Stacy Sullivan on Milosevic and Genocide

Stacy Sullivan on Milosevic and Genocide

       By Edward S. Herman | May 28, 2004

       Liberals and much of the left have been badly bamboozled on re=
cent=20
Yugoslav history and the role of the International Criminal Tribunal =
for=20
the Former Yugoslavia, with former Serbian President Slobodan Milosev=
ic=20
having been hyper-demonized and the history of the Balkans rewritten =
to fit=20
what Lenard Cohen calls the "paradise lost/loathsome leaders" paradig=
m. But=20
numerous serious scholars have rejected this history and regard the U=
.S.=20
and other NATO powers as heavily responsible for the disasters since =
1990.=20
Lord David Owen's Balkan Odyssey, and his testimony before the Tribun=
al,=20
make it very clear that Milosevic was eager for a settlement of the B=
osnian=20
wars well before the Dayton agreement in 1995, and that he regularly =
had=20
major conflicts of interest with the Bosnian Serbs. It is clear from =
O!=20
wens, as well as from other experts that the U.S. government played a=
 key=20
role in the failure of the 1991 Vance plan, the 1992 Cutileiro plan, =
and=20
the 1993-94 Vance-Owen and Owen Stoltenberg plans, as the Clinton=
=20
administration armed the Bosnian Muslims, and later the KLA in Kosovo=
,=20
while encouraging them both to hope (and work) for U.S.-NATO military=
=20
intervention on their behalf.

       Milosevic was not indicted along with Mladic and Karadzic in 1=
995=20
for the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia in prior years, so the belated att=
empt=20
in The Hague in 2002 to make him responsible for those killings sugge=
sts=20
that UN war crimes tribunal chief prosecutor, Carla Del Ponte did thi=
s=20
because she saw that the killings in Kosovo fell far short of anythin=
g she=20
could pass off as "genocide." Even establishment spokespersons like r=
etired=20
U.S. Air Force General Charles Boyd and UN official Cedric Thornberry=
 have=20
stressed that the Bosnian killings in the years 1991-1995 were by no =
means=20
confined to those by Bosnian Serbs: the Croatians and Bosnian Muslims=
, the=20
latter supplemented by thousands of imported mujahideen, slaughtered =
many=20
thousands of their ethnic enemies in the area. But the Tribunal, orga=
nized,=20
funded, and essentially controlled by the U.S. and Britain, was only=
=20
interested in pursuing NATO targets, and t! hese were almost exclusiv=
ely=20
Serbs.

       There is now substantial literature that makes a strong case t=
hat=20
the Tribunal is not only a crudely political arm of NATO, but that it=
 is a=20
"rogue court." As a political arm, it regularly cleared the ground fo=
r NATO=20
military actions and since that victory the Tribunal has worked hard =
to=20
prove that the NATO war was just.

       The Milosevic trial is the main vehicle for proving NATO's vir=
tue,=20
though it has been a major flop in proving its case and maintaining a=
n=20
image of fairness and justice. The latter problem was nicely illustra=
ted in=20
the Tribunal's recent privileged treatment of the U.S. government and=
=20
Wesley Clark. Thus, the U.S. government was given the right to demand=
 a=20
closed session of the court and to redact testimony; Clark was allowe=
d to=20
communicate with outsiders and obtain and insert into the record a tr=
uth=20
testimonial from Bill Clinton, in straightforward violation of Judge =
May's=20
trial rules. Readers of the New York Times (or In These Times and The=
=20
Nation) will also never know that with William Walker on the stand, J=
udge=20
May's deference to the "Ambassador" was laughable: during direct=20
examination by the prosecutors there was not one interruption, while =
during=20
Milosevic's cross-examination he interrupted 70 times, and wouldn't a=
llow=20
him to ask Walker, the man who grieved so over deaths at Racak, about=
 his=20
earlier crude apologetics for the killing of the six Jesuit leaders a=
nd=20
others in El Salvador.

       A recent example of the kind of analysis that repeats the cana=
rds=20
common to the liberal "conventional wisdom" is FPIF's commentary by S=
tacy=20
Sullivan, of the Institute for War and Peace Reporting (IWPR), on=
=20
"Milosevic and Genocide: Has the Prosecution Made Its Case?"=20
(http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2004/0402milosevic.html). IWPR is fun=
ded by=20
the State Department, USAID, the National Endowment for Democracy, th=
e Open=20
Society Institute, and half a dozen other Western governments, and it=
 has=20
long served as a de facto propaganda arm of NATO. Sullivan is most no=
ted=20
for her New Republic classic of hardline pro-war and vengeance propag=
anda,=20
"Milosevic's Willing Executioners" (May 9, 1999). Sullivan's FPIF art=
icle=20
is in the same mode, taking it as a given that the Tribunal is an=
=20
apolitical instrument of justice and that we have an honest and not a=
 show=20
trial.

       An Annotated Response to Sullivan

       Her first sentence says that the prosecutors announced right o=
ff=20
that they would "prove" Milosevic guilty of genocide. She fails to me=
ntion=20
that the Bosnia charges were added belatedly, that Milosevic had not =
been=20
charged with them at the time of the actual killings, and that while =
Del=20
Ponte said she would "prove" this guilt she admittedly didn't yet hav=
e the=20
evidence. Indict, publicly and flamboyantly charge, and then look for=
 the=20
evidence, has long been the Tribunal's modus operandi.

       Sullivan's second sentence mentions that there were "300 witne=
sses,"=20
"some high level insiders who have turned on their former master,"=
=20
"thousands of pages of documents," etc. We are supposed to be impress=
ed=20
with this sheer volume of smoke that must show a genocidal fire. She=
=20
doesn't mention that Canadian law professor Michael Mandel gave Del P=
onte=20
"thousands of pages" of documents in April 1999 showing NATO war crim=
es,=20
which of course Del Ponte ignored, and that thousands of pages have b=
een=20
published and innumerable witnesses could have been supplied as witne=
sses=20
for the many thousands of Serb victims in Bosnia. It is extremely eas=
y to=20
find victimized people in civil wars who will testify to maltreatment=
 if=20
given the opportunity and even paid for their trouble, and some and p=
erhaps=20
most will even be telling the painful truth. But only a propagandist =
will=20
mention the 300 witnesses as if this alone is a serio! us considerati=
on in=20
proving "genocide."

       As regards the "high level insiders," in fact the prosecution =
came=20
up with few that were high level and fewer still who were cooperative=
. One=20
of their prime witnesses, Ratomir Tanic, appears to have been a conma=
n, who=20
was so "inside" that he couldn't even describe the location of the=
=20
president's office. Genuine insiders like former Yugoslav president Z=
oran=20
Lilic and member of the Yugoslav presidency Borislav Jovic confirmed=
=20
Milosevic on almost all key points. Rade Markovic, the former head of=
=20
Yugoslav security, who had everything to gain from denouncing his old=
 boss,=20
also defended Milosevic on all key points while renouncing a statemen=
t he=20
claimed had been extracted from him by threats and torture during a 1=
7=20
month stint in prison. Sullivan predictably doesn't mention that many=
=20
"insiders" and others were bribed and threatened with heavy sentences=
=20
unless they acquiesced to plea-bargains.

       Sullivan claims that many legal experts are doubtful about a=
=20
successful genocide charge because the Tribunal "has set the bar for =
doing=20
so extremely high." They might have to prove that Milosevic "orchestr=
ated=20
the breakup of Yugoslavia with the specific intent to destroy Bosnian=
=20
Muslims as a people...[with] unequivocal evidence of genocidal=20
intent...calling for the liquidation of all of the Bosnian Muslims...=
" The=20
idea that Milosevic wanted the breakup of Yugoslavia is ideology run =
wild=20
and contradicts the usual formula that he attacked Slovenia and Croat=
ia in=20
an attempt to prevent their exit from Yugoslavia (for a summary of an=
=20
alternative view of the Balkan wars, see Edward S. Herman, "Diana Joh=
nstone=20
on the Balkan Wars," http://www.monthlyreview.org/0203herman.htm, as =
well=20
as a recen! t piece by George Szamuely for FPIF, "The Yugoslavian=
=20
Fairytale," http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2004/0405fairytale.html).

       As there was a lot of back-and-forth ethnic cleansing and kill=
ing in=20
Bosnia, and the celebrated Srebrenica killings were comprised entirel=
y of=20
military-aged men, many killed in fighting, and after the Bosnian Ser=
bs had=20
admittedly separated out the women and children and moved them to saf=
e=20
refuge, intent and plan (as well as the still elusive Milosevic contr=
ol of=20
the Bosnian Serb forces) would seem rather essential to proving that=
=20
Milosevic was guilty of genocide in any sense. Besides, Del Ponte sai=
d she=20
was definitely going to "prove" genocide. What concept did she have i=
n mind?

       What constitutes genocide?

       Sullivan doesn't have a clue on the level of Tribunal "bars" f=
or=20
charges of genocide. These have proved to be wonderfully flexible, an=
d her=20
claim of a too-high bar has no basis in any Tribunal actions but is r=
ather=20
a form of pressure to get the bar low enough to assure the show trial=
's=20
proper result. In Bosnian Serb General Krstic's case, the Tribunal fo=
und=20
Krstic guilty of genocide by making it virtually the same thing as et=
hnic=20
cleansing, and extending the concept to killing only armed men in a s=
ingle=20
small town!

       Assuming that this was a valid case of genocide, Sullivan alle=
ges=20
that an "acquittal would have serious consequences for attempts to=
=20
prosecute genocide in the future." If it isn't a valid case of genoci=
de it=20
wouldn't interfere with future efforts at all. However, if it is a co=
rrupt=20
case brought by an alliance that actually carried out the "supreme cr=
ime"=20
of aggression in violation of the UN Charter in attacking Yugoslavia,=
 using=20
the Tribunal first as a war-facilitating instrument and then as a mea=
ns of=20
justifying the aggression, losing the case would be a plus for the=
=20
international rule of law. This is not likely to happen, given the fa=
ct=20
that the Tribunal is an arm of the NATO powers, although the case mad=
e by=20
the prosecution has been so weak that it is not inconceivable that=
=20
Milosevic might only be found guilty of "crimes against humanity."

       Great Powers and Genocide

       What might really interfere with efforts to pursue genocide wo=
uld be=20
if the United States or another major power engaged in genocide or ga=
ve it=20
support, as there are no mechanisms to prevent or punish acts such as=
 these=20
in the New World Order, and major powers are essentially exempt. Thus=
, the=20
"sanctions of mass destruction" imposed by the U.S. and Britain on Ir=
aq=20
=66rom 1991-2002 killed four or five times as many civilians as died =
=66rom all=20
causes in the Balkans wars of the 1990s, and as Thomas Nagy and Joy G=
ordon=20
have shown, these deaths were brought about deliberately; and Suharto=
's and=20
his successors' operations in Indonesia and East Timor were big-time=
=20
genocidal, but under Western, and notably U.S. and British, protectio=
n. The=20
problem of this exemption does not occur to Sullivan.

       Sullivan argues that "by far the most serious consequences of =
an=20
acquittal on genocide charges...would be for Bosnia's victims," ignor=
ing=20
the Croat and Serbian victims, of which there were many thousands. (T=
he=20
largest single ethnic cleansing during the Balkan wars was of Serbs d=
riven=20
out of the Krajina in August 1995, by the Croats, with U.S. assistanc=
e; the=20
largest proportionate ethnic cleansing in those wars was of Serbs and=
 other=20
minorities, including Roma, driven out of Kosovo by the KLA under NAT=
O=20
auspices after June 1999.) But even in her own narrow terms of refere=
nce,=20
how concerned are Bosnian victims over this issue? How does Sullivan =
know=20
about the victims' feelings? A poll taken in Bosnia several years ago=
=20
indicated that no more than six percent of Bosnian Muslims, Serbs, or=
=20
Croats considered the bringing of war criminals to justice as importa=
nt=20
(Charles Boyd, "Making Bosnia Work," Foreign Affairs, January ! 1998)=
.

       Furthermore, why would Bosnian victims need a successful "geno=
cide"=20
charge and not be satisfied with guilt for "crimes against humanity?"=
=20
However, if the function of the trial is to prove the NATO war just, =
we=20
must have "genocide." Best, however, to pretend that it is concern ov=
er the=20
victims rather than NATO-establishment priorities that make the charg=
e of=20
genocide so important.

       Editor: John Gershman, Interhemispheric Resource Center (IRC)

       (Ed Herman is an economist and media analyst. He has a regular=
 "Fog=20
Watch" column in Z magazine. With Philip Hammond, he co-edited Degrad=
ed=20
Capability: the Media and the Kosovo Crisis (Pluto: 2000).)

       Additional References

       Thomas Nagy, "The Secret Behind the Sanctions: How the U.S.=
=20
Intentionally Destroyed Iraq's Water Supply," The Progressive, (Septe=
mber 2001)
       http://www.progressive.org/0901/nagy0901.html

       Joy Gordon, "Economic Sanctions as Weapons of Mass Destruction=
,"=20
Harpers, (November 2002)
       http://www.harpers.org/CoolWar.html



         Contact the IRC's webmaster with inquiries regarding the=
=20
functionality of this website.
         Published by Foreign Policy In Focus (FPIF), a joint project=
 of=20
the Interhemispheric Resource Center (IRC, online at www.irc-online.o=
rg)=20
and the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS, online at www.ips-dc.org).=
=20
=C2=A92004. All rights reserved.

       Recommended citation:
       Edward S. Herman, "Stacy Sullivan on Milosevic and Genocide,"=
=20
(Silver City, NM & Washington, DC: Foreign Policy In Focus, May 28, 2=
004).

       Web location:
       http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2004/0405ssgenocide.html

       See also : Vanessa Stojilkovic & Michel Collon, The Damned of=
=20
Kosovo, film, 78', 2002.
       Available in PAL-Europe at [email protected]
       Available in NTSC (USA, Canada...) at [email protected]

       See also : Michel Collon, Liars' Poker, New York, 2002
       and Monopoly, Nato conquerring the world, New York, june 2004
       available at : Milo Yelesiyevich
--=20
Macdonald Stainsby
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green
In the contradiction lies the hope
=09=09--Brecht.


_______________________________________________
Rad-Green mailing list
[email protected]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green