After Freeing of Croatian Generals, Russia Questions ICTY & Resolution

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

 

UNITED NATIONS, December 13 -- Decisions, even on apeal, have consequences.

  The recent reversal of the convictions of former Croatian general Ante Gotovina and security chief Mladen Markac for their roles in Operation Storm in 1995 now impacts on the pending resolution on the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, sources exclusively tell Inner City Press.

  The resolution had been scheduled for adoption on December 12, but did not happen. Inner City Press looked into it and has been informed that Russia has proposed a number of amendments, including on the terms of judges and how to oversee the ICTY's remaining work.

  Some members view this as the politicization of international justice -- if so, not unlike the rejected request to Palestine to agree not to take cases to the International Criminal Court in exchange for votes for State observer status at the UN.

  It's worth revisiting what Gotovina told Croatian leader Franjo Tudman: "A large number of civilians are already evacuating Knin and heading towards Banja Luka and Belgrade. That means that if we continue this pressure, probably for some time to come, there won’t be so many civilians just those who have to stay, who have no possibility of leaving." See here, page 5.

   Serbs committed war crimes, for sure, for example in Vukovar as simply one example. But what is this Gotovina to Tudman quote, if not a Joint Criminal Enterprise?

  General Assembly President Vuk Jeremic has set up and tweeted about a debate on the topic in April, it's said with the intent to bring in some who fled in 1995. In a December 5 speech, the Serbian representative asked again and again, "Who killed these people?"

 
  And now, some over-dramatically say, who will kill the ICTY or the mandates of its judges? We will cover this and the April UNGA session, and the run-up. Watch this site.

At UN, Brammertz Blames All Bosnia for Foca Prison Break, Rwandan Responses

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 7 -- When prosecutor Serge Brammertz spoke Wednesday at the UN, far fewer journalists covered him than when he was with the Special Tribunal on Lebanon. At this this point, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia is not perceives as being as newsy.

But Brammertz in his statement to the Security Council said of Bosnia - Herzogovina that "the case of Radovan Stankovic is symptomatic of broader problems... He escaped from prison in Foca more than four years ago, yet very little has been done to return him to custody. We struggle to understand why the authorities in Bosnia and Herzogovina appear unconcerned."

Balkan sources point out that just as Bosnia has a three way presidency that at times paralyzes its decision making on such matters as Palestine's application to join the UN, it is also divided ethnically on the ground. "Consider where Foca is," a source said rhetorically. "So why did Brammertz condemn the country as a whole?"

This split in Bosnia has led, for example, to trips to Banja Luca by Israeli foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman, and a little noticed letter from the Serbian third of the government attacking a statement given in the Security Council. So Council members know about the split: why did Brammertz ignore it?

(Note: Council members may know of the split in Bosnia; French Deputy Permanent Representative Briens also put in his testimony a reference to the jail break from Foca. But he did not blame Bosnia as a whole.)

When Brammertz emerged from the Council, Inner City Press asked him. Brammertz said that Stankowitz probably shouldn't have been sent to a prison in Foca, that it may have been "easy" for him to escape.

Croatia's Permanent Representative spoke late and criticized and "refused" Brammertz statement that Croatian officials "glorify illegal war-time conduct and question the impartiality of the ICTY's judgements." Questioning is allowed, isn't it?

Inner City Press asked Brammertz. He said that for a prime minister at a political rally to greet a person convicted, and for people to question the qualifications of particular ICTY staffers is not acceptable.

Asked by a Serbian journalist about Serbia joining the EU, he said the Tribunal's preconditions have been met; "if there are other" preconditions, that's another issue. He declined to speak about Kosovo.

Regarding Rwanda, Inner City Press on December 6 asked UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Martin Nesirky

Inner City Press: there was a Rwandan journalist, Charles Ingabire, who was killed in Kampala about a week ago, and there are many human rights groups saying that it should be investigated. Some people feel that it has to do with things that he was writing about his native country, is the UN aware of this case, do they join this call that it should be investigated? I know that generally there is a line that journalists should be free to do their work, but this is a particular case that seems to be raising a lot of issues in the Great Lakes region, and I wonder if you have a comment on it.

Spokesperson Nesirky: I’d have to check. But certainly the point that you made is absolutely right. Journalists do need to be able to carry out their work without fear of persecution of whatever kind. That’s obviously an underlying principle. I obviously will check with UNESCO and others to see if they have anything further on that.

More than 24 hours later, Nesirky had not provided any comment. Meanwhile two diplomats entering the Security Council to listen to the Rwanda Tribunal statements, when asked by Inner City Press about the case, said that Charles Ingabire "was hardly known before he was killed, just Google him" and even suggested that government opponents might have done it.

That's adding insult to... murder. Watch this site.