The arguments are worse than the verdict

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.

… 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.