On Monday, I was at the Russia Today studio in Washington, as part of their extensive coverage of the Karadžić trial. They've transcribed some key points of my interview, and the video is available on the site as well.
Now, whether Radovan Karadžić can get a fair trial at the ICTY is really the wrong question to ask. Nobody can. The ICTY is a political institution, established illegitimately, with the sole purpose of manufacturing a "war crimes" justification for American military involvement in the civil wars that broke out following the EU "murder by recognition" of Yugoslavia.
Everything at the ICTY - which I call the Hague Inquisition - is subordinated to the goal of proving the existence of a great conspiracy ("joint criminal enterprise") involving the entire Serb political and military leadership. There is no evidence such a conspiracy ever existed - in fact, there's much evidence proving it did not. However, to justify its own existence and expense, the Tribunal needs to conjure this conspiracy into being.
They tried doing this with Milošević, and failed. When he destroyed their indictment, they tried to sideline him with imposed counsel. He thwarted that too. Just as they were in a completely untenable position to convict him based on nothing more than the necessity of convicting him for political reasons, Milošević died under mysterious circumstances. The ICTY poured many a crocodile tear, but in fact was relieved that their botched show trial ended in such a manner. This way, they could act as if Milošević had actually been convicted, but for the actual formality of the verdict. Now they are trying the same thing with Karadžić.
Note that no one gets a fair trial at the Tribunal. Both Naser Orić, the warlord of Srebrenica, and KLA terrorist Ramush Haradinaj got show trials, after which they were acquitted and greeted as heroes by the Bosnian Muslims and Kosovo Albanians respectively. Was this justice for the people they killed? Hardly. Did it promote reconciliation, as the ICTY supposedly claims to be doing? Not in the least. Their trials and acquittals were a seal of approval on the policies they represented, which even today fuel the hatred and violence in Bosnia and the occupied Serbian province of Kosovo.
Here is a brief summary of the current situation in the Hague:
The article has a few misspellings.
Thanks, Suvorov. Interesting analysis.
To "Editor" (of the SGB, I assume): Keep sending troll comments all you want; I'm not publishing your rubbish. You are conducting a personal campaign of libel against me, and while I don't consider you worth my time and effort, if you persist in this sort of behavior I may just decide to introduce you to actual law and justice - as practiced by US or Canadian courts, rather than the ICTY abomination you're so fond of.
Your "arguments" all fall under the Aristotelian fallacy of appeal to (false) authority. If you hold "education and intelligence" in such high regard, then go ahead and reveal your name, tell us about your education and intelligence, and explain why you think Srebrenica is a "genocide."
Let's see you live up to your own standards. If you have any.
What evidence is there that the ICTY was established to provide cover for American intervention particularly given the repeated disinclination of the United States to get involved.
After all, it was until Wesley Clark got involved that NATO actually began to look for war criminals, the ICTY was created at the high of American unwillingness to intervene in Bosnia, and people like Warren Christopher were plagiarizing the Serbian canard about everyone being equally to blame.
Warren Christopher's line about "it's been easy to analogize this to the Holocaust, but I've never heard of any genocide by the Jews against the German people" is not the rhetoric of someone who wants to bomb the Serbs. His boss, Clinton wasn't much better, "I don't think the international community has the capacity to stop people within that nation from their civil war until they decide to do it." Perry declared the conflict over at the end of 1994.
Quotes are from David Campbell's National Deconstruction: Violence, Identity, and Justice in Bosnia, 50-1
Punk, I don't normally entertain Hoare fans (I checked out your profile), but I'll make an exception this once.
What you're saying is, "Watch what they said, not what they did." Rubbish.
So what if the US gave lip service to Yugoslavia's integrity, when it threatened Belgrade with war if they tried to preserve that integrity by force?
So Warren Christopher said what you quoted. How come it's a US official (David Scheffer) who set up the Tribunal, and its first president was American? Next thing you'll tell me Holbrooke didn't really want to get involved, never mind what he wrote in his memoirs!
Clinton & Co had to drag Americans into establishing an Empire, at a time when they were tired of war and only wanted a chunk of the peace dividend. ICTY was part of that effort, as was the talk of "concentration camps" and "mass rape".
Warren Zimmerman comes to Sarajevo and Izetbegovic immediately reneges on the Lisbon agreement. Coincidence? Yeah, right. And it just so happens that Washington sabotages every peace agreement between 1992 and 1994, until it can impose its own?
I don't buy it. But you're a Hoare fan, so I can see why you do.
You are welcome. If I recall correctly, Hoare doesn't allow comments on his blog. Hmm... Oh, that must be because most readers lack proper education and credentials to write intelligent comments.
Post a Comment