Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Monday, 13th October 2008

London from only £11.50 plus, over 50 Other Discounted National Express Train Routes

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Scotland On Sunday site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Gerald Warner - Karadzic is a comic opera star in a kangaroo court



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 03 August 2008
'I HAVE an invisible adviser, but I have decided to represent myself." Oh, no.
It is another Balkan end-of-the-pier show. For this performance, due to the indisposition of Slobodan Milosevic, his part will be taken by Radovan Karadzic. It is like Geraldine McEwan replacing Joan Hickson as Miss Marple. The five-year run of the S
lobodan Milosevic Show is now followed by another Serbian comic singer – and this time he has an imaginary friend.

The black comedy that is the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) is beginning another run and it is evident that the high standard of farce established by its previous productions is being maintained. Claiming his life was at risk from American enemies, Karadzic told the 'court' with paranoid self-dramatisation: "It is a matter of life and death. If Mr Holbrooke still wants my death… I wonder if his arm is long enough to reach here." ("Infamy, infamy…")

Karadzic insists US assistant secretary of state Richard Holbrooke promised him immunity from prosecution if he retired from the scene. "I must not only withdraw from public but from party offices and completely disappear from the public arena, not give interviews and not even publish literary works..." Now there is a drastic sanction. Imagine the deprivation of going into Waterstone's and asking for the latest Radovan Karadzic, only to be told he had laid down his pen.

The tribunal at The Hague has no more right to try anybody than the committee of Burnbank Bowling Club. The ICTY is an organ of the United Nations – itself the largest criminal enterprise on the planet. Since legal jurisdiction is a function of sovereignty and there is no international sovereignty, the tribunal is a sham. Over 2004 and 2005 it cost $271m.

It was not even established by the UN General Assembly, but by the Security Council, including Russia and China, whose Communist Party has slaughtered 65 million people – a historic record for mass murder. By what conceivable perversion of ethics could such a state be considered to possess the moral authority to try war criminals? Yet a Chinese judge sits on the tribunal, as do others from such iconic democracies as Pakistan and the Congo.

Besides its cut-and-paste jurisprudence, the tribunal is believed to have paid large sums to indictees to surrender themselves and provide its proceedings with star players. The most notorious instance was the Serbian general Nebojsa Pavkovic, believed to have been paid a generous sum to surrender and who became a father at the age of 59, following a conjugal visit to his luxurious prison. As a tribunal spokesman disarmingly admitted: "You offer attractive packages and you make the alternative not very attractive." Nuremberg this is not.

Even under its own constitution the United Nations has no right to set up this kangaroo court. It was established by authority of Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which states that "the Security Council can take measures to maintain or restore international peace and security". That authorises the formation of peace-keeping forces, but not courts of law, of which it makes no mention. Maintaining the charade, former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said, on a visit to the tribunal in 1997: "In an interdependent world, the Rule of Law must prevail."

So, how about starting in the UN's own back yard? Soldiers of the UN peacekeeping force in Sierra Leone were accused by Human Rights Watch of systematic rape. Peacekeepers and UN relief agencies' staff have similarly been accused of sexual abuse of refugee children in Liberia and Guinea. Then there was the oil-for-food scandal in Iraq, in which Kofi Annan's son was involved, when $21bn was embezzled.

Most egregious of all, was the UN role in Srebrenica, where Karadzic is accused of perpetrating the notorious massacre, during which 600 Dutch troops of the UN peacekeeping force stood by and did nothing. Yet today the United Nations, whose soldiers permitted the massacre, is putting its perpetrator on trial in the very country to which those troops belonged. Could you make it up?

This comic opera tribunal, along with its Rwandan equivalent and the International Criminal Court, is an erosion of national sovereignty. Sovereign states should try their own criminals. If Serbia truly is a reformed, free nation with credentials to apply for admission to international bodies, then it should be capable of putting its war criminals on trial with due process.

It is a perversion of justice to let Serbia off the hook by featuring Karadzic in a pantomime at the Hague. "I have an invisible adviser"… This one will run and run.





The full article contains 787 words and appears in Scotland On Sunday newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 02 August 2008 8:58 PM
  • Source: Scotland On Sunday
  • Location: Scotland
 
1

Geoff B,

London 03/08/2008 00:56:48
This writer is simply trying to be provocative - he says "sovereign states should try their own criminals" as though that is a natural law or a religious edict. In fact, judicial practices are man-made, like other statutes. In any case sovereignty does apply, since Serbia recognises the ICTY, which is why it handed Karadzic over. Moreover, far from being a "Kangaroo Court" making hasty arbitrary judgements and not allowing the accused to defend themselves, if the ICTY has a fault it is in being over-indulgent to defendants, as in the Milosevich case.
2

rusty nails,

canberra 03/08/2008 05:11:03
so, sovereign states should try their own criminals - just like that home of free, land of the brave, good old USA democracy does. Given the litany of kidnapping, rendition, rape, torture,murder and war crimes attached to the activities of this 'champion' of justice and the notable lack of any legal efforts to bring these war criminals to justice (not surprising seeing their Attorney General was shown to be corrupt anyway) with the exception of wrist slapping low ranking torturers I'm not inclined to trust sovereign states to try their own. Same goes for the UK - secret police thugs murdering an innocent tourist in a subway and then finding nobody was to blame......who are we kidding here. Think a bit harder next time thanks. Rusty.
3

MarcusW,

Aberdeen 03/08/2008 09:16:30
This article is based upon a number of errors in international law, fact, and history. Further, the author mistakes his opinion for reality.

First and foremost, had the author actually read the UN Charter (available after the simplest of google searches), they would find that the UN Charter does not in fact provide for Peace Keeping operations. This is what is known as Chapter 6 1/2 - it falls somewhere between Pacific Settlement of Disputes and the Chapter VII powers of the Security Council.

Further, the author has some decidedly strange ideas about the value of UN resolutions. It is resolutions passed by the security council acting under Chapter VII that are binding in international law; the General Assembly has no such power. The words of Article 41 of the Charter are broad:

"The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures."

The author states dogmatically that legitimacy stems from sovereignty. At the same time, he suggests that democracy is also the yard-stick that should be applied. One would point out that the only reason that the Nuremburg Tribunals took place is that the 'Good Guys' just beat the 'Bad Guys' in a war. A more intellectual response would have been that this is yet another case of 'Victor's Justice'.

The author's complete ignorance of both history and international law is displayed in his comments on Srebrenica. I would refer him to the Wikipedia entryfor that topic, thereby he might gain a slightly more accurate insight into the goings-on in that incident. He seems to believe that the inaction of a massively out-numbered and out-gunned contingent of Dutch peacekeepers is of equal gravity to the deliberate and probably-premeditated slaughter of thousands of non-combatants.

He talks of 'cut-and-paste' jurisprudence in a throw-away manner. He clearly understands noth
4

Neil,

Glasgow 03/08/2008 13:15:24
While all Gerald Warner's criticisms of the NATO funded "court" are factual it is a rather more serious thing than his flippancy suggests.

It is important that such "trials", whoever carries them out, does so with at least some honesty. Just as there was never any possibility that Milosevic would be found not guilty, despite the "court" in 4 1/2 years of "trial" having been able to produce no actual evidence against him (this presumably being the reason why he was poisoned), nobody believes that, even though there will probably be no evidence against him either, this will result in aquittal.

He is wrong to imply doubt that Holbrooke offered imunity to Karadzic. This has been produced & is well attested by non-Serb witnesses http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/age080108.htm Since, at least officially, the "court" is not part of the US government it may not be enforceable but it does prove that any statement by a US official is untrustworthy & thus cannot be used as evidence to convict anybody.

More seriously Mr Warner is wrong to mention the alleged Srebrenica massacre without mentioning that the primary & undisputed massacre there was of 3,500 Serb civilians, carried out with rhe assistance of Dutch NATO "peacekeepers". Unlike the primary genocide, which even NATO generals have restified to under oath, what we may call the "official" massare is extremely dubious, the official story having been altered many times & there being a lack of credible evidence & considerable contrary evidence. To be fair to him this censorship of the real facts is not unique ro Warner - virtually every journalsit, broadcaster & newspaper in the NATO countries has lied, censored & turned the victoms into unpersons for 13 years.

Nuremberg decided that the primary war crime "from which all others flow" is planning & launching aggressive war. Unlike with Milosevic & presumably Karadzic, where there is no evidence, there is no possible doubt that most leading NATO politicians, incl
5

Neil,

Glasgow 03/08/2008 13:16:10
Nuremberg decided that the primary war crime "from which all others flow" is planning & launching aggressive war. Unlike with Milosevic & presumably Karadzic, where there is no evidence, there is no possible doubt that most leading NATO politicians, including the vast majority of the Commons, deliberately launched an aggressive & criminal war against Yugoslavia to assist in a KLA THEY KNEW FOR A FACT WERE PRACTICING GENOCIDE. The ICTY's official duty is to prosecute ALL war criminals involved in war in Yugoslavia. If the NATO funded ICTY were anything other than a wholly corrupt bunch of racist Nazi war criminals themselves paid by NATO & willing to practice any sort of obscenity in support of the Nazi programme they could not fail to indict all the NATO politicians who are undeniably as a matter of law, war criminals.

We may expect our media to continjue to lie & censor in the Nazi New World Order as is their wont.


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.