Byzantine Blog

Western Collusion with Terrorists, Secessionists and Criminals in Destruction of Yugoslavia and Serbia

Second part of late President Slobodan Milosevic's opening statement at the Hague, August 31, 2004 (first part available here)

On the basis of Smithson's Declaration from January 7, 1932, United States obligated itself not to recognize the states created through the violent changes. This principle first became the regional rule for the American states, and then entered the universal rules of the international law.

This time around [in destruction of Yugoslavia], the United States trampled their own law. Back in July 1991, before the war begun, [German] Minister of Foreign Affairs [Hans-Dietrich] Genscher advocated the immediate recognition of Slovenia and Croatia. The parallel action was led by the Vatican. According to the US Ambassador with the Holy See, Thomas Patrick Milady, already in the mid-1991 Vatican undertook an action which was unprecedented in the history, placing itself at the helm of the process of recognition of the secessionist republics.

Vatican was exerting a permanent pressure on the European states to recognize Croatia and Slovenia. In August 1991, Pope John Paul II has sent Archbishop Torano to Yugoslavia, who reported upon his return that Serbia is an undeniable aggressor. One more substitution of the thesis, one more shameless lie and hypocrisy, this time on behalf of a spiritual leader. The aggression to one's own country — a construction that can only come to life in an extremely malicious undertaking. But the press accepted it. According to Milady, there was a perfect coordination between Vatican and Germany.

Mesic—Genscher—Vatican, the Old Nazi Ties are Thicker than Blood

In mid-December 1991, Genscher visited Vatican and, upon return, on December 19, he announced that Germany will recognize Croatia and Slovenia, regardless of the positions of other states. This was realized on December 23. But Vatican has done so on January 13, 1992.

Germany and Vatican were guided by their historical geostrategic interests. They have been working on destruction of Yugoslavia for years. This was explicitly stated by Helmut Kohl in the reputable magazine "Politique Internationale", [edition] 1994/1995, #66, stressing that the history of present-day Germany and the one that preceded it represents an indivisible whole.

The decisive period started when [Klaus] Kinkel become the head of the German security services [BND, Bundesnachrichtendienst]. He established the closest ties with Ustasha emigration. The key figures who worked on destruction of Yugoslavia from within, according to the well-known American analyst Eric Schmidt-Birnbaum, were Josip Malovic, Josip Boljkovac, Franjo Tudjman, Stjepan Mesic — current president of Croatia. Mesic confirmed his role also on Slovenian television, stating, and I quote: "I wanted to convey the idea of breaking Yugoslavia up to those who had the greatest influence on its destiny, Genscher and pope. I met with Genscher the entire three times. He enabled me to get in contact with the Holy See. Pope and Genscher agreed to a total break-up of Yugoslavia". End of quotation.

After this, the recognition by the other European Community members followed in January 1992, while Bosnia and Herzegovina were recognized on April 6 of the same year, on the very day Hitler attacked Yugoslavia -- April 6, 1941. The federal units have been recognized, as written in every individual act of recognition, "within the internationally recognized borders". That's what it says. But the fact is that never, not in a single international act, have the administrative borders [between Yugoslav republics] been recognized as the international ones. There isn't even an internal document about these borders. And, most importantly, the recognition is a one-sided political act, whereas the problem of determining the borders is a complex, multilevel legal procedure. Therefore, what was recognized were the fictitious, not the real states. The subjects that were recognized did not have the basic prerequisites for statehood.

An Exercise in Political Hypocrisy: Unprecedented Recognitions in the Midst of Bloody Civil War

There is a unified position among the experts that the recognition of statehood requires a legitimate state apparatus, the stability of the political and legal structures, a monopoly over armed forces within the territory in question and the full control over the use of force. Most importantly, the state has to demonstrate the strength and readiness to fulfill the international obligations and to ensure the internal safety.

None of that existed at the moment of the recognition. The recognition was given at the time of a bloody civil war, which will remain recorded as the unique case in the modern history, but in an entirely negative sense.

In the legal circles throughout the world, the recognition of the separatist forces caused astonishment and condemnation. This was also the case with the other circles. Cedric Thornberry, head of the civil sector of the UNPROFOR [United Nations Protection Force] stated in his memoirs, and I quote: "When Ambassador Cutileiro [Jose Cutileiro] informed us about the decision on recognition, General Morillon [Phillipe Morillon] and I were horrified." End of quotation.

The high-circulation French "Figaro" called this an exercise in the legal hypocrisy. General MacKenzie [Lewis MacKenzie] said in his memoirs "Even though we were not diplomats, all of us in uniform were certain that the fighting would break out all around us as soon as the recognition is announced." The UN Special Envoy Cyrus Vance said that the recognition of Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina on behalf of the European Community and the USA has, I quote, "led to the war which is being waged on the Yugoslav territory". He said this in September 1992.

The recognition of the fictitious states in the midst of a civil war represents an indirect form of aggression against the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia. Supported by the powerful media campaign and the deception of the world public, through the flagrant violation of the international law and the United Nations Charter, the secessionist republics have been accepted into the United Nations membership. To the remainder of Yugoslavia, which was in fact the core of Yugoslavia, sanctions were imposed in May 1992 and the country was placed in isolation, only because we did not accept to have the existing state in which we lived erased by the stroke of a pen.

Joint Criminal Enterprise Indeed Existed, but Not in Belgrade

In this legal chaos and the moral decline of the leading powers of the post-Cold War world and the Vatican, the road to madness and lawlessness was opened, from the north borders down to Kosovo, to the furthest south. This ad hoc tribunal was also formed, with only one objective, to cover up the piled-up mistakes of the Western politics and to justify the crimes, the destruction of the state and the highly technological barbarism committed by the NATO countries in their three-month bombardment of Yugoslavia, [to cover up] the mass crimes against its citizens, the destruction of the medieval heritage of the Serbian nation in Kosovo, and so on.

Through the instrumentalization of the extremely complex events on Yugoslav territory, and by switching the blame onto Yugoslavia as the aggressor, and onto me personally, a very transparent tactic was employed, with the purpose of closing the circle and preventing the logical thinking based on the empirical evidence.

The ridiculous, I'd say even vulgar theories about the "bad guys" and "rogue states" can't obscure the historical facts and historical responsibility for the tragedy of a European state. The "joint criminal enterprise" indeed existed, but it did not originate in Belgrade, nor has it ever existed in Belgrade. To the contrary, it existed in the joint forces of the secessionists, Germany and Vatican, and then the other European Community countries and the United States.

Kangaroo Court, Another Tool of NATO Propaganda

At my first appearance in this place and from then on, on several occasions, I denied the legality of this so-called "tribunal". During the procedure, you provided me with the countless arguments in support of my position. I shall not dwell upon the lack of the legal basis for the establishment of this court. I would only remind you that the source of the judicial power can solely be the international agreement, and not the resolution, as was concluded by the UN Secretary General himself, in his statement to the UN Security Council on May 3, 1993.

However, you owe a response to the international public as to from where does the Security Council draw a right to suspend legally binding treaties from being implemented. I'm referring to the Geneva Conventions from 1949 with the amended protocols and the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide from 1948, which assign the authority to adjudicate the war crimes' cases to the national courts. The international court can have the authority only when the document about its establishment has been reached lege artis, and only if it is of the general nature.

This so-called "tribunal" lacks both elements. The act on establishing this "tribunal" is of an individual nature, therefore, it is a political document. The basic legal principle is the equality in the eyes of the law, so there is a question why haven't the tribunals for all the wars which took place and are taking place throughout the world been established, at least in this, last decade of the 20th century, since there are no principled reasons for something like that, if it's legal, not to be applied to all.

In other words, this "tribunal" represents the most serious form of discrimination against one country and the grave violation of the conventions regarding the prohibition of all forms of discrimination.

At the very beginning, I requested that this institution exercises its right from the Article 96 of the UN Charter, to seek approval from the UN General Assembly to address the International Court of Justice [ICJ], the legal and the highest judicial body of the United Nations' institutional system, authorized to interpret the Charter, requesting their advice on whether the Security Council resolutions through which this so-called court was established are in compliance with the United Nations Charter or not.

No Court Can Determine Its Own Legality

The fact that this "tribunal" gave itself the right to decide on its own whether it was established in the legally valid way or not, and the fact it has, as could have been expected, determined that it is legal, does not mean such a conclusion is either correct, nor that it had a right to reach such a conclusion. Namely, this so-called "tribunal", just like any other court, is not authorized to evaluate its own legality. Therefore, its decision on this issue is legally worthless.

The courts are, in fact, authorized to evaluate whether they are competent to adjudicate on certain issues or not. But the issue of the jurisdiction of a court and the issue of its legality are two entirely different questions. The issue of legality has the precedence over the issue of [the court's own] jurisdiction, because if the court is illegal, than the question of its jurisdiction becomes pointless. Unlike the issue of [court's own] jurisdiction, not a single tribunal, nor any other institution, is authorized to determine its own legality, because the law traditionally does not allow one to be the judge in one's own case — nemo judex in sua causa.

On the other hand, this illegal court has no right to deprive the persons before it of a response to a question whether they are before the legal or illegal institution, especially if there is a legally valid way I have pointed to for resolving this issue. Because, by refusing to resolve this issue, the person in question is being denied justice, deni de justice.

Tribunals Don't Get Their Legitimacy through Resolutions

But I'm afraid that it is exactly the people in authority in this institution who are aware that the opinion of the International Court of Justice would be in accordance with the opinion of its previous president Mohamed Bedjaoui, who, in his book "The New World Order and Control of the Legality of the Acts of the Security Council", among the acts listed as questionable, also cites both resolutions pertaining to this "tribunal".

Therefore, this "tribunal" is not international, and it is even less an independent institution, as you wish to present it. An ideological fiction has been launched into the public, an "international community" which, allegedly, stands behind this "tribunal", and that is, of course, a complete deception.

Madeleine Albright, the "Mother of the Hague Tribunal" (with Soros and NATO as the Fathers)

The idea to establish this "tribunal" came from Kinkel, after he succeeded Genscher, the main war criminal in regards to destruction of Yugoslavia. This idea was taken over by Madeleine Albright, and the funding of preliminary actions and later expenses was taken on by the Soros Foundation. George Soros also founded the "Coalition for International Justice", as a non-government organization, with the aim to offer "assistance" to the "tribunal". Please, put the "assistance" under the quotation marks, I'm addressing those who are writing the transcript.

Members of these and some other so-called NGOs of which some are present here today, in this "tribunal" as the [female] employees, have been engaged way back in 1992 in Bosnia and Herzegovina, where they were collecting the alleged evidence about the Serbian crimes. Albright presented this to the US Congress, she employed various lobbies and media in order to fabricate a show which would impress the public. The US Congress nicknamed her the "Mother of the Tribunal".

Drafter of the Hague's Statute: Tribunal is the Political Institution

And, as far as the authenticity of the "evidence" the NGOs produced goes, one can take a look at the scandal surrounding the false material presented by the [female] representatives of those organizations, which also served as the basis for the indictment against me for the alleged crimes in Kosovo.

"New York Times" reporter who wrote an article based on their false information was forced to resign due to professional and ethical reasons. I have that issue of New York Times here, but I have no time to present it to you.

A man who wrote the statute of this "tribunal" of yours, Michael Scharf, gave a very precise evaluation of the "tribunal". In the interview to the "Washington Post" on October 3, 1999, he emphasized, I quote: "Tribunal is a useful political channel which serves to diplomatically isolate the rogue leaders and to strengthen the political will in the world for imposing sanctions and for using force".

In other words, this "tribunal" is an instrument of war, not of justice. This was confirmed by Marcus McGee, who said for the reputable Canadian weekly "Globe and Mail" on April 21, 1999, that the "tribunal", I quote, "is a part of the NATO war strategy".

NATO's War-Waging Tool

At issue, therefore, is a kind of private justice known only to them, to a war coalition, and regression of the judiciary back into the early middle ages. The world's eminent legal experts refer to this "tribunal" as NATO's propaganda weapon, so there can be no talks of any degree of independence.

It should also be noted that, since 1996, there is a constant communication link between the NATO Secretary General and your chief prosecutor. On May 9, 1996, a memorandum was signed by the chief prosecutor and the Supreme Commander of NATO for Europe, about the modalities of cooperation. Obviously, it is NATO, and not the United Nations, that has taken over the role of "tribunal's" policeman. That is why this "tribunal" cannot be regarded as an international institution in any way, but only as an institution of the NATO.

Another confirmation for this claim: your own Article 32 of the Statute, which anticipates that the "tribunal" expenses will be covered from the regular United Nations budget. But, in practice, the money comes from rather morbid sources, like the Soros Foundation and various foundations from different Islamic countries. The bulk of the money comes from NATO itself. According to the NATO spokesman Shea [Jamie Shea], I quote: "NATO is the biggest financier of the Tribunal". He said that on May 17, 1999, in Brussels.

One should also recall that Soros also finances the so-called Kosovo Liberation Army [KLA], which is in fact a terrorist UCK organization, and their main propaganda outlet, daily "Koha Ditore".

To be continued...