 |
| |
|
|
OneFootInTheGrave
|
 |
Kuzelj
Nov 2000
time: 05:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chris 62
Read Dino's posts. |
I did and
quote:
Kostunica, whose predecessor Slobodan Milosevic is on trial for war crimes at the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia in The Hague, said any agreement to exempt people from prosecution by the ICC would undermine international law.
Those who would enjoy immunity from prosecution would not only sleep soundly, but would also be encouraged to keep committing crimes," state news agency Tanjug quoted Kostunica as saying late Monday.
His remarks reflect a widespread feeling in Serbia that Washington is applying double standards, pressuring Belgrade to cooperate with The Hague tribunal while it seeks to win exemptions for its own citizens from the ICC.
Washington says hostile nations may abuse the ICC to bring politically-motivated cases against Americans, notably its troops on peacekeeping missions around the world. It had threatened to veto such missions.
The real question is whether this court will try everyone and really be a court or try only some and, in that case, will not be a court," Kostunica said.
The president's comments are in line with his frequent attacks against "selective justice," which he normally levels at the U.N. war crimes tribunal in The Hague. He has accused the court of bias against Serbs.
|
and these are just parts of a report. But relevant ones.
While in itself it does not sound as bad as the article in my newspapers (at the end this one is US article) it gives you the leading points of the problem.
And first way US would be able to undermine ICC is with obstructing current trials. While US will not say that officially, I am just telling you that this is what it appears to the Croatian side US is doing now. Not to meniton the possible effect that it can have on internal politics where ICC is a sensitive issue too, but would play right on US card at the moment.
As i outlined above.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Pekka
|
 |
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002
time: 07:21
|
|
Slowwhand, Well of course. There are always people who have different opinions. No matter if you're the US or the Zimbabwe. And superpowers tend to get more attention.. But if you're saying you don't give a rat's ass about other people... well that's not good pr  .
But I think that's not what you really meant.
And you know, most of the people are patriotic and love their own countries. Almost everyone thinks it's above other countries, no matter how much things suck, like economy and stuff like that. So basically, it's everyone for themselves.
Besides, I think it's very good that superpowers get lots of critics. People are different, traditions are different, history is different, cultures are different, peoples mindsets are different, religions are different.. and everyone thinks theirs are the good and right ones (not talking about them terrorists), and everyone else can screw themselves if someone crosses the line and speaks bad about you.
And for your information, the US is NOT so unpopular as you all think it is. It's the loud minority speaking sometimes.
And since when did you reserve the right to blaim others and complain about others complaining?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:21
|
|
OneFoot, IIRC, the breakup of Yugoslavia into independent states was followed in every circumstance by Serb aggression to restore the break-away republic to Yugoslav contol. In Bosnia, this particularly resulted in atrocity after attrocity, mainly committed by the Serbs. IIRC, after the settlement in Bosnia, the same thing began to occur in Kosovo. I believe Nato had had enough of Serbia by this time. When Serbia refused an international force to restore peace to Kosovo, Nato began the bombing of Serbia.
If I do not understand these facts correctly, please let me know.
One of the Serb's on this board said that all Serbia was trying to do in Kosovo was deal with an illegal immigration problem. I suppose what he meant was that Serbia had the legal right to forceably expel from Kosovo all of Albanian descent. Since this was a majority of the population there, the result would be human suffering on a catastrophic scale.
But again, I might be understanding this incorrectly.
But if I do understand this correctly, then the majority in Serbia must think that they had the full right to evict or slaughter Albanians in Kosova. This disturbs me.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
OneFootInTheGrave
|
|
Kuzelj
Nov 2000
time: 05:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
OneFoot, IIRC, the breakup of Yugoslavia into independent states was followed in every circumstance by Serb aggression to restore the break-away republic to Yugoslav contol. In Bosnia, this particularly resulted in atrocity after attrocity, mainly committed by the Serbs. IIRC, after the settlement in Bosnia, the same thing began to occur in Kosovo. I believe Nato had had enough of Serbia by this time. When Serbia refused an international force to restore peace to Kosovo, Nato began the bombing of Serbia.
If I do not understand these facts correctly, please let me know.
One of the Serb's on this board said that all Serbia was trying to do in Kosovo was deal with an illegal immigration problem. I suppose what he meant was that Serbia had the legal right to forceably expel from Kosovo all of Albanian descent. Since this was a majority of the population there, the result would be human suffering on a catastrophic scale.
But again, I might be understanding this incorrectly.
But if I do understand this correctly, then the majority in Serbia must think that they had the full right to evict or slaughter Albanians in Kosova. This disturbs me. |
Well it is obviously not that simple, but in my view (and don't forget I am a Croat that has been bombed for 2 weeks non-stop by Serbs in 1991/1992, so maybe I am a bit biased) so still.
1. Milosevic had a plan to subdue the terrirories that were Yugoslavia than, prior to 1990. He had a control of Yugoslav army effectivley, and a few other aces in the sleeve.
2. The wars were - Slovenia - two weeks, it was clear they cannot do anything there trough Croatia,
3 - Croatia - 1991 to 1995, together with Serb minority in Croatia (mainly as a local uprising with the help of Yugoslav army) they held 1/3 od Croatian territory for those four years, and expelled everyone non-Serb from those terrirories for the time, in 1995. Croats freed the territory and all 150 000 Serbs that were there (probably 90% ) fled fearing retribution and trying to get Yugoslavia (Serbia actually by than) directly into a open war, which Milosevic to his credit did not start. So that finished (with the help from US in training and their bombing campaign in Bosnia at the time)
4. 1992 -1995/6 Bosnia. That was a messy affair, even though Serbs started the initial fighting against Croats and Muslims, Bosnian Croats (helped by Croatian regime in Zagreb too) soon felt they had an upper hand of the Muslims so Croats started fightig Muslims too in an attempt to gain territory. So for a while it was a three way war with coallitions being forged differently on different fronts. Overall Serbs were winning so at the point in time they had 79% of Bosnia I think (and at the same time they held 1/3 of Croatia too). However being kicked Muslims and Croats united again and with first NATO boming campaigns and Croatian State action in Croatia, Croats and Muslims in Bosnia regained the territory quicly in 1995, and so it stayed according to Dayton peace accords. 51% Croats and Muslims, 49 % Serbs.
5 Kosovo, While Croatia and Bosnia were different states where allegedly local Serb population was just fighting for their rights, Kosovo was an internal Serbian problem. On kosovo there was 1 million + aAlbanians which was around 90% of population there and probably around 20% of total population of what was left of Yugoslavia. So what really happened there I am not sure, as I was allready in UK when it all went on. But my felling is if it was left unattended by NATO the Serbs would move those 90% out of there to Albania presumably as they have been quite successful with ethnic clensing where they conquered in previous two wars, Croatia and Bosnia so I don't doubt a minute that this was not the goal. So NATO stepped in and kick their ass as they did not want to comply.
And Serbs percieve NATO as bombing them and US as NATO leader and instigator of the whole thing. And don't forget that normal Serb while thinking that Milosevic was bad, still did not have a clue what was happening on the terrain in the war, and bombs that were falling on their factories and bridges - is certainly a personal thing. So no suprise for the sentiment there.
I think it is hard for Serbs to accept that the most likely action of what Milosevic planned than would be ethnically clean Kosovo (not that they would mind too much though many would still object -not that they could do much, as you might guess Albanians were never that popular anyway), especially now as it did not happen due to NATO action, but there is now hardly any Serbs living there now, so ethnic clensing the other way around... two edged sword so to say. However I am happy from my position as it helped remove Milosevic in my view and now finally I think that the area is stable for good, - at least Serbia/ Croatia./Bosnia part that is close to me, Kosovo is still far from stable as they have to sort out the proper political solution for the enclave.
but here it is... a short breakdown
|
|
| |
|
|
|
OneFootInTheGrave
|
|
Kuzelj
Nov 2000
time: 05:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DinoDoc
It's the same request made to the Serbs. I'd be most interested in if you can find a source that says the US is offering to obstruct the tribunal investigating the Yugoslav war. |
Obviously not directly, however in Croatian newspapers - there is a paragraph about I will quote and translate here:
quote:
Prije nego što se saznalo da je sličan prijedlog upućen i Hrvatskoj, u Zagreb je u službeni posjet došao američki veleposlanik za pitanja ratnih zločina Richard Prosper. Ustvrdio je da će SAD pomoći hrvatskom pravosuđu kako bi ono bilo sposobno samo procesuirati slučajeve ratnih zločina, a neke čak prebaciti iz Haaga u Hrvatsku.
Haaško tužiteljstvo odmah je reagiralo na takve najave ustvrdivši da ne namjerava prepustiti hrvatskom pravosuđu nijedan proces koji priprema.
|
roughly translated: Before we found out that a similar suggestion (the bilateral treaty) was sent to Croatia, there was an official visit to Zagreb by American Ambassador for war crimes Richard Prosper. He said that USA will help Croatian courts in order to be able to process the war crime case on its own, and even some cases to transfer from Hague to Croatia.
Haag judges reacted straight away on such comments and said that they do not intend to let Croatian Courts handle any single case it (the tribunal) wants to handle.
Anyway - I think you can see the intention now, adding in the Croatian political situation at the moment. Especially as it is US initiative... interesting indeed. It would make me feel sick if the government fell because of this initiative, as possibly this could make a few members of parliament change their mind. Don't forget that Croatia is a new democracy and that there is around 10 different parties in the parlament, nicely divided (and from the last crisis, mostly the division line goes on Hague handling), a government party split in half, as if they did all do as its party leader requested the government would fall. And that would mean end of collaboration wiht Hague, at least a stop in current good working relations. But half of the party split and supported the gov. so it stayed and it continues with the reforms.
Anyway - the last administraion was the : Hague and nothing else song.
This one is -else, else- there are alternatives.
that would result in this
quote:
Croatia cannot oblige itself to extradite its own citizens to the UN war crimes tribunal in The Hague and yet not do the same with foreign citizens regardless of which country they come from. Croatia is in a delicate position because it has an additional obligation compared to other EU aspirants and that is to co-operate with the Hague-based Tribunal which is going well and the Croatian Government takes it seriously. As such the American demand leaves little manoeuvring space, Plevnik said.
|
This is just one example of single minded foreign policy that can have big impact on local politics, and as a result a dislike of the US/ US policies with a good reason. And it is a good example of one-sidedness US shows.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:21
|
|
OneFoot, I can understand the problem the government of Croatia has with the US proposal. The US was an initial sponsor of the Hague War Crimes panel, and a strong supporter of the ICC - that is, - until they tried to indict Clinton for US actions in Kosovo. This effort to get Clinton has lead to an American insistance that peacekeeping efforts be exluded. But, this does seem like a double-standard, particularly if attrocities like Sebrenicia happen simply because some Dutch commander doesn't want to pick up the phone and ask for help when he is outgunned.
The effort to indict Clinton was polictically motivated, but the investigation of Dutch malfeasance, in my view, is not.
The only way that I can see to keep politically motivated indictments from going anywhere is to have UN Security Council approval of any trials. Clinton proposed this during the negotiation of the ICC. This proposal was rejected. Recently, Bush renewed this same request with the SC. We got only a one year repreive.
However, both Clinton and Bush are fundamentally correct on this issue. We really need to have SC approval of trials. Until this is accepted, the US has no choice but to seek bilateral treaties such as the one sent to Croatia.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
Personally, I don't care what any European shitkickers think, our boys aren't gonna be subject to no interstinkingnational tribunal.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
No jury trial. No appeals. No cross examination of witnesses. No habeas corpus . No legislative hearing process used to select judges. The body of law to be written by the judiciary without so much as legislative or executive approval. Honestly, is this the standard of government in the EU or Canada? I'm willing to bet that if a country with this system of government applied to join the EU it would be turned down unanimously, yet the ICC is being foisted off on the world at large.
Apparently there is some sort of codicil in the ICC's mandate that condemns "forced pregnancy", i.e., preventing a woman from obtaining an abortion. I can't wait until the court tries shoving this down the throats of the Islamic world. Do they have any really tall buildings in the Netherlands?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DinoDoc
Aren't you forgeting the Vatican as well? |
I can't quite envision papal legates using jumbo jets as bombs.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
16-08-2002 03:47
I think someone in White House cares 
|