| The 'Croatian Three' |
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'. |
| Jean Lunt Marinovic |
| January 2007 |
| The "Secret War" against Croatia |
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. |
| (1) The Queen is the official Commander-in-Chief of the Canadian Forces. |
| (2) Knin was an army barracks headquarters for the Serbian terrorist forces until Operation Storm in August 1995. |
| Jean Lunt Marinovic |
| March 2007 |
| Knin Never Located in 'Military Frontier' |
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. |
| Jean Lunt Marinovic |
| February 2007 |
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 . |
Finally, in the theme of the initial UN presence being first in Bosnia & Herzegovina instead of Croatia , the Hague indictments also first related to Serbian genocide in Bosnia & Herzegovina . Only later did Serbian-led terrorism in Croatia begin to be investigated by the Hague , although this did not receive as much media cover as other indictments. |
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. |
| Jean Lunt Marinovic |
| January 2006 |
| Link: Western Justice Held Hostage by the Hague |
| Link: Is The West on Trial at the Hague? |
| History Repeats Itself |
"If we falter in our leadership, we may endanger the peace of the world -- and we shall surely endanger the welfare of our own nation." (Former American President S. Truman in March 1947.) The 'Truman Doctrine' speech was a response to the violations along the frontier between Greece and the former Yugoslavia and Albania. Sixty years later we are witnessing a repeat of history. |
WWI, the Cold War, and the recent war in the former Yugoslavia were all triggered by Serbian atavistic nationalism, and now once again the issue of Serbian EU-membership threatens EU unity and the credibility of the ICTY. |
WWI followed the Serbian assassination of the Austrian Archduke, and the ultimate consequence of this for Serbia was its rise to power. Further assassinations followed in the Serbian parliament against Croatian front benchers, five of whom were shot by a Serb, and Belgrade became the capital of a Yugoslav dictatorship. |
For Croatian people the situation deteriorated even more. Several hundred thousand Croatian civilians and soldiers were massacred after WWII. Because of the Serbian-led liquidation of all of their opponents Churchill noted that an 'Iron Curtain' was descending on Europe, signalling the beginning of the Cold War. In spite of the genocide it was responsible for, communist Yugoslavia received unconditional aid and IMF loans until its downfall. |
The end of the Cold War triggered Serbian-coordinated terrorism and ethnic cleansing of Croats from one third of Croatia in the former Yugoslavia. For a further four years Croatian people in many parts of the country were bombarded and cut off from electricity and water. This situation was exacerbated by a UN arms embargo which punished the un-armed and, due to the much-criticized bias of UNPROFOR, the Serbian aggression spread into Bosnia. An ad hoc international criminal court was established but the main Serbian war criminals have never been arrested. Iraq was systematically bombed in search of Sadam Hussein, but the response in the EU today regarding Mladic and Karadzic is the opposite. |
The UK, Canada and others in the EU are not the only allies of Serbia. Russia is always an ally of Serbia, but this fact is less mentioned by the western media. So the question needs to be asked about whether the opening of the EU doors to Serbia is related to the Russian President Putin's outburst at Munich, when he claimed that America and NATO are threats to the world? The 'English Pravda' newspaper makes no secret of Russia's support for Serbia where it is insinuated that the legal constraints of international law which once protected smaller, weaker nations were no longer viable. (The Age 12 Feb 07) Mr. Putin hopes we have forgotten that it was Moscow which denied small European nations their rights for fifty years, and that Moscow supported Serbian aggression during the 1990s. |
Serbian atavistic behaviour continues to be a thorn in the side of EU unity, regional stability and world peace. Sixty years ago the Truman doctrine halted the spread of communism into Greece and Western Europe. After 80 years, when some small nations, Croatia amongst them, are free from Serbian terrorism, Putin deems NATO and America to be a threat to the world. |
| Jean Lunt Marinovic |
| February 2007 |
| Bleiburg Connection | |
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. |
|
 |
UN Peacekeeping Monument "Reconciliation"' Ottawa Canada, August 14, 2003. (JLM) |
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. |
|
| Jean Lunt Marinovic | |
| February 2007 | |
| What Will Be Milosevic's Legacy? |
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. |
| (1) Critics of the February 2007 ICJ verdict which cleared Serbia of direct responsibility for genocide (Srebrenica) |
| have argued that it was also, in effect, a verdict clearing Milosevic. |
| Jean Lunt Marinovic |
| March 2007 |