Wednesday, November 04, 2009

No Justice There, Move Along

Over the past ten years as a commentator, columnist and Balkans-watcher, I've given many interviews - radio, TV and print - but I've never been a guest on a talk show. Until this morning, that is, when RT had me on Crosstalk (now available online).

Host Peter Lavelle talked with ICTY spokeswoman Nerma Jelačić, John Laughland (at the Institute for Democracy and Cooperation in Paris), Milenko Bodin from the Belgrade University, and yours truly, about whether Radovan Karadžić could get a fair trial.

Readers of this blog and my columns at Antiwar.com can already guess what I said: No, never in a million years, the ICTY isn't a place anyone can get a fair trial. The theory of "joint criminal enterprise" used to prosecute the Serbs is proof that the ICTY isn't prosecuting individuals for specific things (as they continue to claim), but an entire nation - for something that's abstract, alleged, assumed and asserted (i.e. the "genocide" in Bosnia).

I recommend the show, however, not for my appearance on it (which could have been better, but I'm still new to this, eh?) but for the outlandish statements made by Jelačić and the way Laughland simply destroyed them.

5 comments:

phildav76 said...

If the ICTY really was neutral as Nerma Jelačić claims then she wouldn't be employed by them.

I assume the same woman wrote this rant:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/jun/24/warcrimes.balkans

Why does the ICTY even need spokespeople? I don't think the US Supreme court has them for example.

Gray Falcon said...

Yes, that's her. She spent years at IWPR, running their "Tribunal Watch" section. It's not the first time a "journalist" is officially promoted to spokescritter for their faithful service (remember Mark Laity of the BBC, who succeeded Jamie Shea at NATO).

phildav76 said...

I never quite understand if they are meant to be a neutral spokesperson for the whole of the ICTY or do are they simply the Prosecution Office's spokesperson. If they are the former then they very much come over as the latter,

She will have to be careful though and remember what happened to Florence Hartmann.

Suvorov said...

Nice. A skeptic may point out that Jelancic was arguing against three (or even four, if we count Peter Lavelle) and she was the only one who was interrupted, but no Western channel would allow you or John Laughland to dispute even with ten Jelancics. And, yes, I noticed that her effort was disingenuous. I was only commenting on the format, not the substance earlier. Ultimately, one must be able to defend one's views in an argument involving several opponents, as long as one is given an opportunity to speak (which she was, despite interruptions). And, quite frankly, she had to be interrupted sooner or later because she was just repeating the same general and painfully familiar phrases about the tribunal's supposed fairness. And whenever she did touch the substance of the matter, she simply lied. Congratulations.

Baya said...

Sometimes you have to ask yourself whether Nerma Jelacic was created by the Balkan Wars or whether she simply saw an opportunity. She certainly would not have survived the Balkan Wars had what she has written was true.