War Crimes: Albanians Jubilant, Serbs Alarmed

 

http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level.php?cat=Security&loid=8.0.235428272&par=0


ADN Kronos International (Italy)
December 1, 2005


WAR CRIMES: ALBANIANS JUBILANT, SERBS ALARMED AT
KOSOVO VERDICT


-The ruling regarding the camp, operated by the Kosovo
Liberation Army (KLA) appears to contradict previous sentences from the same
court which accepted the
principle of responsibility for alleged crimes up the
chain-of-command.
-"[F]reeing Limaj and Musliu "had cost Kosovo
Albanians and their lobbyists 50 million euro".
-"How is it possible that no one in Kosovo is
responsible for the things which are evident?" he [a
Serbian official] added, also referring to events
since the province was put under UN administration,
including an estimated 200,000 Serbs and other
non-Albanians who have fled from Kosovo, three
thousand who have been either killed or are listed as
missing, and the scores of Serbian churches and
medieval monasteries have been destroyed.
-Last month the ICTY acquitted a commander of the
Bosnian Muslim army, Sefer Halilovic, strengthening a
wide spread feeling in Serbia that the Tribunal is
actually politicised and anti-Serb.



Pristina/Belgrade - Kosovo Albanians celebrated with
gunshots and fireworks the acquittal of their
co-nationals, Fatmir Limaj and Isak Musliu, by the UN
war crimes tribunal in the Hague, while Serbs
expressed "shock and consternation".

Limaj, Musliu and a third man - Haradin Bala - were
the first Albanians indicted for crimes during the
1998 Kosovo Albanian rebellion against Serbian rule.
They were accused of operating a prison camp in
Lapushnik, where 23 Serb and Albanian civilians,
suspected of collaborating with Serb forces, were
killed from May to July 1998. The court acquitted
Limaj and Musliu, but convicted Bala, a prison guard,
to 13 years jail.

The International Tribunal for Crimes in former
Yugoslavia (ITCY) panel, headed by Australian judge
Kevin Parker, ruled that "it has not been proven
beyond reasonable doubt" that Limaj and Musliu were
responsible for the killings. The ruling regarding the
camp, operated by the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA)
appears to contradict previous sentences from the same
court which accepted the principle of responsibility
for alleged crimes up the chain-of-command.

The ICTY ruling was greeted with celebrations,
fireworks and shooting in the air throughout Kosovo,
and president Ibrahim Rugova deemed it a victory for
justice. "Today's trial justifies the liberation
struggle of Kosovo Albanians against Serbian
occupation, the righteousness of the struggle for
freedom and independence of our country and confirms
the faith in international justice and the Hague
Tribunal," Rugova said.

He expressed the hope that "not all legal
possibilities have been exhausted" for freeing Bala as
well. Other Kosovo Albanian leaders echoed, more or
less, Rugova's words, praising Limaj, a former
political leader, and Musliu as national heroes.

But the reaction from Kosovo Serbs and the government
in Belgrade was predictably different.

Slavisa Petkovic, the only Serb who accepted a
ministerial post in Kosovo prime minister Bajram
Kosumi's government, said that ICTY decision was, "to
put it mildly, scandalous".

Petkovic, who is considered a traitor by many Serbs,
alleged that he had heard in Pristina that freeing
Limaj and Musliu "had cost Kosovo Albanians and their
lobbyists 50 million euro". It was unclear whether his
allegations that the court ruling was not impartial
were a reference to direct lobbying from the Kosovo
Albanians or from other outside sources.

Kosovo Albanians, who form a 1.7 million majority
against some 100.000 remaining Serbs, are demanding
independence in upcoming talks on the final status of
the technically Serbian province, under UN control
since 1999. Petkovic argued the ICTY verdict will only
encourage Kosovo Albanians to use violence to achieve
the goal of independence.

Jovan Simic, an aide to Serbian president Boris Tadic,
said that the verdict "presented a bad picture of the
Tribunal" , recalling that "not one Serb has been
freed" so far.

"How is it possible that no one in Kosovo is
responsible for the things which are evident" he
added, also referring to events since the province was
put under UN administration, including an estimated 200,000 Serbs and other
non-Albanians who have fled
from Kosovo three thousand who have been either killed
or are listed as missing, and the scores of Serbian
churches and medieval monasteries have been destroyed.


Even Belgrade lawyer, Vasilije Tapuskovic, who had
served as a "friend of the court" of the Hague
Tribunal, said expressed consternation over the
acquittal of Limaj and Musliu.

Last month the ICTY acquitted a commander of the
Bosnian Muslim army, Sefer Halilovic, strengthening a
wide spread feeling in Serbia that the Tribunal is
actually politicised and anti-Serb.

Close to fifty Serbs and several Croats have been
sentenced so far for crimes committed in the Balkan
wars of the 1990s.

If you can't shoot the messenger, lock him up

 

The Hindu Date:01/12/2005 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2005/12/01/stories/2005120106381100.htm Opinion- News Analysis If you can't shoot the messenger, lock him up Siddharth Varadarajan President Bush's alleged threat to bombAl Jazeerashouldn't surprise us. Ever since the NATO attack on Yugoslavia, the U.S. has looked at the media it can't control as the "enemy."     IF THERE were any doubts about the authenticity of the Daily Mirror story on President George W. Bush wanting to bomb the head offices of Al Jazeera, the British government would appear to have cleared them up by threatening editors with prison if they publish the text of the confidential memo from which the London tabloid sourced its account. After all, if the White House's line about the story being "outlandish" were really true, why on earth would Tony Blair  whose conversation with the American President last April is the subject of the memo  invoke the Official Secrets Act to prevent its publication? I can think of only two reasons, neither of which does Mr. Blair or Mr. Bush any credit. Either the American President did threaten to blow up the Qatar-based Arabic news channel because he was upset at its coverage of U.S. counter-insurgency operations in Fallujah. Or he did not, in which case the British Prime Minister wants to suppress the memo because it records Mr. Bush admitting  or threatening  something even more terrible. Tempting though it is to dismiss the alleged threat against the Arabic broadcaster as a "conspiracy theory" (as Mr. Blair is suggesting) or a "joke" on the part of the U.S. President, there is the unsettling coincidence of Al Jazeera having been hit by American bombs twice before. In November 2001, the channel's Kabul office was hit by a U.S. missile and in April 2003, a `smart' bomb terminated its Baghdad operation with extreme prejudice, killing a journalist, Tareq Ayoub. Even without reading the April 2004 memo, we know from an earlier outburst by Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that the Bush administration just doesn't like the upstart broadcaster. They move about on their own in Iraq and refuse to be tied down as `embeds'. They speak the local language. And the footage they show has rather more shock and awe than what the Pentagon is comfortable putting on air. Does this mean the U.S. would deliberately bomb journalists in contravention of the laws of war  and the "freedoms" in whose name Iraq was invaded? Perhaps not, but what NATO did to the Radio Television Serbia (RTS) studios in Belgrade in 1999 suggests this military and moral Rubicon is more easily crossed than one would like to imagine. During the U.S.-led bombing of Yugoslavia, NATO aircraft deliberately bombed the RTS station in Belgrade. Sixteen civilians were killed in the attack that NATO and Pentagon spokesmen defended as an act of military necessity against "enemy propaganda." RTS broadcasts may have been propaganda and Yugoslavia, technically, was NATO's enemy. But RTS was media and the people who worked  and died  for it were entitled to the Geneva Convention's protections from armed attack both as civilians and journalists. The bottom line, however, was that they broadcast things which the U.S. military couldn't control and didn't like. Images of civilians killed or injured by NATO bombings. The same sort of images Al Jazeera was showing out of Fallujah. The only difference is that in those days, the Clinton administration didn't have a Secretary of Defence who went around saying, "We don't do Geneva Conventions here." Contagious intolerance   Unfortunately for press freedom, intolerance towards the media is a malignant and contagious disease. One hostile act against journalists quickly begets another. Mr Bush's threat against Al Jazeera quickly led to Mr. Blair's ultimatum to the British media. Slobodan Milosevic did not go after CNN or the BBC, whose NATO correspondent during the war went on to become NATO spokesman after it ended. But had the Yugoslav leader done so and cited a dislike for their "enemy propaganda" as justification, how different would he have been from NATO? Similarly, threatening Al Jazeera makes the terrain in Iraq and elsewhere more dangerous for all journalists because it tells Al Qaeda and their allies that journalists are fair game, that it is okay to kidnap or kill foreign reporters. The slippery slope doesn't end there. President Bush's dislike of Al Jazeera is only an extreme manifestation of the antipathy governments around the world feel towards media coverage that they cannot suppress, spin or control. In the aftermath of 9/11  and the extraordinary perversion of democratic norms this has led to in almost all established democracies  this intolerance is being kitted out with legal and even military teeth. Britain's new anti-terror proposals and Australia's draft anti-terrorism legislation and proposed extensions to the sedition law, for example, both aim to regulate what journalists can and cannot report on pain of imprisonment. Under India's Prevention of Terrorism Act  repealed under public pressure last year  the definition of "providing support" to a designated terrorist organisation was left so vague as to encompass even news reports or opinion pieces. Moreover, as the recent British gag order shows, governments are quite capable of dredging up old, anachronistic laws like the OSA to control the dissemination of information when they find their backs truly up against the wall and when anti-terrorism laws are of no help. Section 5 of the OSA  making it illegal for an unauthorised individual to be in possession of official documents  has rarely been used in Britain and never against journalists. Sometimes, governments don't even need a `compelling' reason to act against the media other than the very existence of laws that can be invoked. In India, the OSA was used by the erstwhile Vajpayee government in 2002 to imprison a senior Kashmiri journalist, Iftikhar Gilani, on the flimsiest of grounds in pursuit of a political vendetta against his father-in-law, the separatist politician Syed Ali Shah Geelani. Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Jose Padilla, the White House torture memos and other dystopic products of the post 9/11 world testify to just how corrosive the war on terror has been for civil liberties and democratic values. We are some way away from the point of no return but if the media were also to fall victim, the prospects for collective recovery would be dim indeed.

Kosovo negotiations get off to a rocky start (with James Bisset comment)

Kosovo negotiations get off to a rocky start

There seems little cause for optimism as Serbians and ethnic Albanians refused to budge from their positions

By DOUG SAUNDERS

Thursday, December 1, 2005 Posted at 4:46 AM EST

From Thursday's Globe and Mail

London  With little international publicity and a great deal of pessimism on all sides, the world's most ambitious nation-building campaign got under way this week in the Balkans.

Nobody has ever believed that the United Nations plan to turn Kosovo from an embattled province of Serbia into an independent, multi-ethnic nation would be easy. Those who are attempting to hold Iraq together, for example, point to the expensive and lengthy diplomatic struggle in Kosovo as an example of how such efforts should be managed -- and how impossible they still can be.

Yet as they spoke in the Kosovo capital of Pristina yesterday, surrounded by an unusually heavy phalanx of armed guards, the UN officials struggling to negotiate the province's separation from Serbia are expressing optimism that Europe's latest nation-state could be created some time next year.

The former Finnish president Martti Ahtisaari, who was appointed by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to lead talks on Kosovo's status, has spent the past week travelling to the capital cities of the Balkan nations in a preliminary round of discussions. He will present his findings in a dinner speech tonight

There seemed to be little cause for optimism as Serbian and Albanian groups refused to budge from their positions this week, most observers said.

On Monday, Mr. Ahtisaari blasted the Serbian government for urging Kosovo's ethnic Serbs to boycott the political process, and criticized its ethnic-Albanian leaders for failing to address Serbian grievances.

"The negotiating parties are still massed in Belgrade and here in Pristina, trying to find a mutual understanding, but their positions haven't changed from five years ago. It's very difficult to say if they will end up moderating when it comes down to actual talks," said Besa Shahini, director of the Kosovar Stability Initiative, a neutral think-tank in Pristina.

"However, this is a period of calm and sanity in both Belgrade and in Kosovo, so everyone has a desire to get things going. The economies of both places are completely dead because of the uncertainty, so people want to get results so they can start working again."

The talks are doubly poisoned. First, they face the history of the region: the slaughter of more than 10,000 Albanian Kosovars during Serbian ethnic-cleansing campaigns that began in 1998, and the retaliatory killing of at least 1,000 Kosovo Serbs by Albanians following the NATO war against Serb leader Slobodan Milosevic in 1999.

As a result, Serbian residents of Kosovo, who are Orthodox Christians and make up one-tenth of its two million people, live in heavily guarded enclaves with almost no contact with the mainly Muslim Albanians, and refuse to participate in the region's elected legislature.

The war's embers keep flaring up. Yesterday, there were angry accusations and threats of violence across Kosovo after two Albanian leaders were acquitted of war-crimes charges at the Hague; that led leaders in Belgrade to accuse the court of partisanship, and to threaten to shut down the talks.

And the talks are equally poisoned by the mixed agenda of international forces in the region.

Many Serbs see hypocrisy in the current international effort to unite Bosnia's ethnic factions while dividing up Serbia into what will effectively be two states, one Serbian and one essentially ethnically Albanian.

But the UN and the European Union still believe that independence is the only way to bring stability to Kosovo, and most international observers, including U.S. leaders, agree.

However, UN officials quietly acknowledge that, if talks get tough, they may end up giving into a Serbian "plan B" in which the Serb-majority northern part of Kosovo, including the city of Mitrovica, would become part of Serbia.

In statements this week, Serb and Albanian parties showed little sign of tolerance.

"The Albanian people of Kosovo will never again risk living under Belgrade's rule," Hashim Thaci, the former Kosovo Liberation Army commander who now runs the Democratic Party of Kosovo, said in a statement on Monday.

And the Serbian government, considered a moderate alternative to the ultra-nationalist parties founded by Mr. Milosevic, has refused to accept any notion of an autonomous Kosovo, at least publicly. Yesterday, Belgrade officials announced their plan for a "free land of Kosovo" that would be controlled by Serbia.

That would not be very different from Kosovo's current status, which is carefully guarded by thousands of UN officials and international peacekeepers.

The road to independence

After 15 years of nationalist independence movements, ethnic slaughter, outright war and peacekeeping operations, what was Yugoslavia until the early 1990s is now five countries at various stages of independence.

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Three years of bloody ethnic war between Bosnian Muslims, Croats and Serbs ended with the 1995 Dayton peace accord. The agreement set up two separate entities, a Muslim/Croat Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the Bosnian Serb Republic. Overarching these entities is a central Bosnian government. Ultimate authority, however, rests with the EU-run Office of the High Representative as the country continues toward becoming a viable, peaceful, fully independent state.

Croatia

Croatia declared its independence in 1991, but endured nearly five years of sporadic and often bitter fighting with the Yugoslav People's Army and the army of the internationally unrecognized Republic of Serbian Krajina. The Croatian army prevailed and integration of the separatist territories was completed in 1998 under UN supervision.

Macedonia

Its current borders were fixed shortly after the Second World War when it was recognized as a separate nation within Yugoslavia. Although it is quite diverse, with a majority of ethnic Macedonians but a large population of Albanians as well as Turks, Roma and Serbs, Macedonia seceded peacefully in 1991.

Serbia and Montenegro

Serbia and Montenegro held on to the name Yugoslavia after the breakup until 2003, when its parliament voted to create a new, looser union. The two republics are semi-independent states in an arrangement that is to remain in place until at least 2006, after which the two republics can hold referendums on whether to keep or scrap it.

Kosovo province

In 1998, violence flared in Serbia's province of Kosovo after it was stripped of its autonomy. The Kosovo Liberation Army began an armed rebellion, which was brutally put down by the Serbian army until international forces intervened and the United Nations took over administration. It is now a de facto international protectorate but legally part of Serbia. Its status remains the subject of a bitter dispute between the Albanian majority, which seeks independence, and the minority Serbs.

Slovenia

A stable and independent country, Slovenia is the only former Yugoslav republic to join the European Union and NATO. Its independence was relatively bloodless, aided by Western European recognition of the Slovenes' aspirations and the low proportion of other ethnic groups.

SOURCE: BBC.CO.UK