⁴³²⁰³

Thursday, 25 August 2005

[Open session]

[The witness entered court]

[The accused entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 9.07 a.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, continue with your examination-in-chief.

WITNESS: VOJISLAV SESELJ [Resumed]

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

Q. [Interpretation] Yesterday we stopped at the point when we were discussing the role of the army and the position that the army had at that time. In paragraph 85 of the Croatian part -- could you please be so kind as to find it.

A. 85, you said?

Q. Yes, yes. It's on page 24 of that part. Because this book does not have proper pagination, it consists of different parts with different paginations.

A. I found it.

Q. It is stated here that there in Croatia, not to go into all the dates now, although they are totally absurd in view of the situation in Yugoslavia then, it says that there was partial occupation. Could you please explain that to me? You were there. You were following the flow of events, and you also know history. Is it possible for someone to occupy some territories where they actually live, where their homes are ⁴³²⁰⁴ and the foundations of those homes were laid by their ancestors centuries ago? He wakes up one morning and somebody says that he's occupied something. You've dealt with this in theory, too, so could you please tell us?

A. Of course that's impossible, Mr. Milosevic. In all of the Republic of Croatia in 1991, there was no occupation. What was at play was a Croat separatist uprising, illegal, anti-constitutional, therefore unlawful. The only legal armed force was the Yugoslav People's Army. It is total nonsense to say there was partial occupation from the 8th of October, 1991, onwards.

From the 8th of October, 1991, onwards, the Croat separatist leadership unilaterally declared independence. However, Croatia was not internationally recognised as an independent state. It was still illegal, even after the 8th of October. What was happening in Croatia was an armed conflict, but of an internal nature. Actually, a civil war caused by a separatist uprising.

The Yugoslav People's Army could not have been an occupier in any part of the then still existing SFRY, Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

Q. What about the Serbs in Krajina? Could they have carried out that occupation of their own homes and their own towns and villages?

A. It was absolutely impossible for them to carry out an occupation of their own villages, towns, homes, properties. In all those parts of Krajina the Serbs were majority population, and at the local elections they mostly won and set up a local government. The Serbs were quite ⁴³²⁰⁵ simply trying to protect themselves from the newly established Ustasha regime that was already invoking the ideology and symbols of the Ustasha fascist regime from the Second World War.

Q. What about the army, since we've dealt with that subject considerably yesterday? What about the army that was in that territory for 70 years? It had its garrisons, barracks, and all of that. And after all, the army legitimately existed in that territory. And then in that year, 1991, they were encircled in their barracks and exposed to certain pressure all the way up to killings. Could they have been treated as an occupier? What did they come there? They came there 70 years ago consisting of members of different ethnicities from all over Yugoslavia and all of a sudden --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, you're combining question with comment. Put your question directly.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So, generally speaking, in view of its status, could the army have been an occupier, and specifically in 1991 in view of the events that had to do with it could it have been an occupier?

A. Absolutely it could not have been an occupier. I've already said that it was the only legal armed force, and the military security service presented to the public in a documented fashion, it was all over television as far back as January 1991, that is to say, information about the illegal arming of Croatian paramilitary formations, particularly the so-called National Guards Corps, the ZNG. Enormous quantities of weapons were coming in through Hungary. To a lesser extent, the arms were ⁴³²⁰⁶ Hungarian made, and mostly they were from the warehouses of the former East Germany. The German government wanted as urgently as possible to get rid of all of that, so it came as a welcome development to them to arm their Croat allies in this way.

There is detailed testimony to that effect by the Croatian general Martin Spegelj who was before that commander -- a general of the Yugoslav People's Army, then commander of the Zagreb district, and then in Croatia --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Seselj. Mr. Seselj, thank you. Mr. Seselj, I wanted to ask you whether your only reason for saying that there was no occupation after the 8th of October, 1991 is that you do not recognise Croatian independence on that day.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You are saying that I do not recognise it? No one in the world recognised Croatia's independence.

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

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's the reason, but not the only one. Yugoslavia still existed as an internationally recognised state. Not even the secession of Slovenia had been recognised by then, although the JNA had on the basis of an agreement withdrawn from Slovenia. The former Yugoslavia still existed at the time. It was a subject of international law. It was a member of the United Nations, and no one in the world brought into question its territorial integrity.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Seselj, I suggest to you in relation to this answer to read ⁴³²⁰⁷ paragraph 110 now. That's only a few pages onwards. Paragraph 110.

A. It is stated here openly: "The SFRY existed as a sovereign state until the 27th of April, 1992, when the constitution of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was adopted replacing the constitution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia of 1974." That is openly admitted here in the indictment.

The proclamation of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was preceded by the international legal recognition although in an unlawful way of Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Macedonia. Why do I say in an unlawful way? According to international law, the independence of newly created states could not have been recognised in territories that were not under the control of the central government. Croatia was recognised, first of all by the Vatican and Germany and then all the other Western powers as an independent state although the central government in Zagreb did not control even a third of the territory of the -- of the Croatian territory. Two-thirds were controlled by.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Seselj, very soon Mr. Nice will be on his feet making the point that you are not here as a legal expert, because if you are here as an expert, then notice would have had to be begin of your testimony. So although you're a lawyer and a professor, bear that in mind. These are thorny legal issues that the Chamber will have to deal with. You're here as a witness as to facts.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I am testifying about facts only, but along with those facts I have to give a certain explanation. You know, I'm not an illiterate or semi-literate witness ⁴³²⁰⁸ here who is just guessing. I base my facts that I present on the real situation and on law.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I have given you a certain leeway. Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I assume that this cautioning of yours does not pertain to the fact that Mr. Seselj just read out paragraph 110 in which the other side wrote that the SFRY existed as a sovereign state until the 27th of April, 1992. Would that be a fact that they would challenge?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic. I have taken note of that. I'm merely speaking as to the capacity in which he's testifying here. Please continue with the examination.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. What did they recognise? You can see that better if you open paragraphs 89 and 90. I'm going to ask you kindly to read out both, because that's what they wrote before they were ordered to issue an indictment for Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Please read out paragraphs 89 and 90.

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

Q. No, no. The Kosovo indictment.

A. I see. Towards the end of June 1991, the SFRY began to disintegrate in a succession of wars fought in the Republic of Slovenia, hereinafter Slovenia, the Republic of Croatia, hereinafter Croatia, and Bosnia-Herzegovina. On the 25th of June, 1991, Slovenia declared its independence from the SFRY which lead to the outbreak of war. A peace ⁴³²⁰⁹ agreement was reached on the 8th of July, 1991. Croatia declared its independence on the 25th of June, 1991, leading to fighting between Croatian military forces on the one side and the JNA, paramilitary units, and the army of Republika Srpska Krajina on the other. On the 6th of March, 1992, Bosnia-Herzegovina declared its independence resulting --

JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm stopping you. You're reading paragraphs 89 and 90.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

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

JUDGE ROBINSON: Oh, the Kosovo indictment. You have gone back to Kosovo now. And it's not for you to read out the indictment, Mr. Milosevic. Make a summary and put your question based on a summary of the paragraphs. We know the witness is literate and that he can read. There is no need for him to read it out.

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

JUDGE ROBINSON: Very well. I take that.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So, Mr. Seselj, this is a document of theirs where they're presenting accusations regarding Kosovo. But have you noticed that these paragraphs pertain to Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you seen that?

A. Yes.

Q. So it is said here quite decidedly, I mean this indictment was ⁴³²¹⁰ written before they had received orders to issue an indictment for Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, so they did not know that they would have to do that. Croatia proclaimed its independence --

MR. NICE: [Previous translation continues] ... engaged in any of these points the accused is trying to make. They plainly have nothing to do with this witness. I invite the Chamber to compel the witness to get on with evidence of facts.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let me hear the question you're putting, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So in paragraph 89, it says that the declaration of independence led to war, and in 90 they say for Bosnia-Herzegovina that the declaration of independence led to an all-out war. Now I'm asking you the following: What was written here pertains to Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina.

JUDGE ROBINSON: And that's the -- there's an allegation, you say, that the declaration of independence led to war. That's a question of fact. What is the question that you wish to put to Mr. Seselj?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Both. I want to ask him whether it is possible if others create war, whether it is possible to speak of a criminal enterprise on the part of anyone in Serbia.

JUDGE ROBINSON: No. I'm not allowing that. That's just wholly speculative and not a proper question.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Wait a minute, Mr. Robinson. How can the Serbs attain some objectives or carry out some plans through wars created by others? That is a perfectly legitimate question. ⁴³²¹¹

JUDGE ROBINSON: That's an argument for you to present in your closing address. That's not matter for the witness.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, paragraph 22 of this part about Croatia, and I think it's also part 22 -- or paragraph 22 of the Bosnian part, exclusively pertains to Mr. Seselj. He, as they say in paragraph 9 --

JUDGE ROBINSON: 22? Haven't you dealt with the question of Mr. Seselj providing assistance to Serb volunteers?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Please, let us just get this clear. It has to do with joint criminal enterprise.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

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

JUDGE ROBINSON: Of the --

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

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. It says before that that I was this joint criminal enterprise, and then it says: "Each participant or co-perpetrator within the joint criminal enterprise played his own role or roles that significantly contributed to the overall objective of the enterprise. The roles of the participants or co-perpetrators include but are not limited to the following," and then -- and all these names are mentioned, and then in paragraph 22 we see your name, Vojislav Seselj. So you're included in this joint criminal enterprise, and that's why I'm asking you what I asked you a few moments ago. When others create war, then you are engaged in a joint criminal enterprise that was headed by me. ^{43212 BLANK PAGE 43213}

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I've already ruled on that question. You must proceed with another question.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'll move on. I'll move on to another question, but I'm going to quote paragraph 22 again.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. These epithets --

JUDGE ROBINSON: To what effect are you quoting it again? It's there in front of us. If you have a specific question to put, put it and let's get on.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, because I think that Mr. Seselj should answer questions that have to do with Mr. Nice's favourite topic, and some others, too, those that have to do with the Greater Serbia.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Seselj, these volunteers that they mention here commonly known as Chetniks, Seselj's men, et cetera, we clarified that yesterday concerning volunteers and their status. And then the last sentence in paragraph 22 reads as follows: "In addition, he openly espoused and encouraged creation of a Greater Serbia by violence and other unlawful means and actively participated in war propaganda and spreading interethnic hatred."

So directly in these accusations levelled against me here you are mentioned as a participant in a joint criminal enterprise. Now I wish to ask you about this violence, these unlawful means through which you endeavoured to create a Greater Serbia and about the spread of national ⁴³²¹⁴ hatred. In order to get a clear explanation, let us see how much this has to do with real facts, what is written here.

A. Only one thing is a fact here --

JUDGE BONOMY: There's no question there in my opinion. Yesterday Mr. Seselj made it abundantly clear that he did espouse the concept of a Greater Serbia but certainly not by violent or any other unlawful means. This matter has been dealt with over and over again in the course of the evidence so far of this witness, and there was no question there and the whole point seems to me simply to be an exercise in making submissions which will be -- and the stage for which will be reached much later in the trial.

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

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I will ask specific questions dealing with this, and they deserve an explanation.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So, Mr. Seselj, you openly advocated the concept of Greater Serbia, and your newspaper, the newspaper of your party, as we have seen from previous quotations, is called Greater Serbia. What kind of idea is that?

A. This is a ideological concept, and it was first mentioned in public all the way back in 1683 when the Turks were defeated. Djordje Brankovic, a prominent leader from that time, addressed --

JUDGE BONOMY: Why don't we find out what Mr. Seselj thinks about the Greater Serbia rather than a 16th century or 17th century concept?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Bonomy, I understand the concept ⁴³²¹⁵ of Greater Serbia as it was originally understood and designed in the 17th century. However, in many trials that took place before The Hague Tribunal, and I must say I read most of the judgements, many witnesses, illiterate and semi-literate, speak of Greater Serbia without knowing what it means. And in the judgements later, their words are taken unquestioningly. I, as a leading nationalist and ideologist of today and a scholar can give you the original meaning of the concept of Greater Serbia, and I think it would be useful for this trial and other trials conducted here as well.

Nobody here, none of those accused of taking part in the joint criminal enterprise never worked for a Greater Serbia. It never crossed their mind. Something that I held as a personal view is being ascribed in this indictment to other people who had nothing to do with it. Now, let me explain what the idea means, what the concept of Greater Serbia actually means. And I will try to be brief and very concise, whenever I deal with some historical ideas and concepts. But I would really like to explain this.

JUDGE BONOMY: And what you've said so far, that you held something as a personal view about Greater Serbia, and that's what we want to hear. We don't want to know the detail of how that evolved, unless it becomes relevant as a result of what you say about your own personal understanding of it.

MR. NICE: I was going to add this point: The question of Greater Serbia was touched upon in the opening only insofar as it fell from the mouths of others, including this man. It appears in the way we've already ⁴³²¹⁶ seen in the Croatian indictment.

It was touched upon, I think, in the background historical evidence to the extent thought necessary by the Prosecution. It was substantially enlarged upon by witnesses either listed as and called as experts or as factual witnesses in the accused's case, and Chamber will have in mind both Mihailovics, Avramov, Popov, Terzic. There is no need for further alleged expertise certainly coming from a witness who hasn't served a report, and I respectfully adopt the position proposed by His Honour Judge Bonomy.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, just let me draw your attention to one fact.

JUDGE ROBINSON: The Chamber is consulting.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Seselj, we'll hear you on in concept of Greater Serbia. It may be necessary, as you say, to delve into the history, but do that very briefly. Come to the modern-day concept and let us know what you understood the Greater Serbia concept to mean. So very briefly now let's hear it.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The concept --

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Seselj --

JUDGE ROBINSON: You are not to interrupt. I have asked the witness a question, and I'm allowed to.

Proceed.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I have a -- ⁴³²¹⁷

JUDGE ROBINSON: I am stopping you. I've stopped you. Mr. Seselj, I've asked you a question. Answer it.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The concept of Greater Serbia implies a unified Serbian state including all Serbian lands where Serbs are a majority population. However, it is opposed to century-long Vatican, Austrian and other attempts to reduce the Serbian people only to members of the Orthodox Christian religion because the Serbian people in its ethnic being includes Orthodox, Catholic, and Muslim Serbs equally. Djordje Brankovic, when he dealt with the Austrian emperor, when the Austrian army was advancing against the Turks and freed many Serbian lands, so Djordje Brankovic asked about those Serbian lands. And what is defined as a Serbian land, where Serbian language is spoken. He asked from the Austrian emperor that all these Serbian lands become a special unit within the Empire, and the Austrian emperor accepted this request, appointed him a count, gave him the title, and made him governor of Banat and some other lands.

So when Austria freed many of those lands, it suddenly became frightened of the idea, because the Serbs occupied a great part of the Balkan, and Djordje Brankovic was exiled to Hebar, and actually limited to that area. He was being kept, provided for, but not allowed to leave. In 1983, Arsenije Gagovic asked for Russian help to free the Serbian land from Turkish yoke and then Austrian yoke. That is when the concept is written about for the second time. And the third mention of that concept dates back to the first great uprising against the Turks in 1844. So that is basically a freedom-loving idea, the idea of being ⁴³²¹⁸ liberated from the Turkish yoke in which we lived for five centuries, from the Austrian yoke in which we also lives for centuries, and then the Venetian yoke as well.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let me summarise, then, the concept as you said. The unified Serbian state with all Serbian lands where Serbs are a majority population, and that includes Orthodox, Catholic, and Muslim Serbs equally, and that is in contradistinction to the century-long Vatican position. That's clear.

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

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

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, are you saying it's not an important part of the Prosecution case?

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

JUDGE ROBINSON: It's the main basis on which the three indictments are joined. The main basis in the appeals judgement.

MR. NICE: The difference between the concept of all Serbs living in one state, the accused's notion, and the historical concept of Greater Serbia about which we've heard a very great deal and about which great argue may or may not validly be heard in this court, and we've always accepted that the accused has either never used the words Greater Serbia himself or has only ever used them in attribution to others but that others such as this man have used the term, and we've always distinguished - and if you look at my opening you'll find this - between the words used by others and our case which is that this accused was ⁴³²¹⁹ motivated by the desire to have all Serbs live in one state, in part. If he wasn't motivated by that he was motivated by other objectives that were personal to him that built upon that particular concept. Now, it may be at the end of the day that there is little or no difference between the practical realities of one and another, but one is definitely a term of historical art and is not one that we have -- at least not one that I have used specifically in respect of this accused, and I've always been very cautious about that.

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Seselj, I have one question about your definition. Included within that description you said: "And what is defined as a Serbian land, where Serbian language is spoken." Now, did you mean to say that?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

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

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

JUDGE BONOMY: So Serbian lands in this definition includes what, the whole of Yugoslavia?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

JUDGE BONOMY: All right. Well, I'm confused, you see, about that description. Nothing to do with history --

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, again, you gave more time to Mr. Nice than to me, whereas I'm the one testifying about it. I really wish to explain and I really will be brief.

JUDGE BONOMY: You said something that I would like you to clarify. Now, what is the extent to which the Serbian language is spoken ⁴³²²⁰ according to your understanding of this definition of this Greater Serbia?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. An overwhelming majority of today's Croats are Serb Catholics, Catholic Serbs. All Muslims in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the area of Raska are Muslim Serbs, whereas the concept of Croat had three ethnic meanings through history. The first Croats were a people of Western Slav origin, close to Poles and Czechs. They inhabited the Balkans between Gvozd and the Adriatic Sea. They had their own language which was called Cakavski in linguistics. It was a small territory, and in the 11th century it reached up to the Vrbas River. I suppose you know it's a river flowing through Banja Luka. It was under the Croatian King Petar Kresimir.

That population that later became scattered deep into Europe against the advance of the Turks, they were Catholics, and they ran away before the Turks. You have such Croats nowadays in Gradiska, in Austria, in Czechoslovakia, et cetera. They are the real Croats. When Croatia fell under the Turkish yoke almost completely, then the Hungarian king moved part of the Croats to Slavonia. Slavonia was inhabited by Carpathians.

JUDGE BONOMY: Can you just answer the question, which is the extent to which the Serbian language is spoken. That means today or at the time of the conflict, rather, according to your definition of this Greater Serbia. Why can't you just tell me that? That's the fact I'd like to know about.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The Serbian language was spoken in Serbia, the entire Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, and almost the ⁴³²²¹ entire Croatia, except for three districts, Zagreb, Krizevci and Varazdin. That is in the west of today's Croatia. In the 19th century on the orders of the Vatican and the Viennese court, all Croats accepted Serbian as their own language.

JUDGE BONOMY: If someone else wants to explore it they may well do so. I don't want to know that at this stage. I want to get the definition clear at the time. So you're saying that the Greater Serbia would include the whole of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro, and almost all Croatia is subject to the three districts about which you were explaining the historical origins of the languages spoken there. Is that the position?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What I want to do here is that let you know that the concept of Greater Serbia can by no means be identified with any sort of practice of persecuting Catholic, Muslim, or any other population. In all the proclamations of the freedom-loving Serbian movement, the Serbian Radical Party, and all other parties I've led, we keep appealing for the unification of Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, Muslim, and all other Serbs. That cannot be linked with the concept of Greater Serbia. Persecution is not in line with the concept of Greater Serbia, but you won't let me say it. That's why we insist on including Catholics, Protestants, Muslims into our party and giving them high positions. We are opposing the Vatican policy that appeals to Catholics to declare themselves as Catholics, non-Serbs.

THE INTERPRETER: Mr. Seselj has to slow down.

JUDGE ROBINSON: The interpreters have asked you to slow down. ^{43222 BLANK PAGE 43223} But I believe I am -- you have expressed the position now, that the concept of Greater Serbia is inherently inconsistent with persecutions of Muslims or any other -- any other sect.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have to tell you one more thing very briefly, please, Mr. Robinson. All these people that are mentioned here as members, participants in the joint criminal enterprise, we're against the secession of Slovenia. I was the only one who was in favour of the secession of Slovenia, if the Slovenes wanted. I had made several public appearances on Slovene TV supporting them. But I was against the secession of Croatia because I knew that it was the same people who was about to secede. We were one and the same people. Even those who are not real authentic Serbs in those three districts have been through intermarriage integrated. If you look at Serbs, Muslims, Catholics, and Croats, you cannot find any difference between us except for religion. If you have any conflict between the accused --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Mr. Milosevic.

MR. KAY: I did have a matter to raise, and it is over this troubling issue of Greater Serbia and how far or whether it is relevant to the Prosecution's case, because in opening, Mr. Nice has dealt with one part of his opening address to the Court, but there was another passage which I have here on the first day, and it reads thus: "The army, the evidence will be, was no better, it having committed itself to the accused's programme. Officers being instilled with the ideology of brotherhood and unity totally abandoned everything in favour of a Greater Serbia. They shared the arrogance, did the army, of the civilian leaders ⁴³²²⁴ and saw no reason to confer."

It did seem that the thrust of the Prosecution case was that there had been a plan by this accused for a Greater Serbia, and there has been cross-examination to that effect. And the accused has to know what he's got to deal with in relation to his case and how to apportion his time. So if concessions are going to be made on the issue, they must be made clearly and frankly and transparently.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I am fully in agreement with you, Mr. Kay, and I'm going to ask Mr. Nice now if his position is different, then say so.

MR. NICE: My position has never been different.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Because I had the clear impression that this was an essential foundation of the Prosecution's case.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, I'm very sorry about that, because I think Mr. Kay's quotation, by the way, doesn't deal with the fact that what he's citing from is my citation from a witness.

Now, I have always made it plain -- and at the moment I've got in front of me the joinder arguments as well. You'll find it quite helpful to go through them electronically, pick up the word "greater" and see who refers to Greater Serbia. The accused does.

What I cannot do is deny witnesses who we call their right to express their opinions on the matter, but what I always made plain - and I've made it plain through all the expert witnesses that have been called and that I've cross-examined - that the words "Greater Serbia" come from others and not from the accused. What we allege against the accused is that he cleaved to - for his own purposes maybe - a plan to have all Serbs ⁴³²²⁵ living in one state. That creates a de facto Greater Serbia because the western boundaries, Virovitica-Karlobag line are all the same. But are we saying that he is a proponent personally of an historical Greater Serbia concept? We haven't said that. And that distinction is one I've always made, because I've recognise that the accused doesn't use these words.

JUDGE ROBINSON: But you're not saying it was one of the basic foundations that one of the basic ideas prompting the joint criminal enterprise?

MR. NICE: The concept that all Serbs should live in one state is different from the concept of a Greater Serbia as you've just heard from this witness who has given you a great historical overview from his perspective of what Greater Serbia is all about. It's different. As I've already said, it may in fact have little practical difference, but if this Chamber's going to understand both the history and the accused's behaviour and motivation during the conflict, it will need to deal with the fact that there is a historical concept to a Greater Serbia to which he never associated himself or read, as far as I can see, never, with his taking power. Maybe with his being put in the driving seat of movements of others that did espouse Greater Serbia he pursued policies that may have had a similar effect. But have we ever said that that was his driving force, the historical concept of a Greater Serbia; no, we haven't.

JUDGE ROBINSON: So if I understand you, Mr. Nice, the Prosecution's approach is more -- it's more pragmatic. It's more empirical.

MR. NICE: Absolutely. Yes. ⁴³²²⁶

JUDGE ROBINSON: You're concentrating more on the idea of all Serbs living in one state.

MR. NICE: Correct. And of course, let there be no doubt about it, our case has always been that for a person who could have that as his driving force there might have been good reason for him --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. NICE: -- allowing the influence of people such as this witness who espoused quite specifically a Greater Serbia, but that's different. Did he use the words himself, no.

Incidentally I made one slip of the tongue when I was identifying the witnesses who have dealt with this and to whom you may wish to turn, not least to see what my cross-examination on the point is. I made that mistake of eliding names that are both surnames and first names. It's Kosta Mihailovic and Mihailo Markovic, who are two of the witnesses. I said there were two people with the same surname. I'll just check if there's anything else I should --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, please do not allow Mr. Nice to insult me. I was never under the control of Mr. Milosevic, and Mr. Milosevic never made it possible for me to do anything in political life. I did nothing that I did not achieve by my own efforts. So this is an insult to me.

In this indictment I am being linked to this joint criminal enterprise, the alleged criminal enterprise, based on my idea of the Greater Serbia and I'm being put together with my ideological opponents, ⁴³²²⁷ among which was Mr. Milosevic. We had only one thing in common at the beginning of the war and that was that none of us agreed to the unilateral secession of Croatia without negotiations and without an agreement. We had nothing else in common, and I insist on this.

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

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Nice, can I ask you, how you understand the difference of the Greater Serbia idea and the idea of one -- all Serbs living in one state. How do you understand?

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

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

MR. NICE: Yes.

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

MR. NICE: At the end it may be that the accused's aim was for that which could qualify as a de facto Greater Serbia, yes. Did he -- did he find the source of his position, for I don't wish to identify it as an ideology or a platform. Did he find the source of his position at least overtly in historical concept of Greater Serbia; no, he didn't. His was perhaps to borrow His Honour Judge Robinson's term or was stated to be the pragmatic one of ensuring that all the Serbs who had lived in the former Yugoslavia should be allowed for either constitutional or other reasons to live in the same unit. That meant as we know historically from his perspective first of all that the former Yugoslavia shouldn't be broken up because he argued, well, then, if they all live in the same place one where they can do it in the former Yugoslavia. Once the former Yugoslavia ⁴³²²⁸ breaks up, the Prosecution case is the only way you can achieve the desire that all Serbs should live in the same state is by doing the various things that happened in the three different territories. Now, -- or in particular in the two different territories of Croatia and Bosnia. So that that's why we describe it as -- or we don't describe it. We analyse it in the terms of his desire or his expressed desire that all Serbs should live in one state, accepting that at the end of the exercise the factual position may be little different from that which would have been wanted by this particular witness under his long-term historical concept of Greater Serbia.

The Court will remember with the various witnesses we've had how we've been able to look at historical maps and indeed how we've heard the accused referring back to historical maps, such as the map of the London conference, or the maps that were generated after the Second World War, and try and draw support on those ideas to justify in more contemporary negotiations his position. But his position, it appears from the evidence about him, was not built on that concept itself, not with the emotions and maybe the philosophy or whatever else, that this witness would rely on. It was on more pragmatic grounds.

Now, I'm sorry if that hasn't become clear, but it's been absolutely at the forefront of my examination and cross-examination of witnesses. And I go back to what Mr. Kay said. If you look at the opening, you will see that the word only appears from me in the mouths of others and that we were careful then and in the argument about joinder to express things much more carefully so far as this accused is concerned. ⁴³²²⁹ And indeed I was going to raise this point yesterday when the accused mischaracterised our presentation or my presentation by saying that there was a leitmotif of Greater Serbia as against him because there never was.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Just --

MR. KAY: Sorry, Your Honours, the passage cited to me by me said "the evidence will be," which indicates the evidence to be relied upon.

JUDGE ROBINSON: It may be, Mr. Nice, as you say, that there is no essential difference, but for my part I'd like -- I'm going to have my Chamber staff look at the evidence and see whether it bears out the points that you have -- that you have made, because if -- it's important to ascertain whether it was or was not a part of the Prosecution's case. Mr. Milosevic.

In fact, I remember in the Rule 98 bis no-case motion, I remember the Chamber dealing with that as --

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

JUDGE ROBINSON: -- dealing with that as one part of the Prosecution case, and looking at evidence which might have supported it. Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, for the duration of 15 minutes here Mr. Nice has been explaining that I did not advocate a Greater Serbia and then that I did advocate a Greater Serbia. I don't see how it is possible to have a coherent conversation if one doesn't know what the accusations are. He is now talking about the historical idea and separating out from the non-historical idea and so on. At the beginning, before a single witness was brought, Mr. Nice ⁴³²³⁰ did not deal with any historical concepts. What he did was present vague and incredible nebulous arguments. Then he said that through witnesses he would show what the accused did.

Look at this logical caricature presented by Mr. Nice just awhile ago. On the one hand, he admits what I am saying, and that is that the thesis of all Serbs in one state can be implemented through Yugoslavia, which is why we advocated the preservation of Yugoslavia since it was an existing state in which all the Serbs lived in one state. Then he goes on that in three different places, and he's referring to the three parts of this alleged indictment, wanted to implement this in various ways. These were three separatist movements breaking up Yugoslavia. If this hasn't become clear to you by now, then nothing is clear to you. I did not organise these three separatist movements in Croatia, Bosnia, and Kosovo in order to create a Yugoslavia in which all Serbs could live in one state when Yugoslavia has been existing for 70 years. Is there any logic in this? This is insulting to the average intelligence of an average man.

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

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think that Mr. Nice should pull himself together before I go on and recall what he's accusing me of so that I can put questions to the witness. I mean, about a Greater Serbia.

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

MR. NICE: Actually --

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

MR. NICE: Your Honour, with your leave, in light of the ⁴³²³¹ observations that have been made and the concern of the Court, I would invite you just to -- I'll just find it for you in the -- because it's -- actually encapsulates the position right from the beginning. If you'll just give me one second. It's in the opening, and -- what I said was this dealing with western Slavonia. I think it's on about page 50. "The creed openly espoused by the man Seselj went by the title of Greater Serbia. It's a phrase that is bound to be heard in this Court. We will not ourselves encourage its excessive use for the fear that our shorthand may lead to a brevity of thinking. We don't particularly associate it as a title with the" --

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

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let us have that technical matter attended to, Mr. Nice. Yes.

MR. NICE: I'm sorry. The creed openly espoused by the man Seselj went by the title of Greater Serbia. It's a phrase that is bound to be heard in this Court. We will not ourselves encourage its excessive use for fear that our shorthand may lead to a brevity of thinking. We don't particularly associate it as a title with the approach of the accused whose purposes we have already separately described. That he might rely on the support of people who had perhaps extreme nationalist views going by particular titles is, again, for reasons already given, not surprising."

Now, that I think is the first time in the opening that the words "Greater Serbia" featured on my lips, and if you go back to the joinder motion it featured on the lips of the accused and not I think until reply ^{43232 BLANK PAGE 43233} from me. So that's always been our position.

JUDGE ROBINSON: In response to the comment that I just made that I would have the Chamber staff research it, I've just been handed a copy of the section of the 98 bis decision, paragraph 249, which refers to Ambassador Galbraith testifying that he believed that the accused, and here I quote: "Was the architect of a policy of creating Greater Serbia and that little happened without his knowledge and involvement." And then in paragraph 288 the Chamber identifies seven bases for its conclusion that the Chamber could infer that the accused not only knew of the genocidal plan but that he also shared with its members the intent to destroy. And this second matter referred to is the accused's advocacy of and support for the concept of a Greater Serbia. I think that was the reference that I had in mind to the 98 bis.

MR. NICE: [Microphone not activated] The same way as I can't confine and shouldn't rehearse and don't rehearse witnesses away from their use of terminology that may not be our use. I have already made our position clear, and I don't think you'll find - but I live to be corrected - in our 98 submissions that we expressed ourselves differently or inconsistently from the way we had throughout.

JUDGE ROBINSON: It's an important clarification to make, Mr. Nice, that the Prosecution's case is not so attached -- is not as attached to the concept of a Greater Serbia as it is to the idea of all Serbs living in the same land.

MR. NICE: Yes, indeed, that --

JUDGE ROBINSON: In one state. In one state. Although I would ⁴³²³⁴ have to say that I still have it -- I still have a doubt as to whether there isn't a proper basis for saying that that was the Prosecution's case. Yes. Initially at any rate.

Mr. Milosevic, yes. Just please ask --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I hope --

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

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic. Yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Seselj, you are a professor at the Faculty of Law. You have a Ph.D.. As I don't understand Mr. Nice's position, can you tell me whether you understand it?

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Seselj, please.

JUDGE ROBINSON: That's not a proper question for Mr. Seselj. Mr. Nice has explained his position. Let us -- let us move on.

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

JUDGE ROBINSON: It is an authoritative statement of the Prosecution's position. It comes from the -- from the officer who is the Chief Prosecutor in this case.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Allow me, Mr. Robinson, to say that my meager intellectual faculties are insufficient for me to understand what Mr. Nice has said. I wish to have it explained to me whether the existence of Yugoslavia for 70 years in which all Serbs, Croats, and the Slav Muslims lived, whether my advocation of the preservation of this ⁴³²³⁵ Yugoslavia or the historical concept that was not spoken of, what it is actually that Mr. Nice is alleging against me. He is using concepts he does not understand, and you don't understand what he is saying and neither do I. This is utter confusion.

JUDGE ROBINSON: It's not a matter for you to say. It's quite out of order for you to suggest that the Chamber does not understand what Mr. Nice said. We understand what he has said, and I take it to be a very important statement on the part of the Prosecutor, because we have to know the basis on which the Prosecution is proceeding. So proceed with your next question.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It's a good thing that after three years you are supposed to see what the basis of the Prosecution is.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Seselj, in tab 4 there is a part, a small part, a small excerpt from your book. You're the author. In all fairness, this is from the second edition.

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

Q. Well, there isn't but I'd like to draw your attention to that after all. It shows that your book sold very well if a second edition was published. It is called "The Ideology of Serbian Nationalism," written by you. In relation to that, I wish to put a few questions to you. Let me just see what the page is. 980. It's a rather poor copy, the one I have. So on page 980, and this part that we've made an excerpt of was translated into English too.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I remind you of your duty to ⁴³²³⁶ ensure that the Trial Chamber has before it the passage to which you are referring.

JUDGE KWON: When was the first edition published?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The first edition was published also in 1992, but before that a shorter version of that book was published in 1998. I worked on that, and I supplemented the book.

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

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is my monograph based on the scholarly work of Professor Dr. Lazar Kostic, a renowned university professor at the time of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and one of the leading Serb anti-communist emigres after the Second World War. He wrote a total of 84 books.

I first dealt with his scholarly work, and then on the basis of his scholarly work I developed other theses and assumptions. And of course I supplemented my work with areas that Professor Kostic had not dealt with. That constitutes the most all-embracing, synthetic work on the ideology of Serbian nationalism to date.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. That's on page 3 in the second paragraph in the English translation, what I wish to cite to Mr. Seselj.

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

A. What did you say?

Q. Page 980. I'm quoting part of the text. "The Serbs through the strength of their own spirit liberated parts of their own people and ⁴³²³⁷ national territories. The pan Serbian agenda is not a figment of the imagination of a handful of daydreamers. It was imposed on politicians by history and ethnography. It stems from the consciousness of a nation which has strived for several centuries and through constant and unanimous efforts to merge its people's destinies."

Before that, in the preceding paragraph, I'm going to deal with that very briefly, you talk about Denis' analysis of the nature of Serb nationalism, and it says that this stems from the desire for happiness that everybody carries within themselves and which is interlinked with the need for the full development of our effective capacities." So -- or actually let me just finish with Denis and then I'm going to ask you for further explanations. Just one more paragraph, the last one before the second or, rather, other chapter, speaking of the Serbs. Their quarrels were used by the Hungarians and Germans whose interest was for the Serbs to have the biggest possible mistakes. Their enemies did not see or did not want to see the higher qualities of the Serbian people, their resilience acquired in difficult times, the refinement and sharpness of their intelligence, particularly the determination of their idealism and the strength of their will which have endured in spite of many visible oscillations. Winds disturb a river's surface but do not change its course."

What you speak about here is a work that considerably preceded all these events, and this is based on the work of an analyst who took into account the main points that this dealt with. Tell us to what extent this matched your own thoughts on the matter and to what extent did you ⁴³²³⁸ contribute to the affirmation of this idea on the plane of theory? I wish to remind you that the title of the book is "The Ideology of Serbian Nationalism."

A. On three pages I deal with Ernest Denis' book that is called "Greater Serbia." It was published in Paris in 1915 during the time of the First World War. Ernest Denis is fascinated by the efforts made by the Serbian people and their two great victories over the Austro-Hungarian army at Cer and Kolubara in 1914 which made all of Europe admire them. Ernest Denis concludes that they -- that everybody in the world should recognise the will and wish of the Serb people to unite.

JUDGE ROBINSON: What is the relevance of this?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, the extent to which this can be seen, namely, what existed during the times of the First World War and what existed in the time that we are discussing here, 1991 and 1992.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Please, Mr. Seselj --

JUDGE ROBINSON: No, Mr. Milosevic, I've cut you off because the proper course is for you to answer my question that I have asked and then await my ruling. You don't proceed with Mr. Seselj.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

JUDGE ROBINSON: You have not explained the relevance sufficiently, but I'll give you another try to explain the relevance. Otherwise, I'm not allowing the question. We need to move on.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. Let's give it a very pragmatic angle. ⁴³²³⁹

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Seselj, as for what it says here in your book, as for what you wrote yourself and as for what you presented by way of the views of other scholars, in this programme, this programme of a Greater Serbia seen through your own eyes, seen through the eyes of foreign scholars, does it mean the subordination of the Croats?

A. No, absolutely not. What I deal with here is the presentation of arguments about the Serb origins, about their ethnic substrate and curbing the Vatican and previously Austro-Hungarian ideology that forced Serb Catholics to declare themselves as Croats.

In the 19th century, the Croatian national awareness was only limited to Zagreb, Varazdin and Krizevci, those districts. There are many historical testimonials that they consider themselves to be Serbs. Bosnian Catholics consider them to be Serbs. Friar Grga Matic, a Catholic priest, is writing Serbian nationalist poems with great delight. I am indicating these historical examples, this awareness of single origins and a single nation that --

JUDGE ROBINSON: I've stopped you because I'm going to consult with my colleagues, and I'll also hear Mr. Kay on this point as to whether in light of the statement made by the Prosecutor we need to hear more evidence on this concept. The Prosecutor said that his case is concerned more with the idea of all Serbs living in the same state than with the concept of a Greater Serbia.

I don't think that that necessarily means that all evidence on Greater Serbia is to be excluded, but certainly it should be taken into ⁴³²⁴⁰ account. I'll consult.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Kay, do you --

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

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. The Chamber's position is this: We'll not exclude automatically all evidence on the concept of a Greater Serbia on the basis of the Prosecutor's statement made some minutes ago. But this particular piece of evidence being given by Mr. Seselj, we don't find particularly helpful.

So move on to another area, Mr. Milosevic. We have heard a lot about -- we have heard a lot about the history.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, there is another link there. In his approach, Mr. Nice equals the fact that in Yugoslavia all Serbs lived in one state with a Greater Serbia. He's actually proclaiming Yugoslavia to be a Greater Serbia. All Serbs in one state is not an idea. It is a statement of fact. That was the case for 70 years, for the duration of Yugoslavia. For 70 years, all Serbs lived in one state. That was a fact of life. It's a material fact.

JUDGE ROBINSON: It's precisely because of the possible interchangeability of the two ideas, Greater Serbia and all Serbs living in the same state, it's precisely because of that that I've said that the Chamber will not rule evidence -- rule out evidence on this matter. We can't rule it out in that way. But the evidence which Mr. Seselj is giving now we don't find helpful. So move on to -- you can deal with the concept, but let us deal with -- with the matters that are more relevant ⁴³²⁴¹ to the indictment so far as the idea either of a Greater Serbia or of all Serbs living in the same state.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm going to give -- the Chamber will give further consideration to the significance that is to be attached to the statement made by the Prosecutor, and he'll ask Mr. Kay to bear this in mind.

I've just --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson --

JUDGE ROBINSON: I've just been handed another part of the Chamber's decision on the no-case submission -- oh, this is the submission itself. This is the submission itself from the Prosecution -- from the -- this is the Prosecution's response.

In paragraph 262 of the Prosecutor's response it says: "This amounted de facto to planning for a Greater Serbia." That seems plain enough. "There was not a single fully articulated plan from the outset and the plan changed with the changing circumstances," et cetera. And then in paragraph 273, in the middle of that paragraph: "However, the self-determination of the Serbian people would include the territories with Serb majorities in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, including a de facto Greater Serbia -- achieving a de facto Greater Serbia, a term he always avoided using in public or at all." That's closer to what Mr. Nice explained in court some minutes ago, the more pragmatic approach.

And in paragraph 276, the third-to-last line: "More generally, ^{43242 BLANK PAGE 43243} witnesses were clear that the accused wanted to create a Greater Serbia." So, Mr. Nice, I give you my personal view. I don't think we have settled the matter. Clearly it's an important matter to be settled. As Mr. Kay said very importantly, the accused needs to know the case that he's facing, and if there has been what I term advisedly a retreat from a particular position, then we need to know that. And if the present position is in substance the same as the concept of a Greater Serbia, then of course we still need to deal with it.

MR. NICE: Well, Your Honour, our position has in no way changed. There's no question of a retreat or change of position. I'm grateful that you've located the passages on the submission that I myself have been reviewing, and indeed the only other passage I think which you may find helpful - and I'll just turn it up for you; I had a little bit before but I can find it easily enough - Is in the joinder application to which you earlier referred and we can look at that.

As I explained, if we go to the beginning of this hearing before His Honour Judge Jorda and other Judges, what happened, rather, in the sort of straw man way, I think, was that the accused, let's find it, made many references or several references about Greater Serbia. They were picked up by Mr. Kay -- the accused also made references to Greater Albania and all sorts of other historical concepts of that kind. I think that when it came to my reply, which is the first time I think if at all that I mention Greater Serbia - I'll just try to find it for you - Mr. Tapuskovic as he was then with us made some observations again about Greater Serbia. His Honour Judge Hunt raised the issue of the Greater ⁴³²⁴⁴ Serbia argument with Mr. Kay. There was a certain amount of discussion between them. But I think my only reference to it, and I think I've found it. I'll just check that it's me. I'm sure it is. Yes, it's on page 80 of the transcript or thereabouts, 81, I think. And I said this: "Greater Serbia features, of course, in the writing and it features only to a very limited extent in the pleadings. Features, for example, in one of the indictments in the mouth of Seselj, his rabble-rousing words. It features in another of the indictments as being something that was being advocated at the same time as the accused was doing, that which he is said to have done, and it features in the third indictment as being a way of looking at things but always qualified in the way that I qualified it," and the transcript reads on the last occasion when this -- and then I -- and that must be, I think, a reference, although incompletely captured on the transcript, to the way I'd expressed our position about the accused, right at the beginning without ever using the term Greater Serbia. Then I go on to make this clear. "We say as we have said from the beginning that there was a common plan by this accused to retain or gain territory for the purpose of exercising power via a central Serbian state differently expressed on different occasions but to that effect." So at all times I had separated the Prosecution's position, which was to identify what the accused was actually --

JUDGE KWON: My microphone is not working.

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

JUDGE KWON: We have one more clear passage.

MR. NICE: Yes. ⁴³²⁴⁵

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

MR. NICE: Yes.

JUDGE KWON: It's paragraph 252. I will read it out the passage: "It is the Prosecution case that the accused intended to destroy the Muslim population of those parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina essentially earmarked for the inclusion into a Greater Serbia. Without that destruction, the accused's goal could not be realised," et cetera.

JUDGE ROBINSON: That seems clear enough, Mr. Nice. That was the Prosecution's --

MR. NICE: That's the Chamber's interpretation of what we expressed in our submissions.

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

MR. NICE: That the -- but, again, it's the de facto position as opposed to the historical concept. And that's always been our stated position. And if you'd permit me to read out from where I was.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. And in the -- I've just been handed the -- a section of the motion for joinder. This is page 6 under the heading "Rule --" it's the -- oh, it's at page 5 of the joinder motion.

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

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

JUDGE KWON: Prosecution's.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: We'll take the break now and come back to this matter. ⁴³²⁴⁶

MR. NICE: Your Honour, I think -- I'm grateful. I think that's the last reference from me in the joinder argument. I'll come back to it after the break, if Your Honour pleases.

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

--- Recess taken at 10.36 a.m.

--- On resuming at 10.58 a.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, I've had more time to consider this matter, and I am clearly of the view that the concept of a Greater Serbia was indeed a central plank in the Prosecution's case. It was the basis on which the motion for joinder was made, and I refer to two passages, paragraph 13 of the motion: "In the present case the three indictments concern the same transaction in the sense of a common scheme, strategy, or plan, namely the accused Milosevic's overall conduct in attempting to create a Greater Serbia, an centralised Serbian state encompassing the Serb populated areas of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina and all of Kosovo."

And then on page 18 -- sorry, paragraph 18, page 7, at the bottom "He, that is Milosevic, later exploited these affairs in Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo in order to further his campaign to create a Greater Serbia."

And indeed it was for that reason that the Appeals Chamber overturned the decision of this Trial Chamber rejecting the motion for joinder, because the Trial Chamber found that there was no common thread, that the concept of a Greater Serbia was not a common thread. It was not the same transaction and the Appeals Chamber held otherwise. So I find it ⁴³²⁴⁷ startling now to hear you say that it was not part of the Prosecution case.

It may be that you now say, you now take a more pragmatic decision which is reflected in the idea of what Mr. Milosevic wanted and the other participants in the alleged joint criminal enterprise was that all Serbs should live in the same state, and you may want to say that that in fact amounts to Greater Serbia, but I cannot allow you to say that it was not a part of the Prosecution's case. The accused needs to know what he's facing. And if you need time to consider this matter, Mr. Nice, as I consider it extremely important to the case, then we'll give you time.

MR. NICE: Well, Your Honour, I personally don't need time. There hadn't been any change, and I'm sorry that the Chamber hasn't understood the position more fully earlier.

Can I take you -- I've only just been able to review --

JUDGE ROBINSON: May I say that this time will not be counted against the accused.

MR. NICE: May I -- I've only just been able to turn up the filings. The one that Your Honour refers to which I've looked at, and also you'll want to look probably at the interlocutory appeal filing. I haven't got the date. But I'll quote you a passage from that, or two passages.

But before I do, first of all, I don't actually think there's -- there's a distinction or difference of the kind that Your Honours are apparently concerned about, because it's always been clear in the way I've expressed the case and the questions I've asked that the practical effects ⁴³²⁴⁸ for which the accused sought are similar in geographical scope to the effects of the implementation of a formal Greater Serbia plan of the kind that this witness might have wanted.

Second, identifying over a long -- from a long history the precise definition of something, a term of art like Greater Serbia is never going to be easy if you use it as a philosophical term going back to the 16th century as he would claim, running through Nacertanije as we've heard in evidence, reflected in practical political proposals as in the London conference, being dealt with by Moljevic on a philosophical basis and so on. It's going to be very difficult to find a precise definition if you use it as a term of art.

And third, before I come to the passage to which I'm going to refer, had we ever alleged in specific terms that this accused espoused in philosophical terms Greater Serbia, it would have been probably unwise and probably wrong, because he would have been able to say the words never fell from his lips and nor they did. So that -- that's why from the minute that I was in charge of the presentation of this case, I was cautious in the extreme in way we argued for and presented his thinking processes, making it clear that his thinking processes, or at least his spoken expression of his thinking processes, would have led to a de facto position, a de facto Greater Serbia, similar in geographical extent to that which might have been argued for by this witness. And if we then go to the appeal brief, at paragraph 14 I made the following observations or we --

JUDGE ROBINSON: To the appeal brief? ⁴³²⁴⁹

MR. NICE: Yes. Let's just get the date of it. I'll come back to. This is 15th of January, 2002. I'm grateful to Ms. Dicklich. And paragraph 14, I think, has the first reference where I said the following: "The Trial Chamber based its analysis on three factors which the Prosecution submits were erroneously applied. First, the Trial Chamber found that because the words 'Greater Serbia' plan did not appear in the Kosovo indictment and 'it is only in relation to other individuals that the man is mentioned in the Bosnia Croatian indictments' that the nexus was too nebulous to constitute a common scheme, strategy, or plan." Now, if we then go to the next reference to -- I'm sorry. I'll find the next reference which is on paragraph 27. We'll see how -- probably a better look at the paragraph in context. It begins with thus: "In the present case, the purpose of the joint criminal enterprise alleged in all three indictments is substantially similar," and then I set out -- or we set out in the Croatia indictment the purposes stated as follows. And we dealt with the Bosnia indictment and the Kosovo indictment, and I can quote it if you think I should do so and. Then we said this: "Although the wording differs slightly, the import of the purpose is the same to remove the majority of the non-Serb civilian population from areas which the Serbs wished to make or maintain as Serb-controlled territory. The Prosecution explained in its written submissions as well as during the hearing that the phrase 'Greater Serbia' was merely descriptive of the plan by the accused to create and maintain a centralised Serbian state," and then there is a footnote, I imagine, to the references. ⁴³²⁵⁰ "Such a man which encompassed both getting rid of non-Serb civilians and attaining and maintaining Serb domination over the remaining population in that territory remained consistent throughout the time period covered by all three indictments despite the different language used. The Prosecution submits that it was an error for the Trial Chamber not to consider that the purpose as well as the plan charged in all three indictments was the same."

And I think that's the last reference in that pleading to the term "Greater Serbia," at least as discovered or discoverable electronically. So that whatever may have been the understanding or misunderstanding before the Trial Chamber, the position was made quite clear to the Appeals Chamber in the written filing that we were looking at the de facto, the pragmatic position as we described it. And when you look at the oral arguments, and as I respectfully remind you, remember that it was the accused and Mr. Kay who referred to Greater Serbia, and I quite specifically identified how we were relying on it and the way in which if featured, then our position hadn't changed. And I know it hadn't changed because I've always understood our position to be that it's the express desire to have all Serbs in one state, de facto Greater Serbia if you will, co-extensive geographical extension in practical terms with what had been achieved by those specifically espousing Greater Serbia, but not the espousing by this accused vocally, who knows what was in his mind, that is to be proved in other ways and never espoused by him. And I don't think there is any difficulty in establishing in due course with questioning of this witness that his position differed from the accused's ⁴³²⁵¹ position because he espoused Greater Serbia, the philosophical concept with which we've been either troubled or enthralled in the extensive expert evidence that's been given.

JUDGE ROBINSON: His concept is different.

MR. NICE: Yes. It's differently based. It's historically based.

JUDGE BONOMY: Can I ask -- no microphone. Can I ask you, Mr. Nice, why reference was made at all by the Prosecution to the concept of a Greater Serbia. Why were these words chosen if the Prosecution knew that they had a distinctive historical context?

MR. NICE: Well, you can certainly ask the question and I can do my best to answer it. I have both the difficulties of some separation from some of the drafting as an individual and a considerable passage of time over which to look, but I -- I suspect that the proper answer would be as follows, that if you view a man, this accused, who is doing something that is very similar in its effect to but different in it's expression from those who espouse and argue for the philosophical and historical concept of Greater Serbia, you have to decide do we say he's a Greater Serbian. For the reasons I've already given that would have been unwise and indeed wrong. Do you nevertheless draw to the Court's attention that there may be significance in the existence both of the notion of Greater Serbia as expressed by others? Yes, you do. And that's why in both the Croatian and the Bosnian indictments the concept attributed to this witness is dealt with.

Do you express the understanding, which we did in different ways, ^{43252 BLANK PAGE 43253} that the result of the accused's political ambitions might have been the same in practical terms as those seeking a Greater Serbia? Yes, you do. Do you indeed make it clear that the accused might have about relying subtly or otherwise on the emotions that could be whipped up by those pressing for a philosophy that he wasn't prepared publicly to state? Yes, you do, because of course it may be that public expression of the Greater Serbia concept has negative potential within it. So that there may be several reasons for stating it, but we only ever stated it, certainly by the time that the matter had been argued in the Appeals Chamber to correct any misunderstanding at the Trial Chamber level and in my opening. We only ever expressed it in the cautious way that I've explained, but it would have been unhelpful to the Chamber because it was bound to arise, not at least to mention it, and mention it we did because it falls from the lips of others. Ambassador Galbraith. I couldn't rehearse Ambassador Galbraith in a proofing session and say, You think this is Greater Serbia. We've express it had differently, could I? I had to let him express himself as he would. I can't go to the military witnesses whose evidence was summarised in the passage Mr. Kay referred to and say, Well, that's the way you see it. We don't see it that way in a complex of history and philosophy and politics, and we want this phrase, not that. Of course not. Witnesses have to be allowed to express their view in the way that they did, and we are then left at the end with the position in which we are. And although I haven't got all the references for you, I can recall that in my questioning of the witnesses who dealt with the concept of Greater Serbia, I sought to make plain, and it's ⁴³²⁵⁴ unfortunate if it didn't come across to the Chamber, but I sought to make plain that of course there was a difference between the expression of the concept of Greater Serbia with all its historical baggage or whatever you'd like to describe it and the actual objectives of this particular accused.

And -- I don't think I can take it any further than that.

JUDGE BONOMY: Do you say then -- do you say that Greater Serbia as you understand it is something different from all Serbs living within the same state?

MR. NICE: Indeed. The plan -- because it has a different historical root. You've heard, for example, what this witness has said and I'm not --

JUDGE BONOMY: His concept is quite clear and that it's not the same as what you're trying to portray here in the case against the accused. That's quite clear. But what I would like to understand is what you mean by a Greater Serbia. Do you mean that the concept as generally understood in the region is meant to -- or means all Serbs living within one state, or are you saying it's something different from that?

MR. NICE: Well --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Because you're using the expression repeatedly. If we go through your 98 bis response, if we go through the motion for joinder, the Prosecution are using the expression. They're putting it in inverted commas most of the time but not always. So they obviously have something in mind when they use it.

MR. NICE: That's a centralised -- the centralised Serbian state ⁴³²⁵⁵ incorporating those parts of both Croatia and Bosnia where Serbs lived or where Serbs could be located following, for example, the fall of the eastern enclaves and which could perhaps ultimately be attached to Serbia to form a single state, yes. But of course it's a different concept from that of this witness who has already recently given his expressed views on indeed the national of Croats, merely being Serbs by another name.

JUDGE BONOMY: But is there some other evidence or some or witness who says that Greater Serbia equals the concept you describe as all Serbs living within one state? Or is Greater Serbia as you refer to it in all these documents something different. That's what I'd like to understand.

MR. NICE: Greater Serbia, the way that the Prosecution has used in inverted commas or applied with the phrase de facto and expressed in its questioning, that use of the Greater Serbia concept always distinct from the historical philosophical concept is the understanding of the objective of this accused and of those with whom he was in a joint criminal enterprise to have Serbs from Croatia and Bosnia centralised with --

JUDGE ROBINSON: What evidence bears that out, Mr. Nice?

MR. NICE: That is what the case is about. Where we go to find it is in many different places. First of all, the facts on the ground, what people were doing. There's the express desires of various local groups that they might ultimately become identified with and --

JUDGE ROBINSON: What part of the evidence. Yes, I know that evidence is there, but what part of the evidence explicitly relates that phenomenon to the Greater Serbia? That's what I wanted to find out. ⁴³²⁵⁶ Because that is what you say you mean.

MR. NICE: Well, I'm reminded by Mr. Saxon, or maybe by Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, I'm not sure, that one witness, for example, General Adikic [phoen], actually made the equation in those terms. But it's -- this is a matter of fact, if I may say so, ultimately for the Chamber because labelling things is something we have to do for the processes of getting on with the evidence.

JUDGE BONOMY: With respect, Mr. Nice, you're not answering the question. In paragraph 262 of your response to the 98 bis motion, you say: "This amounted - de facto -"

MR. NICE: May I just find it for a minute.

JUDGE BONOMY: Sorry.

MR. NICE: I think I've got that -- is this the joinder one?

JUDGE BONOMY: No. Your response the 98 bis motion, which is at a much later stage in the case and therefore more relevant.

MR. NICE: Yes, I have it. Paragraph?

JUDGE BONOMY: 262. It says this: This amounted - de facto - to planning for a Greater Serbia."

MR. NICE: Yes.

JUDGE BONOMY: Now, that means that Greater Serbia is a concept. It's a concept, and the evidence is that as a matter of fact what was happening was planning coincidentally which amounted to the same thing, but you have to have definition of the Greater Serbia to start with before you can say something de facto amounts to that. You've got to have the starting point. Now, what is the starting point? ⁴³²⁵⁷

MR. NICE: I'm sorry, it's no doubt my shortcoming, but I'm not sure that I do understand Your Honour's question. What we are saying here -- let me just go back to the previous paragraph. It says this: "The accused's plans," this is 261. "The accused's plan in the late 1980s, increasingly clear in 1990, was that the Serbian people scattered throughout the former Yugoslavia should live or remain in one state, the state in which they had a majority." And that's Jovic's diary cited. "The evidence shows that he was a head of Serb leaders in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina in planning and in the execution of the plan. In the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina, he conceived the plan together with Bosnian Serb leadership as early as 1991, perhaps before, that Serbs in Bosnia should remain part of one state linked territorially and politically to Serbia and to the Serb designated areas in Croatia." The footnote to that is various parts of evidence and intercepts which we'd have to look at in detail.

So that what I'm saying, what we're saying there is that the evidence about his understanding and intention in the late 1980s and in the late 1990s to have, as we put it here, "Serbs in Bosnia should remain part of one state linked territorially and politically to Serbia and to Serb designated territories in Croatia amounted de facto to planning for a Greater Serbia."

JUDGE BONOMY: No, no. That is a statement of the de facto position. That is the factual situation, and you then say that amounts to planning for a Greater Serbia. In other words, it comes to the same thing, you say, or -- but that you must have a starting -- Greater Serbia ⁴³²⁵⁸ must mean something to start with.

MR. NICE: I see. Well --

JUDGE BONOMY: And that's what I'm trying to find out. What is it you say that Greater Serbia is that the de facto actions of the accused amounted to.

MR. NICE: Yes. It may be that this particular pleading would have been assisted by the -- by the single word "a" being either underlined or bolded because what we're -- in my reading of it it's quite clear, I think, it amounted to planning for a Greater Serbia. Now, if you take, as we have encouraged you to do from time to time, the Epoka maps which set out, for example, various versions of his party's ambitions at times proximate to The Hague Conference and matters of that sort, one can see that in a pragmatic way and an inevitably realistic way as politicians well or badly intentioned, the precise limits of their ambition will change from day to day and reflect changing circumstances, but they can all amount to plans to extend the Serbian state, so that what we are articulating here at this part of the filing is that there was a desire for a Greater Serbia, an enlarged Serbia, a centralised state of Serbs from Serbia and also from Croatia and Bosnia.

JUDGE ROBINSON: And you would offer the same explanation for paragraph 252, which Judge Kwon read.

MR. NICE: If I could have another look at it.

JUDGE ROBINSON: "It is the Prosecution case that the accused intended to destroy the Muslim population of those parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina essentially earmarked for inclusion into a Greater Serbia." ⁴³²⁵⁹

MR. NICE: Yes. I think -- I seem to remember that the way I expressed it probably in opening - it may have been in one of the other arguments - it was to either gain or regain territory of this kind.

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: Yes.

JUDGE KWON: If you further read that paragraph, the third sentence says like this: "The Bosnian Muslim population was the principal obstacle to its territorial designs, and he could not tolerate their existence as a group in those municipalities."

So from that passage, am I correctly understanding that your -- the crux of the Prosecution case or the understanding of Greater Serbia is that it is related to the territorial design and not to tolerate the existence of other groups? So when the accused is saying that all Serbs should live in one state, he means this thing. His ambition related to territory and the expulsion of other ethnic groups.

MR. NICE: Indeed.

JUDGE KWON: So that's your understanding?

MR. NICE: It includes that. You have two different -- you have two different developing problems.

JUDGE KWON: Your understanding of Greater Serbia means same thing.

MR. NICE: Not the witness' Greater Serbia, the de facto Greater Serbia, yes, because there are two distinct parts, I suppose, depending how you want to split things up. There is ensuring that places where Serbs were in a majority could be in the same state. There is ensuring ⁴³²⁶⁰ that places for other reasons it might have wanted to be Serb majority should fall into the same potential for inclusion, and that's the eastern Drina and Srebrenica for example in particular. So yes, there are -- but in a way Your Honour's question, picking up the factual difficulties facing the accused if he wanted a contiguous Serb state, show how inappropriate it might be simply to seek to fix him with a philosophical concept historically based rather than to say as we've said, and I would submit at all times, this was a practical plan of his. I've got another note.

JUDGE BONOMY: Is it --

MR. NICE: Your Honour, yes?

JUDGE BONOMY: Is it then your case that the proposed Greater Serbia was to in fact be one country incorporating Serbia and parts of Croatia and Bosnia?

MR. NICE: That's always been --

JUDGE BONOMY: One country, one state.

MR. NICE: Ultimately the intention thought would have been for these states to exist as a single state, and there is material coming from various sources that would show that that was the ambition of others however cautiously expressed or not expressed by this particular accused. But of course this particular accused, as he makes it plain, was prepared to play a long game and wait and see what developed.

JUDGE KWON: Which is different from preserving the state, a federal state, Yugoslavia.

MR. NICE: Well, yes. Once the possibility for preserving federal ⁴³²⁶¹ Yugoslavia was gone, whether at his own hands at The Hague Conference or otherwise, then a second plan has to come -- or doesn't have to come into effect, but it does come into effect, and that's the stage at which a Greater Serbia became the reality in his mind, we would argue. Let me just see if I've got anything else I want to draw your to attention.

Yes. I mean, I don't -- I don't think we can understate nor have we understated the reality that the borders for which the accused's intentions and the actions to which he was associated would reach would have been similar to if not very similar or identical to in fact those espoused by this witness, thus the time that we've taken and I'm sorry that again the points haven't been made with sufficient clarity, the points we've -- the time we've taken with the historical maps, the London conference and so on, upon which the accused has relied or upon which his party has sought to rely.

You will remember, for example, how it is that when he was seeking resolution of a problem he's caught on an intercept referring to somebody else's plan at the end of the First World War saying, Well, how about the London conference? Can't we go for that plan?

This is the practical realities or the practical approach of this particular accused, but the extent would be the same as that espoused probably by this witness.

JUDGE BONOMY: But that -- well, is that your case, that the accused was going -- was seeking to take over the whole of Bosnia, for example? ^{43262 BLANK PAGE 43263}

MR. NICE: No, that's not the case that --

JUDGE BONOMY: Well, this witness says the whole of Bosnia falls within Greater Serbia.

MR. NICE: Well, if you move it all up to the Karlobag-Virovitica line, yes, but the evidence we have at the moment is that the accused was at this stage much more pragmatic. But --

JUDGE BONOMY: Well, it's wrong to say that your case is that the intentions would reach or have been very similar to if not very similar or identical to in fact those espoused by this witness. They're quite different.

MR. NICE: At this stage, correct. But, of course, if -- if you find that there is a cleaving to the Virovitica-Karlobag line ultimately is the plan with a much diminished Croatian state, then that's what comes about. We have to deal with things as they slowly unfolded. And with a man who, of course -- I'm not sure if this is protected or otherwise. No, I better not say that. I'm not sure. We're in public session. Just one minute. Would Your Honours just give me a minute.

[Prosecution counsel confer]

MR. NICE: In any event -- I'm sorry.

[Trial Chamber confers]

MR. NICE: Your Honours, I'm grateful that amongst other things for a reminder that again a couple of witnesses, and I think -- or one -- Matovina is one and Kandic is another, themselves specifically expressed, I haven't found the references, and I'm grateful to my friends for reminding me of them, but specifically refer to, as it were, a Greater ⁴³²⁶⁴ Serbia putting the emphasis on "a" rather than on the concept. And that's -- these again are not witnesses we rehearse into their statement of their understanding nor could we, but they express what -- how they saw things.

Now, I think it's also important to bear in mind with, as you view this part of the history of the case and as the issues that you're going to have to deal with that connection to the historical concept of Greater Serbia is not only something that may exist on a practical level, may exist on a practical level as between this accused and the concept itself, but for example it's something that might exist as a connection between the SANU memorandum and the concept of Greater Serbia, but all those understated or unstated. And therefore, it's far better to -- in our respectful submission far more -- and far more realistic to say what was this man seeking to achieve? He was seeking to achieve an enlarged centralised Serbian state. In many ways, picking up on His Honour Judge Bonomy's point, but not at the time always, it would have matched the ambitions of or part of the ambitions of people like this particular witness. It reflected other ideas, for example, the SANU memorandum without being stated by him. But what we're concerned with in this court is whether what he did by way of seeking to establish a Greater Serbian state involves the commission of the crimes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, would you care just to summarise what the Prosecution's case is on this point in just two or three sentences.

MR. NICE: Yes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. ⁴³²⁶⁵

MR. NICE: Yes. This is -- I'm grateful to Mr. Saxon. The accused asked -- no, no. The accused -- the accused asked a question of a witness Erstic and the 25th of July, 2003, this question. He said: "Which speech of mine did you hear in which something was said that might have been against the Croats or against any people in Yugoslavia? Which speech did you hear?

"Answer: Yes, sir. I watched you on television yourself when you were holding those rallies in Belgrade, when you were shouting, We want a Greater Serbia and all Serbs have to live in one state." Now, that's his recollection of the way things were expressed. I don't have it on a videotape, but there's a witness making a connection between his understanding of in whatever loose or technical form the term "Greater Serbia" and all Serbs living in one state. And we have been clear, I've been clear, that in answer to Your Honour Judge Robinson's point, the ambitions of this accused at the material time and once the possibility for retaining the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia were gone, his ambitions were to have an enlarged or he was party to the ambitions to have an enlarged Serbian state and that informed his actions.

JUDGE ROBINSON: An enlarged Serbian state.

MR. NICE: Yes. De facto Greater Serbia, however you describe it. But not the concept of this man, this witness, or his party. At least as expressed.

I see I have another note. Yes. I think I've made this point but if not I'm happy to either repeat myself or restate what I've already stated for greater clarity, that is that once the decision had been made ⁴³²⁶⁶ to let Slovenia go, Croatia was allowed to go or it was contemplated that Croatia could go on terms that it left but without the parts that were going to remain under Serbian control, and at that stage, again to pick up on His Honour Judge Bonomy's point it wasn't the plan at that stage to include all of Bosnia except that. They faced the realities and restricted themselves to the parts as the accused himself says in various places dealing with it by percentages that it was realistic for them to retain.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Nice. This is essentially a matter for the Prosecutor, clarifying what his case is, so I'm not requiring submissions either from Mr. Kay or Mr. Milosevic, but if you have anything to say Mr. Kay, then you may say it, and similarly Mr. Milosevic.

MR. KAY: Nothing further.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Mr. Milosevic, anything to say on this point bearing in mind, as I said, it's essentially for the Prosecutor to clarify what his case is.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It is absolutely clear to me, Mr. Robinson, that you asked this question of him. However, since Mr. Nice stated many things that are not correct, I do have a need to speak, because he spoke for 40 minutes.

First of all, Serbs in one state is no slogan. That was and had been a reality for a full 70 years, from the creation of Yugoslavia until 1991 what certain republics started to secede in an unlawful way and through armed conflicts. So Serbs in one state was a reality for 70 ⁴³²⁶⁷ years. And if Mr. Nice accuses anyone of trying to preserve a state that was the only internationally recognised entity and a founding member of the United Nations from the First World War, then I suppose the list of those who can be accused of the same is really long. So let us leave that aside.

Also, Mr. Robinson, you used an expression to the effect they should live in one state. That is wrong. They lived in one state. It was not a theory about how they should live in the future. They lived in one state and it was for the preservation of that state that we worked. Now, this is probably the first and the only instance in any trial, although you probably know more about trials, maybe you know of some other instance of this, that the Prosecution, after three and a half years since the beginning of their case, is not aware of what exactly their charges are. I think this Prosecution will be studied at universities.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The Prosecution don't know and --

JUDGE ROBINSON: I don't think it's correct to say that they're not aware of what the charges are. The question has to do with the policy behind the Prosecution case, what the case actually is, not the actual charges.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, an even greater problem here is that at your insistence - and when I say "your insistence" I mean all three of you - if everything were clear, you probably wouldn't have any need to insist, but you do insist. It means it isn't clear, so ⁴³²⁶⁸ at your insistence he's trying to clarify what exactly the case is. So what is the sense of all that he has been saying far? It is my fundamental right to know what I'm being accused of in order to answer these accusations.

Another thing: In the past hour, Mr. Nice changed his position three times, one more nonsensical than the other. First, he said that he was not accusing me of advocating a Greater Serbia. It's all in the transcript. I don't need to quote it. Let us not manipulate what has been said here.

Then he does accuse me of it, and then is that the same thing as all Serbs in one state with Yugoslavia having existed as a state for 70 years, and then he goes on to manipulate facts. He just mentioned the testimony of Academician Popov and some part of map, whereas it has been shown quite clearly that Mr. Nice manipulated those Epoka maps. It was a magazine that was published in Belgrade.

Karlobag-Ogulin-Virovitica line was in a map that was published in this magazine, and then some sort of link is being made with me, but he doesn't mention that there was a text next to the map where it says that those are writing it do not agree with the map. So it's pure manipulation.

The map of the Belgrade initiative according to which Izetbegovic --

JUDGE ROBINSON: The word "manipulation" has come across in the translation. It's -- you're on safer ground if you say that he misinterpreted the map. Proceed. ⁴³²⁶⁹

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] He did not misinterpret it. He showed a map accompanied by a text which expresses a critical attitude to the map that the magazine was advocating. It is clear that this was done deliberately, and it is pure lie.

The Belgrade initiative map that Izetbegovic was pushing, when he was president of that state, he showed as the map of Greater Serbia. He's consciously deceiving everyone here. You probably missed it. He just said about the possibility for the SFRY to survive, he just said he, meaning I, did it at The Hague Conference. The Hague Conference offered a break-up of Yugoslavia that I refused. So it's quite the opposite. He simply doesn't know what he's talking about anymore. Either that or he's presenting notorious lies that are so obvious that I don't know what to say.

I've already told you that Mr. Nice should be held criminally responsible for deliberate obstruction of truth and deceit, because he has had all the facts --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic. Mr. Milosevic, you're getting carried away. I said initially that this was primarily a matter for the Prosecutor to clarify what his case is. He has done that. If you have any submissions to make on that particular legal issue, legal issue, then you may make them. I am allowing you to speak, even though I don't consider it to be absolutely necessary, because I want to be fair to you, because it impinges on your case, but you must confine your submissions to legal issues. Don't make accusations.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, Mr. Robinson, it is also a ⁴³²⁷⁰ legal issue. Even now when he is trying to explain at your request, and you didn't make that request because everything was clear to you but because it isn't clear to you. He's now talking about A and B plans. Where does he take that from? Did he present any evidence here about plans A and B? Then he mentioned an intercept where Milosevic is allegedly heard saying, And where is the London conference map? The London conference map was mentioned by my collocutor in that intercept, whereas I was extremely uninterested. That is the sort of manipulation that I believe no one should allow.

And look, Mr. Nice is supposed to time his references to Greater Serbia. He says this is when I mentioned it the first time, and this is when I mentioned it the last time. He was supposed to establish a basis, although Mr. Kay already warned him that no human being can stand a trial longer than two and a half years, and still you went through with it. Then he says he doesn't link the plan with me and I didn't say that. Then on page 82 in his opening, the army, the evidence was no better -- "the evidence shows it was no better." "[In English] Committed itself to the accused's programme."

[Interpretation] Is there any clearer than that. "Officers were being instilled with the ideology of brotherhood and unity, totally abandoned everything in favour of Greater Serbia." This is very explicit. I therefore insist, gentlemen, that we clear up first of all what I'm being charged with and then I can make my case. Then if you will look at the testimony of academician Cedomir Popov. It's page 34587. Mr. Nice says: "Can I also by way -- not by way ⁴³²⁷¹ of correction but reminder alert the Chamber and the accused to the reality that neither in my opening speeches to this Court in my own name or behalf of the Prosecution rely upon the words 'Greater Serbia.'" Just look at that. During the testimony of Popov, he distanced himself from it, whereas now he relies on his opening. I used the phrase once. [In English] With the man Seselj [Interpretation] associating it with the man Seselj. That is not true. He referred to Greater Serbia mentioning man Seselj but not in his opening statement. In his opening statement it was associated with me, whereas now he says that the Prosecution never relied on Greater Serbia. "[In English] I used the phrase once associating with the man Seselj, and I think on two occasions I referred to the concept of all Serbs in one state." [Interpretation] Again, he doesn't know what he's talking about. All Serbs in one state, that was the Yugoslavia we were trying to preserve. And the phrase the "Greater Serbia" which has never been attributed to the mouth of the accused is the concept that has been referred to by many other witnesses, and of course we can't control them in their and analysis and understanding. Well, is Mr. Nice now going to withdraw those witnesses that he cannot control and who misunderstood him? Now he says that we heard testimony from some witness who heard me on television asking for Greater Serbia. All my speeches were recorded by television. They were attended by thousands and millions of people. These are blatant lies. Blatant lies. According to the practice supplied here, he can lead evidence here and make claims that everybody knows is a notorious lie. This is just the tip of the iceberg of this fiasco that we ^{43272 BLANK PAGE 43273} are facing here.

Then Judge Robinson, before that he says: "[In English] [Previous translation continues] ... is a concept that's been referred to by many other witnesses and of course we can't control them in their analysis and understanding of events. So far as the Prosecution is concerned, it's always been careful to limit its approach to the issue to the way I opened the case."

[Interpretation] And I already quoted to you how he opened the Prosecution case. It was completely indecent.

Judge Robinson asks the question: "It is not in the indictment." Mr. Nice: "[In English] It's in one of the indictments as well but those of course preceded my openings, and my opening in the sense of the matter of general theory and principle surprised them but you are quite right." Judge Robinson: "But you're not saying it's not an important part of the Prosecution case." Mr. Nice: "I'm not saying that. Not at all. No. It's an important, it's an important matter to have in mind but we always expressed ourselves in term of all Serbs in one state." [Interpretation] I've just read to you what he said. "We've always expressed a notion in one way or another instrumentalising the opinion of others."

I believe that you should demand from Mr. Nice, Mr. Robinson, to define precisely what his case is and stop this until he does. He just mentioned what people did in Bosnia, in Croatia. People were defending themselves. It was not Serbs who started armed secession and civil war. All the evidence you have before you indicate that for months prior to ⁴³²⁷⁴ that others had started killing them.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I did ask Mr. Nice to summarise the Prosecution's case on this point, and in answer he said that the concept that the Prosecution embraces is that of an enlarged Serbian state. So that's the position now. We have all the evidence before us. We have the transcript that we can look at. I want to proceed with the case now. I consider that matters --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can you tell me, because you have been presiding for a while and you have been here from the start, which evidence did he present that I worked for an enlarged Serbian state? Was there any evidence that he presented on that account?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, that is beside the point. That is his case. I mean, if we find that it is not substantiated, then that will be reflected in the determinations that we make. So we don't have to make a determination of that issue now, as you well know. It is important that you know what you are facing, and he has clarified it. So let us proceed. Ask your next question of this witness. And I'd like to move on to another issue, another subject area.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, precisely in order to clarify this, I think the witness who said this himself, and he wouldn't be lying about that, is a leading theoretician on the issue. I accept Mr. Nice's comment that he's not testifying as an expert here, but he wrote a book about this, and the subject can be found in many other books of his. He ⁴³²⁷⁵ is currently a politician, the head of the largest opposition party. He's a very qualified witness, so he can speak about it.

JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues] ... you're going to ask him about the concept of an enlarged Serbian state?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Why? Why not?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Okay. Yes, I'll allow that.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. First of all, Mr. Seselj, I wish to ask you, you've already answered the question of the Croatian response to the concept you are advocating, but tell me this: Do the vehicles, the protagonists of this concept, advocate or did they ever advocate the destruction of Muslims?

A. No. The Serbian Radical Party made a geographical map of the larger -- sorry, Greater Serbia, and from that map which we published countless times on the cover page of the colour back side of our magazine, one can say that the western border of the Greater Serbia is on the Karlobag-Ogulin-Virovitica line. That does not contain only territories where Serbs are in the majority. It contains also many territories where Croats, Macedonians, and Muslims are majority population. If somebody says that our intention was to expel all those people, that's nonsense because it would be an exodus.

Second, at the time when the Yugoslav crisis was peaking, I wrote a letter to the Serbs of the Muslim faith. It was an open letter published several times where I say, "Muslim brothers, do not let yourselves be deceived as you were deceived in the two world wars, to be the tool in the hands of the enemies of your Serbian brothers." That was ⁴³²⁷⁶ published in books, in the press. This can be put at your disposal. We wish --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Seselj. Mr. Milosevic, bear in mind that the Prosecution's case relates to the idea of an enlarged Serbian state.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I am bearing it in mind.

Q. Mr. Seselj, was there ever any mention of Serbia having any territorial pretensions?

A. No. No one ever expressed a position about territorial pretensions on the part of Serbia. Serbs in the federal territorial unit clearly said to the Croats, "If you want to secede from Yugoslavia, we don't want to. We will remain in Yugoslavia. That is why we are setting up the Serbia Krajina." The Serbs in Bosnia-Herzegovina clearly gave the Croats and Muslims to understand that if they wished to secede from Yugoslavia, the Serbs did not and wished to remain in Yugoslavia. This was stated clearly at the beginning of every war. "We do not want to leave Yugoslavia, but you do." Nobody avoided talks about how one could leave Yugoslavia. Cutileiro's plan was even drawn up in Bosnia, accepted by the Muslims and, Serbs but under American pressure the Muslims later changed their mind.

What the Orthodox Serbs wanted was the preservation of Yugoslavia, not an enlarged Serbia. Most of Serbs didn't even want a Greater Serbia. It was only the Serb Radical Party that wanted it.

JUDGE ROBINSON: That point has been made, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] ⁴³²⁷⁷

Q. Mr. Seselj, a little while ago Mr. Nice explained his position. He quoted something, probably from one of his documents, saying that it was my plan to expel Muslims from part of the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina. I assume the Serb-controlled parts. He, of course, did not support this with any evidence, but that's what he claims. Could you explain, please, how it is possible for someone to have a plan to expel Muslims from Serb-controlled parts of Bosnia while not expelling any Muslims from Serbia which is all under Serb control and where there is no war at all?

JUDGE ROBINSON: You cannot put a question in that form. I'll not allow that.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Seselj, was there on my part or on the part of anyone in the Serb leadership that you know of a plan to expel Muslims from any part of Bosnia and Herzegovina?

A. No. Never did there exist a plan on the expulsion of Muslims. You wanted Bosnia and Herzegovina to remain within Yugoslavia as a whole, even if Slovenia and Croatia secede, and you negotiated with Izetbegovic. As far as I know and remember, you offered Izetbegovic the position of the first president of the Rump Yugoslavia if a complete break-up could be avoided. Izetbegovic first accepted this and then changed his mind under American pressure. The Americans said to him, "Why would you want a Rump Yugoslavia when you can have full independence?" If all Serbs remained in one state, then all Muslims would also remain in one state, because the ⁴³²⁷⁸ Muslims lived in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, and Kosovo and Metohija, Montenegro, and Macedonia.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Seselj. Next question.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Seselj, please look at paragraph 7 of the Croatian part and then 22.

A. Just a moment. Let me get my copy of the indictment as I have been a passive observer for more than an hour. You're saying paragraph 7?

Q. Yes. Page 3 of the Croatian part.

A. Yes, I've found it.

Q. It says here: "This joint criminal enterprise came into existence before the 1st of August, 1991, and continued until at least June 1992." So it says here sometime before the 1st of August, 1991. Now look at 22. It says here: "Vojislav Seselj, as president of the Serbian Radical Party, SRS, from at least February 1991 throughout the time relevant," so far about six months you were a participant in a joint criminal enterprise before it even came into existence. Can you please describe these crimes of yours so that we can hear what kind of crimes they are?

A. Well, this is truly totally absurd that I was a member of a joint criminal enterprise which came into existence sometime before the 1st of August, 1991, and yet I was its participant from at least February 1991. Well, perhaps I became participant when I was a baby. I have no answer to give to this. First of all, there was no joint criminal enterprise. ⁴³²⁷⁹ Secondly, as for my participation in the war effort, I have already described it. I described it yesterday.

Secondly, my advocation of a Greater Serbia has practically nothing to do with the civil war that was waged.

JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues] ... next question.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Very specific, very direct: Was there a joint criminal enterprise of which you could or could not be a member?

A. There was no joint criminal enterprise. I have never even met many of the people on this list.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, the question arises here as to how negative facts can be proved. Do you expect me to prove that what Mr. Nice alleges did not happen, that what Mr. Nice alleges did not exist or is it up to Mr. Nice to prove that it did exist?

JUDGE ROBINSON: As you well know, the burden of proof is on the Prosecution. You don't have to prove a thing. You can sit there and remain silent and walk through that door at the end of the case a free man. You don't have to prove anything.

Next question.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Seselj, before we move on to the next topic, look at the Bosnian part. Please look at paragraphs 7 and 22 of the Bosnian part. It says here -- in fact, it doesn't even have the words "at least." It says: "This joint criminal enterprise was in existence by the 1st of ⁴³²⁸⁰ August, 1991, and continued until at least the 31st of December, 1995." So this covers Dayton and the end of Dayton. All of it was a joint criminal enterprise from the 1st of August. And now look at paragraph 22, which mentions you, and here it says again "at least," there was a joint criminal enterprise, according to paragraph 7, from the 1st of August, and you were its participant from at least February 1991.

A. Until the end of 1995 as alleged in paragraph 7. However, in the indictment raised against me it says I was a member of the JC until 1993. And the Prosecutor is the same in both cases, and they're both sitting here now.

Q. Tell me, do you have any idea why the 1st of August, 1991, is mentioned here as the date when this alleged JC came into existence?

A. Because that was when the JNA came into conflict with the Croatian separatists and their paramilitary units. Approximately at that time the army started to respond to the armed action which it had been exposed to even before, but it had been too passive and refrained from returning fire.

As far as I personally am concerned, from around the 1st of August onwards, we began sending volunteers to the JNA, but what I did from February 1991 until August 1991, I don't know what they think I was doing at the time, but what can it have to do with the rest of you mentioned here?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Seselj, that has been answered.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] ⁴³²⁸¹

Q. Mr. Seselj, the question you raised at the end of your reply is something I really cannot answer, but we shall see.

A. Well, I will be thinking about it for the next three years while I'm waiting for my trial to begin.

Q. Let me see now. Paragraph -- well, you have to read paragraph 9 in both parts, the Croatian and the Bosnian parts, because it says here "In order for the joint criminal enterprise to succeed in its objective, Slobodan Milosevic worked in concert with or through other individuals in the joint criminal enterprise. Each participant or co-perpetrator within the joint criminal enterprise sharing the intent to contribute to the enterprise played his or her own role or roles that significantly contributed to achieving the objective of the enterprise. The roles of the participants or co-perpetrators include but are not limited to the following," and then you are mentioned. Is it clearer to you now what crimes you're accused of, Mr. Seselj?

A. No, of course not. But, Mr. Milosevic, how can they link me up to you when the two of us met for the first time in our lives in April 1992, and we had allegedly been members of this joint criminal enterprise for a year?

Q. Well, when we met, when and where was this, and did we talk about something?

A. No. It was in the building of the national assembly. You came to the session. You were sitting in the front row. I came along, and we only shook hands as a matter of courtesy. Afterwards we met in the ^{43282 BLANK PAGE 43283} corridor and walked down the stairs together, and we had a very casual conversation about the session of that day. That was our first meeting.

Q. This was 1992?

A. April 1992. I am sure of that. The press recorded that meeting. Our photograph together was published in many newspapers. We had never met before that occasion or had any contact.

Q. Very well. And if you remember, when did we first meet to discuss a political topic? When was our first meeting to talk?

A. That was in May 1992, when at your invitation I came to the Presidency of Serbia and we discussed the forthcoming federal elections. You wanted to hear whether the Serbian Radical Party would participate in the elections because all the other opposition parties under American influence had stated they would boycott the first federal elections after the adoption of the constitution.

Q. Can you explain why these opposition parties, some opposition parties, I can't say all of them because you were one of the largest at the time and you did not boycott the elections, why did they boycott the first federal elections for the parliament of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia?

A. Following orders from the American embassy because the Americans were avoiding having to recognise the continuity, the legal continuity, although it -- of the state, although it was recognised by the People's Republic of China and other countries. The People's Republic of China was the first state to recognise the continuity of the state. The US instrumentalised the opposition parties. They wanted them to not ⁴³²⁸⁴ participate in the elections in order to challenge the continuity of the state and in order to use them as a tool against our country.

Q. And these federal parliamentary elections, were they held in spite of this? Were they successful, and did citizens turn out in a higher percentage that than they do now?

A. Yes. The turnout was much higher than now. The elections were very successful, and it transpired that the Serb Radical Party was the second most powerful political party in the country, of course thanks to the boycott by all the other opposition parties.

Q. Thank you.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It's a quarter past 12.00. Is it time for a break, Mr. Robinson?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you for reminding me, Mr. Milosevic. We will adjourn now for 20 minutes.

--- Recess taken at 12.16 p.m.

--- On resuming at 12.41 p.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, before I go on, please consider my motion. I move that this excerpt from Mr. Seselj's book, "The Ideology of Serb Nationalism," be exhibited. It has been translated and delivered to you and all participants.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, it's admitted.

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

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Now let us clarify something, Mr. Seselj. But before we do, I ⁴³²⁸⁵ have to put a question to Mr. Robinson. For you, Mr. Seselj, in paragraph 7 of the Bosnian paper, it says that this joint criminal enterprise was in existence by the 1st of August. In paragraph 9, it says that each participant implemented a part of the plan, and then in paragraph 22 you are mentioned as part of this joint criminal enterprise from February 1991 at least.

For the witness and myself to be clear about what this is about, Mr. Robinson, please have Mr. Nice explain, because it's a consistent text and he wrote both parts, whether this alleged JCE of which I was at the head and which Mr. Seselj participated in came into existence on the 1st of August as is stated if paragraph 7 or from at least February 1991 as mentioned in paragraph 22, because the discrepancy is six months, and this is very important. Could Mr. Nice please tell us from when he believes there was a joint criminal enterprise.

JUDGE ROBINSON: That is not the kind of matter that I'd ask the Prosecutor to explain. If you believe that there is a discrepancy, then it can only add on to your benefit, and that's a point you would make in your closing remarks.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, what I believe or not doesn't matter at this point, but the difference between the 1st of August and February is a discrepancy of six months. I don't know what kind of criminal enterprise Mr. Nice is referring to, one that began on the 1st of August or one that began in February. So how can I put questions to Mr. Seselj about it?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's clear to me, Mr. Milosevic, ⁴³²⁸⁶ from the 1st of February I myself was a member of the JCE. I joined myself, and then six months later you and the others joined me. I understood this immediately.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Very well, Mr. Seselj. You have greatly assisted Mr. Nice, and I'm glad you are cooperating with him so well. I will continue with my questions now.

Mr. Seselj, in paragraph 7 of the Croatian part, the following members of the JCE are listed. It says here: "Individuals participating in this joint criminal enterprise included," it begins with me, of course, and then it goes on to list a number of people.

The next is Borislav Jovic. What was your relationship with Borisav Jovic?

A. I have never had any contacts or meetings with Borislav Jovic. I had never had any until that session that you attended and Borislav Jovic also attended it.

In 1991, at the elections in Rakovica when there was a seat in parliament up for election, I was there representing my party and Borislav Jovic was representing a rival party. I will remind you he was at that time the president of the Socialist Party, and he was holding a counter-rally to support the candidate of your party.

Q. That's not unusual.

A. No. But we were members of opposing political parties, rival parties, and we had never met. I defeated your party's candidate resoundingly. I had three times more votes than he did but I won't bring ⁴³²⁸⁷ that up now.

Q. Mr. Seselj, you have answered my question very precisely. So you did not have anything to do with Borislav Jovic.

A. No, I didn't.

Q. The next one on the list is Branko Kostic, who at the time, as far as I can recall, was the deputy president of the Presidency of the SFRY, and he was elected in the Republic of Montenegro, which he represented in the Presidency of the SFRY. What were your relations with Branko Kostic?

A. The first time in my life I spoke to Branko Kostic was at the federal elections in late May 1992 when the Federal Assembly was constituted in June and when a candidate for the Presidency was Svetozar Markovic. Our party opposed this, and we said that we would nominate Branko Kostic as our candidate. We didn't really know him but they were both from Montenegro, and we thought it better for Kostic to be nominated. Then, Mr. Milosevic, you invited me for a talk, and you suggested that we nominate Dobrica Cosic. I agreed and that's how we gave up nominating Branko Kostic. But I didn't know the man at all. He was reputed to be a very honourable man, but you convinced me that Dobrica Cosic was a better candidate at that point in time.

Q. As the next in this JCE is Veljko Kadijevic. What was your relation to Veljko Kadijevic?

A. I had never met Veljko Kadijevic in my life. We never talked about anything. We had no contact whatsoever. However, I often attacked him in public. I considered him to be a rigid communist, a dogmatic communist at first, and afterwards I had my doubts. I thought that he was ⁴³²⁸⁸ an American spy. He completed a school for generals in the United States, and his behaviour during the war was suspicious so I often attacked him, and I thought that he should be replaced.

Q. Did I understand you properly? You said that you never met him in your life?

A. I never met him in my life.

Q. So you did not even talk over the telephone? You never met him?

A. No, we never talked even over the telephone.

Q. And what about the next person in this joint criminal enterprise that Mr. Nice has been insisting upon here, Blagoje Adzic.

A. I first met him after the promulgation of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia towards the end of April 1992 at the grand reception after the parliament meeting was held. This was just before he was pensioned off. This was just a courtesy handshake. Perhaps we exchanged a word or two. We never discussed anything of substance. I had nothing to talk about to him, although in public I expressed a negative view of him, perhaps like of Kadijevic, but in a somewhat milder form.

Q. The next person in this paragraph 7 is Milan Babic. Tell me, please, what was your attitude towards Milan Babic at the time as an alleged participant in this joint criminal enterprise?

A. I met Milan Babic at the end of August or beginning of September 1990. We had proper relations. We did not see each other often. We did not contact very often, but I think that our relations were relatively good until the first democratic multi-party elections for the national assembly of the Republic of Serb Krajina. That was towards the end of ⁴³²⁸⁹ 1993.

At these elections, the Serb Radical Party won a very large number of seats in parliament. Babic's party was individually the biggest party in parliament. We agreed that our parties would set up a coalition and a coalition government that he would head. He cheated us after that. He reached an agreement with Borislav Mikelic and joined Mikelic's government as Foreign Minister. Since then I've never seen him again, and I never spoke of him well since because I thought this was a person who did not deserve any kind of political communication because I thought that this was a vile thing to do.

Q. Let's just dwell on Milan Babic for a second. Do you remember that I had a clash with him or, rather, that I criticised his behaviour on some occasion? I don't want to put a leading question to you so I'm not going to tell you what occasion that was. But at any rate, very publicly there was a dispute. Do you remember that?

A. Yes. It was on the occasion of the Vance Plan. This was sometime in January 1992, if my memory serves me right. The talks were held in Belgrade at the initiative expressed by the West that the leadership of Serbia and the SFRY should take part in concluding the Vance Plan. Milan Babic was a hard-liner at the time. I don't know whether you personally attended this big meeting of the state Presidency and the state leadership in general. He was talked into accepting the plan. I think that the president of the national assembly Mile Paspalj signed that agreement.

Since Milan Babic speaks until -- sleeps until 2.00 or 3.00 in the ⁴³²⁹⁰ afternoon, that was taken advantage of. This meeting was scheduled for 9.00 a.m., and that is how it went through.

Q. This meeting that you referred to was held at the Presidency of the SFRY. I was not a member, but you put it right that it was --

A. I never said that you were present. I said that you publicly supported the Vance Plan. I did not say that you were one of the participants in the meeting. Actually, I had no way of knowing because I was not personally present. It is my knowledge that this meeting was held. It was published in the media that this meeting was held, and it is my knowledge that he was the only one who opposed accepting the Vance Plan and that everybody else was in favour of it. I never said that you were present there.

Q. Well, I understand what you were saying, but I want that to be expressed clearly here for the sake of the transcript. It was a bit unclear.

And in this dispute between me and Babic, on whose side were you?

A. Well, in the dispute between you and Milan Babic, I was on the side of Milan Babic, although after some talks with a group of prominent intellectuals in Belgrade, I subsequently supported the Vance Plan. Unfortunately, later on that proved to be a mistake because we were cheated both by the Western powers and the United Nations. However, at that moment, I was on Milan Babic's side. I wanted in a way for political relations to be improved between Serbia and the SFRY and the authorities of the Serb Krajina. I thought that there shouldn't be any clashes there, especially not in public because that could work to the detriment of ⁴³²⁹¹ overall state and national interests.

Q. All right. You actually explain now why you supported Babic in these disputes.

A. Yes.

Q. Is that the only thing you can say about the reasons why you did that?

A. Well, I personally preferred his hard-line policy towards the Croatian leadership and the Western powers rather than your policy of reconciliation and agreement. You always wanted agreement. You always wanted compromise. You were in favour of dialogue, and I regularly had a much more hard-line position. I always preferred people who, like me, took these hard-line positions.

Q. In paragraph 7, the next person who is mentioned as a participant in this alleged joint criminal enterprise is Milan Martic. What was your attitude towards Milan Martic as a participant in this alleged joint criminal enterprise?

A. I met Milan Martic and saw him whenever I came to the Serb Krajina. At first our relations were good and then we clashed in 1993 when there was a fierce clash between the Serb Radical Party and your Socialist Party of Serbia. It was then that Milan Martic issued some kind of a press release against the Serb Radical Party, and that's when the period of our conflict started.

In the elections of the Serb Krajina held that autumn, the Serb Radical Party had Rade Leskovac, the then president of the Serb Radical Party for the Republic of Serb Krajina, as its own presidential ^{43292 BLANK PAGE 43293} candidate. We did not support either Babic or Milan Martic. But in the second round, when it was Milan Babic and Milan Martic who got into the second round, we fully supported Milan Babic. Almost all other political parties supported Milan Martic. As far as I can remember, your Socialist Party held the view that Martic was a better solution.

Q. Do you think today that Milan Martic was a better solution that Milan Babic?

A. Yes. Time proved Milan Martic to be an exceptionally honest and honourable man, in spite of our dispute, somebody who never violated any kind of morality. As for Babic, he turned out to be a really rotten person, and I am really sorry that I favoured the other person at the time.

Q. On the basis of what did you come to that conclusion that he was such a bad person, such a rotten person, as you said?

A. On the basis of many things. First of all, his attitude towards the coalition that we set up, and then also that he heard that there would be a Croat aggression against the republic of Serb Krajina in 1995. He tacitly sent his family to Belgrade and his compatriots remained and were victimised in other parts then -- of Krajina. Then also he appeared as a false witness in many of these proceedings. He was also heralded or rather announced as a false witness in my trial. I am not disclosing any secrets because it was said in public.

THE INTERPRETER: Could the speaker please be asked to slow down, note the interpreters.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic. ⁴³²⁹⁴

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes?

JUDGE ROBINSON: A request from the interpreters.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Seselj, in paragraph 7, the next person referred to as an alleged participant in the alleged joint criminal enterprise is Goran Hadzic. What can you say --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice is on his feet.

MR. NICE: There's a terminological choice of this witness. I expect the Chamber's alert to it, but where he says that Mr. Babic was heralded or announced as a witness in the trial, he's correct, but the way he prefaces the word witness with "false" might in some way lead the reader to think that there was some acknowledgement in those prosecuting this particular witness that the -- that Babic was not being relied upon. Babic is being relied upon. The word "false" is simply his characterisation of the person.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Nice. That would be noted. It's the witness's own description.

Yes, Mr. Milosevic. Please continue, yes.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, will you allow me to say something? I followed the testimony of --

JUDGE ROBINSON: No, not on that at all. Absolutely no. Continue, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Do you believe or do you believe that Milan Babic is someone ⁴³²⁹⁵ oriented only towards his career, someone who is a liar and someone who always tries to gets benefits for himself only?

A. Yes, absolutely. I followed him on television too and --

MR. NICE: [Previous translation continues] ... and I say no more about it. That's clearly an objectionable form of question.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I will not allow that question. You'd have to rephrase it. It's leading, and it's -- it's objectionable. It's objectionable.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Seselj. Mr. Seselj, Mr. Milan Babic is on the list of participants in the alleged joint criminal enterprise, the same list on which you are. Do you have any reasons or any facts to proffer as to why it bothers you to be in the same company as Milan Babic?

A. Yes. First of all, no person from this list was in good relations with Milan Babic, and no one ever had a good opinion of him. I'm the only one that in a given period of time had sort of good relations with him. Milan Babic was a coward during the war. He never dared tour the troops at the front line. He was very narrow-minded, merchantile, and after the war he proved to be a bad person too. Over here Milan Babic said things that were untruthful. For example, he said that Marko Negovanovic, as minister of defence of Serbia, gave a helicopter that took me to Western Slavonia. And Marko Negovanovic at that time was not minister of defence of Serbia. It was Tomislav Simovic, who we also have on this list. That is one illustration for you --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Seselj, yes. I think you have answered that ⁴³²⁹⁶ question.

Next question.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Thank you, Mr. Seselj. I put a question to you in relation to Goran Hadzic. However, in view of Mr. Nice's intervention, you didn't have time to answer it so I'm repeating the question. Not to add everything that I asked you in this connection, tell me about Goran Hadzic.

A. I was in constant conflict with Goran Hadzic, so our relationship was a hostile one. I attacked him strongly in the Sava centre at the pan-Serbian Assembly that was called that was intended to pass a decision to make the leadership of Republika Srpska adopt the Vance Plan. I attacked Goran Hadzic. You were at that session, so I perhaps -- perhaps you will remember that I attacked him ferociously, accusing him of crime and many other things. So we were never -- never on good terms, political or otherwise.

Q. The next person is Jovica Stanisic on this list in terms of the joint criminal enterprise. Did you have any kind of relations with Jovica Stanisic in terms of what you have been accused of or what I have been accused of?

A. I first met Jovica Stanisic in November 1992 at his own initiative. He sent a message through some republican MP that we should meet. I agreed, and we met in front of the building of the national assembly. He came in some special luxury car with dark glass, armoured, and he warned me that an assassination was being prepared against me in ⁴³²⁹⁷ Montenegro by a well-known Montenegrin criminal and head of the Montenegrin underground, Brano Micunovic. That was just before the new elections, the federal elections in 1992. The same information was given to me then by the head of the military security service then, Nedeljko Boskovic but he called me over the phone and told me that quite openly. Jovica Stanisic did not phone me. We didn't even know each other. He asked for a direct meeting, and he told me that. I did not even take part in this election campaign. I did not travel there at all. I had a bad back at the time. I had surgery, so in Montenegro I did not even carry out an election campaign.

THE INTERPRETER: Could the speakers please be asked to slow down.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Seselj. Mr. Seselj, I knew the interpreters were going to intervene again because of the speed with which you speak. You get caught up with your own words, and you're carried away. You speak too fast.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I understand your problems and the problems of the interpreters, but you should bear in mind that the way in which I speak shows that I am speaking as a person who speaks the truth with passion. A person can speak this way only if he tells the truth, not if he lies. I hope that you will agree with me, but I will make an effort to speak slower.

JUDGE ROBINSON: The Chamber will determine that. We are assessing your demeanour. Let me assure you of that. Now --

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] After that, I was constantly clashing with Jovica Stanisic. He was head of the State Security Service ⁴³²⁹⁸ of Serbia, and after our fierce conflict with that service they made every effort to break up the Serb Radical Party. You probably remember the affair of trying to buy off seven of our MPs headed by Jovan Glamocanin [phoen] when they were given money to --

THE INTERPRETER: Could the speaker please be asked to slow down.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Seselj, you have to do better. And, Mr. Milosevic, it is not my responsibility alone. He is your witness. I have a job to control the proceedings, but he's your witness.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Seselj, I've already thanked you for the information you've given in terms of knowing Jovica Stanisic and this substantive information you gave about his warning that an assassination was being prepared in Montenegro, that they were trying to kill you in Montenegro. The next person on the list is Franko Simatovic?

A. Yes.

Q. Please pause after every sentence so that what the interpreters are interpreting would correctly be recorded by the transcript. So in relation to Franko Simatovic.

A. Franko Simatovic nicknamed Frenki is a person I had never seen in my life until Simatovic came to the prison of The Hague Tribunal.

Q. Thank you, Mr. Seselj. Since you've said that, there is no further need for you to explain your relationship with him. You never met him in your life until he came here to The Hague Tribunal?

A. Yes, that is the full truth.

Q. Thank you. What was your relationship with Tomislav Simovic who ⁴³²⁹⁹ was minister of defence of Serbia for a while?

A. While he was minister of defence of Serbia, I was an MP in the Assembly of Serbia. We saw each other from time to time at Assembly sessions. Our relationship was correct without being close. We never had any particular meetings or talks.

When I was planning my trip to Western Slavonia at the proposal of Ilija Sasic, minister of defence of Western Slavonia, I addressed General Tomislav Simovic as minister of defence asking him to provide me with a helicopter. He replied that the Ministry of Defence of Serbia has no helicopter or any similar means of transportation. After that I addressed the deputy chief of General Staff, General Marko Negovanovic, who directed me to the commander of air force and air defence, Bozidar Stevanovic. So that was my only direct contact with Tomislav Simovic, and it was for only a particular purpose.

Q. So you were an MP in the Assembly of Serbia at the time. Do you know what were the powers and the job of the Ministry of Defence of Serbia at the time? Did it have any armed forces?

A. Tomislav Simovic, as minister of defence of Serbia, did not have any powers regarding the JNA. All his competencies related to civilian defence structure, and he may have had powers only to assist but not to command and control the Territorial Defence, because the Territorial Defence Staff had its own commander. So his powers were mainly to prepare civilian structures for possible defence of the country. He could have had certain powers regarding military departments and the inclusion of military conscripts in military service, regular military service. ⁴³³⁰⁰

Q. Explain briefly what military departments are.

A. They are regional. They're usually municipal departments of the Ministry of Defence that issue call-ups of military conscripts and sometimes the reserve force inviting them to take part in drills. Those are their main competencies.

Q. When they invite reservists to military exercises, they are practically doing a job for the JNA?

A. Yes. Because it is the JNA that organises military exercises, and the military departments only take it upon themselves to issue the call-ups.

Q. So these are jobs linked to the TO?

A. That only was introduced in the 1970s and 1980s. They, too - I mean the Territorial Defence - were territorial bodies, because when a government was being formed the Prime Minister designate could not himself decide who the minister of defence would be. He had to ask the JNA for its opinion. He had to ask the General Staff.

Q. That is correct. The next name on the list is your name. I will skip it. Followed by Momir Bulatovic. Tell me, what is your attitude toward Momir Bulatovic, especially as an alleged member, and please always bear that in mind, in the alleged JCE?

A. He was president of the Republic of Montenegro. I first talked to him when an assassination attempt was made at me after a rally held in Podgorica, the capital of Montenegro. The assassin threw a hand-grenade that injured 62 participants in the rally including me. He was caught soon afterwards, and since I was in Montenegro with my wife, Momir ⁴³³⁰¹ Bulatovic, as president of the republic, came to the airport to see us off to Belgrade and to express his regret over the assassination attempt. After that I didn't have any particular meetings or talks with him for the entire duration of this period covered by the indictment. Of course later we had several meetings and encounters when he became Prime Minister of the federal government, which happened in 1998.

Q. Yes, but it covers the period of Kosovo. And at one point your deputy Tomislav Nikolic was deputy Prime Minister in the federal government.

A. That's true. I meant the Croatian indictment. Yes, my deputy in the Radical Party was the deputy Prime Minister in the cabinet headed by Momir Bulatovic.

Q. What is the relationship between your party, including Tomislav Nikolic, and yourself and Momir Bulatovic?

A. There were various stages. Sometimes we were in conflict. Sometimes there were periods of cooperation. Generally I believe Momir Bulatovic is a rather honourable man, so I have no objection to him that way. But to say that we were any -- in any sort of joint enterprise would be too much, especially a criminal enterprise.

Q. The next name in paragraph 7 is Aleksandar Vasiljevic. You mentioned yesterday the activities of Aleksandar Vasiljevic. Would you have anything to add to what you said yesterday? And I want to ask you in particular, in your relationship with Aleksandar Vasiljevic, because you're all covered by this general -- sorry, joint criminal enterprise, what was your relationship with him? ^{43302 BLANK PAGE 43303}

A. We were always in conflict from the time when he was chief of security of the Sarajevo military district, when he prevented me to serve my military service in the school of military officers, something that was my great desire, but he stood in my way as chief of security of the Sarajevo military district.

Then he moved to the General Staff in Belgrade as chief of the military security service, and as my political opponent, he spread rumours that I was raped while in prison in Zenica. That was a pure lie, but it was tendentiously spread, because at that time I was intolerable for the regime as a political opponent.

Q. Wait a minute. He wanted to humiliate you?

A. Yes, to humiliate me and also to disqualify me in the public. Because in our people, in our community, that is the greatest humiliation imaginable.

Q. But when you say "regime," which regime do you mean?

A. I mean the former SFRY. That lie was launched into the Belgrade public in the end 1980s.

Q. I wanted it to be clear on the record when the use -- when use is made of the word "regime," they usually mean the period when I was president.

A. No. I mean the other regime of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and I was talking about the JNA and the Ministry of Defence. Later on, I attacked Aleksandar Vasiljevic several times for his various activities in his capacity as chief of military security, and for a while he was in prison for that. If you remember the Opara and Labrada ⁴³³⁰⁴ operations, the laying of explosives to the Jewish municipality and Jewish cemetery, and I accused him of stealing from the Vukovar bank during the liberation of Vukovar. He stole several million Deutschmark that he never turned over to the central bank. If that was war booty, that should have been, according to regulations, turned over to the central service. That money simply disappeared and I publicly accused Aleksandar Vasiljevic for that. I also accused him as chief of the military security of initiating certain crimes on the Serbian side in order to ascribe them to Serbian nationalists. I mean, crimes in Western Slavonia and crimes committed after the liberation of Vukovar.

It is curious that he was always present on the ground when these things happened and nobody's prosecuting him for anything.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. The next personality mentioned in paragraph 7 together with you in this alleged joint criminal enterprise is Radovan Stojicic, also known as Badza.

A. I first met Radovan Stojicic, called Badza, sometime in the summer 1991 in Erdut where he was staying as a volunteer of the Territorial Defence of Western Slavonia, Baranja and Western Srem. I also met him at a celebration after the liberation of a part of Serbian Krajina. I think it was a year later.

As assistant military police of Serbian commander or rather head of public security, a police general, he organised my arrest and the arrest of my closest associates from the Serbian Radical Party when we ⁴³³⁰⁵ attempted to hold a rally in Gnjilane in the area of Kosovo and Metohija. On that occasion my deputy Tomislav Nikolic and I were convicted for misdemeanors, sentenced to two months in prison. Others got slightly lower sentences.

Badza was killed in the first half of 1997 in a restaurant called Mama Mia in the centre of Belgrade. We have already spoken about the circumstances of his death during my previous testimony, but I can repeat if you insist.

So we had no friendly relationship, no close relationship. We did meet, but he had always been in the fiercest conflict with us, with the radicals, as chief of police.

Q. When I questioned you about the claims of Mr. Nice, namely that Serbia was a police state between 1997 and 2000, and that it was not uncommon for some prominent people to be killed, that was mentioned. Radovan Stojicic Badza was a close associate of mine.

A. Yes. And he was a very renowned, well-reputed man, and the person who killed him certainly bore that in mind.

Q. Mr. Nice insisted also on some murders carried out by the police state. However, it was mainly my associates who were killed in these assassinations.

A. Yes.

Q. Do you remember Zoran Todorovic, my chef -- my -- the head of the Yugoslav left?

A. Yes. I remember that. I publicly expressed my suspicion that it was Nenad Djordjevic who killed him. It later turned out that this Nenad ⁴³³⁰⁶ Djordjevic was close to Zoran Djindjic and that was indeed proven to be true after the takeover in October 2000. Nobody, however, prosecuted him. This Nenad Djordjevic, known as Kundak, was very prominent in that regime.

THE INTERPRETER: The speaker has to slow down, both of them.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Again, look at the transcript. Interpreters. So, Mr. Seselj, you say for a number of reasons, which include not knowing two of these persons or knowing them only for a relatively short time in terms of the relevant times in the paragraph or because of your political opposition to some of them, the allegation in paragraph 7 is untrue.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. It is impossible that I should belong to any sort of joint enterprise with these people, especially criminal. It leaves only Arkan with whom I was constantly in conflict, and I was the only politician in Belgrade who was not afraid of always attacking Arkan publicly. And when I appeared in court, he withdrew his charges against me. He didn't dare appear in court. And that was -- he was a very dangerous man at the time.

It's simply improbable that we were all enumerated here as a group that had a common plan, common project, common enterprise. We spent much more energy on our internal conflicts and clashes than we had to spend on any sort of cooperation between any two of us.

JUDGE ROBINSON: And of course Mr. Milosevic didn't deal with himself, but you were in political opposition to Mr. Milosevic.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. There was only one period of intense cooperation from March or April 1993 until September 1993. After ⁴³³⁰⁷ the elections in December 1992, Milosevic's party was the strongest in nominal terms, but it didn't have majority in the parliament. The second largest one was the Serbian Radical Party. Milosevic's party offered to form a coalition with us, and in the headquarters of the Socialist Party the Prime Minister designate Nikola Sainovic offered us to become part of the government. I as president of the Radical Party refused it. I said it's impossible because we are ideological opponents. However, we can give you a chance. We can support a minority government for a while and if we are not happy later, we will topple it. We supported that minority government of Sainovic for about six months, after which we moved to topple it and that led to the fiercest conflict ever between the Serbian Radical Party and Mr. Milosevic.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. In these assassinations, Mr. Seselj, of people such as Badza, Zoran Todorovic, Bosko Perosevic, Zika Petrovic, general director of Yugoslav airlines, I don't want to forget any of them --

A. Pavle Bulatovic.

Q. Pavle Bulatovic, minister of defence. It was mainly my political friends and sympathisers that were killed.

A. Although we have to say about Badza that he was involved in some tobacco smuggling with a man called Cane Zabac, but this Cane Zabac was a close associate of Zoran Djindjic for whom he organised various plane trips to Arab Emirates to celebrate the new year. Cane Zabac was one of his main financiers. ⁴³³⁰⁸ By some lapse of attention, probably, this -- Badza got involved with Cane Zabac, and at one point he must have gotten in his way when the latter ordered his liquidation.

Q. The next person on this list is Zeljko Raznjatovic, Arkan. But I believe you have provided sufficient explanation about that already. If you don't think you have said enough about your relationship with him, you can add to what you said yesterday about Arkan.

JUDGE ROBINSON: You have said enough.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If you feel it's enough, I won't insist. I spoke most about him while he was alive. Now that he's dead, I don't really feel comfortable talking about it but I do have to for the sake of the truth.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. We have evidence of that.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Now, when you look at this entire list, Mr. Seselj, it's in paragraph 7, it follows that some of these alleged participants in the joint criminal enterprise with whom you are joined in this paragraph are people you had never met, and with some of them you were in constant conflict.

A. And with some occasionally in conflict.

Q. Yes, with some occasionally in conflict. Some of them have been accused of certain crimes. I won't go into that. Some not. Do you have any explanation for this?

A. I think this was drawn up off the top of somebody's head and is not grounded in any facts. ⁴³³⁰⁹

JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm not going to allow that. It can't help the trial to have the witness explain why a particular person was charged with a crime. That's not helping the case. So ask another question, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. In connection with Arkan, you mentioned Dolanc.

A. Yes. And he was one of the most powerful people in Tito's time. After Tito's death, he was still one of the most powerful people around.

Q. Let us now move on from the topic of Arkan which you explained yesterday. You attacked Dolanc in public more than once?

A. Yes.

Q. In tabs 9, 10, and 11 there are excerpts from your book, "The Campaign Against Heretics," in which, would you please just take a look, you published letters which you sent to the federal public prosecutor of Yugoslavia.

A. There were also two open letters to Dolanc.

Q. Two open letters to Dolanc and one letter to the federal public prosecutor.

A. Yes.

Q. The first open letter sent to Dolanc, it says: "To Stane Dolanc, member of the Presidency of the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia." The second letter also --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, do we need to go as far back as 1987? What is the next letter dated?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No, we don't. I simply wanted to ⁴³³¹⁰ link this up, because Mr. Seselj was talking about the role of Dolanc, from that time the role of Arkan in connection with Dolanc's activities and his personal conflict and attempt to have Dolanc held responsible.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I can understand, your point is that in Dolanc's time Arkan became an untouchable criminal figure in Belgrade and all of the former Yugoslavia. He was really so powerful, so strong financially that one could do anything about him. I remember a detail. In 1993, I learned that Zeljko Raznjatovic, Arkan, had in Belgrade kidnapped and taken to Erdut and there killed Isa Lero. Isa Lero was also a man from the criminal underground who had come into conflict with Arkan. I even found a witness to the murder. I publicly accused Arkan. I submitted a report to the police. The police inspectors came to see me. We talked about it. I gave them all the information I had, but then the police inspector told me that they were aware of it but that they were unable to prove it because of the fear among the potential witnesses. So the police was quite well-informed about his criminal activities, but it was very hard to prove anything or to bring charges because his support network was so widespread, and this can be shown through various newspaper articles and so on. In one television statement, I told him when we were debating on TV, that he had pulled a sock over his head more often than I had pulled one on my feet.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We don't need all those details.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Seselj, commenting on the questions that have to do with these ⁴³³¹¹ alleged members of the so-called joint criminal enterprise that Mr. Nice is insisting on, you explained, when talking of your relations with Milan Babic, something about the Vance Plan pursuant to which the Blue Helmets arrived in the Krajina. Tell us, as you were very actively involved in all this, you were supporting Babic at the time and you were very familiar in great details with all the activities taking place in this connection, pursuant to the Vance Plan the Security Council established the UNPROFOR for, the UN protection force. That is not in dispute. Based on what you know and the situation on the ground or, rather, what you know about the situation on the ground, who were these forces supposed to protect and from whom?

A. These forces deployed on the territory of the Republic of Serbian Krajina were supposed to defend the Serbian population from the Croatian authorities. When this plan was established, the Serb army was disarmed. Its weapons were put into depots with a double lock. One key was in the keeping of the Serbian army of the Serbian Krajina, and the other was in the keeping of UNPROFOR officers.

The Vance Plan did not pre-judge a political solution to the problem. The problems remained to be solved through negotiations involving all the interested parties, primarily the political representatives of the Serbs from the Krajina and the political representatives of the Serbs from Croatia, but since the UN troops had taken control over the area and guaranteed security for the Serb population, in spite of this the Croatian forces brutally trampled on the agreement, attacked the Serb population, taking areas such as the Miljevac ^{43312 BLANK PAGE 43313} plateau and so on and so forth.

The United Nations and the Western forces unfortunately tolerated this. Ultimately, the Croats wages an aggression first against one part and then another part of the Krajina in spite of the fact that UN forces were still there causing an exodus of the entire Serb population and killing many civilians, many women, children, and elderly people. Unfortunately, only General Gotovina and some others have been indicted here. The main perpetrators have never been indicted. And this was the biggest exodus in Europe and it's still going on. The Serb population still has not returned. Either they have nowhere to return to or they don't dare return.

Q. Mr. Seselj, you will recall and I believe that Lord Owen started this here and wrote about it in his book, he called the attack on the Krajina the greatest ethnic cleansing during the conflict in the former Yugoslavia.

A. Yes. This is correct. However, the Americans through the Pentagon took a direct part in this ethnic cleansing. As you know, the Pentagon has a very powerful company which is formerly a private company but under its direct control. It's called Military Professional Resource more or less.

Q. MPRI?

A. MPRI, yes. That's the name of this company which employs pensioned generals, retired generals and officers to go throughout the world where the American army is avoiding direct involvement. During the attack on the Republika Srpska Krajina, the American ⁴³³¹⁴ ambassador in Zagreb Peter Galbraith stood on a Serb tank killing Serb -- on a Croatian tank killing Serb civilians. And this could be seen on television, Peter Galbraith in action.

Q. Let's leave this aside for a moment. Is it clear to you how it was possible for a plan like that which was well known, it must have been well known. In the case of Operation Flash, I presented here a stenogram I received from Mr. Nice where you could see how they were preparing, how they were staging an attack, where there is evidence that there was a criminal plan to kill and expel the Serbs. What is your explanation that only one general is indicted for this?

A. To avoid punishing --

JUDGE ROBINSON: No. Not allowed. Not allowed. He can't give any useful answer to that.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Nice could probably give us a response, and he will have to at some point, and Madam Del Ponte. Not everyone listening to this is an idiot.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic. Mr. Milosevic, you are to proceed with your questions. If you have no more questions, we will stop.

MR. NICE: I think that last point ought to be addressed. Again, there's no question of either myself or the Prosecutor Madam Del Ponte, being obliged to answer questions of that kind coming from the accused. It's irrelevant to the matter of this inquiry.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Perhaps he was referring to your closing address but never mind. We have two more minutes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I didn't mean that. I just wanted ⁴³³¹⁵ to express my conviction that Mr. Nice is labouring under the illusion that he will not be held criminally responsible for the crime he is perpetrating here. Not before your Bench, of course, but he will because he is one of the criminals who --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I'm going to stop on that on that -- I'm going to stop on that note. That comment is entirely inappropriate and totally without any base or foundation.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I've stopped. We will adjourn for today.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Before you conclude --

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] My right and your obligation to inform you of the following --

JUDGE ROBINSON: What are you informing me of? Go ahead.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No. This is a completely different matter.

JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues] ... matter?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I believe it is, and it has to do with the hearing held here about Greater Serbia and Mr. Nice's standpoints and his explanations and so on and so forth.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm not going to hear anything of that. We are adjourned until 9.00 tomorrow morning.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Tomorrow?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Sorry. We are adjourned until Tuesday of next week. Tuesday of next week. ⁴³³¹⁶

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.43 p.m., to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 30th day

of August, 2005, at 9.00 a.m.