Following my initial impressions about the ICJ verdict, I've now put together a more detailed analysis over at Antiwar.com.
Yesterday morning, when news of the verdict came, I was at the RT studio in Washington, DC. What I said in the following clip was literally at a moment's notice, without any prior knowledge of the questions:
They usually identify me as "Columnist, Antiwar.com"; not sure why this time they used the misnomer "journalist".
Update (July 28): Many thanks to Ilana Mercer, who re-posted the video and linked to my column on Barely A Blog.
7 comments:
Journalist. Bit of an insult these days.
I to was shocked, I was really expecting a vague, nuanced decision along the lines of “its technically illegal but its done now, but there should not be a precedent” even the BBC was predicting a outcome of that nature. I can’t believe the US is putting territorial integrity of EU countries like Belgium, Spain and Cyprus in this kind of situation, or even their beloved new satellite Georgia. The decision came the same day as another outrageous decision here in the UK by the British state not to prosecute a police officer who killed an unarmed protester, all we can see is that the Empire and its colonies are interested in nothing except covering their own backs and justifying there actions by any means.
Who appointed these jury members?
From Wikipedia:
"The ICJ is composed of fifteen judges elected to nine year terms by the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council from a list of persons nominated by the national groups in the Permanent Court of Arbitration. The election process is set out in Articles 4–12 of the ICJ statute. Judges serve for nine year terms and may be re-elected for up to two further terms. Elections take place every three years, with one-third of the judges retiring (and possibly standing for re-election) each time, in order to ensure continuity within the court."
I suppose I ought to append a note here, to avoid misunderstandings:
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) was created by the UN as the successor to a previous judicial institution that served the League of Nations. This is the court that issued a ruling I've been discussing since Thursday.
The ICTY is an ad hoc, para-judicial body, created (illegally) by the UN Security Council in 1993. I often call it "The Hague Inquisition". The ICJ gravely erred when it assumed the legitimacy and veracity of ICTY's rulings and incorporate them in the case of Bosnia vs. Serbia in 2007.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) is a recent institution, also unrelated to the ICJ. Though inspired by the ICTY, it was was established through legitimate UN procedures, and ratified by a number of countries.
All three institutions are based in The Hague, which adds to the confusion.
Yes, they probably chose the same locale for these courts deliberately in order to create confusion and to give ICTY more legitimacy.
Nebojsa and co.
There's an interesting article on official balkans propaganda site (Balkan Ins(h)ite, that is) by Matthew Parish (quite an interesting chap himself who actually worked for the OHR in Bosnia - go look him up).
http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/main/comment/29723/
Kosovo Ruling Reveals World Court’s Darker Side
This is the link I will send to people when they repeat the cr*p that even the BBC radio and other supposed quality media outlets who said "ICJ says Kosovo secession legal". It is quite a succinct article that cannot simply dismissed as 'serbian spin'.
Serbia needs to hammer on about rampant discrimination, oppression and subjugation by Pristina against all minorities in Kosovo to highlight that it is only 'multi-ethnic' there are just some non-albanians who live there. If Pristina cannot fulfil this basic EU requirement to join the EU, then it will never join.
I've noticed also that Brussels would offer serbs in Kosovo a special status if Belgrade recognizes Kosovo. So what happens if Belgrade says "Up yours"? It is not as if Brussels could actually turn a blind eye if the KLA shock troops are sent in to sterilize Mitrovica, let alone a EULEX 'blitzkreig' rule of law action.
After all this, Brussels still needs Belgrade to pull its ass out of the fire. Genius.
Post a Comment