UK MP testifies that Racak was “suspicious”; trial takes week-long adjournment to prepare for “big witness” Momir Bulatovic

For the second time in as many weeks, Slobodan Milosevic called an international witness who testified that he was the perhaps the one leader in all the former Yugoslavia who tried to prevent the country from breaking apart.   Echoing the remarks of former Canadian Ambassador to Yugoslavia James Bissett, who testified last week, Alice Mahon, former veteran Labour Party MP from Halifax, UK said the Accused was the “only one trying to keep Yugoslavia together.”

Back to Kosovo

The majority of Mahon’s testimony however, focused on the war in Kosovo.  Mahon, an eighteen year MP and member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly established at the outset that she was “totally opposed to the illegal bombing” of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and denied that an impending humanitarian disaster was unfolding in Kosovo at the time of the NATO intervention in 1999.   Mahon had been on the ground in Macedonia as part of NATO parliamentary committee visit only weeks before the bombing began and based her opinion on discussions she had with officials and soldiers on the ground.  For the witness, all appeared to be fine in the period leading up to the bombing: “I didn’t feel there was going to be a mass exodus from Kosovo” she testified.   Mahon said she personally had a chance to discuss Kosovo with the Prime Minister Tony Blair and/or members of his cabinet.  She said that Foreign Secretary Robin Cook had told the parliament in June 1999, the largest numbers of violations were committed by the KLA and this indicated that Yugoslavia was “keeping their end of the bargain.”

Prosecutor Nice objected to this line of testimony claiming it was of “limited” evidentiary value.  Court-assigned defense counsel Steven Kay responded that Mahon’s testimony was probative as the Accused’s case is one of self-defense – that is to say, that the KLA was acting in a way as to provoke a Serb response and that the confrontation was staged, in part with western (NATO) complicity.  This testimony could be interpreted as informative to offer perspectives about what was happening in one NATO capital - London – and could assist the court in better understanding the defense case.  

Witness offers political opinion

Mahon’s testimony however veered sharply into the political as she testified that the reason behind the NATO bombing was “purely political,” that “America ran NATO with absolute power” and suggested that the bombing campaign was a distraction for a domestic American audience - citing for example that “we knew Bill Clinton was in a mess politically” (at home due to the Lewinsky scandal.)   Mahon attempted to organize a vote in the UK Parliament opposing NATO intervention and claimed that it eventually paved the way for other non-UN-authorized actions such as the invasion of Iraq.  “I feel passionately that NATO should be in the dock as well,” she said. 

Mahon acknowledged to the court that her views on events in the former Yugoslavia were indeed political – since she was a politician by profession – Judge Robinson however said there was no need apologize for being a member of a “noble profession.”   

Back to Racak

Milosevic brought the witness to the January 1999 Racak incident and in particular questioned her about the role of the Kosovo Verification Mission and its chief, US diplomat William Walker.  Mahon testified that “the view was that Walker had arranged” the alleged Racak massacre somehow to buttress NATO’s justification for launching strikes against the FRY.   Mahon however produced no evidence to support this claim which Judge Robinson cautioned was an extremely serious allegation.  Mahon clarified that Walker’s purported hand in the Racak slayings were only what other people had concluded and that it was merely one viewpoint out there, but she herself also believed “there was something suspicious about Racak.” 

The direct examination of Mahon was terminated early by Judge Robinson who became flustered that Milosevic continued to ask about her about the alleged criminal activities of the KLA – including drug smuggling and white salve trafficking, instead of focusing on refuting specific allegations of criminality by the accused or forces under his command.  Mahon did repeat a point that explained the position of Milosevic’s government – she likened the situation in Kosovo to that of Northern Ireland and its troubles.  Milosevic, she said was only doing what any other leader faced with internal strife would do. 

Chatter

On cross examination, prosecutor Nice first noted that the OTP did not doubt the sincerity with which the witness held her beliefs or opinions, but did intend to vigorously test the way she acquired her knowledge about her testimony.  For example, when Mahon said that the OSCE had been highly influenced or even infiltrated by the American CIA, the Prosecutor asked her on what basis she made that assertion.  Mahon could only answer “chatting to NGOs, talking to people in Kosovo, on the ground, talking to soldiers” and that there was only a “general view held that the Americans had a huge influence.”   When asked what evidence she had that William Walker purportedly staged the alleged Racak massacre, Mahon could not directly produce evidence but instead noted that controversy over Racak exists: “there was a huge debate over Racak” she said and noted that the Committee for Peace in the Balkans (an organization dedicated to non-intervention in the Balkans, which she chaired) “heard speakers about [Racak]” and that the view of many people was that it was not a massacre but instead the result of a firefight between KLA forces and Yugoslav security forces.   When asked to point to the best piece of evidence that Walker set up Racak, she could only say that there were “all kinds of forensic disputes.”  She relied heavily on her impressions of Walker and his controversial tenure as Ambassador to El Salvador, including accusations by some groups of helping cover up political assassinations. 

Finally like with other defense witnesses who have testified that Milosevic attempted to hold Yugoslavia together and could not be blamed for its breakup, the Prosecution confronted her with intercepts of discussions between the Accused and Bosnian Serb Leader Radovan Karadzic discussing the departure of Slovenia from the federation. 

Judge Robinson noted that the witness did not have “any specific knowledge” about many of the questions Milosevic asked.

Other trial matters: President Bulatovic on his way, perhaps President Clinton?

Week-long adjournment

The Chamber granted assigned defense counsel request to adjourn the trial for a week to allow for the Accused to prepare the next witness, former Montenegro President Momir Bulatovic.  Bulatovic is arriving to The Hague on Tuesday (having been delayed due to family illness) and as he is, according to Steven Kay, a critical witness for the defense he requires a great deal of preparation.  The trial will resume on 14 March.   Bulatovic was the Montenegro representative of the joint Yugoslav Presidency during the break-up of the country and is named as a member of the joint-criminal enterprise in the Milosevic indictment.  He was personally involved in many of the key political decision-making events that led to the collapse of Yugoslavia and may prove to be a very critical witness indeed.

Subpoena request for President Clinton

Assigned counsel for Milosevic have filed a request to have the Trial Chamber subpoena former US President Bill Clinton to testify for the defense.  Clinton was intimately familiar with Milosevic’s role in the signing of the Dayton accords.  It is the defense case that the accused attempted to prevent conflict and create peace in the region and it is hoped that Clinton can provide evidence in support of this claim.  According to the request the subject matter that Milosevic would like to question Clinton about ranges inter alia from information published in Clinton’s memoir My Life, alleged US support for Bosnia and Croatia in their war efforts against ethnic Serb political entities and US support for the KLA.  Assigned defense counsel argue that while the Prosecution was able to call many high-level political leaders to testify against Milosevic, it would be prejudicial that the Accused not have the same opportunity to call such witnesses.

In early December of 2005, the Trial Chamber denied a similar request by defense counsel to call UK Prime Minister Tony Blair and former German Chancellor Gehardt Schröder to the stand.   The standard for issuing a subpoena considers two factors: 1) whether the information is necessary for resolution of specific issues in the trial; and 2) whether the information is obtainable by other means.  Then, the court believed that any putative testimony that could be offered by Blair or Schröder would be irrelevant as nothing suggests that either had personal, first-hand knowledge of events on the ground, alleged in the indictment.   The defense did point out that the Blair and Schröder were the appropriate figures who could testify as to Milosevic’s efforts to bring peace to Kosovo and the Balkans in general.  This claim, however, was dismissed by the court as being unrelated to any specific charge against Milosevic.  Discussion of his peace efforts do not assist the trial chamber in determining whether or not Milosevic was criminally liable for the atrocities that are alleged to have taken place under his command in Kosovo.  

This ruling may help predict how the court will deal with the subpoena request for President Clinton.  Milosevic’s request to subpoena the former US President certainly contains more elements of personal first-hand knowledge about certain matters, notably peace efforts, but the Trial Chamber has so far attempted to confine defense matters to the specific factual allegations in the indictment tied to events on the ground and has stated it has heard enough rebuttal evidence to so-called “background” allegations in the indictment.

Time left: an end in sight?

By various calculations, Slobodan Milosevic has approximately anywhere between 10-12 full working days left to present the remainder of his defense case.   Along with time for the prosecution to cross-examine, (which has so far consumed over 220 hours compared to the roughly 320 hours used by Milosevic) it is possible that the case could reach an end by mid-May, sitting three times a week.  Milosevic has hardly addressed the counts in the Bosnia indictment, which include charges of genocide.  This may be part of a strategy to run down the clock and buy himself some more time to address what many consider the most important charges.  The Trial Chamber has long indicated that it will not grant his repeated requests for additional time as he has chosen to spend nearly 75-80% of his allotted time focusing on charges related to Kosovo.  360 hours is certainly a daunting amount of time to defend charges that span the course of a decade but it is also the time allotted to the Prosecution.  Perhaps the judges will terminate Milosevic’s defense when he runs out of time, but may allow assigned defense counsel to present some evidence on Bosnia if Milosevic does not get around to it in order to hear some points which could cast reasonable doubt on the Prosecution’s case.  In the past however, defense witnesses have been reluctant to appear unless called by the accused himself.