Posted on 02/27/2006 3:21:32 AM PST by paudio
The first trial of a state charged with genocide has opened in The Hague, where Bosnia-Hercegovina will accuse Serbia and Montenegro of war crimes. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is hearing the case, which Bosnia first brought 13 years ago.
It says Belgrade was responsible for crimes of genocide on its territory during the early 1990s Bosnian war.
Belgrade denies its intention was to wipe out Muslims in eastern Bosnia and says there is no proof of the claims.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.bbc.co.uk ...
Isn't this a little like accusing all Iraqi citizens of gassing the Kurds.
Looks like it to me.
Well, in european legal parlance, yes, you as a citizen would be responsible for any crime committed by your govt. This would be true of all Judeo Christian nations. islamic nations get a pass because we all know its just a fringe minority that is violent, right?
And when were they going to put the Clintonoids on trial (including Clark) for the indiscriminate bombing and genocide of innocent Serbian civilians?
And put the Nigerian muzzies on trial for murdering Christians?
Just another d&mned joke
Yes, let only the Serbian people be branded for genocide. There have been no other peoples who fell to this kind of death wish for others.
You are correct, it was a very wise move.
Ping
Thank you President Bush for refusing to be a part of the world court.
Sudan?
Zimbabwe
What a shameless bunch of craven dogs.
In the meantime
The Bosnian mission another fiasco that the media helped cover up for their good friends in the white house.
Don't forget how deeply involved Weasley Clark was in this disastrous venture.
Kangaroos may be in Australia, but the Hague is definitely the home of the Kangaroo court.
Good post......and don't forget Racak. Thanks.
Wesley Clark and company are still involved.....the independence of Kosovo and the attempts to impose independence inspite of the 1244. This is not a good situation if it works.
Seems there is no where to get facts that aren't tainted by the leftist agenda.
I am an American, live in Il. but, after living in Kosovo for 5 years, I came to understand the situation and get used to living there. Especially drinking the coffee. After coming back here, I was taken back at the lack of knowledge that my fellow Americans had of world events. Forget conversation.......Some even asked me if we were still in Kosovo, where is Kosovo, etc...........
It seems that Monteith will close in 2006 and Bondsteel in 2007.....that's the latest. I would venture a guess that we may be looking for another base in Europe if this happens......curious activities.
I just am so thankful for Rumsfeld and Cheney. They see the big picture.
Doubtful even Dubya sees what they see.
I pray a lot and wonder where this country is headed if the dems ever take control of even one house of congress.
We need to get one more Supreme Court Justice before I'll relax about domestic issues.
As for world issues......heaven help us.
on target...........
Buying propaganda wholesale?
The Nazis, Islamofacists, and Croatians are smiling if not chuckling.
Clark deserved commendation for the way he handled the campaign, considering the limits he was given.
Well, I was over there in those days. I was on the planning staff for that operation. (Speaking of Noble Eagle here, not any of the IFOR/SFOR operations)
Therefore, like it or not, NATO (led by Clinton and SACEUR Clark) was the aggressor. They may have had wonderful and lofty-sounding reasons for doing so, but they were the aggressor.
Like it or not, for those above reasons, the actions were an obvious and clear violation of the Law of War and the UN Charter (which, like it or not, we are a signatory of). (Hague II, Hague III, UN Charter Chapters VI and VII). In addition, NATO acted outside of the bounds of their treaty (which implemented the collective defense provisions in UN Charter Art. 51), which, again, was a violation, making NATO an aggressor rather than an article for maintaining peace.
Look, seeing starving kids and all is heartrending. I realize this. I am not trying to make Milosovic out to be some kid of a hero; he's not.
But if it's OK for NATO to pass judgement on Serbia (when that is outside of the bounds of the NATO charter), then why wouldn't it be OK for Red China to bomb the US, under the pretext that they don't like the way we treat the Indians?
There is international law for a reason. Kosovo, even if it was for all the right reasons (and what we saw was pretty one-sided), was wrong. And a violation of international law.
It is, indeed, pretty thin cover. It would be justification for deploying assets in Greece and for deploying assets in Macedonia (as we did); there would have been call for a defensive CAP also. However, since Serbian military force did not threaten the borders of any NATO country, nor were shipping lanes in the Adriatic, Mediterranean, or the Aegean threatened, there was no justification for offensive actions. (And, frankly, that was never even listed as a justification at the time) I remember the "exercises" and "shows of force" in 1998 that preceded the bombing campaign. I remember the Serbian media being invited to observe said exercises. And I remember Gen Clark (via VTC) and Lt Gen Short (in person) threatening offensive action against the Serbs unless they withdrew the military from Kosovo (which was, and is, a province of FRY, aka Serbia).
To stress, I am NOT talking about Bosnia.
In some ways it is related to the U.S. intervention in Iraq, though that has sounder legal cover.
Frankly, I see the difference between the two as the difference between night and day. We both know the reasons for that, so I won't belabor the point. However, to stress, as I recall, the Kosovo incursion did come up for a Security Council vote and was rejected.
What I don't buy is that the Serbs were innocent victims of aggression. As I've noted before, there is no innocent party in the Balkans War and the Kosovo War, but there are differing degrees of guilt. I don't think that if Milosevic had been deposed by a democratic Serbian ruler in 1999, this would have happened. However, Serbia, like the other powers, have to realize and admit they were fighting a religious and civil war and they were breaking the laws of land warfare in doing so. Punishing Radic and Milosevic, and punishing the Croat and Bosnian commanders who committed war crimes, is the right thing. Some Serbian nationalists haven't admitted there was a war crime committed at Srebrenica even after bodies have been dug up. Until Serbia faces reality, no one is going to support them in anything. That's sad.
There was, and is a distinct difference between what happened in Bosnia-Herzagovina and Kosovo. Three of the states that made up the federation of Yugoslavia had split off, following the death of Tito and the collapse of the USSR's power. Slovenia largely kept their noses out of other countries, while Croatia and the remnants of Yugoslavia (e.g., Serbia and Montenegro) decided to wreak some revenge on the Bosnians, under the guise of protecting Croatian and Serbian ethnic minorities in Bosnia. Borders were violated, and peace between states was threatened. International War Crimes were committed. For those actions, military action (which WAS approved by the UNSC) was approved. Note, though, that the actions in that case were peacemaking and peacekeeping (along with associated CAP), rather than offensive bombing.
The point is that I do believe that the Bosnia operations were fully justified and completely legal. Had Kosovo split off from Serbia-Montanegro, I would have believed that intervention to protect Kosovar citizens would have been legal. But they didn't. So, good, bad, or indifferent, our military and the military of other NATO countries conducted offensive operations against a state that did not evidence a threat against them.
War crimes trials? Yes. For what was done in Bosnia. Trials regarding genocide against their own people? Sure, if that can be proven.
As you say, there are no good guys in this situation. I think the difference in our opinions is that I include the senior military and political leadership of our country (in the 1998-1999 time frame) as being listed right there with the "bad guys."
Woah......clintonoid warning!!!
Not even close.
No, Slovenia fired the first shots, their noses were first in the mix.
Bosnians are not some separate ethnic identity as you are eluding to, Tito made that up. Bosnians are either Serbs or Croats, simple as that.
The war could have been avoided but I guess Albright, Holbrooke, Zimmerman et al had different ideas. Izetbegovic already signed the Lisbon agreements but the American trifecta of stupidity aforementioned promised him a better deal, so he pulled out and war soon came after.
Not quite, Croats and Serbs are of different ethnic groups, Bosnians aren't. There are Catholic Serbs and Orthodox Croats, the Muslim variants are those that Tito tried to convince that they were a unique ethnic group. Not so.
Many Bosnian Muslims still retain some Serbian Orthodox religious traditions and practice them.
You can thank Izetbegovic and the foreign mujahadeen for radicalizing a primarily secular Muslim population.
No offense, that's not my understanding of what happened. And that's not what was shown in the histories. Do you have any documentation to back up your statement?
Again, that's not what my experience showed. I'd always been taught that the true Bosnians were the muzzies...and that there was a distinct difference between the (largely Catholic) Croats and the (largely Orthodox) Serbs and the (largely muzzie) Bosnians. There may be no genetic difference, but, from what I saw over there, there was a cultural one.
That was due to Ottoman occupation, what you were taught versus the reality of the matter are different.
Granted. But that occupation was for almost 500 years. As I said, there may, genetically, be little or no difference, but the cultures are, for whatever reason, different.
Have you had an opportunity to document the Slovenian aggression you spoke of earlier? Thanks.
The Serbs were a greater part of Bosnia's population until only the last few decades.
Back during Austrian rule the census had Serbs in the low 40% range and Muslims in the low 30%, so a reverse of what you have today. Then consider that there are "Bosniaks" in the Sandzak (region that covers part of Serbia and part of Montenegro) who never lived in Bosnia nor did their ancestors. They were given an identity by the Ottoman Turks.
Izetbegovic himself had parents who came from Belgrade, and a great many other Bosnian Muslims had ancestors who were originally from Serbia or Montenegro.
Additionally, many Hungarians and Albanians who settled in Bosnia over the last 150 years are now "good Bosniaks" - and this according to a Serb and Croat hating Bosniak himself. (There were also many Ukrainians who were brought over during Austrian rule, and most of those became Croats or mixed more with the Croat Catholics.)
British deal fuelled Balkan war
The Slovenes attacked the Yugoslav border guards and cut off electricity, heat and water to the barracks.
Slovenian leadership declared secession from Yugoslavia unilaterally, against the Yugoslav constitution, which was illegal according to any international law. JNA was under harassment over there from 1989 – due to the trial of the JNA sergeant and proven NATO spy Janez Jansa who, later had become Slovenian Defense Minister! Conflict was created by the Slovenians because Jansa was tried in Military Court (Court Marshal) on the OFFICIAL language in JNA-Serbo-Croatian! Question for you: who prosecutes spies in US Army and where? In what language?The friction between JNA and Slovenia goes even more in the past: in 1982 a new Chief of General staff was appointed: a Croat Serb, admiral Branko Mamula. He tried to introduce some reforms in JNA. One of them was to put weapons and the equipment of the Territorial Defence (republics) units under the centralized, army care and command. As in any normal country, but, Slovenes started creating obstacles, and launched a smear campaign against him and the JNA and Yugoslav Defense Industry in 1986 in their press using unofficial “student” newspaper “Mladina” (Youth). The campaign was, more or less, laughable! The accused YU Army for exports of weapons to Africa and other countries (YU was 10the in the world in arms trade, at that time) as if that was something unusual and criminal. They conveniently forgot to mention Slovenian companies involved in that trade. So, the stage was set. Jansa was a spy, he openly admitted the fact, but, Slovenians decided that Army is guilty for contemporary law in Yugoslavia (Military Tribunal for such offenses committed by army staff!) and for using Serbo-Croatian language. The actual theft of documents from the Slovenian Army Headquarters and spying was irrelevant! At the end of the day, it was animosity against Belgrade and the Serbs. Simple.
After the Slovenian independence JNA remained in the barracks. Then, Slovenians cut off electricity, water and phone lines. So, there were no OFFENSIVE actions from the JNA! None at all! They were lost! Slovenian TA moved and surrounded every single JNA unity in their barracks. For the propaganda purposes they sent civilians to demonstrate at the gates of the JNA barracks and prevent movement of vehicles in front of the friendly Austrian/German TV crews! Army was thirsty and hungry! Soldiers were sick but couldn’t be taken to the local hospitals! Only one civilian was killed (accident) in front of the cameras when one JNA vehicle tried to leave the barracks in Ljubljana and push its way through the crowd (after the long negotiations and warnings) to get 2 sick soldiers out. And, one overzealous woman fell under the armored vehicle.
Army leadership was lost and confused: they knew what was happening but federal presidency (their Commander in Chief) was paralyzed. No orders, nothing. And, soldiers had become clay pigeons! JNA tried to feed the soldiers using SA 341 Gazelle helicopters. Slovenians shot one down over the center of Ljubljana. You should see the faces of those murderous bastards gloating over the wreckage of the chopper and the burned bodies of the pilots (SLOVENIANS!!!) mixed with loafs of BREAD scattered on the street! Does Mogadishu and Black Hawk Down come to your mind!
Then, federal Prime Minister, a Croat Ante Markovich, finally, ordered that Federal Police Unity will reestablish control over the border crossings. They were dispatched there in helicopters, 24 of them per craft, in summer regular uniforms! The problem was that a day before the action a Slovenian, Chief of the very same Federal Police, ran away to Ljubljana, and took with him all the plans for the action, including the names of all policemen drafted for the action. When the helicopters landed, they were immediately surrounded by heavily armed Slovenians and imprisoned. They went through hell over there: beatings and torture every day!
Finally, after numerous appeals of the JNA commanders in Slovenia, JNA decided to restore the BORDERS of Yugoslavia! Meaning, that in their infinite wisdom, JNA told the Slovenian leadership that wit will send troops at the borders, they told them exactly which roads they will use!!!??? And asked for restraint because “they don’t want to fight and cause unnecessary casualties, especially amongst the civilians!!” The units involved were of the strength of 1 (ONE) armored battalion!!! Divided in two tank columns (13 tanks each) driving the main Slovenian motorway! Each tank hand, believe me, only 5 shells each!!! Instead of 38. Against all military doctrine, tanks were sent without any infantry support, they were just a show of strength. They didn’t expect that Slovenians would block the roads and kill 40+ soldiers!!! There were no units outside Slovenia involved! There was no INVASION at all! There was NO WAR against Slovenia! There was a WAR AGAINST JNA STATIONED IN SLOVENIA launched by Slovenians! And, that is the truth. Everything else is a lie and a spin!
Yugoslav air force was engaged in a very limited manner in bombing barricades (trucks, bulldozers, heavy machinery) in front of the armored columns. And, around Brnik, Ljubljana airport and Airforce base, which was under constant attack by Slovenian units.
No civilians were killed or targeted by JNA. No industry was targeted or destroyed. No cities or villages were attacked or damaged by JNA!
At the same time, Slovenians were attacking border posts on the border with Italy and Austria! Outnumbered and outgunned they fought bravely for 3 days but had to surrender. You should see the statements of Italian and Austrian press: Italians saw what was happening so they tried to help giving water and medicines to the Yugoslav Border Guards, but nothing more, because it would be illegal. They were very honest in telling the truth about “aggression”. On the other side, Austrians broke the international law and allowed Slovenian units to run away over the border to Austria when they were pushed back, and supplied them with ammo and weapons at will!
…
Front page of the Newsweek June issue 1991. A wounded JNA doctor, shot in the center of Ljubljana, was left to bleed to death in the street because Slovenian TA shot everybody that tried to save him.
By Gabriel Partos
BBC South-East Europe analyst
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has begun two months of hearings in The Hague on a landmark case for genocide brought by Bosnia-Hercegovina against Serbia and Montenegro.
Thousands died in the 1992-1995 conflict in Bosnia The hearings are the culmination of 13 years of legal wrangling, claims and counter-claims. It is the first case before the ICJ to involve the charge of genocide against a sovereign state.
When Bosnia took what was then Yugoslavia before the ICJ in March 1993, the war in Bosnia was still raging with no end in sight. Sarajevo's intention in going to the United Nations court, which deals with disputes between states, was two-fold.
First, Bosnia wanted the ICJ - also known as the World Court - to declare that Yugoslavia was involved, through its agents and surrogates, in a campaign of ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, and to order Belgrade to stop that practice immediately.
Second, Bosnia asked for the payment by Yugoslavia of reparations for the killings, torture and material damage caused in the war.
Within weeks the ICJ issued an interim judgement which ordered Yugoslavia to do all within its power to prevent the commission of genocide in Bosnia. And it also called on the two sides not to take any action that might aggravate the confict.
Marathon legal battle
But the court's ruling, like many UN Security Council resolutions, was ignored; and the fighting continued for another two and a half years.
In the meantime, the two sides entered an extraordinary legal duel.
Bosnian Muslims rallied in support of the start of the ICJ hearing
Initially, Yugoslavia wanted to have the case dismissed on the grounds that the ICJ had no jurisdiction in the case. But the court ruled in 1996 that the case could, indeed, go ahead.
But why has the case taken so long to come before the judges?
Edgar Chen, an international law expert with the US-based Coalition for International Justice, says the ICJ's procedures are complex and time-consuming.
"I think the average time for a case from the filing of an application to the judgement is about eight or so years," he said.
A lot of the evidence so critical to proving genocide only emerged during the proceedings of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), he added.
Counter-claim
Further delays in getting the case before the judges have been caused by prolonged legal wrangling.
In 1997 Yugoslavia filed a counter-claim against Bosnia, charging it with the commission of genocide against Serbs in Bosnia.
But four years later - following the fall of Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic's authoritarian regime - Yugoslavia withdrew its counter-claim.
Bosnia ignored suggestions from Belgrade that it should settle out of court, and in 2003 the ICJ gave it the final go-ahead to present its case.
However, when the hearings open on Monday, Belgrade may launch yet another procedural challenge.
This is likely to be based on a judgement the ICJ handed down two years ago in a separate genocide case that Yugoslavia had brought against eight Nato countries in relation to the Kosovo conflict.
The case was dismissed - partly on the grounds that at the time of the events in question Yugoslavia was not fully recognised as a member of the UN.
But perhaps Yugoslavia's successor, Serbia and Montenegro, can now use the same argument to dismiss this case?
Professor Vojin Dimitrijevic, director of the Belgrade Centre for Human Rights, says "this will certainly be the first procedural argument of the Serb and Montenegrin side".
Belgrade's defence
Once the arguments on the merits of the case get under way, Belgrade is likely to offer two lines of defence.
First, it is expected to argue that whatever the nature of the terrible crimes committed in Bosnia, they did not amount to genocide in the internationally-accepted definition of the term under the 1948 Geneva Convention.
Intent to commit genocide is hard to prove in court
The Convention defines genocide as "the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group".
Such intent is difficult to prove. Indeed, the only two genocide convictions reached so far by the war crimes tribunal for the former Yugoslavia both relate to defendants who were not judged to have had such intent.
Instead, General Radislav Krstic and Colonel Vidoje Blagojevic were found guilty of complicity in genocide. In other words, they were judged to have helped others who had a genocidal intent, to carry out the killing of nearly 8,000 Muslims after the fall of Srebrenica in July 1995.
How the ICJ's judges interpret the judgements of the war crimes Tribunal just a few streets away in The Hague remains to be seen.
They are under no obligation to use any such rulings as setting a precedent. In any case, if they accept that genocide did take place in Bosnia, Belgrade is likely to come up with another argument, according to Vojin Dimitrijevic.
Milosevic's trial has seen video clips of Bosnian Muslims being shot
"The second line of defence would be to prove that somebody committed these terrible crimes in Bosnia but they had no support, no contact, no approval from Belgrade."
The Bosnian side will almost certainly counter such claims by other evidence that has emerged from the war crimes tribunal's caseload in relation to Srebrenica.
In the trial of Slobodan Milosevic the prosecution has been seeking to prove a connection with Belgrade by using as evidence a video film that shows a group of paramilitaries allegedly linked to Serbia, known as the Scorpions, killing six captured Bosnian Muslims.
Other information that has emerged indicates that General Ratko Mladic - charged with being the chief culprit in the Srebrenica massacre - was, like other Bosnian Serb officers, on the payroll of the Yugoslav army.
Delayed ruling
However, Bosnia may find it hard to obtain some of the documentary evidence to back this up, because it was released by Belgrade to the war crimes tribunal on the understanding that it would not be made available to third parties.
The two sides will have just a few weeks - until early May - to set out their case. Thereafter the judges will retire to reach their verdict, which will take several months. A ruling is likely to be delivered towards the end of the year or early next year.
If the ICJ rules in favour of Bosnia, it could either order Serbia and Montenegro to pay compensation or to make a formal apology. It could also require a combination of the two.
Perhaps no other country will be following the proceedings with as much attention as Croatia, which has submitted its own genocide case against Serbia and Montenegro.
Unlike Bosnia, which has not formally specified how much it will demand in reparations, Croatia has attached the hefty price tag of $29bn to its claim.
Bosnia, which suffered much more from war, may be seeking over three times as much.
Did they go to the UN then?
Sorry. But the article you cited stated that the Brits helped the Slovenians by providing equipment. The recognized Slovenia after they seceded from the Yugoslav federation in 1991. The Yugoslav Army tried to enter Slovenia in an effort to put down the secession. However, in large part due to this military aid provided by Britain, they were unsuccessful.
I see no evidence from this article that the Slovenians did anything other than defend their newly declared independent state.
Now if your POV is such that an independent Slovenia is a bad thing, then the actions of the Slovenian Army would be bad. If your POV is such that an independent Slovenia is a good thing, then the actions of the Slovenian Army would be good. In neither case is there any case to be made that they participated in any "ethnic cleansing" or "genocide" that involved Bosnia-Herzagovina, or, more to the point of this thread, any atrocities that impacted Kosovar Muzzies.
Now if the Slovenes attacked the Yugoslav border guards and cut off electricity, heat, and water to the barracks, that is entirely justifiable after Slovenia seceeded from Yugoslavia. Particularly if the Yugoslav border guards refused to leave the borders of the newly formed state of Slovenia. (Again, otoh, if you believe that their declaration of secession from Yugoslavia was illegitimate, then any actions to defend that declaration would also be illegitimate) -- however, cutting off electricity, heat, and water would hardly be considered any sort of "war crime."
You post such BS!
Slovenian leadership declared secession from Yugoslavia unilaterally, against the Yugoslav constitution, which was illegal according to any international law.
It may well have been illegal under Yugoslav law, but I hardly can imagine how this would be illegal under international law.
JNA was under harassment over there from 1989 – due to the trial of the JNA sergeant and proven NATO spy Janez Jansa who, later had become Slovenian Defense Minister! Conflict was created by the Slovenians because Jansa was tried in Military Court (Court Marshal) on the OFFICIAL language in JNA-Serbo-Croatian! Question for you: who prosecutes spies in US Army and where? In what language?
I'm not sure what this has to do with anything, but OK...
The friction between JNA and Slovenia goes even more in the past: in 1982 a new Chief of General staff was appointed: a Croat Serb, admiral Branko Mamula. He tried to introduce some reforms in JNA. One of them was to put weapons and the equipment of the Territorial Defence (republics) units under the centralized, army care and command. As in any normal country, but, Slovenes started creating obstacles, and launched a smear campaign against him and the JNA and Yugoslav Defense Industry in 1986 in their press using unofficial “student” newspaper “Mladina” (Youth). The campaign was, more or less, laughable! The accused YU Army for exports of weapons to Africa and other countries (YU was 10the in the world in arms trade, at that time) as if that was something unusual and criminal. They conveniently forgot to mention Slovenian companies involved in that trade.
The question I would have, being currently in the Aerospace/Defense industry, would be did the companies independently contract with these African countries, or did they fill government contracts that the government then sold to other countries? In addition, wasn't Yugoslavia a Socialist country at that time with a centrally-directed economy?
So, the stage was set. Jansa was a spy, he openly admitted the fact, but, Slovenians decided that Army is guilty for contemporary law in Yugoslavia (Military Tribunal for such offenses committed by army staff!) and for using Serbo-Croatian language. The actual theft of documents from the Slovenian Army Headquarters and spying was irrelevant! At the end of the day, it was animosity against Belgrade and the Serbs. Simple.
That does seem reasonable. But if that is the case, wouldn't it be the logical and prudent thing to do to secede from the country, rather than deal with all of this ethnic strife?
After the Slovenian independence JNA remained in the barracks. Then, Slovenians cut off electricity, water and phone lines. So, there were no OFFENSIVE actions from the JNA! None at all! They were lost! Slovenian TA moved and surrounded every single JNA unity in their barracks. For the propaganda purposes they sent civilians to demonstrate at the gates of the JNA barracks and prevent movement of vehicles in front of the friendly Austrian/German TV crews! Army was thirsty and hungry! Soldiers were sick but couldn’t be taken to the local hospitals! Only one civilian was killed (accident) in front of the cameras when one JNA vehicle tried to leave the barracks in Ljubljana and push its way through the crowd (after the long negotiations and warnings) to get 2 sick soldiers out. And, one overzealous woman fell under the armored vehicle.
Well, the death of that woman was a tragedy, without a doubt, and obviously an accident.
However, the question I'd have is this: Slovenia declared independence, right?
If that is the case, Yugoslav military or paramilitary would have no right to be in that country (Slovenia) except with the permission of the government, right?
Were the Yugoslav military ordered to leave (and refused) first, or did they cut off electricity and water without first ordering the Yugoslav military to leave? (Unless you can show me otherwise, I suspect the first to be the case)
Army leadership was lost and confused: they knew what was happening but federal presidency (their Commander in Chief) was paralyzed. No orders, nothing. And, soldiers had become clay pigeons! JNA tried to feed the soldiers using SA 341 Gazelle helicopters. Slovenians shot one down over the center of Ljubljana. You should see the faces of those murderous bastards gloating over the wreckage of the chopper and the burned bodies of the pilots (SLOVENIANS!!!) mixed with loafs of BREAD scattered on the street! Does Mogadishu and Black Hawk Down come to your mind!
No, Mogadishu does not come to mind. Slovenia had declared independence from Yugoslavia. The Yugoslav troops in their barracks were foreign troops that were violating Slovenian sovereignty. If the helicopter refused to land or to turn around, it is perfectly within their rights to shoot it down.
We could go on with this, but the bottom line is this: if the assertion is that Slovenia was right in declaring their independence, then they were right in each of the actions described. If, on the other hand, they were wrong in declaring their independence, they were wrong to take any actions at all. This is a POV issue...and the POV spins the independent facts and assertions of the story. The story's author obviously did not believe that Slovenia's secession was legitimate. OK, fine. If that is the case, he has the right to his POV. But the story is told in such a way that the facts are clouded by that POV.
Again, you'll have to show me where Slovenia declaring its independence is a violation of International Law. If you can do so, I will re-evaluate my POV. If not, then I'm afraid that I can't see where they did anything wrong. Sorry, FRiend.
I agree: Christian=good, muzzie=bad.
So why are you wanting to start a fight with me that really has little to do with the subject at hand?
See post 45
Croatians have TAKEN control of ALL Serbian property and as I read just the other day, have never paid a dime for any of it!!
I don't know the internal laws of Yugoslavia that were in place in 1991.
As regards recognition by any outside country, this contravened the Helsinki convention.
I did a quick scan of the Helsinki Convention. It said the following:
IV. Territorial integrity of StatesThe participating States will respect the territorial integrity of each of the participating States.
Accordingly, they will refrain from any action inconsistent with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations against the territorial integrity, political independence or the unity of any participating State, and in particular from any such action constituting a threat or use of force.
The participating States will likewise refrain from making each other's territory the object of military occupation or other direct or indirect measures of force in contravention of international law, or the object of acquisition by means of such measures or the threat of them. No such occupation or acquisition will be recognized as legal.
and
VI. Non-intervention in internal affairs
The participating States will refrain from any intervention, direct or indirect, individual or collective, in the internal or external affairs falling within the domestic jurisdiction of another participating State, regardless of their mutual relations.
They will accordingly refrain from any form of armed intervention or threat of such intervention against another participating State.
They will likewise in all circumstances refrain from any other act of military, or of political, economic or other coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by another participating State of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.
Accordingly, they will, inter alia, refrain from direct or indirect assistance to terrorist activities, or to subversive or other activities directed towards the violent overthrow of the regime of another participating State.
The problem is that this convention was looking, not at a civil war, but at invasions from one state to another. Nowhere in the convention does it deal with issues of succession, civil war, or other internal strife (with the exception of the portion of the document dealing with each state's requirement to respect the human rights of its own citizens -- but that is a separate issue altogether.
So, again, if one state recognizes the legitimacy of another state (like Britain did with Slovenia), its assistance to Slovenia is not interfering in the internal affairs of a third state (Yugoslavia), even though that third state does not recognize the legitimacy of the second state.
Sort of like the situation with Turkish Cyprus, if you ask me...
Of course, Slovenia was admitted to the OSCE in 1992, so the point would be moot after a short period of time.
Having said this, though, you are correct in your assessment that it was more of a political issue than a legal one. But it's all politics, though, isn't it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.