Instead of his usual drivel Martin Bell actually says some semi-sensible things here amongst the cliches. But check out some of the comments especially the one from a certain "nabla" which I excerpt below the article. His/her point on Zepa is one I make a lot in discussion but have rarely seen it anywhere else. Anyone know who NABLA is?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/26/radovan-karadzic-trial-w ar-crimes?showallcomments=true Karadzic isn't the only one on trial The former Bosnia Serb leader Radovan Karadzic must face justice, but the war crimes tribunal is itself in the dock The trial of Radovan Karadzic, the former Bosnian Serb leader, must go ahead with or without the participation of the accused. He has attempted to stall proceedings at The Hague's war crimes tribunal, boycotting <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/26/radovan-karadzic-war-crimes-tri al> its opening on the grounds that he needs more time to prepare his case, and the presiding judge has adjourned the court until tomorrow. But Karadzic has had more than a year in which to prepare his defence. Justice delayed is justice denied. It is time that he faced the evidence against him. He can rightly claim that much of the pre-trial publicity has been prejudicial. The same was true in the Slobodan Milosevic case <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/milosevictrial> . That is why it is more important than ever that the processes of justice are seen to be fair and scrupulous, with maximum attention to the rights of the accused, even if the accused is trying to obstruct them. The war <http://www.icty.org/> crimes tribunal is a prosecutor's court. Sometimes in the past it has seemed to be more interested in securing convictions than in delivering justice. That must not happen in this case. Karadzic's appearance in court cannot escape having some of the elements of a show trial, because the eyes of the world will be on it. The TV coverage will be broadcast, and widely viewed, throughout the Balkans. That is an additional reason, in my view, why an acquittal for lack of sufficient evidence would be more to the tribunal's credit than a conviction unsafely arrived at. As one of many who has been approached to give evidence, I shall do so, if required, but with some trepidation. Memories fade. All the witnesses will be drawing on their recollection of events that occurred between 14 and 17 years ago. Documentary evidence will be crucial – especially any paper trail leading from Karadzic's headquarters in Pale to the actions taken by the Bosnian Serb army after the fall of Srebrenica in July 1995. Front lines were crumbling. It was a time of tension between Karadzic and his army commander, Ratko Mladic, who is still at large. "Maybe we went too far with <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/features/3637415/Radovan-Karadzic-and-the-B osnian-conflictWe-could-have-ended-it-sooner.html> General Mladic," Karadzic has observed, "we made a legend of him." The centrepiece of the charge sheet against Karadzic is his alleged complicity in the Srebrenica massacre in which 8,000 Muslim men and boys were killed in cold blood after the fall of the UN "safe haven". But this is also a good time to reflect on the blame that was shared by the western democracies with troops in Unprofor <http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/co_mission/unprofor.htm> , the UN protection force that did not protect. The British, French and Dutch were the main players at the time. The Dutch capitulated at Srebrenica. The French proposed its relief. The British demurred. The massacre occurred at a time when there were more than 30,000 UN troops in Bosnia. The ability to intervene was there. The political will was not. To claims that no one could have known what the Serbs would do, I would argue that the massacre was predictable, if not inevitable. The Serbs held the Muslims of Srebrenica collectively responsible for a series of killings in the area, notably a massacre of 50 Serbs <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kravica_incident_%281993%29> in a village near Bratunac on 7 January 1993. Revenge was always the most likely option. The war crimes tribunal is not about revenge. It is, or should be, about justice. Courts try cases. Cases also try courts. I believe that the tribunal will be judged by the fairness of its proceedings in this case more than any other than has come before it. NABLA comment: nabla <http://www.guardian.co.uk/users/nabla> 26 Oct 09, 2:35pm No justice will be done here. No justice will be seen to be done here. How can anyone possibly defend himself against 1.2 million pages of documentation? If the prosecutorion's case is so strong, couldn't they collect a few thousand pages of documents, such as written orders or transcripts of conversations by Karadzic where a policy of atrocities or specific atrocities were sanctioned? Or bring forth insider witnesses? Clearly, rather that using a clear and direct chain of command, they're going to fling every real and potential atrocity perpetrated by Bosnian Serbs and claim that he was responsible for it all. This has all been rehashed in the past, the criminality of Western forces, the criminality of Bosnian Muslims, Albanians, and Croats. What is most disturbing is that this court is systematically attempting to whitewash the crimes of non-Serbs by either ignoring them or selecting a few non-political widely publicized events and keeping the profile of those trials low. For Serb victims of Muslim/Croat camps, there was the camp at Celebici in Konjic; this was tried at the Hague. However, there were dozens if not hundreds more camps where Serbs were held. For non-Serb victims, there were many, many trials regarding Omarska, Crkvina, Trnopolje, Keraterm, Susica, etc. So a false picture is generated: Serbs have "systematic" camps all over the place and Muslims/Croats have this one isolated little camp in Celebici. Another instance: Croatian generals have been tried for atrocities in Krajina, yet no politician has been tried for a policy of persecution, expulsion, and murder, that ended in the flight of over 400,000 Croatian Serbs (2/3 of the entire population) in several waves (1990, 1991, 1993, May 1995, and August 1995) and the killings of thousands. So Karadzic and Milosevic are criminal politicians , but Tudjman is a good guy who just happened to preside over a few rogue general that drove out/killed 2/3 of Croatia's Serbs. What is most disturbing is the lack of clarity regarding Srebrenica. What never made sense was how different what is alleged to have taken place there is from what took place at Zepa. If there was a policy of genocide at Srebrenica, why none at the other safe haven to fall - Zepa? What was different about them? Seems a very strange and inconsistent policy of genocide where you are taking the trouble to exterminate all the men in one village (and deporting the women and children, and burying all the victims) and in the next you are just deporting them all. Or, more likely, the events around Srebrenica from 1992 until 1995 were markedly different from those at Zepa - something the media refuses to report because it puts Muslims in a bad light. Carl Bildt's book does suggest that at Srebrenica less than half of the victims were massacred POWs/civilians and the rest died in ambushes and battles as they fled to Tuzla. Putting this together with Oric's atrocities, it emerges that Srebrenica was quite different from what the media has presented it as being.
