ICTY: MILOSEVIC REVISITS HISTORY IN OPENING OF

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 THE HAGUE 002196

SIPDIS

DEPARTMENT FOR S/WCI - PROSPER/RICHARD, EUR/SCE -
GREGORIAN/MITCHELL, L/EUR - LAHNE, INR/WCAD -
SEIDENSTRICKER/MORIN

E.O. 12958: DECL: 1.6 FIVE YEARS AFTER CLOSURE OF ICTY
TAGS: PREL PHUM BK HR SR NL ICTY
SUBJECT: ICTY: MILOSEVIC REVISITS HISTORY IN OPENING OF
DEFENSE CASE

Classified By: Legal Counselor Clifton M. Johnson per reasons 1.5(b)-(d
)


1. (C) Summary. After a series of health-related delays,
Slobodan Milosevic opened his defense on August 31, 2004, at
the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
(ICTY) with a predictable, political, often dull, and highly
skewed survey of Balkans history. Milosevic repeatedly
blamed Germany and the Vatican, and to a lesser degree the
United States, for instigating the break-up of Yugoslavia and
characterized Serb conduct as a fight against secessionists,
Islamic fundamentalists, neo-Nazis, and terrorists.
Milosevic,s tired and unreconstructed presentation had
little rhetorical resonance, provided only the barest
substantive legal defense to the charges against him, and
tested the patience of the judges. Milosevic is expected to
call his first witness, in what is shaping up as an almost
exclusively political defense, on September 7. A decision
today imposing legal defense counsel on him is being reported
septel. End summary.


2. (C) Milosevic launched his long-anticipated defense at
the ICTY with a rehash of the same political themes he
flagged during his opening statements in 2002. He said that
the prosecution had presented an "untruthful, distorted
picture" of what had happened in the Balkans that was a
"tireless distortion of history" intended to shield from
responsibility "those who are truly responsible." The
essential fact that needed to be understood, he said, was
that these events told the story of the "violent destruction
of a European state." This destruction was a "crime against
peace" where mostly Serbs were displaced from their homes and
a series of war crimes committed against them. The war was
"instigated and supported by " Germany, the Vatican, and the
United States," whose policies promoted and encouraged the
secession of Croatia and other republics. These countries
"supported a totalitarian chauvinist elite, terrorist(s),
Islamic fundamentalists, (and) neo-Nazis." "In the face of
this armed rebellion" Yugoslav authorities were "duty-bound
to take all necessary measures in order to restore law and
order."


3. (SBU) Focusing the majority of his statement on events
in Croatia, Milosevic accused Croat "paramilitaries,"
"neo-Nazis", and "terrorists," of starting a war against the
JNA in July 1991 and committing ethnic cleansing and other
abuses against the local Serb population. Milosevic then
described Bosniak leader Izetbegovic,s alliance with the
Croats and, developing his theme of a battle against Islamic
extremism, noted his Islamic links and referred to the
arrival of Hezbollah in Sarajevo armed with CIA supplied arms
from Afghanistan. These forces were further supported by
"allegedly retired American officers" (e.g. MPRI) who
instructed the Croat army. In the course of this military
campaign against the Serbs, "five to six times more poison
(e.g., rounds containing depleted uranium) was dropped (on
Serbia) than was the case in Hiroshima."


4. (SBU) Under pressure from "Germany and the Vatican,"
other European states "prematurely" recognized the break-away
republics as states. Recognition opened a "Pandora,s box"
that led to civil war, the expulsion of Serbia from the UN,
and its diplomatic isolation. With these actions, "the way
was opened for craziness and lawlessness" and "it was
difficult to stop the blood stained process." By promoting
the break-up of Yugoslavia, "Germany " achieve(d) what it did
not achieve through two world wars."


5. (SBU) Milosevic made nearly two dozen references to
Hitler and Nazis in describing Croat and German officials and
policies. He characterized the "myth of Greater Serbia" as
the central fear of Germany and then traced the purported
history behind this "myth." This notion of a "Greater
Serbia" is a "sheer lie" and remains a "smokescreen to
conceal their own crimes and "evil deeds." In one of his few
references to the charges against him, he said that the "myth
of a Greater Serbia" took a central place in this false
indictment against me." The Tribunal, he said, is just
chasing "specters."


6. (SBU) Milosevic,s fixation with "the Vatican" was
another recurring theme. He described the Vatican as
motivated by a struggle against orthodoxy. According to
Milosevic, "Serbia was to be destroyed and invaded to
strengthen the Austro-Hungarian monarchy as a stronghold of
Catholicism " and, in particular, to serve as its basis to
expand to the East."


7. (SBU) Milosevic,s discourse on U.S. motivations in the
Balkan wars was more prosaic. Smaller ineffective former
Yugoslav states made it easier for the United States to
impose its "economic, political, and in particular, military
presence in Europe." This plot was all part of U.S. efforts
to impose a "new world order" and "the transformation of the
world to a corporation society under the leadership of the
World Bank and the United States, where robbery would be the
main motive." President Clinton was involved in "dangerous
liaisons with Islamic fundamentalists, and they include
Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, the KLA terrorists in Kosovo, etc." in
carrying out this purported policy. Once the EU opted at the
end of 1991 to support the independence of the former
republics, they all "became satellites of the United States."


8. (SBU) Milosevic,s discussion of Kosovo explored several
themes. First, Milosevic tried to show that the Kosovars
lived quite well under Serb authority (e.g. enjoying
"considerable political and economic freedom") in comparison
with conditions in Albania. Second, the withdrawal of the
Serb authorities in Kosovo led to a multitude of "acts of
terrorism" against Serbs by the KLA, including the
destruction of "150 churches." The "pogrom" in Kosovo was
the result of the collaboration between UN forces, the ICTY,
and Albanian terrorists. This made the ICTY part of a "joint
criminal enterprise." Milosevic alleged that the "terrorist
KLA" was "armed and trained" with the assistance of "Germany,
the United States, Switzerland, and " some Islamic
countries." Also implicated in KLA support is British
intelligence, Turkey, and the "Albanian drug mafia."
Curiously, after cataloging abuses committed by the KLA,
Milosevic, noted that "in addition to FAS, the State
Department is the only institution in the U.S. that deals
with the question of terrorist organizations seriously."
Truer to form he then referred to the "partnership between
Clinton and the KLA" and described meetings between former
U.S. officials and KLA members. This alliance between the
United State, NATO, and the KLA led to the Racak massacre
which, in Milosevic,s version of history, was a media event
constructed to provide a pretext for "NATO aggression." In
reviewing the subsequent bombing campaign, Milosevic repeated
old charges that NATO forces committed numerous war crimes
involving the use of cluster bombs and depleted uranium
rounds. He added that by targeting chemical-related
facilities, "a chemical war was also waged against Serbia" by
NATO.


9. (SBU) Milosevic diverged briefly from his history lesson
to reiterate his attack on the legitimacy of the Tribunal,
commenting that "it is illusory to look for logic in a staged
process." He said the Tribunal represents "serious
discrimination" against one country and that only the
International Court of Justice could provide an authoritative
view on the Tribunal,s legitimacy. The Tribunal was
"neither international nor independent." He described it as
an idea of former German FM Kinkel that was then taken over
by former Secretary Albright and championed by the Soros
Foundation and NGO,s like Coalition for International
Justice. Milosevic alleged that there were regular
communications between SHAPE and the Chief Prosecutor,
confirming that "it,s a NATO institution." It was funded by
NATO, Soros, Islamic countries, and other "dark sources."


10. (C) The legal content of Milosevic's defense was
relegated to a brief discussion at the end of his
presentation where he challenged the validity of the "joint
criminal enterprise" theory underlying the prosecution and
described it as a "nebulous construction" used to circumvent
the inability of the prosecution to prove criminal intent.
Referring to Kosovo, he said that the prosecution had failed
to produce any orders to commit crimes or prove that any of
the generals involved had "any knowledge about anything that
could have constituted a crime before these crimes actually
happened." Milosevic also referred to the testimony of
General Vasiljevic to demonstrate that he had "personally
insisted that all perpetrators should be arrested." "What
else could the executive government have done ... but to
categorically insist on the Prosecution of all perpetrators
of crimes ...?" Milosevic asked rhetorically. Finally
focusing on the key vulnerability in the prosecution's case
he argued that "Throughout these two years you have not
presented a shred of evidence or a single testimony that
might indicate a link between a crime that was committed or a
criminal with the troop commanders, the generals you have
indicted, or the political leadership of Serbia, or me
personally. On the contrary you have evidence that we did
our utmost to prevent crimes." Returning, unhelpfully, to
his political case, Milosevic summed up his defense by
stating that the chronology of events, which he would
demonstrate through witnesses, indicates: "First, that what
the Serbs did were reactions to what the Muslim side did,
that is to say violations of the constitutional rights of the
Serbs. And this, what the Serbs did, was only making up for
what the other two, the Muslims and the Croats, took away
from them."


11. (C) Milosevic appeared robust and healthy throughout his
5.5 hour presentation, which extended into September 1. He
made extensive use of typewritten notes and quotations which
he linked together in his oral presentation. Milosevic,s
argument was largely built on fringe sources that he
invariably described as authoritative or senior foreign
officials whose statements were either taken out of context
or misquoted. (Note: Milosevic, for example, alleged that
President Clinton in his March 24, 1999, address to the
Nation on the eve of the NATO bombing campaign had said The
Serbs did not cause only World War I. Without them there
would have been no Holocaust." In fact, Clinton said:
"Sarajevo, the capital of neighboring Bosnia, is where World
War I began. World War II and the Holocaust engulfed this
region." Embassy legal officers have passed the accurate
text to lead Prosecutor Nice who today informed the Court
that Milosevic had provided a "complete misquotation." End
note.) Milosevic interspersed these statements with his own
chronicle, blurring historical fact with interpretation.
This approach seemed to have little resonance with the
Chamber which admonished him for making a presentation whose
relevance was not clear, asked for details about his sources,
and expressed irritation at his "offensive" and "flagrant
insult" that the Tribunal was participating in a joint
criminal enterprise against him.

12. (C) Comment. Milosevic,s propagandistic history of the
Balkan wars and its portrayal of the Serbs as being
victimized by outside forces was fairly predictable. More
surprising was how quickly the initial excitement at hearing
the long awaited defense turned to fatigue and disinterest.
After two hours of his presentation, Judge Robinson, various
clerks, and spectators were observed nodding off. The press
gallery, which had been filled to capacity at the opening,
dwindled as day wore on and the spectator gallery shrank to
under two dozen.. While Milosevic,s presentation was
animated and forceful, it lacked new information and a
connection to the charges at hand that would have made it
more compelling. Instead of addressing and explaining his
role in the events, Milosevic painted his story in broad
brush strokes reaching back to the 19th century and
squandering time on such issues as the "false accusations" of
Serb involvement in the assassination of Arch Duke Ferdinand.
Indeed, by taking this sweeping declamatory approach
Milosevic may have done little more than reinforce the
Prosecution,s portrayal of him as the overarching and
authoritative figure in the Balkans drama. End comment.
RUSSEL