Prof. Višeslav Simić is a Serbian political scientist and a major intellectual figure, currently living and working in Mexico. He has written extensively on a wide range of issues, including current affairs. In the essay that follows he argues that ICTY has played a nefarious role not only in perverting international justice, but also in the falsification of history.
Qui plume a, guerre a.[1]
Тo Lorenzo Valla[2]
and to the memory of
thousands of Serbs
sacrificed on the altar of
the New World Order
throughout the Serb lands in the Balkans
Introduction
Unless there were a complete disregard for the meaning of words, we could not apply the noun History to anything produced by ICTY [or The Hague & The Tribunal, as it is better known under these names], since that word was invented by the ancient Hellens to name the knowledge acquired by inquiry. It is a word based on the ancient Serbian (or, as the politically correct would prefer, on the Proto Indo-European) root vid- [vid-tor- (his-tor, as the Hellens corrupted it)], which to all modern Slavs is still immediately obvious as a verb related to personal witnessing of something, and is a base for the name of one of the most important ancient deities, and still most venerated ideas: VID — the God That Sees All, and/or the ideal of impartial justice based on facts.
Thus, the copious production of ideological constructs and fanciful conclusions that ICTY has spewed over the last few decades may not, even remotely, be considered history but must be deemed myth — specifically the West’s conscience cleansing myth.
Even the infamous Henry Ford had a clearer understanding of history than ICTY, since he stated that history is “just one damned thing after another,”[3] clearly pointing out that it has to consist of “things” (events, facts) and not specters, chimeras and mirages, of which ICTY’s “history” is overfull.
It is not just these specters, chimeras and mirages that crowd ICTY’s “history” — it is full of equally fictitious inferences, interpretations and verdicts, that transform it into one of the greatest examples of shameless servitude by a wan and anemic counterfeit Justice to the very real Might is Right ogre’s reincarnation.
In addition to endless lists of legal wrongs, injuries and felonies, the Hague junta committed all the errors of the past historians during its Yugoslav destruction melodramatic score manufacture, turning it into a cumulative heap of willing lapses and deliberate abuses, disguised as “transitional justice” and “reconciliation effort”, inspired by the ever audacious western future-oriented self-declared elites, who created, funded, and directed it as a political and military weapon[4] camouflaged as an international justice tribunal.
Following in the steps of the Spanish Inquisition, which was “the first modern institution with a sophisticated clerical organization,”[5] “deliberate in its approach”[6] and with the “power […] mostly unchecked,”[7] the Hague tribunal, being its virtual twin, went even further in its scope and reach, creating a past that serves the present so that the future may be easier to control. ICTY has installed a fake account of the “history” of Yugoslavia, its destruction and the subsequent wars as an integral part of global jurisprudence, thus creating a hybrid form of the politically correct official Truth that must not be questioned, investigated and/or challenged but absolutely obeyed and blindly followed. The Tribunal, its creators, and its disciples have turned themselves into what is known as a “surdus absurdus” — a man deliberately deaf to all, becoming an absurdity in everyone’s eyes.
A future historian of the Tribunal may want to ask had its historians chosen or had they been told what to write about the Yugoslav past, had they used the genres of satire or the theatre of the absurd to express it, or were they even true historians or dictation taking slaves in the image of Tiro[8], with no personal will or freedom, but a human tool for the creation of a convenient account of the collective Western self.
That, hopefully free and conscientious, future historian of the Tribunal may also ask what its philosophical problems had been, and had it even had a purpose in finding the truth or making very fine ideological points for its contemporaries? Was its vision ample or tunnel, deeply rooted in its politics, rendering it incapable of even remotely understanding the motives, actions and ideas of the peoples it set out to judge?
Such a historian might conclude that the Tribunal’s creators and the willing executioners of their goals were, to their utmost shock, if they could hear that judgment, the closest replica of the Early Christians — such had been their break with the classical Western jurisprudence, and the violent introduction of the notion of the New West’s historical purposes, very carefully and determinately guided by their quasi-divine humane hands.
They had also decisively turned Justice away from the Enlightenment principles based on reason and turned Her into a helpless servant of the New World Order’s heavy handed and very medieval dogmatic authority, mixed with a neo-“Romantic” “organic” factors, which based judicial rulings on race, ethnicity, culture and language — of course, the Slavic and Balkan ones always inferior to the West’s.
The very elitist and preferred notions of multiculturalism, cultural relativism, and anxiety not to offend “the other” had been forgotten with abandon in the case of the “ land of the demons’ ”[9] inhabitants from the Balkans, and especially of “[a bunch of] illiterate degenerates, baby killers, butchers, and rapists”[10], the Serbs.
The Hague “historians” most certainly failed to do the most important job of a true historian: to establish reliable methodology[11] how to recognize great events and to determine their importance for their human objects, being what we, ordinary humans, who only passively receive it, are not — active agents of the creation of history by choosing what goes into it. Especially when even the chosen history is limited by the records of evidence, and we are aware that the Hague[12] and NATO[13] are known for their destruction[14] and suppression of evidence! In addition to that, the problem arises with the management of the evidence, even the one carefully selected — the Hague “criminal” historians have failed miserably even in that relatively easy task, making it blatantly obvious that they didn’t even attempt to resist the temptation to color and adjust the evidence so that the interpretation would fit the needs of their political masters who irregularly[15] (if not illegally!) created ICTY.
If we accept the common understanding that history writing is an inter-human act based on systematic inquiry into words, deeds, ideas and, too often, conflicts from the past, which evidence we possess in our present, and that it may not base itself on divine providence or revelation, that it must inform and not preach, ideologize or imagine, that it must follow only verifiable evidentiary trails, which must be questioned and examined by others, and recognized by them as valid, we most certainly cannot accept ICTY’s “historians” as writers of history but as creators of Western myths and epics, Western political and spiritual elites’ revelations, and of NATO’s convenient lies.
They even remind one of Herodotus — a.k.a. The Father of Lies[16] — for he too propagated passionately the Athenian ideal of “liberty” in spite of the omnipresent evidence of despotism and tyranny, as much as ICTY’s “historians” do it for NATO today, since the instinct of tyrants is to deprive the conquered of their true history and to impose the celebration of the despot’s version of it.
Yet, Herodotus had at least one redeeming quality, which is lacking in the Hague’s “historians” — he admitted that “[he didn’t] know if [what he wrote down as history was] exactly true; [he wrote] down just what [he was] told. Still, anything [might have happened]…”[17]. The Hague writers still fervently declare that everything they produced is the only and the whole truth, and remind one of Polybius, the Hellenic aristocrat who sided with the mighty Romans, sternly and in a businesslike manner propagating the inevitability of their dominance and righteousness[18].
Among the multitudes of contemporary Western historians, we find the modern Sallusts — those who are convinced by the West’s deeds and the countless dead that it has degenerated into a suicidal scramble for riches, power and glory at any price. Yet, even many of those, just as Sallust[19] did with Cesar, for the sake of comfort and survival, side publicly with the current victor — the NATO states, refusing to question or investigate the ICTY’s “history” of the Yugoslavs.
Others imitate Livy and concentrate on the past glories and the heroic epochs of the West (if there truly ever had been such) in order to avoid the shame and the gore of the present. Some of these, like Livy did[20] the Germans of his time, praise the modern “barbarians” — mostly of the Islamic sort — for their perceived virtues and simplicity of morals, using the Hague “history” to add to those characteristics of their favorites the quality of innocence.
In addition to these, there are historians in the West, and most certainly the ICTY’s are of this sort, who exercise (the West’s) Saint Augustine’s eschatological[21] project of history as a dynamic exorcism moving the drama of this world to its ultimate goal (Western and/or American Values), which had been constructed in the West’s Eternal Mind outside of history, yet intersecting with it through the descent of those superior ideals (of the universality of neoliberal values) and means (be it “humanitarian bombing” if necessary) upon the sub-humans of the Balkans, bringing an end to history as we know it — by establishing “Transitional Justice” and “Reconciliation” under the Anti-God of the New World Order. All of that and a lot of Joachim of Fiore’s vision of the three stages of history[22] (of course, with no Christ in it!) — we, being in the last one, the Age of the Spirit, which will bring about a violent final struggle to annihilate the forces of Evil: Balkan Nationalism and Serbian Will to Power.
Yet, in spite of all of these, and of their proclamations, a number of serious scholars, who doubt and distrust ICTY and the West’s mainstream history outline, are turning to Jean Bodin’s Spirit of Criticism[23] and his refusal to accept merely on the authority of the powers that be any account of any events, especially the ones upon which those powers are to pass the final judgment and rule what the fate of humanity will be.
Their numbers have been growing steadily, and they are aware that ICTY has built too great and expensive a cage of false judicial iron to contain the spiritual light of Truth from shining upon the events and the peoples of Yugoslavia — a light that cannot be imprisoned or suppressed from penetrating any ideological wall or interest group’s lock upon history.
ICTY as Both the Ruah Elohim & Dr. Fukuyama
Remembering the sudden appearance of ICTY out of the darkness of international relations after the fall of USSR, its casting of Light upon the Realm of the turbulent Global Jurisprudence by fiat was imitative of the Ruah Elohim bursting out of Eternity into Time, “moving upon the face of the waters,” thus demarcating the Beginning of History of the Yugoslav Matter, only after the Yugoslavs acted violently one upon the other after the West’s nudging them to do so. Equally mystifying was ICTY’s utterance of the revelation upon the issue of the End of History of the very same Yugoslav Matter — ICTY becoming the Mr. Hyde to Dr. Fukuyama’s Dr. Jekyll, pronouncing “the end of [the Yugoslav Matter] as such,” conveniently purging NATO of any guilt and responsibility that it might have in it.
Anemically imitating the vigorous prophets of old, ICTY’s “history” manufacturers pronounced its ghastly judgments upon the Balkans, first declaring the end of Yugoslavia simply by Slovenia and Croatia announcing their independencies[24] (very questionably for a UN “measure”[25], created to maintain or restore international peace and security, denying that state the right to protect its sovereignty and territorial integrity, which ICTY’s “history” vigorously supported in the case of the illegal offshoots of Yugoslavia!), and then, with uncanny precision, demarcating the beginning of commitment of international crimes as of January 1991, until, in an equally sorcerous manner, the end date was patented for August 12, 2001 — when the last crimes were committed by the officers of the Yugoslav-Communist-created sham-people of (even more sham-like named!) Northern Macedonians in “an unlawful attack on civilians and civilian objects in the village of Ljuboten, which was not justified by military necessity,”[26] just a month or so before the ever successful and indispensable US diplomacy settled the last military conflict of the Yugoslavs in an amicable and lasting peaceful manner.
While thus creating the “historical” narrative of the Yugoslav Destruction, placing it conveniently in the US Clinton Era Successes box, ICTY equally conveniently sanitized the West, and especially NATO, cleansing them of any possibility of accusations, let alone sentencing for crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, war crimes or crimes of genocide — ICTY, being the only international “measure” to deal with the Destruction of Yugoslavia[27] — by having its own Committee Established to Review the NATO Bombing Campaign Against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia issue its Recommendations in the ICTY’s Final Report to the Prosecutor, in which it says: “90. […] NATO has admitted that mistakes did occur during the bombing campaign; errors of judgment may also have occurred. Selection of certain objectives for attack may be subject to legal debate. [Here one must ask if ICTY wouldn’t be the perfect forum for such debates?!] On the basis of the information reviewed, however, the committee is of the opinion that neither an in-depth investigation related to the bombing campaign as a whole nor investigations related to specific incidents are justified. In all cases, either the law is not sufficiently clear or investigations are unlikely to result in the acquisition of sufficient evidence to substantiate charges against high level accused or against lower accused for particularly heinous offences. 91. On the basis of information available, the committee recommends that no investigation be commenced by the OTP in relation to the NATO bombing campaign or incidents occurring during the campaign.”[28]
Neither did ICTY take into consideration indicting any Western leader for the gravest crime of all — Crime Against Peace[29] — thus excluding the West from the “historical” narrative in which very prominent roles would have been played by the Bishop of Rome[30], the first female US Secretary of State[31], US ambassadors[32], a few US Congress representatives[33] and senators (today’s US presidential candidate Joe Biden[34] leading the pack), and a variety of EU[35] politicians. Such a History would have made for a more realistic, if not interesting, reading, explaining more convincingly how such small, quite disorganized and internally divided, poor and poorly armed, helpless groups in the Balkans managed to create and perpetuate such havoc and cause hundreds of thousands of deaths, incredible devastation and permanent hatred among whole previously peaceful and coexisting populations.
Precedents Attempted by Precedents Annulled
ICTY “historians” have, more than anything else annulled the veritable Anglo-Saxon principle of precedents by attempting to create their own, which would serve their creators’ purposes and goals.
That grave and irreparable mistake has already cost the West great embarrassments and loss of diplomatic power globally — the most notable cases are Abkhazia, South Ossetia and the Crimea, which showed to the eager world public, and many a government bullied by the West, that its own “weapon” can effectively be used against it.
Yet, for Yugoslavia it was too little too late…
Still, it is important to point out a few crucial examples of the new international rule of creating ad hoc and sui generis legal precedents and ideological narratives, and how they may be used for future convenient “history” narratives and “legal” acts:
The Badinter Commission crimes have largely been buried under the heap of “legal” trash of various international peace and humanitarian initiatives and projects so it is important to dig it out of those rotting remains of international law corps in order to question ICTY’s “history” regarding who destroyed Yugoslavia, and if it had dissolved itself, as the Commission ruled.
Robert Badinter, President of the French Constitutional Council, was selected by the then European Economic Community and its member states on August 27, 1991, at a peace conference on Yugoslavia, to chair the Community’s Arbitration Committee. The Committee had three more members[36] but it has become known internationally by its Chair’s last name—The Badinter Arbitration Committee. The Committee was to rule by binding decisions upon request from “valid Yugoslavian authorities.” Yet, its very first ruling broke its own rules and was issued upon the request made by Lord Carrington, President of the Peace Conference. The rulings 4 to 7 also broke the basic rule, and were made upon requests by the European Economic Community’s Council of Ministers. Only rulings 2 and 3 were made upon requests by valid Yugoslavian authorities.[37]
The Committee issued its final rulings on January 14, 1992.[38]
“In November 1991, when pressed to decide whether the main issue in Yugoslavia was that of secession from the federation (as it clearly was), the Commission declared that ‘the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is in the process of dissolution’ instead.”[39]
The most important rulings were # 2 and # 3 (on November 29, 1991[40], and the only ones made according to the rules!), concerning, among a few other things, the delimitation of internal borders of Yugoslavia—transforming the administrative boundaries between the constituent republics of a federation into international borders between sovereign states.
In both rulings a great emphasis was made on the respect of frontiers existing at the moment of independence (the status quo principle and the uti possidetis juris), insisting, in the ruling # 2, that regardless of the circumstances “the right of self-determination must not involve changes to existing frontiers.”
In the ruling # 3, the Committee insisted that the answer has to be based on the principles and rules of public international law, which, among other matters, states that all external frontiers must be respected according to the U.N. Charter, the International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States (U.N. General Assembly Resolution 2625-XXV), the Helsinki Final Act, and Article 11 of the Vienna Convention of August 23, 1978 on the Succession of States in Respect of Treaties.[41]
The Committee also recognized the 5th Article of the Constitution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia—that the territories and boundaries of the republics cannot be altered without their consent.
The principle of territorial integrity of states[42] was declared by the Arbitration Committee to have acquired the character of a universal and peremptory norm. The Committee declared that the people of the European colonies had wisely applied that principle and that it was time for Europeans to do the same (a very insensitive, if not purposely sarcastic, remark, taking into consideration that the Balkan states, although European, had no colonies of their own but had been colonies of the Moslem and Catholic empires of Turkey and Austria-Hungary respectively). The Western European members of this Commission did not stop to think how these recommendations would affect the South-Eastern Europeans in the Balkans (especially the Serbs[43]) who prided themselves on centuries-old nationhood and on their fierce resistance to colonialism (both West European and Islamic), and who wanted to restore their old states to the most extensive borders achieved in their long histories.
These binding rulings essentially meant that the Serbians of Yugoslavia were sentenced to remain, both as national corpora and as territorial entities, within the states belonging to the nations who recently self-declared separation and independence from Yugoslavia, and who were recognized as such by the Arbitration Committee’s other rulings. Also, this ruling contradicted the long-recognized international and European Economic Community’s principle of self-determination of peoples, who were, by this ruling, squeezed into some arbitrary borders imposed on them, first by the Yugoslav Communist party’s commissars, and again by the European Community’s “democratic” commissars.[44]
Yet, simultaneously, the Committee ruled that the principle of territorial integrity was not to be applied totally rigidly—the states are forbidden by international law from acquiring territory by war, yet they may gain, or lose, territory by “mutual agreement.” The agreement may not be forced upon a state (for example, as a pre-condition for a peace agreement) and must be reached through “negotiations between willing states.”
In addition to that reservation, the Committee reaffirmed its ruling # 1 that the peremptory international norms (such as the principle of no changing of the frontiers) are dependant on the respect for the rights of minorities within the borders of a state. The Serbs were comforted by the assurances that Croatia would have to ensure their full rights in order to preserve its frontiers, as Bosnia-Herzegovina also would.[45]
Yet, in 1999, and afterward, these “binding decisions” were differently applied when the matter of Kosovo* was concerned. The Moslem Albanian minority within Serbia was declared an endangered minority whose rights were not respected by the government of Serbia, justifying the separation of Kosovo* from the rest of Serbia’s territory. At the same time, the Serbs of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, a constitutive nation of that country and its legal and recognized political and territorial entity, had been consistently denied the right to separate from Bosnia and Herzegovina in spite of a mountain of evidence of violations of their human and political rights, both by their “compatriots” of different ethnicities and religious affiliations and by the officials of the “international community” operating in Bosnia-Herzegovina, while over 200,000 Serbs were expelled from Croatia in 1995, in the greatest violent ethnic cleansing in Europe since WWII.
In spite of all this evidence, presented here in this short analysis, ICTY did not indict the Commission’s members as individuals responsible for the crimes committed on the territory of Yugoslavia after January 1991, thus establishing the precedent that only certain officials are indictable while others belong in the protected category — the Balkan ones, and especially the Serbs, being the ones for whom there exists an unrelenting and interminable open season.
Simultaneously to the contrivances of the Badinter Commission’s responsibility evasion, ICTY had, under the US pressure, deprived the states of Yugoslavia (during its destruction) and Serbia (during the robbery of Kosovo* and Metohija) of their most essential and sacred rights and obligations — self-defense and preservation of their sovereignty and territorial integrity — expressly ruling that Yugoslavia and Serbia must cede territories and claims to any rights to Serbs or property in the newly seceded lands. Of course, no one among the West’s elites had any qualms about that, or about the obvious ridiculousness of their later claims against Russia, for example, when Crimeans[46] voted in free and peaceful elections to succeed from Ukraine, and then to rejoin the Russian Federation.
There is a long list of most outrageous examples of this western “historical” narrative hypocrisy, starting with the March 27, 2014, statement by the then U.K. Foreign Secretary William Hague, who, in light of U.K.’s Kosovo* behavior, sounded comical when, regarding the reunification of Crimea with Russia, insisted that “Russia cannot simply trample over international law,” and reminded the world of “the fundamental principles upon which the UN was founded: principles of territorial integrity and of the non-use of force.”[47] Another European, Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt (a mediator during the Balkan conflict, the EU’s special envoy to Former Yugoslavia, and the U.N. Secretary General’s special envoy to the Balkans), who took active part in violations of international law during the last couple of decades, and who worked hard on justifying why its rules didn’t apply to the West, left aghast all remembering and thinking people when he stated in Athens, Greece: “We should be very firm on international law and the rules that must apply.”[48] To make sure everyone knew how consistent the European Union is when it comes to international law and order, its foreign affairs chief, Catherine Ashton, said that “the Ukrainian government has the right to defend its sovereignty”[49], forgetting conveniently that the whole Serbian leadership ended up in the “Tribunal” in the Hague for doing the same thing! Other international clowns joined in with their public stand-up comedy acts—U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., Samantha Power, tweeted on the same day that “borders are not mere suggestions”[50], and U.S. Vice President Biden insisted, in a speech to the Atlantic Council, on “the fundamental principle that Europe’s borders cannot be changed by military force”[51], while the director of their lethal circus, U.S. President Obama continued to amuse the silent and unbelieving audience in Brussels, Belgium, on March 26, 2014, by blatantly hallucinating that “[…] Kosovo only left Serbia after a referendum was organized not outside the boundaries of international law, but in careful cooperation with the United Nations and with Kosovo’s neighbors”[52], although it was clear that no one was amused by his March 20, 2014 statement: “The basic principles that govern relations between nations in Europe and around the world must be upheld in the 21st century. That includes respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity — the notion that nations do not simply redraw borders, or make decisions at the expense of their neighbors simply because they are larger or more powerful.”[53] To make sure that Asia wouldn’t be left without some amusement, the U.S. defense secretary, Chuck Hagel, said on April 6, 2014, during a joint news conference with the Japanese defense minister, Itsunori Onodera, in Tokyo, Japan, that “[w]e must be very careful and we must be very clear, […] you cannot go around the world and redefine boundaries and violate territorial integrity and sovereignty of nations by force, coercion and intimidation […].”[54]
Thus, during the same period when the West, and especially the US turned hysterical about the sacredness of Ukraine’s borders, and insisted on Kosovo*’s right to secession from Serbia, they had been celebrating the New Lincoln, Barak Obama, and glorifying Lincoln’s role in preserving the Union and not allowing the Confederate States to become independent.
Since ICTY’s “historians” “forgot” to use those fundamental principles of the West and the US in their “historical narrative” about Yugoslavia, we must remind the readers that President Lincoln’s main and non-negotiable[55] position had been the “impossibility of dividing the Union”[56] and that the central government’s policy had been purely defensive, as well as that if any hostilities had happened the South would have been the aggressor. Throughout the Civil War Lincoln maintains that secession was an impossibility, thus, it hadn’t happened, and the Union had never been dissolved. Secession, in essence, is anarchy and all votes for it are automatically null and void! The states that had claimed to had separated from the Union had been in open rebellion, had “debauch[ed] the public mind,” and had committed treason.
Such are the fundamental views and policies of the US, but it had supported their inversion and antithesis in the case of Yugoslavia. Yet, a future, patriotic statesman in charge of the Serbian national interest and the state could easily re-invert and reverse the US antithesis, and use Lincoln’s arguments and principles in order to construct and create the new narrative for the history of the destruction of Yugoslavia, and to reacquire the rebellious and illegally detached territories that rightfully belong to the Serbian nation, especially if the international constellation of powerful stars in political and diplomatic affairs changes to favor Serbia’s interests. The West will have only its baby Frankenstein, ICTY, to thank for the precedent of ad hoc and sui generis precedents that recall only the convenient facts from the past.
Another shocking case of ICTY’s “historical” erasure is the infamous case of Slovenia’s “erased”[57] — one of the most clear-cut examples of modern age administrative ethnic cleansing[58] and genocide[59], although such charges were never brought upon the officials of Slovenia but were amply used against Serbians from Yugoslavia. It is an interesting case not only because “ethnic cleansing” is not a legal term but an ideological and propaganda construct but because the “erased” were most clearly and deliberately targeted in the time of peace and not in the fog of war. Yet Slovenian officials never suffered because of it and one may suspect that they paid back this omission from the “historical” narrative by ICTY by inventing a doctrine of “extreme necessity”[60] in order to provide “independent” support for NATO in the UN Security Council[61] during the bombing of Serbia in 1999. One may only wonder if they will remember this precedent when a future aggressive state disregards common rules of conduct and uses it to create its own “historical” narrative in order to justify its actions.
Conclusion
Écrasez l’infâme![62]
This author reserved for the end a very special case, which best illustrates ICTY’s vileness, not only because he personally worked on it as a member of an investigative team gathering evidence of crimes for the Hague Tribunal but because it was the first time ICTY tried non-Serbs for “murder; torture, including rape of female detainess [sic]; beatings; and inhumane treatment.”[63]
It is the Moslem-Croat Čelebići camp case — a case which ICTY would have never even considered for investigation and trial had it not been for three persistent, brave and dedicated Serbian-American women, who invested all their energies and influence in making ICTY give in to their appeals and pleadings for justice. The three women were: the late Desa Tomašević-Wakeman, Mirjana Samardžija and Mirjana Mišić, all from the San Francisco bay area, but originally from former Yugoslavia. The late Mrs. Tomašević-Wakeman was a survivor of a Croat death camp during WWII genocide against Serbs in the so-called Independent State of Croatia, yet, she never grew to hate anyone and spent substantial amounts of her wealth and personal energy helping all refugees from Yugoslavia who ended up in the US — that is how she learned of the horrors of the Čelebići camp, and joined forces with the other ladies to ensure justice would be done. Without them, the horrors that befell the population of Serbs living in Bradina, a native village of the Croat lusus naturæ[64], Dr. Ante Pavelić, would have been ignored by ICTY’s “historians,” although their martyrdom was ensured specifically by the fact that this greatest of Croats, a Papist racist[65], was born[66] in a purely Serb land, so their slaughter was organized for the official birthday of the other great Croat, the Communist behemoth, Tito[67]. The altar of evil had to be hallowed by the blood of the innocents.
Before I started working on this case, I believed in the words Victor Hugo put in the mouth of the French king Luis XI: “[…] the truth was ailing; I thought her dead, and that she had found no confessor.”[68] While I worked on evidence of crimes gathering, I started hoping that the truth would be resurrected, but after the case was tried and closed, I realized that ICTY, and the so-called International Community, killed it again, and buried its confession deep under the heaps of western political interests, ideological necessities and politically correct expediencies.
There are four names that still haunt my dreams: Esad Landžo, Hazim Delić, Zdravko Mucić and Zejnil Delalić — three of whom ICTY sentenced to prison terms for their crimes, and one, Zejnil Delalić, walked free, never having to endure even the shortest punishment for the deaths, sufferings and humiliations that were committed on his watch.
It would be too gruesome to list the multitudes of depravities these people enjoyed sadistically and repeatedly, carefully selecting their victims and premeditating each and every murder, torture, rape or humiliation of the helpless civilians. The evidence gathering team had documented it all carefully, submitting the testimonies of survivors and actual documents with the commander’s signatures to ICTY. Yet, the Tribunal freed Zejnil Delalić, claiming that he did not have enough command and control over the prison camp and the guards who worked there to entail criminal command and personal responsibility for their actions. The others were sentenced to 20, 15 and 7 years respectively for such abominations and repugnant deeds that one can never be completely free of their memory. Bellow, we will compare the mildness of their sentences to the ones pronounced against the Serbian leaders, who, just like the acquitted Delalić, as it was claimed by ICTY, never dirtied their hands during the war.
Delalić’s role in the case was described by ICTY as “[a role that] could have been a gratuitous exercise of his enthusiasm to be relevant, demonstrated by his meddlesomeness in a situation where he was not needed. The relevant institutional structures were in place, the personnel were not lacking, and he could therefore not possess even a de facto status.”[69] In this case, the “could have been” qualification was enough to acquit a very perfidious war criminal[70], while almost the whole Serbian leadership from this period was pronounced guilty and sentenced to up to 40 year jail terms or to life sentences with absolutely no proof of any participation in or chain-of-command responsibility in alleged crimes in Yugoslavia, except for the same formulation that it “could have been”!
ICTY’s Judgement (p. 212; Burdens of Proof) says: “It is a fundamental requirement of any judicial system that the person who has invoked its jurisdiction and desires the tribunal or court to take action on his behalf must prove his case to its satisfaction. As a matter of common sense, therefore, the legal burden of proving all facts essential to their claims normally rests upon the plaintiff in a civil suit or the prosecutor in criminal proceedings.”
Thus, ICTY admits to the whole world that it is the satisfaction of the Tribunal that is key to the result of the trial, and that the bar is very high when non-Serbs are in question, and very low when the Tribunal is to find Serbs guilty — for example:
Radoslav Brdjanin got 32 years for “being a significant political figure”[71] and for “espousing”[72] the Serbian leadership’s never proven “Strategic Plan” to create a purely Serbian state, separate from the internationally recognized Bosnia and Herzegovina (note: Earlier, the Moslem/Croat leaders of Bosnia-Herzegovina who separated from Yugoslavia did not commit a crime, and, later, in the case of Kosovo*[73] separating from Serbia, such separation was not a crime either. Only when Serbs wanted to ensure their own safety and survival by creating a state for themselves, such action would be a crime, according to ICTY);
Dr. Radovan Karadžić initially recieved 40 years for, what to ICTY’s satisfaction, were proofs of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, but then, after he appealed that sentence, the Tribunal increased it to life imprisonment, although many legal scholars and independent observers were not satisfied at all by the proofs of guilt;
The Tribunal was so satisfied by the plaintiff’s proofs of guilt that it sentenced the Serbian general Ratko Mladić to life imprisonment straight away, in spite of the obviously badly constructed evidence of guilt, and the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
The case of Dr. Biljana Plavšić (President of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina) is even more appalling — for she was first encouraged and allowed to make a political volte-face, betray Dr. Karadžić and replace him as President, after he made a deal with the US ambassador Holbrooke to retire and be left in peace, and then she was tricked by US Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, into a bargain plea, pleading guilty to charges of crimes against humanity and persecution because of ethnicity and religion, and, after being sentenced to 11 years, was quickly disposed of to a Swedish women’s prison, with ICTY satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of her guilt just because Dr. Plavšić, an alleged war criminal and racist, and a known political fraud and swindler, said so.
The previously mentioned hypothetical future historian, if he carefully studied ICTY’s documents, would have a very hard time understanding the bipolar nature of that beast, which has destroyed many private lives, ruined whole families and defamed whole nations by weaving a “history” so vile from the evidence much weaker or non-existent, while it created individual heroes, religious martyrs and national symbols eliminating, downplaying, ignoring and watering down the solid and undeniable evidence gathered by its own teams or presented to it by the survivors of unspeakable crimes.
And all of that was done for political and ideological ends, combined with personal careerism and greed, with complete disregard for justice and humanness.
Even if ICTY had managed to eliminate and suppress all true evidence of the crimes, that imaginary future historian could compare the Tribunal’s rulings and accounts of events with the evidence left on the ground of Yugoslavia — although it was the Serbs who were pronounced guilty and responsible for the horrors that befell her population, Yugoslav lands show very clearly the result of decades of fighting and persecutions, systemic discrimination and dispossession, which have left very few, impoverished, frightened, ghettoized Serbs, suffering cultural appropriation and existential denial exactly in the lands ICTY had declared ravaged and ethnically cleansed by the Serbs. A new Maimonides would be needed to compose The ICTY’s Age of Justice Guide for the Perplexed so that some sense could be divined from the volumes so carefully dedicated to posterity.
In the end, rather than speculate and hope, we should denounce and condemn ITCY for what it truly is — an abomination of desolation and a thing repugnant!
Émile Zola would not stop saying J’Accuse…!, if he were resurrected and saw the production of the Hague.
And as Voltaire would most surely cry out, if he lived today:
Écrasez l’infâme!
Endnotes:
[1] To hold a pen is to be at war. – Voltaire
[2] Lorenzo Valla – author of De falso credita et ementita Constantini Donatione (On the Famous but False Donation of Constantine), by which the claims by the Papists that Emperor Constantine the Great granted spiritual and temporal dominion over Italy and all the “western regions” to the Bishop of Rome Sylvester I and his successors were proven false. We hope that this work will help prove false the ICTY’s Manufactured History of the Yugoslav Destruction and Wars.
[3] Although it has been attributed to many other people too, including the famous British historian Arnold Toynbee.
[4] The US Ambassador Richard Holbrooke in his 2003 BBC radio interview “United Nations or Not?” stated that “[ICTY is a] huge valuable tool.” [Holbrooke, Richard; Radio Interview; United Nations or Not? The Final Judgment: Searching for International Justice; BBC Radio; Sept. 9, 2003.] Also, NATO’s spokesperson, Jamie Shea, made it very clear to the viewers of the May 1999 NATO press conference that ICTY was a political tool of the US and NATO: “As you know, without NATO countries there would be no International Court of Justice, nor would there be any International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia because NATO countries are in the forefront of those who have established these two tribunals, who fund these tribunals and who support on a daily basis their activities.” [Shea, Jamie; Press Conference; May 16, 1999 – https://www.nato.int/kosovo/press/p990516b.htm] Another proof is that it was the US who almost literally gave birth to ICTY, as Gabrielle Kirk McDonald, a US citizen and an ITCY president, pointed out in her 1999 statement at the US Supreme Court about US Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright: “[…] we often refer to her as the ‘Mother of the Tribunal.’” (We must remember that Time magazine, on May 10, 1999, declared her the mother of the bombing of Serbia in 1999!) [Israel, Jared; NATO’s Tribunal: Straight From the Horse’s Mouth; Exibit B: Excerpts from speech by Gabrielle Kirk McDonald, President of the Hague Tribunal at her award ceremony at the American Supreme Court on April 5, 1999; June 30, 20001 – http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/27a/146.html]
[5] Gutierrez, Dr. Bejerano; The Rise of the Inquisition: An Introduction to the Spanish and Portuguese Inquisitions; Introduction; CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform; 2017.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Cicero’s personal slave who took down endless dictations by his master, and who invented the shorthand in order to better serve him and not deprive the world of any of his wisdom.
[9] Jennings, Peter; Land of The Demons; Special News Broadcast recorded from ABC Evening News; March 18, 1993 – http://tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/siteindex/1993-Specials/special-1993-03-18-ABC-1.html
[10] Malić, Nebojša; Biden Does the Balkans; May 20, 2009 – http://original.antiwar.com/malic/2009/05/19/biden-does-the-balkans/
[11] For a detailed analysis of these shortcomings, see: Simić, Višeslav, Ph. D.; Perceptions of Misuse of Justice: The Yugoslav War Crimes Tribunal as a Future Conflict Seeding Tool; The Hague Tribunal, Srebrenica, and the Miscarriage of Justice; Unwritten History, Inc.; Chicago, IL; 2019; pp. 145-184. – https://www.amazon.com/Hague-Tribunal-Srebrenica-Miscarriage-Justice/dp/0970919875
[12] “On 2 February The Hague Tribunal chief prosecutor’s office stated that valuable evidence about removal of organs of Serbs captured in Kosovo was destroyed during the term of former prosecutor Carla Del Ponte. The case concerns war crimes committed in Kosovo and northern Albania in 1999 and 2000, when Serb and other civilians are believed to have been kidnapped for their body parts by ethnic Albanian KLA (Kosovo Liberation Army). The Hague Tribunal chief prosecutor’s office added that the pieces of evidence were destroyed with approval of Del Ponte’s prosecution.” – ”Former prosecutor Carla del Ponte allegedly destroyed evidence; European Forum for Democracy and Solidarity; Feb. 2, 2012 – https://www.europeanforum.net/headlines/former_prosecutor_carla_del_ponte_allegedly_destroyed_evidence
[13] “In late December 1999, the ICTY Prosecutor did state that she was investigating NATO’s conduct during the Kosovo war, including the question of the use of cluster bombs. However, within days, tribunal officials declared the “investigation” a preliminary, internal document that was highly unlikely to lead to indictments or even to be published. While the Prosecutor had said that if the report indicated that NATO broke the Geneva conventions she would indict those responsible, four days later she issued a press release stating that ‘NATO is not under investigation by the Office of the Prosecutor …. There is no formal inquiry into the actions of NATO during the conflict.’ It is, of course, possible that this quick about-face was unrelated to U.S. government denunciations of the reported inquiry into NATO’s actions. Another aspect is, however, suggested by the answers of the official NATO spokesman, Dr. Jamie Shea, to questions about the possibility of NATO liability for war crimes before the ICTY: ‘NATO is the friend of the Tribunal… NATO countries are those that have provided the finances to set up the Tribunal, we are among the majority financiers” (May 16); NATO countries “have established these tribunals [and] fund these tribunals” (May 17). He was therefore, “certain” that the Prosecutor would only indict “people of Yugoslav nationality.’” – Hayden, Robert; Biased Justice: „Humanrightism” and the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia; Wilson Center – https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/191-biased-justice-humanrightsism-and-the-international-criminal-tribunal-for-the-former
[14] „When allegations and then evidence emerged that criminal elements in the Kosovo liberation army had harvested organs from captured Serbs (and perhaps even Albanians accused of being Serb collaborators), the former ICTY chief prosecutor, Carla del Ponte, claimed that NATO obstructed her investigation attempts. It later emerged that the ICTY had destroyed evidence related to the case.” – Bardos, Gordon N.; Trials and tribulations: politics as justice at the ICTY; World Affairs, vol. 176, no. 3; 2013; p. 19.
[15] Boutros-Ghali, Boutros; UN Secretary General’s Report no. S/25704; Section 18; 3 May 1993 – http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/un-documents/document/icty-s-25704-statute-re808-1993-en.php
[16] Pipes, David; Herodotus: Father of History, Father of Lies – http://people.loyno.edu/~history/journal/1998-9/Pipes.htm
[17] Herodotus; The History; University of Chicago Press; 2010; p. 352.
[18] „[…] Polybius, whilst originally anti-Roman, came over to light of the Latins, […]” – Lloyd, James; Polybius; Ancient History Encyclopedia; July 11, 2012 – https://www.ancient.eu/Polybius/
[19] John Carew Rolfe, a respected American classical scholar, calls Sallust “a prominent Caesarian” – Sallust, I – The War with Catiline; Introduction by Rolfe, J. C.; Loeb Classical Library; Harvard University Press; 2013; p. 1 of the Introduction.
[20] “Livy, then, supposedly a jingoistic Roman patriot, presents moral appeals in his Hannibalic oration, […]. […] Livy aimed to introduce moral appeals from Rome’s dire enemy, even though he need not have done so.” – Adler, Eric; Valorizing the Barbarians: Enemy Speeches in Roman Historiography; University of Texas Press; 2011; p.98.
[21] „[Augustin] always rendered, and thus tried to explain, facts from the past within his own Christian theological framework.” – Van Oort, J., 2012, ‘The end is now: Augustine on History and Eschatology’, HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 68(1), Art. #1188, 7 pages – https://hts.org.za/index.php/hts/article/view/1188/2335
[22] „For Joachim, Christ’s Second Advent is somewhat progressive. Just before the beginning of the millennium, Jesus physically manifests His power on earth by using His breath to supernaturally destroy the Antichrist and the wicked. More importantly, at the same time as the physical manifestation, Christ also comes spiritually.” – Zivadinovic, Dojcin, “The Origins And Antecedents Of Joachim Of Fiore’s (1135-1202) Historical Continuous Method Of Prophetic Interpretation” (2018). Dissertations. 1656.; p. 297 – https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/dissertations/1656
[23] The Emergence of an Art of Reading History; Franklin, Julian H.; in Jean Bodin and the Sixteenth-Century Revolution in the Methodology of Law and History; pp. 83-88 – https://doi.org/10.7312/fran91664-008
[24] „On 25 June 1991, the declarations of independence of Slovenia and Croatia effectively ended SFRY’s existence.” – UN – ICTY website; About the ICTY – The Former Yugoslavia short history page – https://www.icty.org/en/about/what-former-yugoslavia
[25] Chapter VII of the UN Charter provides for the Security Council to take measures to maintain or restore international peace and security. This was used as a basis for ICTY’s creation, without ever clarifying the mystery of how a measure can be an international tribunal. [„The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.” – CHAPTER VII: ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION; Article 39 – https://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-vii/index.html]
[26] Indictment against Ljube Boskoski and Johan Tarculovski Made Public; The Hague, 15 March 2005; JP/MOW/949e – https://www.icty.org/sid/8626
[27] The US “wisely” signed a multitude of bilateral treaties with the Balkan states, exempting the US of any and all responsibilities. The US developed this legal loophole by citing the Rome Statute’s Article 98 as a basis for bilateral immunity agreements with foreign governments, which prohibit transfer of US citizens to the custody of ICC, even if a state has signed and ratified the Rome Statute.
[28] ICTY website; no date given – https://www.icty.org/sid/10052
[29] The Nuremberg Final Declaration; 1946: “To initiate a war of aggression is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”
[30] “I wanted to convey the idea of the break-up of Yugoslavia to those who had the greatest influence on its fate, to Genscher and the Pope. In fact, I had three meetings with Genscher. He enabled a contact with the Holy See. The Pope and Genscher agreed with the total break-up of SFRY.” – Mesić, Stipe; NTV broadcast; November 8, 1995 – http://yugoslavtruth.blogspot.mx/2005/04/john-paul-ii-and-break-up-of.html
[31] Walter Isaacson calls Madeleine Albright the principle initiator of the attack on Serbia by NATO – “Madeleine’s war,” Time Magazine, May 10, 1999, http://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/time/1999/05/10/albright.html
[32] Peter Galbraith, “was ambassador to Croatia during the planning and execution of Operation Storm. In that massive military assault, during which he was shown on Croatian TV riding a tank, 250,000 Serbs, mostly farming families, were driven from their ancestral lands by the Croatian Army.” – Israel, Jared; The Boss Pushes for Civil War in Yugoslavia; 9/16/99 – http://emperors-clothes.com/misc/civil.htm & Even later President Bush Sr. was quoted (anonymously) that the US policy “was to encourage [the Bosnia-Herzegovina Moslems] to break the partition plan.” That task was given to the US ambassador to Yugoslavia, Warren Zimmerman. – Bricmont, Jean; Humanitarian Imperialism: Using Human Rights to Sell War; translated by Diana Johnstone; NYU Press; NY; 2006; pp. 50-51.
[33] For example, Tom Lantos (D-CA), Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the US House of Representatives: “[…] the United States leads the way for the creation of a predominantly Moslem country in the very heart of Europe.”- The Outlook for the Independence of Kosova; Hearing before the Committee on Foreign Affairs; House of Representatives; 110th Congress, First Session; April 17, 2007; Serial No. 110-44; page 16. – http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-110hhrg34713/pdf/CHRG-110hhrg34713.pdf
[34] Former US Vice President, when he was a US senator, declared the Serbs “a bunch of illiterate degenerates, baby killers, butchers, and rapists.” – Malić, Nebojša; Biden Does the Balkans; Antiwar; May 20, 2009 – http://original.antiwar.com/malic/2009/05/19/biden-does-the-balkans/
[35] For example, Gerhard Schroeder – Reported by Telegraf.rs, 9 March 2014, http://www.telegraf.rs/vesti/981087-gerhard-sreder-priznao-da-je-nato-nelegalno-bombardovao-srbiju ; see also B92, 10 March 2014, “International law was broken when Serbia was attacked: Gerhard Schroeder has admitted that “like the situation in Crimea,” the NATO attack on Serbia in 1999 was also a violation of international law,” https://www.b92.net/eng/news/world.php?yyyy=2014&mm=03&dd=10&nav_id=89568
[36] Presidents of the German and Italian Constitutional Courts, the Belgian Court of Arbitration, and the Spanish Constitutional Tribunal.
[37] Ruling # 2 was the answer to the question put by the Republic of Serbia–Does the Serbian population in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, as one of the constituent peoples of Yugoslavia, have the right to self-determination? Ruling # 3 was the answer to the question put by the Republic of Serbia–Can the internal borders between Croatia and Serbia and between Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbia be regarded as frontiers in terms of public international law?
[38] A date, in the least, very insensitive to the Serbs, especially considering the meaning of the rulings, since January 14 is the New Year’s Day–January 1, according to the Julian Calendar, used by the Serbs for their national and religious holidays. A very bad New Year’s “gift” by the European Community indeed.
[39] Malić, Nebojša; Good Fences; May 21, 2004 – http://original.antiwar.com/malic/2004/05/20/good-fences/
[40] Another extremely insensitive date chosen by the European Community and the Arbitration Committee—on November 29, 1944, the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, at that time a guerilla group, in the middle of war-time activities in the Balkans, on its own terms abolished the legal government of the internationally recognized Kingdom of Yugoslavia, an official ally of the United Nations fighting Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, and proclaimed a new federated state, establishing the very administrative borders between the new federal units, the same ones that were now being declared international by the European Community’s Arbitration Committee.
[41] Pellet, Alain; The Opinions of the Badinter Committee – A Second Breath for the Self-Determination of Peoples; European Journal of International Law; Vol. 3.; No. 1.; pp. 178-186 – http://207.57.19.226/journal/Vol3/No1/art13.html
[42] Invented in international law in Latin America at the time of its decolonization in order to avoid chaos and post-colonial wars about borders. It was also applied in Africa when the time for its decolonization arrived—an example is the frontier dispute between Burkina Faso and Mali, settled by this principle in 1986.
[43] “[Serbians] the kindly hospitable people, who worked out their own emancipation from the Turkish Empire unaided, who have solved the problems of poverty for themselves […]” – Vivian, Herbert; The Servain Tragedy, With Some Impressions of Macedonia; R. & R. Clark, Limited; Edinburgh; 1904; Preface; page VII.
[44] Summers, James (Editor); Kosovo: A Precedent? – The Declaration of Independence, the Advisory Opinion and Implications for Statehood, Self-Determination and Minority Rights; Martinus Nijhoff Publishers; The Netherlands; 2011; p. 13.
[45] 22 years later, on July 1, 2013, Croatia became a full member of the European Union, regardless of the fact that it still has most of its Serbian minority rights unresolved and that most of the ethnically cleansed Serbs, officially citizens of Croatia, still cannot return to their homes and properties, and obtain even the most basic identity papers from that state.
[46] The Crimean Penninsula was taken away from Russia and given to Ukraine by Nikita Krushchev, a Ukranian himself, on February 19, 1954, as a gift on the occasion of the 300th anniversary of Ukraine’s unification with Russia.
[47] Press release: Foreign Secretary welcomes UN vote to support Crimea; March 27, 2014 – https://www.gov.uk/government/news/foreign-secretary-welcomes-un-vote-to-support-crimea
[48] EU working with Russia, Ukraine to defuse crisis; AP News; April 5, 2014 – http://townhall.com/news/politics-elections/2014/04/05/eu-foreign-ministers-meeting-in-athens-n1819206
[49] Kiev has right to defend its sovereignty: EU; April 24, 2014 – http://news.asiaone.com/news/world/kiev-has-right-defend-its-sovereignty-eu
[50] https://twitter.com/AmbassadorPower/status/449299481121783808
[51] Biden: Russia Can’t Alter Europe Borders by Force; Associated Press; April 30, 2014 – http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/biden-russia-alter-europe-borders-force-23533595
[52] Exposed: Obama states Kosovo left Serbia only after referendum, but there was NO referendum at all; Russia TV; March 27, 2014 – http://rt.com/news/obama-kosovo-russia-mistake-705/
[53] Statement by the President on Ukraine; The White House; Office of the Press Secretary; March 20, 2014 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/03/20/statement-president-ukraine
[54] Chuck Hagel says US will send two ballistic missile destroyers to Japan; The Guardian; Sunday, April 6, 2014 – http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/06/chuck-hagel-us-send-missile-destroyers-japan-north-korean-threat
[55] And so was that of the Earl of Sandwich, when he was to save “the Union” between the 13 colonies and the Crown. He declared that „he would hazard every drop of blood, as well as the last shilling of the national treasure, rather than allow Great Britain to be defied, bullied, and dictated to, by her disobedient and rebellious subjects.” But no such determination was allowed Yugoslavia! – Huges, the rev. T. S.; The History of England, vol. XV; A. J. Valpy; London, UK; 1835; p. 276.
[56] It is important to note another historical parallel – The US was facing secession 72 years after its formal establishment while Yugoslavia did so after 73 years. Here is what Lincoln had to say about the Union: „I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself. Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it–break it, so to speak–but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?” – First Inaugural Address of Abraham Lincoln; Monday, March 4, 1861 – https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/lincoln1.asp
[57] After Slovenia became independent, citizens of other republics having permanent residence in Slovenia could apply for Slovenian citizenship by the deadline of 26 December 1991.2 On 26 February 1992, at least 18,305 3 individuals were removed from the Slovenian registry of permanent residents and their records were transferred to the registry of foreigners. Those affected were not informed of this measure and its consequences. The “erased” were mainly people from other former Yugoslav republics, who had been living in Slovenia and had not applied for or had been refused Slovenian citizenship in 1991 and 1992, after Slovenia became independent. As a result of the “erasure”, they became de facto foreigners or stateless persons illegally residing in Slovenia. In some cases, the “erasure” was subsequently followed by the physical destruction of the identity and other documents of the individuals concerned. – Amnesty International’s Briefing to the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 35th Session, November 2005 – https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/84000/eur680022005en.pdf
[58] „The expression “ethnic cleansing” has been used in resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly and has been acknowledged in judgments and indictments of the ICTY, although it did not constitute one of the counts for prosecution. A definition was never provided.” – UN Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect; Ethnic Cleansing – https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/ethnic-cleansing.shtml
[59] „In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: […] B. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; C. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; […]. – Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide; Article II – https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml
[60] “Mr. Türk (Slovenia): ‘[…] concerning the question of the use of force by States. It is true that sometimes force is used without an explicit basis in Security Council resolutions. This is not a new phenomenon. […] In 1971, in Asia, a State Member of the United Nations used force in a situation of extreme necessity. That was a case of the use of force without the authorization of the Security Council and without reference to legitimate self-defence.'” – U.N. Doc. S/PV.3988; March 23, 1999; p. 19 – http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/kos%20SPV3988.pdf
[61] Almost to the day, 5 years later, on March 29, 2004, Slovenia was rewarded with full NATO membership for such creativity. Very soon after that, on May 1, 2004, Slovenia joined the European Union too.
[62] Crush the vile (thing)! – Voltaire
[63] “Today, Friday 22 March 1996, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia announces the indictment of four alleged perpetrators of crimes against Bosnian Serb victims.” – International Tribunal issues first indictment dealing with Bosnian-Serb victims; Press Release; The Hague, 22 March 1996; CC/PIO/048-E
[64] Freak, aberration.
[65] Although he married a Jewish woman, Mara Lovrenčević. – Bartrop, Paul. R. and Grimm, Eve E; Perpetrating the Holocaust: Leaders, Enablers, and Collaborators; ABC-CLIO; 2019;Santa Barbara, CA; p. 217.
[66] On July 14, 1889, but his death was ensured in Buenos Aires, by Blagoje Jovović, a Serb avenger, on April 10, 1957, an anniversary of the proclamation of the Croat genocidal state in WWII.
[67] The birthday entry for Tito states that he was born on May 7, 1892, but his birthday is still officially celebrated on May 25. The incredibly ritualistic blood sacrifice of the Serbs was scheduled for the 100th anniversary of his birth.
[68] From Victor Hugo’s The Hunchback of Notre-Dame – King Luis XI talking about the state of affairs in his times.
[69] ICTY; Judgement; Case No.: IT-96-21-T; # 683; Nov. 16, 1998; p. 248.
[70] Which is extremely disturbing to this author since he remembers clearly the survivors’ testimonies under oath that they witnessed him observing their sufferings in the company of the then top commander of the rebel forces of B-H Moslems, gen. Divjak, as well as their rebel president, Alija Izetbegovic — a fact that makes them personally responsible and involved in all the crimes, especially due to the “chain-of-command responsibility” clause, that was used by ICTY against Serbs.
[71] https://www.icty.org/en/press/judgement-case-prosecutor-v-radoslav-brdjanin-radoslav-brdjanin-sentenced-32-years
[72] ibid.
[73] The agreement for the regional cooperation and representation of Kosovo, of 24 February 2012, signed in the technical dialogue between the “Republic of Kosovo” and Serbia, conducted in Brussels with the facilitation of European Union, that states that the country will be represented at the regional forums as “Kosovo*”, since its sovereignty is not clear and complete – See: UNMIK–Division of Public Information; Media Monitoring Headlines; March 16, 2012 – www.unmikonline.org