1 Thursday, 24 July 2003

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The witness entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.

6 JUDGE MAY: We have apparently not been able to obtain the Ph.D.

7 dissertation, so we will have to get on without it as best we can.

8 MR. NICE: We were alerted yesterday that the accused's associates

9 would be able to provide it. I think they then ran into difficulties and

10 were not be able to provide it for some reason that I can't help you with.

11 There may be a website from which we may be able to obtain it. Efforts

12 are in hand to do so.

13 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

14 WITNESS: AUDREY BUDDING [Resumed]

15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] My associates will get hold of it

16 during the day, in the course of the day, Mr. May, because I would like

17 the Ph.D. dissertation to be exhibited as well through the

18 cross-examination of this witness, and that is undoubtedly an important

19 document.

20 Cross-examined by Mr. Milosevic: [Continued]

21 Q. [Interpretation] Ms. Budding, in looking for the historical roots

22 of Serbian nationalism in the twentieth century, you contemporise the

23 past. You blame Serbian nationalists for using Garasanin's work

24 "Nacertanije" until the First World War to include Muslims into Serbs,

25 and you blame them also for counting the Serbs all who use the Stokavian

1 dialect.

2 A. In the course of the report I do certainly mention both Vuk

3 Karadzic's views and Garasanin's "Nacertanije," but I endeavour to place

4 them in the context of their own time. With respect, for instance, to Vuk

5 Karadzic's "Srbi Svi i Svuda," "Serbs All and Everywhere," I specifically

6 state that it was understandable as a linguistic approach to the national

7 question in the context of its own time but that it was ultimately

8 untenable because it claimed as Serbs many people who did not see

9 themselves as Serbs.

10 Q. Does that mean that my impression that when you look for the roots

11 of that Serbian nationalism your approach is not correct?

12 A. No, I would not say that either. Certainly I think the roots of

13 any nationalism in the twentieth century can be sought in the past, and

14 for most nationalism specifically in the nineteenth century, because

15 that's the age of national awakenings, the age of national romanticism.

16 Q. Yes, but if we stencil one situation from one century onto another

17 century, do you as an historian believe that this amounts to one of the

18 gravest methodological mistakes in -- for an historian?

19 JUDGE MAY: What do you mean?

20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, precisely what I said,

21 Mr. May.

22 JUDGE MAY: No, it's not clear. I don't follow. What do you

23 mean?

24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The copying of a historical

25 situation from the end of the twentieth century onto the first half of the

1 nineteenth century, does it amount to the phenomenon of copying, a

2 stencilling of a situation? So I'm asking Ms. Budding is it considered to

3 be one of the gravest methodological mistakes in the science of history?

4 JUDGE MAY: It seems to be absolute nonsense what you're saying.

5 Would you give us -- and explain what you mean by concrete terms. What

6 are you saying that this historian has done which you describe as a grave

7 methodological mistake? What is the mistake, so that we can follow it?

8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I said that the mistake

9 consists in projecting a historical situation from the --

10 JUDGE MAY: Stop there. Which historical situation are you

11 talking about?

12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I said as an example, Mr. May, that

13 the historian blames Serbian nationalists for using Garasanin's

14 Nacertanije, as she writes in her report, from the Second World War,

15 claiming Muslims, Montenegrins as Serbs or blaming Vuk Karadzic for

16 counting as Serbs everyone who uses the Stokavian dialect. That is a

17 projection of a historical situation onto another period which amounts to

18 the gravest methodological mistake in the science of history. If you

19 don't understand this, I have to move on to my next question.

20 JUDGE MAY: No, because it's rubbish. I don't know what you're

21 talking about. If you don't make the question clear, the witness can't

22 possibly answer it. I mean, are you saying that -- is this the point:

23 That historians or people at this period are using Vuk Karadzic, for

24 instance, as an example of Serbian nationalism? Are you saying it has no

25 relevance now? What are you saying?

1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I want to say that the projection of

2 one historical situation from the end of one century to the first half of

3 another century is a methodological mistake in the science of history, and

4 I'm asking an historian about it, she who knows --

5 JUDGE MAY: Let's try and make sense of this, Dr. Budding. Can

6 you use, I suppose a simpler way of putting it is, can you use a situation

7 that occurred, say, in the nineteenth century when dealing with a

8 situation, say, at the end of the twentieth century? Is it possible to

9 draw parallels between the two, and is it an error if you do?

10 THE WITNESS: I think that in certain instances it can be valid to

11 draw parallels between different historical eras. I think that such

12 parallels should always be made very specifically, but I don't understand

13 what use Mr. Milosevic believes I am making of the Nacertanije in my

14 report.

15 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

16 Q. Well, precisely looking for the roots of Serbian nationalism of

17 the twentieth century.

18 JUDGE MAY: What seems to be put is this, that it is a mistake to

19 look for the roots of what happened at the end of the twentieth century in

20 the nineteenth century. I think that seems to be the point.

21 THE WITNESS: If I might be allowed to address the question a bit

22 more generally, perhaps I could give my own view of how I believe that

23 Serbian nationalism in the nineteenth century might be related to Serbian

24 nationalism in the twentieth century, if I could be allowed to take three

25 or four minutes to set that out.

1 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Your method is being challenged as basically

2 very wrong, so you must have time to answer it.

3 THE WITNESS: Well, as I state in the report and in my testimony

4 yesterday, it's the characteristic of all nationalisms to seek to gather

5 the members of the nation however one defines it inside a state, and as

6 I've said repeatedly I don't see this as specificity of Serbian

7 nationalism. It's almost what defines any political nationalism.

8 So in the report, although my focus is certainly the twentieth

9 century and more specifically the second half of the twentieth century, I

10 went back to the nineteenth century in order to discuss how Serbian

11 politicians of the nineteenth century conceived of this project of

12 bringing Serbs into one state, and in this connection I mentioned

13 Garasanin, Ilija Garasanin, this famous Serbian statesman of the

14 mid-nineteenth century, I mentioned his Nacertanije specifically because

15 it's an extremely well-known document although at the time it was a secret

16 one.

17 My own view of the process of Serbian national unification or

18 aspirations towards it in the nineteenth century is that for most of the

19 nineteenth century it was conceived in relation to the decline of the

20 Ottoman Empire. It was clear to all European observers and certainly very

21 clear to Serbian statesmen that the Ottoman Empire could not indefinitely

22 hold its European possession. So the question was: What would come

23 next? And so Garasanin and others formulated projects for bringing

24 specifically the Serb lands under Ottoman rule in which Garasanin

25 certainly understood the semi-independent state of Serbia as it existed in

1 1844, Macedonia, Bosnia-Herzegovina to be Serbian lands. And I think that

2 this is the predominant form of the Serbian national idea through the end

3 of the nineteenth century. It's the gathering of Serbs under Ottoman rule

4 because the Habsburg Empire at this time is much stronger and a much less

5 possible target with the stipulation I make in the report that

6 Bosnia-Herzegovina remains an object of this Serbian state project.

7 And as far as direct relevance to Serbian nationalism in the

8 twentieth century, I think the most obvious relevance is that many of the

9 same territories are involved, but certainly I would not want to make any

10 claim for an identity of motives between Serbian politicians of the middle

11 or late nineteenth century and Serbian politicians of the late twentieth

12 century. I think that the historical situations are very different and on

13 the whole I would be more comfortable discussing each situation by

14 itself.

15 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

16 Q. Unfortunately we don't have enough time for that, but indubitably

17 in looking for the historical roots of the Serbian nationalism of the

18 twentieth century, you are contemporising the past in your paper aren't

19 you?

20 A. Yes. I think almost by definition in looking for the roots of any

21 historical phenomenon, one goes into the past.

22 Q. All right. I am precisely referring to this projection of one

23 situation onto another, and I find it to be a methodological error, but

24 since you don't agree, I'll move on.

25 Ms. Budding, tell me, you use the terms the first and the first --

1 the first and the second Yugoslavia in your introduction. Do you know

2 that these do not feature as legitimate terms in any official document?

3 Or more precisely, is it true that by using this terminology you call into

4 question the continuity of the Yugoslav state in the twentieth century

5 when saying the first and the second Yugoslavia?

6 A. In speaking of the first and second Yugoslavia, I'm following very

7 broadly established historiographical usage which is used by historians

8 within and outside of Yugoslavia. I'm not making any claim about the

9 legal or international continuity of the Yugoslav state.

10 Q. In the last sentence of your introduction, you use the phrase

11 "broader political and economic trends as they relate to the formation of

12 Serbian national thought." I quoted you precisely. What do you imply

13 under this? What are in fact the broader political and economic trends

14 which have led to the formation of Serbian national thought?

15 A. Well, just to single out a few, what I meant when I spoke of

16 broader political trends was the broader political development of

17 Yugoslavia. Most importantly from my report, the decentralisation of

18 Titoist Yugoslavia and Serbian reactions to that.

19 And on the subject of economic trends, I certainly give them much

20 less importance, but really, what I view as significant for purposes of

21 the report is the Yugoslav economic crisis of the 1980s and the emergence

22 of competing political programmes in response to that crisis.

23 Q. Tell me, please, Ms. Budding, what are the criteria that you used

24 in selecting the literature underlying your work on this topic?

25 A. Well, in general I used what I consider to be the best historical

1 sources in languages available to me for each subject. The languages that

2 I was able to use for purposes of this report were Serbian, French,

3 German, and English, and Slovene to a limited extent. Obviously in every

4 case I gave preference to sources that had a more detailed treatment of

5 what I wanted to cover and to sources that were archivally based or based

6 on eyewitness testimony.

7 Q. Am I properly informed, Ms. Budding, that you speak Serbian very

8 well?

9 A. I certainly speak it. I read it much better than I speak it, but

10 I do speak it.

11 Q. Very well. Are you aware that only about the history of

12 Yugoslavia in the Serbian and Yugoslav historiography we have more than

13 10.000 volumes?

14 THE WITNESS: If I might request the Court's help with something.

15 I had mentioned earlier to an officer of the Court that I sometimes found

16 Mr. Milosevic difficult to hear since he's seated at some distance for me,

17 so we turned my microphones to be B/C/S so that I might be able to hear

18 him, but today I'm not having difficulty hearing him but I'm now unsure as

19 to when the translation is finished and when I should begin my response,

20 so I wonder if I could turn these back to English.

21 JUDGE MAY: One answer may be for you to put your headphones on.

22 THE WITNESS: The difficulty -- I can certainly do that, but then

23 I don't know whether I'm waiting too long to answer because I'm using my

24 screen to tell me when the translation is finished.

25 JUDGE MAY: Well, if you listen -- one answer may be just to put

1 the headphones and put them around your neck, just hang them, if you like,

2 and you should be able to hear the translation if you put it to one of the

3 other channels. See how that goes for a bit.

4 THE WITNESS: Thank you.

5 JUDGE MAY: The transcript is rather confusing because of course

6 it's on a different time scale.

7 THE WITNESS: Thank you.

8 JUDGE MAY: Yes.

9 THE WITNESS: I was not aware of that exact number, but certainly

10 I know that there's a tremendous number of works written specifically in

11 Serbian coming out, I mean, of Belgrade mostly, on former Yugoslavia. And

12 if you look at the sources cited in my report, the great majority of those

13 that are from former Yugoslavia are in fact from Serbia because it was in

14 general Serbian historians who were treating the subjects of my interest

15 in the most detail.

16 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

17 Q. Well, do you believe as an historian that the historians that you

18 quote such as Noel Malcolm, Wolf Dietrich Behschnitt, Ivo Banac, Hans

19 Reuter, are objective in depicting the Yugoslav reality?

20 A. I would not necessarily agree with every word that any of the

21 historians you have written -- that you have cited have written. I've

22 used them among others in developing my own arguments, but I certainly

23 view them as extremely good historians following accepted

24 historiographical practice.

25 If I might add to that, of course those are far from being the

1 only historians I cite. I cite Branko Petranovic, I cite Stevan Pavlovic,

2 I cite Djordje Brankovic; I cite many historians in the course of the

3 work.

4 Q. Well, I have just mentioned those you did cite. But tell me

5 another thing, please: When making your report, did you use or consult

6 -- I'll enumerate a few and you will tell me whether you used them,

7 competent and well-known Serbian historians who wrote about the

8 Nacertanije, the Balkan wars, the creation of Yugoslavia, the Second World

9 War, such as academicians Viktor Novak in his book "Magnum Crimen,"

10 Zagreb, 1948; Milorad Ekmecic, "The War Objectives of Serbia," 1914,

11 published in Belgrade --

12 JUDGE MAY: The witness can't answer a great list like that. You

13 must put them one at a time.

14 Those that have been mentioned so far, Dr. Budding, can you help

15 us with those?

16 THE WITNESS: Let's see. Specifically I did not have occasion to

17 consult the work of Viktor Novak. My treatment of the Ustasha regime

18 which I of course describe as a genocidal regime is a very brief one, and

19 there are many, many works on the Ustasha that I did not use. I've read

20 Milorad Ekmecic "Ratni Ciljevi Srbije", that is "The Warrings of Serbia."

21 I just don't remember whether I specifically refer to it in the report.

22 On the Nacertanije as far as I recall, my main sources were in

23 fact Serbian historians because they've written about the Nacertanije in

24 the most detail. I refer specifically, for instance, to the views of

25 Radovan Samardzic in regard to Garasanin's reference to Dusan's Empire.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

2 Q. All right. And did you have in mind Ekmecic's book "The Creation

3 of Yugoslavia, 1790 to 1918," or Vasilije Krestic, "The History of the

4 Serbs in Croatia, 1848 to 1918," or perhaps Cedomir Popov --

5 JUDGE MAY: I've stopped your microphone. It's pointless reading

6 out a list to a witness. You know that by now.

7 Did you get the first one, Dr. Budding?

8 THE WITNESS: Yes, thank you. Specifically I have consulted

9 Ekmecic's two volume work, "The Creation of Yugoslavia," but I didn't look

10 back at it in the creation of this report, and I am familiar in general

11 with Professor Krestic's work, but again, I did not use it in the

12 preparation of the report.

13 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

14 Q. Well, I assume that you know that academician Ekmecic is one of

15 the best known living Serbian historians. Isn't that right?

16 A. I think that's undeniable.

17 Q. All right. Now, did you bear in mind the books by academician

18 Vasilije Krestic, Cedomir Popov, another academician? I don't want to

19 enumerate all of them. Vladimir Stojancevic, another case in point?

20 JUDGE MAY: Just a minute. Those three.

21 THE WITNESS: Specifically it would be much easier for me to

22 address the question of sources if I could do it with some reference to

23 some issue where you feel that I have not presented the issue fairly

24 because I have not included a particular source. I'm finding it hard to

25 answer the questions on this level of generality. Do I know the work of

1 such-and-such, yes, I do know the work of most of the figures you are

2 citing, but I'm not sure how to relate that to the question of why I chose

3 particular sources for particular parts of the report.

4 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

5 Q. Well, it does have something to do with the question, and let me

6 ask you something quite specific now. It is my impression, and please

7 correct me if I'm wrong, that your selection of literature is highly

8 selective and that it is used as a function to prove the basic thesis of

9 Serbian hegemonism. Is that so or not?

10 A. It is not so. I did --

11 Q. Greater Serbian hegemonism?

12 A. -- look at my report and say that basically this is one of Serbian

13 hegemonism --

14 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction, Greater Serbian.

15 A. -- of sources. Branko Petranovic, I mean, he died in 1994, so I

16 can't refer to him as you did to Ekmecic as one of the best known living

17 historians, but he is certainly one of the most eminent Serbian historians

18 of the twentieth century. Professor Stefan Pavlovic whose work I use is

19 likewise one of the most eminent historians. But to return to what I

20 understand to be your central point, I don't believe that there is

21 anything in the report that supports your contention that the thesis of

22 the report is one of Serbian hegemonism.

23 Q. Very well. Thank you. On page 2 you mention the Serbian state

24 during the times of Tsar Dusan and then Serbian state of the nineteenth

25 century. Now my question to you is this: Why did you skip the history of

1 the establishment of the Nemanjic Serbian state and left out the values of

2 that particular civilisation with respect to culture, legal rights and so

3 on and art? Or to be even more specific, let me put it this way: After

4 mentioning Dusan's Empire, you skip five centuries and go on to the

5 nineteenth century. So why did you avoid saying anything about the

6 onslaught of the Turks in the Balkans, their terror there and so on?

7 JUDGE MAY: One thing at a time.

8 THE WITNESS: When this project was first presented to me, I was

9 asked to discuss the political trajectory of Serbian nationalism in the

10 twentieth century and to present an extremely brief discussion of the

11 nineteenth century. As far as I recall, I was actually asked to keep it

12 within 40 to 60 pages including footnotes and obviously it came out

13 somewhat longer. So it simply wasn't possible to discuss the -- the

14 history before the nineteenth, which I obviously cover very, very briefly.

15 My focus is on the twentieth century. I am myself an historian of the

16 twentieth century, and although I could write about the earlier periods,

17 of course making heavy use of other people's work, there's nothing

18 original in my discussion of the nineteenth century.

19 I did not have the space within the scope of this project and I

20 also would not be well qualified to discuss the early modern period.

21 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

22 Q. I just mentioned that, Ms. Budding, because in your expert report,

23 you incorporate a period going back to, as you yourself say,

24 self-appointed Tsar Dusan dating back to the fourteenth century AD. And

25 as you say, he crowned himself as Tsar and then you skip over five whole

1 centuries.

2 JUDGE MAY: She's just answered that question in terms of what it

3 was the witness was asked to do. Yes. Let's move on.

4 The transcript should reflect that I said she just answered that

5 question. Yes. Let's move on.

6 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

7 Q. Do you consider, since you mentioned Dusan's Empire from the

8 fourteenth century and then skipped over five centuries that for a

9 comprehensive approach it would be of importance to look at the facts and

10 see what the contribution of the Serbs was to the struggle of Christian

11 Europe against the Turks, because you know full well that they

12 participated in all the great marches of Christian Europe for liberation

13 from the Turks from the end of the seventeenth century, the so-called Holy

14 Alliance war and then throughout the eighteenth century. Is that right?

15 A. I think no one could dispute that. I simply didn't feel that it

16 was germane to the subject matter of the report because my focus was not

17 on the period of the wars against the Ottomans. The reason that I

18 mentioned Tzar Dusan at all, given that I was not dealing with the

19 medieval period, is that I was dealing with the period of national

20 romanticism in the nineteenth century. So the Serbian statesmen of the

21 nineteenth century whom I do discuss, although briefly, referred to

22 Dusan's Empire. For instance, Garasanin in the Nacertanije refers briefly

23 to Dusan's Empire. And that, within the confines of this report was the

24 only reason for mentioning Dusan's Empire. It wasn't -- it wasn't

25 intended to introduce a discussion about the Ottoman conquests or the wars

1 against the Ottomans in which Serbs of course played a very important

2 part.

3 Q. Well, I thought, Ms. Budding -- I don't want to put words into

4 your mouth, but I gained the impression that looking at this and comparing

5 it all, that this kind of selective analysis of Serbian history that you

6 applied in your report was in the function of some implicit thesis that

7 the Serb nation doesn't have statehood roots and that they are primitive

8 and wild.

9 JUDGE MAY: You must have something to support this. What part of

10 the -- what part of this document could lead anybody to that conclusion?

11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The fact that I was referring to,

12 Mr. May, that your expert witness starts out from the fourteenth century

13 and Tsar Dusan and then skips five centuries and catches up with the

14 nineteenth century. I think that I explain that and ask my question in

15 that regard. So this was something that led me to the conclusion I made.

16 Now, if the witness says that that is not correct, we can move on.

17 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

18 Q. Ms. Budding, on page 2, you look at the important events of

19 Serbian history at the beginning of the nineteenth century, events that

20 took place in 1804 and 1815, and you refer to this as Serb rebellions,

21 Serb revolts, and you also say that the Serbs, with the help of the

22 Russians, won autonomy.

23 Now, that is the Serbian -- I would say that you are minimising

24 the Serbian movement. Do you know, for example, that in history these

25 were not revolts of any kind but it was the first and second Serbian

1 uprising, very well known terms, and they had the character of national --

2 of a national and social revolution, in fact, and they were waged because

3 of the untenable Ottoman feudalism and religious stifling and oppression,

4 and they represented part of the world revolution.

5 JUDGE MAY: You must come to a question. What is the question?

6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, my question is this, if you

7 had the patience to follow what I was saying, Mr. May:

8 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

9 Q. Do you know that these were not revolts but that they were in fact

10 the first and second Serbian uprisings, known as such, and they

11 represented part of European evolution? So I said the first and second

12 Serbian uprising that had the character of a national and social

13 revolution which was organised because -- to combat Ottoman feudalism

14 which was becoming unbearable?

15 JUDGE MAY: This is going on. Insofar as you can, can you answer

16 the question?

17 THE WITNESS: Well, if the question is do I know that these are

18 known as the first and second Serbian uprisings, yes, of course. If we

19 were to discuss the national and social aspects, I think that for the

20 first rising, there's a strong argument to be made for seeing it in its

21 origins as predominantly a social uprising against janissary misrule which

22 then became a national rising.

23 Again, this is somewhat outside my own area of specialisation,

24 when we go back to the beginning of the nineteenth century.

25 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

1 Q. All right. Now, as I said, and I'm sure you know, that this was

2 part of the European revolution. Do you know that that revolution was one

3 of a series of civilian bourgeois revolutions starting with the French

4 Revolution in 1789 right up until the 1908 Turkish revolution and the

5 great Russian revolution in 1917 and that it rocked Europe and that the

6 Serbian revolution in 1804 to 1815, as a national and social revolution,

7 was part of one of the most significant phenomena of European history of

8 the nineteenth century and that in fact with the Serbian revolution a

9 national revival in south-east Europe came to the fore?

10 A. I think in many ways that's a fair statement.

11 Q. Do you know that Leopold Ranke, one of the greatest German

12 historians - I don't have to tell that to you, I'm saying that for the

13 public, I'm sure you know full well who Leopold Ranke is - and an

14 academician too, in 1829 in Hamburg he wrote a work called "The Serbian

15 Revolution." Do you know about the work of Leopold Ranke which was

16 published in 1829 in Hamburg, entitled "The Serbian Revolution and The

17 Uprisings," that is to say the struggle of the Serbian people for

18 liberation --

19 JUDGE MAY: I've stopped your microphone. You must allow the

20 witness to answer.

21 Do you know this work of Leopold Ranke?

22 THE WITNESS: I've read it years and years ago. Yes, of course I

23 know it but I wouldn't at the moment be able to recall much about it.

24 JUDGE MAY: Is it now regarded as a work which is relied on in

25 modern scholarship?

1 THE WITNESS: Well, I think that historical scholarship has moved

2 far beyond where it was in the nineteenth century, so I think the primary

3 interest of this work now would be as an example of very outstanding

4 nineteenth century scholarship.

5 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Senior Legal Officer, please.

6 Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

7 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

8 Q. Do you remember, although as you say you read the book many years

9 ago - although I can't believe that in view of your age, your years - that

10 the struggle of the Serb people was seen by Ranke as an event of

11 exceptional importance for diplomatic and political history of south-east

12 Europe of those days, and that is to say he considered this to be a

13 historical process and a positive trend of the utmost European political

14 importance, denoting the modernisation of Europe, in fact?

15 A. I don't remember that, but it seems to me a perfectly reasonable

16 assessment.

17 Q. Do you consider that he was competent of assessing that at that

18 time when this was happening?

19 A. Certainly.

20 Q. On page 2, the first sentence of the second paragraph, you focus

21 on the efforts made by Serbian politicians to revive Dusan's Empire. That

22 is not correct.

23 A. What I state, if I might be allowed to read both sentences in

24 their entirety, I say: "From the mid nineteenth century to 1918, various

25 Serbian politicians sought opportunities to expand the Serbian state to

1 include more of these Serbs" -- that is, Serbs under Habsburg and Ottoman

2 rule -- "and in certain variants to acquire some of the territories that

3 had been in Dusan's Empire. This statement is not meant to imply that

4 Serbian politicians envisioned recreating Dusan's Empire in its entirety,

5 but rather that it was one of the sources they drew on in defining their

6 national ideas."

7 Q. All right. That's what I was saying. But don't you feel that you

8 are reversing the thesis here, because the fact is that the Serb people in

9 the revolution of 1804 to 1815 struggled for liberating themselves from

10 the five century Turkish yoke and not to win over territories of any kind,

11 as you've just said in quoting the passage from your own report.

12 A. Well, I don't see an opposition between saying expand the Serbian

13 state to include more of these Serbs, and liberate these Serbs. I think

14 there's no question that as the Serbian state expanded that Serbs under

15 Ottoman rule viewed that as a liberation.

16 I think that in this regard the views of Svetozar Markovic in the

17 later half of the nineteenth century are extremely pertinent because

18 Markovic, in the year 1872, used the expression "Velika Srbija" to

19 describe the project of simply expanding the borders of the Serbian state

20 without at the same time carrying out a process of national and social

21 liberation, so that I could not say that in all of -- in all times in and

22 all respects expanding the state meant -- meant liberation, but I think

23 that in many cases it did.

24 Q. Just a technical correction: In the translation it said that you

25 said the seventeenth century. I assume you didn't say that. Svetozar

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 Markovic you couldn't have linked up with the second half of the

2 seventeenth century, so I assume that was an interpretation error.

3 A. It was either an interpretation error or perhaps I misspoke.

4 Certainly what I meant to say is nineteenth century.

5 Q. Just for correctness' sake, these listening to the interpretation,

6 perhaps it was quite all right in the transcript and maybe you did not

7 misspeak.

8 But anyway, without a doubt this revolution in 1804 going up to

9 1815 was a struggle for liberation.

10 A. Yes, I would agree with that.

11 Q. All right. Fine. Now, at the end of paragraph 2 on page 2, you

12 say that winning an exit to the Adriatic Sea was the Serbs' major

13 strategic goal. Now, do you know that the natural geographic trade routes

14 and all other routes from Central and Northern Serbia towards the Adriatic

15 Sea led across the south, that is to say Montenegro and Northern Albania?

16 The route couldn't have led through Hungary and Romania; right?

17 A. Yes. In fact, that's pretty much -- I think that's in a sense

18 what I state, that the aim was to reduce trade dependence on

19 Austria-Hungary on that northern route.

20 Q. Do you know that with the 38th article of the Berlin agreement the

21 independence of Serbia was conditioned, among other things, with the

22 building up of a railway line, the building of a railway line running from

23 Belgrade-Nis to the Turkish border, which was in the keeping with the

24 then-European trends for Northern and Central Europe to be linked up as

25 soon as possible with the South and south-eastern reaches of the European

1 continent to enable the shortest route for the traffic of goods and

2 European forces to the warm seas, and that led through Montenegro and

3 Albania, that route. Is that right?

4 A. I wasn't aware of that article but I'm certainly willing to accept

5 it.

6 Q. On page 3 you say that the weakening of the Ottoman Empire led to

7 political unrest of the Ottoman countries. Wasn't it the reverse, that

8 the rebellions and fighting and revolutions of the Balkan peoples caused

9 the weakening of the Ottoman Empire? Wasn't that how it was?

10 A. We're now entering into a question that's very controversial

11 within the historiography of the Ottoman Empire and which, of course, I am

12 not an expert, but I know that up until rather recently the predominant

13 view was to focus entirely on internal weaknesses of the Ottoman Empire;

14 for instance, on the janissaries relative independence and their abuses.

15 I believe that in some of the most recent historiography there's been more

16 of a tendency to see the Ottoman Empire as in many ways an internally

17 viable state - at least one that was reforming itself - and therefore to

18 lay greater stress on its military defeats by outside powers and also on

19 the uprising of peoples under Ottoman rule, but I really don't feel

20 qualified to express an opinion on the relative importance of internal and

21 external factors in Ottoman decline as a state.

22 Q. Very well, but as I say, on page 3 you use the term "Ottoman

23 lands." Wasn't this a territory on which the Balkan peoples lived for

24 centuries? And the natural and historical rights belong to them and the

25 Turks occupied them in the fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth centuries?

1 A. The passage to which I believe you're referring, if I could read

2 it in English because I don't say actually "Ottoman lands" but I don't

3 know exactly how it was translated. I say near the bottom of page 3:

4 "Winning lands from the Ottomans through the treaty of Berlin in 1878 and

5 the Balkan wars of 1912-1913, Serbia had more than doubled its size and

6 population by the eve of the First World War." In other words, "lands"

7 was used in a purely territorial sense.

8 Q. Yes, but that's the point. They were territories on which --

9 which had been inhabited for centuries by the Balkan peoples, and

10 according to their historical and natural right, this land belonged to

11 them and they were occupied by the Turks in the fourteenth, fifteenth, and

12 sixteenth centuries; isn't that right?

13 A. Yes, that's correct.

14 Q. On page 3, you say that Serbia, after its modern revival, up until

15 the formation of the first Yugoslavia, had considerable success in its

16 projects of winning over territories.

17 Ms. Budding, I feel that you're reversing the thesis because it

18 wasn't occupying territories, it was liberating territories which, since

19 the inception of the Serb authorities until the fall of the Ottoman

20 Empire, were within the Serb state. And if you recall, and as this is

21 your field of expertise let me just remind you that these areas were

22 returned to Serbia in stages, first of all in 1830 to 1833 after the first

23 and second Hatiserif [phoen] when Serbia was given autonomy and at the

24 time it was the Krajinska, Mojetska, Palencska [phoen], Kursevelska

25 [phoen], Starovlaska and Podrinjska region. And secondly at the Berlin

1 Congress in 1878, Serbia received back Pirotski, Vranjski and Topoliski

2 region. And third, and this is what you conclude with after the Balkan

3 war and the London and Bucharest peace agreement, Kosovo and Metohija was

4 returned to Serbia by the Macedonia and the Novi Pazar region of Sandzak;

5 isn't that right?

6 A. Yes. If I could return to the point you seem to be raising first.

7 Could you identify for me where the word "osvajanje" is found in the

8 translation? You said on page 3.

9 Q. On page 3, you say that Serbia, from its modern revival to the

10 founding of the first Yugoslavia had considerable success in its projects

11 of winning over territories or the conquest of territories. "In its

12 project of winning territories inhabited by Serbs," the sentence begins,

13 "during the 80-odd years."

14 A. I'm still --

15 JUDGE MAY: We can't find that.

16 THE INTERPRETER: Page 2, interpreter's note.

17 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] May I be of assistance, Your

18 Honours. It is paragraph 1A, the penultimate sentence roughly, with this

19 expression: "It's project of winning territories inhabited by Serbs away

20 from the Ottomans." Paragraph 1A towards the end, the end of the

21 penultimate sentence.

22 JUDGE MAY: We have it, yes. Page 2. Yes. Dr. Budding do you

23 have comment on that sentence? Perhaps it would be simpler --

24 Mr. Milosevic, what is the point that you want to make that it wasn't done

25 in one go, it took several goes. Is that the point?

1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No. I'm quoting Ms. Budding as

2 saying that Serbia, since its modern revival, had significant success in

3 its projects of winning territories, and I am claiming that Ms. Budding is

4 making a reversal of thesis, because these were not conquests but

5 liberations of territories, and I indicated three stages of that process.

6 JUDGE MAY: Yes. We have the point. No need to go on. Your time

7 is limited. You're taking it up.

8 Yes, Ms. Budding, you have heard the point.

9 THE WITNESS: Now I have found the passage in both versions. What

10 I stated in English was the Serbian state enjoyed considerable success in

11 its project of winning territories inhabited by Serbs away from the

12 Ottomans. Winning in English is a very knew neutral word. It simply

13 means that the Serbian state did obtain these territories from the

14 Ottomans. I see your point with regard to osvajanje. I, of course, did

15 not do the translation. I can't think for the moment whether possibly

16 there could have been a more neutral word that would have expressed

17 exactly -- exactly what I said in English, but certainly I did not -- I

18 did not use a word that had any connotation of the sense that this was an

19 illegitimate conquest and I don't really see that osvajanje does, but in

20 any case, "osvajanje" is the translation. It's not the particular word

21 that I chose.

22 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

23 Q. Very well. You say considerable success in its projects of

24 conquest of territories or winning territories. That's what you refer to

25 yourself. That's why I'm saying that you're reversing the thesis?

1 JUDGE MAY: No. The witness has explained that and made it

2 perfectly clear that she meant.

3 Now, move on. You are on page 2. Your time is limited. We will

4 consider in the adjournment how much longer you should have, but you've

5 had well over an hour already.

6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, if you don't consider any

7 of my questions relevant, you will tell me so, but there's no other way I

8 can cross-examine this witness who is an expert but by putting this kind

9 of question to her. Please exclude questions that you consider to be

10 irrelevant, otherwise, what's the point of the cross-examination?

11 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

12 Q. Ms. Budding, on page 5, in the second sentence of the second

13 paragraph you make the allegation that the Serbian state in the Balkan

14 wars won Kosovo, Vardar Macedonia, and a part of Sandzak and that the

15 population of those regions came under its composition who were non-Serbs.

16 Do you know that the Serbian army at the time liberated both the Serb

17 people and the rest of the population in the region from Turkish rule? It

18 didn't conquer them but it liberated them from Turkish rule.

19 A. I cannot agree with the idea that the non-Serb population of those

20 regions and specifically the Albanian population considered these events

21 as a liberation.

22 Q. Very well and do you know that the area of Kosovo, Vardar

23 Macedonia and a part of Sandzak constitute a single geographic and

24 historical entity known as the old Serbia which was the central region of

25 the medieval Serbian state which the Turks conquered when arriving in the

1 Balkans. They didn't become part of Serbia in 1830 but only after the

2 Balkan wars. Isn't that right?

3 A. Certainly.

4 Q. Do you know that in Serbian history a number of works have been

5 published by prominent scholars who refer to Old Serbia, Stara Serbia, as

6 the centre of Serbian statehood? I'm sure you know of Stojan Novakovic,

7 The Balkan Question and Historical Notes on the Balkan Peninsula, 1806,

8 1905, Jovan Cvijic, The Basis for the Geography and Geology of Macedonia

9 and Old Serbia, 1906 the book was published. Svetislav, Sea of Nature,

10 Old Serbia and the Albanians, Belgrade 1904. I'm sure you are aware of

11 these publications.

12 A. Certainly I'm aware of Stojan Novakovic, of Jovan Cvijic. Again,

13 I'm not a specialist on the pre-modern period and so certainly I'm

14 familiar with the usage of "Old Serbia" to mean these regions, but their

15 pre-modern history, their medieval history is simply not what I work on.

16 Q. Let me just correct you: Cvijic is not an historian but a

17 geographer.

18 And do you know that up until the beginning of the nineteenth

19 century in Western European history the area of Old Serbia - that is

20 Sandzak, Kosmet, the Vardar Macedonia - were described as the central part

21 of Serbia, so that on the map of the well-known geographer, Cornelius,

22 Corso Geographico, in 1692, Serbia stretches to south of Skopje. Serbia

23 is similarly depicted on Austrian maps. Austrian Captain Adam von Wijn --

24 JUDGE MAY: This is the way we waste time, with you reading out

25 these lists.

1 Dr. Budding, you see the point that there were maps apparently in

2 the sixteenth century, or a map in the sixteenth century which showed Old

3 Serbia? Is there any relevance in any of this? I mean, so what one is

4 tempted to say.

5 THE WITNESS: I do not myself understand the relevance to the

6 subject matter treated in my report of the existence of Austrian maps

7 using the expression "Old Serbia."

8 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

9 Q. I do see the relevance precisely because you make the assertion,

10 and I quoted it for you - you've probably lost the flow - on page 5,

11 paragraph 2, second sentence, that the Serbian state in the Balkan wars

12 had conquered Kosovo, Vardar Macedonia and part of the Sandzak. And what

13 I am saying now are the facts which show that this territory which you

14 claim was conquered in the Balkan wars by the Serbian state constitute Old

15 Serbia according to all the historians and cartographers from a period far

16 before the time when you say that Serbia conquered those areas. And I

17 quoted the scholars and the maps, including an Austrian and an Italian, et

18 cetera, in support of that. So you can't say that the Serbian state in

19 the Balkan wars conquered Kosovo, Vardar Macedonia and part of the Sandzak

20 because it's indicated on all maps.

21 JUDGE MAY: Let the witness answer.

22 THE WITNESS: The difficulty I'm having is that you're repeating

23 the word "osvojiti" and I wrote this report in English, and as far as I

24 was concerned, the words that I was using were relatively neutral words

25 simply expressing the fact that the Serbian state, through military means,

1 took control of these territories from the Ottoman Empire.

2 If we were to discuss -- I've already said that I believe that the

3 Serb population of these areas regarded these events as a liberation and

4 that the non-Serb population in many instances did not, but I can't -- I

5 did not use the specific word "osvojiti" because I was not writing in

6 Serbian.

7 JUDGE MAY: Let's move on to another point.

8 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

9 Q. Yes. But let me just remind you before I move on to another point

10 that Old Serbia and the regions that you say could not be considered

11 liberated by the people who were non-Serbs, that these areas were Old

12 Serbia, and Aleksandar Hufilding [phoen] wrote about this in 1859; an

13 Englishman Edmund Spencer in 1850; a German travelogue Hanits [phoen] who

14 also uses the same term "Old Serbia"; an Austrian professor, Theodore

15 Rippen; a professor from Graz, Edward Richter; et cetera. Gaston Gravier

16 [phoen] also in his work on Serbs and Albanians published in Paris in

17 1911. He talks about the -- discusses the borders of Old Serbia,

18 emphasising that it includes the Kosovo-Metohija, Prizren, the Vardar

19 valley, the Skopje region, et cetera. I assume you're familiar with all

20 these works and publications by historians?

21 A. No, I don't know the specific publications but I don't in any way

22 dispute that the expression "Old Serbia" was widely used for these areas.

23 Q. Very well. My point was to underline that this was a liberation

24 of Old Serbia, not a conquest of Old Serbia.

25 On page 3, you mention that the Serbs applied the definition of

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 nationalism given by Ernest Gellner: The aspiration of peoples to rally

2 all their compatriots within one state. Do you know that in accordance

3 with that definition national states were created by many European nations

4 in the nineteenth century? For example, the Germans, the Italians, the

5 Greeks, the Poles, the Romanians, the Bulgarians?

6 A. Certainly. In fact, the point I was making in citing Gellner, I

7 wasn't saying that the Serbian politicians involved applied Gellner's

8 definition but rather I was applying Gellner's definition to point out the

9 parallels between nineteenth century Serbian nationalism and other

10 European national movements.

11 Q. So it is the same thesis, that is the same method in which other

12 nations achieved this. This is applicable to all, is it not, those I

13 mentioned; the Greeks, the Romanians, et cetera?

14 A. Yes, of course every case has its own specificity, but I think

15 that the national movements in Europe of the nineteenth century are in

16 many ways very similar to each other.

17 Q. Very well. Ms. Budding, on page 4, you claim that the advocates

18 of Yugoslavianism were mostly Croatian intellectuals and some Serb

19 supporters. Which Serb adherents are you referring to?

20 A. Well, I think we can certainly see the two Svetozars - Svetozar

21 Miletic, Svetozar Markovic - as adherents of broader Yugoslav ideas, for

22 instance.

23 Q. Do you know that Serb Count Mihajlo Obrenovic, so the prince, was

24 one of the greatest protagonists for the creation of a large community of

25 South Slav peoples in the nineteenth century? And in the twentieth

1 century among the Serbs, the greatest supporter of the Yugoslavism were

2 the well-known geographer that we just mentioned, Jovan Cvijic, and a

3 literary critic Jovan Skerlic, also one of the most reputed Serb

4 intellectuals of his day.

5 A. I think that certainly the only point that I intended to make with

6 the contrast that I drew between support for Yugoslavism among Croats and

7 among Serbs was that, for Croats, clearly the idea of creating a South

8 Slav unit within the monarchy relied on some kind of broader Yugoslav

9 Serb-Croat cooperation. That was the situation on the ground, so to

10 speak. Whereas for Serbs, the point that I was making was simply that for

11 Serbs in Serbia as opposed to Habsburg Serbs, the Serbian state idea was

12 stronger because the Yugoslav state idea, until very close to the First

13 World War, was a utopian one. And for instance, Stojan Novakovic wrote a

14 piece, I believe it was in 1911, right around then, in which he imagined

15 Belgrade a century from now and he imagined Belgrade as the capital of a

16 Yugoslav state. But he -- he saw that in -- just before the First World

17 War as a utopian project, and that -- that was the point that I was making

18 in respect to Serbian versus Yugoslav state projects.

19 Q. I'm just -- I'm claiming that that is not true because Prince

20 Mihajlo Obrenovic of Serbia was one of the greatest protagonists of the

21 creation of a large community of South Slav peoples. That is incorrect.

22 JUDGE MAY: The witness has answered the question. Let's move on.

23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. May.

24 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

25 Q. On page 4, you say that Serb and Croat ideologues were prone to

1 consider Slav Muslims as members of their nation. And do you know that

2 the greatest majority of Muslims, before converting to Islam during the

3 Turkish conquest and Turkish rule, were Serbs? A part of them were

4 Croats, but they accepted Islam to avoid terror and violence by Turkish

5 authorities, save their lives, protect their properties from destruction

6 and plunder.

7 A. Well, as I've said, I'm not an expert on the Ottoman period, but

8 my understanding of the process of conversion, particularly in Bosnia, is

9 that most experts now believe that most of the converts came from the

10 Bosnian church, which was relatively loosely organised, which simply was

11 not institutionally able to stand up to the Ottoman conquest as well as

12 the Orthodox or Catholic churches, so that your statement that most of the

13 converts were Serbs is not -- it's not one that I would necessarily be

14 prepared to accept, but I'm also not really prepared to contest it because

15 this is not my period and I view the whole argument as in a sense

16 anachronistic. Are we to say that all members of the Serbian church at

17 that time had a Serbian consciousness that all Catholics had a Croatian

18 consciousness in the period before the Ottoman conquest. It just -- it's

19 not something that I can discuss with expert knowledge.

20 Q. Very well, then. I won't ask you any more questions about that,

21 but you probably know that in Bosnia and Herzegovina, it was clearly known

22 which families were of Turkish origin, and in fact, they did not even mix

23 with the Bosnian Muslims or the Islamised Christians regardless of whether

24 they were Islamised Serbs or Croats, that is whether they were of Orthodox

25 or Catholic faith but in any way Christians.

1 A. If I understand your basic point, I certainly would agree that

2 there was a distinction made between Slavic converts to Islam and Turkish,

3 ethnically Turkish people, and in fact, as we know, the Slavic Muslims in

4 some cases called themselves Turci, but they still drew a distinction

5 between themselves and the Ottomans whom they called Turkusi.

6 Q. We agree on that point. But do you know that Ilija Garasanin, in

7 his liberation programme acknowledging the Yugoslav origin and language of

8 the Muslims envisaged close and friendly cooperation with the Bosnian

9 Muslims in the struggle against Turkish rule and offered many concessions

10 even to the detriment of Serb interests on many occasions? And you

11 probably know, as you studied this, that some Muslims families in the 60s

12 of the nineteenth century, famous families cooperated with the Serbs, such

13 as, for instance, the Rizvanbegovic from Herzegovina, the Halilovici from

14 Sarajevo, the Kulanovici, the Filipovici, the Miralamici [phoen], the

15 Azifagici [phoen], Idrizbegovici from the Bosnian Krajina. You probably

16 do know about these things.

17 A. I'm having trouble following the entire question but to respond to

18 the point about Garasanin, certainly. For instance, in Nacertanije, he

19 speaks of the need to guarantee religious freedom for Orthodox, Catholic,

20 and Muslim believers.

21 Q. On page 4 of your report in footnote 9 you mention an article by

22 Vuk Karadzic, Serbs all and everywhere which, according to you, founded an

23 idea -- established an idea which proved to be a source of future

24 misunderstanding. Do you claim that a nation is based on a communality of

25 language and the Stokavian was the language of Vuk Karadzic?

1 A. Do I personally claim that a nation must be based on a common

2 language? Is that the question?

3 Q. No. No. The question is: Are you claiming that the idea that a

4 nation is a community of language and the Stokavian is a Serbian language

5 and this is the idea of Vuk Karadzic?

6 A. Yes, I do maintain that Karadzic said that nations should be

7 defined linguistically.

8 Q. So you do believe that this was his idea; right?

9 A. Well, not his personally, of course. It was the general

10 definition of nationhood at the time. I think it would most be associated

11 with Herder.

12 Q. Very well. But you quoted him, and he founded an idea which

13 proved, according to you, to be a source of misunderstandings in the

14 future. I'm asking you now do you know of the names Johan Kristopher,

15 Adelung who lived in 1732 to 806? He was a grammar and lexicographer

16 expert? Do you know the name of Johan Herder, also a German writer,

17 historian and philosopher?

18 JUDGE MAY: What is the point? What is the point of this list of

19 names?

20 THE WITNESS: If I could make a --

21 JUDGE MAY: No. Let the accused answer.

22 What is the point of this list of names?

23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The point of the list of names, as

24 you weren't listening, Mr. May, to my previous question which had to do

25 with an allegation in footnote 9, page 4 of the report, an Article by Vuk

1 Karadzic, Serbs all and everywhere, which according to Ms. Budding was the

2 founder of an idea which proved to be a source of future

3 misunderstandings. My question was to her whether she claims that a

4 nation is a community, a linguistic community and that the Stokavian

5 language is a Serbian language was the idea of Vuk Karadzic. And then I

6 asked her a question in this connection, these names, you probably know

7 that name too, Johan Fihte, a German philosopher and all these others.

8 JUDGE MAY: Just try to ask the question if you want to be allowed

9 to ask the witness it. What is the point of the list of names? Just tell

10 us if you can.

11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Of course I can, Mr. May, though it

12 is my turn to ask questions, not you. Do you know that these names, this

13 list that you're not letting me read out and which is lengthy and it

14 consists of the most prestigious European intellectuals, do you know that

15 they as representatives of European rationalism were the creators of the

16 idea of a nation as a community of language, not Karadzic who only took

17 over that idea from them and accepted it?

18 THE WITNESS: Excuse me, but in my previous response before you

19 asked this question, you asked me do I believe this is Vuk Karadzic's

20 idea, and in my response I said well, of course not his personally. I

21 said it's especially associated with Herder, and then you went on to ask

22 me whether I've heard of Herder.

23 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

24 Q. Very well. It's not just Herder, Adelung, Fihte, Renard [phoen],

25 Matini [phoen], Jernej Kopitar, isn't that so, Ms. Budding?

1 Representatives of European nationalism were the creators of this idea of

2 a nation as being based on a community of language; is that right?

3 A. And if I could cite what I actually say in the report about

4 Karadzic which is extremely brief, on page 3 I say in the context of his

5 time and of his own anti-clerical struggles, Karadzic's insistence that

6 nations must be defined by language and not by religion was quite

7 understandable. By the context of his own time in that sentence, I meant

8 precisely the fact that linguistic definitions of nationhood were at the

9 time dominant in European thought.

10 Q. Yes. But I understood you to stay in footnote 9 this article,

11 Serbs all and everywhere, you quote it as being something at the basis of

12 an idea which was to prove to be a source of future misunderstandings.

13 A. Well, I say it actually in the text of the report. The sentence

14 in the top paragraph of page 3. I say nevertheless, his definition of

15 Serbdom proved untenable because it was rejected by many of those whom it

16 claimed to include.

17 Q. Very well. Are you aware that Adelung that we mentioned a moment

18 ago claimed that the old Slavonic language broke up into three languages;

19 Polish, Serbian, and Russian, and that all South Slav languages were

20 derivatives of the original Serbian language? This is not what Karadzic

21 claims but Adelung.

22 A. If I can respond to what I understand to be the basic question,

23 Does Vuk Karadzic in his statements of the time reflect broader European

24 concepts of linguistic thought and of how nations are constituted, I think

25 absolutely he does.

1 Q. Very well. Thank you. And are you aware of the fact that as

2 early as 1849 the Habsburg government took a decision on issuing the

3 Official Gazette in ten provinces of the Empire, among others in the

4 Serbian language, and that the Croats could call it the Croatian or

5 Illyrian language?

6 A. No, I didn't, not that.

7 Q. Does it seem to you that this negates the allegation that Karadzic

8 felt that all those speaking Stokavian were Serbs?

9 A. I don't understand how a decision by the Habsburg government is

10 relevant to establishing what Vuk Karadzic thought.

11 JUDGE MAY: Very well. It's half past ten. We will adjourn now.

12 Mr. Milosevic, you can have the next session with this witness.

13 You must conclude your cross-examination -- no. We've considered this.

14 You have had a long time already. It's a matter for you how you use your

15 time. If you don't use it effectively, it is your own -- a matter for

16 you, not for anybody else. So you have the next session.

17 Mr. Tapuskovic, do you have any questions?

18 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would have some

19 questions, depending on the time allotted me.

20 JUDGE MAY: If you would keep it fairly short. We certainly don't

21 have anything more than half an hour, but if you could do it in quarter of

22 an hour, so much the better. Thank you.

23 MR. NICE: Your Honour, I don't certainly forecast much or any

24 re-examination. I would, however -- I don't forecast much or any

25 re-examination. I would, however, press the Chamber to invite the accused

1 to deal with the matters that come at the end of the report because it

2 will be --

3 JUDGE MAY: We've got to 1849.

4 MR. NICE: And pages 1 to 9 are a mere introduction leading us to

5 the twentieth century, and it will be a matter of considerable regret if

6 the accused fails to join issue with the historian on the matters that are

7 really relevant, which come in the last 20 pages particularly of the

8 report, given that she's here, as the Chamber recalls, to assist the

9 Chamber at the Chamber's request, and also to assist Mr. Tapuskovic at his

10 request, we having, as you know -- although we're delighted to hear the

11 evidence, which is very interesting -- nevertheless, having made the

12 decision we did.

13 JUDGE MAY: Very well.

14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, please. It is my opinion

15 that is absolutely inappropriate to explain the report and to say whether

16 something in it is relevant or irrelevant. If I have been served with an

17 expert report, the report as such as relevant, and it's not up to Mr. Nice

18 to tell me which part of the report, according to him, is more relevant.

19 The report as such has been filed here. I'm asking again what is the

20 point of cross-examination if I'm not allowed to go through the whole

21 report? I will certainly cover the whole report. That is my intention.

22 But if you limit my time, already the press is writing that the key issue

23 here is the clock and nothing else.

24 JUDGE MAY: Very well. We will adjourn now. Twenty minutes.

25 --- Recess taken at 10.33 a.m.

1 --- On resuming at 10.53 a.m.

2 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

3 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

4 Q. So let us continue, Ms. Budding, where we left off. Do you know

5 that Vuk Karadzic took over from Jernej Kopitar the idea about the

6 Stokavian dialect as a definition of Serbian sometime in 1811?

7 A. Yes, I've read of the influence of Kopitar's ideas on his. I

8 could not speak to the date.

9 Q. And do you know that Vuk Karadzic was a philologist, not a

10 politician, that he only dealt with linguistic issues and under the term

11 "nation"? He did not imply any political organisation.

12 A. [Previous translation continues]... linguist rather than a

13 politician. He's one of the most famous Serbian linguists really.

14 Q. And did you have occasion to learn that he wrote in 1861 a text

15 called "Serbs and Croats" where he presented the following stand: If a

16 nation as a community of language cannot survive, then nothing else can be

17 done, he writes, except for us to divide according to law and religion.

18 He who adheres to the Orthodox law will not renounce his belonging to

19 Serbdom, and he can call himself a Croat whoever wishes.

20 A. [Previous translation continues]... life and work because, after

21 all, I only give him one sentence. I had to cover the nineteenth century

22 very briefly. The specific point that I was making had to do with was the

23 linguistic definition of nationhood ultimately a tenable one, and so I

24 cited "Srbi Svi i Svuda" in much the same way I cite Garasanin's

25 Nacertanije but I don't in any way dispute that at other times Garasanin

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 put forward state projects which were different from those in the

2 Nacertanije, and I certainly don't dispute that Karadzic at other times

3 put forward views that, you know, are not those expressed in "Serbs All

4 and Everywhere."

5 Q. And do you know that a Croat, Ljudevit Gaj, in 1830 made a

6 proposal about the unification of Serbs and Croats into one nation and the

7 unification of their religions and churches as an equalisation of their

8 dialects into a common literary language? And there is a historical trace

9 that he repeated the same thing in 1848, talking to a Pole, Bistranovski,

10 when he added that Belgrade should become the capital of the future common

11 state because of its favourable geographical position and the national

12 feeling. You can find that in the book of academician Ekmecic, "History

13 of Yugoslavia" published in 1972. So this reference to Belgrade as a

14 capital is not exactly as you mentioned it, but even a Croat, Ljudevit

15 Gaj, speaks of it in 1830 and 1848 in his conversation with Bistranovski.

16 Are you aware of that?

17 A. Well, certainly I'm aware that Ljudevit Gaj and the Illyrian

18 movement in general considered Serbs and Croats to be one people. It's

19 because of that that the Illyrianists make the linguistic choices they did

20 that made possible a unification in a sense of the language. I didn't

21 quite understand the further point of the question.

22 Q. And the second point is in what he said in his conversation with

23 Pole, Bistranovski when he said that Belgrade should become the capital of

24 the future joint state and he states his reasons for that, and even

25 Ljudevit Gaj, back in 1848 speaks of Belgrade as a common capital.

1 A. I was not aware that Gaj had made that specific proposal but it

2 certainly seems to me in keeping with the rest of his thought.

3 Q. Since you mentioned -- right now you said you mentioned Vuk

4 Karadzic only once, whereas I had understood that you think of him as one

5 of the founders of Serbian hegemonism. If I'm wrong, then there is no

6 need to discuss it any further?

7 A. I wonder if you would be willing to define the phrase "Serbian

8 hegemonism" for me because you've used a few times and I'm not sure what

9 you mean by it.

10 Q. Well, the aspiration for Serbs to achieve prevalence over everyone

11 else.

12 A. No. I would not in any way link Vuk Karadzic with that idea.

13 Q. Okay. Are you aware that Ivo Pilar, otherwise a vigorous advocate

14 of Croat Bravo movement and Croat rights movement, Party of Rights, in one

15 book said that Vuk Karadzic is the founder of Serbian imperial hegemonism

16 and that is what Ante Starcevic also says in his book "Serbs in Zagreb in

17 1931".

18 A. No, I was not aware of either of those statements made in those

19 books.

20 Q. All right. You speak in your report about the unclear borders of

21 Serbdom in the first sentence of the second paragraph on page 2. You

22 speak of the unclear borders of Serbdom, boundaries of Serbdom. How did

23 the differing and unclear boundaries of Serbdom enable Serb politicians to

24 continue the dream of unifying all Serbs in one state?

25 A. I would not say it enabled them to continue, but I would say that

1 it contributed to a lack of clarity in their thoughts between the idea of

2 the unification of all Serbs and the idea of the creation of a South

3 Slavic state more generally. In other words, my contention in the report

4 is that many Serbian politicians in the period prior to the creation of

5 the Yugoslav state did not clearly distinguish in their minds between the

6 creation or the continued extension of a Serbian state and the creation of

7 a South Slav state that Yugoslavia considered as a separate project.

8 Q. All right. Then tell me what enabled other European nations to

9 dream about their unification, if I can put it that way. Is it again the

10 varying and sometimes blurred boundaries?

11 A. Well, I think we would have to bring up the case of a particular

12 people to discuss that question usefully. I mean, the Italian

13 unification, I think, is a particularly interesting parallel because many

14 people have estimated that at the time of Italian unification only about 2

15 per cent of the population spoke what came to be standard Italian, and in

16 fact that if people from Milan were walking down the streets of Naples

17 they could not make themselves understood. So I think that that's, for

18 instance, another case where the boundaries were unclear.

19 Now, if we were to taking the case of France instead, I think that

20 would be an interesting parallel in a different way, because it shows how

21 in a situation where state borders were relatively stable over a long

22 period, it was possible to make peasants into Frenchmen in the title of

23 the famous work that describes the process of national -- the creation of

24 the French nation between 1870 and 1918, but I don't quite know how to

25 address the question generally because I don't think there is one European

1 model of how the creation of nation states came about.

2 Q. On page 4, in footnote 10, citing literature, particularly

3 Nacertanije, you quote a book of Vasa Cubrilovic and an article of

4 Jelavich from 1848 where he describes it as a great Serbia programme. Do

5 you know that hundreds of books have been written about the Nacertanije or

6 the outline?

7 A. I'm sure that that's accurate and I would point out that I also

8 cite a book that was published by the Serbian academy, a collection of

9 articles I think simply called "Ilija Garasanin." I cite, for instance,

10 Radovan Samardzic's piece in that. Earlier I believe I cited another

11 author's piece on the Nacertanije.

12 Yes. In fact, if you will look at footnote 5, that's where I cite

13 Radovan Samardzic's piece from the international conference that was held

14 at SANU in 1987 in commemoration of Garasanin.

15 Q. Tell me, please, is the reason why Charles Jelavich is considered

16 by you competent on the issues of Nacertanije the fact that he claimed

17 that he -- it was the source of great Serbian hegemonism?

18 A. Jelavich does not in fact make that claim. The reason that I

19 cited Jelavich's article is that he sets out Frantisek Zach's draft on

20 which, of course, the Nacertanije was based, and he also includes the text

21 of the Nacertanije, and he addresses the specific question of in what

22 respects did Garasanin alter Zach's text. And the specific point that he

23 makes is that Garasanin in many places replaced phrases where Zach had

24 used South Slav, Garasanin put Serbian.

25 Now, the separate point of whether that makes this a great Serbian

1 programme, as I state in the footnote, I think that arguing about the

2 Yugoslav or great Serbian character of the Nacertanije, as so many people

3 have done, is really anachronistic because Garasanin writing in the 1840s

4 was considering what was possible and realistic for the Yugoslav state to

5 do. I've already stated that I think most Serbian politicians including

6 Garasanin saw Yugoslavia a Yugoslav project as a more utopian one,

7 certainly one that would have to be put off for a later time.

8 So my point about Nacertanije is partly that it simply deals with

9 the lands under Ottoman rule but also that Garasanin does not -- does not

10 clearly distinguish in his mind or does not ascribe great importance to

11 the fact that some of the lands he believes should form part of the

12 Serbian state, for instance, Bosnia-Herzegovina, have inhabitants who do

13 not consider themselves Serbs. He is clearly aware of that, as I stated

14 earlier. He speaks of the need for religious tolerance, but I don't think

15 that he in his own mind distinguishes, says to himself, "Well, therefore

16 this would be a creation of a new kind of state, a union of South Slavs

17 rather than a continuation of the Serbian state." And that was really my

18 point with regard to the Nacertanije.

19 Q. Very well, although I believe it is inappropriate to shorten my

20 questions on the report like yours, I will ask you concisely. Did you

21 have occasion to read many Serbian, Croatian and foreign historians who

22 also wrote about Nacertanije but did not consider it as a great Serbian

23 programme? They considered it, rather, a Yugoslav programme whose

24 objective it was to create a great Yugoslav state; Vasil Popovic, "The

25 Policy in the Balkans," or Dragoslav Stranjakovic at the Yugoslav national

1 state programme, "Princedom of Serbia, 1844." The book was published in

2 1931. Or "How Nacertanije Came About," 1939; Slobodan Jovanovic,

3 "Constitution Defenders and Their Government, 1838." It was published in

4 1953. And even the American historian David McKenzie published a book

5 "Ilija Garasanin, Balkan Bismarck, 1985." You also have Prince

6 Czartoryski and the book of Henry Batovski.

7 JUDGE MAY: Another list. What's the question?

8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I asked a question, Mr. May, but you

9 obviously can't hear what I'm asking.

10 JUDGE MAY: No, I can't when you read out a list. You begin by

11 saying, "I will ask you concisely," and then you read out a whole long

12 list.

13 It may be Dr. Budding has got the point generally. Just a moment.

14 Let her answer what you've mentioned so far. No. I'm going to let the

15 witness answer.

16 THE WITNESS: If I understood the general purpose of the question,

17 it was what were my most important sources in considering the Nacertanije.

18 Besides the --

19 JUDGE MAY: No. Let the witness finish. Let her deal with the

20 sources and then you can ask your question.

21 Yes.

22 THE WITNESS: Well, besides the sources that I've cited in the

23 report, I made use of a book called "Nikar Nacertanije" [phoen]. The

24 author is Rados Ljusic, and it came out in Belgrade perhaps in '96. It

25 concludes an extremely useful historiographical review which summarises

1 the views of many of the authors that you've just referred to. So that I

2 think I'm broadly familiar with the development of Yugoslav and foreign

3 historiography about the Nacertanije, but I certainly would not be

4 equipped to state exactly what each author says. I think concretely in

5 general the Nacertanije was interpreted in Yugoslav historiography in the

6 inter-war period as a Yugoslav programme; in the post-war period as a

7 great Serbian one. I've already stated that, in my view, this whole

8 opposition is rather anachronistic.

9 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

10 Q. Yes, but it is indubitable therefore that a great number of

11 authors, both Serbian, Croatian, and foreign considered Nacertanije a

12 Yugoslav programme, not a great Serbian programme. You are aware of that,

13 I suppose, Ms. Budding?

14 A. I don't know about a great number but I think it's certainly true

15 to say that there have been many interpretations of Nacertanije as a

16 Yugoslav programme.

17 Q. Very well. Are you aware that especially in Croatia, Germany and

18 Austria in their historiographies, in the '20s and '30s, political

19 propaganda was started, taken over by Charles Jelavich and his followers

20 who took Nacertanije as the source of all evil in the Balkans, taking it

21 as proof of Serbian hegemonism.

22 A. There's nothing at all like that in the Jelavich article. It's

23 simply a scholarly article that does a textual comparison of Zach's draft

24 of the Nacertanije and Garasanin's Nacertanije.

25 Q. Well, it is the opinion of a great number of historians that

1 misunderstandings of scholars about Nacertanije started when the German

2 political ideology after 1930 started to accuse Serbia that it was to

3 blame for the war in 1914, linking that to its national policy. It seems

4 to me that you should know very well that this thesis was launched by the

5 Austrian General Stefan Sarkosic in his book "Banja Luka Process," 1933,

6 and it was continued by other historians. "Hotel Lambert and Croats" is

7 one of the books, 1942-1943, that is during the Second World War.

8 Then Petar Simunic, "Nacertanije, A Secret List of Serb

9 National --"

10 JUDGE MAY: I'm stopping you now. There is a question at the

11 beginning which has then gone off into a list, Dr. Budding, if you have

12 it, about the Germans accusing Serbia.

13 THE WITNESS: Well, I think that, broadly speaking, that's true.

14 I couldn't speak to all the sources that have been cited. I think that

15 many people have made tendentious interpretations of the Nacertanije, and

16 that's why I specifically state in my footnote to the report that, in my

17 view, the whole discussion of whether the Nacertanije is great Serbian or

18 is Yugoslav is in many respects an anachronistic one. I think it's like

19 any other historical document, it should be understood in the context of

20 its own time, which is the 1840s.

21 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

22 Q. Precisely in 1844. And do you know that Nacertanije was not the

23 fruit of great Serbian hegemony but the idea of British and French

24 governments who played a key role in defining Nacertanije because they had

25 advised the Serbian Prince Milos Obrenovic to conduct a policy that would

1 separate him from Russian protectorate and therefore propose the creation

2 of a great Slav federation which would include not only Serbia but

3 Montenegro, Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and others? They were

4 afraid that the government in Serbia, after the fall of Milos in 1839,

5 would abandon the idea of Yugoslav unification and turn to Russia. So the

6 idea is British. It was framed by the French and Adam Czartoryski, a

7 Pole, was an intermediary. You can find all that in Ekmecic's book

8 "Creation of Yugoslavia," 1918. Have you had occasion to see that?

9 A. When you refer to Zach's role, that's exactly what I was just

10 discussing; the differences between Zach's text and Garasanin's text. I

11 would not agree with the contention that it was the initiative of the

12 British and French governments, although I think it is fair to say that

13 they were, broadly speaking at this time, receptive to such an idea. It

14 does come very specifically from the Polish emigres circles around Prince

15 Adam Czartoryski. After all, Zach was his envoy to Garasanin.

16 And I would agree with the point as regards Russia. In fact, to

17 me -- I mean, since we seem to be talking about Garasanin, to me what

18 makes Garasanin stand out from other Serbian statesmen of the nineteenth

19 century is precisely his great degree of caution and even suspicion toward

20 Russia and its intentions in the Balkans.

21 MR. NICE: Your Honour, there's about an hour of cross-examination

22 by the accused left. I realise the Chamber has decided it's a matter for

23 him how he uses his time, but the report was, of course, responsive to the

24 needs of the Chamber and indeed to the Chamber's interest in modern rather

25 than earlier periods of time, and it might help the accused if, through

1 the Chamber, I make it clear that if the parts of this report, the

2 majority of the report which deals not just with the twentieth century but

3 with the matters really in hand, including, of course, in detail with the

4 memorandum and with the accused himself, if those parts aren't challenged

5 in cross-examination, it will be open to the Prosecution in its closing

6 address to this court to say that they stand unchallenged, and that will

7 be what we will obliged, and indeed happy, to do. I can do no more than

8 make that point in an effort to encourage, through the Chamber, the

9 accused not to waste his time but use it to value.

10 JUDGE MAY: He knows the time which he has available. He knows

11 entirely if he chooses to spend his time in the nineteenth as opposed to

12 the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, that's a matter for him.

13 Yes.

14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May -- Mr. May, I can only

15 interpret this as violence, because cross-examination makes absolutely no

16 sense if I am not able to go through the entire report. I will not

17 abbreviate my cross-examination. You can turn off my microphone whenever

18 you want. And the fact that Mr. Nice wants to note that I didn't

19 challenge something because you didn't give me enough time is the way you

20 work. I have already said generally that all this is intended to rewrite

21 history. You brought an expert on history here, and you are not allowing

22 me to cross-examine her precisely on the issues which matter.

23 JUDGE MAY: It's a matter for us to say, but if you choose, as

24 I've said, with the one historian that we have here, to dwell on events

25 long past as opposed to events that are more recent and relevant, we're

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 not going to stop you, but your time is being limited. And if you

2 challenge the conclusions, particularly those involving yourself, then you

3 should do so in the hour that remains. That's the only point that's being

4 made.

5 Dr. Budding, you're feeling all right, are you? You don't want a

6 break? If you do want one, just say.

7 THE WITNESS: Thank you. I'm fine.

8 JUDGE MAY: Yes.

9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Of course, of course I challenge

10 this, but I will come to that when I reach that part of the report, and I

11 don't think you should cut short my cross-examination simply because you

12 are using the clock as the criterion rather than something else.

13 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

14 Q. Do you know, Ms. Budding, who is David Urkvart? He used to be a

15 British diplomat, the secretary of the embassy in Istanbul.

16 A. I don't know that name.

17 THE INTERPRETER: Constantinople; correction.

18 Q. Do you know that it was precisely Urkvart? I'm saying this

19 because you said a moment ago that it was not the British idea that 1832

20 and 1833 he presented on behalf of the British government the Serbian

21 Prince Milos Obrenovic with the idea of Nacertanije. Just tell me yes or

22 no.

23 A. I don't think I understand the question. You're claiming that in

24 the 1830s someone suggested creating the document that then appeared in

25 1844 as Nacertanije?

1 Q. Yes. This Urkvart, on his visit to Serbia in 1832 and 1833

2 presented Milos Obrenovic on behalf of the British government with the

3 idea on the creation of Nacertanije. Do you know that? Yes or no?

4 A. This isn't making sense to me. I mean Nacertanije is, of course,

5 prepared under a Karadjordjevic King. I simply don't know what you mean

6 when you say that 15 years before the document was created and I think

7 there's no doubt at all that it was created on the basis of Zach's draft

8 coming from Polish emigre circles. I don't understand what you mean when

9 you that much earlier someone suggested creating it to a king from a

10 different dynasty.

11 Q. Yes. It was precisely Urkvart, and I think you're making a

12 mistake here --

13 JUDGE MAY: This is the last question on this topic. We've spent

14 a long time on it.

15 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

16 Q. Well, do you know that Urkvart in the magazine of the foreign

17 office called Portfolio in 1843, when the Obrenovic dynasty ruled, what

18 was the year of Nacertanije? So what is it Karadjordjevic or Obrenovic?

19 A. [Previous translation continues]...

20 Q. That's not true. 1844.

21 JUDGE MAY: One at a time. One at a time. Let's move away from

22 this. Let's get on to something else.

23 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

24 Q. All right. Do you know that in 1844, Urkvart published the first

25 version of Nacertanije called the project memoir of the Serbian

1 government, that is a year before Garasanin compiled the text which is

2 taken as an example of great Serbian hegemony. And the sources for this

3 are in the legacy of Urkvart in the Balliol College in Oxford?

4 A. If I could address one part of that question, you have used the

5 expression "Great Serbian hegemonism" repeatedly, but I have never used

6 either in this report or anywhere else so I don't understand how you can

7 say that I present Nacertanije as a document of great Serbian hegemonism.

8 I've also stated specifically several times now that I view the whole

9 debate about the Nacertanije's great Serbian or Yugoslav character as

10 fundamentally an anachronistic one.

11 JUDGE MAY: Move on to another topic.

12 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

13 Q. You say that Bosnia-Herzegovina was in the focus of Serb ambitions

14 after in 1878 having moved from Turkish administration to Austrian

15 administration. Do you know that the Berlin Congress gave Austria the

16 mandate to occupy Bosnia-Herzegovina and that the Serb prince and former

17 King Milan Obrenovic so it was still the Obrenovic dynasty and

18 unfortunately made a mistake there and a slip and his successor Aleksandar

19 had no aspirations towards Bosnia-Herzegovina because they waged an

20 Austrophilic policy and this was particularly true of Milan Obrenovic?

21 Are you aware of that?

22 A. I think that's entirely true that the later Obrenovics follow an

23 Austrophile policy and by that token are not seeking to appropriate lands

24 under Austrian rule. When I spoke of Serbian aspirations at that point, I

25 really meant if in a broader sense, that clearly Serbian intellectuals

1 still considered Bosnia and Herzegovina to be Serbian lands. If we were

2 to jump forward a little bit to 1911 and the statute of the organisation

3 unification or death they refer to Bosnia-Herzegovina among others as

4 Serbian lands, but I do not dispute your point with reference to the

5 foreign policy of the later Obrenovic Kings.

6 Q. On that same page on page 5 speaking about the ethnic and

7 religious picture of Bosnia-Herzegovina, you don't give us any concrete

8 specific data. Do you know that according to the results of the

9 population census of Bosnia-Herzegovina of the 10th of October, 1910,

10 which was composed by the statistical institution of the government of BH,

11 on the territory of Bosnia, not to read all the figures but just the

12 percentages, 43.9 per cent were Serbs, Orthodox, 32.25 per cent were

13 Muslims, and 22.17 per cent were Roman Catholics, and according to the

14 census in 1921, that percentage was as follows 43.9 Serbs, 31. --

15 JUDGE MAY: Let's deal with one at a time. 1910 census. Are

16 those figures roughly correct?

17 THE WITNESS: Yes. And as I state in the report, even at the time

18 of the first post-1878 census Serbs were the largest single -- or to be

19 precise, because the census was done on a religious basis, Orthodox

20 believers were the largest single religious group in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

21 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

22 Q. All right. And do you know that that proportion, the ratio of the

23 relative Serbian majority persevered until the 1960s?

24 A. Broadly speaking I would agree. I think the initial post-war

25 censuses are a bit hard to interpret because of the point we brought

1 yesterday, the very different options made available to Muslims in

2 consecutive censuses to in what way they could declare themselves.

3 Q. In the first sentence of paragraph 2 on page 5, you mention Serbia

4 as a potential Piedmont of the South Slavs. Do you know what that means

5 figuratively, Piedmont? Do you know that it means the centre of the

6 movement for liberation and unification according to same movement in

7 Italy?

8 A. I don't see it as figurative because after all that's literally

9 the role that was played in Italy, but yes that's exactly the point I'm

10 making that people, you know, both in Serbia and among the Habsburg Slavs

11 were seeing in Serbia that potential.

12 Q. And tell me why the liberation of Serbs is equated by you -- well,

13 never mind. I'm not going to ask you that. You explained that it was

14 translation, a question of translation.

15 When you speak of Kosmet, you always leave out the concept of the

16 whole, Kosmet and Metohija. Why?

17 A. I guess for the same reason that typically I've said Bosnia rather

18 than Bosnia-Herzegovina because it's common usage to use the first part of

19 the name to include the whole.

20 Q. So you always mean the term as a whole. On page 8, footnote 19

21 and 21 and before that in footnote 16 and in the text itself, you quote

22 "Kosovo, a short history" by British publicist Noel Malcolm. So I'd like

23 to ask you this now: Do you know that the historical institute of the

24 Serbian Academy of Arts and Sciences organised a round table meeting to

25 discuss the values and worth of the book? And I don't suppose you're

1 challenging this but taking part were very leading academicians, Djordje

2 Bodozem [phoen], Lubov Dimic [phoen], Mila Bjelajac, and all the rest of

3 them and that they challenged the worth of the book and were highly

4 critical towards that work and stressed that it wasn't a scientific book

5 but quite simply a forgery and warmongering and a pamphlet, political

6 pamphlet. And on the basis of the discussions they had, the debate, there

7 was a response to Noel Malcolm's book, "Kosovo, a short history." And

8 have you had a chance to see that work?

9 A. Yes, I have and I thought that the contributions of Mila Bjelajac

10 and of Slubica Dimic [phoen] were particularly, as I recall there may have

11 been others, but I think that they made some quite valid points. I would

12 not be prepared to stand by Malcolm's book as a whole, but I did use it

13 and I used in the same way secondary literature by Miranda Vickers because

14 I don't read Albanian myself and so I wanted to use in addition to the

15 Serbian sources which are much more accessible to me. I of course wanted

16 to use the work of historians who do read Albanian.

17 Q. On page 8 you claim that after the Berlin Congress right up until

18 1912, there was sporadic acts of violence against the Slavs in Kosovo. And

19 whenever you speak about Kosmet, you mention the Slavs. Who were these

20 Slavs? Were they Russians, Czech, Polish people, Bulgarians, Slovenes?

21 Why don't you say that they were in fact Serbs and Montenegrins?

22 A. Well, I suppose I used Slavs to avoid constantly saying Serbs and

23 Montenegrins. In my testimony yesterday you suggested that in using the

24 term "Serbs and Montenegrins," when I used that phrase that I was somehow

25 denigrating Montenegrin nationhood. When I use the phrase "the Slav

1 population," I did specifically mean Serbs and Montenegrins.

2 Q. All right. I'm glad we've clarified that at least. In footnote

3 19, page 8, you state that the figures of Serb emigres from Kosovo are

4 questionable and you quote Stevan Pavlovic's information of 150.000 and

5 Malcolm who quotes 60.000, the figures; 150.000 and 60.000. Now, was the

6 reasons for their exodus of a political nature due to terror and crimes

7 committed by the Albanians that they were forced to leave?

8 A. Broadly speaking I think that's true. It has to be understood in

9 the context of the overall breakdown of political order in the European

10 parts of the Ottoman Empire and as I state in the report, I think that

11 events in Kosovo after 1878 also have to be understood in the context of a

12 great worsening of inter-communal relations with the arrival of Muslim

13 refugees from the areas newly taken over by Serbia.

14 Q. Yes, but as I mentioned, the figures that you use, Pavlovic,

15 150.000 and Malcolm 60.000, and you say that this is disputable because

16 there are vast differences and you can see, does it mean anything to you,

17 something that I am sure you know, by a respected anthropologist, a

18 Slovene, Niko Zupancic, and an historian, a Czech, Konstantin Jiriczek, in

19 1913 presented at the University of Vienna the figures that from Kosovo

20 from 1886 to 1912 150.000 Serbs were expelled?

21 A. I did not know that particular work. I think that all the numbers

22 in relation to Kosovo are extremely hard to establish, and in fact it's

23 true for the twentieth century as well. The censuses there are viewed as

24 particularly unreliable. I mean, in general, it's not an area with a

25 strong government, in some cases it's not an area with any functioning

1 government, and because of that I think it's extremely difficult to make

2 statements with any precision about the exact number of refugees at any

3 given period, but I certainly do not dispute the fact that there were at

4 this time very substantial numbers of Slavs driven out by the general

5 worsening of the situation and by violence directed against them.

6 Q. Well, I'm precisely talking about 1886 to 1912 when 150.000 Serbs

7 were expelled, and that was presented in Vienna by Jiriczek and Zupancic.

8 And do you know that a large number of reports which were sent by

9 foreigners during those years from Kosovo, sending out from Kosovo, spoke

10 about the great terror of Albanians against the Serbs? For example, the

11 Manchester Guardian, on the 1st of September, 1883, in fact, wrote that in

12 Kosovo, on a daily basis, there were the killings of Christians by

13 Albanians, and that is quite literally what it says in the Manchester

14 Guardian. In Kosovo, the daily presence of killings of Christians by

15 Albanians. And English archaeologist Arthur Evans, a renowned

16 archaeologist, on the 16th of September, 1885, in that same newspaper

17 wrote after having visited Kosovo that tyranny is ruling there, is

18 reigning there by the Mohammedan terrorists, and that's what Arthur Evans

19 wrote in 1885.

20 A. I was not aware of those specific sources but in the report I make

21 the point that I think you are making, that there was violence directed

22 against the Slavic population and that it worsened in this period.

23 Q. Well, all right. That tyranny is present to the present day.

24 Now, it is -- because 250.000 Serbs from Kosovo were expelled under the

25 auspices of the UN.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 JUDGE MAY: No. We're dealing with history now. Let's move on.

2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. May.

3 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

4 Q. Now, do you know about information and figures by diplomatic -- by

5 British diplomats, British diplomatic documents published in London in

6 1904 about Albanian terrorism against the Serbs? For example, the British

7 ambassador in Belgrade, Sir George Bonham, on the 7th of May, 1901, wrote

8 to the Minister of Foreign Affairs that 40 Serb families had fled into

9 Serbia under the threat of Albanian terrorism, and another consul in 1901

10 wrote to the minister that Old Serbia - and I quote him, "Old Serbia,"

11 that is to say Kosmet - was still a region of unrest because of racial

12 hatred on the part of the Albanians and Serbs are continuing to be

13 expulsed; and in December 1901 said that a further 250 families had to

14 flee to Serbia under the pressure of Albanian terrorism. Have you seen

15 those facts and figures, perhaps? Because it was diplomatic -- British

16 diplomatic documents that testify to it.

17 A. No, I haven't seen those sources but I think they're fully

18 consistent with the statements I make in the report.

19 Q. And do you know that the government of the Kingdom of Serbia

20 published diplomatic documents of crimes in Kosovo between 1899 and

21 onwards for the conference in The Hague in 1899? Did you have occasion to

22 see that document?

23 A. No, I didn't. As you're aware, this is an area that's covered in

24 two sentences in the report which does not deal in any depth with the

25 nineteenth century, so I haven't consulted any of these sources.

1 Q. All right. On page 8 you say, and I'm quoting you, that "this

2 sequence of events did not promise anything good in the position of

3 Albanians in the newly established state, which is quite apart from their

4 anomalous position as non-Slavs in a professly South Slav state." So

5 where do you see this unnatural position of the Albanians, or anomalous

6 position? It didn't incorporate Bulgarians who are South Slavs, for

7 example.

8 A. If I could, I'd like to read the sentence in English, because I --

9 sometimes there can be a shade of difference. I'm not making any

10 complaint about the translation, but I don't feel able to defend the

11 specific words as expressed in Serbian because they're not the particular

12 words I chose.

13 What I state in English: "This sequence of events did not bode

14 well for Albanians' position within the new state quite apart from their

15 anomalous position as non-Slavs in a professedly South Slav state." This

16 is near the bottom of page 5. The word "anomalous" I think does not carry

17 quite the same connotation as "unnatural." It simply refers to an

18 exception. Yugoslavia was created as state of the South Slavs. Even

19 under its original name of Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, it's

20 clear that the state idea, even before the name was taken in 1929, was a

21 South Slav idea, and it's because of that that I refer to the Albanians'

22 anomalous or exceptional position as obviously non-Slavs.

23 Q. And do you know that the new state, which you mention, in 1918

24 took over international responsibilities guaranteeing the legal status of

25 national minorities, including the Albanians by the same token?

1 A. Yes, it did. This was the common pattern in Eastern Europe

2 between the two world wars, that many guarantees of minority rights were

3 -- were taken on as legal obligations by the new states, the successor

4 states.

5 Q. Yes, but not only rhetorically and nominally as legal obligations.

6 Do you know that with the efforts of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, that

7 state which brought in laws linked to that particular subject matter in

8 regions inhabited by Albanians in Kosovo after 1920, 1.400 schools were in

9 fact opened and 480 buildings erected for schools, 2.000 teachers

10 employed. So all that in conformity with those legal obligations and that

11 in the languages of the minorities. Did you have access to those -- that

12 information and figures?

13 A. I could not speak to the numbers of schools or the numbers of

14 teachers. My basic understanding is that the state made an effort to

15 provide specifically Bosnian Muslim teachers to teach in Serbia and that,

16 other than that, the main form of schooling for the Albanian population

17 was in the Turkish language schools.

18 If I understood the broader point about the position of Albanians

19 in the inter-war state, I think that what's perhaps most important in

20 considering the Yugoslav government's attitude toward its Albanian

21 minority is its concerted efforts to change the demographic composition of

22 that region both by encouraging or colonising the region with Serb and

23 Montenegrin settlers and by seeking agreements with the government of

24 Turkey for the transfer of populations; in other words, for large numbers

25 of Albanians to be sent from Yugoslavia to Turkey.

1 Q. Very well. I won't quote to you how many pupils there were.

2 14.415, for example, is the figure for pupils of the non-Serb inhabitants

3 in 1924 and 1925. Otherwise, between 1931 to 1934, in addition to what

4 I've quoted, 451 Muslim schools were opened with a lot of muftis and 500

5 imams working. And 73 private Madresas where the Albanians were educated.

6 I'm sure I know those figures.

7 A. I don't know those figures but it's consistent with what I've said

8 about the use of, you know, Muslim teachers and also the use of Turkish

9 language religious schools essentially.

10 Q. All right. I'm going to leave that topic behind, then, to speed

11 up matters.

12 You say that most of the Serbs knew -- didn't know much about the

13 South Slav peoples, relatively little, and therefore were not well

14 prepared for life in a multinational Yugoslavia. Could you explain to me

15 on the basis of what you claim that? The Slovenes and Croats, did they

16 know something more about the Serbs perhaps?

17 A. I'm just trying to find the passage.

18 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Which page is that on?

19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Page 9: "The vast majority knew

20 relatively little."

21 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

22 Q. Did the Slovenes and Croats know more about the Serbs then?

23 A. No. In fact, I make that point in the report, that I say that the

24 Serbs -- I can't seem to find the passage just at the moment, but as far

25 as I recall, I say the Serbs in common with other peoples now in

1 Yugoslavia knew relatively little about the others. So certainly my

2 implication was --

3 JUDGE KWON: Page 6, the first paragraph. Last sentence.

4 THE WITNESS: Thank you. I stated: "The great majority of Serbs,

5 in common with the other future peoples of Yugoslavia, knew relatively

6 little of other South Slav peoples and in that sense were unprepared to

7 live in a multinational Yugoslavia."

8 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

9 Q. All right. Now, the Sicilians, during the creation of Italy, were

10 they prepared to live in the mixed region of the Apennines or the

11 Bavarians for the Prussian concept of German unification, for example?

12 JUDGE MAY: I don't think that will help us. We're trying to deal

13 with concrete matters here. Yes. Let's move on.

14 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

15 Q. You mentioned the Nis declaration of Nikola Pasic in 1914 and

16 Regent Aleksandar's statement in 1916, once again within the context of

17 the Greater Serbian idea. Now, could you explain to us what there was

18 that was Greater Serbian in those texts by them. Was it perhaps that they

19 advocated a strong Serbia in order to create a strong Yugoslavia?

20 A. My specific point in relation to their texts was that they make no

21 distinction between the idea of Velika Srbija and the idea of Yugoslavia,

22 that in the Nis declaration the great endeavour of the Serbian state is

23 seen as a continuation of what the Serbian state has been doing in uniting

24 all Serbs. In Prince Aleksandar's statement, the statement "So that we

25 can make Serbia great so that it will include all Serbs and Yugoslavs so

1 that we can make it a strong and powerful Yugoslavia," it seems to me

2 extremely clear that in his mind Great Serbia, Velika Srbija, is a synonym

3 with Yugoslavia.

4 And I would note also - because it's in the footnote - that my

5 source for that quote is a book which itself is called "Velika Srbija,"

6 "Great Serbia" published in Belgrade in the 1920s by a Bosnian Serb

7 historian, Curovic, from Mostar. And I use that book as an example not

8 only because it contains this passage but because it was twice published

9 in Belgrade in the 1920s, actually, once under the title "Velika Srbija,"

10 "Great Serbia," and once under the title "Ujedinjenje," "Unification,"

11 and in that book the events of 1918 are very explicitly presented as the

12 culmination of the process going on through the nineteenth century, the

13 gathering of Serbs into one state. In other words, the Yugoslav state is

14 not conceived as something fundamentally new. I'm not in any claiming

15 that no Serbs were able to make the distinction between Serbia and

16 Yugoslavia. If we look specifically at some of the Belgrade University

17 intellectuals involved with the creation of Yugoslavia, some of them

18 envisioned a federal state. They very clearly understood that there was a

19 difference. My argument is simply that the dominant political current at

20 the time was not one that clearly understood the difference between Velika

21 Srbija - Great Serbia - and Yugoslavia.

22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, the nature of this

23 cross-examination is such that the witness has to give lengthy answers,

24 and so I really would like to ask you to rethink your decision to restrict

25 my time in the manner that you have done.

1 JUDGE MAY: We will consider it, of course, but speaking for

2 myself, you have spent the best part of three hours arguing with the

3 witness mainly on, as far as I can see, totally irrelevant matter, or

4 certainly matter of very little relevance to the events today. You've

5 chosen to do that, you've taken up your time doing it. Now, let's move

6 on.

7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, I don't expect you to learn

8 Serb history in the course of one session here, one sitting, but I do

9 expect you to bring your attention to bear on the very important facts,

10 for example, which have to do with the notorious truths that Serbia did

11 not occupy Kosovo but that for centuries Kosovo was a part of Serbia, and

12 a series of other matters which you consider to be important.

13 Now, as we are otherwise here for the most part redrawing the map

14 of history, then I consider this to be important.

15 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

16 Q. Ms. Budding, as you say -- actually, you mentioned the Nis

17 declaration yourself. It is in the Nis declaration that it says that the

18 First World War should end with the unification of the Serbian, Croatian,

19 and Slovenia people into a united Yugoslav state. So you can't call that

20 Greater Serbian. It was precisely in the 1914 Nis declaration that the

21 unification of the Serb Croats -- Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes was

22 mentioned. Isn't that right? Just give me a yes or no answer, please,

23 not to waste time.

24 A. I think that's fair. In the Nis declaration what I was trying to

25 convey was that the Serbian state idea was used as a synonym with the

1 incorporation of Yugoslav peoples, but I would agree that it's different

2 from what I just cited, for instance, in Prince Aleksandar's statement.

3 Q. All right. I cannot waste any more time to clarify this

4 thoroughly, but tell me just one thing: Why didn't you mention the Corfu

5 declaration from 1917 and the stand of the Slovene and Croat politicians

6 gathered around the Yugoslav committee who wanted to create a common state

7 together with the Serbs in order to avoid the fate of defeated nations

8 after the fall of the axis because their nations had fought on the side of

9 Austria and Germany against the British, French, Russians, and Serbs who

10 were on the same side, allied? Why did you skip the Corfu declaration?

11 A. Well, because I wasn't writing a history of what led to the

12 unification of Yugoslavia during the First World War. I mean, if --

13 obviously the Corfu