 |
Compact version |
|
 |
        |
|
 |
||
|
Tuesday, 26 November 2024
|
||
 |
 |
|
|
|
Serbia Today 96-03-21Serbia Today DirectoryFrom: [email protected] (D.D. Chukurov)21 March 1996In This EditionTESTIMONIES BY FORMER INMATESBADINTER'S MISTAKECONTENTS[01] MILOSEVIC - KEY FIGURE IN THE PEACE PROCESS[02] THE SARAJEVO AGREEMENT HAS BEEN BETRAYED IN SARAJEVO[03] ARMS WILL NOT HELP BOSNIA[04] TESTIMONIES BY FORMER INMATES[05] CRIMES AGAINST SERBS[06] ALBRIGHT: KOSOVO CAN NOT BE GIVEN INDEPENDENCE[07] BADINTER'S MISTAKE[01] MILOSEVIC - KEY FIGURE IN THE PEACE PROCESSSerbian President Slobodan Milosevic has become the key figure in the peace process in Bosnia, because it has been undeniably confirmed that peace in the region would be impossible - states a broadcast of the Hungarian Radio, dedicated to the Geneva meeting of the Dayton Agreement. One of the best know Hungarian military experts - Gyerg Nogrady, stressed in the commentary that this is why the current firm political position assumed by Hungary is in the interest of all - the West included, and especially the United States. Speaking about the Hague Tribunal, Mr. Nogrody underscored that it involves an agreement between the major powers, leading to the conclusion that the activities of this court are not based on legal and juridical norms. (Politika Ekspres, March 21, 1996)[02] THE SARAJEVO AGREEMENT HAS BEEN BETRAYED IN SARAJEVOFrench Foreign Minister Herves de Charret warned the international community about the unfavorable course of events in Bosnia and Herzegovina and strongly condemned the incidents in Sarajevo. "There is no reason to rejoice. I am particularly concerned because the reality is not what it should be. This is the last phase of ethnic cleansing and disengagement and I am appalled." - Mr. De Charret said. After a long official silence about the events in Bosnia, the French Government voiced its stands through Mr. Charret's statement to prompt the realization of the Dayton Agreement, because Sarajevo marks the defeat of its spirit and strategic objective - namely to preserve multi-ethnic Bosnia. (Politika, March 21, 1996)[03] ARMS WILL NOT HELP BOSNIAArming the Bosnian Moslems will only deteriorate the situation in Bosnia and will bring nothing good - states yesterday's Financial Times, commenting the American initiative to strengthen militarily the Sarajevo Government. American clarifications -i.e. that the arming will contribute to the stabilization of the situation in Bosnia - are being dismissed by the European allies, states the same newspaper adding that they are right because arms cannot bring stability, but will lather lead Bosnia to the brink of the final catastrophe. Stabilization can be secured only through understanding and reconstruction of Bosnia, and the American initiative is - according to the Financial Times - the culmination of absurdity of the Bosnian policy pursued by western allies. (Borba, March 21, 1996)[04] TESTIMONIES BY FORMER INMATESThe International Tribunal for crimes of war committed in former Yugoslavia revealed that Zdravko Mucic and Zejnel Delalic (arrested in Vienna and Munich) are suspected of crimes against Serbs. Should they be indicted, they will be the first culprits to be tried before the Tribunal for crimes against Serbs. The State Committee for Crimes of War of the Republic of Srpska, revealed new evidence on the murders of Serbs in the concentration camp in Celebic (near the town of Konjic) where Zdravko Mucic was commander in 1992. After the forcible eviction of Serbs from the village of Celebic (in April 1992), the former Yugoslav People's Army garrison was transformed into one of the worst camps for Serbs in former Bosnia and Herzegovina, where at least 30 persons have been killed. The horrendous monstrosities and tortures inflicted upon the Serbs have been revealed by 20 former camp inmates. They affirm that Alija Izetbegovic personally inspected the camp on two occasions. According to the report prepared by the same State Committee the greatest responsibility for the genocide against Serbs in Konjic County falls upon the local Croatian-Moslem authorities. (Politika, March 21, 1996)[05] CRIMES AGAINST SERBSIn spite of a delay, the crimes committed by Moslems and Croats against the Serbs during the war in Bosnia are slowly being unveiled - states the reputable Italian daily "Il Corriere della Sera" quoting the book of testimonies "Chronicles of Our Graveyards" authored by Serbian writer Milivoje Ivancevic. Mr. Ivancevic gathered systematic data on over 10.000 crimes committed by Moslems and Croats against the Serbian civilians - states Mr. Renzo Cianfanelli in an extensive report from Belgrade entitled "We the Serbs - Victims of Violence". The propaganda war accompanied by the cynicism of the horrors of war, accused and indicted the Serbs - remarks the Italian journalist and further quotes Ivancevic: "How can one explain the fact that the reports on Serbian crimes and Serbian ethnic cleansing were given full global coverage, whilst similar reports on crimes committed by Moslems and Croats made by the Serbian side quickly disappeared?" (Vecernje Novosti, March 21, 1996)[06] ALBRIGHT: KOSOVO CAN NOT BE GIVEN INDEPENDENCEUS Ambassador to the UN - Ms. Madleine Albright stated at a press conference held yesterday evening at the Palace of Nations in Geneva that the American position concerning Kosovo and Metohija is quite clear - Kosovo can not be granted independence but only autonomy. However. Ms. Albright did not specify what kind of autonomy she had in mind. She also used the occasion to reiterate once again her concern for the state of human rights in Kosovo, without giving a single example of infringement of these rights. The United States insist that human rights be respected in Kosovo according to the highest international standards - remarked Ms. Albright, adding that this is one of the conditions for "complete reintegration of FR Yugoslavia in the most important international institutions." (Politika, March 21, 1996)[07] BADINTER'S MISTAKEHad the UN General Assembly listened or wanted to listen to the opinion of its own legal experts in autumn 1992, it probably would not have adopted "Resolution 47/1" which suspended the right of FR Yugoslavia to take part in the activities of the General Assembly and other UN bodies, although it was one of the founders of the world organization.This is the conclusion of the Compilation of legal opinions and interpretations, circulated two days ago in the UN Building on East River. The document, authored by prominent legal counselors of the UN Secretary General, offers a stand completely different from the conclusion reached by the Badinter Commission, namely that the continuity of FR Yugoslavia can not be questioned, just like the continuity of Russia which continues to exist - being a previous state - with all the legal and sovereign attributes of former Soviet Union. "The same stand can be applied to FR Yugoslavia - states one of the legal interpretations contained in the Compilation. FR Yugoslavia continues to exist as a previous state from which parts of the territories of SFR Yugoslavia have seceded." Consequently, the situation is identical to that of the Russian Federation which continued to exist as a previous state assuming all its treaty rights and obligations. The only difference between the two cases - omitted in the Compilation - is that given centers of power applied different standards (for specific reasons) against Yugoslavia, even though the were far from being legal or logical. According to the interpretations given by the UN experts, FR Yugoslavia is not one of the "successors" of SFR Yugoslavia, but rather the "previous state", which continues to exist, only with different borders, reduced territory and somewhat altered name. Why did the General Assembly adopt the aforementioned resolution which denied the continuity of FR Yugoslavia? Legal experts did not consider the political background of the issue, which was obviously treated with haste and under the pressure of given centers of power, but tried however to mitigate as much as possible the effect of the Resolution, stressing that it merely limited the activities of Yugoslavia in the UN bodies, but that it should not be considered "...as an indicator that FR Yugoslavia can not be considered a preceding country." (TANJUG, March 21, 1996) |
|
 |
|
 |
 |
|
All Rights Reserved.