Forum Klix.ba

Serbia tried for genocide but EU pulls its punches
By Anthony Browne and Rory Watson



SERBIA today becomes the first country to be tried for genocide at the world’s highest court — just as the European Union shies from punishing the Balkan nation for failing to hand over Ratko Mladic and other indicted war criminals.
The International Court of Justice hearing in The Hague will open this morning. It will decide whether Serbia made a premeditated attempt to destroy Bosnia’s Muslim population in 1992.



The case, brought by Bosnia, is the first time that an entire country has been tried for genocide. Billions of dollars of compensation are at stake.

However, EU foreign ministers meeting in Brussels are expected to threaten only to “disrupt” economic and political ties with Serbia if it does not hand Mladic over by April 5.

EU diplomats insist that they are taking tough action, but the threats are a big disappointment for the UN’s chief war crimes prosecutor, Carla del Ponte, who has made clear that only full suspension of EU membership talks will force Serbia to surrender Mladic, who is considered a hero by many Serbian nationalists.

A source at the international war crimes tribunal, where Ms del Ponte works, said: “Only with the option of suspension will Belgrade take the move — otherwise they will not do anything. Any ambiguity will leave Belgrade with the feeling that they can wait. They don’t know what disruption means — they are only afraid of suspension. It has been 10½ years of wasted opportunity.”

Mladic, the former Bosnian Serb army leader who led the 1995 massacre of 8,000 Muslims in Srebrenica, has been on the run since. Ms del Ponte insists that he is being protected by Serbian authorities.

The stepping up of pressure on Serbia at the two different UN bodies in The Hague — the International Court of Justice and the war crimes tribunal — contrasts with the EU’s lack of definitive action.

On February 21 the EU began talks on political and economic ties with Serbia, leading to entry negotiations and ultimately full membership of the Union. Many EU countries believe that the prospect of eventual membership is the only way to stabilise Serbia, and play down the importance of surrendering indicted war criminals.

EU foreign ministers will threaten to delay the next stage of the talks, due on April 5, if Mladic is not handed over by then, but have rejected calls to suspend the talks indefinitely.

“ ‘Disruption’ would not freeze the talks, but would certainly slow them down and negotiations would not continue as planned. This is a clear shot across their bows,” an EU official said.

The hearing at the International Court of Justice is scheduled to last six weeks, although the 16 judges are expected to deliver their verdict in about a year.

Serbia to be first nation charged with genocide
By Stephen Castle in Brussels
Published: 27 February 2006
Serbia will come under intense international klix today as it becomes the first nation to defend genocide charges, while separately facing censure for failing to surrender war crimes suspects.

Belgrade will be accused at the International Court of Justice of sponsoring ethnic cleansing in the 1990s which led to the worst massacres on European soil since the Second World War. Previously, only individuals have been charged with genocide, the most serious war crime.

Meanwhile, EU foreign ministers in Brussels will threaten to hold up talks on the creation of a free trade zone with Serbia because of Belgrade's failure to arrest the former Bosnian Serb military commander, Ratko Mladic.

This rebuke may not satisfy the UN's chief war crimes prosecutor, Carla Del Ponte, who has called on the EU to put pressure on Belgrade and privately pressed for a formal suspension of the negotiations.

The two events underline the extent to which the region's bloody past overshadows Belgrade's effort to draw closer to the EU.

Today's hearing at the World Court comes 13 years after Bosnia and Herzegovina first charged the Serb authorities, accusing them of the worst case of ethnic cleansing since the Nazis' Final Solution. Though the Serb military was not involved in the war, Belgrade stands accused of backing the Bosnian Serb forces.

Were the case to be proved, the Belgrade could be forced to pay billions of euros in compensation, as well as suffering the disgrace of being labeled a state sponsor of genocide.

Bosnia argues that only by acknowledging Belgrade's role in massacres there can reconciliation be achieved.

Genocide was outlawed under the 1948 Genocide Convention, though the first conviction came 50 years later when a UN court on Rwanda sentenced a former mayor, Jean-Paul Akayesu, to life imprisonment.

Since then, hearings at the UN's International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in The Hague have decided that genocide took place at Srebrenica. The tribunal has convicted the Bosnian Serb military commanders Radislav Krstic and Vidoje Blagojevic of the offence.

But showing that genocide - a difficult crime to prove - was committed by a state will be more difficult. A paper produced by the Institute for War and Peace Reporting argues that genocide "requires a particular mindset - namely the special intent to destroy a population - which, on the face of it at least, appears difficult to attribute to a state".

It points out that, because Serbia's alleged sponsorship of genocide was through proxies, it will be even harder to prove.

The World Court may decide it does not have legal jurisdiction. A case taken by Serbia against Nato countries was thrown out in 2004 because Yugoslavia was not a member of the UN at the time. Belgrade is likely to argue that, if it cannot initiate a case at the World Court, if cannot be called on to defend one.

Serbia will come under intense international klix today as it becomes the first nation to defend genocide charges, while separately facing censure for failing to surrender war crimes suspects.

Belgrade will be accused at the International Court of Justice of sponsoring ethnic cleansing in the 1990s which led to the worst massacres on European soil since the Second World War. Previously, only individuals have been charged with genocide, the most serious war crime.

Meanwhile, EU foreign ministers in Brussels will threaten to hold up talks on the creation of a free trade zone with Serbia because of Belgrade's failure to arrest the former Bosnian Serb military commander, Ratko Mladic.

This rebuke may not satisfy the UN's chief war crimes prosecutor, Carla Del Ponte, who has called on the EU to put pressure on Belgrade and privately pressed for a formal suspension of the negotiations.

The two events underline the extent to which the region's bloody past overshadows Belgrade's effort to draw closer to the EU.

Today's hearing at the World Court comes 13 years after Bosnia and Herzegovina first charged the Serb authorities, accusing them of the worst case of ethnic cleansing since the Nazis' Final Solution. Though the Serb military was not involved in the war, Belgrade stands accused of backing the Bosnian Serb forces.

Were the case to be proved, the Belgrade could be forced to pay billions of euros in compensation, as well as suffering the disgrace of being labeled a state sponsor of genocide.
Bosnia argues that only by acknowledging Belgrade's role in massacres there can reconciliation be achieved.

Genocide was outlawed under the 1948 Genocide Convention, though the first conviction came 50 years later when a UN court on Rwanda sentenced a former mayor, Jean-Paul Akayesu, to life imprisonment.

Since then, hearings at the UN's International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in The Hague have decided that genocide took place at Srebrenica. The tribunal has convicted the Bosnian Serb military commanders Radislav Krstic and Vidoje Blagojevic of the offence.

But showing that genocide - a difficult crime to prove - was committed by a state will be more difficult. A paper produced by the Institute for War and Peace Reporting argues that genocide "requires a particular mindset - namely the special intent to destroy a population - which, on the face of it at least, appears difficult to attribute to a state".

It points out that, because Serbia's alleged sponsorship of genocide was through proxies, it will be even harder to prove.

The World Court may decide it does not have legal jurisdiction. A case taken by Serbia against Nato countries was thrown out in 2004 because Yugoslavia was not a member of the UN at the time. Belgrade is likely to argue that, if it cannot initiate a case at the World Court, if cannot be called on to defend one.