.
But, never mind that.
Justice is commonly portreyed as blind-folded woman, holding a sword in one hand and scale in the other. This image came to us from Ancient Rome's godess Justitia, and is meant to symbolise good measure (scale), punishment of the guilty (sword) and non-bias (blindfold, to judge evenly, no matter who is in question).
Tribunal in general, (and not Carla alone) is a failure, because it's anything but blindfolded.
How many people posting comments here, really think that bombing of hospitals is not crime against humanity? So, why there were no charges against perpertrators?
Forget NATO, what about local leaders? I completely agree with charges against Babic, what about Tudjman?
It was always treated differently.
Or Agim Ceku?
UN officers went to Croatian artillery demanding to be taken to a commander (Ceku). They warned him that his cannons are shelling road with refugees on it, with no Krajina Serb troops in a vicinity. After assuring them that they will stop and sending them away, barrage continued unabated. Despite of having number of UN Officers willing to testify against him (including two of her fellow Canadian officers) Louis Arbour never pressed any charges against Ceku.
Tribunal was a disgrace before Carla took her place in late 1999.
What to say about general Djukic for example? (Bosnian Serb Army).
General in charge of logistic, and never in command of any combat unit, it was clear from the beginning that he cannot be responsable for any attrocities. Yet, he was held in Hague prison for months, interrogated by FBI (and tortured, according to him), denied medical treatment (although a cancer patient), and finally released few days before death (to cancer) withouth any charges ever being laid by Tribunal against him.

"The nominal overseer, the United Nations Security Council, gave way too much latitude and far too little guidance to the ICTY. "

I cannot agree with this. On number of ocassions UNSC gave a good guidance to the ICTY. They conducted number of investigations that were resulting in recommendations to ICTY to lay charges. (not for Serbs, of course, Milosevic was charged before any UNSC investigation could take place, for example).
This was all ignored by ICTY.
Here is one such example.

http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/comexpert/ANX/VII.htm

Notice that this UNSC document is dated on 28 December 1994.

At the bottom of the document is a chapter "Reccomendations"

" It is recommended that two Croatian officers be charged with the following war crimes, respectively: "

and then stating codes of Geneva Convention, etc. etc.

Did Louis Arbour act upon these recommendations?
Not at all.
War ended in Bosnia and Croatia with 68 ( I believe) Serbs indicted, several Croats and Bosniaks also indicted for crimes against each other, but nobody indicted for any crimes against Serbs (as appearantly, there was no such crimes).

Louis Arbour left pass her duty to Carla in 1999 (5 years after this document had been issued) without indicting anyone as recommended.

So, guidance was there, wasn't it?
ICTY have chosen to ignore recommendations from UNSC on every occasion, and that's a different story.

Not a horrible article, but I don't know what is so remarkable about the videotape of Milosevic reviewing the Red Berets. The president of Serbia reviewing an honor guard for a unit of the Serbian police is nothing remarkable. Sure some members of the JSO were veterans from the wars in Bosnia and Croatia, but there was never any evidence that they were under the control of Milosevic while they were there. Their commander was Captan Dragan, and he testified that he wanted to overthrow Milosevic, and it was one of these self-same Red Berets (Milorad Lukovic) that arrested Milosevic in Serbia.

As for the assertion that del Ponte "entered into an agreement with the Serbian government to get access to certain key government documents by promising that they would not be shown to outsiders." She has denied that, and if she did obtain such documents they were never used during the trial proceedings.

By all means, Mr. Montgomery show us where these damning documents linking Milosevic to Srebrenica can be found in the transcript of the trial, or explain why del Ponte would want access to documents if she wasn't going to use them in the trial?

It seems to me that if Milosevic were even 5% as bad as he was made out to be that even an incompetent prosecutor like del Ponte would have been able to present at least some credible evidence against him in the five years that the trial was going on.

Bob.
I would be the one who takes comfort in criticising the Hague.
And these people are not my heros.
I don't mind them tried at all, and I wish Karadzic and Mladic are caught and it the cell now.
But, I also wish they were joined by many others.

"...but it does make life inconvenient for those who thought they could behave like thugs and get away with it"
No, it doesn't and that's the problem.
How many hospitals were hit in Serbia in 1999? I think 9. How many schools?
Clinton personally approved list of targets. To me he was behaving like thug and got away with it. How does Hague makes his life inconveniant?

Don't complain to us if your service is not performing as you expect them to - change it! It is an institution set up by USA, paid for by USA and heavily influenced by USA! If you don't like it any more - cancel it.

Wim and Mike - Thank you for your comments. I only wish that these were published and posted to every politician, newsagency who were so very involved throughout the whole ex-Yugo affair. Maybe if people like both of you sat on the judges bench in the Hague we could get this unpleasant business out of the way - for the benefit of all victims - Dead or Alive!

The Red Berets Milosevic greeted in the video were the Serbian Anti-terrorist police (JSO) established in 1996. The Knindza who allegedly committed war crimes in Krajina were also called the Red Berets but were different. The prosecution's own witness "Captain" Dragan Vasiljkovic testified that there was no institutional continuity between the Knindza and the JSO. It is just that their nicknames were the same.

Truly Carla was a mediocrity at her job or the people working in the Hague with her don't have much respect for her or the way she handled a complex task. The Serbian posts like to portray them selfs as the innocent victims of their neighbors and the world. That they are unfairly maligned by world opinion. They could have separated on good terms and peace with the other republics. Just like The Czech and Slovaks or Russians ,Belorussians and Ukrainians. They were more interested in pursuing a greater Serbia at a horrendous price of war they put on their neighbors in deaths ,ethnic cleansing and destruction.

Whether one agrees with every little detail in the commentary is missing the point. I praise Montgomery for his thesis here: that there must be a balance between national reconciliation and justice, because, ironically, if one neglects one of these goals (Del Ponte neglected national reconciliation), one, in the end, endangers both! It is a very good explanation of why Mladic and others are still out there, of why some Serbs may have been so loathing to cooperate with a prosecutor who constantly had a tendency to humiliate them.

The point is simple. War criminals will not be able to assume that they will never be tried.

Whether the job of the Hague is done well or done badly does not bring back any of those who were murdered - but it does make life inconvenient for those who thought they could behave like thugs and get away with it.

Anyone who takes comfort in criticising the Hague should review his or her conscience. If your heros are not innocents, then rethink your heros.

If you criticise the Hague because of a genuine concern for legal process - then that is proper.

Right on target. This needs to be repeated again and again: the failure of ICTY is largely due to this individual. One of CdP's last statements - "Karadzic will be arrested before Xmas 2007. I'm 80% sure of it" - is just one of many fine examples of her totally irresponsible approach to serious issues, her massive arrogance and lack of consideration for local realities. I'd also say that, with Djindjic gone so early on, she was facing a band of equally stupid and arrogant people, namely the Serbian governement in corpore. Had one of the two been slighlty more inspired, Serbia would probably in better shape today.

Your criticism is well aimed in some respects such as the overly lengthy charge sheet against Milosevic. I actually think that it was a completely political decision to keep the charge of genocide against him when it was pretty clear the case was unproven. The politics was that the Hague would be attacked in some way (not least by some nation states such as the US) if it dropped the genocide charges.

I dont actually think that the JSO tape was that priceless. In fact in some way it was more useful in Serbian minds in showing under which regime the murderer of Zoran Djindjic (Legija) flourished.

I also dismiss the completely ridiculous tendancy to blame the failures of a whole institution on one person. Del Ponte has only hinted at the pressure nation states applied to her work but I hope she will come out in the open to let us know how this occured in practice.

Wim Rofel is pretty bang on with his reply here.

Lenard you have hardly surprised with your comment. The Croatian poster boy Gotovina equals Del Pone bad right? Personally speaking the more pathetic attempts from the Croatian media to potray Del Ponte as some kind of witch just because she upset the cosy Crotian conventional view of complete innocence makes me think that she was better than some like to paint her.

A nice link.

http://www.zmag.org/simonsyugo.htm

Sreten

The Hague was set up by the UN because of the terrible atrocities occuring in the Balkans on a very large scale.

Whether you want to turn it to an attack on US politicians is a separate issue - whether it is an attempt at deflection or evasion is for your conscience to decide.

However, I think my comments stand.

The tribunal is more useful as a threat than as an institution that does its job

Problem is that justice works only if fit is universal, same rules apply to everyone. If it is selective it is not justice. In these particular case, compare official party line of “International Community”, (Serbs bad, everyone else good) with a facts: Serbs are accused as initiators and the only culprits of the war. Alleged as a only extreme nationalists of the Balkan, wanted “Great Serbia”, without any other nation in it aside from Serbs, they are responsible for genocide against most of other ex-YU nations e.c.t. e.c.t, and yet, when you look at the facts on the ground you’ll see that all other newly formed states on the ex-YU space are almost completely mono – ethnic, because they expelled their minorities. The only exemption is Serbia – this is the only thoroughly multi ethnic state. Number of minorities didn’t significantly change before, during and after the war(s). Even considerable Albanian minority still lives in a Serbia proper, including capital city, despite everything that happened. Add to that about 1 000 000 Serb refuges, (Serbia has a biggest number of refugees in Europe), victims of ethnical cleansing by Croats, Bosnian Muslims and Kosovo Albanians. How can it be if accusations are just?

Then take a look into wider world. Lets see how “land of the free” goes about the war. Wouldn’t you expect that “beacon of democracy” who is lecturing everyone and anyone set an example of fair and humane managing of the war? We certainly would. How do you guys expect us Serbs to take you seriously when we are watching war crimes your troops are busy doing daily even at this very moment? One of the accusations against Serb military action in Kosovo is that our troops used disproportional force in response to UCK attacks. And then we see your shock and Eve tactics many, many times more disproportional then ours. Dropping 500 kg bombs in the middle of densely populated cities. What is exactly difference between siege of Sarajevo and siege of Faluja? When will you bring responsible to the justice? Remember command responsibility? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Which country killed most unarmed civilians in the last six decades since the end of the WWII?

Truly Carla was a mediocrity at her job or the people working in the Hague with her don't have much respect for her or the way she handled a complex task. The Serbian posts like to portray them selfs as the innocent victims of their neighbors and the world. That they are unfairly maligned by world opinion. They could have separated on good terms and peace with the other republics. Just like The Czech and Slovaks or Russians ,Belorussians and Ukrainians. They were more interested in pursuing a greater Serbia at a horrendous price of war they put on their neighbors in deaths ,ethnic cleansing and destruction.

Right on target. This needs to be repeated again and again: the failure of ICTY is largely due to this individual. One of CdP's last statements - "Karadzic will be arrested before Xmas 2007. I'm 80% sure of it" - is just one of many fine examples of her totally irresponsible approach to serious issues, her massive arrogance and lack of consideration for local realities. I'd also say that, with Djindjic gone so early on, she was facing a band of equally stupid and arrogant people, namely the Serbian governement in corpore. Had one of the two been slighlty more inspired, Serbia would probably in better shape today.

The main problem of the ICTY was not Carla, but its mission to prove the Western interventions right. That's why they want leading politicians like Milosevic for the tribunal and that's why they wanted to put his actions in the different regions together in order to prove some improbable "great Serbia" complot.

Each side in ex-Yugoslavia believed that they fought for a just cause. They might break a few rules to reach their goals, but who cares? Not their people. That is my problem with mr. Montgomery's triumphality about the Red Berets video. If you want to convince Bosnia's and Croatia's Serbs that Milosevic was wrong it won't help to show that Milosevic sent or supported Red Berets. As long as they believe that Croatia wanted to cleanse its Serbs and Bosnia wanted to create a Muslim dictatorship they will believe that their fight and its support from Milosevic were justified.

I believe that the tribunal should concentrate on clear cut war crimes like the Srebrenica massacre or the sadist rulers of Foca. It is here that the tribunal is the most convincing and has the best preventive effect.

For the political dimension a kind of investigating truth commission is more suitable. But this will mean that all parties will have to open their files: including the US, the EU and its member states. In this light I find it very discouraging that testimonies by top US officials for the ICTY are often secret.

There is a third category: crimes that made some sense from a military point of view. These are for example the ethnic cleansings and the bombing of Sarajevo. Problem is that many people see these as necessary evil - just like Guantanamo. Even the ICTY accepted this in the Nasir Oric case. For that reason I believe the court should focus on those of these cases that were specially brutal.

Montgomery is flawed in two areas here. First, he talks about the high legal standards of the ICT. This is nonesense. It had much lower thresholds of evidence than any other court on the planet. Who else, for example, woudl have a sociologist brought in to accuse them of war crimes as Seselj has. And the hearsay rules have been abandoned altogether. I know one prosecutor's assistant who told me frequently how some of the lawyers openly joked about the process.
Montgomery's second error is claiming Milosevoc's photo with red berets somehow constitutes proof of complicity in war crimes. If this is the case, will Montgomery consider General Wesley Clark guilty of war crimes for the photo of him and Mladic together.

The Red Berets Milosevic greeted in the video were the Serbian Anti-terrorist police (JSO) established in 1996. The Knindza who allegedly committed war crimes in Krajina were also called the Red Berets but were different. The prosecution's own witness "Captain" Dragan Vasiljkovic testified that there was no institutional continuity between the Knindza and the JSO. It is just that their nicknames were the same.

To add to Wim's already excellent posting, the ICTY is largely seen as a joke by Serbs, including those fully committed to democracy, European integration, and a distancing from Serbia's authoritarian past. I fondly remember living in Serbia back in 2002 where every morning my Serbian friends and I would watch "Slobo's Morning Talk Show" (his Hague trial) while eating breakfast. It was better than any scripted comedy or cartoon. Everyone of my friends thought Milosevic was a thug, but to see him dance around the attempted indictments of the tribunal just reinforced the already perceived notion that the ICTY was nothing more than an attempt at legalistic surrealism.

Added to this are the notions that the Hague has a rotating door policy for many non-Serb indictees. Haradinaj can seemingly come and go as he pleases, which infuriates ordinary Serbs.

However the main problem with the ICTY, as Wim clearly points out, is that is appears to be more of an attempt by the Western powers to legitimize their own actions than properly seeking justice and truth. We're not interested in "sorting out the facts", and we're even less interested in trying to understand the reasons behind everyone's actions. We're interested in trying to find a legal basis for exonerating the allied condemning the enemy for the history books to chronicle. At least at Nuremburg the presiding tribunal experienced internal divisions and conflicts of interests. Here, the tribunal are the very governments that exploited internal crises in a dying Yugoslavia for their own ends, and now seek to legalize their own actions by condemning their opponents.

Until the ICTY is either completely refashioned to be absolutely impartial, or its mandate simply ends, requiring all future trials to be conducted in host countries, I'm afraid we will not see Mladic or Karadzic.

'The U.S. government helped to subsidize the initial broadcasts of the trial because we mistakenly believed it would help to educate everyone about what happened and Milošević’s role. However, the initial witnesses presented by the Prosecution against him lacked credibility and the end result was that Milošević was gaining popularity in Serbia during the trial rather than losing it.'
That statement by Monty says it all. The US is paying big bucks to brainwash the masses, to make them agreeable to American interests, whatever they may be. They do this all over the world. That, Monty, is precisely the reason that 'America' is a dirty word in most of the world. Instead of trying to spread truth, justice, and liberty, your country serves interest groups, no matter how corrupt and immoral they may be.
The America of Jefferson, Lincoln, and Woodrow Wilson has been usurped by corrupt lobbyists. It's really a great shame.

Lenard: "Horrendous price of war Serbs put on their neighbors." There would not be a Serb presence in Bosnia had they not fought back. Read Alija Izetbegovic's Islamic Declaration to see what's waiting for Christians in Bosnia.

You also may recall that the Serbs there signed a treaty at Lisbon in 1992 that would have averted the war. The Muslims persuaded by the Americans withdrew their signature. The whole war could have been avoided right then and there. Ironically the Muslims ended up getting less in the end then they would have got in Lisbon.

Croatia, had a strong part to play in the Bosnian bloodshed as well as her troops were there fighting both Serbs and Muslims at different points of the war. It's interesting you did not bring that up.

Are you also going to justify Jasenovac the Croatian concentration camp for Serbs? Do you think the Serbs would have fought in Croatia had the Croats not tried to exterminate them during WWII. Read former Croatian president Franjo Tudjman's "Impasses of Historical Reality" and you will clearly see Croatia's attitude toward minority rights.

Moreover, if you think there were no crimes committed against Serbs, then what happened to all the Serbs that lived in Krajina, western Bosnia, and southern Kosovo?

Just like Czechs and Slovaks, Serbs and Montenegrins as well as Macedonians separated in good will. Slovenia was not a difficult break either. In fact, Serbs and Slovenes have a very good strategic relationship now. However, the Serbs nor any other nation can separate peacefully with people who are determined to dominate or murder them.

The reason the Hague Tribunal was not successful is that it was totally biased against one side. Crimes against humanity should always be brought to justice, but what the Hague gave us instead was selected justice based on politics.

Politics can cloud justice, but it cannot cloud the truth.

Your criticism is well aimed in some respects such as the overly lengthy charge sheet against Milosevic. I actually think that it was a completely political decision to keep the charge of genocide against him when it was pretty clear the case was unproven. The politics was that the Hague would be attacked in some way (not least by some nation states such as the US) if it dropped the genocide charges.

I dont actually think that the JSO tape was that priceless. In fact in some way it was more useful in Serbian minds in showing under which regime the murderer of Zoran Djindjic (Legija) flourished.

I also dismiss the completely ridiculous tendancy to blame the failures of a whole institution on one person. Del Ponte has only hinted at the pressure nation states applied to her work but I hope she will come out in the open to let us know how this occured in practice.

Wim Rofel is pretty bang on with his reply here.

Lenard you have hardly surprised with your comment. The Croatian poster boy Gotovina equals Del Pone bad right? Personally speaking the more pathetic attempts from the Croatian media to potray Del Ponte as some kind of witch just because she upset the cosy Crotian conventional view of complete innocence makes me think that she was better than some like to paint her.

It's not surpising to me that Montgomery is talking about Red Berets as a fact, proven and known. In fact, allegation was made that Milosevic was a sponsoring them while there were fighting, but never proven. Montgomery is more content with going for an official line of his former emloyer, I guess.
The fact is, it's a SPECULATION, and not an established FACT. (note to self, re-read Franz Kafka's "The Trial")
Others would find video showing Paddy Ashdown inspecting armed Kosovo Albanians lined-up before him promissing them help from British Government, more priceless. He was not there privatelly, but on behalf of British government. (some would say that video proves that KLA was in "clandestine service" to British government). Paddy rushed letter to the Tribunal explaining that those were Kosovo Albanian civilians, who had weapons only to have something to give up, should Serbian forces show up and demand them to give in the weapons. To many, it was strange that they were carrying arms around, rather then showing Mr. Ashdown "catche" of weapons that they've collected for such purpose, especially, that there were no Serbs in vicinity. I guess, they wanted to be ready to disarm immediatelly, should Serbs appear. So, Paddy rushed the letter that was read in the Tribunal. Why would any court choose to read letters in the midle of the trial that are not relevant to the case (weather they were KLA or civilians, neither implicate, nor vindicate Milosevic) have not been explained, but, oh, well...
The FACT is there was a video showing a British official inspecting group of ARMED Albanians, promissing them help from his government. Many find that priceless.
Or some other videos shown, such as Reuter's footage showing OSCE Observers on the hill near Racak all day, while several observers testified that they were not there at all, etc. Priceless.
I could go on and on. With the statements from number of witnesses for the prosecution.

The court heard how KLA leader Ramush Hajradinaj claimed, “The agreement signed by Holbrooke has saved the KLA. The arrival of the OSCE verifiers in Kosovo has enabled the revival of the UCK [KLA]”.
And simmilar statements.
But, never mind that.
Justice is commonly portreyed as blind-folded woman, holding a sword in one hand and scale in the other. This image came to us from Ancient Rome's godess Justitia, and is meant to symbolise good measure (scale), punishment of the guilty (sword) and non-bias (blindfold, to judge evenly, no matter who is in question).
Tribunal in general, (and not Carla alone) is a failure, because it's anything but blindfolded.
How many people posting comments here, really think that bombing of hospitals is not crime against humanity? So, why there were no charges against perpertrators?
Forget NATO, what about local leaders? I completely agree with charges against Babic, what about Tudjman?
It was always treated differently.
Or Agim Ceku?
UN officers went to Croatian artillery demanding to be taken to a commander (Ceku). They warned him that his cannons are shelling road with refugees on it, with no Krajina Serb troops in a vicinity. After assuring them that they will stop and sending them away, barrage continued unabated. Despite of having number of UN Officers willing to testify against him (including two of her fellow Canadian officers) Louis Arbour never pressed any charges against Ceku.
Tribunal was a disgrace before Carla took her place in late 1999.
What to say about general Djukic for example? (Bosnian Serb Army).
General in charge of logistic, and never in command of any combat unit, it was clear from the beginning that he cannot be responsable for any attrocities. Yet, he was held in Hague prison for months, interrogated by FBI (and tortured, according to him), denied medical treatment (although a cancer patient), and finally released few days before death (to cancer) withouth any charges ever being laid by Tribunal against him.

"The nominal overseer, the United Nations Security Council, gave way too much latitude and far too little guidance to the ICTY. "

I cannot agree with this. On number of ocassions UNSC gave a good guidance to the ICTY. They conducted number of investigations that were resulting in recommendations to ICTY to lay charges. (not for Serbs, of course, Milosevic was charged before any UNSC investigation could take place, for example).
This was all ignored by ICTY.
Here is one such example.

http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/comexpert/ANX/VII.htm

Notice that this UNSC document is dated on 28 December 1994.

At the bottom of the document is a chapter "Reccomendations"

" It is recommended that two Croatian officers be charged with the following war crimes, respectively: "

and then stating codes of Geneva Convention, etc. etc.

Did Louis Arbour act upon these recommendations?
Not at all.
War ended in Bosnia and Croatia with 68 ( I believe) Serbs indicted, several Croats and Bosniaks also indicted for crimes against each other, but nobody indicted for any crimes against Serbs (as appearantly, there was no such crimes).

Louis Arbour left pass her duty to Carla in 1999 (5 years after this document had been issued) without indicting anyone as recommended.

So, guidance was there, wasn't it?
ICTY have chosen to ignore recommendations from UNSC on every occasion, and that's a different story.

Not a horrible article, but I don't know what is so remarkable about the videotape of Milosevic reviewing the Red Berets. The president of Serbia reviewing an honor guard for a unit of the Serbian police is nothing remarkable. Sure some members of the JSO were veterans from the wars in Bosnia and Croatia, but there was never any evidence that they were under the control of Milosevic while they were there. Their commander was Captan Dragan, and he testified that he wanted to overthrow Milosevic, and it was one of these self-same Red Berets (Milorad Lukovic) that arrested Milosevic in Serbia.

As for the assertion that del Ponte "entered into an agreement with the Serbian government to get access to certain key government documents by promising that they would not be shown to outsiders." She has denied that, and if she did obtain such documents they were never used during the trial proceedings.

By all means, Mr. Montgomery show us where these damning documents linking Milosevic to Srebrenica can be found in the transcript of the trial, or explain why del Ponte would want access to documents if she wasn't going to use them in the trial?

It seems to me that if Milosevic were even 5% as bad as he was made out to be that even an incompetent prosecutor like del Ponte would have been able to present at least some credible evidence against him in the five years that the trial was going on.

Don't complain to us if your service is not performing as you expect them to - change it! It is an institution set up by USA, paid for by USA and heavily influenced by USA! If you don't like it any more - cancel it.

Wim and Mike - Thank you for your comments. I only wish that these were published and posted to every politician, newsagency who were so very involved throughout the whole ex-Yugo affair. Maybe if people like both of you sat on the judges bench in the Hague we could get this unpleasant business out of the way - for the benefit of all victims - Dead or Alive!

A nice link.

http://www.zmag.org/simonsyugo.htm

Whether one agrees with every little detail in the commentary is missing the point. I praise Montgomery for his thesis here: that there must be a balance between national reconciliation and justice, because, ironically, if one neglects one of these goals (Del Ponte neglected national reconciliation), one, in the end, endangers both! It is a very good explanation of why Mladic and others are still out there, of why some Serbs may have been so loathing to cooperate with a prosecutor who constantly had a tendency to humiliate them.

The point is simple. War criminals will not be able to assume that they will never be tried.

Whether the job of the Hague is done well or done badly does not bring back any of those who were murdered - but it does make life inconvenient for those who thought they could behave like thugs and get away with it.

Anyone who takes comfort in criticising the Hague should review his or her conscience. If your heros are not innocents, then rethink your heros.

If you criticise the Hague because of a genuine concern for legal process - then that is proper.

Bob.
I would be the one who takes comfort in criticising the Hague.
And these people are not my heros.
I don't mind them tried at all, and I wish Karadzic and Mladic are caught and it the cell now.
But, I also wish they were joined by many others.

"...but it does make life inconvenient for those who thought they could behave like thugs and get away with it"
No, it doesn't and that's the problem.
How many hospitals were hit in Serbia in 1999? I think 9. How many schools?
Clinton personally approved list of targets. To me he was behaving like thug and got away with it. How does Hague makes his life inconveniant?

Sreten

The Hague was set up by the UN because of the terrible atrocities occuring in the Balkans on a very large scale.

Whether you want to turn it to an attack on US politicians is a separate issue - whether it is an attempt at deflection or evasion is for your conscience to decide.

However, I think my comments stand.

The tribunal is more useful as a threat than as an institution that does its job

Problem is that justice works only if fit is universal, same rules apply to everyone. If it is selective it is not justice. In these particular case, compare official party line of “International Community”, (Serbs bad, everyone else good) with a facts: Serbs are accused as initiators and the only culprits of the war. Alleged as a only extreme nationalists of the Balkan, wanted “Great Serbia”, without any other nation in it aside from Serbs, they are responsible for genocide against most of other ex-YU nations e.c.t. e.c.t, and yet, when you look at the facts on the ground you’ll see that all other newly formed states on the ex-YU space are almost completely mono – ethnic, because they expelled their minorities. The only exemption is Serbia – this is the only thoroughly multi ethnic state. Number of minorities didn’t significantly change before, during and after the war(s). Even considerable Albanian minority still lives in a Serbia proper, including capital city, despite everything that happened. Add to that about 1 000 000 Serb refuges, (Serbia has a biggest number of refugees in Europe), victims of ethnical cleansing by Croats, Bosnian Muslims and Kosovo Albanians. How can it be if accusations are just?

Then take a look into wider world. Lets see how “land of the free” goes about the war. Wouldn’t you expect that “beacon of democracy” who is lecturing everyone and anyone set an example of fair and humane managing of the war? We certainly would. How do you guys expect us Serbs to take you seriously when we are watching war crimes your troops are busy doing daily even at this very moment? One of the accusations against Serb military action in Kosovo is that our troops used disproportional force in response to UCK attacks. And then we see your shock and Eve tactics many, many times more disproportional then ours. Dropping 500 kg bombs in the middle of densely populated cities. What is exactly difference between siege of Sarajevo and siege of Faluja? When will you bring responsible to the justice? Remember command responsibility? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Which country killed most unarmed civilians in the last six decades since the end of the WWII?