³⁶¹⁵⁰

Tuesday, 15 February 2005

[Open session]

[The accused entered court]

[The witness entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 9.02 a.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Before you begin, Mr. Milosevic, I'd like to mention two matters. Firstly dealing with the admission of exhibits, those tabs which were used during examination-in-chief which have already been used in examination-in-chief will be admitted, but thereafter, Mr. Milosevic, when you have used a tab, made reference to it, you should apply for its admission, if you wish, into evidence as an exhibit. This part of our proceedings is adversarial, and it is for the party to apply for the admission of a document into evidence.

Secondly, at the beginning of the third session this morning, we'll have a brief discussion of Serbia and Montenegro's motion for the protection of diplomatic cables which will be used by the Prosecution -- or which may be used by the Prosecution in its cross-examination of this witness.

I've set it for the beginning of the third session, Mr. Milosevic, because that would then coincide with the completion of the time that you had said would be spent in examination-in-chief. That's six hours. Let us proceed.

WITNESS: VLADISLAV JOVANOVIC [Resumed]

[Witness answered through interpreter] Examined by Mr. Milosevic: [Continued] ³⁶¹⁵¹

Q. [No interpretation].

THE INTERPRETER: Can you hear the English?

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Good morning, Mr. Jovanovic.

A. Good morning, Mr. President.

Q. Did the UN Security Council, with respect to the crisis in Bosnia-Herzegovina -- rather, the armed conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina ever qualify those conflicts as some sort of foreign aggression or said that Serbia or the FRY was the aggressor?

A. No. The UN Security Council didn't, nor did any other organ of the United Nations. The Security Council even -- what it did do in one Resolution in which it referred to the conduct of the three parties in Bosnia with respect to the peace plan of Vance and Owen pinpointed the three warring sides, two sides accepting the proposal and the third side that did not accept the proposal, and that third side was the Bosnian Serbs.

Q. In point 47, and that's why I'm asking you about the Bosnian indictment, it says throughout the time to which the indictment refers in Bosnia-Herzegovina there was a state of international armed conflict and partial occupation. And since this speaks against me, if I can put it that way, it doesn't mean the partial occupation on the part of Croatian forces, which was quite obvious.

Now, from the aspects of the FRY or Serbia, can this be considered correct?

A. No, not at all. Not in any case, because Yugoslavia withdrew its ³⁶¹⁵² last units, the units of the Yugoslav People's Army, which were composed of the citizens of Serbia and Montenegro. And on the other side, the -- on the other hand, the only foreign armed units that were in Bosnia were the units of the Republic of Croatia, and I remember that you in a conversation with the political director, Mr. Jacques Blot of the Quay d'Orsay, that you discussed this matter and indicated that factor, that his response to you was yes, we know all about that, we even know the numbers of brigades of the Croatian army in Bosnia, but the general perception is that you are to blame, and that's how things stand.

Q. Very well. Now, take a look, Mr. Jovanovic, at tab 8.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And, gentlemen, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that this document is a report by the Secretary-General -- a report of the Secretary-General dated the 30th of May, 1992, and it is already in evidence as D91. I'm not sure that I understood you correctly, Mr. Robinson. Do I have to ask for that document to be admitted again?

JUDGE ROBINSON: No, not if it has already been admitted. If it hasn't been admitted and you wish it to be admitted, then, yes, you must request its admission after you have used it.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Now, with respect to the topic in hand -- Mr. Jovanovic, have you found the report of the Secretary-General first?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. I'd like to ask you to answer several questions pertaining to that ³⁶¹⁵³ report, and they are this: In paragraph 5, the General-Secretary says the following: "[In English] The bulk of the JNA personnel who were deployed in Bosnia-Herzegovina were citizens of that republic and were not therefore covered by the Belgrade authorities' decision of 4 May to withdraw JNA from Bosnia and Herzegovina. Most of them appear to have joined the army of the so-called 'Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina'. Others have joined the Territorial Defence of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which is under the political control of the Presidency of that republic. Others may have joined various irregular forces operating there."

[Interpretation] And then in paragraph 6 they say that according to the information of the Belgrade authorities, that is to say those who are not citizens of Bosnia-Herzegovina which are covered by that decision, that they are barely 20 per cent of the total of that contingent, roughly, words to that effect. And then it says and the sentence begins: "Most of them are believed to have withdrawn [In English] already into Serbia or Montenegro, some of them having been subjected to attack during their withdrawal."

[Interpretation] What do you know from that period of time about the withdrawal of the JNA from Bosnia with respect to what the General-Secretary -- Secretary-General says here and with respect to the attacks on the UN JNA units who were withdrawing from Bosnia and all the other matters mentioned in the report of the Secretary-General? And I'm going to draw your attention to a few of those later on.

A. As far as I know, the Yugoslav People's Army or, rather, the JNA ³⁶¹⁵⁴ units were leaving en masse. They were made up of citizens of the republics that were breaking away from Yugoslavia, and that the same case was repeated in Bosnia when it came to the soldiers and officers who were there and who were not Serbs from that republic. So what happened was that the majority of members of the JNA in Bosnia were citizens of that republic, of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and they refused to carry on serving in the JNA and decided to stay on in Bosnia-Herzegovina. And that was a general phenomenon that took place given the present circumstances and the break-up of Yugoslavia. Now, as far as the withdrawal of the JNA is concerned, I know that this was stated by the vice-president of the Yugoslav state Presidency. He made a statement to that effect. I think it was Mr. Kostic at the time, and he said that the JNA units had withdrawn from Bosnia and that what remained were just several smaller pockets. I think there were some cadets that he referred to in Sarajevo, several hundred cadets in Sarajevo and elsewhere, and their withdrawal was systematically prevented by part of the leadership of the Bosnian Muslims.

Q. So those men who did not withdraw were in fact blocked in those pockets, the few pockets, by the Muslim militia or police or, rather, the so-called Territorial Defence, the Muslim Territorial Defence?

A. That's precisely it. And their goal was, I assume, to seize the weapons these men had and to provoke them in order to be able to proclaim the JNA as the aggressor in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Jovanovic, what is the source, your source for that information? ³⁶¹⁵⁵

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The source of this information is not only this report, and you can see it right through the report, as well as a series of other reports which were compiled by the United Nations representatives. For example, General MacKenzie in his report or, rather, in his memoirs spoke about certain of these facts, and I have the impression that something similar was said by another British general. What was his name? Michael Rose, I believe. So that you can read that up there in several reports and also the reports by foreign correspondents dating back to that period indicate that, indicate that matters evolved along that course.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right. Thank you. Those are foreign sources. But what about your own? Do you have personal knowledge from that period of time about the withdrawal of the Yugoslav People's Army from Bosnia-Herzegovina, for example?

A. Yes, I do, because those statements were made by the top leadership, the General Staff of the Yugoslav People's Army at the time, and this was confirmed and borne out by the Presidency of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia itself. And in public statements and in the press the difficulties were highlighted that certain units were encountering during their withdrawal from Bosnia-Herzegovina, and even that there were some bloody conflicts in certain areas.

Q. Do you know that the vice-president of the Yugoslav Presidency at the time, Mr. Branko Kostic, had a meeting with the then president of the Presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Alija Izetbegovic, and proposed that the ³⁶¹⁵⁶ Presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina, since that was after the international recognition of Bosnia-Herzegovina, should take steps in order to take what was theirs from the JNA on the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina?

A. Yes, I am aware of that, and I do know that Mr. Izetbegovic, afterwards, did not agree to attend another meeting to decide the specifics of that matter.

Q. So there was no other way out, nothing else to do but for the JNA, by order of the Yugoslav state Presidency, to withdraw from Bosnia-Herzegovina, and that was done, and that is reflected in this report; is that right?

A. Yes, it is.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: The last two questions have both been really effectively leading questions. The witness is speaking unclear as to the source of his knowledge and information, and I don't have any document or 65 ter summary to explain to me where it all comes from. So I'd invite the Chamber to restrain these leading questions.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, you've again been asking leading questions. The Chamber has been fairly flexible with you, but I'm quite satisfied that you can ask questions that are not leading, and the Chamber expects you to do so.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I hope I'm not going to ask leading questions, but bear in mind that this is not a witness that learnt something from reading the papers. He was the former foreign minister, so he had access to all kinds of information during the material ³⁶¹⁵⁷ period.

JUDGE ROBINSON: That's all the more reason why you should avoid asking leading questions. He has the information. Let him present it. And I think you have the technique.

MR. NICE: Your Honours, I have to say that if his answers are going to be based on documents, then either he must produce them, or at the very least he must identify them so that we can see if we have them; alternatively, that we may be able to find them.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, it all goes to weight and the value that will be attached to his evidence.

Mr. Milosevic, the rule against leading questions is particularly relevant in areas of controversy, in matters of dispute. Proceed.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Robinson.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Jovanovic, I'd like to draw your attention to -- I'd like to draw your attention to the middle of paragraph 9, one sentence there which states the following: "[In English]... it is also clear that the emergence of General Mladic and the forces under his command as independent actor -- independent actors apparently beyond the control of JNA greatly complicates the issues raised in paragraph 4 of Security Council Resolution 752." [Interpretation] Then it says: "[In English] President Izetbegovic has recently indicated to senior UNPROFOR officers at Sarajevo his willingness to deal with General Mladic but not with the political leadership of the 'Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.'" [Interpretation] I would like to draw your attention to what it ³⁶¹⁵⁸ says here. "[In English] ... forces under his command as independent actors apparently beyond the control of JNA."

[Interpretation] Do you know -- do you know -- I'm trying not to lead you. Do you know under whose control the forces of the Serb Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina it was known at the time, later Republika Srpska, were?

A. I do not have any direct knowledge about this, but my impression was at the time that at least at that time the forces of Republika Srpska were still in the making, and they were fully independent. They behaved as such in the field as well. So that period of the establishment of the forces of Republika Srpska was practically a period of their absolute independence from any kind of external influence.

Q. All right. When you say "at that time," do you know perhaps anything about a later time; namely, that the army of Republika Srpska was under some kind of outside control, under the control of someone outside Bosnia-Herzegovina, outside Republika Srpska? Do you have any information to that effect?

A. I have no information to that effect that it was under anyone's control, because quite simply I was not in contact with their top military people. But my impression is from various discussions --

MR. NICE: That simply goes to show the reality of the previous answer, or to be precise the complete lack of reality of the previous answer. We hear something that is the witness's impression. He's asked a question, Do you know under whose control the forces of the Serb republic were? He says, My impression is this, then he gives knowledge of ³⁶¹⁵⁹ something that is negative, and then he goes back to another impression. Are impressions of any value to this Chamber? I would invite the Chamber to say that without clear exposition of what the impression is based on, the answer must be no.

MR. KAY: Can I just raise some matters here? This is a witness who was present at the time, involved essentially in many of these important issues. He may not have been in place so that he was aware directly and through his own contact with what was going on, but he was in a part of the events that he was aware that things were happening elsewhere because of his positioning and place, and for him to give his impression from where he was is important evidence that the Trial Chamber can attach what weight it feels fit to eventually, but bearing in mind where he was.

I was reading the transcript of Mr. Nice's questioning of Mr. Bakalli yesterday, and exactly the same objection he is making now could be levelled directly at him on page 516 of the transcript. The impressions of Mr. Bakalli concerning tanks outside the Assembly building in Pristina, the impressions of Mr. Bakalli about Gazimestan. All these issues were ways that Mr. Nice built his case, but we have here exactly the same kind of witness for the Defence who had a role to play and is able to give information of what he was aware was happening elsewhere.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Kay. Mr. Milosevic, in my view -- in my view, the passage that you have cited from the Secretary-General's report is very, very important to your case. It's very, very strong evidence. Although it says that the forces ³⁶¹⁶⁰ under his command, that is General Mladic, were apparently beyond the control of the JNA, the word "apparently," of course, is significant, but I would suggest that you try to get a witness other than this witness who can substantiate what the Secretary-General says in his report. Even without that substantiation, as a report from the Secretary-General, I would attach great weight to it, but I think your case would be immensely strengthened if, for example, you could secure the authors of the report. I mean, you very well know that it is not the Secretary-General himself who wrote it, but the person in the UN who would have received specific information on this issue and who would have compiled the report might be able to give valuable evidence in relation to your case. But I don't think this witness can take it much further beyond his impressions, and we can't rule that evidence out, but the weight that we will be able to attach to it is a matter that we'll have to determine.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Mr. President, in relation to that, may I add just one sentence, please?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, briefly. Yes.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I know that on the occasion of later attacks of the army of Republika Srpska at some targets in Bosnia-Herzegovina, President Milosevic was very surprised and very bitter. For example, the mountain of Igman and Bjelasnica near Sarajevo in 1993, then the shelling of Gorazde in 1993, then the attack on Srebrenica in 1993. He was embittered when he learned that that happened, and he was outraged that it happened. That, in my opinion, is proof that the forces of Republika Srpska were not under his control. ^{36161 BLANK PAGE 36162}

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Jovanovic, please. When I put a question to you, could you tell me what your actual knowledge is.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, you yourself said that Mr. Jovanovic is obviously a career diplomat. You learned that from his CV. So his language is rather diplomatic. So what other people would say that they know of, Mr. Jovanovic says it is his impression. It is simply the way he speaks. But it is a fact that he knew about, so there is no denying that.

JUDGE ROBINSON: It's for him to clarify whether it's his impression or whether he's speaking from actual knowledge, Mr. Milosevic, it's not for you.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have a degree of understanding for that.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. But, please, Mr. Jovanovic, would you clarify.

A. If we're talking about Article 9 -- we are talking about Article 9, are we -- or, rather, paragraph 9. It is quite clear that the forces of the army of Republika Srpska and General Mladic were not under the control of the JNA or Serbia at that time at all, because everything that happened there was news from the outside that were coming to Serbia and to its leadership as something that is new and something that we were not aware of.

Q. In order to clarify this a bit more, could you please look one paragraph up, that is to say paragraph 8, where it says: "[In English] A ³⁶¹⁶³ senior JNA representative from Belgrade, General Nedeljko Boskovic, has conducted discussions with the Bosnia and Herzegovina Presidency, but it has become clear that his word is not binding on the commander of the army of the 'Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina,' General Mladic." [Interpretation] I think that there is yet another element there which leads to a particular conclusion. What is the conclusion that you draw on this basis or, rather, what did you know at the time?

A. I knew that General Mladic was defiant, and he was challenging General Boskovic. He didn't want to cooperate with him, and he didn't want to take his advice. So he acted in total independence, without taking into consideration what the JNA representatives were telling him or advising him to do. This report reflects that.

Q. Could you please have a look at paragraph 10 now. "[In English] As regards the withdrawal of elements of the Croatian army now in Bosnia-Herzegovina ..." [Interpretation] Is this a statement that there are elements of the Croatian army in Bosnia-Herzegovina now? Just say yes or no.

A. Yes, by all means. Yes. As I said a few minutes ago, what Mr. Blot told me.

Q. And then the sentence continues: "[In English] ... information currently available in New York suggests that no such withdrawal has occurred. UNPROFOR has received reliable reports of Croatian army personnel, in uniforms, operating within, and as part of, military formations in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The Croatian authorities have consistently taken the position that the Croatian soldiers in Bosnia and ³⁶¹⁶⁴ Herzegovina have left the Croatian army and are not subject to its authority. International observers do not, however, doubt that portions of Bosnia and Herzegovina are under the control of Croatian military units, whether belonging to the local Territorial Defence, to paramilitary groups, or to the Croatian army. It is unclear in the circumstances how their withdrawal or disbandment, as required by the Council, can be achieved."

[Interpretation] Mr. Jovanovic, isn't this report clear? Does it not clearly show a contrast between the information in the report of the Secretary-General about the attitude of the JNA towards this matter and the attitude of the Croatian army? What kind of information is provided about one and what kind of information is provided by the other?

A. The difference is obvious. The presence and withdrawal of the JNA are referred to in a positive sense as a process which is practically completed except for a few pockets which made it impossible for them to withdraw completely, whereas the presence of Croatian regular forces - I mean the Republic of Croatia - is spoken of in a very unequivocal manner. Some soldiers of the army of the Republic of Croatia voluntarily joined their brothers in Bosnia-Herzegovina, but then there were also regular forces there of the Croatian army with the presence of certain brigades by numbers, Mr. Blot said.

Q. Do you know about this report of the Secretary-General? It was supposed to be debated before a decision was passed on imposing sanctions against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

A. Yes. This report came with a delay. The members of the Security ³⁶¹⁶⁵ Council, had they received it on time and read it on time, I'm sure that they would not have voted in favour of the Resolution for imposing sanctions against Yugoslavia. There would not have been any factual basis, or any legal basis or political basis for it. However, it came with a delay. According to what we learned later, this was no accident, this delay. Allegedly, it was done by an administrative officer who was allegedly instructed to drag his feet on this.

So this was a manipulation, to the best of our knowledge, of the Security Council in order to have a particular decision pushed through. The Security Council certainly would not have passed such a Resolution had it known about this report.

Q. Thank you, Mr. Jovanovic.

MR. NICE: Obviously if we can have the name of the administrative officer or matters of that sort, we can put matters, start inquiries straight away, but without particulars it's all a bit vague.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Nice.

JUDGE BONOMY: Does it really matter, Mr. Nice? Is that really the point of this evidence?

MR. NICE: I don't know whether it matters or not, but we find ourselves recurringly in the position of having these very broad, sometimes very serious, allegations made, and I hope to be able to leave cross-examination, which I hope to be brief, having identified issues where they should properly be identified.

Now, to say that the -- the Secretariat of the United Nations hasn't been free of criticism thus far. There's been criticism indeed ³⁶¹⁶⁶ coming from a witness called by me. But nevertheless, if allegations of this kind, really rather serious allegations are going to be made, it is better that we should have the detail, if it's available, straight away.

JUDGE ROBINSON: But as Judge Bonomy said, nothing might turn on it, because the report is nonetheless there and it does contain, in my view, information which is quite helpful to the case of the accused. The fact that it wasn't presented to the Security Council or that it may have been, by some alleged manipulation, kept from the Security Council is really neither here nor there.

MR. NICE: I think the problem there, Your Honour, is I think the accused will rely on the alleged manipulation, but I've probably taken enough time.

JUDGE BONOMY: He may rely on the fact that it didn't go to the Security Council. I understand that. But why it didn't go doesn't really seem, for the purposes of this trial, to be terribly important.

MR. NICE: Very well.

JUDGE ROBINSON: The point is that we have the report. Mr. Milosevic, it has occurred to me that hopefully we're not far away from the -- too far away from the close of your case, and I just wonder how you're managing your case. For example, when you come to make your closing submissions, I think you need help. You will need technical help to isolate matters of importance to your case and to highlight them, like, for example, this report. And you should really be utilising the services of the assigned counsel. I mean, you may want to use your closing address for other purposes, but there is a lot of material in the case which could ³⁶¹⁶⁷ be helpful to your case and beneficial for your case, and it would be a pity if you are not utilising your closing address in a meaningful way. And you have a wealth of material before you. There's just so much information, so much material in this case, and it is my view and I think the view of the Chamber that you should be utilising the services of the assigned counsel to assist you in matters of that kind. But I just make that observation.

Continue with the examination-in-chief.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, let me just clarify something, what you said in relation to the report. This report did reach the Security Council. The point is that it did not arrive on time. It was one day late. But this report did reach the Security Council, and the Security Council did debate it, did have a look at it. It's not that it did not reach it at all, it was just delayed through this manipulation. But it is a document that was looked at by the Security Council. But let me proceed, as you said.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Jovanovic, now let us move into the political arena which is very familiar to you. Why is it that Serbia or, rather, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia supported the Serb people in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and what were the real goals of that support that was provided?

A. Serbia supported its own people in Bosnia and Herzegovina just as any other state would do in relation to its people in similar situation, because the Serb people were denied their constituent rights by the referendum that was organised and through the decisions of Badinter's ³⁶¹⁶⁸ commission and later the decisions of EU which turned that nation into a minority. Therefore, its constituent rights, its safety, its normal, regular life were endangered. That's why Serbia supported its people, its right to self-determination, to equality, and to freedom. Once that was achieved, and that was done through Cutileiro's plan on the 17th of March, 1992, Serbia supported that. Serbia supported the idea of independent Bosnia and Herzegovina organised on the basis of cantons. This is another fact showing that Serbia did not support Serbs in Bosnia-Herzegovina as a result of its territorial ambitions but, rather, because their existential rights, their rights to freedom were jeopardised.

Q. As for the events in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the course of the conflict, you took part in many meetings. You had numerous contacts that we had at the time with international mediators and so on. What do you know about the demilitarisation of the airport in Sarajevo?

A. I know that this problem came about rather early because the airport was quite important for the functioning of the town and for the functioning of UNPROFOR. Therefore, the request to demilitarise the airport, which was put in by the international community, is something that you and other organs from the SFRY supported and supported continuously from the very beginning. In that sense, you used your political influence over the political leadership of Republika Srpska to urge them to accept that request. You did that in all of your contacts with international mediators and other interlocutors.

Q. Well, was the airport finally demilitarised and was it taken over ³⁶¹⁶⁹ by UNPROFOR?

A. Yes, that's right. That did come about after a certain delay, and from that time on the airport was in use except when there were -- there were combat activities in the vicinity of the airport and the airport had to be closed because of that.

Q. Do you remember what was our position with respect to the shelling of Sarajevo?

A. Yes, I remember that. From the very beginning, at all levels we, the Presidency of SFRY, the government of the republic, you personally and I, in numerous statements condemned the shelling and demanded that the authorities of Republika Srpska cease that activity. You did that publicly and also in all of the discussions you had with representatives of international community mediators and everybody else who came to see you and talk to you about that.

Q. Very well. You were present when the discussions with Douglas Hurd took place in Belgrade in July of 1992. I think that it was on the 18th of July, 1992.

A. Yes, about that date.

Q. Do you remember that conversation?

A. There were a number of conversations or meetings covering same topics. However, I remember that even at that time the issue of the shelling of Sarajevo was raised and that on that occasion you yet again presented your attitude to Mr. Hurd, namely, saying that you were opposed to it and that you condemned that kind of behaviour.

Q. Yes. Our views, positions were quite public. It's not that they ³⁶¹⁷⁰ were expressed just in the conversation with Mr. Hurd. Was the London conference in progress then?

A. It was held in August of 1992.

Q. So just a month later.

A. Yes. And I think that before that representatives of warring sides concluded a cease-fire agreement, if I remember well. You supported that agreement, and reiterated that in your contacts with Mr. Hurd.

Q. Do you remember, Mr. Jovanovic, how did the news about some camps reach us, and how did we react to those news?

A. We received those news through the foreign media, and we were very critical with respect to that. However, later on when we asked that that be verified and when we approached the authorities of Republika Srpska, we received an answer that those were not concentration camps but, rather, collection points, holding centres for the soldiers of the opposing side, and that they were of a temporary nature. We asked that those facilities be disbanded even though they were not concentration camps as we were assured and as the foreign media claimed.

Naturally, there were some abuses in certain parts, but it's also quite natural that the political leadership of Republika Srpska could not have known about everything that was going on in the entire territory of the entire country in view of the fact that there was war going on, that communications were disrupted, the corridors were blocked, the corridors that would enable them to have contact with that part of Bosnia-Herzegovina where it was said the camps existed.

Q. All right. In order not to use diplomatic language, ³⁶¹⁷¹ Mr. Jovanovic, did I understand you well, namely, did you say that based on what we received, the information that we received, it seemed that the leadership of Republika Srpska didn't know about those facilities? At least, that's what they told us. Is that what you're saying?

A. Yes. When we asked them whether it was true what the foreign media reported about, they denied it. They said it wasn't true, that those were not camps but, rather, collection points, collection centres. And based on that, we had an impression that they themselves knew nothing about the existence of such sites.

Q. I'm not going to refer now to previous times and to Kosovo, but please tell us, do you know about the term "ethnic cleansing," and do you know what we in Serbia, what I personally, our leadership in Serbia believed about the persecution of population that was driven by racial or ethnic considerations and so on?

A. The term "ethnic cleansing" was first used in the 1980s, in early 1980s, during the demonstrations organised by Kosovo Albanians when they used slogans "Kosovo Republic" and "Kosovo for Albanians only." We at the time publicly condemned any activity that would resemble ethnic cleansing or anything similar. You stated that publicly yourself. For example, after the conference in London, you declared that you strongly condemned any activity, any kind of ethnic cleansing, any forcible moving out of population from one place to another. And you said that if there was any such activity going on, it needed to be halted immediately. And this is something that was frequently repeated at all levels by representatives of the Serbian government, federal government; you yourself stated this on ³⁶¹⁷² numerous occasions, as did I.

Q. Did I say that should it be established that such activity was committed by somebody, those people needed to face justice?

A. Yes. You said that if there was ever a crime that could never be condoned or accepted, if such crimes were committed at any point of time, then those people needed to be held accountable for that. You stated that publicly on many occasions, including immediately after the London conference at a press conference.

Q. You were present when we met with Carter in December of 1994.

A. Yes.

Q. Do you remember what were the main points? Do you remember anything particular from that occasion?

A. I remember that he said that during his previous meeting with Mr. Karadzic there were a number of points discussed, perhaps six points, and that you supported all peace efforts, including the peace initiative of President Carter. However, you pointed out that you had very poor contacts and communication with the leadership of Republika Srpska and that you could not influence their position much. Mr. Carter applauded your position, and he stated that he was expecting his mission to Bosnia and Herzegovina to bear fruit. Unfortunately, that did not happen.

Q. Very well, in 1994 and in 1995, we had poor communication or, rather, we were on rather bad terms with Republika Srpska. Do you remember, why was that?

A. It was due to, first of all, their refusal to accept Vance-Owen Plan and then Owen-Stoltenberg Plan. And as a result of that, our ^{36173 BLANK PAGE 36174} relations were strained. Occasionally we had no contact whatsoever with them. So there was no cooperation, state cooperation or any other cooperation. Our meetings were mostly devoted to the disputes and disagreements we had rather than any kind of cooperation. These strained relations escalated at the time when the Contact Group plan was circulated and when the leadership of Republika Srpska consistently refused, for various reasons, some convincing, some not, to accept that plan. This led to increasing difficulties in our relations, even to disruption of any communication. And finally, the decision of government of Republika Srpska was adopted on the 4th of August, 1994, I believe, to halt all contacts with the leadership of Republika Srpska and also all economic contacts, to ban their leadership from residing in Serbia. Only food, clothing, and medication was exempted from this embargo. This is what the situation was up until the beginning of the Dayton negotiations.

Q. I didn't think that we would turn to this, so my recollections are not that fresh, but did you attend that fateful meeting where the patriarch of the Serbian Orthodox Church was present as well and when finally an agreement was reached to establish one single delegation for negotiations in Dayton?

A. No, I wasn't present. I was in New York at the time.

Q. All right, then we will not put any further questions about that. Do you remember the hostage crisis and the reactions of Serbia and myself personally to that crisis?

A. Yes. I certainly remember. This involved 282 hostages, members ³⁶¹⁷⁵ of UNPROFOR, which were taken hostage by the forces of Republika Srpska in order, as they alleged, to protect themselves from the bombing by NATO aviation.

When we heard about that, we were shocked. We were surprised. We condemned that action, and through contacts with the international community and the leadership of Republika Srpska, we did our best to ensure safety for the hostages. But despite strained relations with the leadership of Republika Srpska, we managed to give a major contribution towards releasing hostages and ensuring their safe return to their units.

Q. Please tell me, do you remember Stoltenberg's visit to Belgrade in late July 1995? I have a note here that it took place on the 29th of July, 1995. Stoltenberg came to visit, and as far as I can see here, you attended that meeting as well.

A. Yes. I think that I did, although there were numerous meetings with Mr. Stoltenberg, and I'm sure that I was present if I was in Belgrade.

Q. Do you remember that discussion with Mr. Stoltenberg?

A. I can't remember it precisely because a lot of these discussions were very similar, resolving around similar topics. It had to do with the Contact Group plan, and I can't remember whether we discussed anything else. Can you remind me about that?

Q. Well, in order to avoid putting leading questions, let me just tell you that at the time, attempting to ensure that the plan is accepted, we tried to recruit some members of the parliament of Republika Srpska to support the plan. Do you remember that? ³⁶¹⁷⁶

A. Yes, yes. You informed Mr. Stoltenberg and then other representatives who came later about that. You worked tirelessly on ensuring that there was an increased number of the members of parliament of Republika Srpska who would support the plan and vote in favour of it. And you did that through various channels, various intermediaries, and I think you told us that that number increased to 36 or 38 MPs who were already ready to vote in favour of that proposal, and I think that the total number of MPs were 70 or 78 in their parliament. And when asked when you expected this number to reach an absolute majority, you stated that you expected that very soon. I think that Dr. Owen put that question to you.

Unfortunately, that didn't happen. But at the time, you were convinced that this number would be able to reach a number over 50.

Q. Yes. The number was supposed to exceed 50, but afterwards, the chance fell through.

Let me just have a look at my notes here. Do you remember when a whole brigade of the Muslim army, after I gave approval, crossed the Drina River to save themselves from the offensive and the fighting that was going on at the time in Eastern Bosnia? Or, rather, this is a fact, there is no need for you to confirm it, but do you remember the letter I addressed to Alija Izetbegovic on the occasion?

A. Yes, I do remember the crossing of that unit, and I think it was deployed at Mount Tara or Mount Zlatibor until they were taken over by the International Red Cross. And I remember that you sent a letter to Alija ³⁶¹⁷⁷ Izetbegovic and a letter with similar contents was also sent to Ratko Mladic, asking both these two men, in the interests of peace, to put a stop to all the fighting immediately. And you also said that there was no justification for increasing the number of victims and killing people when we already had a plan in place which would lead to a peaceful political and democratic settlement to the crisis. And you informed Mr. Izetbegovic that you had sent a similar letter to General Mladic with similar contents.

Q. Do you remember the visit by Malcolm Rivkin? You were present, I believe.

A. Yes, I do remember.

Q. Do you have anything that you remember that would be characteristic from that visit?

A. Well, he gave recognition to you personally for everything that you had done and were doing for the Contact Group's plan, to further the plan. And I know that later on, when the Dayton agreement was signed, he also made a public statement in which he emphasised your great contribution to the entire peace process and especially the Dayton agreement coming about through your good offices.

Q. Do you remember how intensive -- or, rather, it doesn't matter if you remember - I'm sure you do - but do you recall our intensive cooperation with the special UN Secretary-General representative for Yugoslavia, Mr. Akashi?

A. Yes, I remember he was a very frequent visitor to Belgrade and that we always had concrete, constructive talks on matters that he raised, ³⁶¹⁷⁸ and he raised a number of issues, and he was different from the international mediators, Stoltenberg and Owen. These questions were relatively lesser questions relating to various incidents, so they were of a lesser order. But he always appealed to Vance for support and efforts to overcome the problems. He appealed to you to overcome the problems, and you did help, and he said that at the end of his mission during a press conference in assessing his cooperation with you throughout his sojourn in Yugoslavia. And he dealt with Bihac, for example, Republika Srpska Krajina, the shelling of Gorazde, and so on and so forth, many of these incidents that took place on a daily basis as the war developed and as the crisis in Bosnia-Herzegovina developed. And I think it was -- he was extremely grateful to you, at least that's what he said, for all the assistance you had given to help solve those issues. And sometimes during those conversations Mr. Martic would be present, especially towards the end when the situation around Bihac developed, and you answered in front of him that all matters, all issues must be resolved by peaceful political means and not by force of arms.

Q. Since you mentioned Mr. Martic just now, do you remember that at that time we had a very positive process going on to regulate relations between Knin and Zagreb, for instance, and what our attitude towards that process was, the process of mutually regulating relations between Knin and Zagreb?

A. This was a process which incorporated regulated cooperation or, rather, having the basic life system restored between Knin and Zagreb, which means the gas pipeline, the water pipeline, and all other means of ³⁶¹⁷⁹ cooperation between Croatia and the Republic of Srpska Krajina. And I don't know where the agreement was actually signed, whether it was in Knin or Erdut, but I do know that this question was often on the agenda of your meetings, both with the representatives of Republika Srpska Krajina and with the representatives of Serb Croatia as well and of course with international representatives, too, and that you always insisted upon very detailed and expedient undertaking of responsibilities that were taken on on the basis of your agreements.

Q. Mr. Jovanovic, do you know that in the conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina which went on, you know that there were large numbers of refugees, but do you know how many Muslim refugees fled to Serbia, fled from the conflict that was going on in Bosnia-Herzegovina and fled to Serbia?

A. I think there were between 50 and 70.000 of them and that they fled during the war operations and when there weren't, when they expected another onslaught. I personally met some Muslims who worked in the Belgrade Circus and other places who talked to me about that and said that they wanted to get out fast in order to avoid the war conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The treatment of these refugees was equal to the treatment of Serb refugees from Bosnia-Herzegovina, and indeed from Croatia as well. Everybody was treated equally. We had a total of 700 or 800.000 from Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. The largest number were, of course, Serbs but there were Muslims and Croats among them. And there was no difference in our treatment of them, although this was an enormous financial burden for us because we were under sanctions and isolated at ³⁶¹⁸⁰ the time.

Q. Do you remember November 1994 and the meeting with the Contact Group in Karadjordjevo? That is to say the full composition of the Contact Group was there visiting us.

A. I do remember that. They were experts, I believe, at the level of the political directors of the Member States of the Contact Group, and they reviewed the plan of the Contact Group. And the leadership of Republika Srpska was the problem, because they refused to accept the plan despite assurances that it was a good idea and smaller amendments to the plan. But the group expressed its thanks to you for the efforts you had invested to bring it to a successful close. And you asked them to do what they could for their part and to offer assurances to Republika Srpska, particularly with respect to a future confederation between the future entity and Serbia, just like the assurances that were given that the Croatia entity in Bosnia would have the right to confederation with Croatia. That was not a clear point. So that was the general gist of those negotiations.

Q. Mr. Jovanovic, you took an active part in all these events, and I'm now going to ask you to take a look at tab 9. Let me just find your text, a short quotation, a short quotation.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I hope, Mr. Robinson, that you have found tab 9.

JUDGE ROBINSON: It's not translated -- the translation is here.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I didn't have the translation here.

MR. NICE: Before -- before we embark on this -- ³⁶¹⁸¹

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. NICE: -- the Chamber is, I know, considering the basis of admissibility of exhibits in respect of a previous witness. I haven't had a chance, of course, to consider this in English. I understand that this is a collection of items provided by various individuals. It may be that we're only going to be taken to something that this particular has written. The basis of admissibility ought to be explored, in my respectful submission.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, this document in English, on the first page, has the name of the -- of the witness. Is this an article by him?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes, Mr. Robinson. And to save time, I'm not going to go through the entire text. I'd like to save time, and all I'm going to ask the witness is what the reason was for him to write what I'm going to quote from his text. It's at the very end of the text.

Might the text be placed on the ELMO, please? Thank you. The English version. Thank you.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Jovanovic, this is from your text.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let us find out when it was written. When was this written?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 2001. As a contribution to a book devoted to the Nacertanije by Ilija Garasanin. Many authors wrote texts to accompany that work, and I was one of them. ³⁶¹⁸²

MR. NICE: Is this a work of expertise? If so, what expertise? Is there some other basis for admissibility, because at the moment I can't see why in principle a witness should be allowed to read out something that he's written on a topic unless it has expertise.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Why not? I can't understand the basis for that objection, Mr. Nice. Let us hear what use will be made of it.

MR. NICE: This is the first time I've seen it in English, and it appears to be a historical analysis of some kind. Is this man an historian?

I'm doing my best to cope with a very large amount of material provided, as in this case, frequently without translation, without any statement indicating the relevance of the material, and I'm expected to, and I hope to, deal with matters in cross-examination swiftly. But the more that the gates are opened broadly to evidence of this kind, the greater it's going to be -- the harder it's going to be for me to meet those objectives.

JUDGE KWON: It is for the Chamber to determine the weight of evidence, but he hasn't come as an expert. I don't see the point of your objection at all.

JUDGE BONOMY: But it's important, Mr. Nice, that we tackle the issue you're raising to see if in fact there is an issue, because behind the objection is a complaint that you're not being given adequate notice of what's being presented.

Now, all that's intended here, apparently, is a brief quotation from this document which is a statement by the witness which presumably he ³⁶¹⁸³ could be asked to make without the document in front of him, for that matter. This is a tactic similar to one that you've adopted a number of times so far and which we are considering the significance of at this moment. And it's really impossible for me to identify a basis for opposing this course of action at this moment. It may be there's no weight to be given to what's said at the end of the day, but I myself can't see a basis for objecting to this.

MR. NICE: I think I said at the beginning I was interested to know the basis of admissibility.

JUDGE BONOMY: Has it not got to be a basis for inadmissibility that we have to seek out if there is an objection taken to evidence?

MR. NICE: Where I have no notice of what's coming, I have to be careful. That's my position.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, your caution is noted, Mr. Nice. Proceed, Mr. Milosevic.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please. Microphone, please, for the accused.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. The last paragraph, you say, "With the burgeoning of the -- the demonisation of the peoples of individual nations was introduced most often as --"

THE INTERPRETER: Could Mr. Milosevic start again, please.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, the interpreter is asking you to start again, because she wasn't able to grasp it.

THE INTERPRETER: Yes. Thank you. The interpreter has found it. ³⁶¹⁸⁴ Yes, they do. The interpreters have it now.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. It's the last page, the second half of the last paragraph, and I shall repeat: "As sense of invulnerability grew in the victor in the Cold War, the practice whereby a people in a country would be demonised was introduced, most often as a precursor to unlawful armed actions launched against them. There have been several such cases, but nowhere has the demonisation reached such total scale as in the case of Serbia and the Serbian people. A new and dangerous form of racism has appeared, no less than the kind that was manifest in colonial times. The UN should not hesitate any longer to expand its list of prohibited acts by including the prohibition of the demonisation of a country or a people. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has an absolutely legitimate and justified reason and full moral basis to launch such an initiative as soon as possible and to mobilise other countries to give their support in this effort." So this, then, is what you yourself wrote, Mr. Jovanovic. What did you have in mind in writing this?

JUDGE BONOMY: Please don't answer that.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE BONOMY: You have no objection to that question, Mr. Nice?

MR. NICE: I rather thought that --

JUDGE BONOMY: You see, it's the timing that matters here. I find it very difficult to adjudicate on the objection to something in the abstract on the sort of basis you tried to formulate, but I wonder, I just want to be sure that you have no objection to that question. ^{36185 BLANK PAGE 36186}

MR. NICE: Can I deal with things in order, please. It will take me a minute or so.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, why don't we ask the accused what is the relevance to the indictment of the so-called demonisation of the Serbian people? Deal with it as a question of relevance.

MR. NICE: Your Honours, just to deal with His Honour Judge Bonomy's concern, I opened this very cautiously at line, whatever it is, 28 or something. I said, "Is this a work of expertise? If so, what expertise? Is there some other basis for admissibility, because at the moment I can't see why in principle a witness should be allowed to read out something he's written on a topic unless it has expertise." There are exceptions to that, of course, if the article has been written in the course of the conflict itself and is some way a contemporaneous document, but my observation was, as I said later, cautious, and I simply wanted to know the basis of admissibility. Reading --

JUDGE BONOMY: Can I cut through that then, Mr. Nice. Politicians or diplomats who write their memoirs of events that have occurred seem to have material which from time to time you've relied on, and indeed the accused is relying on. Now, is that not the category we've got here as a broad category? And the real question is whether the material relates to an issue that's relevant to the case.

MR. NICE: Certainly diplomats who use their books as aid memoirs and diary records and so on, that's a different category. What I was looking at was the passage to which we were referred which gave rise to my ³⁶¹⁸⁷ concern and cautious opening of this debate. What I now see as read out as the last ten lines would appear to be a summary and opinion. I don't understand, A, its relevance, particularly to these matters at all; B, if it's based on expertise, it hasn't come as part of an expert report and the expertise is not identified. So, Your Honour, it is certainly my submission, since you invite me to make it, that this material can be of no value to the Chamber. In light of my earlier observations which had taken quite a lot of time, and I'm always aware that if I sometimes take time to try and save time it has the contrary effect and that's why I'm very restrained in the number of objections that I make. I wasn't going to object, I was going to wait and see what the answer was and deal with it in cross-examination, but since you asked me do I object, yes, I do object. It doesn't seem to me he can take it any further.

JUDGE BONOMY: Just so my position on this is clear, I just do not understand the concept that is being described in this piece and, therefore, the question is, as far as I can see, not aimed at anything that's relevant in the case.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, explain the relevance of the import of these ten lines, which is the demonisation of the Serb people.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The relevance, Mr. Robinson, and gentlemen, lies in the fact that this entire indictment for the most part is an expression and consequence of the demonisation of the Serb people, just as the aggression against Yugoslavia is a consequence of what was done in order to justify crimes against the Serb people. So if there is ³⁶¹⁸⁸ anything that is relevant and related to what you call the indictment, that is the phenomenon of the demonisation of the Serbs and the Serb people.

I want to ask Mr. Jovanovic, who was a diplomat and foreign minister for many years, he formulated a proposal that the United Nations should ban all such activities, explaining --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Kay.

MR. KAY: Yes. And I'm grateful to Ms. Higgins who has put this into a context. Rather quite emotive language is used in the passage, but it comes down to the issue of one of bias, and this witness having been a foreign minister, a diplomat, and involved in international circles may well have had experiences and the opportunity to judge, as international events were faced by the FRY and before that the SFRY, as well as Serbia, and come to certain conclusions based upon his own personal experience, and it may well be that is what is at issue here in this particular passage and the reason why the evidence is being adduced in this manner, because there are issues here as to why steps were taken by NATO and the UN against Serbia, against the FRY, why Resolutions were passed more condemnatory of them than others.

JUDGE BONOMY: But he seems to be saying that the motive for the indictment is the demonisation of the Serb people, and is the motive for the indictment an issue here?

MR. KAY: The passage doesn't deal with the indictment, and that's ³⁶¹⁸⁹ what we have been considering. It may be that the accused has expressed his reason, having been asked to give it in that particular way, but of more importance is actually the witness's own evidence on the issue, and it may be that he's expressed it this particular way as being the pinnacle of the bias against him. But as I see it and in my submission, there are wider issues here which this witness is probably more able to be -- more able to deal with than an issue such as the indictment. I mean, that's plainly not his province to comment on the indictment, but on other issues, yes.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: It's not the first time that this issue of demonisation has occurred and the accused has presented it as a part of his case. He's seeking to say that this explains why certain actions were taken against his country. And since it is a part of his case, we will allow it. This is a majority decision, I should say. So we will allow it, but we want to have it controlled, Mr. Milosevic. I don't want any exploration of non-forensic issues. I just want a very brief explanation from the witness as to what was said in this passage, just a very brief explanation.

Well, we are now at the time, but I think let us have the explanation and then we'll break.

Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Before the witness answers, I wish to intervene in relation to what Mr. Kay said a few moments ago. Mr. Kay said verbatim that the explanation was why NATO and the UN ³⁶¹⁹⁰ took measures against Yugoslavia. I think that that is quite wrong. NATO carried out an aggression against Yugoslavia in contravention of the UN Charter, without approval of the United Nations, so no one can say "NATO and the UN." That is quite in contravention of the entire system of the UN. And linking NATO action and the UN is quite inappropriate.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation].

Q. Please go ahead and answer the question, Mr. Jovanovic.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Very briefly.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This article and its end is a consequence of my conclusion that over a long period of time not only Serbia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia but the people as such were exposed to terrible insults, and they were portrayed in the worst light possible. Practically there were no bounds in this anathema against the Serb people by prominent political personalities. Serbs were mentioned as a -- referred to as a subspecies, as people who had criminality in their nature, that this was an endemic thing. Also, they were referred to as a people who should be put into a cage so that not even a bird could fly out.

During the war, during the aggression against Yugoslavia, the top politicians of NATO countries danced ballet with figures. They were saying that 500.000 Albanians, 10.000 Albanians, 100.000 Albanians disappeared. This was all aimed at creating this aura of the unacceptability of the Serb people.

The point was in writing this to say to the UN that in spite of all this hatred and xenophobia and everything else, that demonisation ³⁶¹⁹¹ should be included in such phenomena so that at least in the future other people would be protected from the kind of terrible treatment that the Serb people were subjected to.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you for the explanation. We will now take the break for 20 minutes.

--- Recess taken at 10.33 a.m.

--- On resuming at 11.00 a.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Robinson.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Jovanovic, please open tab 15.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Kay.

MR. KAY: The exhibit --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Mr. Milosevic, do you want to have this exhibited?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: So it would be tab 9 exhibited. Yes. Thank you.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Tab 15 is a brief excerpt from a book, The New Totalitarian Society and The Destruction of Yugoslavia, by Emil Vlajki. Could you please open this. I'm just going to read a very brief quotation. Look at page 103, and this is what it says here -- tab 15, have you found it?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. At the very beginning of the page he says: "[In English] This is ³⁶¹⁹² a clear case of the bad cop/good cop game: Germany wants dissolution of Yugoslavia and the US allegedly wants the Yugoslav territorial integrity. The US 'economic' policy towards Yugoslavia proclaiming it not independent any more, ordering not only the separate 'free elections' for each republic but also the necessity of the election of political parties 'suitable' to the US standards, cutting all aid, suspending duty-free treatment, provoking the economic, political and social collapse in this country, led directly to war in the Balkans.

"Moreover, in January 1991, the US warned the Yugoslav army against trying to prevent the separation of Croatia; the US --" [Interpretation] and then Susan Woodward says: "[In English] ... the US '... would not accept the use of force to hold Yugoslavia together. ... The United States was in affect telling the Yugoslav army that, in addition to its abandonment of Yugoslavia on the international front, it would consider illegitimate the army's definition of its constitutional obligation to defend the borders from the state from internal threats.'" [Interpretation] So was this good cop/bad cop approach serving political goals?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I'm also linking this to the testimony of the witness who came from the US senate, and he said here before you and before the public that things had to be portrayed black and white; the Serbs were black and the others were white in Yugoslavia.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Jovanovic, was this just prejudice or bias, or was this a ³⁶¹⁹³ deliberate policy that was aimed at conflict and disintegration of the country?

A. This is just one illustration, but there are other illustrations, too, that show that the policy of the United States of America towards the former Yugoslavia was rather hypocritical. There was a secret CIA report that they released in November 1990 that Yugoslavia would disappear within 18 months' time and that this would end in bloodshed. Then towards the end of 1990, they imposed limitations on credit and other forms of finance for the federal government for a six-month period. Then they passed a decision towards the end of 1991 to delete the name of Yugoslavia from the Most Favoured Nation list. And they also passed a few other decisions on the basis of Congress resolutions.

Mr. Baker was in Yugoslavia sometime in the first half of 1990 or 1991 - I can't remember exactly just now - he had a position which was one of equidistance at first glance but it was actually in favour of Croatia and Slovenia that had intended to secede. He said that if these two republics seceded, they would not be recognised by us. That's what he said. And the federal organs cannot use force to keep them in Yugoslavia. So basically this position was in favour of secession because he guaranteed that they would not be prevented from leaving unilaterally and by force.

So the US changed its -- so when people say that the US changed its position towards Yugoslavia only when the Bosnian crisis emerged, it's not true, because basically they coordinated their position with Germany and some other countries that were working to the detriment of Yugoslavia. ³⁶¹⁹⁴ May I also recall one more thing: That the last US ambassador to Belgrade, Mr. Zimmerman, as soon as he arrived, I think it was in 1987 or 1988, he said to all his interlocutors at federal and republican level that Yugoslavia no longer has the importance that it had before in the United States, that his country had lost strategic interest in Yugoslavia, because at that time it was quite clear that there would be no Eastern bloc any longer so it was no longer needed as a buffer state between the East and West blocs. And it really no reason to exist any longer, even more so because it was chairman of the nonaligned movement and because it had a long tradition of independence and fighting for its freedom.

Q. In relation to that and in respect of the behaviour of the military, please look at tab 13.1.

MR. KAY: May this be an exhibit.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Mr. Milosevic -- yes.

MR. NICE: I didn't interrupt at the time in view of the time consumed by my last observations, but I am not sure of the basis of admissibility of this document, but I see that the opening passage identifies the writer in terms that would suggest that the writer is an academic.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, we don't know whether it is being sought to be admitted. No. Mr. Kay didn't seek it. He was just reminding us. Mr. Milosevic, are you seeking the admission of this?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: On what basis?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Precisely on the basis of the fact ³⁶¹⁹⁵ that this clearly shows a deliberate attitude of discrimination towards the Serb side in Yugoslavia and a position that shows that it was in favour of breaking up Yugoslavia, not preserving its territorial integrity.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: The witness has given his own evidence on this matter, and there is no need for its admission. We will not admit it.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. In that case, please take a look at tab 13.1. This is the book by Russian historian Jelena Guskova, The History of the Yugoslav Crisis from 1990 to 2000, where on page 244 it says as follows. I'm just going to quote a small passage: "In the spring of 2001 [as interpreted], the Yugoslav People's Army was still present in all republics. Its national composition was still multinational. There were still a lot of Croats, Slovenes and Macedonians in its leadership. It was led by Veljko Kadijevic, half Croat, who considered himself a Yugoslav. His deputies were a Slovene, Admiral Stane Brovet, and a Croat Josip Greguric. Heading the aviation were Croats Antun Tus and later Zvonimir Jurjevic, commander of central military district --"

THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: In the spring of 1991.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is -- yes, tab 13.1.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Page 244.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] However, this is in Serbian. ³⁶¹⁹⁶

JUDGE ROBINSON: We don't have 244. We have pages 3, page 4, 5, and 6.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. I think that you just have the translation, which has been previously marked. Unfortunately, I don't have that bit translated.

JUDGE ROBINSON: There is no translation of what you were just reading, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The passage which begins, "In the spring of 1991, the Yugoslav People's Army was still present in all republics."

JUDGE BONOMY: It's in 13.2. You may find it's in 13.2 at page 4.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 13.2 is the second volume of a different book. Yes. You have it on page 4 of the translation. You're right. That's right. "In the spring of 1991 ..." The last passage on that page, the last translated passage. That's what I just read out.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Therefore, Mr. Jovanovic, the Yugoslav People's Army was present in the entire territory of Yugoslavia. That is clear. And for how many decades prior to that?

A. At least four to five decades if we do not take into account the period of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia when a joint army also existed.

Q. In this bit that's translated, at the very beginning of the translation, which can be found on page 202 -- no, 212 of this book of Jelena Guskova --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Gentlemen, you have the translation, ^{36197 BLANK PAGE 36198} the beginning of this page 4, which has a sub-heading "War."

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. This passage reads as follows: "However, Croatia had a different goal, which was in the end achieved after all: An independent Croatia without Serbs." So that was a goal, to have independent Croatian without Serbs.

"Tudjman spoke about that on the 24th of May, 1991, in Ban Jelacic Square." I think that this date is wrong, 1991. This must be a misprint. This is a speech that we had played before in the videotape. "'A war could have been avoided but Croatia did not want that. We assessed that the independence of Croatia could be won only through war. Therefore we led a policy of negotiation while creating our own armed units by ourselves. Had we not done that, we would not have achieved the targeted goal. That means, war could have been avoided, but we would not have achieved our goal and that is the creation of our independent state.'"

Jelena Guskova writes here: "An independent Croatia without Serbs." Is this in sync with what you knew about the intentions, the goals, and the achievement of those goals by means of war? So the first goal was an independent Croatia and the second one without Serbs.

A. I've already said yesterday that these were two parallel strategic goals of Croatian leadership under President Tudjman.

MR. NICE: That was a leading question, but I rather give up.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Reformulate the question, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] ³⁶¹⁹⁹

Q. Mr. Jovanovic, what were the goals of Croatian policy?

A. The goals of Croatian policy, both analysing what was quoted here and also other indicators, were to achieve by violent means a secession of Croatia from Yugoslavia. That meant causing a war because that was the only mechanism by which secession could be implemented. They were counting on foreign assistance in that endeavour. The other goal was to use intimidation, pressure, and various other means in order to force Serbs to leave Croatia, if possible immediately. And when that wasn't possible, the entire project was completed through the Operation Storm when a large number of Serbs had to leave Krajina. And as I said yesterday, Tudjman at a gathering expressed joy at the fact that from now on, Serbs would not constitute more than 3 to 5 per cent of the total population of Croatia. That was a public acknowledgement of ethnic cleansing which had been carried out with the use of the army in Krajina.

Q. Now, the following passages that have been translated, in the original they can be found on page 215. It says as follows: "In August 1991, Tudjman admitted to the US ambassador that 'An all-out attack against the JNA and the Chetnik separatists' was beginning." Who were Chetnik separatists?

A. All Serbs who refused to accept to live under Tudjman's rule in the way that it was implemented in a very intolerant manner were considered Chetnik separatists, especially those who had to resort to arms in order to protect their lives and lives of their families and their property. ³⁶²⁰⁰

Q. I will continue the quotation. "When Ambassador Zimmerman proposed to Tudjman that he consider the other option, that is, giving the Serbs autonomy and thereby also abandoning war intentions, Tudjman refused to even discuss the matter."

A. Yes, that was the beginning of the war in Croatia and Tudjman was over confident. He did not want to make any concessions to the Serbs living in Croatia. As we have heard, first he got rid of the Serbs from the constitution as a constituent nation and then he did everything that he was able to do in order to reduce the numbers of that minority and to reduce it to the percentage that Croatia could tolerate as Serb presence in Croatia.

Q. In the following passage, we can see: "In late 1991, according to Tudjman's words, the Croatian armed forces numbered around 200.000 men, 350 tanks, 400 artillery pieces, 30 crop duster planes remodelled for combat operations. (85) According to other sources, the total number of Croatian armed formations reached 110.000 men, or 2.3 per cent of the population of Croatia. The largest part of the armed forces consisted of the ZNG, National Guards Corps units (about 70.000), MUP forces (around 30.000), Territorial Defence units, and finally, paramilitary formations. Also available were the armed formations of individual political parties, such as the ruling HDZ and the Croatian Party of Rights, which in 1991 began actively with ethnic cleansing in Slavonia, organised incidents and provocations and carried out the dirty work which the official structures did not want to get directly involved in."

Do you know of any of these events or are you familiar with this ³⁶²⁰¹ based on the events that you know about?

A. The unfolding of these events was very painful for Serbs living there. Already hundred thousand of Serbs had already left Croatia and fled to Serbia or some other countries, and not only from the areas which were exposed to the attack of these units but even towns where there were no conflicts. There were -- therefore, I don't know whether these figures about the Croatian formations are correct or not. Maybe they inflated this in order to impress the JNA. However, the fact is that a general mobilisation was carried out in contravention of the provisions whereby the only forces in Yugoslavia that were legal were the JNA, the police, and the Territorial Defence. So that was another violation committed by Croatia.

Q. All right. On page 211 --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: I'm having trouble finding the translation, if I've got it. I'm not sure that I have. I'm having trouble finding the original pages. I don't know if the protocols of the court require the accused to be satisfied that I can also find my way around the papers, especially --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we do. Mr. Milosevic, I've already said that you must ensure that we have the pages before us before you proceed. It also goes for the Prosecutor.

MR. NICE: I also owe it to the Court to check at this stage in any event on what's happening, because what's happening --

JUDGE BONOMY: Can I make two observations before you say anything, and these are directed to Mr. Milosevic. ³⁶²⁰² I find these questions and answers quite unhelpful. It's a clear example of leading questions to read someone else's words to a witness and then ask him if he knows anything about it.

And the second comment I have to make is that with this witness, who was personally involved in matters, it seems such a waste of time to go through this exercise, especially when he's just indicated he can't actually confirm some of the material that's been put to him.

MR. NICE: I'm grateful. I have nothing else to say on the question of admissibility except I have now found the translated pages.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, we're not being helped very much by these questions, and you should move on to something else, something of which the witness has more specific and direct knowledge.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, this is precisely what this witness gave evidence about based on his direct knowledge. Here, in a book written by an historian, we can see that his words are confirmed. This is not something that somebody else said. No. These are words of Tudjman and Izetbegovic.

I assumed that Mr. Nice had the translation, because Mr. Bonomy said that he did. So if Mr. Bonomy has the translation, then Mr. Nice must have it too. And it is --

JUDGE BONOMY: Just one comment for the interpreter. At the end of the last intervention, I said it seems such a waste of time to go through this exercise especially when the witness can't - cannot - actually confirm some of the material that's been put.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think that the witness can confirm ³⁶²⁰³ what is being read out, because this is something that he knows as well, and I asked him about what he knew.

So please take a look at the last translated excerpt, page 311. Facts are stated here, and I think that the witness has already mentioned it.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I don't think we have that pagination.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It's on page 5 of the translation. There's just one single passage on page 5, in that tab, at the top of the page.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Does the Prosecutor have that? Yes, he does. Yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So this is a book written by an historian, and the facts are stated here. It says: "In February 1991, the SDA and the Croatian Democratic Union of BH submitted to the parliament a 'Declaration on the Sovereignty of Bosnia and Herzegovina.' Izetbegovic stated at the time: 'For the sovereignty of Bosnia and Herzegovina, I would sacrifice peace. For peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina, I would not sacrifice its sovereignty.'"

Mr. Jovanovic, we have Tudjman's statement given at a rally where he said there would have been no war had Croatia not wanted one, and then we have Tudjman's statement in the parliament saying that for sovereign Bosnia and Herzegovina, he would sacrifice peace. So what do you know about the intentions to wage war in the former Yugoslavia, both in respect of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina? ³⁶²⁰⁴

A. Both of these leaders, Mr. Tudjman and Mr. Izetbegovic, were aware that they could not accomplish their goal of violent break-away with Yugoslavia without a war. So they counted on this war and accepted it consciously.

I would like to add to the statement of Izetbegovic presented here another one that he uttered in discussion with Lord Carrington, where he said that he knew that in order to achieve independence of Bosnia-Herzegovina, it will be necessary to -- to -- to go to war, to a civil war.

We have already mentioned the Belgrade initiative here, and together with Momir Bulatovic, you invited the then leadership of Bosnia-Herzegovina to come to Belgrade and to discuss the current situation. You received only a response from the then-speaker of the parliament, Mr. Momcilo Krajisnik, whereas Mr. Izetbegovic did not reply at all. Therefore, he did not want to find a peaceful solution to the existing situation through consensus with other leaders, which meant that he had opted for the other possibility, which led to war. That means that the intention for causing war in Bosnia and Herzegovina cannot be attributed to Serbia and Montenegro at all but, rather, to those who planned to carry out a violent break-away with the then Yugoslavia.

Q. Mr. Jovanovic, you explain in rather precise terms during your testimony here what the positions of various Western politicians were. I mentioned the positions held by politicians on both sides of the Atlantic. Now, please take a look at tab 13.2. This is the second volume of the history written by Jelena Guskova. Page 24. ³⁶²⁰⁵

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I hope you have the translation. Let me just make sure that you do.

JUDGE KWON: Read out the first passage and let's check whether it's in 13.1 or not.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. Very briefly. I was confused by the name of the publisher. Just a second. Yes, you have the translation. I hope all of you have it.

"The Secretary-General of the UN, Perez de Cuellar, in December, 1991..." In the English translation it starts "In December 1991..." In December 1991.

JUDGE KWON: Yes, page 4 of 13.1.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. "... wrote to Hans Van den Broek, the president of the European Community Council of Ministers, as well as to German Foreign Minister Hans-Detrich Genscher, that selective recognition of the Yugoslav republics could 'contribute to a spread of the present conflict and the intensification of the explosive situation.'"

With respect to recognition, an active role was taken by the Vatican. The Vatican also took an active role in connection with the recognition of Croatia and Slovenia, and you mentioned that yesterday, Mr. Jovanovic. "On 26 November 1991, Cardinal Sodano invited the ambassadors of the United States of America, France, Great Britain, Belgium, Italy, Germany and Austria, accredited in the Holy See, and informed them of the Vatican's stand, insisting that their countries recognise Slovenia and Croatia in the same month. Describing that ³⁶²⁰⁶ meeting, US Ambassador Melady said he was convinced that there had been prior consent between the Vatican, Germany, Austria and Italy, because the ambassadors of those countries enthusiastically supported the Vatican's proposal."

Then he goes on to say: "In Lord Carrington's opinion, Europe made two mistakes. 'I think it would have been better,' he noted in the fall of 1992, 'had Europe accepted the break-up of Yugoslavia earlier. According to the plan that I proposed in the summer of 1991, six republics committed, on the one hand, to have more or less close mutual relations, while on the other, the centre would survive. Some of them claimed they were ready for such an alliance. But the European Twelve did not listen to me, because they were afraid that such a plan would serve as a precedent for the break-up of the Russian Federation. Europe's second mistake was to recognise Croatia and Slovenia. The goal of convening the European conference, which I chaired, was to postpone the recognition of the independence of these two republics until global consent of the six Yugoslav republics was achieved. Their recognition undermined the basis of our work, which was reduced to simple bilateral negotiations, all the more so as it was later considered necessary to also ask Bosnia about its desire for independence. Of course, Alija Izetbegovic could only respond in the affirmative. I warned the leaders of the European Community that such a scenario, unacceptable for the Serbs in Bosnia, would lead to civil war. That was a tragic mistake.'"

And furthermore he says: "US Secretary of State Warren Christopher wrote in June 1993 that responsibility lay in particular with ³⁶²⁰⁷ the Germans, because they managed to convince their partners in the European Community to recognise Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. Using an illogical approach, Germany claimed that non-recognition of --"

JUDGE ROBINSON: You have read such a long passage. What meaningful question can you now ask of the witness?

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Well, the meaningful question is this: Is what is being quoted about Carrington's stand, Perez de Cuellar's views, the Vatican's views, Sodano and the ambassadors of the countries I've quoted, does it coincide with your knowledge of what happened at the time? Is this in collision with what you know? Is something incorrect here, or is it correct? Is what they say here true? And you spoke about that yesterday.

A. Yes, I did mention something about that yesterday.

MR. NICE: [Previous translation continues] ... formulation of the question reveals the need to get round of the problem of its being leading in nature. At the moment we're not interested in the accuracy or otherwise of what the author says. It may happen when the author comes to give evidence, if she does or he does.

JUDGE ROBINSON: He's now going to testify as to facts within his knowledge.

MR. NICE: In which case then it's just because it's entirely leading that the question is objectionable.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Jovanovic --

JUDGE ROBINSON: The point being made, Mr. Milosevic, is that when ³⁶²⁰⁸ you read out a passage like this and then ask the witness whether his experience coincides with that, you have actually given him the answer from the passage. And so it is -- it is --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. I'm not going to ask him. Well, Mr. Jovanovic is an adult, an experienced man. He's a politician. I don't assume he needs me to explain to him what happened.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. But I read out these passages -- well, I'm asking you now, Mr. Jovanovic, whether what I read out, what it says there is correct or incorrect.

A. It is correct, because it was repeated several times on several occasions in different books and newspapers, and I should like to add to that this: Mr. De Michelis, for example, a high-ranking official of the European Community, before the conference stopped work during the summer of 1991, issued warnings of the danger of premature recognition of Slovenia and Croatia by Germany and that the Security Council in three of its Resolutions at that time issued warnings of the danger of premature recognition and appealed to all states, especially members of the European Community, to refrain from any act or step which could lead to an escalation of tensions and make the successful conclusion of the conference difficult.

After that, more or less all the statesmen of repute and renown in the East and in the West presented their critical views on the issue, and I should like to mention in particular Kissinger, Baker, and the rest. Mr. Baker, for example, expressly stated that Germany's actions in ^{36209 BLANK PAGE 36210} the European Community with respect to the premature recognition of these two republics and later Bosnia-Herzegovina was a direct cause of war, and he said it was the trigger of the war. And there were similar statements, and with hindsight, of course, they spoke critically about this wrong step, wrong move that was made in December and January, December 1991 and January 1992 when the three republics were recognised through this speedy accelerated process and thereby a long and bloody war was unleashed, especially in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Jovanovic, Lord Carrington said there were two mistakes. You've dealt with one of them, which was premature recognition. The other one, he says, was that Europe should have accepted the break-up of Yugoslavia earlier than it did. Do you accept that also?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That break-up was not done earlier for it to have been accepted. It was started immediately prior to the conference, and at the conference the process was accelerated, because two documents were presented to the conference. One was an arrangement for a general solution, and the second was a contract for a general solution in which Yugoslavia was not mentioned any more, just its federal units with their interest in breaking away or, rather, others remaining within Yugoslavia.

So I think that Lord Carrington's remark was and criticism of the European Community was that it made it impossible for the political process led by the Conference on Yugoslavia to be rounded off and completed and then those who wished to secede be recognised.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] ³⁶²¹¹

Q. Furthermore, it says the following -- De Michelis's explanation, he says: "We were facing Maastricht. Nobody could allow a split in the alliance --" and he is referring to the European Community of the day -- "but it was more than clear to me with that decision, we spurred the fire in Bosnia, and maybe also in Kosovo" wrote Gianni De Michelis, former Italian Foreign Minister.

A. Is that a question?

Q. Yes, that is a question. What was Italy's position at the time, or De Michelis's position specifically with regard to the events in Yugoslavia? He came to visit. I assume you met him on the occasion.

A. No, I didn't meet him, but Italy, according to Mitterand's words, was handicapped by the position taken by the Vatican, which tied its hands. And so for a long time in a way it was a silent participant in this process until De Michelis and Genscher met in Venice, and that was in the autumn of 1991 - I forget the exact date - when they expressed their support to the intentions of Slovenia and Croatia to secede. And as far as this hindsight on the part of De Michelis is concerned, he could have done that earlier. He could have prevented it all earlier. As far as Maastricht is concerned, let me point one thing out: Maastricht was an agreement by others at the detriment of Yugoslavia. To calm down Germany and Austria, it was decided to abolish Yugoslavia and to recognise the two republics that wished to secede. So that was also stated in Mr. Vedrine's book. And he said that Great Britain had managed to convince France to accept the German demand in exchange for the fact that Germany had agreed to the conditions of the monetary union and ³⁶²¹² because some political concepts were rejected with respect to the integration into the European Union. That is to say, Germany gave up on some of its other conditions.

Q. Fine. Very well. Now, on page 28, and now we're going through what you mentioned partially yesterday, Guskova has a brief quotation here. It is also translated, and it is this: "Many politicians later understood the negative consequences of the hasty recognition of the former Yugoslav republics. Cyrus Vance said how the Hague Agreement should have been adhered to, which did not permit recognition of the former Yugoslav republics until a political solution acceptable for all was found. James Baker was even more downright: 'Slovenia and Croatia are responsible for the civil war in the former Yugoslavia. Their forcible secession, contrary to the acts of the Helsinki agreement, pushed Yugoslavia directly into settling accounts by military means. It is a fact that Slovenia and Croatia proclaimed their independence unilaterally in spite of our warnings, that they used force in order to capture border posts, which provoked civil war.' In Henry Kissinger's opinion, "Western democrats should have thought twice before they recognised a Balkan state whose borders in the ethnic, linguistic and historical sense did not coincide with the traditional concept of a nation and a state. How could Western politicians even imagine that the Serbs, Croats, and Muslims - whose mutual hatred led to the break-up of Yugoslavia - could co-exist and live together in an even smaller Bosnian state?'" Now, Mr. Jovanovic, do you have an example of any serious world politician who did not indicate the fatal mistakes that were made by the ³⁶²¹³ international community in the Yugoslav crisis? Can you quote me a single example?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I'm not allowing that. It's not the international community that is on trial. So I won't allow that question.

But I wanted to ask you, it is part of your case, isn't it, that the secession of Slovenia and Croatia and the premature -- their premature recognition was what led to the conflict and not any act on your part. Is that part of your -- is that your case?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, quite obviously there was no act on Serbia's part which could have caused the conflict and war. If you take a look at the chronology of events and everything that happened, you can see that for yourselves. You have access to all the exhibits, evidence, and proof. You have proof how fast Serbia -- what Serbia did to avoid war, and what it did to establish peace in areas where war did break out.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, the passage you just quoted from James Baker, he said: "Their forcible secession, contrary to the acts of the Helsinki agreement, pushed Yugoslavia directly into settling accounts by military means." So he's there saying that as a result of their secession, Yugoslavia was obliged to settle accounts by military means. And do you accept that? That's the passage you cited.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't think you interpreted that in the proper manner. They didn't interpret Baker properly. When Baker says "Yugoslavia" he doesn't mean the federal authorities, he means the ³⁶²¹⁴ country as a whole, within its borders within which armed conflicts had begun, because that happened as a result of that. And Baker knew full well how the military conflicts began. The Yugoslav People's Army certainly didn't begin them. So he refers to Yugoslavia, not the federal authorities or federal institutions but the country Yugoslavia as a whole.

JUDGE ROBINSON: That's a nice distinction.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And that's a very vital difference.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Milosevic, it's -- you seem to take it for granted everything written in this history book is true. They may be, but they are not legally so unless the Prosecution agrees to it. So you have to establish, first of all, whether it is true that such people said such things to the knowledge of this witness.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] You mean the politicians? Is that what you're referring to? Well, what these politicians said was public. They were public statements, and as far as I remember, I quoted some of those politicians, referring to the source. But you can establish that -- we can establish that once again if need be. And I'm not taking things for granted. It's impossible that everything is true and correct in a book written by an author, but I assume that the author did his best or her best to present the truth.

JUDGE KWON: Take the advantage of the presence of this witness. Establish those facts with the assistance of this witness, as far as you can.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] ³⁶²¹⁵

Q. Mr. Jovanovic, what, out of all these observations, do you think might be incorrect with respect to the causes of the conflict on the territory of Yugoslavia? We always speak about conflicts, armed conflicts on the territory of the former Yugoslavia. That's what we're talking about, are we not?

A. I think these quotations have been taken in their correct form, taken over in their correct form because they are to be found in the books of other authors. For example, in Hubert Vedrine's Les mondes de Francois Mitterrand, there are a lot of quotations there.

Q. Yes, we have that book. It is an exhibit. We'll go through it, not all the quotations, we won't have time for that, but we shall go into some of them.

A. Then we have Mr. Gumper [phoen], who was a high-ranking official in the National Security Council of President Bush, for example, Bush and Clinton. And he was quoted -- quotes from his speech at the Council of Foreign Relations in New York, and he said that this was a trigger. This triggered the war in Yugoslavia, the recognition. And we have the books of other authors, French author Bauzin [phoen] and Daniel Danage [phoen], Jean Gonan [phoen], for example, which -- where you will find quotes from other statesmen including the ones here. So it's not the quotations that can be challenged. We can ask ourselves whether the people who saw the situation as being such, whether the situation was actually like that, but you can't question the quotes because it is a fact that that is what they said and they said that in public forums. For example, the American Congress in 1995. So he did ³⁶²¹⁶ have some responsibility before Congress in presenting observations of this kind.

JUDGE BONOMY: Well, who said what in the American Congress?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] James Baker said that in the US Congress sometime in 1995.

JUDGE BONOMY: The quotation that's on the page that we're reading was said in the US Congress, was it?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes. That's the way it was put. Along with other sentences, but of course this excerpt is characteristic.

JUDGE BONOMY: You accept that that quotation, if it's accurate, means that America wasn't behind Slovenia and Croatia proclaiming their independence, that America was against it? That's what the statement says. And it seems to be Mr. Milosevic's case that America was one of the conspirators encouraging that.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have already said -- if you are putting the question to me, I beg your pardon. I hope I can answer it now. I already said that the real American policy was the one that followed from concrete action; the statement made by Ambassador Zimmerman that Yugoslavia lost its strategic importance for America, and then also intentionally releasing the secret CIA report that Yugoslavia would disappear within 18 months' time, and in blood at that. Then also denying the federal government assistance for six months but also not denying any assistance to the federal republics -- federal units. Then also deleting Yugoslavia from the list of Most Favoured Nations. That was done in ³⁶²¹⁷ December 1991.

There is also a decision that had to do with the so-called repressive policies in Kosovo and Metohija.

JUDGE BONOMY: Let me interrupt you, Mr. Jovanovic. I remember your evidence about these various matters, but basically are you saying Mr. Baker was being hypocritical, saying one thing and doing something else?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. I just wish to recall the facts, what was happening in 1990 and 1991, including the visit paid by Mr. Baker to all the Yugoslav republics and to the federal government sometime in the first half the 1991 where he set up this well-known equidistance. In my opinion, it was not real equidistance, it was actually a signal to the federal units that without fear from any use of force or from the federal government, they could secede from Yugoslavia. His statement in 1995 is probably due to the need to shift at least part of the blame for the violent, bloody break-up of Yugoslavia elsewhere.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Continue, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. I'll have to shorten this because I'm not going to be able to quote everything, especially because there's no need for me to quote Clinton here saying that I played a key role in Dayton. That is a generally known fact, and I hope that you are sufficiently aware of it, too, that I played that kind of role in the attainment of peace. However, there will be opportunities, and I hope that we will have the opportunity of hearing and seeing Jelena Guskova, who has been dealing with the Yugoslav crisis for many, many years now. ³⁶²¹⁸

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Jovanovic, you mentioned the French foreign minister, Hubert Vedrine.

A. Yes.

Q. I wish to draw your attention to tab 10, Les mondes de Francois Mitterrand by Hubert Vedrine, a close co-worker of President Mitterrand's.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Tab 10?

MR. NICE: Does the Chamber want to decide about tab 13 in accordance with its practice? It would seem to me it should not be admitted. The author, in any event, is coming to give evidence.

MR. KAY: Tabs 13.2 and 13.1 have generated a great deal of discussion as well as inquiry from the Bench. In my submission, they should be exhibits.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Consistent with past practice, the witness has given evidence himself, so we will not admit that tab.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I did not understand this right, Mr. Robinson. Why are you refusing these quotations on the basis of which I put so many questions to Mr. Jovanovic and he testified about that? Why can that not be admitted into evidence?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Because we are not helped by it. I mean, the witness has given the evidence himself, so it doesn't really add anything that is useful.

JUDGE KWON: You can call Jelena Guskova to exhibit this document.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. If that applies to all ³⁶²¹⁹ books, then no books should be admitted into evidence. You can always say the author of the book has to be called. You have introduced many quotations from many books into evidence, admitted them.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We have ruled on that, Mr. Milosevic. Please continue.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. All right.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Jovanovic, please, Vedrine's book. I'm going to ask you to read these quotations, since you speak French, and a few quotations have been marked here, the ones that I want you to read out. First on page 618, Maastricht is the sub-heading, and after the second paragraph it says: "[No interpretation]".

Could you please read it out for us.

A. You want me to read it in French or in English?

Q. Please read it in French because the book is written in French. You don't have the English translation.

A. But do I have the English translation.

Q. But you please read out the original. The book is written in French. The author is French, and he wrote the book in French.

A. "After Maastricht, the talks among the 12 made rapid progress. On the 14th, Javier Perez de Cuellar regretted the move to recognise the former Yugoslav republics in a premature, selective and uncoordinated manner."

That's the first quotation.

Q. The author is Hubert Vedrine, the French foreign minister, and ³⁶²²⁰ he's talking about Mitterrand.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I hope that this can be taken as authentic, Mr. Robinson?

JUDGE ROBINSON: To what end? It just seems to me that you're repeating. We have been over this matter.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Robinson, but you --

JUDGE ROBINSON: On the premature recognition of these countries.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. Mr. Robinson, you always point out that you seek additional evidence to support some assertion. You now believe that all of this is proven and that there is no need for me to give any additional evidence. I'll only be too glad to stop at this point, then.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Jovanovic, you have only a few more quotations from the book -- from the book marked here about the years of Francois Mitterrand that Vedrine wrote. Could you please be so kind as to read the next paragraph that is marked here, and it says, "That seemed fair." It's not readily visible.

A. Yes, yes. "This seemed fair, but calling for a referendum even to provide guarantees was, nevertheless, dangerous. Even under Tito, the assent of the three communities of Bosnia-Herzegovina (Muslims, Serbs, and Croats) appeared so essential to the proper functioning of the republic that it was required, as I mentioned, for almost all decisions. A majority of votes was not sufficient since, in terms of numbers, two of the three Bosnian communities could easily impose on the third a decision ^{36221 BLANK PAGE 36222} that would be unacceptable to it. Therefore, a referendum in the specific case of Bosnia only appeared to be a good idea, an apparently democratic move which was actually explosive. Unless it were to crown successful negotiations, which would not be the case, quite the contrary, Robert Badinter commented that the members of the commission primarily had in mind --" there is no sequel to this. That's where it ends. Let me just see where this is. It's the end of the passage. There is no end to this sentence.

Q. Well, now what Badinter said is --

A. Yes, yes. That doesn't matter.

Q. Yes. Whoever may be interested in this can look it up.

A. It's the last passage.

Q. Tell me, Francois Mitterrand himself is being quoted here, the 23rd of February, 1993.

A. "On the 23rd of February, 1993, recalling that period, Francois Mitterrand told Andreas Papandreou: 'It was all a sequence of errors: The German move, the American ignorance, the hesitation of the Italians as Italy was paralysed by the statements of the Holy See. In fact, Germany sees itself as the legitimate heir of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and has taken on Austria's old grudge against the Serbs.'"

Q. As far as I can understand, this is from Hubert Vedrine's book, but he directly quoted Francois Mitterrand in this book about Mitterrand?

A. Yes.

Q. Because he was present at the meeting with Papandreou?

A. Yes. This is a quotation. The third bit I read out is a ³⁶²²³ quotation from the book.

Q. What you read out just now, what Mitterrand said, is that correct, since you also know about this behaviour of Germany and its activities?

A. Unfortunately, this is correct. I have already referred to this, but a lot can be said about this. Throughout the Yugoslav crisis, especially at the very outset, it behaved in a highly partial manner and it boldly and openly supported one side, that is say the secession of Slovenia and Croatia. As I said yesterday, Minister Genscher, as a matter of fact, only a day or two before these two republics proclaimed their independence, he within the European Community raised the question of their independence, as he said, "that would soon be proclaimed." So he even acted in advance of the actual proclamation.

Q. Mr. Jovanovic, please, in relation to the nature of the conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina, could you please quote Vedrine, what he says on page 634. That is the very beginning of the passage. That is what we're looking at.

A. "The main reason lies in the nature of the conflict. In Bosnia, let me say it again, there is no invader and invaded, as was the case in Kuwait. There are three Bosnian communities which, with foreign aid, are fighting for land, valleys and mountains throughout the country, one of those communities being more aggressive than the others."

Q. In your opinion, what was the nature of the conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina?

A. It was a conflict among the three communities. And a typical example of a civil war that was started for the reasons I referred to ³⁶²²⁴ yesterday, because two communities joined up against a third one and they only took part in the referendum that was imposed. Many other assessments made by foreign statesmen also indicate the fact that this was a civil war. Not only Vedrine. Even President Clinton twice, when he was under pressure to intervene in Bosnia-Herzegovina and at the time he was not willing to do so, he said twice publicly that in Bosnia there was a civil war going on. He said that in public. And later on, he changed that when he was prepared for military intervention in Bosnia-Herzegovina through NATO. So the three sides were waging a fratricidal civil war, a religious war at times, and there was also a separate civil war that was going on between two different Muslim sides. On the secessionist side was Abdic and on the other side was the leadership of the Muslim people. So if the three sides were engaged in incessant conflict there and if one of the three sides was split up in two and was engaged in its own conflict, one cannot speak of an international conflict. It is certain that all three sides had their aiders and abettors from the outside because there is no civil war without any such external aid.

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Jovanovic, one part of that quotation at the end was that one of the three communities was more aggressive than the others. Which community was Vedrine referring to?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I assume he meant the Serb community, because that community was a victim of these political manipulations in relation to organising the referendum. Both constitutions of Yugoslavia and Bosnia and Herzegovina guaranteed constituent status to all constituent nations in Yugoslavia, and this ³⁶²²⁵ insolent aim at reducing them -- to reduce them to a minority brought this about. This was to be expected when Bosnia and Herzegovina was instructed to organise a referendum as a precondition for gaining independence.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, are you bringing your examination-in-chief to an end now?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have a number of questions outstanding, so I cannot complete immediately. If you are to ask for a break now, I wouldn't mind that.

JUDGE ROBINSON: How much longer do you have?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I hope not more than half an hour.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: We're going to take the break now. Mr. Nice, the discussion we were going to have, which I haven't really characterised as a hearing, we'll call on you first to address us.

MR. KAY: Exhibit status of tab 10.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. NICE: Or non-status, as I would urge.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: We will admit this one. We'll break for 20 minutes.

--- Recess taken at 12.14 p.m.

--- On resuming at 12.39 p.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: As I indicated earlier, we're going to have a brief discussion of this motion. Mr. Sasa Obradovic is here. Would you please sit. He's the representative of the government of Serbia and ³⁶²²⁶ Montenegro.

Mr. Nice, the first issue is are we to be in private session or in open session for this?

MR. NICE: Your Honours, I would have thought, given the nature of the underlying concern of Serbia and Montenegro, it would be preferable to be in private session for the time being, with the liberty -- not liberty, with the facility to open up the hearings at a later stage.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. We'll do that. We'll start in private session.

[Private session]

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted) ³⁶²²⁷ Pages 36227-36257 redacted. Private session.

³⁶²⁵⁸

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.44 p.m., to be reconvened on Wednesday the 16th day of February, 2005, at 9.00 a.m.