The arguments are worse than the verdict

Posted in Daniel Serwer - March 31, 2016 - 5 Comments

The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) today acquitted Serbian politician Vojislav Selselj of all charges against him, by an overwhelming majority. Instead Judge Antonetti convicted the ICTY prosecution of confusion and incompetence.

Those disappointed in the outcome should read at least the trial judgement summary, which says the prosecution failed to prove that the political effort to create Greater Serbia constituted a “joint criminal enterprise” or that Seselj was in charge of those who committed crimes pursuing that goal. Even fighters called “followers of Seselj,” the Tribunal says, were arguably under the control of the Yugoslav National Army and the Serb armies in Croatia and Bosnia.

This should be little comfort to the Belgrade government, which has been anxious to avoid any hint of responsibility for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Croatia and Bosnia. Seselj’s acquittal can be read as a forceful indictment of the three Serb armies and governments, including the one led at the time by Slobodan Milosevic, and might raise again the question of compensation or reparations.

Essentially ICTY is saying a guy who inspired, recruited and deployed volunteers to go fight in the war was not responsible for any crimes those volunteers committed, because he was not in the chain of command. This certainly implies that the Yugsolav National Army, which at the time controlled the Serb forces in both Croatia and Bosnia, was responsible.

But the acquittal will be read by Serb nationalists as vindication, because it clears their Greater Serbia political program of responsibility. Rather than being inherently discriminatory, it is judged to be just one more political proposition, morally no worse than Croatian and Bosnian secession from Yugoslavia, whose fulfillment would not necessarily have violated anyone’s rights. Nor are many of the means chosen to fulfill that program found to be criminal, though the Tribunal finds that some crimes were committed, for which it held Seselj had not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be responsible.

At times the Tribunal indicts itself in making its case against the prosecutors. It suggests there was no widespread Serb attack on civilians in Bosnia and Croatia and says:

…the majority cannot dismiss the Defence’s argument–amply supported by some of the testimonies–according to which these civilians had fled the combat zones to take refuge in villages inhabited by members of the same ethnic or religious group; that the buses that were provided for this purpose did not constitute operations to forcibly transfer the population, but were in fact provided on humanitarian grounds to assist the non-combatants fleeing combat zones in which they no longer felt safe….the SRS pursued the objective of a Greater Serbia which was to include all the Serbs, whether they were of the Orthodox, Catholic or Muslim faith….There is a reasonable possibility that the sending of volunteers was aimed at protecting the Serbs.
The buses weren’t sent as part of a program of ethnic cleansing? Everyone was welcome to stay? The volunteers were aimed at protecting Serbs without causing criminal harm to anyone else? These are propositions that shatter credulity rather than stretch it.
The Tribunal majority even suggests that Seselj’s inflammatory speeches calling for extermination of Croats
… were made in a context of conflict and were meant to boost the morale of the troops of his camp, rather than calling upon them to spare no one.
The acquittal, on fairly arcane legal grounds, is not nearly as disturbing as some of these statements, which in essence accept forced removal, persecution and incitement and organization to commit war crimes as non-criminal.
Once upon a time (1996-97), I was in charge of European intelligence and research in the State Department. We were often accused of hiding evidence against Seselj and failing to turn it over to ICTY, so I used my extensive clearance privileges to enter the inner sanctum of the file room and ask for his file. It was thin and contained nothing but a brief biography and newspaper clippings. There may have been another file some place else, but I have my doubts. During the early 1990s, when Seselj and his followers were most active in Croatia and Bosnia, the United States was saying it had no dog in the Yugoslavia fight. We likely weren’t targeting Seselj, war crimes or even the progress of the wars there for intelligence purposes.
Twenty years later Seselj is getting off. I can regret that but still accept and acknowledge, though I am not ready to move on. Though Judge Antonetti’s denunciation of the Prosecution’s case is clearly meant to forestall an appeal, I trust there will be one. Selselj remains free for now, but maybe not forever.
Tags : ,

5 thoughts on “The arguments are worse than the verdict”

  1. Notwithstanding our contempt for Seselj, I welcome the verdict for the distinction it makes for the Greater Serbian agenda (which I find merely reprehensible and naively predicated on outmoded values) and the horrific war crimes committed in its name. Back in the day, I helped the News Hour schedule a live interview with newly elected President Kostunica, but insisted that they ask him one question point blank: What would *you* have done when Yugoslavia dissolved? My sense then was that he also would have employed JNA forces to hold onto at least the Serb-inhabited areas of Croatia and Bosnia — but would have employed means that would have avoided the creation of an ICTY and the almost universal opprobrium that Belgrade and its surrogates justly deserved. Or, as I said to Dan and his INR staff, there is nothing ethically wrong with the desire for a greater Serbia.

    1. No sir, ALL is wrong with the desire for a Greater Serbia because it can only be achieved by forcefully removing all non-Serb population form eth territory! What makes you think Croats, Bosniaks and Kosovar Albanians would voluntarily give up their homeland. It’s just as ethically wrong as Hitler’s ideas of a Greater German Reich. Exactly the same.

      Ah, but of course, such as you despise Muslims, so it’s no wonder you say such things.

      And kindly refrain from justifying what the Serbs did to Bosniaks in 1941-45 and 21992-95 (and to the Albanians in 1913) with what the Ottomans did to Serbs 200-400 years ago. That’s as feeble a justification as ever could be.

  2. Dan:
    I find the verdict outrageous, perhaps the prosecution was incompetent, but I recall telling Milosevic (When Warren Zimmerman was still in Belgrade) that we knew Seselj (and Arkan) were his surrogates and that what they were doing was clearly ethnic cleansing. The paramilitaries would move into villages in the border areas, cleanse them of Bosniaks, raping and pillaging along the way, then the JNA would move in to hold the territory for Serbs and keep the Bosniaks from returning. Such transport as may have been provided to the surviving Bosniaks was not supplied on “humanitarian” grounds. This will be seized upon in the RS – surely there will be a “Seselj” dormitory to go with the “Karadzic” dorm. Ralph

    1. It’s essentially because the West too despises teh Bosniaks for being Muslims. After al, in our wonderful islamophobic times too many people are inclined to think the Mooslims are all evil and somehow deserve it.

      And only those who can’t defend themselves are victims of aggression.

      That’s why at Dayton they gave the Serbs essentially all they wanted. Now they say, “it’s regrettable but you know, bad things happen.”

  3. Pingback: The Long Shadow Of The Seselj Verdict – What Is Said…

Comments are closed.

Tweet