1 Thursday, 25 August 2005

2 [Open session]

3 [The witness entered court]

4 [The accused entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 9.07 a.m.

6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, continue with your

7 examination-in-chief.

8 WITNESS: VOJISLAV SESELJ [Resumed]

9 [Witness answered through interpreter]

10 Examined by Mr. Milosevic: [Continued]

11 Q. [Interpretation] Yesterday we stopped at the point when we were

12 discussing the role of the army and the position that the army had at that

13 time. In paragraph 85 of the Croatian part -- could you please be so kind

14 as to find it.

15 A. 85, you said?

16 Q. Yes, yes. It's on page 24 of that part. Because this book does

17 not have proper pagination, it consists of different parts with different

18 paginations.

19 A. I found it.

20 Q. It is stated here that there in Croatia, not to go into all the

21 dates now, although they are totally absurd in view of the situation in

22 Yugoslavia then, it says that there was partial occupation. Could you

23 please explain that to me? You were there. You were following the flow

24 of events, and you also know history. Is it possible for someone to

25 occupy some territories where they actually live, where their homes are

1 and the foundations of those homes were laid by their ancestors centuries

2 ago? He wakes up one morning and somebody says that he's occupied

3 something. You've dealt with this in theory, too, so could you please

4 tell us?

5 A. Of course that's impossible, Mr. Milosevic. In all of the

6 Republic of Croatia in 1991, there was no occupation. What was at play

7 was a Croat separatist uprising, illegal, anti-constitutional, therefore

8 unlawful. The only legal armed force was the Yugoslav People's Army. It

9 is total nonsense to say there was partial occupation from the 8th of

10 October, 1991, onwards.

11 From the 8th of October, 1991, onwards, the Croat separatist

12 leadership unilaterally declared independence. However, Croatia was not

13 internationally recognised as an independent state. It was still illegal,

14 even after the 8th of October. What was happening in Croatia was an armed

15 conflict, but of an internal nature. Actually, a civil war caused by a

16 separatist uprising.

17 The Yugoslav People's Army could not have been an occupier in any

18 part of the then still existing SFRY, Socialist Federal Republic of

19 Yugoslavia.

20 Q. What about the Serbs in Krajina? Could they have carried out that

21 occupation of their own homes and their own towns and villages?

22 A. It was absolutely impossible for them to carry out an occupation

23 of their own villages, towns, homes, properties. In all those parts of

24 Krajina the Serbs were majority population, and at the local elections

25 they mostly won and set up a local government. The Serbs were quite

1 simply trying to protect themselves from the newly established Ustasha

2 regime that was already invoking the ideology and symbols of the Ustasha

3 fascist regime from the Second World War.

4 Q. What about the army, since we've dealt with that subject

5 considerably yesterday? What about the army that was in that territory

6 for 70 years? It had its garrisons, barracks, and all of that. And after

7 all, the army legitimately existed in that territory. And then in that

8 year, 1991, they were encircled in their barracks and exposed to certain

9 pressure all the way up to killings. Could they have been treated as an

10 occupier? What did they come there? They came there 70 years ago

11 consisting of members of different ethnicities from all over Yugoslavia

12 and all of a sudden --

13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, you're combining question with

14 comment. Put your question directly.

15 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

16 Q. So, generally speaking, in view of its status, could the army have

17 been an occupier, and specifically in 1991 in view of the events that had

18 to do with it could it have been an occupier?

19 A. Absolutely it could not have been an occupier. I've already said

20 that it was the only legal armed force, and the military security service

21 presented to the public in a documented fashion, it was all over

22 television as far back as January 1991, that is to say, information about

23 the illegal arming of Croatian paramilitary formations, particularly the

24 so-called National Guards Corps, the ZNG. Enormous quantities of weapons

25 were coming in through Hungary. To a lesser extent, the arms were

1 Hungarian made, and mostly they were from the warehouses of the former

2 East Germany. The German government wanted as urgently as possible to get

3 rid of all of that, so it came as a welcome development to them to arm

4 their Croat allies in this way.

5 There is detailed testimony to that effect by the Croatian general

6 Martin Spegelj who was before that commander -- a general of the Yugoslav

7 People's Army, then commander of the Zagreb district, and then in

8 Croatia --

9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Seselj. Mr. Seselj, thank you. Mr. Seselj,

10 I wanted to ask you whether your only reason for saying that there was no

11 occupation after the 8th of October, 1991 is that you do not recognise

12 Croatian independence on that day.

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You are saying that I do not

14 recognise it? No one in the world recognised Croatia's independence.

15 JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm asking if that is the reason.

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's the reason, but not the only

17 one. Yugoslavia still existed as an internationally recognised state.

18 Not even the secession of Slovenia had been recognised by then, although

19 the JNA had on the basis of an agreement withdrawn from Slovenia. The

20 former Yugoslavia still existed at the time. It was a subject of

21 international law. It was a member of the United Nations, and no one in

22 the world brought into question its territorial integrity.

23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

24 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

25 Q. Mr. Seselj, I suggest to you in relation to this answer to read

1 paragraph 110 now. That's only a few pages onwards. Paragraph 110.

2 A. It is stated here openly: "The SFRY existed as a sovereign state

3 until the 27th of April, 1992, when the constitution of the Federal

4 Republic of Yugoslavia was adopted replacing the constitution of the

5 Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia of 1974." That is openly

6 admitted here in the indictment.

7 The proclamation of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was

8 preceded by the international legal recognition although in an unlawful

9 way of Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Macedonia. Why do I say

10 in an unlawful way? According to international law, the independence of

11 newly created states could not have been recognised in territories that

12 were not under the control of the central government. Croatia was

13 recognised, first of all by the Vatican and Germany and then all the other

14 Western powers as an independent state although the central government in

15 Zagreb did not control even a third of the territory of the -- of the

16 Croatian territory. Two-thirds were controlled by.

17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Seselj, very soon Mr. Nice will be on his

18 feet making the point that you are not here as a legal expert, because if

19 you are here as an expert, then notice would have had to be begin of your

20 testimony. So although you're a lawyer and a professor, bear that in

21 mind. These are thorny legal issues that the Chamber will have to deal

22 with. You're here as a witness as to facts.

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I am testifying about

24 facts only, but along with those facts I have to give a certain

25 explanation. You know, I'm not an illiterate or semi-literate witness

1 here who is just guessing. I base my facts that I present on the real

2 situation and on law.

3 JUDGE ROBINSON: I have given you a certain leeway.

4 Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I assume that this

6 cautioning of yours does not pertain to the fact that Mr. Seselj just read

7 out paragraph 110 in which the other side wrote that the SFRY existed as a

8 sovereign state until the 27th of April, 1992. Would that be a fact that

9 they would challenge?

10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic. I have taken note of that.

11 I'm merely speaking as to the capacity in which he's testifying here.

12 Please continue with the examination.

13 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

14 Q. What did they recognise? You can see that better if you open

15 paragraphs 89 and 90. I'm going to ask you kindly to read out both,

16 because that's what they wrote before they were ordered to issue an

17 indictment for Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina.

18 Please read out paragraphs 89 and 90.

19 A. For all the time that this indictment pertains to?

20 Q. No, no. The Kosovo indictment.

21 A. I see. Towards the end of June 1991, the SFRY began to

22 disintegrate in a succession of wars fought in the Republic of Slovenia,

23 hereinafter Slovenia, the Republic of Croatia, hereinafter Croatia, and

24 Bosnia-Herzegovina. On the 25th of June, 1991, Slovenia declared its

25 independence from the SFRY which lead to the outbreak of war. A peace

1 agreement was reached on the 8th of July, 1991. Croatia declared its

2 independence on the 25th of June, 1991, leading to fighting between

3 Croatian military forces on the one side and the JNA, paramilitary units,

4 and the army of Republika Srpska Krajina on the other.

5 On the 6th of March, 1992, Bosnia-Herzegovina declared its

6 independence resulting --

7 JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm stopping you. You're reading paragraphs 89

8 and 90.

9 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is the Kosovo indictment.

11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Oh, the Kosovo indictment. You have gone back to

12 Kosovo now. And it's not for you to read out the indictment,

13 Mr. Milosevic. Make a summary and put your question based on a summary of

14 the paragraphs. We know the witness is literate and that he can read.

15 There is no need for him to read it out.

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He can write, too, Mr. Robinson.

17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Very well. I take that.

18 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

19 Q. So, Mr. Seselj, this is a document of theirs where they're

20 presenting accusations regarding Kosovo. But have you noticed that these

21 paragraphs pertain to Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Have you seen that?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. So it is said here quite decidedly, I mean this indictment was

1 written before they had received orders to issue an indictment for Croatia

2 and Bosnia-Herzegovina, so they did not know that they would have to do

3 that. Croatia proclaimed its independence --

4 MR. NICE: [Previous translation continues] ... engaged in any of

5 these points the accused is trying to make. They plainly have nothing to

6 do with this witness. I invite the Chamber to compel the witness to get

7 on with evidence of facts.

8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let me hear the question you're putting,

9 Mr. Milosevic.

10 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

11 Q. So in paragraph 89, it says that the declaration of independence

12 led to war, and in 90 they say for Bosnia-Herzegovina that the declaration

13 of independence led to an all-out war. Now I'm asking you the following:

14 What was written here pertains to Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina.

15 JUDGE ROBINSON: And that's the -- there's an allegation, you say,

16 that the declaration of independence led to war. That's a question of

17 fact. What is the question that you wish to put to Mr. Seselj?

18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Both. I want to ask him whether it

19 is possible if others create war, whether it is possible to speak of a

20 criminal enterprise on the part of anyone in Serbia.

21 JUDGE ROBINSON: No. I'm not allowing that. That's just wholly

22 speculative and not a proper question.

23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Wait a minute, Mr. Robinson. How

24 can the Serbs attain some objectives or carry out some plans through wars

25 created by others? That is a perfectly legitimate question.

1 JUDGE ROBINSON: That's an argument for you to present in your

2 closing address. That's not matter for the witness.

3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, paragraph 22 of this

4 part about Croatia, and I think it's also part 22 -- or paragraph 22 of

5 the Bosnian part, exclusively pertains to Mr. Seselj. He, as they say in

6 paragraph 9 --

7 JUDGE ROBINSON: 22? Haven't you dealt with the question of

8 Mr. Seselj providing assistance to Serb volunteers?

9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Please, let us just get this clear.

10 It has to do with joint criminal enterprise.

11 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

12 Q. In paragraph 9, Mr. Seselj, please look at the other part --

13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Of the --

14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Croatian part, the Croatian part.

15 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

16 Q. It says before that that I was this joint criminal enterprise, and

17 then it says: "Each participant or co-perpetrator within the joint

18 criminal enterprise played his own role or roles that significantly

19 contributed to the overall objective of the enterprise. The roles of the

20 participants or co-perpetrators include but are not limited to the

21 following," and then -- and all these names are mentioned, and then in

22 paragraph 22 we see your name, Vojislav Seselj. So you're included in

23 this joint criminal enterprise, and that's why I'm asking you what I asked

24 you a few moments ago. When others create war, then you are engaged in a

25 joint criminal enterprise that was headed by me.

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 ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I've already ruled on that

2 question. You must proceed with another question.

3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'll move on. I'll move on to

4 another question, but I'm going to quote paragraph 22 again.

5 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

6 Q. These epithets --

7 JUDGE ROBINSON: To what effect are you quoting it again? It's

8 there in front of us. If you have a specific question to put, put it and

9 let's get on.

10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, because I think that Mr.

11 Seselj should answer questions that have to do with Mr. Nice's favourite

12 topic, and some others, too, those that have to do with the Greater

13 Serbia.

14 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

15 Q. Mr. Seselj, these volunteers that they mention here commonly known

16 as Chetniks, Seselj's men, et cetera, we clarified that yesterday

17 concerning volunteers and their status. And then the last sentence in

18 paragraph 22 reads as follows: "In addition, he openly espoused and

19 encouraged creation of a Greater Serbia by violence and other unlawful

20 means and actively participated in war propaganda and spreading

21 interethnic hatred."

22 So directly in these accusations levelled against me here you are

23 mentioned as a participant in a joint criminal enterprise. Now I wish to

24 ask you about this violence, these unlawful means through which you

25 endeavoured to create a Greater Serbia and about the spread of national

1 hatred. In order to get a clear explanation, let us see how much this has

2 to do with real facts, what is written here.

3 A. Only one thing is a fact here --

4 JUDGE BONOMY: There's no question there in my opinion. Yesterday

5 Mr. Seselj made it abundantly clear that he did espouse the concept of a

6 Greater Serbia but certainly not by violent or any other unlawful means.

7 This matter has been dealt with over and over again in the course of the

8 evidence so far of this witness, and there was no question there and the

9 whole point seems to me simply to be an exercise in making submissions

10 which will be -- and the stage for which will be reached much later in the

11 trial.

12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Move on to another question, Mr. Milosevic.

13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I will ask specific

14 questions dealing with this, and they deserve an explanation.

15 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

16 Q. So, Mr. Seselj, you openly advocated the concept of Greater

17 Serbia, and your newspaper, the newspaper of your party, as we have seen

18 from previous quotations, is called Greater Serbia. What kind of idea is

19 that?

20 A. This is a ideological concept, and it was first mentioned in

21 public all the way back in 1683 when the Turks were defeated. Djordje

22 Brankovic, a prominent leader from that time, addressed --

23 JUDGE BONOMY: Why don't we find out what Mr. Seselj thinks about

24 the Greater Serbia rather than a 16th century or 17th century concept?

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Bonomy, I understand the concept

1 of Greater Serbia as it was originally understood and designed in the 17th

2 century. However, in many trials that took place before The Hague

3 Tribunal, and I must say I read most of the judgements, many witnesses,

4 illiterate and semi-literate, speak of Greater Serbia without knowing what

5 it means. And in the judgements later, their words are taken

6 unquestioningly. I, as a leading nationalist and ideologist of today and

7 a scholar can give you the original meaning of the concept of Greater

8 Serbia, and I think it would be useful for this trial and other trials

9 conducted here as well.

10 Nobody here, none of those accused of taking part in the joint

11 criminal enterprise never worked for a Greater Serbia. It never crossed

12 their mind. Something that I held as a personal view is being ascribed in

13 this indictment to other people who had nothing to do with it.

14 Now, let me explain what the idea means, what the concept of

15 Greater Serbia actually means. And I will try to be brief and very

16 concise, whenever I deal with some historical ideas and concepts. But I

17 would really like to explain this.

18 JUDGE BONOMY: And what you've said so far, that you held

19 something as a personal view about Greater Serbia, and that's what we want

20 to hear. We don't want to know the detail of how that evolved, unless it

21 becomes relevant as a result of what you say about your own personal

22 understanding of it.

23 MR. NICE: I was going to add this point: The question of Greater

24 Serbia was touched upon in the opening only insofar as it fell from the

25 mouths of others, including this man. It appears in the way we've already

1 seen in the Croatian indictment.

2 It was touched upon, I think, in the background historical

3 evidence to the extent thought necessary by the Prosecution. It was

4 substantially enlarged upon by witnesses either listed as and called as

5 experts or as factual witnesses in the accused's case, and Chamber will

6 have in mind both Mihailovics, Avramov, Popov, Terzic. There is no need

7 for further alleged expertise certainly coming from a witness who hasn't

8 served a report, and I respectfully adopt the position proposed by His

9 Honour Judge Bonomy.

10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, just let me draw your

11 attention to one fact.

12 JUDGE ROBINSON: The Chamber is consulting.

13 [Trial Chamber confers]

14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Seselj, we'll hear you on in concept of

15 Greater Serbia. It may be necessary, as you say, to delve into the

16 history, but do that very briefly. Come to the modern-day concept and let

17 us know what you understood the Greater Serbia concept to mean. So very

18 briefly now let's hear it.

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The concept --

20 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

21 Q. Mr. Seselj --

22 JUDGE ROBINSON: You are not to interrupt. I have asked the

23 witness a question, and I'm allowed to.

24 Proceed.

25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I have a --

1 JUDGE ROBINSON: I am stopping you. I've stopped you.

2 Mr. Seselj, I've asked you a question. Answer it.

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The concept of Greater Serbia

4 implies a unified Serbian state including all Serbian lands where Serbs

5 are a majority population. However, it is opposed to century-long

6 Vatican, Austrian and other attempts to reduce the Serbian people only to

7 members of the Orthodox Christian religion because the Serbian people in

8 its ethnic being includes Orthodox, Catholic, and Muslim Serbs equally.

9 Djordje Brankovic, when he dealt with the Austrian emperor, when

10 the Austrian army was advancing against the Turks and freed many Serbian

11 lands, so Djordje Brankovic asked about those Serbian lands. And what is

12 defined as a Serbian land, where Serbian language is spoken. He asked

13 from the Austrian emperor that all these Serbian lands become a special

14 unit within the Empire, and the Austrian emperor accepted this request,

15 appointed him a count, gave him the title, and made him governor of Banat

16 and some other lands.

17 So when Austria freed many of those lands, it suddenly became

18 frightened of the idea, because the Serbs occupied a great part of the

19 Balkan, and Djordje Brankovic was exiled to Hebar, and actually limited to

20 that area. He was being kept, provided for, but not allowed to leave.

21 In 1983, Arsenije Gagovic asked for Russian help to free the

22 Serbian land from Turkish yoke and then Austrian yoke. That is when the

23 concept is written about for the second time. And the third mention of

24 that concept dates back to the first great uprising against the Turks in

25 1844. So that is basically a freedom-loving idea, the idea of being

1 liberated from the Turkish yoke in which we lived for five centuries, from

2 the Austrian yoke in which we also lives for centuries, and then the

3 Venetian yoke as well.

4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let me summarise, then, the concept as you said.

5 The unified Serbian state with all Serbian lands where Serbs are a

6 majority population, and that includes Orthodox, Catholic, and Muslim

7 Serbs equally, and that is in contradistinction to the century-long

8 Vatican position. That's clear.

9 Mr. Nice, I didn't -- I ---let me -- I didn't --

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't explain to you the key

11 details.

12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, are you saying it's not an important

13 part of the Prosecution case?

14 MR. NICE: We have always been careful in the --

15 JUDGE ROBINSON: It's the main basis on which the three

16 indictments are joined. The main basis in the appeals judgement.

17 MR. NICE: The difference between the concept of all Serbs living

18 in one state, the accused's notion, and the historical concept of Greater

19 Serbia about which we've heard a very great deal and about which great

20 argue may or may not validly be heard in this court, and we've always

21 accepted that the accused has either never used the words Greater Serbia

22 himself or has only ever used them in attribution to others but that

23 others such as this man have used the term, and we've always

24 distinguished - and if you look at my opening you'll find this - between

25 the words used by others and our case which is that this accused was

1 motivated by the desire to have all Serbs live in one state, in part. If

2 he wasn't motivated by that he was motivated by other objectives that were

3 personal to him that built upon that particular concept.

4 Now, it may be at the end of the day that there is little or no

5 difference between the practical realities of one and another, but one is

6 definitely a term of historical art and is not one that we have -- at

7 least not one that I have used specifically in respect of this accused,

8 and I've always been very cautious about that.

9 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Seselj, I have one question about your

10 definition. Included within that description you said: "And what is

11 defined as a Serbian land, where Serbian language is spoken." Now, did

12 you mean to say that?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: Would you not claim that Croats spoke Serbian?

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

16 JUDGE BONOMY: So Serbian lands in this definition includes what,

17 the whole of Yugoslavia?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: All right. Well, I'm confused, you see, about that

20 description. Nothing to do with history --

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, again, you gave more time to

22 Mr. Nice than to me, whereas I'm the one testifying about it. I really

23 wish to explain and I really will be brief.

24 JUDGE BONOMY: You said something that I would like you to

25 clarify. Now, what is the extent to which the Serbian language is spoken

1 according to your understanding of this definition of this Greater Serbia?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. An overwhelming majority of

3 today's Croats are Serb Catholics, Catholic Serbs. All Muslims in Bosnia

4 and Herzegovina and the area of Raska are Muslim Serbs, whereas the

5 concept of Croat had three ethnic meanings through history. The first

6 Croats were a people of Western Slav origin, close to Poles and Czechs.

7 They inhabited the Balkans between Gvozd and the Adriatic Sea. They had

8 their own language which was called Cakavski in linguistics. It was a

9 small territory, and in the 11th century it reached up to the Vrbas River.

10 I suppose you know it's a river flowing through Banja Luka. It was under

11 the Croatian King Petar Kresimir.

12 That population that later became scattered deep into Europe

13 against the advance of the Turks, they were Catholics, and they ran away

14 before the Turks. You have such Croats nowadays in Gradiska, in Austria,

15 in Czechoslovakia, et cetera. They are the real Croats. When Croatia

16 fell under the Turkish yoke almost completely, then the Hungarian king

17 moved part of the Croats to Slavonia. Slavonia was inhabited by

18 Carpathians.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: Can you just answer the question, which is the

20 extent to which the Serbian language is spoken. That means today or at

21 the time of the conflict, rather, according to your definition of this

22 Greater Serbia. Why can't you just tell me that? That's the fact I'd

23 like to know about.

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The Serbian language was spoken in

25 Serbia, the entire Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, and almost the

1 entire Croatia, except for three districts, Zagreb, Krizevci and

2 Varazdin. That is in the west of today's Croatia. In the 19th century on

3 the orders of the Vatican and the Viennese court, all Croats accepted

4 Serbian as their own language.

5 JUDGE BONOMY: If someone else wants to explore it they may well

6 do so. I don't want to know that at this stage. I want to get the

7 definition clear at the time. So you're saying that the Greater Serbia

8 would include the whole of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro, and almost all

9 Croatia is subject to the three districts about which you were explaining

10 the historical origins of the languages spoken there. Is that the

11 position?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What I want to do here is that let

13 you know that the concept of Greater Serbia can by no means be identified

14 with any sort of practice of persecuting Catholic, Muslim, or any other

15 population. In all the proclamations of the freedom-loving Serbian

16 movement, the Serbian Radical Party, and all other parties I've led, we

17 keep appealing for the unification of Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox,

18 Muslim, and all other Serbs. That cannot be linked with the concept of

19 Greater Serbia. Persecution is not in line with the concept of Greater

20 Serbia, but you won't let me say it. That's why we insist on including

21 Catholics, Protestants, Muslims into our party and giving them high

22 positions. We are opposing the Vatican policy that appeals to Catholics

23 to declare themselves as Catholics, non-Serbs.

24 THE INTERPRETER: Mr. Seselj has to slow down.

25 JUDGE ROBINSON: The interpreters have asked you to slow down.

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 But I believe I am -- you have expressed the position now, that the

2 concept of Greater Serbia is inherently inconsistent with persecutions of

3 Muslims or any other -- any other sect.

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have to tell you one more thing

5 very briefly, please, Mr. Robinson. All these people that are mentioned

6 here as members, participants in the joint criminal enterprise, we're

7 against the secession of Slovenia. I was the only one who was in favour

8 of the secession of Slovenia, if the Slovenes wanted. I had made several

9 public appearances on Slovene TV supporting them. But I was against the

10 secession of Croatia because I knew that it was the same people who was

11 about to secede. We were one and the same people. Even those who are not

12 real authentic Serbs in those three districts have been through

13 intermarriage integrated. If you look at Serbs, Muslims, Catholics, and

14 Croats, you cannot find any difference between us except for religion. If

15 you have any conflict between the accused --

16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Mr. Milosevic.

17 MR. KAY: I did have a matter to raise, and it is over this

18 troubling issue of Greater Serbia and how far or whether it is relevant to

19 the Prosecution's case, because in opening, Mr. Nice has dealt with one

20 part of his opening address to the Court, but there was another passage

21 which I have here on the first day, and it reads thus: "The army, the

22 evidence will be, was no better, it having committed itself to the

23 accused's programme. Officers being instilled with the ideology of

24 brotherhood and unity totally abandoned everything in favour of a Greater

25 Serbia. They shared the arrogance, did the army, of the civilian leaders

1 and saw no reason to confer."

2 It did seem that the thrust of the Prosecution case was that there

3 had been a plan by this accused for a Greater Serbia, and there has been

4 cross-examination to that effect. And the accused has to know what he's

5 got to deal with in relation to his case and how to apportion his time.

6 So if concessions are going to be made on the issue, they must be made

7 clearly and frankly and transparently.

8 JUDGE ROBINSON: I am fully in agreement with you, Mr. Kay, and

9 I'm going to ask Mr. Nice now if his position is different, then say so.

10 MR. NICE: My position has never been different.

11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Because I had the clear impression that this was

12 an essential foundation of the Prosecution's case.

13 MR. NICE: Your Honour, I'm very sorry about that, because I think

14 Mr. Kay's quotation, by the way, doesn't deal with the fact that what he's

15 citing from is my citation from a witness.

16 Now, I have always made it plain -- and at the moment I've got in

17 front of me the joinder arguments as well. You'll find it quite helpful

18 to go through them electronically, pick up the word "greater" and see who

19 refers to Greater Serbia. The accused does.

20 What I cannot do is deny witnesses who we call their right to

21 express their opinions on the matter, but what I always made plain - and

22 I've made it plain through all the expert witnesses that have been called

23 and that I've cross-examined - that the words "Greater Serbia" come from

24 others and not from the accused. What we allege against the accused is

25 that he cleaved to - for his own purposes maybe - a plan to have all Serbs

1 living in one state. That creates a de facto Greater Serbia because the

2 western boundaries, Virovitica-Karlobag line are all the same. But are we

3 saying that he is a proponent personally of an historical Greater Serbia

4 concept? We haven't said that. And that distinction is one I've always

5 made, because I've recognise that the accused doesn't use these words.

6 JUDGE ROBINSON: But you're not saying it was one of the basic

7 foundations that one of the basic ideas prompting the joint criminal

8 enterprise?

9 MR. NICE: The concept that all Serbs should live in one state is

10 different from the concept of a Greater Serbia as you've just heard from

11 this witness who has given you a great historical overview from his

12 perspective of what Greater Serbia is all about. It's different. As I've

13 already said, it may in fact have little practical difference, but if this

14 Chamber's going to understand both the history and the accused's behaviour

15 and motivation during the conflict, it will need to deal with the fact

16 that there is a historical concept to a Greater Serbia to which he never

17 associated himself or read, as far as I can see, never, with his taking

18 power. Maybe with his being put in the driving seat of movements of

19 others that did espouse Greater Serbia he pursued policies that may have

20 had a similar effect. But have we ever said that that was his driving

21 force, the historical concept of a Greater Serbia; no, we haven't.

22 JUDGE ROBINSON: So if I understand you, Mr. Nice, the

23 Prosecution's approach is more -- it's more pragmatic. It's more

24 empirical.

25 MR. NICE: Absolutely. Yes.

1 JUDGE ROBINSON: You're concentrating more on the idea of all

2 Serbs living in one state.

3 MR. NICE: Correct. And of course, let there be no doubt about

4 it, our case has always been that for a person who could have that as his

5 driving force there might have been good reason for him --

6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

7 MR. NICE: -- allowing the influence of people such as this witness

8 who espoused quite specifically a Greater Serbia, but that's different.

9 Did he use the words himself, no.

10 Incidentally I made one slip of the tongue when I was identifying

11 the witnesses who have dealt with this and to whom you may wish to turn,

12 not least to see what my cross-examination on the point is. I made that

13 mistake of eliding names that are both surnames and first names. It's

14 Kosta Mihailovic and Mihailo Markovic, who are two of the witnesses. I

15 said there were two people with the same surname. I'll just check if

16 there's anything else I should --

17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, please do not allow

19 Mr. Nice to insult me. I was never under the control of Mr. Milosevic,

20 and Mr. Milosevic never made it possible for me to do anything in

21 political life. I did nothing that I did not achieve by my own efforts.

22 So this is an insult to me.

23 In this indictment I am being linked to this joint criminal

24 enterprise, the alleged criminal enterprise, based on my idea of the

25 Greater Serbia and I'm being put together with my ideological opponents,

1 among which was Mr. Milosevic. We had only one thing in common at the

2 beginning of the war and that was that none of us agreed to the unilateral

3 secession of Croatia without negotiations and without an agreement. We

4 had nothing else in common, and I insist on this.

5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. Thank you for that clarification.

6 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Nice, can I ask you, how you understand the

7 difference of the Greater Serbia idea and the idea of one -- all Serbs

8 living in one state. How do you understand?

9 MR. NICE: Well, first of all one --

10 JUDGE KWON: Are you not saying that it is saying the same thing

11 in the --

12 MR. NICE: Yes.

13 JUDGE KWON: -- at the end of the day?

14 MR. NICE: At the end it may be that the accused's aim was for

15 that which could qualify as a de facto Greater Serbia, yes. Did he -- did

16 he find the source of his position, for I don't wish to identify it as an

17 ideology or a platform. Did he find the source of his position at least

18 overtly in historical concept of Greater Serbia; no, he didn't. His was

19 perhaps to borrow His Honour Judge Robinson's term or was stated to be the

20 pragmatic one of ensuring that all the Serbs who had lived in the former

21 Yugoslavia should be allowed for either constitutional or other reasons to

22 live in the same unit. That meant as we know historically from his

23 perspective first of all that the former Yugoslavia shouldn't be broken up

24 because he argued, well, then, if they all live in the same place one

25 where they can do it in the former Yugoslavia. Once the former Yugoslavia

1 breaks up, the Prosecution case is the only way you can achieve the desire

2 that all Serbs should live in the same state is by doing the various

3 things that happened in the three different territories. Now, -- or in

4 particular in the two different territories of Croatia and Bosnia. So

5 that that's why we describe it as -- or we don't describe it. We analyse

6 it in the terms of his desire or his expressed desire that all Serbs

7 should live in one state, accepting that at the end of the exercise the

8 factual position may be little different from that which would have been

9 wanted by this particular witness under his long-term historical concept

10 of Greater Serbia.

11 The Court will remember with the various witnesses we've had how

12 we've been able to look at historical maps and indeed how we've heard the

13 accused referring back to historical maps, such as the map of the London

14 conference, or the maps that were generated after the Second World War,

15 and try and draw support on those ideas to justify in more contemporary

16 negotiations his position. But his position, it appears from the evidence

17 about him, was not built on that concept itself, not with the emotions and

18 maybe the philosophy or whatever else, that this witness would rely on.

19 It was on more pragmatic grounds.

20 Now, I'm sorry if that hasn't become clear, but it's been

21 absolutely at the forefront of my examination and cross-examination of

22 witnesses. And I go back to what Mr. Kay said. If you look at the

23 opening, you will see that the word only appears from me in the mouths of

24 others and that we were careful then and in the argument about joinder to

25 express things much more carefully so far as this accused is concerned.

1 And indeed I was going to raise this point yesterday when the accused

2 mischaracterised our presentation or my presentation by saying that there

3 was a leitmotif of Greater Serbia as against him because there never was.

4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Just --

5 MR. KAY: Sorry, Your Honours, the passage cited to me by me said

6 "the evidence will be," which indicates the evidence to be relied upon.

7 JUDGE ROBINSON: It may be, Mr. Nice, as you say, that there is no

8 essential difference, but for my part I'd like -- I'm going to have my

9 Chamber staff look at the evidence and see whether it bears out the points

10 that you have -- that you have made, because if -- it's important to

11 ascertain whether it was or was not a part of the Prosecution's case.

12 Mr. Milosevic.

13 In fact, I remember in the Rule 98 bis no-case motion, I remember

14 the Chamber dealing with that as --

15 MR. NICE: We better look at those filings as well then.

16 JUDGE ROBINSON: -- dealing with that as one part of the

17 Prosecution case, and looking at evidence which might have supported it.

18 Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, for the duration of 15

20 minutes here Mr. Nice has been explaining that I did not advocate a

21 Greater Serbia and then that I did advocate a Greater Serbia. I don't see

22 how it is possible to have a coherent conversation if one doesn't know

23 what the accusations are. He is now talking about the historical idea and

24 separating out from the non-historical idea and so on.

25 At the beginning, before a single witness was brought, Mr. Nice

1 did not deal with any historical concepts. What he did was present vague

2 and incredible nebulous arguments. Then he said that through witnesses he

3 would show what the accused did.

4 Look at this logical caricature presented by Mr. Nice just awhile

5 ago. On the one hand, he admits what I am saying, and that is that the

6 thesis of all Serbs in one state can be implemented through Yugoslavia,

7 which is why we advocated the preservation of Yugoslavia since it was an

8 existing state in which all the Serbs lived in one state. Then he goes on

9 that in three different places, and he's referring to the three parts of

10 this alleged indictment, wanted to implement this in various ways. These

11 were three separatist movements breaking up Yugoslavia. If this hasn't

12 become clear to you by now, then nothing is clear to you. I did not

13 organise these three separatist movements in Croatia, Bosnia, and Kosovo

14 in order to create a Yugoslavia in which all Serbs could live in one state

15 when Yugoslavia has been existing for 70 years. Is there any logic in

16 this? This is insulting to the average intelligence of an average man.

17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Milosevic. Let's proceed now.

18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think that Mr. Nice should pull

19 himself together before I go on and recall what he's accusing me of so

20 that I can put questions to the witness. I mean, about a Greater Serbia.

21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Proceed, Mr. Milosevic. Mr. Nice has made his

22 points.

23 MR. NICE: Actually --

24 JUDGE ROBINSON: There's no need to hear him any further on this.

25 MR. NICE: Your Honour, with your leave, in light of the

1 observations that have been made and the concern of the Court, I would

2 invite you just to -- I'll just find it for you in the -- because it's --

3 actually encapsulates the position right from the beginning. If you'll

4 just give me one second. It's in the opening, and -- what I said was this

5 dealing with western Slavonia. I think it's on about page 50. "The creed

6 openly espoused by the man Seselj went by the title of Greater Serbia.

7 It's a phrase that is bound to be heard in this Court. We will not

8 ourselves encourage its excessive use for the fear that our shorthand may

9 lead to a brevity of thinking. We don't particularly associate it as a

10 title with the" --

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not getting the interpretation.

12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let us have that technical matter attended to,

13 Mr. Nice. Yes.

14 MR. NICE: I'm sorry. The creed openly espoused by the man Seselj

15 went by the title of Greater Serbia. It's a phrase that is bound to be

16 heard in this Court. We will not ourselves encourage its excessive use

17 for fear that our shorthand may lead to a brevity of thinking. We don't

18 particularly associate it as a title with the approach of the accused

19 whose purposes we have already separately described. That he might rely

20 on the support of people who had perhaps extreme nationalist views going

21 by particular titles is, again, for reasons already given, not

22 surprising."

23 Now, that I think is the first time in the opening that the words

24 "Greater Serbia" featured on my lips, and if you go back to the joinder

25 motion it featured on the lips of the accused and not I think until reply

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 from me. So that's always been our position.

2 JUDGE ROBINSON: In response to the comment that I just made that

3 I would have the Chamber staff research it, I've just been handed a copy

4 of the section of the 98 bis decision, paragraph 249, which refers to

5 Ambassador Galbraith testifying that he believed that the accused, and

6 here I quote: "Was the architect of a policy of creating Greater Serbia

7 and that little happened without his knowledge and involvement."

8 And then in paragraph 288 the Chamber identifies seven bases for

9 its conclusion that the Chamber could infer that the accused not only knew

10 of the genocidal plan but that he also shared with its members the intent

11 to destroy. And this second matter referred to is the accused's advocacy

12 of and support for the concept of a Greater Serbia.

13 I think that was the reference that I had in mind to the 98 bis.

14 MR. NICE: [Microphone not activated] The same way as I can't

15 confine and shouldn't rehearse and don't rehearse witnesses away from

16 their use of terminology that may not be our use. I have already made our

17 position clear, and I don't think you'll find - but I live to be

18 corrected - in our 98 submissions that we expressed ourselves differently

19 or inconsistently from the way we had throughout.

20 JUDGE ROBINSON: It's an important clarification to make,

21 Mr. Nice, that the Prosecution's case is not so attached -- is not as

22 attached to the concept of a Greater Serbia as it is to the idea of all

23 Serbs living in the same land.

24 MR. NICE: Yes, indeed, that --

25 JUDGE ROBINSON: In one state. In one state. Although I would

1 have to say that I still have it -- I still have a doubt as to whether

2 there isn't a proper basis for saying that that was the Prosecution's

3 case. Yes. Initially at any rate.

4 Mr. Milosevic, yes. Just please ask --

5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I hope --

6 JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues] ... let us move

7 on.

8 [Trial Chamber confers]

9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic. Yes.

10 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

11 Q. Mr. Seselj, you are a professor at the Faculty of Law. You have a

12 Ph.D.. As I don't understand Mr. Nice's position, can you tell me whether

13 you understand it?

14 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Seselj, please.

15 JUDGE ROBINSON: That's not a proper question for Mr. Seselj.

16 Mr. Nice has explained his position. Let us -- let us move on.

17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] But Mr. Robinson --

18 JUDGE ROBINSON: It is an authoritative statement of the

19 Prosecution's position. It comes from the -- from the officer who is the

20 Chief Prosecutor in this case.

21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Allow me, Mr. Robinson, to say that

22 my meager intellectual faculties are insufficient for me to understand

23 what Mr. Nice has said. I wish to have it explained to me whether the

24 existence of Yugoslavia for 70 years in which all Serbs, Croats, and the

25 Slav Muslims lived, whether my advocation of the preservation of this

1 Yugoslavia or the historical concept that was not spoken of, what it is

2 actually that Mr. Nice is alleging against me. He is using concepts he

3 does not understand, and you don't understand what he is saying and

4 neither do I. This is utter confusion.

5 JUDGE ROBINSON: It's not a matter for you to say. It's quite out

6 of order for you to suggest that the Chamber does not understand what

7 Mr. Nice said. We understand what he has said, and I take it to be a very

8 important statement on the part of the Prosecutor, because we have to know

9 the basis on which the Prosecution is proceeding. So proceed with your

10 next question.

11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It's a good thing that after three

12 years you are supposed to see what the basis of the Prosecution is.

13 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

14 Q. Mr. Seselj, in tab 4 there is a part, a small part, a small

15 excerpt from your book. You're the author. In all fairness, this is from

16 the second edition.

17 A. There is no difference between the first and second editions.

18 Q. Well, there isn't but I'd like to draw your attention to that

19 after all. It shows that your book sold very well if a second edition was

20 published. It is called "The Ideology of Serbian Nationalism," written by

21 you. In relation to that, I wish to put a few questions to you. Let me

22 just see what the page is. 980. It's a rather poor copy, the one I have.

23 So on page 980, and this part that we've made an excerpt of was

24 translated into English too.

25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I remind you of your duty to

1 ensure that the Trial Chamber has before it the passage to which you are

2 referring.

3 JUDGE KWON: When was the first edition published?

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The first edition was published also

5 in 1992, but before that a shorter version of that book was published in

6 1998. I worked on that, and I supplemented the book.

7 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: The witness said 1998.

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is my monograph based on the

9 scholarly work of Professor Dr. Lazar Kostic, a renowned university

10 professor at the time of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and one of the leading

11 Serb anti-communist emigres after the Second World War. He wrote a total

12 of 84 books.

13 I first dealt with his scholarly work, and then on the basis of

14 his scholarly work I developed other theses and assumptions. And of

15 course I supplemented my work with areas that Professor Kostic had not

16 dealt with. That constitutes the most all-embracing, synthetic work on

17 the ideology of Serbian nationalism to date.

18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

19 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

20 Q. That's on page 3 in the second paragraph in the English

21 translation, what I wish to cite to Mr. Seselj.

22 So on page 980, you say: "The Serbs through" --

23 A. What did you say?

24 Q. Page 980. I'm quoting part of the text. "The Serbs through the

25 strength of their own spirit liberated parts of their own people and

1 national territories. The pan Serbian agenda is not a figment of the

2 imagination of a handful of daydreamers. It was imposed on politicians by

3 history and ethnography. It stems from the consciousness of a nation

4 which has strived for several centuries and through constant and unanimous

5 efforts to merge its people's destinies."

6 Before that, in the preceding paragraph, I'm going to deal with

7 that very briefly, you talk about Denis' analysis of the nature of Serb

8 nationalism, and it says that this stems from the desire for happiness

9 that everybody carries within themselves and which is interlinked with the

10 need for the full development of our effective capacities."

11 So -- or actually let me just finish with Denis and then I'm going

12 to ask you for further explanations. Just one more paragraph, the last

13 one before the second or, rather, other chapter, speaking of the Serbs.

14 Their quarrels were used by the Hungarians and Germans whose interest was

15 for the Serbs to have the biggest possible mistakes. Their enemies did

16 not see or did not want to see the higher qualities of the Serbian people,

17 their resilience acquired in difficult times, the refinement and sharpness

18 of their intelligence, particularly the determination of their idealism

19 and the strength of their will which have endured in spite of many visible

20 oscillations. Winds disturb a river's surface but do not change its

21 course."

22 What you speak about here is a work that considerably preceded all

23 these events, and this is based on the work of an analyst who took into

24 account the main points that this dealt with. Tell us to what extent this

25 matched your own thoughts on the matter and to what extent did you

1 contribute to the affirmation of this idea on the plane of theory? I wish

2 to remind you that the title of the book is "The Ideology of Serbian

3 Nationalism."

4 A. On three pages I deal with Ernest Denis' book that is called

5 "Greater Serbia." It was published in Paris in 1915 during the time of

6 the First World War. Ernest Denis is fascinated by the efforts made by

7 the Serbian people and their two great victories over the Austro-Hungarian

8 army at Cer and Kolubara in 1914 which made all of Europe admire them.

9 Ernest Denis concludes that they -- that everybody in the world should

10 recognise the will and wish of the Serb people to unite.

11 JUDGE ROBINSON: What is the relevance of this?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, the extent to which this can

13 be seen, namely, what existed during the times of the First World War and

14 what existed in the time that we are discussing here, 1991 and 1992.

15 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

16 Q. Please, Mr. Seselj --

17 JUDGE ROBINSON: No, Mr. Milosevic, I've cut you off because the

18 proper course is for you to answer my question that I have asked and then

19 await my ruling. You don't proceed with Mr. Seselj.

20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

21 JUDGE ROBINSON: You have not explained the relevance

22 sufficiently, but I'll give you another try to explain the relevance.

23 Otherwise, I'm not allowing the question. We need to move on.

24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. Let's give it a very

25 pragmatic angle.

1 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

2 Q. Mr. Seselj, as for what it says here in your book, as for what you

3 wrote yourself and as for what you presented by way of the views of other

4 scholars, in this programme, this programme of a Greater Serbia seen

5 through your own eyes, seen through the eyes of foreign scholars, does it

6 mean the subordination of the Croats?

7 A. No, absolutely not. What I deal with here is the presentation of

8 arguments about the Serb origins, about their ethnic substrate and curbing

9 the Vatican and previously Austro-Hungarian ideology that forced Serb

10 Catholics to declare themselves as Croats.

11 In the 19th century, the Croatian national awareness was only

12 limited to Zagreb, Varazdin and Krizevci, those districts. There are many

13 historical testimonials that they consider themselves to be Serbs.

14 Bosnian Catholics consider them to be Serbs. Friar Grga Matic, a Catholic

15 priest, is writing Serbian nationalist poems with great delight. I am

16 indicating these historical examples, this awareness of single origins and

17 a single nation that --

18 JUDGE ROBINSON: I've stopped you because I'm going to consult

19 with my colleagues, and I'll also hear Mr. Kay on this point as to whether

20 in light of the statement made by the Prosecutor we need to hear more

21 evidence on this concept. The Prosecutor said that his case is concerned

22 more with the idea of all Serbs living in the same state than with the

23 concept of a Greater Serbia.

24 I don't think that that necessarily means that all evidence on

25 Greater Serbia is to be excluded, but certainly it should be taken into

1 account. I'll consult.

2 [Trial Chamber confers]

3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Kay, do you --

4 MR. KAY: No, I can't see any basis of taking this further myself.

5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. The Chamber's position is this: We'll not

6 exclude automatically all evidence on the concept of a Greater Serbia on

7 the basis of the Prosecutor's statement made some minutes ago. But this

8 particular piece of evidence being given by Mr. Seselj, we don't find

9 particularly helpful.

10 So move on to another area, Mr. Milosevic. We have heard a lot

11 about -- we have heard a lot about the history.

12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, there is another link

13 there. In his approach, Mr. Nice equals the fact that in Yugoslavia all

14 Serbs lived in one state with a Greater Serbia. He's actually proclaiming

15 Yugoslavia to be a Greater Serbia. All Serbs in one state is not an idea.

16 It is a statement of fact. That was the case for 70 years, for the

17 duration of Yugoslavia. For 70 years, all Serbs lived in one state. That

18 was a fact of life. It's a material fact.

19 JUDGE ROBINSON: It's precisely because of the possible

20 interchangeability of the two ideas, Greater Serbia and all Serbs living

21 in the same state, it's precisely because of that that I've said that the

22 Chamber will not rule evidence -- rule out evidence on this matter. We

23 can't rule it out in that way. But the evidence which Mr. Seselj is

24 giving now we don't find helpful. So move on to -- you can deal with the

25 concept, but let us deal with -- with the matters that are more relevant

1 to the indictment so far as the idea either of a Greater Serbia or of all

2 Serbs living in the same state.

3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right.

4 JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm going to give -- the Chamber will give

5 further consideration to the significance that is to be attached to the

6 statement made by the Prosecutor, and he'll ask Mr. Kay to bear this in

7 mind.

8 I've just --

9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson --

10 JUDGE ROBINSON: I've just been handed another part of the

11 Chamber's decision on the no-case submission -- oh, this is the submission

12 itself. This is the submission itself from the Prosecution -- from the --

13 this is the Prosecution's response.

14 In paragraph 262 of the Prosecutor's response it says: "This

15 amounted de facto to planning for a Greater Serbia." That seems plain

16 enough. "There was not a single fully articulated plan from the outset

17 and the plan changed with the changing circumstances," et cetera.

18 And then in paragraph 273, in the middle of that

19 paragraph: "However, the self-determination of the Serbian people would

20 include the territories with Serb majorities in Croatia and Bosnia and

21 Herzegovina, including a de facto Greater Serbia -- achieving a de facto

22 Greater Serbia, a term he always avoided using in public or at all."

23 That's closer to what Mr. Nice explained in court some minutes

24 ago, the more pragmatic approach.

25 And in paragraph 276, the third-to-last line: "More generally,

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 witnesses were clear that the accused wanted to create a Greater Serbia."

2 So, Mr. Nice, I give you my personal view. I don't think we have

3 settled the matter. Clearly it's an important matter to be settled. As

4 Mr. Kay said very importantly, the accused needs to know the case that

5 he's facing, and if there has been what I term advisedly a retreat from a

6 particular position, then we need to know that. And if the present

7 position is in substance the same as the concept of a Greater Serbia, then

8 of course we still need to deal with it.

9 MR. NICE: Well, Your Honour, our position has in no way changed.

10 There's no question of a retreat or change of position. I'm grateful that

11 you've located the passages on the submission that I myself have been

12 reviewing, and indeed the only other passage I think which you may find

13 helpful - and I'll just turn it up for you; I had a little bit before but

14 I can find it easily enough - Is in the joinder application to which you

15 earlier referred and we can look at that.

16 As I explained, if we go to the beginning of this hearing before

17 His Honour Judge Jorda and other Judges, what happened, rather, in the

18 sort of straw man way, I think, was that the accused, let's find it, made

19 many references or several references about Greater Serbia. They were

20 picked up by Mr. Kay -- the accused also made references to Greater

21 Albania and all sorts of other historical concepts of that kind. I think

22 that when it came to my reply, which is the first time I think if at all

23 that I mention Greater Serbia - I'll just try to find it for you -

24 Mr. Tapuskovic as he was then with us made some observations again about

25 Greater Serbia. His Honour Judge Hunt raised the issue of the Greater

1 Serbia argument with Mr. Kay. There was a certain amount of discussion

2 between them. But I think my only reference to it, and I think I've found

3 it. I'll just check that it's me. I'm sure it is. Yes, it's on page 80

4 of the transcript or thereabouts, 81, I think. And I said this: "Greater

5 Serbia features, of course, in the writing and it features only to a very

6 limited extent in the pleadings. Features, for example, in one of the

7 indictments in the mouth of Seselj, his rabble-rousing words. It features

8 in another of the indictments as being something that was being advocated

9 at the same time as the accused was doing, that which he is said to have

10 done, and it features in the third indictment as being a way of looking at

11 things but always qualified in the way that I qualified it," and the

12 transcript reads on the last occasion when this -- and then I -- and that

13 must be, I think, a reference, although incompletely captured on the

14 transcript, to the way I'd expressed our position about the accused, right

15 at the beginning without ever using the term Greater Serbia.

16 Then I go on to make this clear. "We say as we have said from the

17 beginning that there was a common plan by this accused to retain or gain

18 territory for the purpose of exercising power via a central Serbian state

19 differently expressed on different occasions but to that effect."

20 So at all times I had separated the Prosecution's position, which

21 was to identify what the accused was actually --

22 JUDGE KWON: My microphone is not working.

23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, may I stop you.

24 JUDGE KWON: We have one more clear passage.

25 MR. NICE: Yes.

1 JUDGE KWON: Another passage in our Rule 98 bis decision.

2 MR. NICE: Yes.

3 JUDGE KWON: It's paragraph 252. I will read it out the

4 passage: "It is the Prosecution case that the accused intended to destroy

5 the Muslim population of those parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina essentially

6 earmarked for the inclusion into a Greater Serbia. Without that

7 destruction, the accused's goal could not be realised," et cetera.

8 JUDGE ROBINSON: That seems clear enough, Mr. Nice. That was the

9 Prosecution's --

10 MR. NICE: That's the Chamber's interpretation of what we

11 expressed in our submissions.

12 JUDGE KWON: No. That's the Prosecution's response.

13 MR. NICE: That the -- but, again, it's the de facto position as

14 opposed to the historical concept. And that's always been our stated

15 position. And if you'd permit me to read out from where I was.

16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. And in the -- I've just been handed the --

17 a section of the motion for joinder. This is page 6 under the

18 heading "Rule --" it's the -- oh, it's at page 5 of the joinder motion.

19 MR. NICE: That I don't have before me at the moment.

20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. And this is what the Trial Chamber said in

21 its --

22 JUDGE KWON: Prosecution's.

23 [Trial Chamber confers]

24 JUDGE ROBINSON: We'll take the break now and come back to this

25 matter.

1 MR. NICE: Your Honour, I think -- I'm grateful. I think that's

2 the last reference from me in the joinder argument. I'll come back to it

3 after the break, if Your Honour pleases.

4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. We will adjourn for 20 minutes.

5 --- Recess taken at 10.36 a.m.

6 --- On resuming at 10.58 a.m.

7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, I've had more time to consider this

8 matter, and I am clearly of the view that the concept of a Greater Serbia

9 was indeed a central plank in the Prosecution's case. It was the basis on

10 which the motion for joinder was made, and I refer to two passages,

11 paragraph 13 of the motion: "In the present case the three indictments

12 concern the same transaction in the sense of a common scheme, strategy, or

13 plan, namely the accused Milosevic's overall conduct in attempting to

14 create a Greater Serbia, an centralised Serbian state encompassing the

15 Serb populated areas of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina and all of

16 Kosovo."

17 And then on page 18 -- sorry, paragraph 18, page 7, at the

18 bottom "He, that is Milosevic, later exploited these affairs in Croatia,

19 Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo in order to further his campaign to create a

20 Greater Serbia."

21 And indeed it was for that reason that the Appeals Chamber

22 overturned the decision of this Trial Chamber rejecting the motion for

23 joinder, because the Trial Chamber found that there was no common thread,

24 that the concept of a Greater Serbia was not a common thread. It was not

25 the same transaction and the Appeals Chamber held otherwise. So I find it

1 startling now to hear you say that it was not part of the Prosecution

2 case.

3 It may be that you now say, you now take a more pragmatic decision

4 which is reflected in the idea of what Mr. Milosevic wanted and the other

5 participants in the alleged joint criminal enterprise was that all Serbs

6 should live in the same state, and you may want to say that that in fact

7 amounts to Greater Serbia, but I cannot allow you to say that it was not a

8 part of the Prosecution's case. The accused needs to know what he's

9 facing. And if you need time to consider this matter, Mr. Nice, as I

10 consider it extremely important to the case, then we'll give you time.

11 MR. NICE: Well, Your Honour, I personally don't need time. There

12 hadn't been any change, and I'm sorry that the Chamber hasn't understood

13 the position more fully earlier.

14 Can I take you -- I've only just been able to review --

15 JUDGE ROBINSON: May I say that this time will not be counted

16 against the accused.

17 MR. NICE: May I -- I've only just been able to turn up the

18 filings. The one that Your Honour refers to which I've looked at, and

19 also you'll want to look probably at the interlocutory appeal filing. I

20 haven't got the date. But I'll quote you a passage from that, or two

21 passages.

22 But before I do, first of all, I don't actually think there's --

23 there's a distinction or difference of the kind that Your Honours are

24 apparently concerned about, because it's always been clear in the way I've

25 expressed the case and the questions I've asked that the practical effects

1 for which the accused sought are similar in geographical scope to the

2 effects of the implementation of a formal Greater Serbia plan of the kind

3 that this witness might have wanted.

4 Second, identifying over a long -- from a long history the precise

5 definition of something, a term of art like Greater Serbia is never going

6 to be easy if you use it as a philosophical term going back to the 16th

7 century as he would claim, running through Nacertanije as we've heard in

8 evidence, reflected in practical political proposals as in the London

9 conference, being dealt with by Moljevic on a philosophical basis and so

10 on. It's going to be very difficult to find a precise definition if you

11 use it as a term of art.

12 And third, before I come to the passage to which I'm going to

13 refer, had we ever alleged in specific terms that this accused espoused in

14 philosophical terms Greater Serbia, it would have been probably unwise and

15 probably wrong, because he would have been able to say the words never

16 fell from his lips and nor they did. So that -- that's why from the

17 minute that I was in charge of the presentation of this case, I was

18 cautious in the extreme in way we argued for and presented his thinking

19 processes, making it clear that his thinking processes, or at least his

20 spoken expression of his thinking processes, would have led to a de facto

21 position, a de facto Greater Serbia, similar in geographical extent to

22 that which might have been argued for by this witness.

23 And if we then go to the appeal brief, at paragraph 14 I made the

24 following observations or we --

25 JUDGE ROBINSON: To the appeal brief?

1 MR. NICE: Yes. Let's just get the date of it. I'll come back

2 to. This is 15th of January, 2002. I'm grateful to Ms. Dicklich. And

3 paragraph 14, I think, has the first reference where I said the

4 following: "The Trial Chamber based its analysis on three factors which

5 the Prosecution submits were erroneously applied. First, the Trial

6 Chamber found that because the words 'Greater Serbia' plan did not appear

7 in the Kosovo indictment and 'it is only in relation to other individuals

8 that the man is mentioned in the Bosnia Croatian indictments' that the

9 nexus was too nebulous to constitute a common scheme, strategy, or plan."

10 Now, if we then go to the next reference to -- I'm sorry. I'll

11 find the next reference which is on paragraph 27. We'll see how --

12 probably a better look at the paragraph in context. It begins with

13 thus: "In the present case, the purpose of the joint criminal enterprise

14 alleged in all three indictments is substantially similar," and then I set

15 out -- or we set out in the Croatia indictment the purposes stated as

16 follows. And we dealt with the Bosnia indictment and the Kosovo

17 indictment, and I can quote it if you think I should do so and.

18 Then we said this: "Although the wording differs slightly, the

19 import of the purpose is the same to remove the majority of the non-Serb

20 civilian population from areas which the Serbs wished to make or maintain

21 as Serb-controlled territory. The Prosecution explained in its written

22 submissions as well as during the hearing that the phrase 'Greater Serbia'

23 was merely descriptive of the plan by the accused to create and maintain a

24 centralised Serbian state," and then there is a footnote, I imagine, to

25 the references.

1 "Such a man which encompassed both getting rid of non-Serb

2 civilians and attaining and maintaining Serb domination over the remaining

3 population in that territory remained consistent throughout the time

4 period covered by all three indictments despite the different language

5 used. The Prosecution submits that it was an error for the Trial Chamber

6 not to consider that the purpose as well as the plan charged in all three

7 indictments was the same."

8 And I think that's the last reference in that pleading to the term

9 "Greater Serbia," at least as discovered or discoverable electronically.

10 So that whatever may have been the understanding or

11 misunderstanding before the Trial Chamber, the position was made quite

12 clear to the Appeals Chamber in the written filing that we were looking at

13 the de facto, the pragmatic position as we described it. And when you

14 look at the oral arguments, and as I respectfully remind you, remember

15 that it was the accused and Mr. Kay who referred to Greater Serbia, and I

16 quite specifically identified how we were relying on it and the way in

17 which if featured, then our position hadn't changed. And I know it hadn't

18 changed because I've always understood our position to be that it's the

19 express desire to have all Serbs in one state, de facto Greater Serbia if

20 you will, co-extensive geographical extension in practical terms with what

21 had been achieved by those specifically espousing Greater Serbia, but not

22 the espousing by this accused vocally, who knows what was in his mind,

23 that is to be proved in other ways and never espoused by him. And I don't

24 think there is any difficulty in establishing in due course with

25 questioning of this witness that his position differed from the accused's

1 position because he espoused Greater Serbia, the philosophical concept

2 with which we've been either troubled or enthralled in the extensive

3 expert evidence that's been given.

4 JUDGE ROBINSON: His concept is different.

5 MR. NICE: Yes. It's differently based. It's historically based.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: Can I ask -- no microphone.

7 Can I ask you, Mr. Nice, why reference was made at all by the

8 Prosecution to the concept of a Greater Serbia. Why were these words

9 chosen if the Prosecution knew that they had a distinctive historical

10 context?

11 MR. NICE: Well, you can certainly ask the question and I can do

12 my best to answer it. I have both the difficulties of some separation

13 from some of the drafting as an individual and a considerable passage of

14 time over which to look, but I -- I suspect that the proper answer would

15 be as follows, that if you view a man, this accused, who is doing

16 something that is very similar in its effect to but different in it's

17 expression from those who espouse and argue for the philosophical and

18 historical concept of Greater Serbia, you have to decide do we say he's a

19 Greater Serbian. For the reasons I've already given that would have been

20 unwise and indeed wrong. Do you nevertheless draw to the Court's

21 attention that there may be significance in the existence both of the

22 notion of Greater Serbia as expressed by others? Yes, you do. And that's

23 why in both the Croatian and the Bosnian indictments the concept

24 attributed to this witness is dealt with.

25 Do you express the understanding, which we did in different ways,

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 that the result of the accused's political ambitions might have been the

2 same in practical terms as those seeking a Greater Serbia? Yes, you do.

3 Do you indeed make it clear that the accused might have about

4 relying subtly or otherwise on the emotions that could be whipped up by

5 those pressing for a philosophy that he wasn't prepared publicly to state?

6 Yes, you do, because of course it may be that public expression of the

7 Greater Serbia concept has negative potential within it.

8 So that there may be several reasons for stating it, but we only

9 ever stated it, certainly by the time that the matter had been argued in

10 the Appeals Chamber to correct any misunderstanding at the Trial Chamber

11 level and in my opening. We only ever expressed it in the cautious way

12 that I've explained, but it would have been unhelpful to the Chamber

13 because it was bound to arise, not at least to mention it, and mention it

14 we did because it falls from the lips of others. Ambassador Galbraith. I

15 couldn't rehearse Ambassador Galbraith in a proofing session and say, You

16 think this is Greater Serbia. We've express it had differently, could I?

17 I had to let him express himself as he would. I can't go to the military

18 witnesses whose evidence was summarised in the passage Mr. Kay referred to

19 and say, Well, that's the way you see it. We don't see it that way in a

20 complex of history and philosophy and politics, and we want this phrase,

21 not that. Of course not. Witnesses have to be allowed to express their

22 view in the way that they did, and we are then left at the end with the

23 position in which we are. And although I haven't got all the references

24 for you, I can recall that in my questioning of the witnesses who dealt

25 with the concept of Greater Serbia, I sought to make plain, and it's

1 unfortunate if it didn't come across to the Chamber, but I sought to make

2 plain that of course there was a difference between the expression of the

3 concept of Greater Serbia with all its historical baggage or whatever

4 you'd like to describe it and the actual objectives of this particular

5 accused.

6 And -- I don't think I can take it any further than that.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: Do you say then -- do you say that Greater Serbia

8 as you understand it is something different from all Serbs living within

9 the same state?

10 MR. NICE: Indeed. The plan -- because it has a different

11 historical root. You've heard, for example, what this witness has said

12 and I'm not --

13 JUDGE BONOMY: His concept is quite clear and that it's not the

14 same as what you're trying to portray here in the case against the

15 accused. That's quite clear. But what I would like to understand is what

16 you mean by a Greater Serbia. Do you mean that the concept as generally

17 understood in the region is meant to -- or means all Serbs living within

18 one state, or are you saying it's something different from that?

19 MR. NICE: Well --

20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Because you're using the expression repeatedly.

21 If we go through your 98 bis response, if we go through the motion for

22 joinder, the Prosecution are using the expression. They're putting it in

23 inverted commas most of the time but not always. So they obviously have

24 something in mind when they use it.

25 MR. NICE: That's a centralised -- the centralised Serbian state

1 incorporating those parts of both Croatia and Bosnia where Serbs lived or

2 where Serbs could be located following, for example, the fall of the

3 eastern enclaves and which could perhaps ultimately be attached to Serbia

4 to form a single state, yes. But of course it's a different concept from

5 that of this witness who has already recently given his expressed views on

6 indeed the national of Croats, merely being Serbs by another name.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: But is there some other evidence or some or witness

8 who says that Greater Serbia equals the concept you describe as all Serbs

9 living within one state? Or is Greater Serbia as you refer to it in all

10 these documents something different. That's what I'd like to understand.

11 MR. NICE: Greater Serbia, the way that the Prosecution has used

12 in inverted commas or applied with the phrase de facto and expressed in

13 its questioning, that use of the Greater Serbia concept always distinct

14 from the historical philosophical concept is the understanding of the

15 objective of this accused and of those with whom he was in a joint

16 criminal enterprise to have Serbs from Croatia and Bosnia centralised

17 with --

18 JUDGE ROBINSON: What evidence bears that out, Mr. Nice?

19 MR. NICE: That is what the case is about. Where we go to find it

20 is in many different places. First of all, the facts on the ground, what

21 people were doing. There's the express desires of various local groups

22 that they might ultimately become identified with and --

23 JUDGE ROBINSON: What part of the evidence. Yes, I know that

24 evidence is there, but what part of the evidence explicitly relates that

25 phenomenon to the Greater Serbia? That's what I wanted to find out.

1 Because that is what you say you mean.

2 MR. NICE: Well, I'm reminded by Mr. Saxon, or maybe by

3 Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, I'm not sure, that one witness, for example, General

4 Adikic [phoen], actually made the equation in those terms. But it's --

5 this is a matter of fact, if I may say so, ultimately for the Chamber

6 because labelling things is something we have to do for the processes of

7 getting on with the evidence.

8 JUDGE BONOMY: With respect, Mr. Nice, you're not answering the

9 question. In paragraph 262 of your response to the 98 bis motion, you

10 say: "This amounted - de facto -"

11 MR. NICE: May I just find it for a minute.

12 JUDGE BONOMY: Sorry.

13 MR. NICE: I think I've got that -- is this the joinder one?

14 JUDGE BONOMY: No. Your response the 98 bis motion, which is at a

15 much later stage in the case and therefore more relevant.

16 MR. NICE: Yes, I have it. Paragraph?

17 JUDGE BONOMY: 262. It says this: This amounted - de facto - to

18 planning for a Greater Serbia."

19 MR. NICE: Yes.

20 JUDGE BONOMY: Now, that means that Greater Serbia is a concept.

21 It's a concept, and the evidence is that as a matter of fact what was

22 happening was planning coincidentally which amounted to the same thing,

23 but you have to have definition of the Greater Serbia to start with before

24 you can say something de facto amounts to that. You've got to have the

25 starting point. Now, what is the starting point?

1 MR. NICE: I'm sorry, it's no doubt my shortcoming, but I'm not

2 sure that I do understand Your Honour's question. What we are saying

3 here -- let me just go back to the previous paragraph. It says this:

4 "The accused's plans," this is 261. "The accused's plan in the late

5 1980s, increasingly clear in 1990, was that the Serbian people scattered

6 throughout the former Yugoslavia should live or remain in one state, the

7 state in which they had a majority." And that's Jovic's diary cited.

8 "The evidence shows that he was a head of Serb leaders in Croatia

9 and Bosnia and Herzegovina in planning and in the execution of the plan.

10 In the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina, he conceived the plan together with

11 Bosnian Serb leadership as early as 1991, perhaps before, that Serbs in

12 Bosnia should remain part of one state linked territorially and

13 politically to Serbia and to the Serb designated areas in Croatia." The

14 footnote to that is various parts of evidence and intercepts which we'd

15 have to look at in detail.

16 So that what I'm saying, what we're saying there is that the

17 evidence about his understanding and intention in the late 1980s and in

18 the late 1990s to have, as we put it here, "Serbs in Bosnia should remain

19 part of one state linked territorially and politically to Serbia and to

20 Serb designated territories in Croatia amounted de facto to planning for a

21 Greater Serbia."

22 JUDGE BONOMY: No, no. That is a statement of the de facto

23 position. That is the factual situation, and you then say that amounts to

24 planning for a Greater Serbia. In other words, it comes to the same

25 thing, you say, or -- but that you must have a starting -- Greater Serbia

1 must mean something to start with.

2 MR. NICE: I see. Well --

3 JUDGE BONOMY: And that's what I'm trying to find out. What is it

4 you say that Greater Serbia is that the de facto actions of the accused

5 amounted to.

6 MR. NICE: Yes. It may be that this particular pleading would

7 have been assisted by the -- by the single word "a" being either

8 underlined or bolded because what we're -- in my reading of it it's quite

9 clear, I think, it amounted to planning for a Greater Serbia.

10 Now, if you take, as we have encouraged you to do from time to

11 time, the Epoka maps which set out, for example, various versions of his

12 party's ambitions at times proximate to The Hague Conference and matters

13 of that sort, one can see that in a pragmatic way and an inevitably

14 realistic way as politicians well or badly intentioned, the precise limits

15 of their ambition will change from day to day and reflect changing

16 circumstances, but they can all amount to plans to extend the Serbian

17 state, so that what we are articulating here at this part of the filing is

18 that there was a desire for a Greater Serbia, an enlarged Serbia, a

19 centralised state of Serbs from Serbia and also from Croatia and Bosnia.

20 JUDGE ROBINSON: And you would offer the same explanation for

21 paragraph 252, which Judge Kwon read.

22 MR. NICE: If I could have another look at it.

23 JUDGE ROBINSON: "It is the Prosecution case that the accused

24 intended to destroy the Muslim population of those parts of Bosnia and

25 Herzegovina essentially earmarked for inclusion into a Greater Serbia."

1 MR. NICE: Yes. I think -- I seem to remember that the way I

2 expressed it probably in opening - it may have been in one of the other

3 arguments - it was to either gain or regain territory of this kind.

4 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Nice.

5 MR. NICE: Yes.

6 JUDGE KWON: If you further read that paragraph, the third

7 sentence says like this: "The Bosnian Muslim population was the principal

8 obstacle to its territorial designs, and he could not tolerate their

9 existence as a group in those municipalities."

10 So from that passage, am I correctly understanding that your --

11 the crux of the Prosecution case or the understanding of Greater Serbia is

12 that it is related to the territorial design and not to tolerate the

13 existence of other groups? So when the accused is saying that all Serbs

14 should live in one state, he means this thing. His ambition related to

15 territory and the expulsion of other ethnic groups.

16 MR. NICE: Indeed.

17 JUDGE KWON: So that's your understanding?

18 MR. NICE: It includes that. You have two different -- you have

19 two different developing problems.

20 JUDGE KWON: Your understanding of Greater Serbia means same

21 thing.

22 MR. NICE: Not the witness' Greater Serbia, the de facto Greater

23 Serbia, yes, because there are two distinct parts, I suppose, depending

24 how you want to split things up. There is ensuring that places where

25 Serbs were in a majority could be in the same state. There is ensuring

1 that places for other reasons it might have wanted to be Serb majority

2 should fall into the same potential for inclusion, and that's the eastern

3 Drina and Srebrenica for example in particular. So yes, there are -- but

4 in a way Your Honour's question, picking up the factual difficulties

5 facing the accused if he wanted a contiguous Serb state, show how

6 inappropriate it might be simply to seek to fix him with a philosophical

7 concept historically based rather than to say as we've said, and I would

8 submit at all times, this was a practical plan of his.

9 I've got another note.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: Is it --

11 MR. NICE: Your Honour, yes?

12 JUDGE BONOMY: Is it then your case that the proposed Greater

13 Serbia was to in fact be one country incorporating Serbia and parts of

14 Croatia and Bosnia?

15 MR. NICE: That's always been --

16 JUDGE BONOMY: One country, one state.

17 MR. NICE: Ultimately the intention thought would have been for

18 these states to exist as a single state, and there is material coming from

19 various sources that would show that that was the ambition of others

20 however cautiously expressed or not expressed by this particular accused.

21 But of course this particular accused, as he makes it plain, was prepared

22 to play a long game and wait and see what developed.

23 JUDGE KWON: Which is different from preserving the state, a

24 federal state, Yugoslavia.

25 MR. NICE: Well, yes. Once the possibility for preserving federal

1 Yugoslavia was gone, whether at his own hands at The Hague Conference or

2 otherwise, then a second plan has to come -- or doesn't have to come into

3 effect, but it does come into effect, and that's the stage at which a

4 Greater Serbia became the reality in his mind, we would argue.

5 Let me just see if I've got anything else I want to draw your to

6 attention.

7 Yes. I mean, I don't -- I don't think we can understate nor have

8 we understated the reality that the borders for which the accused's

9 intentions and the actions to which he was associated would reach would

10 have been similar to if not very similar or identical to in fact those

11 espoused by this witness, thus the time that we've taken and I'm sorry

12 that again the points haven't been made with sufficient clarity, the

13 points we've -- the time we've taken with the historical maps, the London

14 conference and so on, upon which the accused has relied or upon which his

15 party has sought to rely.

16 You will remember, for example, how it is that when he was seeking

17 resolution of a problem he's caught on an intercept referring to somebody

18 else's plan at the end of the First World War saying, Well, how about the

19 London conference? Can't we go for that plan?

20 This is the practical realities or the practical approach of this

21 particular accused, but the extent would be the same as that espoused

22 probably by this witness.

23 JUDGE BONOMY: But that -- well, is that your case, that the

24 accused was going -- was seeking to take over the whole of Bosnia, for

25 example?

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. NICE: No, that's not the case that --

2 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, this witness says the whole of Bosnia falls

3 within Greater Serbia.

4 MR. NICE: Well, if you move it all up to the Karlobag-Virovitica

5 line, yes, but the evidence we have at the moment is that the accused was

6 at this stage much more pragmatic. But --

7 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, it's wrong to say that your case is that the

8 intentions would reach or have been very similar to if not very similar or

9 identical to in fact those espoused by this witness. They're

10 quite different.

11 MR. NICE: At this stage, correct. But, of course, if -- if you

12 find that there is a cleaving to the Virovitica-Karlobag line ultimately

13 is the plan with a much diminished Croatian state, then that's what comes

14 about. We have to deal with things as they slowly unfolded. And with a

15 man who, of course -- I'm not sure if this is protected or otherwise. No,

16 I better not say that. I'm not sure. We're in public session.

17 Just one minute. Would Your Honours just give me a minute.

18 [Prosecution counsel confer]

19 MR. NICE: In any event -- I'm sorry.

20 [Trial Chamber confers]

21 MR. NICE: Your Honours, I'm grateful that amongst other things

22 for a reminder that again a couple of witnesses, and I think -- or one --

23 Matovina is one and Kandic is another, themselves specifically expressed,

24 I haven't found the references, and I'm grateful to my friends for

25 reminding me of them, but specifically refer to, as it were, a Greater

1 Serbia putting the emphasis on "a" rather than on the concept. And

2 that's -- these again are not witnesses we rehearse into their statement

3 of their understanding nor could we, but they express what -- how they saw

4 things.

5 Now, I think it's also important to bear in mind with, as you view

6 this part of the history of the case and as the issues that you're going

7 to have to deal with that connection to the historical concept of Greater

8 Serbia is not only something that may exist on a practical level, may

9 exist on a practical level as between this accused and the concept itself,

10 but for example it's something that might exist as a connection between

11 the SANU memorandum and the concept of Greater Serbia, but all those

12 understated or unstated. And therefore, it's far better to -- in our

13 respectful submission far more -- and far more realistic to say what was

14 this man seeking to achieve? He was seeking to achieve an enlarged

15 centralised Serbian state. In many ways, picking up on His Honour Judge

16 Bonomy's point, but not at the time always, it would have matched the

17 ambitions of or part of the ambitions of people like this particular

18 witness. It reflected other ideas, for example, the SANU memorandum

19 without being stated by him. But what we're concerned with in this court

20 is whether what he did by way of seeking to establish a Greater Serbian

21 state involves the commission of the crimes.

22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, would you care just to summarise what

23 the Prosecution's case is on this point in just two or three sentences.

24 MR. NICE: Yes.

25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

1 MR. NICE: Yes. This is -- I'm grateful to Mr. Saxon.

2 The accused asked -- no, no. The accused -- the accused asked a

3 question of a witness Erstic and the 25th of July, 2003, this question.

4 He said: "Which speech of mine did you hear in which something was said

5 that might have been against the Croats or against any people in

6 Yugoslavia? Which speech did you hear?

7 "Answer: Yes, sir. I watched you on television yourself when

8 you were holding those rallies in Belgrade, when you were shouting, We

9 want a Greater Serbia and all Serbs have to live in one state."

10 Now, that's his recollection of the way things were expressed. I

11 don't have it on a videotape, but there's a witness making a connection

12 between his understanding of in whatever loose or technical form the

13 term "Greater Serbia" and all Serbs living in one state. And we have been

14 clear, I've been clear, that in answer to Your Honour Judge Robinson's

15 point, the ambitions of this accused at the material time and once the

16 possibility for retaining the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia were

17 gone, his ambitions were to have an enlarged or he was party to the

18 ambitions to have an enlarged Serbian state and that informed his actions.

19 JUDGE ROBINSON: An enlarged Serbian state.

20 MR. NICE: Yes. De facto Greater Serbia, however you describe

21 it. But not the concept of this man, this witness, or his party. At

22 least as expressed.

23 I see I have another note. Yes. I think I've made this point but

24 if not I'm happy to either repeat myself or restate what I've already

25 stated for greater clarity, that is that once the decision had been made

1 to let Slovenia go, Croatia was allowed to go or it was contemplated that

2 Croatia could go on terms that it left but without the parts that were

3 going to remain under Serbian control, and at that stage, again to pick up

4 on His Honour Judge Bonomy's point it wasn't the plan at that stage to

5 include all of Bosnia except that. They faced the realities and

6 restricted themselves to the parts as the accused himself says in various

7 places dealing with it by percentages that it was realistic for them to

8 retain.

9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Nice. This is essentially a

10 matter for the Prosecutor, clarifying what his case is, so I'm not

11 requiring submissions either from Mr. Kay or Mr. Milosevic, but if you

12 have anything to say Mr. Kay, then you may say it, and similarly

13 Mr. Milosevic.

14 MR. KAY: Nothing further.

15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Mr. Milosevic, anything to say on this

16 point bearing in mind, as I said, it's essentially for the Prosecutor to

17 clarify what his case is.

18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It is absolutely clear to me, Mr.

19 Robinson, that you asked this question of him. However, since Mr. Nice

20 stated many things that are not correct, I do have a need to speak,

21 because he spoke for 40 minutes.

22 First of all, Serbs in one state is no slogan. That was and had

23 been a reality for a full 70 years, from the creation of Yugoslavia until

24 1991 what certain republics started to secede in an unlawful way and

25 through armed conflicts. So Serbs in one state was a reality for 70

1 years. And if Mr. Nice accuses anyone of trying to preserve a state that

2 was the only internationally recognised entity and a founding member of

3 the United Nations from the First World War, then I suppose the list of

4 those who can be accused of the same is really long. So let us leave that

5 aside.

6 Also, Mr. Robinson, you used an expression to the effect they

7 should live in one state. That is wrong. They lived in one state. It

8 was not a theory about how they should live in the future. They lived in

9 one state and it was for the preservation of that state that we worked.

10 Now, this is probably the first and the only instance in any

11 trial, although you probably know more about trials, maybe you know of

12 some other instance of this, that the Prosecution, after three and a half

13 years since the beginning of their case, is not aware of what exactly

14 their charges are. I think this Prosecution will be studied at

15 universities.

16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic --

17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The Prosecution don't know and --

18 JUDGE ROBINSON: I don't think it's correct to say that they're

19 not aware of what the charges are. The question has to do with the policy

20 behind the Prosecution case, what the case actually is, not the actual

21 charges.

22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, an even greater

23 problem here is that at your insistence - and when I say "your insistence"

24 I mean all three of you - if everything were clear, you probably wouldn't

25 have any need to insist, but you do insist. It means it isn't clear, so

1 at your insistence he's trying to clarify what exactly the case is. So

2 what is the sense of all that he has been saying far? It is my

3 fundamental right to know what I'm being accused of in order to answer

4 these accusations.

5 Another thing: In the past hour, Mr. Nice changed his position

6 three times, one more nonsensical than the other. First, he said that he

7 was not accusing me of advocating a Greater Serbia. It's all in the

8 transcript. I don't need to quote it. Let us not manipulate what has

9 been said here.

10 Then he does accuse me of it, and then is that the same thing as

11 all Serbs in one state with Yugoslavia having existed as a state for 70

12 years, and then he goes on to manipulate facts. He just mentioned the

13 testimony of Academician Popov and some part of map, whereas it has been

14 shown quite clearly that Mr. Nice manipulated those Epoka maps. It was a

15 magazine that was published in Belgrade.

16 Karlobag-Ogulin-Virovitica line was in a map that was published in

17 this magazine, and then some sort of link is being made with me, but he

18 doesn't mention that there was a text next to the map where it says that

19 those are writing it do not agree with the map. So it's pure

20 manipulation.

21 The map of the Belgrade initiative according to which

22 Izetbegovic --

23 JUDGE ROBINSON: The word "manipulation" has come across in the

24 translation. It's -- you're on safer ground if you say that he

25 misinterpreted the map. Proceed.

1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] He did not misinterpret it. He

2 showed a map accompanied by a text which expresses a critical attitude to

3 the map that the magazine was advocating. It is clear that this was done

4 deliberately, and it is pure lie.

5 The Belgrade initiative map that Izetbegovic was pushing, when he

6 was president of that state, he showed as the map of Greater Serbia. He's

7 consciously deceiving everyone here. You probably missed it.

8 He just said about the possibility for the SFRY to survive, he

9 just said he, meaning I, did it at The Hague Conference. The Hague

10 Conference offered a break-up of Yugoslavia that I refused. So it's quite

11 the opposite. He simply doesn't know what he's talking about anymore.

12 Either that or he's presenting notorious lies that are so obvious that I

13 don't know what to say.

14 I've already told you that Mr. Nice should be held criminally

15 responsible for deliberate obstruction of truth and deceit, because he has

16 had all the facts --

17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic. Mr. Milosevic, you're getting

18 carried away. I said initially that this was primarily a matter for the

19 Prosecutor to clarify what his case is. He has done that. If you have

20 any submissions to make on that particular legal issue, legal issue, then

21 you may make them. I am allowing you to speak, even though I don't

22 consider it to be absolutely necessary, because I want to be fair to you,

23 because it impinges on your case, but you must confine your submissions to

24 legal issues. Don't make accusations.

25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, Mr. Robinson, it is also a

1 legal issue. Even now when he is trying to explain at your request, and

2 you didn't make that request because everything was clear to you but

3 because it isn't clear to you. He's now talking about A and B plans.

4 Where does he take that from? Did he present any evidence here about

5 plans A and B? Then he mentioned an intercept where Milosevic is

6 allegedly heard saying, And where is the London conference map? The

7 London conference map was mentioned by my collocutor in that intercept,

8 whereas I was extremely uninterested. That is the sort of manipulation

9 that I believe no one should allow.

10 And look, Mr. Nice is supposed to time his references to Greater

11 Serbia. He says this is when I mentioned it the first time, and this is

12 when I mentioned it the last time. He was supposed to establish a basis,

13 although Mr. Kay already warned him that no human being can stand a trial

14 longer than two and a half years, and still you went through with it.

15 Then he says he doesn't link the plan with me and I didn't say that.

16 Then on page 82 in his opening, the army, the evidence was no

17 better -- "the evidence shows it was no better." "[In English] Committed

18 itself to the accused's programme."

19 [Interpretation] Is there any clearer than that. "Officers were

20 being instilled with the ideology of brotherhood and unity, totally

21 abandoned everything in favour of Greater Serbia." This is very explicit.

22 I therefore insist, gentlemen, that we clear up first of all what

23 I'm being charged with and then I can make my case.

24 Then if you will look at the testimony of academician Cedomir

25 Popov. It's page 34587. Mr. Nice says: "Can I also by way -- not by way

1 of correction but reminder alert the Chamber and the accused to the

2 reality that neither in my opening speeches to this Court in my own name

3 or behalf of the Prosecution rely upon the words 'Greater Serbia.'"

4 Just look at that. During the testimony of Popov, he distanced

5 himself from it, whereas now he relies on his opening. I used the phrase

6 once. [In English] With the man Seselj [Interpretation] associating it

7 with the man Seselj. That is not true. He referred to Greater Serbia

8 mentioning man Seselj but not in his opening statement. In his opening

9 statement it was associated with me, whereas now he says that the

10 Prosecution never relied on Greater Serbia. "[In English] I used the

11 phrase once associating with the man Seselj, and I think on two occasions

12 I referred to the concept of all Serbs in one state."

13 [Interpretation] Again, he doesn't know what he's talking about.

14 All Serbs in one state, that was the Yugoslavia we were trying to

15 preserve. And the phrase the "Greater Serbia" which has never been

16 attributed to the mouth of the accused is the concept that has been

17 referred to by many other witnesses, and of course we can't control them

18 in their and analysis and understanding. Well, is Mr. Nice now going to

19 withdraw those witnesses that he cannot control and who misunderstood him?

20 Now he says that we heard testimony from some witness who heard me

21 on television asking for Greater Serbia. All my speeches were recorded by

22 television. They were attended by thousands and millions of people.

23 These are blatant lies. Blatant lies. According to the practice supplied

24 here, he can lead evidence here and make claims that everybody knows is a

25 notorious lie. This is just the tip of the iceberg of this fiasco that we

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 are facing here.

2 Then Judge Robinson, before that he says: "[In English] [Previous

3 translation continues] ... is a concept that's been referred to by many

4 other witnesses and of course we can't control them in their analysis and

5 understanding of events. So far as the Prosecution is concerned, it's

6 always been careful to limit its approach to the issue to the way I opened

7 the case."

8 [Interpretation] And I already quoted to you how he opened the

9 Prosecution case. It was completely indecent.

10 Judge Robinson asks the question: "It is not in the indictment."

11 Mr. Nice: "[In English] It's in one of the indictments as well but those

12 of course preceded my openings, and my opening in the sense of the matter

13 of general theory and principle surprised them but you are quite right."

14 Judge Robinson: "But you're not saying it's not an important part of the

15 Prosecution case." Mr. Nice: "I'm not saying that. Not at all. No.

16 It's an important, it's an important matter to have in mind but we always

17 expressed ourselves in term of all Serbs in one state."

18 [Interpretation] I've just read to you what he said.