33

Monday, 04.01.2010.

09:39

Serbia files genocide lawsuit against Croatia

Serbia has filed its genocide countersuit against Croatia on Monday before the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

Izvor: B92

Serbia files genocide lawsuit against Croatia IMAGE SOURCE
IMAGE DESCRIPTION

33 Komentari

Sortiraj po:

jmerste

pre 14 godina

It's about time that Serbia puts an end to the propaganda made by the western countries and mostly the USA. Here is why:

" The Demonization of Slobodan Milosevic
December 2003

U.S. leaders profess a dedication to democracy. Yet over the past five decades, democratically elected governments—guilty of introducing redistributive economic programs or otherwise pursuing independent courses that do not properly fit into the U.S.-sponsored global free market system—have found themselves targeted by the U.S. national security state. Thus democratic governments in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Cyprus, the Dominican Republic, Greece, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Syria, Uruguay, and numerous other nations were overthrown by their respective military forces, funded and advised by the United States. The newly installed military rulers then rolled back the egalitarian reforms and opened their countries all the wider to foreign corporate investors.

The U.S. national security state also has participated in destabilizing covert actions, proxy mercenary wars, or direct military attacks against revolutionary or nationalist governments in Afghanistan (in the 1980s), Angola, Cambodia, Cuba, East Timor, Egypt, Ethiopia, the Fiji Islands, Grenada, Haiti, Indonesia (under Sukarno), Iran, Jamaica, Lebanon, Libya, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Portugal, Syria, South Yemen, Venezuela (under Hugo Chavez), Western Sahara, and Iraq (under the CIA-sponsored autocratic Saddam Hussein, after he emerged as an economic nationalist and tried to cut a better deal on oil prices).

The propaganda method used to discredit many of these governments is not particularly original, indeed by now it is quite transparently predictable. Their leaders are denounced as bombastic, hostile, and psychologically flawed. They are labeled power hungry demagogues, mercurial strongmen, and the worst sort of dictators likened to Hitler himself. The countries in question are designated as “terrorist” or “rogue” states, guilty of being “anti-American” and “anti-West.” Some choice few are even condemned as members of an “evil axis.” When targeting a country and demonizing its leadership, U.S. leaders are assisted by ideologically attuned publicists, pundits, academics, and former government officials. Together they create a climate of opinion that enables Washington to do whatever is necessary to inflict serious damage upon the designated nation's infrastructure and population, all in the name of human rights, anti-terrorism, and national security.

There is no better example of this than the tireless demonization of democratically-elected President Slobodan Milosevic and the U.S.-supported wars against Yugoslavia. Louis Sell, a former U.S. Foreign Service officer, has authored a book (Slobodan Milosevic and the Destruction of Yugoslavia, Duke University Press, 2002) that is a hit piece on Milosevic, loaded with all the usual prefabricated images and policy presumptions of the U.S. national security state. Sell's Milosevic is a caricature, a cunning power seeker and maddened fool, who turns on trusted comrades and plays upon divisions within the party.

This Milosevic is both an “orthodox socialist” and an “opportunistic Serbian nationalist,” a demagogic power-hungry “second Tito” who simultaneously wants dictatorial power over all of Yugoslavia while eagerly pursuing polices that “destroy the state that Tito created.” The author does not demonstrate by reference to specific policies and programs that Milosevic is responsible for the dismemberment of Yugoslavia, he just tells us so again and again. One would think that the Slovenian, Croatian, Bosnian Muslim, Macedonian, and Kosovo Albanian secessionists and U.S./NATO interventionists might have had something to do with it.

In my opinion, Milosevic’s real sin was that he resisted the dismemberment of Yugoslavia and opposed a U.S. imposed hegemony. He also attempted to spare Yugoslavia the worst of the merciless privatizations and rollbacks that have afflicted other former communist countries. Yugoslavia was the only nation in Europe that did not apply for entry into the European Union or NATO or OSCE.

For some left intellectuals, the former Yugoslavia did not qualify as a socialist state because it had allowed too much penetration by private corporations and the IMF. But U.S. policymakers are notorious for not seeing the world the way purist left intellectuals do. For them Yugoslavia was socialist enough with its developed human services sector and an economy that was over 75 percent publicly owned. Sell makes it clear that Yugoslavia’s public ownership and Milosevic's defense of that economy were a central consideration in Washington's war against Yugoslavia. Milosevic, Sell complains, had a “commitment to orthodox socialism.” He “portrayed public ownership of the means of production and a continued emphasis on [state] commodity production as the best guarantees for prosperity.” He had to go.

To make his case against Milosevic, Sell repeatedly falls back on the usual ad hominem labeling. Thus we read that in his childhood Milosevic was “something of a prig” and of course “by nature a loner,” a weird kind of kid because he was “uninterested in sports or other physical activities,” and he “spurned childhood pranks in favor of his books.” The author quotes an anonymous former classmate who reports that Slobodan’s mother “dressed him funny and kept him soft.” Worse still, Slobodan would never join in when other boys stole from orchards—no doubt a sure sign of childhood pathology.

Sell further describes Milosevic as “moody,” “reclusive,” and given to “mulish fatalism.” But Sell’s own data—when he pauses in his negative labeling and gets down to specifics—contradicts the maladjusted “moody loner” stereotype. He acknowledges that young Slobodan worked well with other youth when it came to political activities. Far from being unable to form close relations, Slobodan met a girl, his future wife, and they enjoyed an enduring lifelong attachment. In his early career when heading the Beogradska Banka, Milosevic was reportedly “communicative, caring about people at the bank, and popular with his staff.” Other friends describe him as getting on well with people, “communal and relaxed,” a faithful husband to his wife, and a proud and devoted father to his children. And Sell allows that Milosevic was at times “confident,” “outgoing,” and “charismatic.” But the negative stereotype is so firmly established by repetitious pronouncement (and by years of propagation by Western media and officialdom) that Sell can simply slide over contradictory evidence—even when such evidence is provided by himself.

Sell refers to anonymous “U.S. psychiatrists, who have studied Milosevic closely.” By “closely” he must mean from afar, since no U.S. psychiatrist has ever treated or even interviewed Milosevic. These uncited and unnamed psychiatrists supposedly diagnosed the Yugoslav leader as a “malignant narcissistic” personality. Sell tells us that such malignant narcissism fills Milosevic with self-deception and leaves him with a “chore personality” that is a “sham.” “People with Milosevic’s type of personality frequently either cannot or will not recognize the reality of facts that diverge from their own perception of the way the world is or should be.” How does Dr. Sigmund Sell know all this? He seems to find proof in the fact that Milosevic dared to have charted a course that differed from the one emanating from Washington. Surely only personal pathology can explain such “anti-West” obstinacy. Furthermore, we are told that Milosevic suffered from a “blind spot” in that he was never comfortable with the notion of private property. If this isn’t evidence of malignant narcissism, what is? Sell never considers the possibility that he himself, and the global interventionists who think like him, cannot or will not "recognize the reality of facts that diverge from their own perception of the way the world is or should be."

Milosevic, we are repeatedly told, fell under the growing influence of his wife, Mirjana Markovic, “the real power behind the throne.” Sell actually calls her “Lady Macbeth” on one occasion. He portrays Markovic as a complete wacko, given to uncontrollable anger; her eyes “vibrated like a scared animal”; “she suffers from severe schizophrenia” with “a tenuous grasp on reality,” and is a hopeless “hypochondriac.” In addition, she has a “mousy” appearance and a “dreamy” and “traumatized” personality. And like her husband, with whom she shares a “very abnormal relationship,” she has “an autistic relation with the world.” Worse still, she holds “hardline marxist views.” We are left to wonder how the autistic dysfunctional Markovic was able to work as a popular university professor, organize and lead a new political party, and play an active role in the popular resistance against Western interventionism.

In this book, whenever Milosevic or others in his camp are quoted as saying something, they “snarl,” “gush,” “hiss,” and “crow.” In contrast, political players who win Sell’s approval, “observe,” “state,” “note,” and “conclude.” When one of Milosevic’s superiors voices his discomfort about “noisy Kosovo Serbs” (as Sell calls them) who were demonstrating against the mistreatment they suffered at the hands of Kosovo Albanian secessionists, Milosevic “hisses,” "Why are you so afraid of the street and the people?”Some of us might think this is a pretty good question to hiss at a government leader, but Sell treats it as proof of Milosevic’s demagoguery.

Whenever Milosevic did anything that aided the common citizenry, as when he taxed the interest earned on foreign currency accounts—a policy that was unpopular with Serbian elites but appreciated by the poorer strata—he is dismissed as manipulatively currying popular favor. Thus we must accept Sell’s word that Milosevic never wanted the power to prevent hunger but only hungered for power. The author operates from a nonfalsefiable paradigm. If the targeted leader is unresponsive to the people, this is proof of his dictatorial proclivity. If he is responsive to them, this demonstrates his demagogic opportunism.

In keeping with U.S. officialdom’s view of the world, Sell labels “Milosevic and his minions” as "hardliners,” “conservatives,” and "ideologues”; they are “anti-West,” and bound up in “socialist dogma.” In contrast, Croatian, Bosnian, and Kosovo Albanian secessionists who worked hard to dismember Yugoslavia and deliver their respective republics to the tender mercies of neoliberal rollback are identified as “economic reformers,” “the liberal leadership,” and “pro-West” (read, pro-transnational corporate capitalist). Sell treats “Western-style democracy” and “a modern market economy” as necessary correlates. He has nothing to say about the dismal plight of the Eastern European countries that abandoned their deficient but endurable planned economies for the merciless exactions of laissez-faire capitalism.

Sell’s sensitivity to demagoguery does not extend to Franjo Tudjman, the crypto-fascist anti-Semite Croat who had nice things to say about Hitler, and who imposed his harsh autocratic rule on the newly independent Croatia. Tudjman dismissed the Holocaust as an exaggeration, and openly hailed the Croatian Ustashe Nazi collaborators of World War II. He even employed a few aging Ustashe leaders in his government. Sell says not a word about all this, and treats Tudjman as just a good old Croatian nationalist. Likewise, he has not a critical word about the Bosnian Muslim leader Alija Izetbegovic. He comments laconically that Izetbegovic “was sentenced to three years imprisonment in 1946 for belonging to a group called the Young Muslims.” One is left with the impression that the Yugoslav communist government had suppressed a devout Muslim. What Sell leaves unmentioned is that the Young Muslims actively recruited Muslim units for the Nazi SS during World War II; these units perpetrated horrid atrocities against the resistance movement and the Jewish population in Yugoslavia. Izetbegovic got off rather lightly with a three-year sentence.

Little is made in this book of the ethnic cleansing perpetrated against the Serbs by U.S.-supported leaders like Tudjman and Izetbegovic during and after the U.S.-sponsored wars. Conversely, no mention is made of the ethnic tolerance and diversity that existed in President Milosevic's Yugoslavia. By 1999, all that was left of Yugoslavia was Montenegro and Serbia. Readers are never told that this rump nation was the only remaining multi-ethnic society among the various former Yugoslav republics, the only place where Serbs, Albanians, Croats, Gorani, Jews, Egyptians, Hungarians, Roma, and numerous other ethnic groups could live together with some measure of security and tolerance.

The relentless demonization of Milosevic spills over onto the Serbian people in general. In Sell’s book, the Serbs are aggrandizing nationalists. Kosovo Serbs demonstrating against mistreatment by Albanian nationalists are described as having their “bloodlust up.” And Serb workers demonstrating to defend their rights and hard won gains are dismissed by Sell as “the lowest instruments of the mob.” The Serbs who had lived in Krajina and other parts of Croatia for centuries are dismissed as colonial occupiers. In contrast, the Slovenian, Croatian, and Bosnian Muslim nationalist secessionists, and Kosovo Albanian irredentists are simply seeking “independence,” “self-determination,” and “cultural distinctiveness and sovereignty.” In this book, the Albanian KLA gunmen are not big-time drug dealers, terrorists, and ethnic cleansers, but guerrilla fighters and patriots.

Military actions allegedly taken by the Serbs, described in the vaguest terms, are repeatedly labeled “brutal,” while assaults and atrocities delivered upon the Serbs by other national groups are more usually accepted as retaliatory and defensive, or are dismissed by Sell as “untrue,” “highly exaggerated,” and “hyperventilated.” Milosevic, Sell says, disseminated “vicious propaganda” against the Croats, but he does not give us any specifics. Sell does provide one or two instances of how Serb villages were pillaged and their inhabitants raped and murdered by Albanian secessionists. From this he grudgingly allows that "some of the Serb charges…had a core of truth.” But he makes nothing more of it.

The well-timed, well-engineered story about a Serbian massacre of unarmed Albanians in the village of Racak, hyped by U.S. diplomat and veteran disinformationist William Walker, is wholeheartedly embraced by Sell, who ignores all the contrary evidence. An Associated Press TV crew had actually filmed the battle that took place in Racak the previous day in which Serbian police killed a number of KLA fighters. A French journalist who went through Racak later that day found evidence of a battle but no evidence of a massacre of unarmed civilians, nor did Walker's own Kosovo Verification Mission monitors. All the forensic reports reveal that almost all of the forty-four persons killed had previously been using fire arms, and all had perished in combat. Sell simply ignores this evidence.

The media-hyped story of how the Serbs allegedly killed 7,000 Muslims in Srebrenica is uncritically accepted by Sell, even though the most thorough investigations have uncovered not more than 2,000 bodies of undetermined nationality. The earlier massacres carried out by Muslims, their razing of some fifty Serbian villages around Srebrenica, as reported by two British correspondents and others, are ignored. The complete failure of Western forensic teams to locate the 250,000 or 100,000 or 50,000 or 10,000 bodies (the numbers kept changing) of Albanians supposedly murdered by the Serbs in Kosovo also goes unnoticed.

Sell’s rendition of what happened at Rambouillet leaves much to be desired. Under Rambouillet, Kosovo would have been turned into a NATO colony. Milosevic might have reluctantly agreed to that, so desperate was he to avoid a full-scale NATO onslaught on the rest of Yugoslavia. To be certain that war could not be avoided, however, the U.S. delegation added a remarkable stipulation, demanding that NATO forces and personnel were to have unrestrained access to all of Yugoslavia, unfettered use of its airports, rails, ports, telecommunication services, and airwaves, all free of cost and immune from any jurisdiction by Yugoslav authorities. NATO would also have the option to modify for its own use all of Yugoslavia's infrastructure including roads, bridges, tunnels, buildings, and utility systems. In effect, not just Kosovo but all of Yugoslavia was to be subjected to an extraterritoriality tantamount to outright colonial occupation.

Sell does not mention these particulars. Instead he assures us that the request for NATO’s unimpeded access to Yugoslavia was just a pro forma protocol inserted “largely for legal reasons.” A similar though less sweeping agreement was part of the Dayton package, he says. Indeed, and the Dayton agreement reduced Bosnia to a Western colony. But if there was nothing wrong with the Rambouillet ultimatum, why then did Milosevic reject it? Sell ascribes Milosevic's resistance to his perverse “bunker mentality” and his need to defy the world.

There is not a descriptive word in this book of the 78 days of around-the-clock massive NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, no mention of how it caused the loss of thousands of lives, injured and maimed thousands more, contaminated much of the land and water with depleted uranium, and destroyed much of the country's public sector industries and infrastructure-while leaving all the private Western corporate structures perfectly intact.

The sources that Sell relies on share U.S. officialdom’s view of the Balkans struggle. Observers who offer a more independently critical perspective, such as Sean Gervassi, Diana Johnstone, Gregory Elich, Nicholas Stavrous, Michel Collon, Raju Thomas, and Michel Chossudovsky are left untouched and uncited. Important Western sources I reference in my book on Yugoslavia offer evidence, testimony, and documentation that do not fit Sell’s conclusions, including sources from within the European Union, the European Community’s Commission on Women’s Rights, the OSCE and its Kosovo Verification Mission, the UN War Crimes Commission, and various other UN commissions, various State Department reports, the German Foreign Office and German Defense Ministry reports, and the International Red Cross. Sell does not touch these sources.

Also ignored by him are the testimonies and statements of members of the U.S. Congress who visited the Balkans, a former State Department official under the Bush administration, a former deputy commander of the U.S. European command, several UN and NATO generals and international negotiators, Spanish air force pilots, forensic teams from various countries, and UN monitors who offer revelations that contradict the picture drawn by Sell and other apologists of U.S. officialdom.

In sum, Sell’s book is packed with discombobulated insider details, unsupported charges, unexamined presumptions, and ideologically loaded labeling. As mainstream disinformation goes, it is a job well done.

Michael Parenti’s recent books are To Kill a Nation: The Attack on Yugoslavia (Verso), and The Terrorism Trap: September 11 and Beyond (City Lights). His latest work is Contrary Notions: A Michael Parenti Reader ."

John

pre 14 godina

Serbian President Boris Tadic has apologised to the people of Bosnia on behalf of Serbia for the events that had taken place during the Bosnian War, so it is absolutely FALSE to say that no apologies or recognition has come from the Serbian side. Not even the Bosnian government today holds such a position, and it is interesting to note that Bosnia does not support the illegal independence of Kosovo from Serbia, interesting indeed.

BalkanTruth

pre 14 godina

Let's try to make sense of this. Serbia is accusing Croatia of committing "genocide" which will be nearly impossible to prove while its own government has not yet proclaimed July 11 to be the Srebrenica Genocide remembrance day. The Srebrenica Genocide has been proven beyond doubt and yet the Serbian politicians still refuse to appropriately apologize for it and mark it. Serbia is also harboring Ratko Mladic the person most responsible for the Srebrenica Genocide and has so far refused to fulfill its international obligations of arresting and extraditing him. All these facts make the Serbian suit seem pretty empty , hypocritical, and pointless.

Stavro

pre 14 godina

Historians have had difficulty calculating the number of victims at Jasenovac, and the accurate-number will never be known and it ranges between 49,600 to 600,000[132]. The first figures to be offered by the state-commission of Croatia ranged around 500,000 and even 600,000. The official estimate of the number of victims in SFRY was 700,000; however, beginning in the 90s, the Croatian side began suggesting substantially smaller numbers. The exact numbers continue to be a subject of great controversy and hot political dispute, with the Croatian government and institutions pushing for a much lower number even as recently as September 2009.

The estimates vary due to lack of accurate records, the methods used for making estimates, and sometimes the political biases of the estimators. In some cases, entire families were exterminated, leaving no one to submit their names to the lists. On the other hand, it has been found that the lists include the names of people who died elsewhere, whose survival was not reported to the authorities, or who are counted more than once on the lists.

The casualty figures for the whole of Yugoslavia sways between the maximal 1,700,000 (nowadays refuted) and the more reliable figures between 1,500,000[133] or one million[134].

Jugoslavija

pre 14 godina

At his ICTY trial in 2004, he claimed that "during the events [of 1990-1992], and in particular at the beginning of his political career, he was strongly influenced and misled by Serbian Belgrade politicians propaganda.
(Lenard, 4 January 2010 20:59)

Milan Babich "broke" ties with the then Serbian government of Slobodan Milosevic. The reason was because Croatia put an autonomy offer on the table and Babich refused it outright, Milosevich urged him to accept.

The next leader in Krajin a was Milan Martic who was a socialist in line with Milosevich. He did the same and turned on Milosevic, and refused to negotiate with Tudjman and the Croats.

What happened at the Hague? Babich testimony was crushed by Milosevic even though he was a secret witness and under closed camera. He eventually "committed suicide"

All the pieced of the puzzle make sense if you complete the whole puzzle.

Dan

pre 14 godina

Do not understand how the case can go on irregardless of the judges verdict?
But I do understand the mindset--we will uphold our version of international law irregardless of what the rest of the international community thinks.
(pss, 5 January 2010 05:44)

Look I for one understand genocide will be extremly hard to establish. One must then ask why Croatia sued in the first place particully when their case could never be as strong as either Bosnia's and Serbia's. For some of the commentators here I can understand why they still want the case to go ahead, it's because in the 90's only one voice was heard and Serbs were pummelled by the media, they are all yearning for equality, justice and their side of the story to come out and justifiably so if other means are not open for this ie today's media. Courtrooms often disclose facts on paper which leads to literature that can shed light on subjects otherwise unknown to the public ie: the good guy vs bad guy mentality we were all trained as veiwers was a myth and that even the other side needs to own up, even for their own good or new generations will believe life is a one way street.
If not brought in front of a court do you think these comments from US Diplomat Galbraith would see light.

“Once the Serbs were gone, Tudjman didn’t want them to return” adding that the Croat state enacted legal measures to prevent the return of the expelled and refugees.

“The systematic destruction of Krajina was either ordered or permitted, but in any case, this was intended by the Croat leadership. I believe this was a deliberate policy of Zagreb government,” Galbraith stressed.

Galbraith confirmed that Tudjman was saying that only “up to 10 percent of Serbs can remain in Croatia”

I think they just want their voice heard on a fair playing feild.
The world needs to understand both sides of the story in order to have a fair understanding.

Peggy

pre 14 godina

I wonder if the Craotians can match this.

http://libcom.org/library/role-catholic-church-yugoslavias-holocaust-se-n-mac-math-na-1941-1945

I think they should just shut up before the whole world gets to know just what they and their clergy were up to.

pss

pre 14 godina

Regardless of the judges' verdict, this case needs to go ahead.
(Zoran, 4 January 2010 21:07)
Do not understand how the case can go on irregardless of the judges verdict?
But I do understand the mindset--we will uphold our version of international law irregardless of what the rest of the international community thinks.

justthetruth

pre 14 godina

Oppssss....seems like serbia wants to bargain for that amount of money Croatia is suing serbia but hey one thing those judges will feel sorry for life's of humans being lost but HEY REALLY WHO STARTED ALL THAT MESS IN YUGOSLAVIA ...opss maybe YUGO was invadet and destroyed by some ALLIENS from deep space....

Goran.

pre 14 godina

To stay sweet and short:
Serbia has no jurisdiction in Croatia! Serb troops whent to croatian land, croatians never crossed the border the attack serbia.


the icc will hit 2 stones to kill one white bird.
the more fun here is that it is Serbia that is asking for "it"
(troika melb, 4 January 2010 10:50)

Where do you get your information from? look, ill even help you out a little. Croatians did cross the border, one patrol, from Ilok into Ljuba and got there asses kicked almost immediately. From that point serbs took control of the surrounding area and went in as far as Ilok and held ground there.

Ljuba is the next town from Erdevik. Erdevik being my home town.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erdevik

In Erdevik we have 3 churches. The biggest being a croatian catholic church. It still stands to this day and it was never attacked during the war. Infact, not one croatian was forced out of Erdevik. The church is always being used on catholic holidays and has regularly been repaired. A fire broke out in a cafe behind that church and the church was repaired before the cafe.
Fortunately for the croats and the church, Erdevik isnt Kosovo. the church wasnt burned to the ground.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/erdevik/1618151423/in/set-72157602497361990/

http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd80/Gokz777/16532_102971579726740_1000004169669.jpg

Should you wish for more pictures ill be glad to put them up.

Michael R.

pre 14 godina

Big mistake!

Serbia will regret this for years to come. Now, any chance of EU membership is essentially dead.

However, I must say it couldn't happen to a more deserving country.

gg

pre 14 godina

According to international law, something Serbs have discovered only after February of 2008, one cannot sue another country for their interal affars. This is guarranteed by the Helsinki Accord and various other international laws and accords starting with the Treaty of Westphalia and ending with UN guarantees of sovereignty. Therefore Serbia's claims are null and void and a violation of international law, and will prove as such during the "suit" ;)
Quite the argument. I have heard it somewhere else though...

John

pre 14 godina

Just curious, Has any Croation government official (since the creation of independent Croatia '91) apologized, recoginized and admitted the genocidal atrocities committed in Jasenovac during WW2? I think this would have helped for "good relations" between Serbia and Croatia and the entire region, don't you?

Zoran

pre 14 godina

@ ZORAN
Thank you so much:
"It was the JNA that entered Slovenia while the president and army general were both Croatians"
However, these facts can never penetrate some tightly closed minds: hatred made Serbo-phobes blind and def for truth.
(Logic, 4 January 2010 16:28)
--
The truth is that the US and Germany were also involved in this genocide. Regardless of the judges' verdict, this case needs to go ahead.

Angry Russian

pre 14 godina

I think it will be very funny to hear what arguments the Europeans will find to defend their favorite. Sooner or later one will have to tie together the events of WW2 , of 1991-95 and even of 1999. Sooner or later one will have to tie events in Serbian Kosovo &M , Serbska Kraina and Respublika Serbska ect.

Then the underground of the American base on Serbian soil , of the Storm operation , the Haague Tribunal , the Belgrade & Novi Sad bombings will become evident even in the West. Let the world see what they have done to the Prospering Yugoslavia and let them explain what do we have instead ?

---

Lenard

pre 14 godina

The poor innocent self righteous Serb minorities in Croatia ,Bosnia ,Kosovo and Serbs from Serbia did nothing wrong. They were not the ones that stoled the weapons of all of Yugoslavia and yous them on their mostly unarmed civilian neighbours. Serbia and mostly the Belgrade Communist politicians are innocent. They were not the instigator of armed aggression at the expense of the other Republics for a greater Serbia. That is why the overwhelming majority of war criminals are Serbian politicians and Serbian military personnel indicted and convicted by the ICTY in the Hague. Gee weez has the hole world got it all wrong and the Serb "unbiased" self serving version is right. Even Milan Babić a elected president by Croatian Serbs . At his ICTY trial in 2004, he claimed that "during the events [of 1990-1992], and in particular at the beginning of his political career, he was strongly influenced and misled by Serbian Belgrade politicians propaganda.

James Nunn

pre 14 godina

It is my fervent desire that these legal proceedings will finally expose what has for too long remained buried in the global historical consciousness: that in their gleeful adherence to nazi ideology, the Croat government committed crimes at Jasenovac which they have chosen to repeat, refine, and reward the perpetrators for.
How, with a clear conscience, can ANY nation of civilised individuals associate with a nation which refuses to admit to its willing participation in the worst genocide of the 20th century?
I, for one, welcome this case, and look forward to seeing what has been hidden in the dark dragged forth into the light.

Biljana

pre 14 godina

My strongest support goes to such decision and our team that will represent and defend our Serbian honour.I just feel sorry that this hasn’t been done earlier, not to mention readiness (by our government)to trade with the Croats. No, there should not be any trade in this case because the victims deserve much more than some trade just for the sake of good neighbourly relations.
As far as I’m concerned I don’t care for any good relations with the Croats or any other neighbour who interfere in Serbia’s internal affairs.

I must say that I am once again discussed by the posters of Albanian ethnicity claiming that Serbia waged the war in Croatia and not vice-versa, whilst on the other hand Croats had all the rights to make massacre over their own citizens and apply Ustasa’s policy very well known as Third of population to kill, third convert to Catholicism and third to expel.
I remember that before the war the Serbs in Croatia were stripped off all the possible rights and as a nation have been erased from the pre war constitution of Croatia. Yes, Serbs were supposed to become non-existent over there.
Should I continue about other abuses directed against the Serbs.
The language and the deeds directed against the Serbs that time in Croatia just reminded way to much of NDH and Ustashas.

What other choice Serbs had than to withdraw and create own space of survival? We just could not let Jasenovac and other camps and pits all over Croatia full of Serbian bodies, repeat once again in the same century.

That is why I can not understand why Albanians keep Croatian side rather than to try to stay neutral.
Why in the Earth you Albanians are then angry at Milosevic who try to do something similar to you. And if speak honestly, Milosevic’s policy against the K-Albanians was a little baby comparing to Tudjman’s policy against the Serbs.

So, according to K-Albanians Milosevic was right.
I am so pleased to hear that.

@Niall and others, thank you for non biased and objective comments

Matthew

pre 14 godina

OK first off, Croatia’s actions most certainly affected Serbs “outside” Croatia.

My wife lives on the Una river. During the war she went to school on the Croatia side, school, and everyone in it, ethnically cleansed. After that, the Croatian snipers on the other side of the river would harass their village, you were exposed to the snipers from the kitchen for example.

She lives very close to Jasenovac.

Historically speaking, in WWII the first part of the plan was carried out. Kill 1/3, Convert 1/3. It was until 1995 that the final component of cleansing the final 1/3 was accomplished.

Tudjman’s books, his embracing and welcoming back of former Ustashe into his government all support he had the mental state and desire to commit genocide.

Does Serbian has standing to recover the cost of caring for the refugees? Did the Serbian people of Serbia proper suffer mental damages as a result of the genocidal actions of Croatia?

Had Croatia welcomed back the refugees, the argument might be made that Serbia has no standing for a counter suit, but considering that Croatia’s genocidal actions led directly to damages and costs to the Serbian nation, I think its obvious.

I’m sure some will say that Ethnic Cleansing can NEVER be genocide, but the ICTY disagreed, they merely said usually. In this case, given the historic plan for genocide (and how to carry it out) and the social importance of the Krajina region to Serbian history and culture in Croatia, again its obvious that this is a clear case where genocide was the intended result of ethnic cleansing.

Logic

pre 14 godina

@ ZORAN
Thank you so much:
"It was the JNA that entered Slovenia while the president and army general were both Croatians"
However, these facts can never penetrate some tightly closed minds: hatred made Serbo-phobes blind and def for truth.
@ NIALL
Thanks for your comments. They deserve more than plainly hitting that "recommend" button. And I hope they (like Zoran's) will find the way to the ones willing to learn the truth.

Niall O'Doherty

pre 14 godina

I doubt this will backfire, instead it will finally cast a light on something the Croats are so adament about hiding - their Nazi past/present and the genocide they committed. Further, only through this will proper reconcilliation occur, when those skeletons, ghosts and demons finally get cast out into the open.
(Dragan, Toronto, 4 January 2010 13:14)

Agree 110%. There's lots of skeletons residing in closets down Zagreb way. Belgrade knows this :)

Kosova-USA

pre 14 godina

No nation in formerYugo has waged any war on Serbian soil
(Kosova-USA, 4 January 2010 11:00)
--
Finally, you admit that Kosovo is not a nation.

I did not admit anything,but the word "Kosova" was deleted from my coment. You can guess who done it!?
And now,you get the chance to make fun of me.

Dragan, Toronto

pre 14 godina

xythi-kosovo-metohija,

I doubt this will backfire, instead it will finally cast a light on something the Croats are so adament about hiding - their Nazi past/present and the genocide they committed. Further, only through this will proper reconcilliation occur, when those skeletons, ghosts and demons finally get cast out into the open.

HB

pre 14 godina

.It was the territory of Yugoslavia!
And the Croats waged an illegal war of independence.
Yet they did not allow that right of independence to Krajina.
Instead they forcefully expelled over 250,000 Serbs from the region!
Lets not even mention their horrendous crimes committed in WW2!
The Croats need to pay, and its about time!

...Firstly the Serbs who ruled YU with an iron fist were the only ones to recognise the YU territory, no one else did. Second when you defend your homes against an insurgency it's considered honorable not illegal. Thirdly you mention horrendous crimes committed in WW2. Did you stop and think about Serb leader Draza Mihailovic who was executed for crimes against the people and given an unmarked grave by the same YU that you wanted to exist. Finally if Krajina wanted to be independent so badly and free from so called oppression why didn't they breakaway in 1950 or 60?. I think you people don't know what you want!

Niall O'Doherty

pre 14 godina

No nation in formerYugo has waged any war on Serbian soil,so how can serbia accuse other nations for something they have never done??? Yet,Serbia waged wars on Slovenian,Croation,Bosnian soil.
(Kosova-USA, 4 January 2010 11:00)

To stay sweet and short:
Serbia has no jurisdiction in Croatia! Serb troops whent to croatian land, croatians never crossed the border the attack serbia.


the icc will hit 2 stones to kill one white bird.
the more fun here is that it is Serbia that is asking for "it"
(troika melb, 4 January 2010 10:50)

Were the 250,000 Kraijina Serbs asking for "it" when they were driven out of their homes by the marauding, murdering, Croatian army unleashed by Tudjman and his fascist ilk? Were 1 million + Serbs, Jews, Roma and anti fascist Yugoslavs asking for "it" when they were being systematically murdered by the Ustase (along with their allies SS Skenderbeg and SS Handzhar divisions) in their cities, towns and villages or in death camps like Jasenovac.

In 1991 & 92, Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia began a cessionist and nationalist campaign against socialist Yugoslavia and everything Yugoslavia stood for. It was not only an attack on socialism but also on the Serbian people who supported the Yugoslav project and had most to lose if Yugoslavia broke apart. Yugoslavia acted legally in trying to reassert its authority in Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia by sending its army and police to crush the nationalist secessionist movements which threatened the very existance of the Yugoslav state. The Slovene, Croat and Bosnian nationalists were part of an overall campaign of the Western Imperialists to destroy Europe's last socialist state. To socialists, the destruction of Yugoslavia was not only a disaster but also an avoidable tragedy for all those caught up in the NATO/EU geo-political power game.

There seems to be a deliberate campaign from the Albanian nationalists on this site to downplay and ignore the suffering of the other side (Serbs, Roma, Jews etc.) who were on the receiving end of unspeakable crimes. Serbs, Yugoslav communists, trade unionists and feminists in Croatia in 1990 had genuine fears about living in a state dominated by an authoritarian neo-fascist regime which had just scrubbed the rights of minorities out of the Croatian constitution which followed on with widespread sackings of Serbs and communists in the civil service, media, university posts etc. not to mention the rehabilitation and glorification of the wartime NDH Ustase regime of the WW2.

It is no wonder that the Kraijina Serbs fearful of what happened in 1941-44 took up arms against a state which sought to 'eliminate' the 'Serbian problem'. Hindsight has tragically proven that the Kraijina Serbs to have been correct in their assessment.

xythi-kosova

pre 14 godina

I see this a counter lawsuite which will backfire on Serbia big time.

This is a pathetic move, Serbia did try to convince Coratia to stop suing them but unsuccessfull because they know that they are going to lose bigtime.

Predrag

pre 14 godina

It was the territory of Yugoslavia!
And the Croats waged an illegal war of independence.
Yet they did not allow that right of independence to Krajina.
Instead they forcefully expelled over 250,000 Serbs from the region!

Lets not even mention their horrendous crimes committed in WW2!

The Croats need to pay, and its about time!

Zoran

pre 14 godina

No nation in formerYugo has waged any war on Serbian soil
(Kosova-USA, 4 January 2010 11:00)
--
Finally, you admit that Kosovo is not a nation.

==
so how can serbia accuse other nations for something they have never done??? Yet,Serbia waged wars on Slovenian,Croation,Bosnian soil.
(Kosova-USA, 4 January 2010 11:00)
--
Serbia has every right to take Croatia to court for committing genocide on its own territory. Serbia is currently hosting hundreds of thousands of refugees from those regions. Besides, Serbia did not get offically involved in any war outside its territory. It was the JNA that entered Slovenia while the president and army general were both Croatians.

Kosova-USA

pre 14 godina

No nation in formerYugo has waged any war on Serbian soil,so how can serbia accuse other nations for something they have never done??? Yet,Serbia waged wars on Slovenian,Croation,Bosnian soil.

troika melb

pre 14 godina

"The document will include information on crimes committed against Croatia's ethnic Serb population in Gospić, Sisak, Pakračka Poljana, Karlovac, Osijek, Paulin Dvor, Medački Džep (Medak Pocket), and during the so-called Operation Storm."


To stay sweet and short:
Serbia has no jurisdiction in Croatia! Serb troops whent to croatian land, croatians never crossed the border the attack serbia.


the icc will hit 2 stones to kill one white bird.
the more fun here is that it is Serbia that is asking for "it"

Niall O'Doherty

pre 14 godina

No nation in formerYugo has waged any war on Serbian soil,so how can serbia accuse other nations for something they have never done??? Yet,Serbia waged wars on Slovenian,Croation,Bosnian soil.
(Kosova-USA, 4 January 2010 11:00)

To stay sweet and short:
Serbia has no jurisdiction in Croatia! Serb troops whent to croatian land, croatians never crossed the border the attack serbia.


the icc will hit 2 stones to kill one white bird.
the more fun here is that it is Serbia that is asking for "it"
(troika melb, 4 January 2010 10:50)

Were the 250,000 Kraijina Serbs asking for "it" when they were driven out of their homes by the marauding, murdering, Croatian army unleashed by Tudjman and his fascist ilk? Were 1 million + Serbs, Jews, Roma and anti fascist Yugoslavs asking for "it" when they were being systematically murdered by the Ustase (along with their allies SS Skenderbeg and SS Handzhar divisions) in their cities, towns and villages or in death camps like Jasenovac.

In 1991 & 92, Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia began a cessionist and nationalist campaign against socialist Yugoslavia and everything Yugoslavia stood for. It was not only an attack on socialism but also on the Serbian people who supported the Yugoslav project and had most to lose if Yugoslavia broke apart. Yugoslavia acted legally in trying to reassert its authority in Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia by sending its army and police to crush the nationalist secessionist movements which threatened the very existance of the Yugoslav state. The Slovene, Croat and Bosnian nationalists were part of an overall campaign of the Western Imperialists to destroy Europe's last socialist state. To socialists, the destruction of Yugoslavia was not only a disaster but also an avoidable tragedy for all those caught up in the NATO/EU geo-political power game.

There seems to be a deliberate campaign from the Albanian nationalists on this site to downplay and ignore the suffering of the other side (Serbs, Roma, Jews etc.) who were on the receiving end of unspeakable crimes. Serbs, Yugoslav communists, trade unionists and feminists in Croatia in 1990 had genuine fears about living in a state dominated by an authoritarian neo-fascist regime which had just scrubbed the rights of minorities out of the Croatian constitution which followed on with widespread sackings of Serbs and communists in the civil service, media, university posts etc. not to mention the rehabilitation and glorification of the wartime NDH Ustase regime of the WW2.

It is no wonder that the Kraijina Serbs fearful of what happened in 1941-44 took up arms against a state which sought to 'eliminate' the 'Serbian problem'. Hindsight has tragically proven that the Kraijina Serbs to have been correct in their assessment.

Predrag

pre 14 godina

It was the territory of Yugoslavia!
And the Croats waged an illegal war of independence.
Yet they did not allow that right of independence to Krajina.
Instead they forcefully expelled over 250,000 Serbs from the region!

Lets not even mention their horrendous crimes committed in WW2!

The Croats need to pay, and its about time!

Niall O'Doherty

pre 14 godina

I doubt this will backfire, instead it will finally cast a light on something the Croats are so adament about hiding - their Nazi past/present and the genocide they committed. Further, only through this will proper reconcilliation occur, when those skeletons, ghosts and demons finally get cast out into the open.
(Dragan, Toronto, 4 January 2010 13:14)

Agree 110%. There's lots of skeletons residing in closets down Zagreb way. Belgrade knows this :)

Zoran

pre 14 godina

No nation in formerYugo has waged any war on Serbian soil
(Kosova-USA, 4 January 2010 11:00)
--
Finally, you admit that Kosovo is not a nation.

==
so how can serbia accuse other nations for something they have never done??? Yet,Serbia waged wars on Slovenian,Croation,Bosnian soil.
(Kosova-USA, 4 January 2010 11:00)
--
Serbia has every right to take Croatia to court for committing genocide on its own territory. Serbia is currently hosting hundreds of thousands of refugees from those regions. Besides, Serbia did not get offically involved in any war outside its territory. It was the JNA that entered Slovenia while the president and army general were both Croatians.

John

pre 14 godina

Just curious, Has any Croation government official (since the creation of independent Croatia '91) apologized, recoginized and admitted the genocidal atrocities committed in Jasenovac during WW2? I think this would have helped for "good relations" between Serbia and Croatia and the entire region, don't you?

Matthew

pre 14 godina

OK first off, Croatia’s actions most certainly affected Serbs “outside” Croatia.

My wife lives on the Una river. During the war she went to school on the Croatia side, school, and everyone in it, ethnically cleansed. After that, the Croatian snipers on the other side of the river would harass their village, you were exposed to the snipers from the kitchen for example.

She lives very close to Jasenovac.

Historically speaking, in WWII the first part of the plan was carried out. Kill 1/3, Convert 1/3. It was until 1995 that the final component of cleansing the final 1/3 was accomplished.

Tudjman’s books, his embracing and welcoming back of former Ustashe into his government all support he had the mental state and desire to commit genocide.

Does Serbian has standing to recover the cost of caring for the refugees? Did the Serbian people of Serbia proper suffer mental damages as a result of the genocidal actions of Croatia?

Had Croatia welcomed back the refugees, the argument might be made that Serbia has no standing for a counter suit, but considering that Croatia’s genocidal actions led directly to damages and costs to the Serbian nation, I think its obvious.

I’m sure some will say that Ethnic Cleansing can NEVER be genocide, but the ICTY disagreed, they merely said usually. In this case, given the historic plan for genocide (and how to carry it out) and the social importance of the Krajina region to Serbian history and culture in Croatia, again its obvious that this is a clear case where genocide was the intended result of ethnic cleansing.

Biljana

pre 14 godina

My strongest support goes to such decision and our team that will represent and defend our Serbian honour.I just feel sorry that this hasn’t been done earlier, not to mention readiness (by our government)to trade with the Croats. No, there should not be any trade in this case because the victims deserve much more than some trade just for the sake of good neighbourly relations.
As far as I’m concerned I don’t care for any good relations with the Croats or any other neighbour who interfere in Serbia’s internal affairs.

I must say that I am once again discussed by the posters of Albanian ethnicity claiming that Serbia waged the war in Croatia and not vice-versa, whilst on the other hand Croats had all the rights to make massacre over their own citizens and apply Ustasa’s policy very well known as Third of population to kill, third convert to Catholicism and third to expel.
I remember that before the war the Serbs in Croatia were stripped off all the possible rights and as a nation have been erased from the pre war constitution of Croatia. Yes, Serbs were supposed to become non-existent over there.
Should I continue about other abuses directed against the Serbs.
The language and the deeds directed against the Serbs that time in Croatia just reminded way to much of NDH and Ustashas.

What other choice Serbs had than to withdraw and create own space of survival? We just could not let Jasenovac and other camps and pits all over Croatia full of Serbian bodies, repeat once again in the same century.

That is why I can not understand why Albanians keep Croatian side rather than to try to stay neutral.
Why in the Earth you Albanians are then angry at Milosevic who try to do something similar to you. And if speak honestly, Milosevic’s policy against the K-Albanians was a little baby comparing to Tudjman’s policy against the Serbs.

So, according to K-Albanians Milosevic was right.
I am so pleased to hear that.

@Niall and others, thank you for non biased and objective comments

James Nunn

pre 14 godina

It is my fervent desire that these legal proceedings will finally expose what has for too long remained buried in the global historical consciousness: that in their gleeful adherence to nazi ideology, the Croat government committed crimes at Jasenovac which they have chosen to repeat, refine, and reward the perpetrators for.
How, with a clear conscience, can ANY nation of civilised individuals associate with a nation which refuses to admit to its willing participation in the worst genocide of the 20th century?
I, for one, welcome this case, and look forward to seeing what has been hidden in the dark dragged forth into the light.

Dragan, Toronto

pre 14 godina

xythi-kosovo-metohija,

I doubt this will backfire, instead it will finally cast a light on something the Croats are so adament about hiding - their Nazi past/present and the genocide they committed. Further, only through this will proper reconcilliation occur, when those skeletons, ghosts and demons finally get cast out into the open.

Kosova-USA

pre 14 godina

No nation in formerYugo has waged any war on Serbian soil
(Kosova-USA, 4 January 2010 11:00)
--
Finally, you admit that Kosovo is not a nation.

I did not admit anything,but the word "Kosova" was deleted from my coment. You can guess who done it!?
And now,you get the chance to make fun of me.

Angry Russian

pre 14 godina

I think it will be very funny to hear what arguments the Europeans will find to defend their favorite. Sooner or later one will have to tie together the events of WW2 , of 1991-95 and even of 1999. Sooner or later one will have to tie events in Serbian Kosovo &M , Serbska Kraina and Respublika Serbska ect.

Then the underground of the American base on Serbian soil , of the Storm operation , the Haague Tribunal , the Belgrade & Novi Sad bombings will become evident even in the West. Let the world see what they have done to the Prospering Yugoslavia and let them explain what do we have instead ?

---

Zoran

pre 14 godina

@ ZORAN
Thank you so much:
"It was the JNA that entered Slovenia while the president and army general were both Croatians"
However, these facts can never penetrate some tightly closed minds: hatred made Serbo-phobes blind and def for truth.
(Logic, 4 January 2010 16:28)
--
The truth is that the US and Germany were also involved in this genocide. Regardless of the judges' verdict, this case needs to go ahead.

Dan

pre 14 godina

Do not understand how the case can go on irregardless of the judges verdict?
But I do understand the mindset--we will uphold our version of international law irregardless of what the rest of the international community thinks.
(pss, 5 January 2010 05:44)

Look I for one understand genocide will be extremly hard to establish. One must then ask why Croatia sued in the first place particully when their case could never be as strong as either Bosnia's and Serbia's. For some of the commentators here I can understand why they still want the case to go ahead, it's because in the 90's only one voice was heard and Serbs were pummelled by the media, they are all yearning for equality, justice and their side of the story to come out and justifiably so if other means are not open for this ie today's media. Courtrooms often disclose facts on paper which leads to literature that can shed light on subjects otherwise unknown to the public ie: the good guy vs bad guy mentality we were all trained as veiwers was a myth and that even the other side needs to own up, even for their own good or new generations will believe life is a one way street.
If not brought in front of a court do you think these comments from US Diplomat Galbraith would see light.

“Once the Serbs were gone, Tudjman didn’t want them to return” adding that the Croat state enacted legal measures to prevent the return of the expelled and refugees.

“The systematic destruction of Krajina was either ordered or permitted, but in any case, this was intended by the Croat leadership. I believe this was a deliberate policy of Zagreb government,” Galbraith stressed.

Galbraith confirmed that Tudjman was saying that only “up to 10 percent of Serbs can remain in Croatia”

I think they just want their voice heard on a fair playing feild.
The world needs to understand both sides of the story in order to have a fair understanding.

troika melb

pre 14 godina

"The document will include information on crimes committed against Croatia's ethnic Serb population in Gospić, Sisak, Pakračka Poljana, Karlovac, Osijek, Paulin Dvor, Medački Džep (Medak Pocket), and during the so-called Operation Storm."


To stay sweet and short:
Serbia has no jurisdiction in Croatia! Serb troops whent to croatian land, croatians never crossed the border the attack serbia.


the icc will hit 2 stones to kill one white bird.
the more fun here is that it is Serbia that is asking for "it"

Kosova-USA

pre 14 godina

No nation in formerYugo has waged any war on Serbian soil,so how can serbia accuse other nations for something they have never done??? Yet,Serbia waged wars on Slovenian,Croation,Bosnian soil.

Logic

pre 14 godina

@ ZORAN
Thank you so much:
"It was the JNA that entered Slovenia while the president and army general were both Croatians"
However, these facts can never penetrate some tightly closed minds: hatred made Serbo-phobes blind and def for truth.
@ NIALL
Thanks for your comments. They deserve more than plainly hitting that "recommend" button. And I hope they (like Zoran's) will find the way to the ones willing to learn the truth.

Goran.

pre 14 godina

To stay sweet and short:
Serbia has no jurisdiction in Croatia! Serb troops whent to croatian land, croatians never crossed the border the attack serbia.


the icc will hit 2 stones to kill one white bird.
the more fun here is that it is Serbia that is asking for "it"
(troika melb, 4 January 2010 10:50)

Where do you get your information from? look, ill even help you out a little. Croatians did cross the border, one patrol, from Ilok into Ljuba and got there asses kicked almost immediately. From that point serbs took control of the surrounding area and went in as far as Ilok and held ground there.

Ljuba is the next town from Erdevik. Erdevik being my home town.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erdevik

In Erdevik we have 3 churches. The biggest being a croatian catholic church. It still stands to this day and it was never attacked during the war. Infact, not one croatian was forced out of Erdevik. The church is always being used on catholic holidays and has regularly been repaired. A fire broke out in a cafe behind that church and the church was repaired before the cafe.
Fortunately for the croats and the church, Erdevik isnt Kosovo. the church wasnt burned to the ground.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/erdevik/1618151423/in/set-72157602497361990/

http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd80/Gokz777/16532_102971579726740_1000004169669.jpg

Should you wish for more pictures ill be glad to put them up.

gg

pre 14 godina

According to international law, something Serbs have discovered only after February of 2008, one cannot sue another country for their interal affars. This is guarranteed by the Helsinki Accord and various other international laws and accords starting with the Treaty of Westphalia and ending with UN guarantees of sovereignty. Therefore Serbia's claims are null and void and a violation of international law, and will prove as such during the "suit" ;)
Quite the argument. I have heard it somewhere else though...

Peggy

pre 14 godina

I wonder if the Craotians can match this.

http://libcom.org/library/role-catholic-church-yugoslavias-holocaust-se-n-mac-math-na-1941-1945

I think they should just shut up before the whole world gets to know just what they and their clergy were up to.

HB

pre 14 godina

.It was the territory of Yugoslavia!
And the Croats waged an illegal war of independence.
Yet they did not allow that right of independence to Krajina.
Instead they forcefully expelled over 250,000 Serbs from the region!
Lets not even mention their horrendous crimes committed in WW2!
The Croats need to pay, and its about time!

...Firstly the Serbs who ruled YU with an iron fist were the only ones to recognise the YU territory, no one else did. Second when you defend your homes against an insurgency it's considered honorable not illegal. Thirdly you mention horrendous crimes committed in WW2. Did you stop and think about Serb leader Draza Mihailovic who was executed for crimes against the people and given an unmarked grave by the same YU that you wanted to exist. Finally if Krajina wanted to be independent so badly and free from so called oppression why didn't they breakaway in 1950 or 60?. I think you people don't know what you want!

Lenard

pre 14 godina

The poor innocent self righteous Serb minorities in Croatia ,Bosnia ,Kosovo and Serbs from Serbia did nothing wrong. They were not the ones that stoled the weapons of all of Yugoslavia and yous them on their mostly unarmed civilian neighbours. Serbia and mostly the Belgrade Communist politicians are innocent. They were not the instigator of armed aggression at the expense of the other Republics for a greater Serbia. That is why the overwhelming majority of war criminals are Serbian politicians and Serbian military personnel indicted and convicted by the ICTY in the Hague. Gee weez has the hole world got it all wrong and the Serb "unbiased" self serving version is right. Even Milan Babić a elected president by Croatian Serbs . At his ICTY trial in 2004, he claimed that "during the events [of 1990-1992], and in particular at the beginning of his political career, he was strongly influenced and misled by Serbian Belgrade politicians propaganda.

Michael R.

pre 14 godina

Big mistake!

Serbia will regret this for years to come. Now, any chance of EU membership is essentially dead.

However, I must say it couldn't happen to a more deserving country.

xythi-kosova

pre 14 godina

I see this a counter lawsuite which will backfire on Serbia big time.

This is a pathetic move, Serbia did try to convince Coratia to stop suing them but unsuccessfull because they know that they are going to lose bigtime.

BalkanTruth

pre 14 godina

Let's try to make sense of this. Serbia is accusing Croatia of committing "genocide" which will be nearly impossible to prove while its own government has not yet proclaimed July 11 to be the Srebrenica Genocide remembrance day. The Srebrenica Genocide has been proven beyond doubt and yet the Serbian politicians still refuse to appropriately apologize for it and mark it. Serbia is also harboring Ratko Mladic the person most responsible for the Srebrenica Genocide and has so far refused to fulfill its international obligations of arresting and extraditing him. All these facts make the Serbian suit seem pretty empty , hypocritical, and pointless.

Jugoslavija

pre 14 godina

At his ICTY trial in 2004, he claimed that "during the events [of 1990-1992], and in particular at the beginning of his political career, he was strongly influenced and misled by Serbian Belgrade politicians propaganda.
(Lenard, 4 January 2010 20:59)

Milan Babich "broke" ties with the then Serbian government of Slobodan Milosevic. The reason was because Croatia put an autonomy offer on the table and Babich refused it outright, Milosevich urged him to accept.

The next leader in Krajin a was Milan Martic who was a socialist in line with Milosevich. He did the same and turned on Milosevic, and refused to negotiate with Tudjman and the Croats.

What happened at the Hague? Babich testimony was crushed by Milosevic even though he was a secret witness and under closed camera. He eventually "committed suicide"

All the pieced of the puzzle make sense if you complete the whole puzzle.

justthetruth

pre 14 godina

Oppssss....seems like serbia wants to bargain for that amount of money Croatia is suing serbia but hey one thing those judges will feel sorry for life's of humans being lost but HEY REALLY WHO STARTED ALL THAT MESS IN YUGOSLAVIA ...opss maybe YUGO was invadet and destroyed by some ALLIENS from deep space....

jmerste

pre 14 godina

It's about time that Serbia puts an end to the propaganda made by the western countries and mostly the USA. Here is why:

" The Demonization of Slobodan Milosevic
December 2003

U.S. leaders profess a dedication to democracy. Yet over the past five decades, democratically elected governments—guilty of introducing redistributive economic programs or otherwise pursuing independent courses that do not properly fit into the U.S.-sponsored global free market system—have found themselves targeted by the U.S. national security state. Thus democratic governments in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Cyprus, the Dominican Republic, Greece, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Syria, Uruguay, and numerous other nations were overthrown by their respective military forces, funded and advised by the United States. The newly installed military rulers then rolled back the egalitarian reforms and opened their countries all the wider to foreign corporate investors.

The U.S. national security state also has participated in destabilizing covert actions, proxy mercenary wars, or direct military attacks against revolutionary or nationalist governments in Afghanistan (in the 1980s), Angola, Cambodia, Cuba, East Timor, Egypt, Ethiopia, the Fiji Islands, Grenada, Haiti, Indonesia (under Sukarno), Iran, Jamaica, Lebanon, Libya, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Portugal, Syria, South Yemen, Venezuela (under Hugo Chavez), Western Sahara, and Iraq (under the CIA-sponsored autocratic Saddam Hussein, after he emerged as an economic nationalist and tried to cut a better deal on oil prices).

The propaganda method used to discredit many of these governments is not particularly original, indeed by now it is quite transparently predictable. Their leaders are denounced as bombastic, hostile, and psychologically flawed. They are labeled power hungry demagogues, mercurial strongmen, and the worst sort of dictators likened to Hitler himself. The countries in question are designated as “terrorist” or “rogue” states, guilty of being “anti-American” and “anti-West.” Some choice few are even condemned as members of an “evil axis.” When targeting a country and demonizing its leadership, U.S. leaders are assisted by ideologically attuned publicists, pundits, academics, and former government officials. Together they create a climate of opinion that enables Washington to do whatever is necessary to inflict serious damage upon the designated nation's infrastructure and population, all in the name of human rights, anti-terrorism, and national security.

There is no better example of this than the tireless demonization of democratically-elected President Slobodan Milosevic and the U.S.-supported wars against Yugoslavia. Louis Sell, a former U.S. Foreign Service officer, has authored a book (Slobodan Milosevic and the Destruction of Yugoslavia, Duke University Press, 2002) that is a hit piece on Milosevic, loaded with all the usual prefabricated images and policy presumptions of the U.S. national security state. Sell's Milosevic is a caricature, a cunning power seeker and maddened fool, who turns on trusted comrades and plays upon divisions within the party.

This Milosevic is both an “orthodox socialist” and an “opportunistic Serbian nationalist,” a demagogic power-hungry “second Tito” who simultaneously wants dictatorial power over all of Yugoslavia while eagerly pursuing polices that “destroy the state that Tito created.” The author does not demonstrate by reference to specific policies and programs that Milosevic is responsible for the dismemberment of Yugoslavia, he just tells us so again and again. One would think that the Slovenian, Croatian, Bosnian Muslim, Macedonian, and Kosovo Albanian secessionists and U.S./NATO interventionists might have had something to do with it.

In my opinion, Milosevic’s real sin was that he resisted the dismemberment of Yugoslavia and opposed a U.S. imposed hegemony. He also attempted to spare Yugoslavia the worst of the merciless privatizations and rollbacks that have afflicted other former communist countries. Yugoslavia was the only nation in Europe that did not apply for entry into the European Union or NATO or OSCE.

For some left intellectuals, the former Yugoslavia did not qualify as a socialist state because it had allowed too much penetration by private corporations and the IMF. But U.S. policymakers are notorious for not seeing the world the way purist left intellectuals do. For them Yugoslavia was socialist enough with its developed human services sector and an economy that was over 75 percent publicly owned. Sell makes it clear that Yugoslavia’s public ownership and Milosevic's defense of that economy were a central consideration in Washington's war against Yugoslavia. Milosevic, Sell complains, had a “commitment to orthodox socialism.” He “portrayed public ownership of the means of production and a continued emphasis on [state] commodity production as the best guarantees for prosperity.” He had to go.

To make his case against Milosevic, Sell repeatedly falls back on the usual ad hominem labeling. Thus we read that in his childhood Milosevic was “something of a prig” and of course “by nature a loner,” a weird kind of kid because he was “uninterested in sports or other physical activities,” and he “spurned childhood pranks in favor of his books.” The author quotes an anonymous former classmate who reports that Slobodan’s mother “dressed him funny and kept him soft.” Worse still, Slobodan would never join in when other boys stole from orchards—no doubt a sure sign of childhood pathology.

Sell further describes Milosevic as “moody,” “reclusive,” and given to “mulish fatalism.” But Sell’s own data—when he pauses in his negative labeling and gets down to specifics—contradicts the maladjusted “moody loner” stereotype. He acknowledges that young Slobodan worked well with other youth when it came to political activities. Far from being unable to form close relations, Slobodan met a girl, his future wife, and they enjoyed an enduring lifelong attachment. In his early career when heading the Beogradska Banka, Milosevic was reportedly “communicative, caring about people at the bank, and popular with his staff.” Other friends describe him as getting on well with people, “communal and relaxed,” a faithful husband to his wife, and a proud and devoted father to his children. And Sell allows that Milosevic was at times “confident,” “outgoing,” and “charismatic.” But the negative stereotype is so firmly established by repetitious pronouncement (and by years of propagation by Western media and officialdom) that Sell can simply slide over contradictory evidence—even when such evidence is provided by himself.

Sell refers to anonymous “U.S. psychiatrists, who have studied Milosevic closely.” By “closely” he must mean from afar, since no U.S. psychiatrist has ever treated or even interviewed Milosevic. These uncited and unnamed psychiatrists supposedly diagnosed the Yugoslav leader as a “malignant narcissistic” personality. Sell tells us that such malignant narcissism fills Milosevic with self-deception and leaves him with a “chore personality” that is a “sham.” “People with Milosevic’s type of personality frequently either cannot or will not recognize the reality of facts that diverge from their own perception of the way the world is or should be.” How does Dr. Sigmund Sell know all this? He seems to find proof in the fact that Milosevic dared to have charted a course that differed from the one emanating from Washington. Surely only personal pathology can explain such “anti-West” obstinacy. Furthermore, we are told that Milosevic suffered from a “blind spot” in that he was never comfortable with the notion of private property. If this isn’t evidence of malignant narcissism, what is? Sell never considers the possibility that he himself, and the global interventionists who think like him, cannot or will not "recognize the reality of facts that diverge from their own perception of the way the world is or should be."

Milosevic, we are repeatedly told, fell under the growing influence of his wife, Mirjana Markovic, “the real power behind the throne.” Sell actually calls her “Lady Macbeth” on one occasion. He portrays Markovic as a complete wacko, given to uncontrollable anger; her eyes “vibrated like a scared animal”; “she suffers from severe schizophrenia” with “a tenuous grasp on reality,” and is a hopeless “hypochondriac.” In addition, she has a “mousy” appearance and a “dreamy” and “traumatized” personality. And like her husband, with whom she shares a “very abnormal relationship,” she has “an autistic relation with the world.” Worse still, she holds “hardline marxist views.” We are left to wonder how the autistic dysfunctional Markovic was able to work as a popular university professor, organize and lead a new political party, and play an active role in the popular resistance against Western interventionism.

In this book, whenever Milosevic or others in his camp are quoted as saying something, they “snarl,” “gush,” “hiss,” and “crow.” In contrast, political players who win Sell’s approval, “observe,” “state,” “note,” and “conclude.” When one of Milosevic’s superiors voices his discomfort about “noisy Kosovo Serbs” (as Sell calls them) who were demonstrating against the mistreatment they suffered at the hands of Kosovo Albanian secessionists, Milosevic “hisses,” "Why are you so afraid of the street and the people?”Some of us might think this is a pretty good question to hiss at a government leader, but Sell treats it as proof of Milosevic’s demagoguery.

Whenever Milosevic did anything that aided the common citizenry, as when he taxed the interest earned on foreign currency accounts—a policy that was unpopular with Serbian elites but appreciated by the poorer strata—he is dismissed as manipulatively currying popular favor. Thus we must accept Sell’s word that Milosevic never wanted the power to prevent hunger but only hungered for power. The author operates from a nonfalsefiable paradigm. If the targeted leader is unresponsive to the people, this is proof of his dictatorial proclivity. If he is responsive to them, this demonstrates his demagogic opportunism.

In keeping with U.S. officialdom’s view of the world, Sell labels “Milosevic and his minions” as "hardliners,” “conservatives,” and "ideologues”; they are “anti-West,” and bound up in “socialist dogma.” In contrast, Croatian, Bosnian, and Kosovo Albanian secessionists who worked hard to dismember Yugoslavia and deliver their respective republics to the tender mercies of neoliberal rollback are identified as “economic reformers,” “the liberal leadership,” and “pro-West” (read, pro-transnational corporate capitalist). Sell treats “Western-style democracy” and “a modern market economy” as necessary correlates. He has nothing to say about the dismal plight of the Eastern European countries that abandoned their deficient but endurable planned economies for the merciless exactions of laissez-faire capitalism.

Sell’s sensitivity to demagoguery does not extend to Franjo Tudjman, the crypto-fascist anti-Semite Croat who had nice things to say about Hitler, and who imposed his harsh autocratic rule on the newly independent Croatia. Tudjman dismissed the Holocaust as an exaggeration, and openly hailed the Croatian Ustashe Nazi collaborators of World War II. He even employed a few aging Ustashe leaders in his government. Sell says not a word about all this, and treats Tudjman as just a good old Croatian nationalist. Likewise, he has not a critical word about the Bosnian Muslim leader Alija Izetbegovic. He comments laconically that Izetbegovic “was sentenced to three years imprisonment in 1946 for belonging to a group called the Young Muslims.” One is left with the impression that the Yugoslav communist government had suppressed a devout Muslim. What Sell leaves unmentioned is that the Young Muslims actively recruited Muslim units for the Nazi SS during World War II; these units perpetrated horrid atrocities against the resistance movement and the Jewish population in Yugoslavia. Izetbegovic got off rather lightly with a three-year sentence.

Little is made in this book of the ethnic cleansing perpetrated against the Serbs by U.S.-supported leaders like Tudjman and Izetbegovic during and after the U.S.-sponsored wars. Conversely, no mention is made of the ethnic tolerance and diversity that existed in President Milosevic's Yugoslavia. By 1999, all that was left of Yugoslavia was Montenegro and Serbia. Readers are never told that this rump nation was the only remaining multi-ethnic society among the various former Yugoslav republics, the only place where Serbs, Albanians, Croats, Gorani, Jews, Egyptians, Hungarians, Roma, and numerous other ethnic groups could live together with some measure of security and tolerance.

The relentless demonization of Milosevic spills over onto the Serbian people in general. In Sell’s book, the Serbs are aggrandizing nationalists. Kosovo Serbs demonstrating against mistreatment by Albanian nationalists are described as having their “bloodlust up.” And Serb workers demonstrating to defend their rights and hard won gains are dismissed by Sell as “the lowest instruments of the mob.” The Serbs who had lived in Krajina and other parts of Croatia for centuries are dismissed as colonial occupiers. In contrast, the Slovenian, Croatian, and Bosnian Muslim nationalist secessionists, and Kosovo Albanian irredentists are simply seeking “independence,” “self-determination,” and “cultural distinctiveness and sovereignty.” In this book, the Albanian KLA gunmen are not big-time drug dealers, terrorists, and ethnic cleansers, but guerrilla fighters and patriots.

Military actions allegedly taken by the Serbs, described in the vaguest terms, are repeatedly labeled “brutal,” while assaults and atrocities delivered upon the Serbs by other national groups are more usually accepted as retaliatory and defensive, or are dismissed by Sell as “untrue,” “highly exaggerated,” and “hyperventilated.” Milosevic, Sell says, disseminated “vicious propaganda” against the Croats, but he does not give us any specifics. Sell does provide one or two instances of how Serb villages were pillaged and their inhabitants raped and murdered by Albanian secessionists. From this he grudgingly allows that "some of the Serb charges…had a core of truth.” But he makes nothing more of it.

The well-timed, well-engineered story about a Serbian massacre of unarmed Albanians in the village of Racak, hyped by U.S. diplomat and veteran disinformationist William Walker, is wholeheartedly embraced by Sell, who ignores all the contrary evidence. An Associated Press TV crew had actually filmed the battle that took place in Racak the previous day in which Serbian police killed a number of KLA fighters. A French journalist who went through Racak later that day found evidence of a battle but no evidence of a massacre of unarmed civilians, nor did Walker's own Kosovo Verification Mission monitors. All the forensic reports reveal that almost all of the forty-four persons killed had previously been using fire arms, and all had perished in combat. Sell simply ignores this evidence.

The media-hyped story of how the Serbs allegedly killed 7,000 Muslims in Srebrenica is uncritically accepted by Sell, even though the most thorough investigations have uncovered not more than 2,000 bodies of undetermined nationality. The earlier massacres carried out by Muslims, their razing of some fifty Serbian villages around Srebrenica, as reported by two British correspondents and others, are ignored. The complete failure of Western forensic teams to locate the 250,000 or 100,000 or 50,000 or 10,000 bodies (the numbers kept changing) of Albanians supposedly murdered by the Serbs in Kosovo also goes unnoticed.

Sell’s rendition of what happened at Rambouillet leaves much to be desired. Under Rambouillet, Kosovo would have been turned into a NATO colony. Milosevic might have reluctantly agreed to that, so desperate was he to avoid a full-scale NATO onslaught on the rest of Yugoslavia. To be certain that war could not be avoided, however, the U.S. delegation added a remarkable stipulation, demanding that NATO forces and personnel were to have unrestrained access to all of Yugoslavia, unfettered use of its airports, rails, ports, telecommunication services, and airwaves, all free of cost and immune from any jurisdiction by Yugoslav authorities. NATO would also have the option to modify for its own use all of Yugoslavia's infrastructure including roads, bridges, tunnels, buildings, and utility systems. In effect, not just Kosovo but all of Yugoslavia was to be subjected to an extraterritoriality tantamount to outright colonial occupation.

Sell does not mention these particulars. Instead he assures us that the request for NATO’s unimpeded access to Yugoslavia was just a pro forma protocol inserted “largely for legal reasons.” A similar though less sweeping agreement was part of the Dayton package, he says. Indeed, and the Dayton agreement reduced Bosnia to a Western colony. But if there was nothing wrong with the Rambouillet ultimatum, why then did Milosevic reject it? Sell ascribes Milosevic's resistance to his perverse “bunker mentality” and his need to defy the world.

There is not a descriptive word in this book of the 78 days of around-the-clock massive NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, no mention of how it caused the loss of thousands of lives, injured and maimed thousands more, contaminated much of the land and water with depleted uranium, and destroyed much of the country's public sector industries and infrastructure-while leaving all the private Western corporate structures perfectly intact.

The sources that Sell relies on share U.S. officialdom’s view of the Balkans struggle. Observers who offer a more independently critical perspective, such as Sean Gervassi, Diana Johnstone, Gregory Elich, Nicholas Stavrous, Michel Collon, Raju Thomas, and Michel Chossudovsky are left untouched and uncited. Important Western sources I reference in my book on Yugoslavia offer evidence, testimony, and documentation that do not fit Sell’s conclusions, including sources from within the European Union, the European Community’s Commission on Women’s Rights, the OSCE and its Kosovo Verification Mission, the UN War Crimes Commission, and various other UN commissions, various State Department reports, the German Foreign Office and German Defense Ministry reports, and the International Red Cross. Sell does not touch these sources.

Also ignored by him are the testimonies and statements of members of the U.S. Congress who visited the Balkans, a former State Department official under the Bush administration, a former deputy commander of the U.S. European command, several UN and NATO generals and international negotiators, Spanish air force pilots, forensic teams from various countries, and UN monitors who offer revelations that contradict the picture drawn by Sell and other apologists of U.S. officialdom.

In sum, Sell’s book is packed with discombobulated insider details, unsupported charges, unexamined presumptions, and ideologically loaded labeling. As mainstream disinformation goes, it is a job well done.

Michael Parenti’s recent books are To Kill a Nation: The Attack on Yugoslavia (Verso), and The Terrorism Trap: September 11 and Beyond (City Lights). His latest work is Contrary Notions: A Michael Parenti Reader ."

Stavro

pre 14 godina

Historians have had difficulty calculating the number of victims at Jasenovac, and the accurate-number will never be known and it ranges between 49,600 to 600,000[132]. The first figures to be offered by the state-commission of Croatia ranged around 500,000 and even 600,000. The official estimate of the number of victims in SFRY was 700,000; however, beginning in the 90s, the Croatian side began suggesting substantially smaller numbers. The exact numbers continue to be a subject of great controversy and hot political dispute, with the Croatian government and institutions pushing for a much lower number even as recently as September 2009.

The estimates vary due to lack of accurate records, the methods used for making estimates, and sometimes the political biases of the estimators. In some cases, entire families were exterminated, leaving no one to submit their names to the lists. On the other hand, it has been found that the lists include the names of people who died elsewhere, whose survival was not reported to the authorities, or who are counted more than once on the lists.

The casualty figures for the whole of Yugoslavia sways between the maximal 1,700,000 (nowadays refuted) and the more reliable figures between 1,500,000[133] or one million[134].

John

pre 14 godina

Serbian President Boris Tadic has apologised to the people of Bosnia on behalf of Serbia for the events that had taken place during the Bosnian War, so it is absolutely FALSE to say that no apologies or recognition has come from the Serbian side. Not even the Bosnian government today holds such a position, and it is interesting to note that Bosnia does not support the illegal independence of Kosovo from Serbia, interesting indeed.

pss

pre 14 godina

Regardless of the judges' verdict, this case needs to go ahead.
(Zoran, 4 January 2010 21:07)
Do not understand how the case can go on irregardless of the judges verdict?
But I do understand the mindset--we will uphold our version of international law irregardless of what the rest of the international community thinks.

troika melb

pre 14 godina

"The document will include information on crimes committed against Croatia's ethnic Serb population in Gospić, Sisak, Pakračka Poljana, Karlovac, Osijek, Paulin Dvor, Medački Džep (Medak Pocket), and during the so-called Operation Storm."


To stay sweet and short:
Serbia has no jurisdiction in Croatia! Serb troops whent to croatian land, croatians never crossed the border the attack serbia.


the icc will hit 2 stones to kill one white bird.
the more fun here is that it is Serbia that is asking for "it"

xythi-kosova

pre 14 godina

I see this a counter lawsuite which will backfire on Serbia big time.

This is a pathetic move, Serbia did try to convince Coratia to stop suing them but unsuccessfull because they know that they are going to lose bigtime.

HB

pre 14 godina

.It was the territory of Yugoslavia!
And the Croats waged an illegal war of independence.
Yet they did not allow that right of independence to Krajina.
Instead they forcefully expelled over 250,000 Serbs from the region!
Lets not even mention their horrendous crimes committed in WW2!
The Croats need to pay, and its about time!

...Firstly the Serbs who ruled YU with an iron fist were the only ones to recognise the YU territory, no one else did. Second when you defend your homes against an insurgency it's considered honorable not illegal. Thirdly you mention horrendous crimes committed in WW2. Did you stop and think about Serb leader Draza Mihailovic who was executed for crimes against the people and given an unmarked grave by the same YU that you wanted to exist. Finally if Krajina wanted to be independent so badly and free from so called oppression why didn't they breakaway in 1950 or 60?. I think you people don't know what you want!

Kosova-USA

pre 14 godina

No nation in formerYugo has waged any war on Serbian soil,so how can serbia accuse other nations for something they have never done??? Yet,Serbia waged wars on Slovenian,Croation,Bosnian soil.

Michael R.

pre 14 godina

Big mistake!

Serbia will regret this for years to come. Now, any chance of EU membership is essentially dead.

However, I must say it couldn't happen to a more deserving country.

Kosova-USA

pre 14 godina

No nation in formerYugo has waged any war on Serbian soil
(Kosova-USA, 4 January 2010 11:00)
--
Finally, you admit that Kosovo is not a nation.

I did not admit anything,but the word "Kosova" was deleted from my coment. You can guess who done it!?
And now,you get the chance to make fun of me.

Lenard

pre 14 godina

The poor innocent self righteous Serb minorities in Croatia ,Bosnia ,Kosovo and Serbs from Serbia did nothing wrong. They were not the ones that stoled the weapons of all of Yugoslavia and yous them on their mostly unarmed civilian neighbours. Serbia and mostly the Belgrade Communist politicians are innocent. They were not the instigator of armed aggression at the expense of the other Republics for a greater Serbia. That is why the overwhelming majority of war criminals are Serbian politicians and Serbian military personnel indicted and convicted by the ICTY in the Hague. Gee weez has the hole world got it all wrong and the Serb "unbiased" self serving version is right. Even Milan Babić a elected president by Croatian Serbs . At his ICTY trial in 2004, he claimed that "during the events [of 1990-1992], and in particular at the beginning of his political career, he was strongly influenced and misled by Serbian Belgrade politicians propaganda.

BalkanTruth

pre 14 godina

Let's try to make sense of this. Serbia is accusing Croatia of committing "genocide" which will be nearly impossible to prove while its own government has not yet proclaimed July 11 to be the Srebrenica Genocide remembrance day. The Srebrenica Genocide has been proven beyond doubt and yet the Serbian politicians still refuse to appropriately apologize for it and mark it. Serbia is also harboring Ratko Mladic the person most responsible for the Srebrenica Genocide and has so far refused to fulfill its international obligations of arresting and extraditing him. All these facts make the Serbian suit seem pretty empty , hypocritical, and pointless.

Angry Russian

pre 14 godina

I think it will be very funny to hear what arguments the Europeans will find to defend their favorite. Sooner or later one will have to tie together the events of WW2 , of 1991-95 and even of 1999. Sooner or later one will have to tie events in Serbian Kosovo &M , Serbska Kraina and Respublika Serbska ect.

Then the underground of the American base on Serbian soil , of the Storm operation , the Haague Tribunal , the Belgrade & Novi Sad bombings will become evident even in the West. Let the world see what they have done to the Prospering Yugoslavia and let them explain what do we have instead ?

---

Zoran

pre 14 godina

@ ZORAN
Thank you so much:
"It was the JNA that entered Slovenia while the president and army general were both Croatians"
However, these facts can never penetrate some tightly closed minds: hatred made Serbo-phobes blind and def for truth.
(Logic, 4 January 2010 16:28)
--
The truth is that the US and Germany were also involved in this genocide. Regardless of the judges' verdict, this case needs to go ahead.

Niall O'Doherty

pre 14 godina

I doubt this will backfire, instead it will finally cast a light on something the Croats are so adament about hiding - their Nazi past/present and the genocide they committed. Further, only through this will proper reconcilliation occur, when those skeletons, ghosts and demons finally get cast out into the open.
(Dragan, Toronto, 4 January 2010 13:14)

Agree 110%. There's lots of skeletons residing in closets down Zagreb way. Belgrade knows this :)

gg

pre 14 godina

According to international law, something Serbs have discovered only after February of 2008, one cannot sue another country for their interal affars. This is guarranteed by the Helsinki Accord and various other international laws and accords starting with the Treaty of Westphalia and ending with UN guarantees of sovereignty. Therefore Serbia's claims are null and void and a violation of international law, and will prove as such during the "suit" ;)
Quite the argument. I have heard it somewhere else though...

Niall O'Doherty

pre 14 godina

No nation in formerYugo has waged any war on Serbian soil,so how can serbia accuse other nations for something they have never done??? Yet,Serbia waged wars on Slovenian,Croation,Bosnian soil.
(Kosova-USA, 4 January 2010 11:00)

To stay sweet and short:
Serbia has no jurisdiction in Croatia! Serb troops whent to croatian land, croatians never crossed the border the attack serbia.


the icc will hit 2 stones to kill one white bird.
the more fun here is that it is Serbia that is asking for "it"
(troika melb, 4 January 2010 10:50)

Were the 250,000 Kraijina Serbs asking for "it" when they were driven out of their homes by the marauding, murdering, Croatian army unleashed by Tudjman and his fascist ilk? Were 1 million + Serbs, Jews, Roma and anti fascist Yugoslavs asking for "it" when they were being systematically murdered by the Ustase (along with their allies SS Skenderbeg and SS Handzhar divisions) in their cities, towns and villages or in death camps like Jasenovac.

In 1991 & 92, Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia began a cessionist and nationalist campaign against socialist Yugoslavia and everything Yugoslavia stood for. It was not only an attack on socialism but also on the Serbian people who supported the Yugoslav project and had most to lose if Yugoslavia broke apart. Yugoslavia acted legally in trying to reassert its authority in Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia by sending its army and police to crush the nationalist secessionist movements which threatened the very existance of the Yugoslav state. The Slovene, Croat and Bosnian nationalists were part of an overall campaign of the Western Imperialists to destroy Europe's last socialist state. To socialists, the destruction of Yugoslavia was not only a disaster but also an avoidable tragedy for all those caught up in the NATO/EU geo-political power game.

There seems to be a deliberate campaign from the Albanian nationalists on this site to downplay and ignore the suffering of the other side (Serbs, Roma, Jews etc.) who were on the receiving end of unspeakable crimes. Serbs, Yugoslav communists, trade unionists and feminists in Croatia in 1990 had genuine fears about living in a state dominated by an authoritarian neo-fascist regime which had just scrubbed the rights of minorities out of the Croatian constitution which followed on with widespread sackings of Serbs and communists in the civil service, media, university posts etc. not to mention the rehabilitation and glorification of the wartime NDH Ustase regime of the WW2.

It is no wonder that the Kraijina Serbs fearful of what happened in 1941-44 took up arms against a state which sought to 'eliminate' the 'Serbian problem'. Hindsight has tragically proven that the Kraijina Serbs to have been correct in their assessment.

Logic

pre 14 godina

@ ZORAN
Thank you so much:
"It was the JNA that entered Slovenia while the president and army general were both Croatians"
However, these facts can never penetrate some tightly closed minds: hatred made Serbo-phobes blind and def for truth.
@ NIALL
Thanks for your comments. They deserve more than plainly hitting that "recommend" button. And I hope they (like Zoran's) will find the way to the ones willing to learn the truth.

Biljana

pre 14 godina

My strongest support goes to such decision and our team that will represent and defend our Serbian honour.I just feel sorry that this hasn’t been done earlier, not to mention readiness (by our government)to trade with the Croats. No, there should not be any trade in this case because the victims deserve much more than some trade just for the sake of good neighbourly relations.
As far as I’m concerned I don’t care for any good relations with the Croats or any other neighbour who interfere in Serbia’s internal affairs.

I must say that I am once again discussed by the posters of Albanian ethnicity claiming that Serbia waged the war in Croatia and not vice-versa, whilst on the other hand Croats had all the rights to make massacre over their own citizens and apply Ustasa’s policy very well known as Third of population to kill, third convert to Catholicism and third to expel.
I remember that before the war the Serbs in Croatia were stripped off all the possible rights and as a nation have been erased from the pre war constitution of Croatia. Yes, Serbs were supposed to become non-existent over there.
Should I continue about other abuses directed against the Serbs.
The language and the deeds directed against the Serbs that time in Croatia just reminded way to much of NDH and Ustashas.

What other choice Serbs had than to withdraw and create own space of survival? We just could not let Jasenovac and other camps and pits all over Croatia full of Serbian bodies, repeat once again in the same century.

That is why I can not understand why Albanians keep Croatian side rather than to try to stay neutral.
Why in the Earth you Albanians are then angry at Milosevic who try to do something similar to you. And if speak honestly, Milosevic’s policy against the K-Albanians was a little baby comparing to Tudjman’s policy against the Serbs.

So, according to K-Albanians Milosevic was right.
I am so pleased to hear that.

@Niall and others, thank you for non biased and objective comments

Zoran

pre 14 godina

No nation in formerYugo has waged any war on Serbian soil
(Kosova-USA, 4 January 2010 11:00)
--
Finally, you admit that Kosovo is not a nation.

==
so how can serbia accuse other nations for something they have never done??? Yet,Serbia waged wars on Slovenian,Croation,Bosnian soil.
(Kosova-USA, 4 January 2010 11:00)
--
Serbia has every right to take Croatia to court for committing genocide on its own territory. Serbia is currently hosting hundreds of thousands of refugees from those regions. Besides, Serbia did not get offically involved in any war outside its territory. It was the JNA that entered Slovenia while the president and army general were both Croatians.

James Nunn

pre 14 godina

It is my fervent desire that these legal proceedings will finally expose what has for too long remained buried in the global historical consciousness: that in their gleeful adherence to nazi ideology, the Croat government committed crimes at Jasenovac which they have chosen to repeat, refine, and reward the perpetrators for.
How, with a clear conscience, can ANY nation of civilised individuals associate with a nation which refuses to admit to its willing participation in the worst genocide of the 20th century?
I, for one, welcome this case, and look forward to seeing what has been hidden in the dark dragged forth into the light.

Predrag

pre 14 godina

It was the territory of Yugoslavia!
And the Croats waged an illegal war of independence.
Yet they did not allow that right of independence to Krajina.
Instead they forcefully expelled over 250,000 Serbs from the region!

Lets not even mention their horrendous crimes committed in WW2!

The Croats need to pay, and its about time!

Dragan, Toronto

pre 14 godina

xythi-kosovo-metohija,

I doubt this will backfire, instead it will finally cast a light on something the Croats are so adament about hiding - their Nazi past/present and the genocide they committed. Further, only through this will proper reconcilliation occur, when those skeletons, ghosts and demons finally get cast out into the open.

justthetruth

pre 14 godina

Oppssss....seems like serbia wants to bargain for that amount of money Croatia is suing serbia but hey one thing those judges will feel sorry for life's of humans being lost but HEY REALLY WHO STARTED ALL THAT MESS IN YUGOSLAVIA ...opss maybe YUGO was invadet and destroyed by some ALLIENS from deep space....

Matthew

pre 14 godina

OK first off, Croatia’s actions most certainly affected Serbs “outside” Croatia.

My wife lives on the Una river. During the war she went to school on the Croatia side, school, and everyone in it, ethnically cleansed. After that, the Croatian snipers on the other side of the river would harass their village, you were exposed to the snipers from the kitchen for example.

She lives very close to Jasenovac.

Historically speaking, in WWII the first part of the plan was carried out. Kill 1/3, Convert 1/3. It was until 1995 that the final component of cleansing the final 1/3 was accomplished.

Tudjman’s books, his embracing and welcoming back of former Ustashe into his government all support he had the mental state and desire to commit genocide.

Does Serbian has standing to recover the cost of caring for the refugees? Did the Serbian people of Serbia proper suffer mental damages as a result of the genocidal actions of Croatia?

Had Croatia welcomed back the refugees, the argument might be made that Serbia has no standing for a counter suit, but considering that Croatia’s genocidal actions led directly to damages and costs to the Serbian nation, I think its obvious.

I’m sure some will say that Ethnic Cleansing can NEVER be genocide, but the ICTY disagreed, they merely said usually. In this case, given the historic plan for genocide (and how to carry it out) and the social importance of the Krajina region to Serbian history and culture in Croatia, again its obvious that this is a clear case where genocide was the intended result of ethnic cleansing.

John

pre 14 godina

Just curious, Has any Croation government official (since the creation of independent Croatia '91) apologized, recoginized and admitted the genocidal atrocities committed in Jasenovac during WW2? I think this would have helped for "good relations" between Serbia and Croatia and the entire region, don't you?

Peggy

pre 14 godina

I wonder if the Craotians can match this.

http://libcom.org/library/role-catholic-church-yugoslavias-holocaust-se-n-mac-math-na-1941-1945

I think they should just shut up before the whole world gets to know just what they and their clergy were up to.

pss

pre 14 godina

Regardless of the judges' verdict, this case needs to go ahead.
(Zoran, 4 January 2010 21:07)
Do not understand how the case can go on irregardless of the judges verdict?
But I do understand the mindset--we will uphold our version of international law irregardless of what the rest of the international community thinks.

Jugoslavija

pre 14 godina

At his ICTY trial in 2004, he claimed that "during the events [of 1990-1992], and in particular at the beginning of his political career, he was strongly influenced and misled by Serbian Belgrade politicians propaganda.
(Lenard, 4 January 2010 20:59)

Milan Babich "broke" ties with the then Serbian government of Slobodan Milosevic. The reason was because Croatia put an autonomy offer on the table and Babich refused it outright, Milosevich urged him to accept.

The next leader in Krajin a was Milan Martic who was a socialist in line with Milosevich. He did the same and turned on Milosevic, and refused to negotiate with Tudjman and the Croats.

What happened at the Hague? Babich testimony was crushed by Milosevic even though he was a secret witness and under closed camera. He eventually "committed suicide"

All the pieced of the puzzle make sense if you complete the whole puzzle.

Goran.

pre 14 godina

To stay sweet and short:
Serbia has no jurisdiction in Croatia! Serb troops whent to croatian land, croatians never crossed the border the attack serbia.


the icc will hit 2 stones to kill one white bird.
the more fun here is that it is Serbia that is asking for "it"
(troika melb, 4 January 2010 10:50)

Where do you get your information from? look, ill even help you out a little. Croatians did cross the border, one patrol, from Ilok into Ljuba and got there asses kicked almost immediately. From that point serbs took control of the surrounding area and went in as far as Ilok and held ground there.

Ljuba is the next town from Erdevik. Erdevik being my home town.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erdevik

In Erdevik we have 3 churches. The biggest being a croatian catholic church. It still stands to this day and it was never attacked during the war. Infact, not one croatian was forced out of Erdevik. The church is always being used on catholic holidays and has regularly been repaired. A fire broke out in a cafe behind that church and the church was repaired before the cafe.
Fortunately for the croats and the church, Erdevik isnt Kosovo. the church wasnt burned to the ground.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/erdevik/1618151423/in/set-72157602497361990/

http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd80/Gokz777/16532_102971579726740_1000004169669.jpg

Should you wish for more pictures ill be glad to put them up.

Dan

pre 14 godina

Do not understand how the case can go on irregardless of the judges verdict?
But I do understand the mindset--we will uphold our version of international law irregardless of what the rest of the international community thinks.
(pss, 5 January 2010 05:44)

Look I for one understand genocide will be extremly hard to establish. One must then ask why Croatia sued in the first place particully when their case could never be as strong as either Bosnia's and Serbia's. For some of the commentators here I can understand why they still want the case to go ahead, it's because in the 90's only one voice was heard and Serbs were pummelled by the media, they are all yearning for equality, justice and their side of the story to come out and justifiably so if other means are not open for this ie today's media. Courtrooms often disclose facts on paper which leads to literature that can shed light on subjects otherwise unknown to the public ie: the good guy vs bad guy mentality we were all trained as veiwers was a myth and that even the other side needs to own up, even for their own good or new generations will believe life is a one way street.
If not brought in front of a court do you think these comments from US Diplomat Galbraith would see light.

“Once the Serbs were gone, Tudjman didn’t want them to return” adding that the Croat state enacted legal measures to prevent the return of the expelled and refugees.

“The systematic destruction of Krajina was either ordered or permitted, but in any case, this was intended by the Croat leadership. I believe this was a deliberate policy of Zagreb government,” Galbraith stressed.

Galbraith confirmed that Tudjman was saying that only “up to 10 percent of Serbs can remain in Croatia”

I think they just want their voice heard on a fair playing feild.
The world needs to understand both sides of the story in order to have a fair understanding.

Stavro

pre 14 godina

Historians have had difficulty calculating the number of victims at Jasenovac, and the accurate-number will never be known and it ranges between 49,600 to 600,000[132]. The first figures to be offered by the state-commission of Croatia ranged around 500,000 and even 600,000. The official estimate of the number of victims in SFRY was 700,000; however, beginning in the 90s, the Croatian side began suggesting substantially smaller numbers. The exact numbers continue to be a subject of great controversy and hot political dispute, with the Croatian government and institutions pushing for a much lower number even as recently as September 2009.

The estimates vary due to lack of accurate records, the methods used for making estimates, and sometimes the political biases of the estimators. In some cases, entire families were exterminated, leaving no one to submit their names to the lists. On the other hand, it has been found that the lists include the names of people who died elsewhere, whose survival was not reported to the authorities, or who are counted more than once on the lists.

The casualty figures for the whole of Yugoslavia sways between the maximal 1,700,000 (nowadays refuted) and the more reliable figures between 1,500,000[133] or one million[134].

jmerste

pre 14 godina

It's about time that Serbia puts an end to the propaganda made by the western countries and mostly the USA. Here is why:

" The Demonization of Slobodan Milosevic
December 2003

U.S. leaders profess a dedication to democracy. Yet over the past five decades, democratically elected governments—guilty of introducing redistributive economic programs or otherwise pursuing independent courses that do not properly fit into the U.S.-sponsored global free market system—have found themselves targeted by the U.S. national security state. Thus democratic governments in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Cyprus, the Dominican Republic, Greece, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Syria, Uruguay, and numerous other nations were overthrown by their respective military forces, funded and advised by the United States. The newly installed military rulers then rolled back the egalitarian reforms and opened their countries all the wider to foreign corporate investors.

The U.S. national security state also has participated in destabilizing covert actions, proxy mercenary wars, or direct military attacks against revolutionary or nationalist governments in Afghanistan (in the 1980s), Angola, Cambodia, Cuba, East Timor, Egypt, Ethiopia, the Fiji Islands, Grenada, Haiti, Indonesia (under Sukarno), Iran, Jamaica, Lebanon, Libya, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Portugal, Syria, South Yemen, Venezuela (under Hugo Chavez), Western Sahara, and Iraq (under the CIA-sponsored autocratic Saddam Hussein, after he emerged as an economic nationalist and tried to cut a better deal on oil prices).

The propaganda method used to discredit many of these governments is not particularly original, indeed by now it is quite transparently predictable. Their leaders are denounced as bombastic, hostile, and psychologically flawed. They are labeled power hungry demagogues, mercurial strongmen, and the worst sort of dictators likened to Hitler himself. The countries in question are designated as “terrorist” or “rogue” states, guilty of being “anti-American” and “anti-West.” Some choice few are even condemned as members of an “evil axis.” When targeting a country and demonizing its leadership, U.S. leaders are assisted by ideologically attuned publicists, pundits, academics, and former government officials. Together they create a climate of opinion that enables Washington to do whatever is necessary to inflict serious damage upon the designated nation's infrastructure and population, all in the name of human rights, anti-terrorism, and national security.

There is no better example of this than the tireless demonization of democratically-elected President Slobodan Milosevic and the U.S.-supported wars against Yugoslavia. Louis Sell, a former U.S. Foreign Service officer, has authored a book (Slobodan Milosevic and the Destruction of Yugoslavia, Duke University Press, 2002) that is a hit piece on Milosevic, loaded with all the usual prefabricated images and policy presumptions of the U.S. national security state. Sell's Milosevic is a caricature, a cunning power seeker and maddened fool, who turns on trusted comrades and plays upon divisions within the party.

This Milosevic is both an “orthodox socialist” and an “opportunistic Serbian nationalist,” a demagogic power-hungry “second Tito” who simultaneously wants dictatorial power over all of Yugoslavia while eagerly pursuing polices that “destroy the state that Tito created.” The author does not demonstrate by reference to specific policies and programs that Milosevic is responsible for the dismemberment of Yugoslavia, he just tells us so again and again. One would think that the Slovenian, Croatian, Bosnian Muslim, Macedonian, and Kosovo Albanian secessionists and U.S./NATO interventionists might have had something to do with it.

In my opinion, Milosevic’s real sin was that he resisted the dismemberment of Yugoslavia and opposed a U.S. imposed hegemony. He also attempted to spare Yugoslavia the worst of the merciless privatizations and rollbacks that have afflicted other former communist countries. Yugoslavia was the only nation in Europe that did not apply for entry into the European Union or NATO or OSCE.

For some left intellectuals, the former Yugoslavia did not qualify as a socialist state because it had allowed too much penetration by private corporations and the IMF. But U.S. policymakers are notorious for not seeing the world the way purist left intellectuals do. For them Yugoslavia was socialist enough with its developed human services sector and an economy that was over 75 percent publicly owned. Sell makes it clear that Yugoslavia’s public ownership and Milosevic's defense of that economy were a central consideration in Washington's war against Yugoslavia. Milosevic, Sell complains, had a “commitment to orthodox socialism.” He “portrayed public ownership of the means of production and a continued emphasis on [state] commodity production as the best guarantees for prosperity.” He had to go.

To make his case against Milosevic, Sell repeatedly falls back on the usual ad hominem labeling. Thus we read that in his childhood Milosevic was “something of a prig” and of course “by nature a loner,” a weird kind of kid because he was “uninterested in sports or other physical activities,” and he “spurned childhood pranks in favor of his books.” The author quotes an anonymous former classmate who reports that Slobodan’s mother “dressed him funny and kept him soft.” Worse still, Slobodan would never join in when other boys stole from orchards—no doubt a sure sign of childhood pathology.

Sell further describes Milosevic as “moody,” “reclusive,” and given to “mulish fatalism.” But Sell’s own data—when he pauses in his negative labeling and gets down to specifics—contradicts the maladjusted “moody loner” stereotype. He acknowledges that young Slobodan worked well with other youth when it came to political activities. Far from being unable to form close relations, Slobodan met a girl, his future wife, and they enjoyed an enduring lifelong attachment. In his early career when heading the Beogradska Banka, Milosevic was reportedly “communicative, caring about people at the bank, and popular with his staff.” Other friends describe him as getting on well with people, “communal and relaxed,” a faithful husband to his wife, and a proud and devoted father to his children. And Sell allows that Milosevic was at times “confident,” “outgoing,” and “charismatic.” But the negative stereotype is so firmly established by repetitious pronouncement (and by years of propagation by Western media and officialdom) that Sell can simply slide over contradictory evidence—even when such evidence is provided by himself.

Sell refers to anonymous “U.S. psychiatrists, who have studied Milosevic closely.” By “closely” he must mean from afar, since no U.S. psychiatrist has ever treated or even interviewed Milosevic. These uncited and unnamed psychiatrists supposedly diagnosed the Yugoslav leader as a “malignant narcissistic” personality. Sell tells us that such malignant narcissism fills Milosevic with self-deception and leaves him with a “chore personality” that is a “sham.” “People with Milosevic’s type of personality frequently either cannot or will not recognize the reality of facts that diverge from their own perception of the way the world is or should be.” How does Dr. Sigmund Sell know all this? He seems to find proof in the fact that Milosevic dared to have charted a course that differed from the one emanating from Washington. Surely only personal pathology can explain such “anti-West” obstinacy. Furthermore, we are told that Milosevic suffered from a “blind spot” in that he was never comfortable with the notion of private property. If this isn’t evidence of malignant narcissism, what is? Sell never considers the possibility that he himself, and the global interventionists who think like him, cannot or will not "recognize the reality of facts that diverge from their own perception of the way the world is or should be."

Milosevic, we are repeatedly told, fell under the growing influence of his wife, Mirjana Markovic, “the real power behind the throne.” Sell actually calls her “Lady Macbeth” on one occasion. He portrays Markovic as a complete wacko, given to uncontrollable anger; her eyes “vibrated like a scared animal”; “she suffers from severe schizophrenia” with “a tenuous grasp on reality,” and is a hopeless “hypochondriac.” In addition, she has a “mousy” appearance and a “dreamy” and “traumatized” personality. And like her husband, with whom she shares a “very abnormal relationship,” she has “an autistic relation with the world.” Worse still, she holds “hardline marxist views.” We are left to wonder how the autistic dysfunctional Markovic was able to work as a popular university professor, organize and lead a new political party, and play an active role in the popular resistance against Western interventionism.

In this book, whenever Milosevic or others in his camp are quoted as saying something, they “snarl,” “gush,” “hiss,” and “crow.” In contrast, political players who win Sell’s approval, “observe,” “state,” “note,” and “conclude.” When one of Milosevic’s superiors voices his discomfort about “noisy Kosovo Serbs” (as Sell calls them) who were demonstrating against the mistreatment they suffered at the hands of Kosovo Albanian secessionists, Milosevic “hisses,” "Why are you so afraid of the street and the people?”Some of us might think this is a pretty good question to hiss at a government leader, but Sell treats it as proof of Milosevic’s demagoguery.

Whenever Milosevic did anything that aided the common citizenry, as when he taxed the interest earned on foreign currency accounts—a policy that was unpopular with Serbian elites but appreciated by the poorer strata—he is dismissed as manipulatively currying popular favor. Thus we must accept Sell’s word that Milosevic never wanted the power to prevent hunger but only hungered for power. The author operates from a nonfalsefiable paradigm. If the targeted leader is unresponsive to the people, this is proof of his dictatorial proclivity. If he is responsive to them, this demonstrates his demagogic opportunism.

In keeping with U.S. officialdom’s view of the world, Sell labels “Milosevic and his minions” as "hardliners,” “conservatives,” and "ideologues”; they are “anti-West,” and bound up in “socialist dogma.” In contrast, Croatian, Bosnian, and Kosovo Albanian secessionists who worked hard to dismember Yugoslavia and deliver their respective republics to the tender mercies of neoliberal rollback are identified as “economic reformers,” “the liberal leadership,” and “pro-West” (read, pro-transnational corporate capitalist). Sell treats “Western-style democracy” and “a modern market economy” as necessary correlates. He has nothing to say about the dismal plight of the Eastern European countries that abandoned their deficient but endurable planned economies for the merciless exactions of laissez-faire capitalism.

Sell’s sensitivity to demagoguery does not extend to Franjo Tudjman, the crypto-fascist anti-Semite Croat who had nice things to say about Hitler, and who imposed his harsh autocratic rule on the newly independent Croatia. Tudjman dismissed the Holocaust as an exaggeration, and openly hailed the Croatian Ustashe Nazi collaborators of World War II. He even employed a few aging Ustashe leaders in his government. Sell says not a word about all this, and treats Tudjman as just a good old Croatian nationalist. Likewise, he has not a critical word about the Bosnian Muslim leader Alija Izetbegovic. He comments laconically that Izetbegovic “was sentenced to three years imprisonment in 1946 for belonging to a group called the Young Muslims.” One is left with the impression that the Yugoslav communist government had suppressed a devout Muslim. What Sell leaves unmentioned is that the Young Muslims actively recruited Muslim units for the Nazi SS during World War II; these units perpetrated horrid atrocities against the resistance movement and the Jewish population in Yugoslavia. Izetbegovic got off rather lightly with a three-year sentence.

Little is made in this book of the ethnic cleansing perpetrated against the Serbs by U.S.-supported leaders like Tudjman and Izetbegovic during and after the U.S.-sponsored wars. Conversely, no mention is made of the ethnic tolerance and diversity that existed in President Milosevic's Yugoslavia. By 1999, all that was left of Yugoslavia was Montenegro and Serbia. Readers are never told that this rump nation was the only remaining multi-ethnic society among the various former Yugoslav republics, the only place where Serbs, Albanians, Croats, Gorani, Jews, Egyptians, Hungarians, Roma, and numerous other ethnic groups could live together with some measure of security and tolerance.

The relentless demonization of Milosevic spills over onto the Serbian people in general. In Sell’s book, the Serbs are aggrandizing nationalists. Kosovo Serbs demonstrating against mistreatment by Albanian nationalists are described as having their “bloodlust up.” And Serb workers demonstrating to defend their rights and hard won gains are dismissed by Sell as “the lowest instruments of the mob.” The Serbs who had lived in Krajina and other parts of Croatia for centuries are dismissed as colonial occupiers. In contrast, the Slovenian, Croatian, and Bosnian Muslim nationalist secessionists, and Kosovo Albanian irredentists are simply seeking “independence,” “self-determination,” and “cultural distinctiveness and sovereignty.” In this book, the Albanian KLA gunmen are not big-time drug dealers, terrorists, and ethnic cleansers, but guerrilla fighters and patriots.

Military actions allegedly taken by the Serbs, described in the vaguest terms, are repeatedly labeled “brutal,” while assaults and atrocities delivered upon the Serbs by other national groups are more usually accepted as retaliatory and defensive, or are dismissed by Sell as “untrue,” “highly exaggerated,” and “hyperventilated.” Milosevic, Sell says, disseminated “vicious propaganda” against the Croats, but he does not give us any specifics. Sell does provide one or two instances of how Serb villages were pillaged and their inhabitants raped and murdered by Albanian secessionists. From this he grudgingly allows that "some of the Serb charges…had a core of truth.” But he makes nothing more of it.

The well-timed, well-engineered story about a Serbian massacre of unarmed Albanians in the village of Racak, hyped by U.S. diplomat and veteran disinformationist William Walker, is wholeheartedly embraced by Sell, who ignores all the contrary evidence. An Associated Press TV crew had actually filmed the battle that took place in Racak the previous day in which Serbian police killed a number of KLA fighters. A French journalist who went through Racak later that day found evidence of a battle but no evidence of a massacre of unarmed civilians, nor did Walker's own Kosovo Verification Mission monitors. All the forensic reports reveal that almost all of the forty-four persons killed had previously been using fire arms, and all had perished in combat. Sell simply ignores this evidence.

The media-hyped story of how the Serbs allegedly killed 7,000 Muslims in Srebrenica is uncritically accepted by Sell, even though the most thorough investigations have uncovered not more than 2,000 bodies of undetermined nationality. The earlier massacres carried out by Muslims, their razing of some fifty Serbian villages around Srebrenica, as reported by two British correspondents and others, are ignored. The complete failure of Western forensic teams to locate the 250,000 or 100,000 or 50,000 or 10,000 bodies (the numbers kept changing) of Albanians supposedly murdered by the Serbs in Kosovo also goes unnoticed.

Sell’s rendition of what happened at Rambouillet leaves much to be desired. Under Rambouillet, Kosovo would have been turned into a NATO colony. Milosevic might have reluctantly agreed to that, so desperate was he to avoid a full-scale NATO onslaught on the rest of Yugoslavia. To be certain that war could not be avoided, however, the U.S. delegation added a remarkable stipulation, demanding that NATO forces and personnel were to have unrestrained access to all of Yugoslavia, unfettered use of its airports, rails, ports, telecommunication services, and airwaves, all free of cost and immune from any jurisdiction by Yugoslav authorities. NATO would also have the option to modify for its own use all of Yugoslavia's infrastructure including roads, bridges, tunnels, buildings, and utility systems. In effect, not just Kosovo but all of Yugoslavia was to be subjected to an extraterritoriality tantamount to outright colonial occupation.

Sell does not mention these particulars. Instead he assures us that the request for NATO’s unimpeded access to Yugoslavia was just a pro forma protocol inserted “largely for legal reasons.” A similar though less sweeping agreement was part of the Dayton package, he says. Indeed, and the Dayton agreement reduced Bosnia to a Western colony. But if there was nothing wrong with the Rambouillet ultimatum, why then did Milosevic reject it? Sell ascribes Milosevic's resistance to his perverse “bunker mentality” and his need to defy the world.

There is not a descriptive word in this book of the 78 days of around-the-clock massive NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, no mention of how it caused the loss of thousands of lives, injured and maimed thousands more, contaminated much of the land and water with depleted uranium, and destroyed much of the country's public sector industries and infrastructure-while leaving all the private Western corporate structures perfectly intact.

The sources that Sell relies on share U.S. officialdom’s view of the Balkans struggle. Observers who offer a more independently critical perspective, such as Sean Gervassi, Diana Johnstone, Gregory Elich, Nicholas Stavrous, Michel Collon, Raju Thomas, and Michel Chossudovsky are left untouched and uncited. Important Western sources I reference in my book on Yugoslavia offer evidence, testimony, and documentation that do not fit Sell’s conclusions, including sources from within the European Union, the European Community’s Commission on Women’s Rights, the OSCE and its Kosovo Verification Mission, the UN War Crimes Commission, and various other UN commissions, various State Department reports, the German Foreign Office and German Defense Ministry reports, and the International Red Cross. Sell does not touch these sources.

Also ignored by him are the testimonies and statements of members of the U.S. Congress who visited the Balkans, a former State Department official under the Bush administration, a former deputy commander of the U.S. European command, several UN and NATO generals and international negotiators, Spanish air force pilots, forensic teams from various countries, and UN monitors who offer revelations that contradict the picture drawn by Sell and other apologists of U.S. officialdom.

In sum, Sell’s book is packed with discombobulated insider details, unsupported charges, unexamined presumptions, and ideologically loaded labeling. As mainstream disinformation goes, it is a job well done.

Michael Parenti’s recent books are To Kill a Nation: The Attack on Yugoslavia (Verso), and The Terrorism Trap: September 11 and Beyond (City Lights). His latest work is Contrary Notions: A Michael Parenti Reader ."

John

pre 14 godina

Serbian President Boris Tadic has apologised to the people of Bosnia on behalf of Serbia for the events that had taken place during the Bosnian War, so it is absolutely FALSE to say that no apologies or recognition has come from the Serbian side. Not even the Bosnian government today holds such a position, and it is interesting to note that Bosnia does not support the illegal independence of Kosovo from Serbia, interesting indeed.