Nora Beloff London, England fax: + 44 171 586 0378
on international law that they should protest publically against
the violation of the principles of justice currently being
perpetrated by the War Crimes Tribunal at The Hague.
To be effective, it is important that the protest should come
from various civilised countries, starting with France, the UK
and the US and, if possible, Germany. The composition of the
Hague Tribunal, now celebrating its third anniversary, precludes
it from meeting Western standards for an independent judiciary.
It was formed by the UNSC on the model of the Nurenberg Tribunal,
with the Serbs cast in advance for the role played at Nurenberg
by the Nazis.
The task of setting up the tribunal was left to the UN's
Secretary-General, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, himself an Egyptian.
Selected governments, representing different races and religions,
were free to name their own judges. Boutros Boutros-Ghali,
knowing that the Americans were primarily interested in
incriminating the Serbs (and so commanding the "moral high
ground"), was careful to exclude countries representing the
Orthodox Christian tradition. These might have been sympathetic
to the Serbs. Most of the judges came from countries where it is
normal to decide the verdict in advance of the trial.
Within the Tribunal, the Court of Appeal consists of five judges,
including nominees from China and Nigeria. Yet, as the Chinese
and Nigerian governments have shown in their recent actions,
Western concepts of impartial justice mean nothing to them. The
Tribunal of First Instance includes an Egyptian judge, who will
presumably practice the kind of justice now being administered by
the Egyptian government. The Court of Second Instance consists of
an American, a Pakistani and a Malaysian.
Given the composition of the Tribunal, its lopsided proceedings
are hardly surprising. As UNPROFOR officers who have served in
ex-Yugoslavia have all confirmed, war crimes in the present
conflicts have been perpetrated by members of all the major
communities, not only by the Serbs but also by Croats and Muslims
- notably including the Muhajedeen.
Brutality between the communities in ex-Yugoslavia is widely
known. In a single issue of the BBC's daily monitoring, on 1st
January 1996, we read of Croats denouncing Muslims in Bogojono,
Central Bosnia, claiming that the Muslim authorities were
ordering Croats - mainly older people - to leave their homes
within three days. We also read that, during the Christmas
holidays, the Croats in Mostar shelled a Mosque in the Muslim
sector and that the Mufti in the Croat part of Mostar was
protesting that his people were prevented from practising their
religious rites. Reading of these sufferings, it is easy to see
why the Bosnian Serbs preferred to go to war than to submit to
domination by the Croat or Muslim ruling parties.
The UN appointed the South African judge, Richard Goldstone, to
be Chief Prosecutor and, from the outset, he knew it was his
primary task to incriminate the Serbs. Goldstone has said
publically that when he arrived he knew nothing about
ex-Yugoslavia. He has claimed that this would assure his
objectivity. Instead, it made him singularly vulnerable to
political manipulation.
The Tribunal's degree of bias has been exposed in the indictments
issued against the Bosnian Serb leaders. The texts contain no
evidence that either Radovan Karadzic or General Ratko Mladic
perpetrated, or approved, the crimes committed within the areas
they controlled, let alone the "genocide" of which both were
accused. Most, though not all, Bosnian Serbs regard the two men
as their national leaders. This was brought home to the American
occupiers who were sent to Serb-held Lopare, a mining town near
Tuzla. According to the account carried in the "Washington Post"
(8th January, 1996), there was a picture of Mladic on the wall
and the Serbs, while welcoming the Americans, told them Mladic's
popularity had risen.
General Mladic is a professional soldier well known to many
UNPROFOR officers. Some of these have negotiated with him over
long periods, often on a daily basis. None of them consider him a
war criminal. By indicting Karadzic and Mladic while taking no
action against their opposite numbers in the Croat and Muslim
heirarchies, Goldstone has forfeited any pretense of
impartiality.
The Tribunal has also indicted Milan Martic, formerly leader of
the Krajina Serbs, for having ordered the bombing of Zagreb, an
attack which cost five Croat lives. As you know, Tudjman's
brutish army had driven from their homes over 150,000 Serbs and
had looted, tortured and killed many Serbs who were seeking to
flee. None of this agony troubled Goldstone, who still saw the
Krajina Serb leader as the one deserving punishment.
Goldstone did indict a number of Croats but Tudjman snubbed him
by promoting one of the indicted men to a higher rank in the
Croat army. Goldstone exposed himself to ridicule by going to
Zagreb to plead with Tudjman to reverse the promotion. Tudjman
refused to meet him and soon afterwards flew to Paris, where he
was embraced by Presidents Chirac and Clinton.
Lawyers who have seen this memorandum concede that it is
factually correct. What is less clear is how the outrage can best
be exposed. The only way of organizing legal action, some say,
would be by going to The Hague and exposing the emptiness of the
indictment of the Serb leaders for alleged genocide.
A French lawyer has agreed that, if the accused want his
services, he would be willing to go to The Hague, yet this would
seem to give the Tribunal a recognition which this court of
injustice certainly does not deserve. I would be most grateful if
you could suggest any other appropriate action to restore Western
concepts of justice in the affairs of ex-Yugoslavia.
Nora Beloff
_______________________________________________________________________________