The internationalization of both Canadian and Croatian foreign policy puts these two nations on a collision course. Hopefully justice will prevail for all concerned, as Croatia is to become a NATO member.

Lt. General Andrew B. Leslie (commander of UNCRO, Croatia during 1995), is a witness at the trial at the Hague against Croatian generals. The Canadian general is from one of Canada’s finest military families, and is the grandson of the Chief of Defense in Canada during WWII, and since his service in Croatia he has become commander of the Canadian army. Another Canadian former commander of UNPROFOR Major General (ret’d) Lewis MacKenzie was subsequently appointed to the Board of Directors of the Canadian Pearson Peacekeeping Centre.

After WWII Canadian foreign policy was deliberately internationalized in order to create a distinct Canadian role in the world affairs. Canada invented peacekeeping, which is a pillar of Canada’s foreign policy, and the 29th of May became International Day of United Nations Peacekeepers from 2002.

After WWII Croatian people were unwillingly included within the former Yugoslav communist dictatorship. It was the Yugoslav Stalinist era which prompted Churchill’s famous ‘Iron Curtain’ speech.

Although the 1974 Yugoslav constitution guaranteed the right of its republics to secede, when Croatian independence was on the horizon in 1991 Croatian civilians were bombed from land, sea and air. Unarmed Croatian civilians were dying in their thousands and ethnically cleansed from one-third of Croatia. As the Serbian-led Yugoslav National Army itself was attacking Croatia, including the Yugoslav Air Force’s bombing of the presidential palace in Zagreb on 7 Oct. 1991, the Croatian leaders had no choice but to look to an ambivalent international community. There is no doubt that the United Nations presence was essential at the time.

The internationalization of Croatia’s strategy for the defense of its people resulted in the creation of UNPROFOR. Subsequent UN resolutions created “safe havens” in Bosnia and Herzegovina, but Croatia got “pink zones”. Subsequent UN resolutions had strengthened the mandates of UNPROFOR because of Serbian intransigence, but ironically UN force was then used against the Croats, for example at Medak Pocket, which in effect served to prolong the Serbian aggression in neighbouring Bosnia & Hercegovina. It evolved that peace came to Croatia and B&H, as a direct result of an American-supported Croatian military operation, after the UN was unable to implement most of the Security Council resolutions in Sector South.

The current trial at the Hague against Croatian defenders illustrates the inevitable meeting of the foreign policy of two nations, Canada and Croatia. The outcome of the trial at the Hague will be reported around the world and its legacy will enter the history books, and fuel future models for Peacekeeping Operations.

The up and coming trial against Croatian generals at the ICTY on May 7 is a trial which will have consequences for all of us in the West, not just those directly involved. In the past, enemies of Croatia and enemies of the West have used the International Criminal Court to widen the existing rift between members of NATO.

May 7, 2007 is an interesting choice for the trial of Croatia's generals to commence. It would appear that many events have occurred on May 7 in the past.

On May 7, 1995, for the first time, the Serbs were called to account for their five years of aggression against neighbouring states at the Hague ad hoc Tribunal. On May 7 the very first international war crimes trial at the ICTY began against a Bosnian-Serb concentration camp guard, Dusan Tadic. And, on May 7, 1999 NATO missiles hit Belgrade.

On May 7, 1945 unarmed Croatians civilians arrived at the Austrian border after WWII when the genocide against Croatian people known as the 'Bleiburg Genocide' began. Over the decades since WWII, the number of 'May Day' celebrations have multiplied, and in Europe, talk about the impending May 7, 2007 trial against Croatian generals will no doubt fuel the May Day euphoria. As the Prosecution in the Hague opens the trial of Ante Gotovina, Ivan Cermak, and Mladen Markac, the 'Croatian Three', the atmosphere will already be thick with anti-Croatian propaganda.

Lies and propaganda about Croatian self-defence are designed to take attention away from the serious flaws in the indictments. The indictments against the Croatian generals are flawed in comparison with indictments relating to Bosnia & Hercegovina.

In the case of the Indictment against the Serbian War Lord Mladic, in Bosnia & Hercegovina, the Hague Indictment details the international recognition of B & H on 6 April 1992 in the Statement of Facts in Item 7 which is deliberately listed before the Charges.

In a deliberate contrast, in the indictment against General Gotovina it appears as if Croatia is somehow an unwarranted aggressor against Serbian-occupied territory within Croatia, and the UN recognition of Croatia as an independent state is not even mentioned. One wonders if the little-mentioned 'Republic of Croatia' in the indictment is the Croatia which was within the former Yugoslavia or is it the Croatia which was recognized internationally around the world. It is deliberately not stated. After reading the indictment against Croatian generals it appears as if the unlawfully Serbian-occupied territory (so-called RSK) within Croatia receives more legitimacy than the UN-member nation of Croatia. The Statement of the Facts in the Gotovina indictment appears only at the end as items 42 to 58.

Concerned people need to unite around this impending 'trial by media' issue and be prepared to answer the lies and propaganda which are eroding our western traditions. Indeed, slanderous articles have already appeared in connection with the up and coming Hague trial on a 'trial watch' website, entitled: "When Will World Confront the Undead of Croatia?"

Over the past years it has become evident that the ad hoc Hague trials, and some media outlets, are often used as a platform for anti-Americanism and anti-Western rhetoric. For example, anti-Americanism was central to the Milosevic defence and this theme will continue leading up to and during the trial of the 'Croatian Three'.

Canadian peacekeeping missions have been much criticized, not because of their "secret war" in Croatia, but mostly for their command of UNPROFOR in Bosnia & Herzegovina. (The term "secret war" was dubbed by Carol Off, a Canadian journalist.) During WWII the joint effort of the American, British and Canadian governments led to victory, but since then Canadian foreign policy has adopted an internationalist posture through the UN, in an effort to forge an active role for itself apart from the United States. When the UN passed a resolution to create UNPROFOR it was inevitable that Canada would take the first command.

Unfortunately, Canada's 'Operation Harmony' in Croatia failed in its mission to remain neutral. Even though it was the well-documented Serbian terrorism which led to the creation of UNPROFOR, it was the Serbs, and not the Croats, who were protected in Sector South by the Canadian Peacekeepers.

For example, for four years the Serbian shelling of Croatia continued unabated from inside Sector South, in spite of the presence of UNPROFOR, who had failed to implement any of their mandate. In Medak Pocket, when Croatia mustered the strength to defend itself, the fully-equipped French and Canadian UN battalions engaged the Croats in combat. It was Croats who had to pull back from their own homeland territory, not the Serbs, who had taken that territory by 'ethnic cleansing' in 1991.

This so-dubbed "secret war" waged by Canada does not get mentioned in typical criticism of the UNPROFOR. Ironically, criticism is normally confined to how UNPROFOR peacekeepers were militarily "ill equipped" to fulfil their mandate. Canadian foreign policy was implemented on the front line by the first commander of UNPROFOR, Major General Lewis MacKenzie, who was also responsible to the de facto Commander-in-Chief of Canadian Forces, Prime Minister Mulroney. (1) After 1993, both of those former Canadian leaders publicly revealed their pro-Serbian sentiments. Was it any wonder that in 1995 two Canadian officers gave the incredible testimony that Knin was "not a military target", testimony, in part, which led to the indictment of General Gotovina.(2)

The Hague indictments do not reflect all events on the ground in the so-called-Krajina. In order to justify the UNPROFOR combat against Croats in Croatia, who were trying to defend their own country from being bombed, it has been necessary for the Hague indictments to 'forget' the years of Serbian shelling of Croatian villages during the UNPROFOR presence, and before it. Indeed, it is not only the Gospic region that was shelled. Years of Serbian shelling of Croatian villages beyond Sector South, in the whole Zadar region, have been eliminated from the pages of history, and from the Hague indictments, in an effort to illustrate 'moral equivalency'.

The International Court of Justice verdict which cleared Serbia of direct responsibility for genocide in the former Yugoslavia was predictable. After all, during the early 1990s, the measures taken, or not taken, by individuals of influence in western governments, the Contact Group, and the UN all failed to halt Serbian-led terrorism in the former Yugoslavia.

A propaganda campaign has been spreading that Knin was in the 'Vojna Krajina' (Austrian-administered Croatian 'Military Frontier' zone), and that by association the so-called-Serbian-'krajina' created in the early 1990s was part of the 'Vojna Krajina'. Documented treaties in history show this Serbian propaganda to be a lie, a lie which served as a pretext for starting a Serbian war of aggression costing the deaths and displacement of hundreds of thousands of people.

It is essential to understand that Knin was never within the Vojna Krajina because this false propaganda underpins the Serbian 'historical' claims which have found their way into the Hague indictments. The issue of Serbia's false historical claims should be introduced, and exposed as lies, during the defence of Gotovina at the Hague. There is a legal precedent for introducing 'historical' testimony in a trial.

For example, in the Australian trial known as the 'Croatian Six' a quarter of a century ago, the prosecution deliberately introduced as 'evidence' the inaccurate historical testimony of an Australian historian 'specialist' on Yugoslav history. The framed Croats in Australia were incarcerated on the basis of this type of fabricated 'historical' evidence and 'police verbals'. The six Croats were subsequently released years later, but still have not been officially exonerated. Such is the power of propaganda on our legal system.

Tragically, Serbian fabrications are supported by many foreigners who inadvertently encourage contravention of international law and protocol. As part of a very vocal pro-Serbian lobby around the world many books, websites, and international organisations have shown unquestioning support of false historical claims. On some unofficial maps of Croatia, even today, a non-existent region appears known as the so-called-krajina, an alleged historical region which exists only in the minds of Serbia and its foreign allies. The false allegations or insinuations have been often repeated by authors such as Silber & Little, Misha Glenny, Richard Holbrooke, Mark Thompson, and many others. Authors who have refuted the false propaganda about the location of Knin and the 'Vojna Krajina' include Tim Judah and Ivo Banac.

In a legal context 'highly irregular' frames of reference are used in the indictments against Gotovina and others. For example, instead of referring to the official UNPA Sectors, or to internationally-recognized Croatia, the Hague indictments constantly refer to the unrecognized 'Krajina' region of Croatia. It would seem that 'Krajina' has been recognized in many international circles including the Hague, even though it was not recognized by the UN. These irregular frames of reference have been introduced into the indictments even though the 'Organization for Security & Cooperation in Europe' talks in Europe had rejected proposals to link 'minority rights' with territorial demands in 1991.

Indeed, Croatia's historical territory around Knin has been documented in treaties by the Habsburgs, the Ottomans, and the Venetians, just to name a few. For example, several stages of Venetian occupation which rivalled Ottoman incursions over the centuries around the Knin region have been well documented. For centuries Knin has always been an integral part of Croatian history, not Serbian history. Even when under the Ottoman Empire, Knin was in 'Turkish Croatia' (as designated by many official contemporaneous mapmakers). Later when Knin and the Dalmatian hinterland were occupied by Venice the majority of the inhabitants there were Croats with whom most of the 'Morlacchi' became assimilated as either Orthodox or Catholics. These facts are all part of European history but the Hague Court, in the name of politically correct 'moral equivalency', ignores the truth and betrays justice.

The Gotovina Indictment is a clear-cut example of inequality before the law and it does not take a rocket scientist to see its flaws.

Article 51 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights refers to the inherent individual or collective right of self defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations.

Croatia , a United Nations recognized country, was attacked by Serbian-led terrorists for several years, in spite of the presence of UNPROFOR there. Indeed, it was the widely televised Serbian intransigence and Serbian aggression against Croatia which had prompted the United Nations to create the first resolutions about the former Yugoslavia .

First, in order to carry out those resolutions prompted by aggression against Croatia , the United Nations established its base in Sarajevo , Bosnia & Herzegovina , thereby delaying peacekeeping efforts in Croatia .

Secondly, the Hague Indictments in reference to Bosnia & Herzegovina detail the international recognition of B & H in the Statement of Facts which is deliberately listed before the Charges against Serbian war criminals such as Mladic.

In contrast, it appears that in order to isolate the indictment charges against Croatian generals from any historically related context, both the United Nations Peacekeeping Missions in Croatia, and the ad hoc Hague court Indictments which refer to events in Croatia deliberately do NOT mention the international recognition of Croatia. In the Indictment against Gotovina for example the Statement of Facts inappropriately follows the list of charges instead of preceding them. In addition, after reading the Indictment against Croatian generals it appears as if the unlawfully Serbian-occupied territory within Croatia receives more legitimacy than the UN-member Republic of Croatia.

Thus, the process of law ignored the first victims of injustice until after many had died, or permanently left their homeland as refugees. The Hague indictment charges which refer to Croatia mention the flight of an alleged 150,000-200,000 Serbs from Croatia but nowhere is the flight of 400,000 Croats from Croatia and Bosnia & Herzegovina mentioned.

In consideration of the above-mentioned inconsistencies in the indictments, in the case of Croatia , it appears as if Croatia is somehow an unwarranted aggressor against Serbian-occupied territory within Croatia -even though the opposite is a matter of public record. In contrast, in the case of Bosnia & Herzegovina the indictments clearly show the Serbian generals to be the aggressors by the content and placement of the Charges in relation to the Statement of Facts therein.

The Hague Criminal Court indictment against former Croatian general Ante Gotovina, who has been wrongfully accused, is an indictment against the tradition of western justice. The tone and language of the 2001 Del Ponte indictment makes a mockery of the legal tradition we live by today in the west, that which separates our modern world from totalitarianism or feudalism. The perspective of this indictment, which was created out of the UN resolutions 713 to 762, etc. on the crisis in the former Yugoslavia , is available for public scrutiny on the internet. One of the consistent tenets of these resolutions was the continued UN arms embargo, which in effect punished unarmed Croatian civilians and not the belligerent Serbian-led Yugoslav Army, the third best equipped in Europe . The political division of the Europeans and the international community behind the scenes, in the creation and application of this indictment, is less understood by the public.

The EU is pressuring Zagreb for the extradition of the fugitive general, as a condition of entry into Europe . Recently, the EU's current president, Jean-Claude Juncker, reiterated the accusation to former Croatian General Ante Gotovina that he should understand, "he is holding millions of Croats as hostages" by failing to surrender to the Hague 's prosecutor, Carla Del Ponte. The un-constituted European Union appears to have forgotten that it was the Serbian/Yugoslav leadership which held hostage the citizens of the former Yugoslavia , and members of the UNPROFOR. The EU has made it clear that without Gotovina , Croatia 's EU entry negotiations will not proceed. But, for the rest of the western world, there are bigger issues at stake than Croatia 's EU membership. It is not for nothing that the American government pressures for the ad hoc Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia to close its chambers.

Internationalist politics and old European rivalries are reflected in the text of the ad hoc indictment against the former Croatian general. In addition, Del Ponte herself must be keen for a victory, as she jealously watches her predecessors move up the ladder following their successful convictions at the Hague . Former Canadian prosecutor at the Hague Louise Arbour is now the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights; and former prosecutor Richard Prosper is the newly created US Ambassador to the Office of War Crimes Issues. Following the defeat of the Democrats, President Bush had been pressured into doing something about the Hague court, against his better judgment, so the above-mentioned new position was devised, and Ambassador Prosper subsequently issued rewards for Hague indictees. But it is not America which pressures Croatia today for Gotovina's extradition, it is the un-constituted European Union.

The only conclusion that one can reach after examining the issues surrounding the Gotovina indictment is that it is Europe that is holding Croatia hostage. Del Ponte is actually from Lugano , Switzerland . But Lake Lugano is a pocket of Italy inside Switzerland , and was once headquarters and place of refuge to Mazzini or Mussolini. It's not difficult to imagine that an Italian lobby would be pressuring Del Ponte for an arrest. Interestingly, in 2001 a few months after the Gotovina indictment was issued, the Italian president Ciampi announced that a WWII fascist award would be bestowed on Zadar for the Italian fascists who were bombed out of Zadar in WWII . ("the flag of the last Italian civil administration of Zadar")

Gotovina himself is from the Zadar region, and it is in Zadar-Knin County that the Serbian-led Yugoslav Army and Mladic began their campaign, until Croatia 's Operation Storm five years later, when at last the bombing stopped and Croatian civilians could sleep in peace again. Then, began the yet unfinished process of clearing Serbian-planted landmines, one of which was on display in the Canadian War Museum . The Serbian-led Yugoslav National Army had bombed Zadar in the early 1990s from the Sea, Air, and Land, and deliberately cut-off its unarmed civilians from water and electric supply and from the rest of Croatia . Having lost this prize piece of real estate, now it would appear that pressure is on from Italy to gain through the EU, what Serbia could not gain through the Yugoslav Army.

For two millennia Zadar has been the object of attack, occupation, 'sale' or barter, by Romans, Venetians, and Italians, Hungarians, and Serbs, but the continued Croatian resistance has always been a thorn in the side of Europeans. The Venetian Doge in the 9th century slandered the Croatian ruler Domagoj as the 'worst duke' after Domagoj beat the Franks and spoiled Venetian ambitions. Gotovina is today's Domagoj. Little appears to have changed when we look at the bigger picture.

European attacks on Croatia go back over two millennia. It is in Croatia that eastern ambition meets western rivalry. The twentieth century was one of the worst for Croatian people, evidenced by their long term demographic decline in comparison to the rest of continental European countries, to the east and west. For example, in 1928, European diplomats had advised Croatian politicians to go to Belgrade to find a political solution to the economic exploitation of Croatia by the Serbian monarchy. Even Pribitchevic, one of the original 'Yugoslav/Serbian' politicians subsequently regretted the creation of the state. In 1928, the Croatian leader, Stjepan Radic and four other Croatian front benchers were assassinated inside a session of parliament by a Serbian MP. This incident has left an indelible wound on the Croatian psyche until this day. In 1945, after surrendering arms, the defeated Croatian army and up to half a million Croatian civilians were massacred under Belgrade 's orders. Hundreds of thousands of Croats subsequently escaped Yugoslav borders. This Bleiburg genocide is a matter of public record, published books, and television documentaries

In 1991, after the bombardment of Croatian cities, such as Zadar, Dubrovnik , Osijek , Karlovac, etc.and Vukovar, the remaining wounded Croats were marched away from the satellite television cameras at Vukovar, and massacred and hidden in mass graves at Ovcar. Ovcar is Croatia 's 'Srebenica'; as is ' Jazovka ' after WWII, where the remains of 40,000 Croats were discovered, along with canes, and old bandages, etc. The total obliteration of Vukovar is the Dresden-like scene which prompted the UN into action. Other Croatian cities, towns, villages, hospitals, ancient churches, cultural monuments, and their civilians were bombarded, tortured, murdered and otherwise ethnically-cleansed from one third of Croatia . Subsequently two million people were cleansed from both Croatia and Bosnia-Hercegovina, including Croats, half a million of whom never returned to their homes. Yet, in spite of the above Serbian terrorism, all documented on public record, in the media headlines, and on television, and not just a matter of propaganda, Europe is asking that Gotovina surrender!

Croatia 's defensive operations, led by Gotovina, between 1992 and 1995 expressed their legitimate and inherent right under the United Nations Charter of self-defence. Croatian operations were authorized only after the publicly-acknowledged failure of a much scorned and humiliated UNPROFOR to demilitarize Sectors North or South or adjacent Pink Zones (eg, Resolution 762 ), thus failing to prevent over four years of bombardment and the death of thousands of Croats. Lester B. Pearson, the former Canadian PM who received the Nobel Prize for his concept of UN peacekeeping must have turned in his grave.

Sectors South and North were areas where Serbs had terrorized and ethnically cleansed and murdered Croats from inside one-third of Croatia , during 1990 and 1991 . Many planned massacres occurred there under the command of Chief of Staff, Ratko Mladic of the Yugoslav Army's 9 th Corps. Do the victims of Mladic in Bosnia deserve respect and closure, but not in Croatian towns such as Skabrnje, Brusko, or Nadin? Apparently not, as the Gotovina indictment refers to the period in question as 'inter-communal tensions'. Is Gotovina acceptable to the international community as a soldier in the French Foreign Legion in a foreign country, but not acceptable in the defence of his own country?

The unprovoked aggression ordered from Belgrade should be put into a proper political context also. Whilst the rest of newly liberated Eastern Europe was enjoying multiparty elections after 1989, or a so-called 'Velvet Revolution', Croats were being bombed, ethnically-cleansed, interned in concentration camps, and massacred, following their own free elections. The de jure international recognition of Croatia during this bombing had already been scrutinized by the Badinter Commission in a three-month moratorium. This European commission issued a set of unworkable conditions which the EEC member nations themselves did not comply with, and recognition of Croatia and Slovenia went ahead. The facts as outlined in the Gotovina indictment bear no resemblance to all these events, especially within a legal context.

This is because the indictment has adopted the vague non-committal language of the UN resolutions about the crisis in the former Yugoslavia , which led to the so-called Vance Plan. The language of the indictment reflects a new legal concept of equal guilt of 'all parties', as did the growing number of UN resolutions, which appeased the opposing sides in the EEC, or at the UN. A dilemma about how to handle Serbian aggression and Serbian ceasefire violations threatened to de-rail European unity at Maastricht . But old European rivalry and competition in the Balkans is not the only issue reflected in the indictment and UN resolutions.

Clearly, an anti-American lobby is emerging through this court, a lobby which has obviously caused a gap in traditional western solidarity and NATO. This anti-American foreign policy is nowhere more transparent than in Canada 's input into UNPROFOR, which ultimately caused international embarrassment and failure, and its main leaders' pro-Serbian affiliations were later exposed. Both the former Canadian PM Mulroney, whose wife is Serbian, and UNPROFOR's first commander, General MacKenzie, have adopted a pro-Serbian posture after their retirements.

In trying to make amends through an ad hoc court, the original UNPROFOR mandates were adopted as its cornerstone, thereby adding insult to injury in the Croatian indictments. An article in 'Canadian Foreign Policy' by Cohen and Moens acknowledged that sharp divisions over the Balkan issue in North America and Europe served "as an early opportunity for Ottawa to re-conceptualize the manner in which Canada and like-minded states should address governmental breakdown, wars and humanitarian crises in disintegrating countries". Thus, it has evolved that a series of UN resolutions and Hague indictments about Croatia have put the so-called Krajina, a self-declared Serbian terrorist state within Croatia , on an equal footing with the de jure recognized Croatian government. How precarious now are the issues of safety, human rights, right of self-defence and the western system of justice, if this indictment is given any legitimacy.

The accusations against Gotovina are unwarranted, unjust, and in contravention of international charters. Rather, the key issue here is the bias and failure of UNPROFOR to provide peace and security to Croatian civilians over a five year period, and to deny Croatian people the right of self-defence, their human rights or their fundamental freedoms. The Gotovina indictment represents an attempt to cover-up the UNPROFOR failure as the Croatian people's exercise of self-defence is referred to as a 'criminal enterprise' or an attack on 'Krajina', a document which appears to respect more the rights of Serbian terrorists, many of whom have already been sentenced at the Hague, than the rights of Croatian victims. If this international criminal court is allowed to set such a dangerous precedent, civilians in Europe will no longer trust the law, as totalitarianism justice rules.

With an international public arena saturated with anti-Croatian propaganda, where can an impartial court be situated? Why is the entire western legal tradition being held hostage in order to legitimize an ideologically-based, anti-Croatian agenda?

The concept of 'equal guilt' applied at the ad hoc Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia is unsustainable unless the post WWII genocide of Croatian people is kept hidden from the world. When international law has to serve an agenda of 'equal guilt' the victim is justice.

The guidelines adopted for the 'equal guilt' scenario were inherited from UNPROFOR, and involve the censorship of the post-WWII genocide of Croatian people, a genocide acknowledged by American President Truman, and Sir Winston Churchill. Indeed Churchill first coined the Cold War phrase 'iron curtain' in reaction to the terrorism of the former communist Yugoslav dictatorship.

The public has been deceived about the role of Serbia in the genocide of Croatian people in the former Yugoslavia. In place of the truth it has been falsely claimed that it was Serbian people who were killed by Croats during WWII. Due to this pro-Serbian propaganda, the UN has been able to 'balance' the one-sided Serbian aggression between 1991 and 1995. The discrepancies in various ICTY indictments and pattern of arrests suggest that an 'equal guilt' paradigm does exist, a model which the UN believes should lead to 'reconciliation'. 'Reconciliation' is the raison d'etre of UN missions.

The fact is that although the former Yugoslav Central Committee was led by Tito, it was dominated by Serbs. Serbian cadres dominated all layers of the infrastructure and military. This Serbian coup of power was the result of the massive post WWII slaughter, incarceration, torture and exodus of Croatian people. The demographics speak for themselves.

What really happened? In what is also known as the 'Klagenfurt Conspiracy' thousands of surrendered Croats were disarmed and repatriated from the British sector of post WWII Austria, although the great majority of those Croats who were massacred by the Yugoslavs never reached the point of surrender. In an article in Zadarski List, Ivo Matanovic from Zadar, commented that under Tito it was the bloodiest era which Croatia ever experienced in its history. (HV, 23.1.04)

After WWII famous leaders commented on this tragedy but their words have been conveniently forgotten since 1990. The Yugoslav/Montenegrin dissident, Milovan Djilas was quoted as saying that Croats had to die that Yugoslavia could live. According to former President Truman in the book 'Strategies of Containment', Tito killed more than 400,000 of his opponents in communist Yugoslavia before he could finally establish himself as a dictator. And, it was Tito's bolshevik tactics which led to Churchill's famous 'iron curtain' statement.

If Tito's western allies acknowledged that more than 400,000 of Tito's opponents were murdered, and other sources agreed that those killed were mostly Croats, then there was surely even more Croatian victims. Indeed more Croats died under Serbian-led communist Yugoslavia during 40 years than in the previous 400 years of occupied Croatia. These crimes need to be acknowledged, and investigated officially. So after 50 years why has this never happened?

The United Nations Security Council is composed of the same colonial powers which formed the Allies in May 1945--those same countries which were competing for zones of influence in post WW II Austria. Operating within the environment of the WW II allied intelligence community, and benefiting from their supplies and clandestine support from 1943 to 1945, the Yugoslav partisans in tandem with the SOE and OSS penetrated and occupied the Slovenian-Austrian border region. It is within this occupied region that hundreds of thousands of disarmed Croats after WWII lost their lives, in total disregard of the Geneva Convention re treatment of Prisoners of War and civilians.

The book, "The Repatriations from Austria in 1945: Report of an Enquiry", Cowgill, Brimelow and Booker, 1990, has taken the place of an official enquiry in Britain into the fate of Croats, and others at what is known as the 'Bleiburg Genocide'. Cowgill's book is an alleged "private" response to, and denial of, issues raised by Tolstoy's publication entitled, "The Minister and the Massacres" regarding the massacre of Croats on Austrian soil. An enquiry at this unofficial level is a slap in the face to the Croatian nation and to western justice.

In the forward of this publication, Brigadier Anthony Cowgill reduces the number and identity of Croats repatriated from Austria in May 1945 to "many". Cowgill refers to the Croatian refugees as an "incursion" of "fugitives" in chapter five which deals with Bleiburg in particular. Cowgill claims that no massacre of Croats took place on Austrian soil, but rather at a place called Poljana in Yugoslavia .

But the Allies were responsible for the partisans being in the Bleiburg region in the first place. The book, "Beacons in the Night: With the OSS and Tito's partisans in Wartime Yugoslavia", by Franklin Lindsay, 1993, details the British-led operations in the northern Slovenian-Austrian border zone. Lindsay's account of Allied-partisan co-operation contradicts the claim by Cowgill that there was a "confrontation between Tito's forces and the British forces" which forced the British to hand over Croats to the partisans or prevent their "incursion".

The truth comes out in Lindsay's book that there had been vague reference as to just where the actual Yugoslav/Austrian border fell. We cannot learn much about the actual location of the border from Cowgill: "the frontier between Dravograd and Bleiburg"; "200,000 Croats wishing to enter Austria via Bleiburg"; "Croats to be handed over to the Yugoslavs were encamped to the south of the main road leading from the Austrian frontier to Bleiburg"; "The column passed through Bleiburg, stumbling along the road eight to ten deep, for over twelve hours.".

Of relevance is the fact that the Slovenian-partisan ambition to gain territory (as after WW I) was encouraged by the British. This is exposed in Lindsay's book in detail, for example: "Both the British and later the Americans had supplied several planeloads of weapons on the understanding that the partisans would cross the Drava with the SOE and OSS parties."; "I began to piece together what I could find out about partisan capabilities for Austrian penetration."

So the question arises, which Austrian border were the Allies recognising at the time, and under whose jurisdiction did the initial massacre of Croats on "Austrian" soil, as described by Tolstoy, actually happen? If both the collaboration and the confrontation with Tito have been acknowledged, why is the Bleiburg Genocide still virtually unheard of?

Croatian survivors from 'Bleiburg' expect and deserve an official Allied acknowledgement of the Bleiburg massacres, so that Serbian aggression towards Croats in the early 1990s can be interpreted in a just manner. Croatian generals Ante Gotovina, Ivan Cermak and Mladen Markac, the 'Croatian Three', appear at the ICTY on 9 February, 2007. If these flawed indictments of the Croatian generals are any indication the West has not yet won the Cold War.

Milosevic's divisive impact on foreign affairs will continue in spite of his death. Not only will the cause of his death be the subject of much controversy, but historians will be arguing about his legacy for decades to come.

For Croatian people the death of Milosevic, which occurred during his trial at the Hague, will leave behind a legacy of injustice. (1) Croatian victims are still waiting for crumbs at the table of international justice, such as the apology of Milan Babic who also recently died suddenly at the Hague. The 150 year old era of Yugoslavism which became politicized in feudal Croatia is at last over with the death of Milosevic.

For the Hague itself the death of Milosevic has exposed its flawed structure and legal process. For its critics, the Hague is now open-season. A pattern is emerging of Bolshevik-style show trials and mysterious deaths in prison cells of former communists who are past their use-by-date. Of course Milosevic's Bolshevik connections are almost never mentioned in the media.

For some journalists in the media, the death of Milosevic has already created an opportunity to deliver a verdict in place of the Hague, and to further plant propaganda about Croatia's so-called 'equal guilt'. A political divide will now appear in the media between those who would defend Milosevic and those who were against him.

It has been argued in the past that the first ‘Royalist’ Yugoslavia was a dictatorial Serbian hegemony but that in contrast Tito’s ‘communist’ Yugoslavia was a successful socialist self-management experiment.

Similarly today it is argued that the UN Peacekeepers failed to carry out their mandate in the former Yugoslavia but that in contrast the UN ad hoc Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia at the Hague is successful in delivering justice.

Both of the above arguments are flawed. That the socialist self-management experiment in the former Yugoslavia failed is an understatement. Whether or not the Hague court delivers justice also remains to be seen.

In one of its own reports the United Nations has discussed how the Serbian-led Yugoslav Army’s systematic shelling of Croatian civilians between 1992 and 1993 resulted in massive death, destruction, injury and a continuous Croatian exodus outside of the ‘UNPA’s’. Yet this UN report was not introduced into any background ‘statement of the facts’ in the original indictment against the former Croatian General Ante Gotovina who led Operation Storm in UN Sector South.

Why has the Serbian-led bombing of Croatia and massacres of thousands of non-Serbian civilians before and during the UN presence in Croatia been referred to as ‘ethnic cleansing’? In contrast, why has the Croatian defensive reaction to the years-long deadly and destructive Serbian terrorism in Croatia been referred to as a ‘criminal enterprise’ by the UN court? Is it because the UNPROFOR never disarmed Serbian terrorists in the ‘so-called Krajina’ (occupied Croatian territory) where UN personnel were stationed?

With the tradition of western justice and self-defense at stake in this trial, naturally the court has another concept to justify its unprecedented approach to justice--‘moral equivalency’ or ‘equal guilt’. The UN Tribunal spokesman would have us believe that it is impossible to see who started the war in question because the so-called ‘Balkan conflict’ was a “civil war” which led to the end of communist Yugoslavia.

Fortunately, using authentic archival news reels and testimony, the Baric film reminds viewers of unprovoked Serbian attacks on civilian targets in Slovenia and Croatia including Vukovar, Skrabrnja, Zadar, and on Sarajevo or Srebrenica and eventually Kosovo. Indeed it was the three month long Serbian-led siege on Vukovar which ‘turned the tide’ so to speak, leading to the UN resolution to create UNPROFOR in the first place--a fact stated in the indictments against Mladic or Karadzic--but missing from indictments against Croatian generals--even though it was Mladic who also ordered massacres and so-called ‘ethnic cleansing’ of Croats in Croatia while still a Yugoslav National Army officer. The Baric film also provides us with a fair and balanced insight into the professionalism of the Croatian General Ante Gotovina.

That the UN mandate failed is documented in many books such as “The Lion The Fox and The Eagle: A story of generals and justice in Rwanda and Yugoslavia” by Carol Off, Toronto 2002. This book argues that the Hague court was indeed created to find justice in the face of the UN Peacekeeping failures. Unfortunately due to the author’s anti-Croatian bias, the book leaves the reader looking through the prism of ‘equal guilt’ in order to justify the existence of the UN court.

So how should we rate the Baric film? Did Baric succeed in presenting his argument that the Hague court has its own political agenda of creating a narrative, to interpret the war as a “civil war”, instead of a Serbian war of aggression to create a “greater Serbia”?

Baric’s film achieves its purpose and any criticism of the documentary film would be minor. For example, could he have named all Croatian civilian targets on the maps he used which depicted the occupied area of Croatia, before the arrival of the UN in early 1992? In this way, along with dates, the synchronized Serbian siege against all major Croatian centres would become evident at a glance--Vukovar, Zagreb, Gospic, Zadar, Sibenik, Dubrovnik, etc. were all bombed--and though not all shown in the film, a map and brief chronology would have been effective.

At the Hague court there is more at stake than Croatia’s honour! Also at stake is Canada’s integrity at the UN and NATO, and at stake is the morale of brave military personnel in Afghanistan from many nations—including Croatian soldiers who have been stationed in Afghanistan long before Croatia’s official entry into NATO in April 2009.

At the Hague court the former Croatian generals found themselves up against testimony from Canada’s most prestigious military commanders such as General Andrew Leslie (shown in the film) who is the grandson of the legendary General Andrew McNaughton--known as the “father of the Canadian Army”. Not surprisingly, Canada’s media is comparatively quiet about the Hague court and about Croatia’s NATO entry, in contrast to President Obama’s more public welcome of Croatian NATO membership.

The unprecedented approach of the Hague court has resulted in a ‘catch 22’ situation for the historical Canadian Peacekeeping role, for the future of UN peacekeeping, for the legitimacy of the defense of the Croatian nation, and for NATO unity. Some argue, particularly Serbs, that the Hague court is a ‘NATO court’--yet it would appear evident that the opposite is true--what enemies of western democracy and justice could not achieve through their support of the Serbian war machine in the so-called ‘Balkans’ in the 1990s they are now trying to achieve at the Hague into the 21st century.

A verdict of guilty at the UN ICTY for the Croatian Generals will be a verdict against the tradition of western justice, against western democracy, against western unity, and against the right to self-defense—ironically enshrined in a UN declaration. Whether justice prevails at the Hague court remains to be seen.