Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 43203

1 Thursday, 25 August 2005

2 [Open session]

3 [The witness entered court]

4 [The accused entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 9.07 a.m.

6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, continue with your

7 examination-in-chief.


9 [Witness answered through interpreter]

10 Examined by Mr. Milosevic: [Continued]

11 Q. [Interpretation] Yesterday we stopped at the point when we were

12 discussing the role of the army and the position that the army had at that

13 time. In paragraph 85 of the Croatian part -- could you please be so kind

14 as to find it.

15 A. 85, you said?

16 Q. Yes, yes. It's on page 24 of that part. Because this book does

17 not have proper pagination, it consists of different parts with different

18 paginations.

19 A. I found it.

20 Q. It is stated here that there in Croatia, not to go into all the

21 dates now, although they are totally absurd in view of the situation in

22 Yugoslavia then, it says that there was partial occupation. Could you

23 please explain that to me? You were there. You were following the flow

24 of events, and you also know history. Is it possible for someone to

25 occupy some territories where they actually live, where their homes are

Page 43204

1 and the foundations of those homes were laid by their ancestors centuries

2 ago? He wakes up one morning and somebody says that he's occupied

3 something. You've dealt with this in theory, too, so could you please

4 tell us?

5 A. Of course that's impossible, Mr. Milosevic. In all of the

6 Republic of Croatia in 1991, there was no occupation. What was at play

7 was a Croat separatist uprising, illegal, anti-constitutional, therefore

8 unlawful. The only legal armed force was the Yugoslav People's Army. It

9 is total nonsense to say there was partial occupation from the 8th of

10 October, 1991, onwards.

11 From the 8th of October, 1991, onwards, the Croat separatist

12 leadership unilaterally declared independence. However, Croatia was not

13 internationally recognised as an independent state. It was still illegal,

14 even after the 8th of October. What was happening in Croatia was an armed

15 conflict, but of an internal nature. Actually, a civil war caused by a

16 separatist uprising.

17 The Yugoslav People's Army could not have been an occupier in any

18 part of the then still existing SFRY, Socialist Federal Republic of

19 Yugoslavia.

20 Q. What about the Serbs in Krajina? Could they have carried out that

21 occupation of their own homes and their own towns and villages?

22 A. It was absolutely impossible for them to carry out an occupation

23 of their own villages, towns, homes, properties. In all those parts of

24 Krajina the Serbs were majority population, and at the local elections

25 they mostly won and set up a local government. The Serbs were quite

Page 43205

1 simply trying to protect themselves from the newly established Ustasha

2 regime that was already invoking the ideology and symbols of the Ustasha

3 fascist regime from the Second World War.

4 Q. What about the army, since we've dealt with that subject

5 considerably yesterday? What about the army that was in that territory

6 for 70 years? It had its garrisons, barracks, and all of that. And after

7 all, the army legitimately existed in that territory. And then in that

8 year, 1991, they were encircled in their barracks and exposed to certain

9 pressure all the way up to killings. Could they have been treated as an

10 occupier? What did they come there? They came there 70 years ago

11 consisting of members of different ethnicities from all over Yugoslavia

12 and all of a sudden --

13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, you're combining question with

14 comment. Put your question directly.

15 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

16 Q. So, generally speaking, in view of its status, could the army have

17 been an occupier, and specifically in 1991 in view of the events that had

18 to do with it could it have been an occupier?

19 A. Absolutely it could not have been an occupier. I've already said

20 that it was the only legal armed force, and the military security service

21 presented to the public in a documented fashion, it was all over

22 television as far back as January 1991, that is to say, information about

23 the illegal arming of Croatian paramilitary formations, particularly the

24 so-called National Guards Corps, the ZNG. Enormous quantities of weapons

25 were coming in through Hungary. To a lesser extent, the arms were

Page 43206

1 Hungarian made, and mostly they were from the warehouses of the former

2 East Germany. The German government wanted as urgently as possible to get

3 rid of all of that, so it came as a welcome development to them to arm

4 their Croat allies in this way.

5 There is detailed testimony to that effect by the Croatian general

6 Martin Spegelj who was before that commander -- a general of the Yugoslav

7 People's Army, then commander of the Zagreb district, and then in

8 Croatia --

9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Seselj. Mr. Seselj, thank you. Mr. Seselj,

10 I wanted to ask you whether your only reason for saying that there was no

11 occupation after the 8th of October, 1991 is that you do not recognise

12 Croatian independence on that day.

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You are saying that I do not

14 recognise it? No one in the world recognised Croatia's independence.

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

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's the reason, but not the only

17 one. Yugoslavia still existed as an internationally recognised state.

18 Not even the secession of Slovenia had been recognised by then, although

19 the JNA had on the basis of an agreement withdrawn from Slovenia. The

20 former Yugoslavia still existed at the time. It was a subject of

21 international law. It was a member of the United Nations, and no one in

22 the world brought into question its territorial integrity.

23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

24 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

25 Q. Mr. Seselj, I suggest to you in relation to this answer to read

Page 43207

1 paragraph 110 now. That's only a few pages onwards. Paragraph 110.

2 A. It is stated here openly: "The SFRY existed as a sovereign state

3 until the 27th of April, 1992, when the constitution of the Federal

4 Republic of Yugoslavia was adopted replacing the constitution of the

5 Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia of 1974." That is openly

6 admitted here in the indictment.

7 The proclamation of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was

8 preceded by the international legal recognition although in an unlawful

9 way of Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Macedonia. Why do I say

10 in an unlawful way? According to international law, the independence of

11 newly created states could not have been recognised in territories that

12 were not under the control of the central government. Croatia was

13 recognised, first of all by the Vatican and Germany and then all the other

14 Western powers as an independent state although the central government in

15 Zagreb did not control even a third of the territory of the -- of the

16 Croatian territory. Two-thirds were controlled by.

17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Seselj, very soon Mr. Nice will be on his

18 feet making the point that you are not here as a legal expert, because if

19 you are here as an expert, then notice would have had to be begin of your

20 testimony. So although you're a lawyer and a professor, bear that in

21 mind. These are thorny legal issues that the Chamber will have to deal

22 with. You're here as a witness as to facts.

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I am testifying about

24 facts only, but along with those facts I have to give a certain

25 explanation. You know, I'm not an illiterate or semi-literate witness

Page 43208

1 here who is just guessing. I base my facts that I present on the real

2 situation and on law.

3 JUDGE ROBINSON: I have given you a certain leeway.

4 Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I assume that this

6 cautioning of yours does not pertain to the fact that Mr. Seselj just read

7 out paragraph 110 in which the other side wrote that the SFRY existed as a

8 sovereign state until the 27th of April, 1992. Would that be a fact that

9 they would challenge?

10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic. I have taken note of that.

11 I'm merely speaking as to the capacity in which he's testifying here.

12 Please continue with the examination.

13 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

14 Q. What did they recognise? You can see that better if you open

15 paragraphs 89 and 90. I'm going to ask you kindly to read out both,

16 because that's what they wrote before they were ordered to issue an

17 indictment for Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina.

18 Please read out paragraphs 89 and 90.

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

20 Q. No, no. The Kosovo indictment.

21 A. I see. Towards the end of June 1991, the SFRY began to

22 disintegrate in a succession of wars fought in the Republic of Slovenia,

23 hereinafter Slovenia, the Republic of Croatia, hereinafter Croatia, and

24 Bosnia-Herzegovina. On the 25th of June, 1991, Slovenia declared its

25 independence from the SFRY which lead to the outbreak of war. A peace

Page 43209

1 agreement was reached on the 8th of July, 1991. Croatia declared its

2 independence on the 25th of June, 1991, leading to fighting between

3 Croatian military forces on the one side and the JNA, paramilitary units,

4 and the army of Republika Srpska Krajina on the other.

5 On the 6th of March, 1992, Bosnia-Herzegovina declared its

6 independence resulting --

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

8 and 90.

9 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

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

11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Oh, the Kosovo indictment. You have gone back to

12 Kosovo now. And it's not for you to read out the indictment,

13 Mr. Milosevic. Make a summary and put your question based on a summary of

14 the paragraphs. We know the witness is literate and that he can read.

15 There is no need for him to read it out.

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

17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Very well. I take that.

18 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

19 Q. So, Mr. Seselj, this is a document of theirs where they're

20 presenting accusations regarding Kosovo. But have you noticed that these

21 paragraphs pertain to Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Have you seen that?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. So it is said here quite decidedly, I mean this indictment was

Page 43210

1 written before they had received orders to issue an indictment for Croatia

2 and Bosnia-Herzegovina, so they did not know that they would have to do

3 that. Croatia proclaimed its independence --

4 MR. NICE: [Previous translation continues] ... engaged in any of

5 these points the accused is trying to make. They plainly have nothing to

6 do with this witness. I invite the Chamber to compel the witness to get

7 on with evidence of facts.

8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let me hear the question you're putting,

9 Mr. Milosevic.

10 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

11 Q. So in paragraph 89, it says that the declaration of independence

12 led to war, and in 90 they say for Bosnia-Herzegovina that the declaration

13 of independence led to an all-out war. Now I'm asking you the following:

14 What was written here pertains to Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina.

15 JUDGE ROBINSON: And that's the -- there's an allegation, you say,

16 that the declaration of independence led to war. That's a question of

17 fact. What is the question that you wish to put to Mr. Seselj?

18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Both. I want to ask him whether it

19 is possible if others create war, whether it is possible to speak of a

20 criminal enterprise on the part of anyone in Serbia.

21 JUDGE ROBINSON: No. I'm not allowing that. That's just wholly

22 speculative and not a proper question.

23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Wait a minute, Mr. Robinson. How

24 can the Serbs attain some objectives or carry out some plans through wars

25 created by others? That is a perfectly legitimate question.

Page 43211

1 JUDGE ROBINSON: That's an argument for you to present in your

2 closing address. That's not matter for the witness.

3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, paragraph 22 of this

4 part about Croatia, and I think it's also part 22 -- or paragraph 22 of

5 the Bosnian part, exclusively pertains to Mr. Seselj. He, as they say in

6 paragraph 9 --

7 JUDGE ROBINSON: 22? Haven't you dealt with the question of

8 Mr. Seselj providing assistance to Serb volunteers?

9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Please, let us just get this clear.

10 It has to do with joint criminal enterprise.

11 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

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

13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Of the --

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

15 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

16 Q. It says before that that I was this joint criminal enterprise, and

17 then it says: "Each participant or co-perpetrator within the joint

18 criminal enterprise played his own role or roles that significantly

19 contributed to the overall objective of the enterprise. The roles of the

20 participants or co-perpetrators include but are not limited to the

21 following," and then -- and all these names are mentioned, and then in

22 paragraph 22 we see your name, Vojislav Seselj. So you're included in

23 this joint criminal enterprise, and that's why I'm asking you what I asked

24 you a few moments ago. When others create war, then you are engaged in a

25 joint criminal enterprise that was headed by me.

Page 43212












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 43213

1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I've already ruled on that

2 question. You must proceed with another question.

3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'll move on. I'll move on to

4 another question, but I'm going to quote paragraph 22 again.

5 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

6 Q. These epithets --

7 JUDGE ROBINSON: To what effect are you quoting it again? It's

8 there in front of us. If you have a specific question to put, put it and

9 let's get on.

10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, because I think that Mr.

11 Seselj should answer questions that have to do with Mr. Nice's favourite

12 topic, and some others, too, those that have to do with the Greater

13 Serbia.

14 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

15 Q. Mr. Seselj, these volunteers that they mention here commonly known

16 as Chetniks, Seselj's men, et cetera, we clarified that yesterday

17 concerning volunteers and their status. And then the last sentence in

18 paragraph 22 reads as follows: "In addition, he openly espoused and

19 encouraged creation of a Greater Serbia by violence and other unlawful

20 means and actively participated in war propaganda and spreading

21 interethnic hatred."

22 So directly in these accusations levelled against me here you are

23 mentioned as a participant in a joint criminal enterprise. Now I wish to

24 ask you about this violence, these unlawful means through which you

25 endeavoured to create a Greater Serbia and about the spread of national

Page 43214

1 hatred. In order to get a clear explanation, let us see how much this has

2 to do with real facts, what is written here.

3 A. Only one thing is a fact here --

4 JUDGE BONOMY: There's no question there in my opinion. Yesterday

5 Mr. Seselj made it abundantly clear that he did espouse the concept of a

6 Greater Serbia but certainly not by violent or any other unlawful means.

7 This matter has been dealt with over and over again in the course of the

8 evidence so far of this witness, and there was no question there and the

9 whole point seems to me simply to be an exercise in making submissions

10 which will be -- and the stage for which will be reached much later in the

11 trial.

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

13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I will ask specific

14 questions dealing with this, and they deserve an explanation.

15 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

16 Q. So, Mr. Seselj, you openly advocated the concept of Greater

17 Serbia, and your newspaper, the newspaper of your party, as we have seen

18 from previous quotations, is called Greater Serbia. What kind of idea is

19 that?

20 A. This is a ideological concept, and it was first mentioned in

21 public all the way back in 1683 when the Turks were defeated. Djordje

22 Brankovic, a prominent leader from that time, addressed --

23 JUDGE BONOMY: Why don't we find out what Mr. Seselj thinks about

24 the Greater Serbia rather than a 16th century or 17th century concept?

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Bonomy, I understand the concept

Page 43215

1 of Greater Serbia as it was originally understood and designed in the 17th

2 century. However, in many trials that took place before The Hague

3 Tribunal, and I must say I read most of the judgements, many witnesses,

4 illiterate and semi-literate, speak of Greater Serbia without knowing what

5 it means. And in the judgements later, their words are taken

6 unquestioningly. I, as a leading nationalist and ideologist of today and

7 a scholar can give you the original meaning of the concept of Greater

8 Serbia, and I think it would be useful for this trial and other trials

9 conducted here as well.

10 Nobody here, none of those accused of taking part in the joint

11 criminal enterprise never worked for a Greater Serbia. It never crossed

12 their mind. Something that I held as a personal view is being ascribed in

13 this indictment to other people who had nothing to do with it.

14 Now, let me explain what the idea means, what the concept of

15 Greater Serbia actually means. And I will try to be brief and very

16 concise, whenever I deal with some historical ideas and concepts. But I

17 would really like to explain this.

18 JUDGE BONOMY: And what you've said so far, that you held

19 something as a personal view about Greater Serbia, and that's what we want

20 to hear. We don't want to know the detail of how that evolved, unless it

21 becomes relevant as a result of what you say about your own personal

22 understanding of it.

23 MR. NICE: I was going to add this point: The question of Greater

24 Serbia was touched upon in the opening only insofar as it fell from the

25 mouths of others, including this man. It appears in the way we've already

Page 43216

1 seen in the Croatian indictment.

2 It was touched upon, I think, in the background historical

3 evidence to the extent thought necessary by the Prosecution. It was

4 substantially enlarged upon by witnesses either listed as and called as

5 experts or as factual witnesses in the accused's case, and Chamber will

6 have in mind both Mihailovics, Avramov, Popov, Terzic. There is no need

7 for further alleged expertise certainly coming from a witness who hasn't

8 served a report, and I respectfully adopt the position proposed by His

9 Honour Judge Bonomy.

10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, just let me draw your

11 attention to one fact.

12 JUDGE ROBINSON: The Chamber is consulting.

13 [Trial Chamber confers]

14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Seselj, we'll hear you on in concept of

15 Greater Serbia. It may be necessary, as you say, to delve into the

16 history, but do that very briefly. Come to the modern-day concept and let

17 us know what you understood the Greater Serbia concept to mean. So very

18 briefly now let's hear it.

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The concept --

20 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

21 Q. Mr. Seselj --

22 JUDGE ROBINSON: You are not to interrupt. I have asked the

23 witness a question, and I'm allowed to.

24 Proceed.

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

Page 43217

1 JUDGE ROBINSON: I am stopping you. I've stopped you.

2 Mr. Seselj, I've asked you a question. Answer it.

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The concept of Greater Serbia

4 implies a unified Serbian state including all Serbian lands where Serbs

5 are a majority population. However, it is opposed to century-long

6 Vatican, Austrian and other attempts to reduce the Serbian people only to

7 members of the Orthodox Christian religion because the Serbian people in

8 its ethnic being includes Orthodox, Catholic, and Muslim Serbs equally.

9 Djordje Brankovic, when he dealt with the Austrian emperor, when

10 the Austrian army was advancing against the Turks and freed many Serbian

11 lands, so Djordje Brankovic asked about those Serbian lands. And what is

12 defined as a Serbian land, where Serbian language is spoken. He asked

13 from the Austrian emperor that all these Serbian lands become a special

14 unit within the Empire, and the Austrian emperor accepted this request,

15 appointed him a count, gave him the title, and made him governor of Banat

16 and some other lands.

17 So when Austria freed many of those lands, it suddenly became

18 frightened of the idea, because the Serbs occupied a great part of the

19 Balkan, and Djordje Brankovic was exiled to Hebar, and actually limited to

20 that area. He was being kept, provided for, but not allowed to leave.

21 In 1983, Arsenije Gagovic asked for Russian help to free the

22 Serbian land from Turkish yoke and then Austrian yoke. That is when the

23 concept is written about for the second time. And the third mention of

24 that concept dates back to the first great uprising against the Turks in

25 1844. So that is basically a freedom-loving idea, the idea of being

Page 43218

1 liberated from the Turkish yoke in which we lived for five centuries, from

2 the Austrian yoke in which we also lives for centuries, and then the

3 Venetian yoke as well.

4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let me summarise, then, the concept as you said.

5 The unified Serbian state with all Serbian lands where Serbs are a

6 majority population, and that includes Orthodox, Catholic, and Muslim

7 Serbs equally, and that is in contradistinction to the century-long

8 Vatican position. That's clear.

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

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

11 details.

12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, are you saying it's not an important

13 part of the Prosecution case?

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

15 JUDGE ROBINSON: It's the main basis on which the three

16 indictments are joined. The main basis in the appeals judgement.

17 MR. NICE: The difference between the concept of all Serbs living

18 in one state, the accused's notion, and the historical concept of Greater

19 Serbia about which we've heard a very great deal and about which great

20 argue may or may not validly be heard in this court, and we've always

21 accepted that the accused has either never used the words Greater Serbia

22 himself or has only ever used them in attribution to others but that

23 others such as this man have used the term, and we've always

24 distinguished - and if you look at my opening you'll find this - between

25 the words used by others and our case which is that this accused was

Page 43219

1 motivated by the desire to have all Serbs live in one state, in part. If

2 he wasn't motivated by that he was motivated by other objectives that were

3 personal to him that built upon that particular concept.

4 Now, it may be at the end of the day that there is little or no

5 difference between the practical realities of one and another, but one is

6 definitely a term of historical art and is not one that we have -- at

7 least not one that I have used specifically in respect of this accused,

8 and I've always been very cautious about that.

9 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Seselj, I have one question about your

10 definition. Included within that description you said: "And what is

11 defined as a Serbian land, where Serbian language is spoken." Now, did

12 you mean to say that?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

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

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

16 JUDGE BONOMY: So Serbian lands in this definition includes what,

17 the whole of Yugoslavia?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: All right. Well, I'm confused, you see, about that

20 description. Nothing to do with history --

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, again, you gave more time to

22 Mr. Nice than to me, whereas I'm the one testifying about it. I really

23 wish to explain and I really will be brief.

24 JUDGE BONOMY: You said something that I would like you to

25 clarify. Now, what is the extent to which the Serbian language is spoken

Page 43220

1 according to your understanding of this definition of this Greater Serbia?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. An overwhelming majority of

3 today's Croats are Serb Catholics, Catholic Serbs. All Muslims in Bosnia

4 and Herzegovina and the area of Raska are Muslim Serbs, whereas the

5 concept of Croat had three ethnic meanings through history. The first

6 Croats were a people of Western Slav origin, close to Poles and Czechs.

7 They inhabited the Balkans between Gvozd and the Adriatic Sea. They had

8 their own language which was called Cakavski in linguistics. It was a

9 small territory, and in the 11th century it reached up to the Vrbas River.

10 I suppose you know it's a river flowing through Banja Luka. It was under

11 the Croatian King Petar Kresimir.

12 That population that later became scattered deep into Europe

13 against the advance of the Turks, they were Catholics, and they ran away

14 before the Turks. You have such Croats nowadays in Gradiska, in Austria,

15 in Czechoslovakia, et cetera. They are the real Croats. When Croatia

16 fell under the Turkish yoke almost completely, then the Hungarian king

17 moved part of the Croats to Slavonia. Slavonia was inhabited by

18 Carpathians.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: Can you just answer the question, which is the

20 extent to which the Serbian language is spoken. That means today or at

21 the time of the conflict, rather, according to your definition of this

22 Greater Serbia. Why can't you just tell me that? That's the fact I'd

23 like to know about.

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The Serbian language was spoken in

25 Serbia, the entire Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, and almost the

Page 43221

1 entire Croatia, except for three districts, Zagreb, Krizevci and

2 Varazdin. That is in the west of today's Croatia. In the 19th century on

3 the orders of the Vatican and the Viennese court, all Croats accepted

4 Serbian as their own language.

5 JUDGE BONOMY: If someone else wants to explore it they may well

6 do so. I don't want to know that at this stage. I want to get the

7 definition clear at the time. So you're saying that the Greater Serbia

8 would include the whole of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro, and almost all

9 Croatia is subject to the three districts about which you were explaining

10 the historical origins of the languages spoken there. Is that the

11 position?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What I want to do here is that let

13 you know that the concept of Greater Serbia can by no means be identified

14 with any sort of practice of persecuting Catholic, Muslim, or any other

15 population. In all the proclamations of the freedom-loving Serbian

16 movement, the Serbian Radical Party, and all other parties I've led, we

17 keep appealing for the unification of Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox,

18 Muslim, and all other Serbs. That cannot be linked with the concept of

19 Greater Serbia. Persecution is not in line with the concept of Greater

20 Serbia, but you won't let me say it. That's why we insist on including

21 Catholics, Protestants, Muslims into our party and giving them high

22 positions. We are opposing the Vatican policy that appeals to Catholics

23 to declare themselves as Catholics, non-Serbs.

24 THE INTERPRETER: Mr. Seselj has to slow down.

25 JUDGE ROBINSON: The interpreters have asked you to slow down.

Page 43222












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 43223

1 But I believe I am -- you have expressed the position now, that the

2 concept of Greater Serbia is inherently inconsistent with persecutions of

3 Muslims or any other -- any other sect.

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have to tell you one more thing

5 very briefly, please, Mr. Robinson. All these people that are mentioned

6 here as members, participants in the joint criminal enterprise, we're

7 against the secession of Slovenia. I was the only one who was in favour

8 of the secession of Slovenia, if the Slovenes wanted. I had made several

9 public appearances on Slovene TV supporting them. But I was against the

10 secession of Croatia because I knew that it was the same people who was

11 about to secede. We were one and the same people. Even those who are not

12 real authentic Serbs in those three districts have been through

13 intermarriage integrated. If you look at Serbs, Muslims, Catholics, and

14 Croats, you cannot find any difference between us except for religion. If

15 you have any conflict between the accused --

16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Mr. Milosevic.

17 MR. KAY: I did have a matter to raise, and it is over this

18 troubling issue of Greater Serbia and how far or whether it is relevant to

19 the Prosecution's case, because in opening, Mr. Nice has dealt with one

20 part of his opening address to the Court, but there was another passage

21 which I have here on the first day, and it reads thus: "The army, the

22 evidence will be, was no better, it having committed itself to the

23 accused's programme. Officers being instilled with the ideology of

24 brotherhood and unity totally abandoned everything in favour of a Greater

25 Serbia. They shared the arrogance, did the army, of the civilian leaders

Page 43224

1 and saw no reason to confer."

2 It did seem that the thrust of the Prosecution case was that there

3 had been a plan by this accused for a Greater Serbia, and there has been

4 cross-examination to that effect. And the accused has to know what he's

5 got to deal with in relation to his case and how to apportion his time.

6 So if concessions are going to be made on the issue, they must be made

7 clearly and frankly and transparently.

8 JUDGE ROBINSON: I am fully in agreement with you, Mr. Kay, and

9 I'm going to ask Mr. Nice now if his position is different, then say so.

10 MR. NICE: My position has never been different.

11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Because I had the clear impression that this was

12 an essential foundation of the Prosecution's case.

13 MR. NICE: Your Honour, I'm very sorry about that, because I think

14 Mr. Kay's quotation, by the way, doesn't deal with the fact that what he's

15 citing from is my citation from a witness.

16 Now, I have always made it plain -- and at the moment I've got in

17 front of me the joinder arguments as well. You'll find it quite helpful

18 to go through them electronically, pick up the word "greater" and see who

19 refers to Greater Serbia. The accused does.

20 What I cannot do is deny witnesses who we call their right to

21 express their opinions on the matter, but what I always made plain - and

22 I've made it plain through all the expert witnesses that have been called

23 and that I've cross-examined - that the words "Greater Serbia" come from

24 others and not from the accused. What we allege against the accused is

25 that he cleaved to - for his own purposes maybe - a plan to have all Serbs

Page 43225

1 living in one state. That creates a de facto Greater Serbia because the

2 western boundaries, Virovitica-Karlobag line are all the same. But are we

3 saying that he is a proponent personally of an historical Greater Serbia

4 concept? We haven't said that. And that distinction is one I've always

5 made, because I've recognise that the accused doesn't use these words.

6 JUDGE ROBINSON: But you're not saying it was one of the basic

7 foundations that one of the basic ideas prompting the joint criminal

8 enterprise?

9 MR. NICE: The concept that all Serbs should live in one state is

10 different from the concept of a Greater Serbia as you've just heard from

11 this witness who has given you a great historical overview from his

12 perspective of what Greater Serbia is all about. It's different. As I've

13 already said, it may in fact have little practical difference, but if this

14 Chamber's going to understand both the history and the accused's behaviour

15 and motivation during the conflict, it will need to deal with the fact

16 that there is a historical concept to a Greater Serbia to which he never

17 associated himself or read, as far as I can see, never, with his taking

18 power. Maybe with his being put in the driving seat of movements of

19 others that did espouse Greater Serbia he pursued policies that may have

20 had a similar effect. But have we ever said that that was his driving

21 force, the historical concept of a Greater Serbia; no, we haven't.

22 JUDGE ROBINSON: So if I understand you, Mr. Nice, the

23 Prosecution's approach is more -- it's more pragmatic. It's more

24 empirical.

25 MR. NICE: Absolutely. Yes.

Page 43226

1 JUDGE ROBINSON: You're concentrating more on the idea of all

2 Serbs living in one state.

3 MR. NICE: Correct. And of course, let there be no doubt about

4 it, our case has always been that for a person who could have that as his

5 driving force there might have been good reason for him --


7 MR. NICE: -- allowing the influence of people such as this witness

8 who espoused quite specifically a Greater Serbia, but that's different.

9 Did he use the words himself, no.

10 Incidentally I made one slip of the tongue when I was identifying

11 the witnesses who have dealt with this and to whom you may wish to turn,

12 not least to see what my cross-examination on the point is. I made that

13 mistake of eliding names that are both surnames and first names. It's

14 Kosta Mihailovic and Mihailo Markovic, who are two of the witnesses. I

15 said there were two people with the same surname. I'll just check if

16 there's anything else I should --

17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, please do not allow

19 Mr. Nice to insult me. I was never under the control of Mr. Milosevic,

20 and Mr. Milosevic never made it possible for me to do anything in

21 political life. I did nothing that I did not achieve by my own efforts.

22 So this is an insult to me.

23 In this indictment I am being linked to this joint criminal

24 enterprise, the alleged criminal enterprise, based on my idea of the

25 Greater Serbia and I'm being put together with my ideological opponents,

Page 43227

1 among which was Mr. Milosevic. We had only one thing in common at the

2 beginning of the war and that was that none of us agreed to the unilateral

3 secession of Croatia without negotiations and without an agreement. We

4 had nothing else in common, and I insist on this.

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

6 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Nice, can I ask you, how you understand the

7 difference of the Greater Serbia idea and the idea of one -- all Serbs

8 living in one state. How do you understand?

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

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

11 in the --

12 MR. NICE: Yes.

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

14 MR. NICE: At the end it may be that the accused's aim was for

15 that which could qualify as a de facto Greater Serbia, yes. Did he -- did

16 he find the source of his position, for I don't wish to identify it as an

17 ideology or a platform. Did he find the source of his position at least

18 overtly in historical concept of Greater Serbia; no, he didn't. His was

19 perhaps to borrow His Honour Judge Robinson's term or was stated to be the

20 pragmatic one of ensuring that all the Serbs who had lived in the former

21 Yugoslavia should be allowed for either constitutional or other reasons to

22 live in the same unit. That meant as we know historically from his

23 perspective first of all that the former Yugoslavia shouldn't be broken up

24 because he argued, well, then, if they all live in the same place one

25 where they can do it in the former Yugoslavia. Once the former Yugoslavia

Page 43228

1 breaks up, the Prosecution case is the only way you can achieve the desire

2 that all Serbs should live in the same state is by doing the various

3 things that happened in the three different territories. Now, -- or in

4 particular in the two different territories of Croatia and Bosnia. So

5 that that's why we describe it as -- or we don't describe it. We analyse

6 it in the terms of his desire or his expressed desire that all Serbs

7 should live in one state, accepting that at the end of the exercise the

8 factual position may be little different from that which would have been

9 wanted by this particular witness under his long-term historical concept

10 of Greater Serbia.

11 The Court will remember with the various witnesses we've had how

12 we've been able to look at historical maps and indeed how we've heard the

13 accused referring back to historical maps, such as the map of the London

14 conference, or the maps that were generated after the Second World War,

15 and try and draw support on those ideas to justify in more contemporary

16 negotiations his position. But his position, it appears from the evidence

17 about him, was not built on that concept itself, not with the emotions and

18 maybe the philosophy or whatever else, that this witness would rely on.

19 It was on more pragmatic grounds.

20 Now, I'm sorry if that hasn't become clear, but it's been

21 absolutely at the forefront of my examination and cross-examination of

22 witnesses. And I go back to what Mr. Kay said. If you look at the

23 opening, you will see that the word only appears from me in the mouths of

24 others and that we were careful then and in the argument about joinder to

25 express things much more carefully so far as this accused is concerned.

Page 43229

1 And indeed I was going to raise this point yesterday when the accused

2 mischaracterised our presentation or my presentation by saying that there

3 was a leitmotif of Greater Serbia as against him because there never was.


5 MR. KAY: Sorry, Your Honours, the passage cited to me by me said

6 "the evidence will be," which indicates the evidence to be relied upon.

7 JUDGE ROBINSON: It may be, Mr. Nice, as you say, that there is no

8 essential difference, but for my part I'd like -- I'm going to have my

9 Chamber staff look at the evidence and see whether it bears out the points

10 that you have -- that you have made, because if -- it's important to

11 ascertain whether it was or was not a part of the Prosecution's case.

12 Mr. Milosevic.

13 In fact, I remember in the Rule 98 bis no-case motion, I remember

14 the Chamber dealing with that as --

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

16 JUDGE ROBINSON: -- dealing with that as one part of the

17 Prosecution case, and looking at evidence which might have supported it.

18 Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, for the duration of 15

20 minutes here Mr. Nice has been explaining that I did not advocate a

21 Greater Serbia and then that I did advocate a Greater Serbia. I don't see

22 how it is possible to have a coherent conversation if one doesn't know

23 what the accusations are. He is now talking about the historical idea and

24 separating out from the non-historical idea and so on.

25 At the beginning, before a single witness was brought, Mr. Nice

Page 43230

1 did not deal with any historical concepts. What he did was present vague

2 and incredible nebulous arguments. Then he said that through witnesses he

3 would show what the accused did.

4 Look at this logical caricature presented by Mr. Nice just awhile

5 ago. On the one hand, he admits what I am saying, and that is that the

6 thesis of all Serbs in one state can be implemented through Yugoslavia,

7 which is why we advocated the preservation of Yugoslavia since it was an

8 existing state in which all the Serbs lived in one state. Then he goes on

9 that in three different places, and he's referring to the three parts of

10 this alleged indictment, wanted to implement this in various ways. These

11 were three separatist movements breaking up Yugoslavia. If this hasn't

12 become clear to you by now, then nothing is clear to you. I did not

13 organise these three separatist movements in Croatia, Bosnia, and Kosovo

14 in order to create a Yugoslavia in which all Serbs could live in one state

15 when Yugoslavia has been existing for 70 years. Is there any logic in

16 this? This is insulting to the average intelligence of an average man.

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

18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think that Mr. Nice should pull

19 himself together before I go on and recall what he's accusing me of so

20 that I can put questions to the witness. I mean, about a Greater Serbia.

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

22 points.

23 MR. NICE: Actually --

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

25 MR. NICE: Your Honour, with your leave, in light of the

Page 43231

1 observations that have been made and the concern of the Court, I would

2 invite you just to -- I'll just find it for you in the -- because it's --

3 actually encapsulates the position right from the beginning. If you'll

4 just give me one second. It's in the opening, and -- what I said was this

5 dealing with western Slavonia. I think it's on about page 50. "The creed

6 openly espoused by the man Seselj went by the title of Greater Serbia.

7 It's a phrase that is bound to be heard in this Court. We will not

8 ourselves encourage its excessive use for the fear that our shorthand may

9 lead to a brevity of thinking. We don't particularly associate it as a

10 title with the" --

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

12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let us have that technical matter attended to,

13 Mr. Nice. Yes.

14 MR. NICE: I'm sorry. The creed openly espoused by the man Seselj

15 went by the title of Greater Serbia. It's a phrase that is bound to be

16 heard in this Court. We will not ourselves encourage its excessive use

17 for fear that our shorthand may lead to a brevity of thinking. We don't

18 particularly associate it as a title with the approach of the accused

19 whose purposes we have already separately described. That he might rely

20 on the support of people who had perhaps extreme nationalist views going

21 by particular titles is, again, for reasons already given, not

22 surprising."

23 Now, that I think is the first time in the opening that the words

24 "Greater Serbia" featured on my lips, and if you go back to the joinder

25 motion it featured on the lips of the accused and not I think until reply

Page 43232












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 43233

1 from me. So that's always been our position.

2 JUDGE ROBINSON: In response to the comment that I just made that

3 I would have the Chamber staff research it, I've just been handed a copy

4 of the section of the 98 bis decision, paragraph 249, which refers to

5 Ambassador Galbraith testifying that he believed that the accused, and

6 here I quote: "Was the architect of a policy of creating Greater Serbia

7 and that little happened without his knowledge and involvement."

8 And then in paragraph 288 the Chamber identifies seven bases for

9 its conclusion that the Chamber could infer that the accused not only knew

10 of the genocidal plan but that he also shared with its members the intent

11 to destroy. And this second matter referred to is the accused's advocacy

12 of and support for the concept of a Greater Serbia.

13 I think that was the reference that I had in mind to the 98 bis.

14 MR. NICE: [Microphone not activated] The same way as I can't

15 confine and shouldn't rehearse and don't rehearse witnesses away from

16 their use of terminology that may not be our use. I have already made our

17 position clear, and I don't think you'll find - but I live to be

18 corrected - in our 98 submissions that we expressed ourselves differently

19 or inconsistently from the way we had throughout.

20 JUDGE ROBINSON: It's an important clarification to make,

21 Mr. Nice, that the Prosecution's case is not so attached -- is not as

22 attached to the concept of a Greater Serbia as it is to the idea of all

23 Serbs living in the same land.

24 MR. NICE: Yes, indeed, that --

25 JUDGE ROBINSON: In one state. In one state. Although I would

Page 43234

1 have to say that I still have it -- I still have a doubt as to whether

2 there isn't a proper basis for saying that that was the Prosecution's

3 case. Yes. Initially at any rate.

4 Mr. Milosevic, yes. Just please ask --

5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I hope --

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

7 on.

8 [Trial Chamber confers]

9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic. Yes.

10 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

11 Q. Mr. Seselj, you are a professor at the Faculty of Law. You have a

12 Ph.D.. As I don't understand Mr. Nice's position, can you tell me whether

13 you understand it?

14 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Seselj, please.

15 JUDGE ROBINSON: That's not a proper question for Mr. Seselj.

16 Mr. Nice has explained his position. Let us -- let us move on.

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

18 JUDGE ROBINSON: It is an authoritative statement of the

19 Prosecution's position. It comes from the -- from the officer who is the

20 Chief Prosecutor in this case.

21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Allow me, Mr. Robinson, to say that

22 my meager intellectual faculties are insufficient for me to understand

23 what Mr. Nice has said. I wish to have it explained to me whether the

24 existence of Yugoslavia for 70 years in which all Serbs, Croats, and the

25 Slav Muslims lived, whether my advocation of the preservation of this

Page 43235

1 Yugoslavia or the historical concept that was not spoken of, what it is

2 actually that Mr. Nice is alleging against me. He is using concepts he

3 does not understand, and you don't understand what he is saying and

4 neither do I. This is utter confusion.

5 JUDGE ROBINSON: It's not a matter for you to say. It's quite out

6 of order for you to suggest that the Chamber does not understand what

7 Mr. Nice said. We understand what he has said, and I take it to be a very

8 important statement on the part of the Prosecutor, because we have to know

9 the basis on which the Prosecution is proceeding. So proceed with your

10 next question.

11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It's a good thing that after three

12 years you are supposed to see what the basis of the Prosecution is.

13 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

14 Q. Mr. Seselj, in tab 4 there is a part, a small part, a small

15 excerpt from your book. You're the author. In all fairness, this is from

16 the second edition.

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

18 Q. Well, there isn't but I'd like to draw your attention to that

19 after all. It shows that your book sold very well if a second edition was

20 published. It is called "The Ideology of Serbian Nationalism," written by

21 you. In relation to that, I wish to put a few questions to you. Let me

22 just see what the page is. 980. It's a rather poor copy, the one I have.

23 So on page 980, and this part that we've made an excerpt of was

24 translated into English too.

25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I remind you of your duty to

Page 43236

1 ensure that the Trial Chamber has before it the passage to which you are

2 referring.

3 JUDGE KWON: When was the first edition published?

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The first edition was published also

5 in 1992, but before that a shorter version of that book was published in

6 1998. I worked on that, and I supplemented the book.

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

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is my monograph based on the

9 scholarly work of Professor Dr. Lazar Kostic, a renowned university

10 professor at the time of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and one of the leading

11 Serb anti-communist emigres after the Second World War. He wrote a total

12 of 84 books.

13 I first dealt with his scholarly work, and then on the basis of

14 his scholarly work I developed other theses and assumptions. And of

15 course I supplemented my work with areas that Professor Kostic had not

16 dealt with. That constitutes the most all-embracing, synthetic work on

17 the ideology of Serbian nationalism to date.

18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

19 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

20 Q. That's on page 3 in the second paragraph in the English

21 translation, what I wish to cite to Mr. Seselj.

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

23 A. What did you say?

24 Q. Page 980. I'm quoting part of the text. "The Serbs through the

25 strength of their own spirit liberated parts of their own people and

Page 43237

1 national territories. The pan Serbian agenda is not a figment of the

2 imagination of a handful of daydreamers. It was imposed on politicians by

3 history and ethnography. It stems from the consciousness of a nation

4 which has strived for several centuries and through constant and unanimous

5 efforts to merge its people's destinies."

6 Before that, in the preceding paragraph, I'm going to deal with

7 that very briefly, you talk about Denis' analysis of the nature of Serb

8 nationalism, and it says that this stems from the desire for happiness

9 that everybody carries within themselves and which is interlinked with the

10 need for the full development of our effective capacities."

11 So -- or actually let me just finish with Denis and then I'm going

12 to ask you for further explanations. Just one more paragraph, the last

13 one before the second or, rather, other chapter, speaking of the Serbs.

14 Their quarrels were used by the Hungarians and Germans whose interest was

15 for the Serbs to have the biggest possible mistakes. Their enemies did

16 not see or did not want to see the higher qualities of the Serbian people,

17 their resilience acquired in difficult times, the refinement and sharpness

18 of their intelligence, particularly the determination of their idealism

19 and the strength of their will which have endured in spite of many visible

20 oscillations. Winds disturb a river's surface but do not change its

21 course."

22 What you speak about here is a work that considerably preceded all

23 these events, and this is based on the work of an analyst who took into

24 account the main points that this dealt with. Tell us to what extent this

25 matched your own thoughts on the matter and to what extent did you

Page 43238

1 contribute to the affirmation of this idea on the plane of theory? I wish

2 to remind you that the title of the book is "The Ideology of Serbian

3 Nationalism."

4 A. On three pages I deal with Ernest Denis' book that is called

5 "Greater Serbia." It was published in Paris in 1915 during the time of

6 the First World War. Ernest Denis is fascinated by the efforts made by

7 the Serbian people and their two great victories over the Austro-Hungarian

8 army at Cer and Kolubara in 1914 which made all of Europe admire them.

9 Ernest Denis concludes that they -- that everybody in the world should

10 recognise the will and wish of the Serb people to unite.

11 JUDGE ROBINSON: What is the relevance of this?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, the extent to which this can

13 be seen, namely, what existed during the times of the First World War and

14 what existed in the time that we are discussing here, 1991 and 1992.

15 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

16 Q. Please, Mr. Seselj --

17 JUDGE ROBINSON: No, Mr. Milosevic, I've cut you off because the

18 proper course is for you to answer my question that I have asked and then

19 await my ruling. You don't proceed with Mr. Seselj.

20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

21 JUDGE ROBINSON: You have not explained the relevance

22 sufficiently, but I'll give you another try to explain the relevance.

23 Otherwise, I'm not allowing the question. We need to move on.

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

25 pragmatic angle.

Page 43239

1 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

2 Q. Mr. Seselj, as for what it says here in your book, as for what you

3 wrote yourself and as for what you presented by way of the views of other

4 scholars, in this programme, this programme of a Greater Serbia seen

5 through your own eyes, seen through the eyes of foreign scholars, does it

6 mean the subordination of the Croats?

7 A. No, absolutely not. What I deal with here is the presentation of

8 arguments about the Serb origins, about their ethnic substrate and curbing

9 the Vatican and previously Austro-Hungarian ideology that forced Serb

10 Catholics to declare themselves as Croats.

11 In the 19th century, the Croatian national awareness was only

12 limited to Zagreb, Varazdin and Krizevci, those districts. There are many

13 historical testimonials that they consider themselves to be Serbs.

14 Bosnian Catholics consider them to be Serbs. Friar Grga Matic, a Catholic

15 priest, is writing Serbian nationalist poems with great delight. I am

16 indicating these historical examples, this awareness of single origins and

17 a single nation that --

18 JUDGE ROBINSON: I've stopped you because I'm going to consult

19 with my colleagues, and I'll also hear Mr. Kay on this point as to whether

20 in light of the statement made by the Prosecutor we need to hear more

21 evidence on this concept. The Prosecutor said that his case is concerned

22 more with the idea of all Serbs living in the same state than with the

23 concept of a Greater Serbia.

24 I don't think that that necessarily means that all evidence on

25 Greater Serbia is to be excluded, but certainly it should be taken into

Page 43240

1 account. I'll consult.

2 [Trial Chamber confers]

3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Kay, do you --

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

5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. The Chamber's position is this: We'll not

6 exclude automatically all evidence on the concept of a Greater Serbia on

7 the basis of the Prosecutor's statement made some minutes ago. But this

8 particular piece of evidence being given by Mr. Seselj, we don't find

9 particularly helpful.

10 So move on to another area, Mr. Milosevic. We have heard a lot

11 about -- we have heard a lot about the history.

12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, there is another link

13 there. In his approach, Mr. Nice equals the fact that in Yugoslavia all

14 Serbs lived in one state with a Greater Serbia. He's actually proclaiming

15 Yugoslavia to be a Greater Serbia. All Serbs in one state is not an idea.

16 It is a statement of fact. That was the case for 70 years, for the

17 duration of Yugoslavia. For 70 years, all Serbs lived in one state. That

18 was a fact of life. It's a material fact.

19 JUDGE ROBINSON: It's precisely because of the possible

20 interchangeability of the two ideas, Greater Serbia and all Serbs living

21 in the same state, it's precisely because of that that I've said that the

22 Chamber will not rule evidence -- rule out evidence on this matter. We

23 can't rule it out in that way. But the evidence which Mr. Seselj is

24 giving now we don't find helpful. So move on to -- you can deal with the

25 concept, but let us deal with -- with the matters that are more relevant

Page 43241

1 to the indictment so far as the idea either of a Greater Serbia or of all

2 Serbs living in the same state.

3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right.

4 JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm going to give -- the Chamber will give

5 further consideration to the significance that is to be attached to the

6 statement made by the Prosecutor, and he'll ask Mr. Kay to bear this in

7 mind.

8 I've just --

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

10 JUDGE ROBINSON: I've just been handed another part of the

11 Chamber's decision on the no-case submission -- oh, this is the submission

12 itself. This is the submission itself from the Prosecution -- from the --

13 this is the Prosecution's response.

14 In paragraph 262 of the Prosecutor's response it says: "This

15 amounted de facto to planning for a Greater Serbia." That seems plain

16 enough. "There was not a single fully articulated plan from the outset

17 and the plan changed with the changing circumstances," et cetera.

18 And then in paragraph 273, in the middle of that

19 paragraph: "However, the self-determination of the Serbian people would

20 include the territories with Serb majorities in Croatia and Bosnia and

21 Herzegovina, including a de facto Greater Serbia -- achieving a de facto

22 Greater Serbia, a term he always avoided using in public or at all."

23 That's closer to what Mr. Nice explained in court some minutes

24 ago, the more pragmatic approach.

25 And in paragraph 276, the third-to-last line: "More generally,

Page 43242












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 43243

1 witnesses were clear that the accused wanted to create a Greater Serbia."

2 So, Mr. Nice, I give you my personal view. I don't think we have

3 settled the matter. Clearly it's an important matter to be settled. As

4 Mr. Kay said very importantly, the accused needs to know the case that

5 he's facing, and if there has been what I term advisedly a retreat from a

6 particular position, then we need to know that. And if the present

7 position is in substance the same as the concept of a Greater Serbia, then

8 of course we still need to deal with it.

9 MR. NICE: Well, Your Honour, our position has in no way changed.

10 There's no question of a retreat or change of position. I'm grateful that

11 you've located the passages on the submission that I myself have been

12 reviewing, and indeed the only other passage I think which you may find

13 helpful - and I'll just turn it up for you; I had a little bit before but

14 I can find it easily enough - Is in the joinder application to which you

15 earlier referred and we can look at that.

16 As I explained, if we go to the beginning of this hearing before

17 His Honour Judge Jorda and other Judges, what happened, rather, in the

18 sort of straw man way, I think, was that the accused, let's find it, made

19 many references or several references about Greater Serbia. They were

20 picked up by Mr. Kay -- the accused also made references to Greater

21 Albania and all sorts of other historical concepts of that kind. I think

22 that when it came to my reply, which is the first time I think if at all

23 that I mention Greater Serbia - I'll just try to find it for you -

24 Mr. Tapuskovic as he was then with us made some observations again about

25 Greater Serbia. His Honour Judge Hunt raised the issue of the Greater

Page 43244

1 Serbia argument with Mr. Kay. There was a certain amount of discussion

2 between them. But I think my only reference to it, and I think I've found

3 it. I'll just check that it's me. I'm sure it is. Yes, it's on page 80

4 of the transcript or thereabouts, 81, I think. And I said this: "Greater

5 Serbia features, of course, in the writing and it features only to a very

6 limited extent in the pleadings. Features, for example, in one of the

7 indictments in the mouth of Seselj, his rabble-rousing words. It features

8 in another of the indictments as being something that was being advocated

9 at the same time as the accused was doing, that which he is said to have

10 done, and it features in the third indictment as being a way of looking at

11 things but always qualified in the way that I qualified it," and the

12 transcript reads on the last occasion when this -- and then I -- and that

13 must be, I think, a reference, although incompletely captured on the

14 transcript, to the way I'd expressed our position about the accused, right

15 at the beginning without ever using the term Greater Serbia.

16 Then I go on to make this clear. "We say as we have said from the

17 beginning that there was a common plan by this accused to retain or gain

18 territory for the purpose of exercising power via a central Serbian state

19 differently expressed on different occasions but to that effect."

20 So at all times I had separated the Prosecution's position, which

21 was to identify what the accused was actually --

22 JUDGE KWON: My microphone is not working.

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

24 JUDGE KWON: We have one more clear passage.

25 MR. NICE: Yes.

Page 43245

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

2 MR. NICE: Yes.

3 JUDGE KWON: It's paragraph 252. I will read it out the

4 passage: "It is the Prosecution case that the accused intended to destroy

5 the Muslim population of those parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina essentially

6 earmarked for the inclusion into a Greater Serbia. Without that

7 destruction, the accused's goal could not be realised," et cetera.

8 JUDGE ROBINSON: That seems clear enough, Mr. Nice. That was the

9 Prosecution's --

10 MR. NICE: That's the Chamber's interpretation of what we

11 expressed in our submissions.

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

13 MR. NICE: That the -- but, again, it's the de facto position as

14 opposed to the historical concept. And that's always been our stated

15 position. And if you'd permit me to read out from where I was.

16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. And in the -- I've just been handed the --

17 a section of the motion for joinder. This is page 6 under the

18 heading "Rule --" it's the -- oh, it's at page 5 of the joinder motion.

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

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

21 its --

22 JUDGE KWON: Prosecution's.

23 [Trial Chamber confers]

24 JUDGE ROBINSON: We'll take the break now and come back to this

25 matter.

Page 43246

1 MR. NICE: Your Honour, I think -- I'm grateful. I think that's

2 the last reference from me in the joinder argument. I'll come back to it

3 after the break, if Your Honour pleases.

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

5 --- Recess taken at 10.36 a.m.

6 --- On resuming at 10.58 a.m.

7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, I've had more time to consider this

8 matter, and I am clearly of the view that the concept of a Greater Serbia

9 was indeed a central plank in the Prosecution's case. It was the basis on

10 which the motion for joinder was made, and I refer to two passages,

11 paragraph 13 of the motion: "In the present case the three indictments

12 concern the same transaction in the sense of a common scheme, strategy, or

13 plan, namely the accused Milosevic's overall conduct in attempting to

14 create a Greater Serbia, an centralised Serbian state encompassing the

15 Serb populated areas of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina and all of

16 Kosovo."

17 And then on page 18 -- sorry, paragraph 18, page 7, at the

18 bottom "He, that is Milosevic, later exploited these affairs in Croatia,

19 Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo in order to further his campaign to create a

20 Greater Serbia."

21 And indeed it was for that reason that the Appeals Chamber

22 overturned the decision of this Trial Chamber rejecting the motion for

23 joinder, because the Trial Chamber found that there was no common thread,

24 that the concept of a Greater Serbia was not a common thread. It was not

25 the same transaction and the Appeals Chamber held otherwise. So I find it

Page 43247

1 startling now to hear you say that it was not part of the Prosecution

2 case.

3 It may be that you now say, you now take a more pragmatic decision

4 which is reflected in the idea of what Mr. Milosevic wanted and the other

5 participants in the alleged joint criminal enterprise was that all Serbs

6 should live in the same state, and you may want to say that that in fact

7 amounts to Greater Serbia, but I cannot allow you to say that it was not a

8 part of the Prosecution's case. The accused needs to know what he's

9 facing. And if you need time to consider this matter, Mr. Nice, as I

10 consider it extremely important to the case, then we'll give you time.

11 MR. NICE: Well, Your Honour, I personally don't need time. There

12 hadn't been any change, and I'm sorry that the Chamber hasn't understood

13 the position more fully earlier.

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

15 JUDGE ROBINSON: May I say that this time will not be counted

16 against the accused.

17 MR. NICE: May I -- I've only just been able to turn up the

18 filings. The one that Your Honour refers to which I've looked at, and

19 also you'll want to look probably at the interlocutory appeal filing. I

20 haven't got the date. But I'll quote you a passage from that, or two

21 passages.

22 But before I do, first of all, I don't actually think there's --

23 there's a distinction or difference of the kind that Your Honours are

24 apparently concerned about, because it's always been clear in the way I've

25 expressed the case and the questions I've asked that the practical effects

Page 43248

1 for which the accused sought are similar in geographical scope to the

2 effects of the implementation of a formal Greater Serbia plan of the kind

3 that this witness might have wanted.

4 Second, identifying over a long -- from a long history the precise

5 definition of something, a term of art like Greater Serbia is never going

6 to be easy if you use it as a philosophical term going back to the 16th

7 century as he would claim, running through Nacertanije as we've heard in

8 evidence, reflected in practical political proposals as in the London

9 conference, being dealt with by Moljevic on a philosophical basis and so

10 on. It's going to be very difficult to find a precise definition if you

11 use it as a term of art.

12 And third, before I come to the passage to which I'm going to

13 refer, had we ever alleged in specific terms that this accused espoused in

14 philosophical terms Greater Serbia, it would have been probably unwise and

15 probably wrong, because he would have been able to say the words never

16 fell from his lips and nor they did. So that -- that's why from the

17 minute that I was in charge of the presentation of this case, I was

18 cautious in the extreme in way we argued for and presented his thinking

19 processes, making it clear that his thinking processes, or at least his

20 spoken expression of his thinking processes, would have led to a de facto

21 position, a de facto Greater Serbia, similar in geographical extent to

22 that which might have been argued for by this witness.

23 And if we then go to the appeal brief, at paragraph 14 I made the

24 following observations or we --

25 JUDGE ROBINSON: To the appeal brief?

Page 43249

1 MR. NICE: Yes. Let's just get the date of it. I'll come back

2 to. This is 15th of January, 2002. I'm grateful to Ms. Dicklich. And

3 paragraph 14, I think, has the first reference where I said the

4 following: "The Trial Chamber based its analysis on three factors which

5 the Prosecution submits were erroneously applied. First, the Trial

6 Chamber found that because the words 'Greater Serbia' plan did not appear

7 in the Kosovo indictment and 'it is only in relation to other individuals

8 that the man is mentioned in the Bosnia Croatian indictments' that the

9 nexus was too nebulous to constitute a common scheme, strategy, or plan."

10 Now, if we then go to the next reference to -- I'm sorry. I'll

11 find the next reference which is on paragraph 27. We'll see how --

12 probably a better look at the paragraph in context. It begins with

13 thus: "In the present case, the purpose of the joint criminal enterprise

14 alleged in all three indictments is substantially similar," and then I set

15 out -- or we set out in the Croatia indictment the purposes stated as

16 follows. And we dealt with the Bosnia indictment and the Kosovo

17 indictment, and I can quote it if you think I should do so and.

18 Then we said this: "Although the wording differs slightly, the

19 import of the purpose is the same to remove the majority of the non-Serb

20 civilian population from areas which the Serbs wished to make or maintain

21 as Serb-controlled territory. The Prosecution explained in its written

22 submissions as well as during the hearing that the phrase 'Greater Serbia'

23 was merely descriptive of the plan by the accused to create and maintain a

24 centralised Serbian state," and then there is a footnote, I imagine, to

25 the references.

Page 43250

1 "Such a man which encompassed both getting rid of non-Serb

2 civilians and attaining and maintaining Serb domination over the remaining

3 population in that territory remained consistent throughout the time

4 period covered by all three indictments despite the different language

5 used. The Prosecution submits that it was an error for the Trial Chamber

6 not to consider that the purpose as well as the plan charged in all three

7 indictments was the same."

8 And I think that's the last reference in that pleading to the term

9 "Greater Serbia," at least as discovered or discoverable electronically.

10 So that whatever may have been the understanding or

11 misunderstanding before the Trial Chamber, the position was made quite

12 clear to the Appeals Chamber in the written filing that we were looking at

13 the de facto, the pragmatic position as we described it. And when you

14 look at the oral arguments, and as I respectfully remind you, remember

15 that it was the accused and Mr. Kay who referred to Greater Serbia, and I

16 quite specifically identified how we were relying on it and the way in

17 which if featured, then our position hadn't changed. And I know it hadn't

18 changed because I've always understood our position to be that it's the

19 express desire to have all Serbs in one state, de facto Greater Serbia if

20 you will, co-extensive geographical extension in practical terms with what

21 had been achieved by those specifically espousing Greater Serbia, but not

22 the espousing by this accused vocally, who knows what was in his mind,

23 that is to be proved in other ways and never espoused by him. And I don't

24 think there is any difficulty in establishing in due course with

25 questioning of this witness that his position differed from the accused's

Page 43251

1 position because he espoused Greater Serbia, the philosophical concept

2 with which we've been either troubled or enthralled in the extensive

3 expert evidence that's been given.

4 JUDGE ROBINSON: His concept is different.

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

6 JUDGE BONOMY: Can I ask -- no microphone.

7 Can I ask you, Mr. Nice, why reference was made at all by the

8 Prosecution to the concept of a Greater Serbia. Why were these words

9 chosen if the Prosecution knew that they had a distinctive historical

10 context?

11 MR. NICE: Well, you can certainly ask the question and I can do

12 my best to answer it. I have both the difficulties of some separation

13 from some of the drafting as an individual and a considerable passage of

14 time over which to look, but I -- I suspect that the proper answer would

15 be as follows, that if you view a man, this accused, who is doing

16 something that is very similar in its effect to but different in it's

17 expression from those who espouse and argue for the philosophical and

18 historical concept of Greater Serbia, you have to decide do we say he's a

19 Greater Serbian. For the reasons I've already given that would have been

20 unwise and indeed wrong. Do you nevertheless draw to the Court's

21 attention that there may be significance in the existence both of the

22 notion of Greater Serbia as expressed by others? Yes, you do. And that's

23 why in both the Croatian and the Bosnian indictments the concept

24 attributed to this witness is dealt with.

25 Do you express the understanding, which we did in different ways,

Page 43252












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 43253

1 that the result of the accused's political ambitions might have been the

2 same in practical terms as those seeking a Greater Serbia? Yes, you do.

3 Do you indeed make it clear that the accused might have about

4 relying subtly or otherwise on the emotions that could be whipped up by

5 those pressing for a philosophy that he wasn't prepared publicly to state?

6 Yes, you do, because of course it may be that public expression of the

7 Greater Serbia concept has negative potential within it.

8 So that there may be several reasons for stating it, but we only

9 ever stated it, certainly by the time that the matter had been argued in

10 the Appeals Chamber to correct any misunderstanding at the Trial Chamber

11 level and in my opening. We only ever expressed it in the cautious way

12 that I've explained, but it would have been unhelpful to the Chamber

13 because it was bound to arise, not at least to mention it, and mention it

14 we did because it falls from the lips of others. Ambassador Galbraith. I

15 couldn't rehearse Ambassador Galbraith in a proofing session and say, You

16 think this is Greater Serbia. We've express it had differently, could I?

17 I had to let him express himself as he would. I can't go to the military

18 witnesses whose evidence was summarised in the passage Mr. Kay referred to

19 and say, Well, that's the way you see it. We don't see it that way in a

20 complex of history and philosophy and politics, and we want this phrase,

21 not that. Of course not. Witnesses have to be allowed to express their

22 view in the way that they did, and we are then left at the end with the

23 position in which we are. And although I haven't got all the references

24 for you, I can recall that in my questioning of the witnesses who dealt

25 with the concept of Greater Serbia, I sought to make plain, and it's

Page 43254

1 unfortunate if it didn't come across to the Chamber, but I sought to make

2 plain that of course there was a difference between the expression of the

3 concept of Greater Serbia with all its historical baggage or whatever

4 you'd like to describe it and the actual objectives of this particular

5 accused.

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

7 JUDGE BONOMY: Do you say then -- do you say that Greater Serbia

8 as you understand it is something different from all Serbs living within

9 the same state?

10 MR. NICE: Indeed. The plan -- because it has a different

11 historical root. You've heard, for example, what this witness has said

12 and I'm not --

13 JUDGE BONOMY: His concept is quite clear and that it's not the

14 same as what you're trying to portray here in the case against the

15 accused. That's quite clear. But what I would like to understand is what

16 you mean by a Greater Serbia. Do you mean that the concept as generally

17 understood in the region is meant to -- or means all Serbs living within

18 one state, or are you saying it's something different from that?

19 MR. NICE: Well --

20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Because you're using the expression repeatedly.

21 If we go through your 98 bis response, if we go through the motion for

22 joinder, the Prosecution are using the expression. They're putting it in

23 inverted commas most of the time but not always. So they obviously have

24 something in mind when they use it.

25 MR. NICE: That's a centralised -- the centralised Serbian state

Page 43255

1 incorporating those parts of both Croatia and Bosnia where Serbs lived or

2 where Serbs could be located following, for example, the fall of the

3 eastern enclaves and which could perhaps ultimately be attached to Serbia

4 to form a single state, yes. But of course it's a different concept from

5 that of this witness who has already recently given his expressed views on

6 indeed the national of Croats, merely being Serbs by another name.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: But is there some other evidence or some or witness

8 who says that Greater Serbia equals the concept you describe as all Serbs

9 living within one state? Or is Greater Serbia as you refer to it in all

10 these documents something different. That's what I'd like to understand.

11 MR. NICE: Greater Serbia, the way that the Prosecution has used

12 in inverted commas or applied with the phrase de facto and expressed in

13 its questioning, that use of the Greater Serbia concept always distinct

14 from the historical philosophical concept is the understanding of the

15 objective of this accused and of those with whom he was in a joint

16 criminal enterprise to have Serbs from Croatia and Bosnia centralised

17 with --

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

19 MR. NICE: That is what the case is about. Where we go to find it

20 is in many different places. First of all, the facts on the ground, what

21 people were doing. There's the express desires of various local groups

22 that they might ultimately become identified with and --

23 JUDGE ROBINSON: What part of the evidence. Yes, I know that

24 evidence is there, but what part of the evidence explicitly relates that

25 phenomenon to the Greater Serbia? That's what I wanted to find out.

Page 43256

1 Because that is what you say you mean.

2 MR. NICE: Well, I'm reminded by Mr. Saxon, or maybe by

3 Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, I'm not sure, that one witness, for example, General

4 Adikic [phoen], actually made the equation in those terms. But it's --

5 this is a matter of fact, if I may say so, ultimately for the Chamber

6 because labelling things is something we have to do for the processes of

7 getting on with the evidence.

8 JUDGE BONOMY: With respect, Mr. Nice, you're not answering the

9 question. In paragraph 262 of your response to the 98 bis motion, you

10 say: "This amounted - de facto -"

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


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

14 JUDGE BONOMY: No. Your response the 98 bis motion, which is at a

15 much later stage in the case and therefore more relevant.

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

17 JUDGE BONOMY: 262. It says this: This amounted - de facto - to

18 planning for a Greater Serbia."

19 MR. NICE: Yes.

20 JUDGE BONOMY: Now, that means that Greater Serbia is a concept.

21 It's a concept, and the evidence is that as a matter of fact what was

22 happening was planning coincidentally which amounted to the same thing,

23 but you have to have definition of the Greater Serbia to start with before

24 you can say something de facto amounts to that. You've got to have the

25 starting point. Now, what is the starting point?

Page 43257

1 MR. NICE: I'm sorry, it's no doubt my shortcoming, but I'm not

2 sure that I do understand Your Honour's question. What we are saying

3 here -- let me just go back to the previous paragraph. It says this:

4 "The accused's plans," this is 261. "The accused's plan in the late

5 1980s, increasingly clear in 1990, was that the Serbian people scattered

6 throughout the former Yugoslavia should live or remain in one state, the

7 state in which they had a majority." And that's Jovic's diary cited.

8 "The evidence shows that he was a head of Serb leaders in Croatia

9 and Bosnia and Herzegovina in planning and in the execution of the plan.

10 In the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina, he conceived the plan together with

11 Bosnian Serb leadership as early as 1991, perhaps before, that Serbs in

12 Bosnia should remain part of one state linked territorially and

13 politically to Serbia and to the Serb designated areas in Croatia." The

14 footnote to that is various parts of evidence and intercepts which we'd

15 have to look at in detail.

16 So that what I'm saying, what we're saying there is that the

17 evidence about his understanding and intention in the late 1980s and in

18 the late 1990s to have, as we put it here, "Serbs in Bosnia should remain

19 part of one state linked territorially and politically to Serbia and to

20 Serb designated territories in Croatia amounted de facto to planning for a

21 Greater Serbia."

22 JUDGE BONOMY: No, no. That is a statement of the de facto

23 position. That is the factual situation, and you then say that amounts to

24 planning for a Greater Serbia. In other words, it comes to the same

25 thing, you say, or -- but that you must have a starting -- Greater Serbia

Page 43258

1 must mean something to start with.

2 MR. NICE: I see. Well --

3 JUDGE BONOMY: And that's what I'm trying to find out. What is it

4 you say that Greater Serbia is that the de facto actions of the accused

5 amounted to.

6 MR. NICE: Yes. It may be that this particular pleading would

7 have been assisted by the -- by the single word "a" being either

8 underlined or bolded because what we're -- in my reading of it it's quite

9 clear, I think, it amounted to planning for a Greater Serbia.

10 Now, if you take, as we have encouraged you to do from time to

11 time, the Epoka maps which set out, for example, various versions of his

12 party's ambitions at times proximate to The Hague Conference and matters

13 of that sort, one can see that in a pragmatic way and an inevitably

14 realistic way as politicians well or badly intentioned, the precise limits

15 of their ambition will change from day to day and reflect changing

16 circumstances, but they can all amount to plans to extend the Serbian

17 state, so that what we are articulating here at this part of the filing is

18 that there was a desire for a Greater Serbia, an enlarged Serbia, a

19 centralised state of Serbs from Serbia and also from Croatia and Bosnia.

20 JUDGE ROBINSON: And you would offer the same explanation for

21 paragraph 252, which Judge Kwon read.

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

23 JUDGE ROBINSON: "It is the Prosecution case that the accused

24 intended to destroy the Muslim population of those parts of Bosnia and

25 Herzegovina essentially earmarked for inclusion into a Greater Serbia."

Page 43259

1 MR. NICE: Yes. I think -- I seem to remember that the way I

2 expressed it probably in opening - it may have been in one of the other

3 arguments - it was to either gain or regain territory of this kind.

4 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Nice.

5 MR. NICE: Yes.

6 JUDGE KWON: If you further read that paragraph, the third

7 sentence says like this: "The Bosnian Muslim population was the principal

8 obstacle to its territorial designs, and he could not tolerate their

9 existence as a group in those municipalities."

10 So from that passage, am I correctly understanding that your --

11 the crux of the Prosecution case or the understanding of Greater Serbia is

12 that it is related to the territorial design and not to tolerate the

13 existence of other groups? So when the accused is saying that all Serbs

14 should live in one state, he means this thing. His ambition related to

15 territory and the expulsion of other ethnic groups.

16 MR. NICE: Indeed.

17 JUDGE KWON: So that's your understanding?

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

19 two different developing problems.

20 JUDGE KWON: Your understanding of Greater Serbia means same

21 thing.

22 MR. NICE: Not the witness' Greater Serbia, the de facto Greater

23 Serbia, yes, because there are two distinct parts, I suppose, depending

24 how you want to split things up. There is ensuring that places where

25 Serbs were in a majority could be in the same state. There is ensuring

Page 43260

1 that places for other reasons it might have wanted to be Serb majority

2 should fall into the same potential for inclusion, and that's the eastern

3 Drina and Srebrenica for example in particular. So yes, there are -- but

4 in a way Your Honour's question, picking up the factual difficulties

5 facing the accused if he wanted a contiguous Serb state, show how

6 inappropriate it might be simply to seek to fix him with a philosophical

7 concept historically based rather than to say as we've said, and I would

8 submit at all times, this was a practical plan of his.

9 I've got another note.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: Is it --

11 MR. NICE: Your Honour, yes?

12 JUDGE BONOMY: Is it then your case that the proposed Greater

13 Serbia was to in fact be one country incorporating Serbia and parts of

14 Croatia and Bosnia?

15 MR. NICE: That's always been --

16 JUDGE BONOMY: One country, one state.

17 MR. NICE: Ultimately the intention thought would have been for

18 these states to exist as a single state, and there is material coming from

19 various sources that would show that that was the ambition of others

20 however cautiously expressed or not expressed by this particular accused.

21 But of course this particular accused, as he makes it plain, was prepared

22 to play a long game and wait and see what developed.

23 JUDGE KWON: Which is different from preserving the state, a

24 federal state, Yugoslavia.

25 MR. NICE: Well, yes. Once the possibility for preserving federal

Page 43261

1 Yugoslavia was gone, whether at his own hands at The Hague Conference or

2 otherwise, then a second plan has to come -- or doesn't have to come into

3 effect, but it does come into effect, and that's the stage at which a

4 Greater Serbia became the reality in his mind, we would argue.

5 Let me just see if I've got anything else I want to draw your to

6 attention.

7 Yes. I mean, I don't -- I don't think we can understate nor have

8 we understated the reality that the borders for which the accused's

9 intentions and the actions to which he was associated would reach would

10 have been similar to if not very similar or identical to in fact those

11 espoused by this witness, thus the time that we've taken and I'm sorry

12 that again the points haven't been made with sufficient clarity, the

13 points we've -- the time we've taken with the historical maps, the London

14 conference and so on, upon which the accused has relied or upon which his

15 party has sought to rely.

16 You will remember, for example, how it is that when he was seeking

17 resolution of a problem he's caught on an intercept referring to somebody

18 else's plan at the end of the First World War saying, Well, how about the

19 London conference? Can't we go for that plan?

20 This is the practical realities or the practical approach of this

21 particular accused, but the extent would be the same as that espoused

22 probably by this witness.

23 JUDGE BONOMY: But that -- well, is that your case, that the

24 accused was going -- was seeking to take over the whole of Bosnia, for

25 example?

Page 43262












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 43263

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

2 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, this witness says the whole of Bosnia falls

3 within Greater Serbia.

4 MR. NICE: Well, if you move it all up to the Karlobag-Virovitica

5 line, yes, but the evidence we have at the moment is that the accused was

6 at this stage much more pragmatic. But --

7 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, it's wrong to say that your case is that the

8 intentions would reach or have been very similar to if not very similar or

9 identical to in fact those espoused by this witness. They're

10 quite different.

11 MR. NICE: At this stage, correct. But, of course, if -- if you

12 find that there is a cleaving to the Virovitica-Karlobag line ultimately

13 is the plan with a much diminished Croatian state, then that's what comes

14 about. We have to deal with things as they slowly unfolded. And with a

15 man who, of course -- I'm not sure if this is protected or otherwise. No,

16 I better not say that. I'm not sure. We're in public session.

17 Just one minute. Would Your Honours just give me a minute.

18 [Prosecution counsel confer]

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

20 [Trial Chamber confers]

21 MR. NICE: Your Honours, I'm grateful that amongst other things

22 for a reminder that again a couple of witnesses, and I think -- or one --

23 Matovina is one and Kandic is another, themselves specifically expressed,

24 I haven't found the references, and I'm grateful to my friends for

25 reminding me of them, but specifically refer to, as it were, a Greater

Page 43264

1 Serbia putting the emphasis on "a" rather than on the concept. And

2 that's -- these again are not witnesses we rehearse into their statement

3 of their understanding nor could we, but they express what -- how they saw

4 things.

5 Now, I think it's also important to bear in mind with, as you view

6 this part of the history of the case and as the issues that you're going

7 to have to deal with that connection to the historical concept of Greater

8 Serbia is not only something that may exist on a practical level, may

9 exist on a practical level as between this accused and the concept itself,

10 but for example it's something that might exist as a connection between

11 the SANU memorandum and the concept of Greater Serbia, but all those

12 understated or unstated. And therefore, it's far better to -- in our

13 respectful submission far more -- and far more realistic to say what was

14 this man seeking to achieve? He was seeking to achieve an enlarged

15 centralised Serbian state. In many ways, picking up on His Honour Judge

16 Bonomy's point, but not at the time always, it would have matched the

17 ambitions of or part of the ambitions of people like this particular

18 witness. It reflected other ideas, for example, the SANU memorandum

19 without being stated by him. But what we're concerned with in this court

20 is whether what he did by way of seeking to establish a Greater Serbian

21 state involves the commission of the crimes.

22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, would you care just to summarise what

23 the Prosecution's case is on this point in just two or three sentences.

24 MR. NICE: Yes.


Page 43265

1 MR. NICE: Yes. This is -- I'm grateful to Mr. Saxon.

2 The accused asked -- no, no. The accused -- the accused asked a

3 question of a witness Erstic and the 25th of July, 2003, this question.

4 He said: "Which speech of mine did you hear in which something was said

5 that might have been against the Croats or against any people in

6 Yugoslavia? Which speech did you hear?

7 "Answer: Yes, sir. I watched you on television yourself when

8 you were holding those rallies in Belgrade, when you were shouting, We

9 want a Greater Serbia and all Serbs have to live in one state."

10 Now, that's his recollection of the way things were expressed. I

11 don't have it on a videotape, but there's a witness making a connection

12 between his understanding of in whatever loose or technical form the

13 term "Greater Serbia" and all Serbs living in one state. And we have been

14 clear, I've been clear, that in answer to Your Honour Judge Robinson's

15 point, the ambitions of this accused at the material time and once the

16 possibility for retaining the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia were

17 gone, his ambitions were to have an enlarged or he was party to the

18 ambitions to have an enlarged Serbian state and that informed his actions.

19 JUDGE ROBINSON: An enlarged Serbian state.

20 MR. NICE: Yes. De facto Greater Serbia, however you describe

21 it. But not the concept of this man, this witness, or his party. At

22 least as expressed.

23 I see I have another note. Yes. I think I've made this point but

24 if not I'm happy to either repeat myself or restate what I've already

25 stated for greater clarity, that is that once the decision had been made

Page 43266

1 to let Slovenia go, Croatia was allowed to go or it was contemplated that

2 Croatia could go on terms that it left but without the parts that were

3 going to remain under Serbian control, and at that stage, again to pick up

4 on His Honour Judge Bonomy's point it wasn't the plan at that stage to

5 include all of Bosnia except that. They faced the realities and

6 restricted themselves to the parts as the accused himself says in various

7 places dealing with it by percentages that it was realistic for them to

8 retain.

9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Nice. This is essentially a

10 matter for the Prosecutor, clarifying what his case is, so I'm not

11 requiring submissions either from Mr. Kay or Mr. Milosevic, but if you

12 have anything to say Mr. Kay, then you may say it, and similarly

13 Mr. Milosevic.

14 MR. KAY: Nothing further.

15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Mr. Milosevic, anything to say on this

16 point bearing in mind, as I said, it's essentially for the Prosecutor to

17 clarify what his case is.

18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It is absolutely clear to me, Mr.

19 Robinson, that you asked this question of him. However, since Mr. Nice

20 stated many things that are not correct, I do have a need to speak,

21 because he spoke for 40 minutes.

22 First of all, Serbs in one state is no slogan. That was and had

23 been a reality for a full 70 years, from the creation of Yugoslavia until

24 1991 what certain republics started to secede in an unlawful way and

25 through armed conflicts. So Serbs in one state was a reality for 70

Page 43267

1 years. And if Mr. Nice accuses anyone of trying to preserve a state that

2 was the only internationally recognised entity and a founding member of

3 the United Nations from the First World War, then I suppose the list of

4 those who can be accused of the same is really long. So let us leave that

5 aside.

6 Also, Mr. Robinson, you used an expression to the effect they

7 should live in one state. That is wrong. They lived in one state. It

8 was not a theory about how they should live in the future. They lived in

9 one state and it was for the preservation of that state that we worked.

10 Now, this is probably the first and the only instance in any

11 trial, although you probably know more about trials, maybe you know of

12 some other instance of this, that the Prosecution, after three and a half

13 years since the beginning of their case, is not aware of what exactly

14 their charges are. I think this Prosecution will be studied at

15 universities.

16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic --

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

18 JUDGE ROBINSON: I don't think it's correct to say that they're

19 not aware of what the charges are. The question has to do with the policy

20 behind the Prosecution case, what the case actually is, not the actual

21 charges.

22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, an even greater

23 problem here is that at your insistence - and when I say "your insistence"

24 I mean all three of you - if everything were clear, you probably wouldn't

25 have any need to insist, but you do insist. It means it isn't clear, so

Page 43268

1 at your insistence he's trying to clarify what exactly the case is. So

2 what is the sense of all that he has been saying far? It is my

3 fundamental right to know what I'm being accused of in order to answer

4 these accusations.

5 Another thing: In the past hour, Mr. Nice changed his position

6 three times, one more nonsensical than the other. First, he said that he

7 was not accusing me of advocating a Greater Serbia. It's all in the

8 transcript. I don't need to quote it. Let us not manipulate what has

9 been said here.

10 Then he does accuse me of it, and then is that the same thing as

11 all Serbs in one state with Yugoslavia having existed as a state for 70

12 years, and then he goes on to manipulate facts. He just mentioned the

13 testimony of Academician Popov and some part of map, whereas it has been

14 shown quite clearly that Mr. Nice manipulated those Epoka maps. It was a

15 magazine that was published in Belgrade.

16 Karlobag-Ogulin-Virovitica line was in a map that was published in

17 this magazine, and then some sort of link is being made with me, but he

18 doesn't mention that there was a text next to the map where it says that

19 those are writing it do not agree with the map. So it's pure

20 manipulation.

21 The map of the Belgrade initiative according to which

22 Izetbegovic --

23 JUDGE ROBINSON: The word "manipulation" has come across in the

24 translation. It's -- you're on safer ground if you say that he

25 misinterpreted the map. Proceed.

Page 43269

1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] He did not misinterpret it. He

2 showed a map accompanied by a text which expresses a critical attitude to

3 the map that the magazine was advocating. It is clear that this was done

4 deliberately, and it is pure lie.

5 The Belgrade initiative map that Izetbegovic was pushing, when he

6 was president of that state, he showed as the map of Greater Serbia. He's

7 consciously deceiving everyone here. You probably missed it.

8 He just said about the possibility for the SFRY to survive, he

9 just said he, meaning I, did it at The Hague Conference. The Hague

10 Conference offered a break-up of Yugoslavia that I refused. So it's quite

11 the opposite. He simply doesn't know what he's talking about anymore.

12 Either that or he's presenting notorious lies that are so obvious that I

13 don't know what to say.

14 I've already told you that Mr. Nice should be held criminally

15 responsible for deliberate obstruction of truth and deceit, because he has

16 had all the facts --

17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic. Mr. Milosevic, you're getting

18 carried away. I said initially that this was primarily a matter for the

19 Prosecutor to clarify what his case is. He has done that. If you have

20 any submissions to make on that particular legal issue, legal issue, then

21 you may make them. I am allowing you to speak, even though I don't

22 consider it to be absolutely necessary, because I want to be fair to you,

23 because it impinges on your case, but you must confine your submissions to

24 legal issues. Don't make accusations.

25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, Mr. Robinson, it is also a

Page 43270

1 legal issue. Even now when he is trying to explain at your request, and

2 you didn't make that request because everything was clear to you but

3 because it isn't clear to you. He's now talking about A and B plans.

4 Where does he take that from? Did he present any evidence here about

5 plans A and B? Then he mentioned an intercept where Milosevic is

6 allegedly heard saying, And where is the London conference map? The

7 London conference map was mentioned by my collocutor in that intercept,

8 whereas I was extremely uninterested. That is the sort of manipulation

9 that I believe no one should allow.

10 And look, Mr. Nice is supposed to time his references to Greater

11 Serbia. He says this is when I mentioned it the first time, and this is

12 when I mentioned it the last time. He was supposed to establish a basis,

13 although Mr. Kay already warned him that no human being can stand a trial

14 longer than two and a half years, and still you went through with it.

15 Then he says he doesn't link the plan with me and I didn't say that.

16 Then on page 82 in his opening, the army, the evidence was no

17 better -- "the evidence shows it was no better." "[In English] Committed

18 itself to the accused's programme."

19 [Interpretation] Is there any clearer than that. "Officers were

20 being instilled with the ideology of brotherhood and unity, totally

21 abandoned everything in favour of Greater Serbia." This is very explicit.

22 I therefore insist, gentlemen, that we clear up first of all what

23 I'm being charged with and then I can make my case.

24 Then if you will look at the testimony of academician Cedomir

25 Popov. It's page 34587. Mr. Nice says: "Can I also by way -- not by way

Page 43271

1 of correction but reminder alert the Chamber and the accused to the

2 reality that neither in my opening speeches to this Court in my own name

3 or behalf of the Prosecution rely upon the words 'Greater Serbia.'"

4 Just look at that. During the testimony of Popov, he distanced

5 himself from it, whereas now he relies on his opening. I used the phrase

6 once. [In English] With the man Seselj [Interpretation] associating it

7 with the man Seselj. That is not true. He referred to Greater Serbia

8 mentioning man Seselj but not in his opening statement. In his opening

9 statement it was associated with me, whereas now he says that the

10 Prosecution never relied on Greater Serbia. "[In English] I used the

11 phrase once associating with the man Seselj, and I think on two occasions

12 I referred to the concept of all Serbs in one state."

13 [Interpretation] Again, he doesn't know what he's talking about.

14 All Serbs in one state, that was the Yugoslavia we were trying to

15 preserve. And the phrase the "Greater Serbia" which has never been

16 attributed to the mouth of the accused is the concept that has been

17 referred to by many other witnesses, and of course we can't control them

18 in their and analysis and understanding. Well, is Mr. Nice now going to

19 withdraw those witnesses that he cannot control and who misunderstood him?

20 Now he says that we heard testimony from some witness who heard me

21 on television asking for Greater Serbia. All my speeches were recorded by

22 television. They were attended by thousands and millions of people.

23 These are blatant lies. Blatant lies. According to the practice supplied

24 here, he can lead evidence here and make claims that everybody knows is a

25 notorious lie. This is just the tip of the iceberg of this fiasco that we

Page 43272












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 43273

1 are facing here.

2 Then Judge Robinson, before that he says: "[In English] [Previous

3 translation continues] ... is a concept that's been referred to by many

4 other witnesses and of course we can't control them in their analysis and

5 understanding of events. So far as the Prosecution is concerned, it's

6 always been careful to limit its approach to the issue to the way I opened

7 the case."

8 [Interpretation] And I already quoted to you how he opened the

9 Prosecution case. It was completely indecent.

10 Judge Robinson asks the question: "It is not in the indictment."

11 Mr. Nice: "[In English] It's in one of the indictments as well but those

12 of course preceded my openings, and my opening in the sense of the matter

13 of general theory and principle surprised them but you are quite right."

14 Judge Robinson: "But you're not saying it's not an important part of the

15 Prosecution case." Mr. Nice: "I'm not saying that. Not at all. No.

16 It's an important, it's an important matter to have in mind but we always

17 expressed ourselves in term of all Serbs in one state."

18 [Interpretation] I've just read to you what he said.

19 "We've always expressed a notion in one way or another

20 instrumentalising the opinion of others."

21 I believe that you should demand from Mr. Nice, Mr. Robinson, to

22 define precisely what his case is and stop this until he does. He just

23 mentioned what people did in Bosnia, in Croatia. People were defending

24 themselves. It was not Serbs who started armed secession and civil war.

25 All the evidence you have before you indicate that for months prior to

Page 43274

1 that others had started killing them.

2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I did ask Mr. Nice to summarise

3 the Prosecution's case on this point, and in answer he said that the

4 concept that the Prosecution embraces is that of an enlarged Serbian

5 state. So that's the position now. We have all the evidence before us.

6 We have the transcript that we can look at. I want to proceed with the

7 case now. I consider that matters --

8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.


10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can you tell me, because you have

11 been presiding for a while and you have been here from the start, which

12 evidence did he present that I worked for an enlarged Serbian state? Was

13 there any evidence that he presented on that account?

14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, that is beside the point. That is

15 his case. I mean, if we find that it is not substantiated, then that will

16 be reflected in the determinations that we make. So we don't have to make

17 a determination of that issue now, as you well know. It is important that

18 you know what you are facing, and he has clarified it.

19 So let us proceed. Ask your next question of this witness. And

20 I'd like to move on to another issue, another subject area.

21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, precisely in order to clarify

22 this, I think the witness who said this himself, and he wouldn't be lying

23 about that, is a leading theoretician on the issue. I accept Mr. Nice's

24 comment that he's not testifying as an expert here, but he wrote a book

25 about this, and the subject can be found in many other books of his. He

Page 43275

1 is currently a politician, the head of the largest opposition party. He's

2 a very qualified witness, so he can speak about it.

3 JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues] ... you're going

4 to ask him about the concept of an enlarged Serbian state?

5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Why? Why not?

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

7 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

8 Q. First of all, Mr. Seselj, I wish to ask you, you've already

9 answered the question of the Croatian response to the concept you are

10 advocating, but tell me this: Do the vehicles, the protagonists of this

11 concept, advocate or did they ever advocate the destruction of Muslims?

12 A. No. The Serbian Radical Party made a geographical map of the

13 larger -- sorry, Greater Serbia, and from that map which we published

14 countless times on the cover page of the colour back side of our magazine,

15 one can say that the western border of the Greater Serbia is on the

16 Karlobag-Ogulin-Virovitica line. That does not contain only territories

17 where Serbs are in the majority. It contains also many territories where

18 Croats, Macedonians, and Muslims are majority population.

19 If somebody says that our intention was to expel all those people,

20 that's nonsense because it would be an exodus.

21 Second, at the time when the Yugoslav crisis was peaking, I wrote

22 a letter to the Serbs of the Muslim faith. It was an open letter

23 published several times where I say, "Muslim brothers, do not let

24 yourselves be deceived as you were deceived in the two world wars, to be

25 the tool in the hands of the enemies of your Serbian brothers." That was

Page 43276

1 published in books, in the press. This can be put at your disposal. We

2 wish --

3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Seselj.

4 Mr. Milosevic, bear in mind that the Prosecution's case relates to

5 the idea of an enlarged Serbian state.

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

7 Q. Mr. Seselj, was there ever any mention of Serbia having any

8 territorial pretensions?

9 A. No. No one ever expressed a position about territorial

10 pretensions on the part of Serbia. Serbs in the federal territorial unit

11 clearly said to the Croats, "If you want to secede from Yugoslavia, we

12 don't want to. We will remain in Yugoslavia. That is why we are setting

13 up the Serbia Krajina." The Serbs in Bosnia-Herzegovina clearly gave the

14 Croats and Muslims to understand that if they wished to secede from

15 Yugoslavia, the Serbs did not and wished to remain in Yugoslavia. This

16 was stated clearly at the beginning of every war. "We do not want to

17 leave Yugoslavia, but you do." Nobody avoided talks about how one could

18 leave Yugoslavia. Cutileiro's plan was even drawn up in Bosnia, accepted

19 by the Muslims and, Serbs but under American pressure the Muslims later

20 changed their mind.

21 What the Orthodox Serbs wanted was the preservation of Yugoslavia,

22 not an enlarged Serbia. Most of Serbs didn't even want a Greater Serbia.

23 It was only the Serb Radical Party that wanted it.

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

25 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Page 43277

1 Q. Mr. Seselj, a little while ago Mr. Nice explained his position.

2 He quoted something, probably from one of his documents, saying that it

3 was my plan to expel Muslims from part of the territory of Bosnia and

4 Herzegovina. I assume the Serb-controlled parts. He, of course, did not

5 support this with any evidence, but that's what he claims.

6 Could you explain, please, how it is possible for someone to have

7 a plan to expel Muslims from Serb-controlled parts of Bosnia while not

8 expelling any Muslims from Serbia which is all under Serb control and

9 where there is no war at all?

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

11 not allow that.

12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

13 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

14 Q. Mr. Seselj, was there on my part or on the part of anyone in the

15 Serb leadership that you know of a plan to expel Muslims from any part of

16 Bosnia and Herzegovina?

17 A. No. Never did there exist a plan on the expulsion of Muslims.

18 You wanted Bosnia and Herzegovina to remain within Yugoslavia as a whole,

19 even if Slovenia and Croatia secede, and you negotiated with Izetbegovic.

20 As far as I know and remember, you offered Izetbegovic the position of the

21 first president of the Rump Yugoslavia if a complete break-up could be

22 avoided. Izetbegovic first accepted this and then changed his mind under

23 American pressure. The Americans said to him, "Why would you want a Rump

24 Yugoslavia when you can have full independence?" If all Serbs remained in

25 one state, then all Muslims would also remain in one state, because the

Page 43278

1 Muslims lived in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, and Kosovo and Metohija,

2 Montenegro, and Macedonia.

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

4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

5 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

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

7 then 22.

8 A. Just a moment. Let me get my copy of the indictment as I have

9 been a passive observer for more than an hour. You're saying paragraph 7?

10 Q. Yes. Page 3 of the Croatian part.

11 A. Yes, I've found it.

12 Q. It says here: "This joint criminal enterprise came into existence

13 before the 1st of August, 1991, and continued until at least June 1992."

14 So it says here sometime before the 1st of August, 1991.

15 Now look at 22. It says here: "Vojislav Seselj, as president of

16 the Serbian Radical Party, SRS, from at least February 1991 throughout the

17 time relevant," so far about six months you were a participant in a joint

18 criminal enterprise before it even came into existence. Can you please

19 describe these crimes of yours so that we can hear what kind of crimes

20 they are?

21 A. Well, this is truly totally absurd that I was a member of a joint

22 criminal enterprise which came into existence sometime before the 1st of

23 August, 1991, and yet I was its participant from at least February 1991.

24 Well, perhaps I became participant when I was a baby. I have no answer to

25 give to this. First of all, there was no joint criminal enterprise.

Page 43279

1 Secondly, as for my participation in the war effort, I have

2 already described it. I described it yesterday.

3 Secondly, my advocation of a Greater Serbia has practically

4 nothing to do with the civil war that was waged.

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

6 question.

7 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

8 Q. Very specific, very direct: Was there a joint criminal enterprise

9 of which you could or could not be a member?

10 A. There was no joint criminal enterprise. I have never even met

11 many of the people on this list.

12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, the question arises

13 here as to how negative facts can be proved. Do you expect me to prove

14 that what Mr. Nice alleges did not happen, that what Mr. Nice alleges did

15 not exist or is it up to Mr. Nice to prove that it did exist?

16 JUDGE ROBINSON: As you well know, the burden of proof is on the

17 Prosecution. You don't have to prove a thing. You can sit there and

18 remain silent and walk through that door at the end of the case a free

19 man. You don't have to prove anything.

20 Next question.

21 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

22 Q. Mr. Seselj, before we move on to the next topic, look at the

23 Bosnian part. Please look at paragraphs 7 and 22 of the Bosnian part. It

24 says here -- in fact, it doesn't even have the words "at least." It

25 says: "This joint criminal enterprise was in existence by the 1st of

Page 43280

1 August, 1991, and continued until at least the 31st of December, 1995."

2 So this covers Dayton and the end of Dayton. All of it was a

3 joint criminal enterprise from the 1st of August.

4 And now look at paragraph 22, which mentions you, and here it says

5 again "at least," there was a joint criminal enterprise, according to

6 paragraph 7, from the 1st of August, and you were its participant from at

7 least February 1991.

8 A. Until the end of 1995 as alleged in paragraph 7. However, in the

9 indictment raised against me it says I was a member of the JC until 1993.

10 And the Prosecutor is the same in both cases, and they're both sitting

11 here now.

12 Q. Tell me, do you have any idea why the 1st of August, 1991, is

13 mentioned here as the date when this alleged JC came into existence?

14 A. Because that was when the JNA came into conflict with the Croatian

15 separatists and their paramilitary units. Approximately at that time the

16 army started to respond to the armed action which it had been exposed to

17 even before, but it had been too passive and refrained from returning

18 fire.

19 As far as I personally am concerned, from around the 1st of August

20 onwards, we began sending volunteers to the JNA, but what I did from

21 February 1991 until August 1991, I don't know what they think I was doing

22 at the time, but what can it have to do with the rest of you mentioned

23 here?

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

25 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Page 43281

1 Q. Mr. Seselj, the question you raised at the end of your reply is

2 something I really cannot answer, but we shall see.

3 A. Well, I will be thinking about it for the next three years while

4 I'm waiting for my trial to begin.

5 Q. Let me see now. Paragraph -- well, you have to read paragraph 9

6 in both parts, the Croatian and the Bosnian parts, because it says

7 here "In order for the joint criminal enterprise to succeed in its

8 objective, Slobodan Milosevic worked in concert with or through other

9 individuals in the joint criminal enterprise. Each participant or

10 co-perpetrator within the joint criminal enterprise sharing the intent to

11 contribute to the enterprise played his or her own role or roles that

12 significantly contributed to achieving the objective of the enterprise.

13 The roles of the participants or co-perpetrators include but are not

14 limited to the following," and then you are mentioned.

15 Is it clearer to you now what crimes you're accused of,

16 Mr. Seselj?

17 A. No, of course not. But, Mr. Milosevic, how can they link me up to

18 you when the two of us met for the first time in our lives in April 1992,

19 and we had allegedly been members of this joint criminal enterprise for a

20 year?

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

22 something?

23 A. No. It was in the building of the national assembly. You came to

24 the session. You were sitting in the front row. I came along, and we

25 only shook hands as a matter of courtesy. Afterwards we met in the

Page 43282












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 43283

1 corridor and walked down the stairs together, and we had a very casual

2 conversation about the session of that day. That was our first meeting.

3 Q. This was 1992?

4 A. April 1992. I am sure of that. The press recorded that meeting.

5 Our photograph together was published in many newspapers. We had never

6 met before that occasion or had any contact.

7 Q. Very well. And if you remember, when did we first meet to discuss

8 a political topic? When was our first meeting to talk?

9 A. That was in May 1992, when at your invitation I came to the

10 Presidency of Serbia and we discussed the forthcoming federal elections.

11 You wanted to hear whether the Serbian Radical Party would participate in

12 the elections because all the other opposition parties under American

13 influence had stated they would boycott the first federal elections after

14 the adoption of the constitution.

15 Q. Can you explain why these opposition parties, some opposition

16 parties, I can't say all of them because you were one of the largest at

17 the time and you did not boycott the elections, why did they boycott the

18 first federal elections for the parliament of the Federal Republic of

19 Yugoslavia?

20 A. Following orders from the American embassy because the Americans

21 were avoiding having to recognise the continuity, the legal continuity,

22 although it -- of the state, although it was recognised by the People's

23 Republic of China and other countries. The People's Republic of China was

24 the first state to recognise the continuity of the state. The US

25 instrumentalised the opposition parties. They wanted them to not

Page 43284

1 participate in the elections in order to challenge the continuity of the

2 state and in order to use them as a tool against our country.

3 Q. And these federal parliamentary elections, were they held in spite

4 of this? Were they successful, and did citizens turn out in a higher

5 percentage that than they do now?

6 A. Yes. The turnout was much higher than now. The elections were

7 very successful, and it transpired that the Serb Radical Party was the

8 second most powerful political party in the country, of course thanks to

9 the boycott by all the other opposition parties.

10 Q. Thank you.

11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It's a quarter past 12.00. Is it

12 time for a break, Mr. Robinson?

13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you for reminding me, Mr. Milosevic.

14 We will adjourn now for 20 minutes.

15 --- Recess taken at 12.16 p.m.

16 --- On resuming at 12.41 p.m.

17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, before I go on, please

19 consider my motion. I move that this excerpt from Mr. Seselj's book, "The

20 Ideology of Serb Nationalism," be exhibited. It has been translated and

21 delivered to you and all participants.

22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, it's admitted.

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

24 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

25 Q. Now let us clarify something, Mr. Seselj. But before we do, I

Page 43285

1 have to put a question to Mr. Robinson. For you, Mr. Seselj, in

2 paragraph 7 of the Bosnian paper, it says that this joint criminal

3 enterprise was in existence by the 1st of August. In paragraph 9, it says

4 that each participant implemented a part of the plan, and then in

5 paragraph 22 you are mentioned as part of this joint criminal enterprise

6 from February 1991 at least.

7 For the witness and myself to be clear about what this is about,

8 Mr. Robinson, please have Mr. Nice explain, because it's a consistent text

9 and he wrote both parts, whether this alleged JCE of which I was at the

10 head and which Mr. Seselj participated in came into existence on the 1st

11 of August as is stated if paragraph 7 or from at least February 1991 as

12 mentioned in paragraph 22, because the discrepancy is six months, and this

13 is very important. Could Mr. Nice please tell us from when he believes

14 there was a joint criminal enterprise.

15 JUDGE ROBINSON: That is not the kind of matter that I'd ask the

16 Prosecutor to explain. If you believe that there is a discrepancy, then

17 it can only add on to your benefit, and that's a point you would make in

18 your closing remarks.

19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, what I believe or not

20 doesn't matter at this point, but the difference between the 1st of August

21 and February is a discrepancy of six months. I don't know what kind of

22 criminal enterprise Mr. Nice is referring to, one that began on the 1st of

23 August or one that began in February. So how can I put questions to

24 Mr. Seselj about it?

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's clear to me, Mr. Milosevic,

Page 43286

1 from the 1st of February I myself was a member of the JCE. I joined

2 myself, and then six months later you and the others joined me. I

3 understood this immediately.

4 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

5 Q. Very well, Mr. Seselj. You have greatly assisted Mr. Nice, and

6 I'm glad you are cooperating with him so well. I will continue with my

7 questions now.

8 Mr. Seselj, in paragraph 7 of the Croatian part, the following

9 members of the JCE are listed. It says here: "Individuals participating

10 in this joint criminal enterprise included," it begins with me, of course,

11 and then it goes on to list a number of people.

12 The next is Borislav Jovic. What was your relationship with

13 Borisav Jovic?

14 A. I have never had any contacts or meetings with Borislav Jovic. I

15 had never had any until that session that you attended and Borislav Jovic

16 also attended it.

17 In 1991, at the elections in Rakovica when there was a seat in

18 parliament up for election, I was there representing my party and Borislav

19 Jovic was representing a rival party. I will remind you he was at that

20 time the president of the Socialist Party, and he was holding a

21 counter-rally to support the candidate of your party.

22 Q. That's not unusual.

23 A. No. But we were members of opposing political parties, rival

24 parties, and we had never met. I defeated your party's candidate

25 resoundingly. I had three times more votes than he did but I won't bring

Page 43287

1 that up now.

2 Q. Mr. Seselj, you have answered my question very precisely. So you

3 did not have anything to do with Borislav Jovic.

4 A. No, I didn't.

5 Q. The next one on the list is Branko Kostic, who at the time, as far

6 as I can recall, was the deputy president of the Presidency of the SFRY,

7 and he was elected in the Republic of Montenegro, which he represented in

8 the Presidency of the SFRY. What were your relations with Branko Kostic?

9 A. The first time in my life I spoke to Branko Kostic was at the

10 federal elections in late May 1992 when the Federal Assembly was

11 constituted in June and when a candidate for the Presidency was Svetozar

12 Markovic. Our party opposed this, and we said that we would nominate

13 Branko Kostic as our candidate. We didn't really know him but they were

14 both from Montenegro, and we thought it better for Kostic to be nominated.

15 Then, Mr. Milosevic, you invited me for a talk, and you suggested

16 that we nominate Dobrica Cosic. I agreed and that's how we gave up

17 nominating Branko Kostic. But I didn't know the man at all. He was

18 reputed to be a very honourable man, but you convinced me that Dobrica

19 Cosic was a better candidate at that point in time.

20 Q. As the next in this JCE is Veljko Kadijevic. What was your

21 relation to Veljko Kadijevic?

22 A. I had never met Veljko Kadijevic in my life. We never talked

23 about anything. We had no contact whatsoever. However, I often attacked

24 him in public. I considered him to be a rigid communist, a dogmatic

25 communist at first, and afterwards I had my doubts. I thought that he was

Page 43288

1 an American spy. He completed a school for generals in the United States,

2 and his behaviour during the war was suspicious so I often attacked him,

3 and I thought that he should be replaced.

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

5 your life?

6 A. I never met him in my life.

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

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

9 Q. And what about the next person in this joint criminal enterprise

10 that Mr. Nice has been insisting upon here, Blagoje Adzic.

11 A. I first met him after the promulgation of the constitution of the

12 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia towards the end of April 1992 at the grand

13 reception after the parliament meeting was held. This was just before he

14 was pensioned off. This was just a courtesy handshake. Perhaps we

15 exchanged a word or two. We never discussed anything of substance. I had

16 nothing to talk about to him, although in public I expressed a negative

17 view of him, perhaps like of Kadijevic, but in a somewhat milder form.

18 Q. The next person in this paragraph 7 is Milan Babic. Tell me,

19 please, what was your attitude towards Milan Babic at the time as an

20 alleged participant in this joint criminal enterprise?

21 A. I met Milan Babic at the end of August or beginning of September

22 1990. We had proper relations. We did not see each other often. We did

23 not contact very often, but I think that our relations were relatively

24 good until the first democratic multi-party elections for the national

25 assembly of the Republic of Serb Krajina. That was towards the end of

Page 43289

1 1993.

2 At these elections, the Serb Radical Party won a very large number

3 of seats in parliament. Babic's party was individually the biggest party

4 in parliament. We agreed that our parties would set up a coalition and a

5 coalition government that he would head. He cheated us after that. He

6 reached an agreement with Borislav Mikelic and joined Mikelic's government

7 as Foreign Minister. Since then I've never seen him again, and I never

8 spoke of him well since because I thought this was a person who did not

9 deserve any kind of political communication because I thought that this

10 was a vile thing to do.

11 Q. Let's just dwell on Milan Babic for a second. Do you remember

12 that I had a clash with him or, rather, that I criticised his behaviour on

13 some occasion? I don't want to put a leading question to you so I'm not

14 going to tell you what occasion that was. But at any rate, very publicly

15 there was a dispute. Do you remember that?

16 A. Yes. It was on the occasion of the Vance Plan. This was sometime

17 in January 1992, if my memory serves me right. The talks were held in

18 Belgrade at the initiative expressed by the West that the leadership of

19 Serbia and the SFRY should take part in concluding the Vance Plan.

20 Milan Babic was a hard-liner at the time. I don't know whether

21 you personally attended this big meeting of the state Presidency and the

22 state leadership in general. He was talked into accepting the plan. I

23 think that the president of the national assembly Mile Paspalj signed that

24 agreement.

25 Since Milan Babic speaks until -- sleeps until 2.00 or 3.00 in the

Page 43290

1 afternoon, that was taken advantage of. This meeting was scheduled for

2 9.00 a.m., and that is how it went through.

3 Q. This meeting that you referred to was held at the Presidency of

4 the SFRY. I was not a member, but you put it right that it was --

5 A. I never said that you were present. I said that you publicly

6 supported the Vance Plan. I did not say that you were one of the

7 participants in the meeting. Actually, I had no way of knowing because I

8 was not personally present. It is my knowledge that this meeting was

9 held. It was published in the media that this meeting was held, and it is

10 my knowledge that he was the only one who opposed accepting the Vance Plan

11 and that everybody else was in favour of it. I never said that you were

12 present there.

13 Q. Well, I understand what you were saying, but I want that to be

14 expressed clearly here for the sake of the transcript. It was a bit

15 unclear.

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

17 A. Well, in the dispute between you and Milan Babic, I was on the

18 side of Milan Babic, although after some talks with a group of prominent

19 intellectuals in Belgrade, I subsequently supported the Vance Plan.

20 Unfortunately, later on that proved to be a mistake because we were

21 cheated both by the Western powers and the United Nations. However, at

22 that moment, I was on Milan Babic's side. I wanted in a way for political

23 relations to be improved between Serbia and the SFRY and the authorities

24 of the Serb Krajina. I thought that there shouldn't be any clashes there,

25 especially not in public because that could work to the detriment of

Page 43291

1 overall state and national interests.

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

3 these disputes.

4 A. Yes.

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

6 that?

7 A. Well, I personally preferred his hard-line policy towards the

8 Croatian leadership and the Western powers rather than your policy of

9 reconciliation and agreement. You always wanted agreement. You always

10 wanted compromise. You were in favour of dialogue, and I regularly had a

11 much more hard-line position. I always preferred people who, like me,

12 took these hard-line positions.

13 Q. In paragraph 7, the next person who is mentioned as a participant

14 in this alleged joint criminal enterprise is Milan Martic. What was your

15 attitude towards Milan Martic as a participant in this alleged joint

16 criminal enterprise?

17 A. I met Milan Martic and saw him whenever I came to the Serb

18 Krajina. At first our relations were good and then we clashed in 1993

19 when there was a fierce clash between the Serb Radical Party and your

20 Socialist Party of Serbia. It was then that Milan Martic issued some kind

21 of a press release against the Serb Radical Party, and that's when the

22 period of our conflict started.

23 In the elections of the Serb Krajina held that autumn, the Serb

24 Radical Party had Rade Leskovac, the then president of the Serb Radical

25 Party for the Republic of Serb Krajina, as its own presidential

Page 43292












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 43293

1 candidate. We did not support either Babic or Milan Martic. But in the

2 second round, when it was Milan Babic and Milan Martic who got into the

3 second round, we fully supported Milan Babic. Almost all other political

4 parties supported Milan Martic. As far as I can remember, your Socialist

5 Party held the view that Martic was a better solution.

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

7 Milan Babic?

8 A. Yes. Time proved Milan Martic to be an exceptionally honest and

9 honourable man, in spite of our dispute, somebody who never violated any

10 kind of morality. As for Babic, he turned out to be a really rotten

11 person, and I am really sorry that I favoured the other person at the

12 time.

13 Q. On the basis of what did you come to that conclusion that he was

14 such a bad person, such a rotten person, as you said?

15 A. On the basis of many things. First of all, his attitude towards

16 the coalition that we set up, and then also that he heard that there would

17 be a Croat aggression against the republic of Serb Krajina in 1995. He

18 tacitly sent his family to Belgrade and his compatriots remained and were

19 victimised in other parts then -- of Krajina. Then also he appeared as a

20 false witness in many of these proceedings. He was also heralded or

21 rather announced as a false witness in my trial. I am not disclosing any

22 secrets because it was said in public.

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

24 note the interpreters.

25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic.

Page 43294

1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes?

2 JUDGE ROBINSON: A request from the interpreters.

3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

4 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

5 Q. Mr. Seselj, in paragraph 7, the next person referred to as an

6 alleged participant in the alleged joint criminal enterprise is Goran

7 Hadzic. What can you say --

8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice is on his feet.

9 MR. NICE: There's a terminological choice of this witness. I

10 expect the Chamber's alert to it, but where he says that Mr. Babic was

11 heralded or announced as a witness in the trial, he's correct, but the way

12 he prefaces the word witness with "false" might in some way lead the

13 reader to think that there was some acknowledgement in those prosecuting

14 this particular witness that the -- that Babic was not being relied upon.

15 Babic is being relied upon. The word "false" is simply his

16 characterisation of the person.

17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Nice. That would be noted.

18 It's the witness's own description.

19 Yes, Mr. Milosevic. Please continue, yes.

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, will you allow me to

21 say something? I followed the testimony of --

22 JUDGE ROBINSON: No, not on that at all. Absolutely no.

23 Continue, Mr. Milosevic.

24 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

25 Q. Do you believe or do you believe that Milan Babic is someone

Page 43295

1 oriented only towards his career, someone who is a liar and someone who

2 always tries to gets benefits for himself only?

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

4 MR. NICE: [Previous translation continues] ... and I say no more

5 about it. That's clearly an objectionable form of question.

6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I will not allow that question.

7 You'd have to rephrase it. It's leading, and it's -- it's objectionable.

8 It's objectionable.

9 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

10 Q. Mr. Seselj. Mr. Seselj, Mr. Milan Babic is on the list of

11 participants in the alleged joint criminal enterprise, the same list on

12 which you are. Do you have any reasons or any facts to proffer as to why

13 it bothers you to be in the same company as Milan Babic?

14 A. Yes. First of all, no person from this list was in good relations

15 with Milan Babic, and no one ever had a good opinion of him. I'm the only

16 one that in a given period of time had sort of good relations with him.

17 Milan Babic was a coward during the war. He never dared tour the

18 troops at the front line. He was very narrow-minded, merchantile, and

19 after the war he proved to be a bad person too. Over here Milan Babic

20 said things that were untruthful. For example, he said that Marko

21 Negovanovic, as minister of defence of Serbia, gave a helicopter that took

22 me to Western Slavonia. And Marko Negovanovic at that time was not

23 minister of defence of Serbia. It was Tomislav Simovic, who we also have

24 on this list. That is one illustration for you --

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

Page 43296

1 question.

2 Next question.

3 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

4 Q. Thank you, Mr. Seselj. I put a question to you in relation to

5 Goran Hadzic. However, in view of Mr. Nice's intervention, you didn't

6 have time to answer it so I'm repeating the question. Not to add

7 everything that I asked you in this connection, tell me about Goran

8 Hadzic.

9 A. I was in constant conflict with Goran Hadzic, so our relationship

10 was a hostile one. I attacked him strongly in the Sava centre at the

11 pan-Serbian Assembly that was called that was intended to pass a decision

12 to make the leadership of Republika Srpska adopt the Vance Plan. I

13 attacked Goran Hadzic. You were at that session, so I perhaps -- perhaps

14 you will remember that I attacked him ferociously, accusing him of crime

15 and many other things. So we were never -- never on good terms, political

16 or otherwise.

17 Q. The next person is Jovica Stanisic on this list in terms of the

18 joint criminal enterprise. Did you have any kind of relations with Jovica

19 Stanisic in terms of what you have been accused of or what I have been

20 accused of?

21 A. I first met Jovica Stanisic in November 1992 at his own

22 initiative. He sent a message through some republican MP that we should

23 meet. I agreed, and we met in front of the building of the national

24 assembly. He came in some special luxury car with dark glass, armoured,

25 and he warned me that an assassination was being prepared against me in

Page 43297

1 Montenegro by a well-known Montenegrin criminal and head of the

2 Montenegrin underground, Brano Micunovic. That was just before the new

3 elections, the federal elections in 1992. The same information was given

4 to me then by the head of the military security service then, Nedeljko

5 Boskovic but he called me over the phone and told me that quite openly.

6 Jovica Stanisic did not phone me. We didn't even know each other. He

7 asked for a direct meeting, and he told me that.

8 I did not even take part in this election campaign. I did not

9 travel there at all. I had a bad back at the time. I had surgery, so in

10 Montenegro I did not even carry out an election campaign.

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

12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Seselj. Mr. Seselj, I knew the interpreters

13 were going to intervene again because of the speed with which you speak.

14 You get caught up with your own words, and you're carried away. You speak

15 too fast.

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I understand your

17 problems and the problems of the interpreters, but you should bear in mind

18 that the way in which I speak shows that I am speaking as a person who

19 speaks the truth with passion. A person can speak this way only if he

20 tells the truth, not if he lies. I hope that you will agree with me, but

21 I will make an effort to speak slower.

22 JUDGE ROBINSON: The Chamber will determine that. We are

23 assessing your demeanour. Let me assure you of that. Now --

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] After that, I was constantly

25 clashing with Jovica Stanisic. He was head of the State Security Service

Page 43298

1 of Serbia, and after our fierce conflict with that service they made every

2 effort to break up the Serb Radical Party. You probably remember the

3 affair of trying to buy off seven of our MPs headed by Jovan Glamocanin

4 [phoen] when they were given money to --

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

6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Seselj, you have to do better. And,

7 Mr. Milosevic, it is not my responsibility alone. He is your witness. I

8 have a job to control the proceedings, but he's your witness.

9 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

10 Q. Mr. Seselj, I've already thanked you for the information you've

11 given in terms of knowing Jovica Stanisic and this substantive information

12 you gave about his warning that an assassination was being prepared in

13 Montenegro, that they were trying to kill you in Montenegro.

14 The next person on the list is Franko Simatovic?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Please pause after every sentence so that what the interpreters

17 are interpreting would correctly be recorded by the transcript.

18 So in relation to Franko Simatovic.

19 A. Franko Simatovic nicknamed Frenki is a person I had never seen in

20 my life until Simatovic came to the prison of The Hague Tribunal.

21 Q. Thank you, Mr. Seselj. Since you've said that, there is no

22 further need for you to explain your relationship with him. You never met

23 him in your life until he came here to The Hague Tribunal?

24 A. Yes, that is the full truth.

25 Q. Thank you. What was your relationship with Tomislav Simovic who

Page 43299

1 was minister of defence of Serbia for a while?

2 A. While he was minister of defence of Serbia, I was an MP in the

3 Assembly of Serbia. We saw each other from time to time at Assembly

4 sessions. Our relationship was correct without being close. We never had

5 any particular meetings or talks.

6 When I was planning my trip to Western Slavonia at the proposal of

7 Ilija Sasic, minister of defence of Western Slavonia, I addressed General

8 Tomislav Simovic as minister of defence asking him to provide me with a

9 helicopter. He replied that the Ministry of Defence of Serbia has no

10 helicopter or any similar means of transportation.

11 After that I addressed the deputy chief of General Staff, General

12 Marko Negovanovic, who directed me to the commander of air force and air

13 defence, Bozidar Stevanovic. So that was my only direct contact with

14 Tomislav Simovic, and it was for only a particular purpose.

15 Q. So you were an MP in the Assembly of Serbia at the time. Do you

16 know what were the powers and the job of the Ministry of Defence of Serbia

17 at the time? Did it have any armed forces?

18 A. Tomislav Simovic, as minister of defence of Serbia, did not have

19 any powers regarding the JNA. All his competencies related to civilian

20 defence structure, and he may have had powers only to assist but not to

21 command and control the Territorial Defence, because the Territorial

22 Defence Staff had its own commander. So his powers were mainly to prepare

23 civilian structures for possible defence of the country. He could have

24 had certain powers regarding military departments and the inclusion of

25 military conscripts in military service, regular military service.

Page 43300

1 Q. Explain briefly what military departments are.

2 A. They are regional. They're usually municipal departments of the

3 Ministry of Defence that issue call-ups of military conscripts and

4 sometimes the reserve force inviting them to take part in drills. Those

5 are their main competencies.

6 Q. When they invite reservists to military exercises, they are

7 practically doing a job for the JNA?

8 A. Yes. Because it is the JNA that organises military exercises, and

9 the military departments only take it upon themselves to issue the

10 call-ups.

11 Q. So these are jobs linked to the TO?

12 A. That only was introduced in the 1970s and 1980s. They, too - I

13 mean the Territorial Defence - were territorial bodies, because when a

14 government was being formed the Prime Minister designate could not himself

15 decide who the minister of defence would be. He had to ask the JNA for

16 its opinion. He had to ask the General Staff.

17 Q. That is correct. The next name on the list is your name. I will

18 skip it. Followed by Momir Bulatovic. Tell me, what is your attitude

19 toward Momir Bulatovic, especially as an alleged member, and please always

20 bear that in mind, in the alleged JCE?

21 A. He was president of the Republic of Montenegro. I first talked to

22 him when an assassination attempt was made at me after a rally held in

23 Podgorica, the capital of Montenegro. The assassin threw a hand-grenade

24 that injured 62 participants in the rally including me. He was caught

25 soon afterwards, and since I was in Montenegro with my wife, Momir

Page 43301

1 Bulatovic, as president of the republic, came to the airport to see us off

2 to Belgrade and to express his regret over the assassination attempt.

3 After that I didn't have any particular meetings or talks with him

4 for the entire duration of this period covered by the indictment. Of

5 course later we had several meetings and encounters when he became Prime

6 Minister of the federal government, which happened in 1998.

7 Q. Yes, but it covers the period of Kosovo. And at one point your

8 deputy Tomislav Nikolic was deputy Prime Minister in the federal

9 government.

10 A. That's true. I meant the Croatian indictment. Yes, my deputy in

11 the Radical Party was the deputy Prime Minister in the cabinet headed by

12 Momir Bulatovic.

13 Q. What is the relationship between your party, including Tomislav

14 Nikolic, and yourself and Momir Bulatovic?

15 A. There were various stages. Sometimes we were in conflict.

16 Sometimes there were periods of cooperation. Generally I believe Momir

17 Bulatovic is a rather honourable man, so I have no objection to him that

18 way. But to say that we were any -- in any sort of joint enterprise would

19 be too much, especially a criminal enterprise.

20 Q. The next name in paragraph 7 is Aleksandar Vasiljevic. You

21 mentioned yesterday the activities of Aleksandar Vasiljevic. Would you

22 have anything to add to what you said yesterday? And I want to ask you in

23 particular, in your relationship with Aleksandar Vasiljevic, because

24 you're all covered by this general -- sorry, joint criminal enterprise,

25 what was your relationship with him?

Page 43302












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 43303

1 A. We were always in conflict from the time when he was chief of

2 security of the Sarajevo military district, when he prevented me to serve

3 my military service in the school of military officers, something that was

4 my great desire, but he stood in my way as chief of security of the

5 Sarajevo military district.

6 Then he moved to the General Staff in Belgrade as chief of the

7 military security service, and as my political opponent, he spread rumours

8 that I was raped while in prison in Zenica. That was a pure lie, but it

9 was tendentiously spread, because at that time I was intolerable for the

10 regime as a political opponent.

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

12 A. Yes, to humiliate me and also to disqualify me in the public.

13 Because in our people, in our community, that is the greatest humiliation

14 imaginable.

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

16 A. I mean the former SFRY. That lie was launched into the Belgrade

17 public in the end 1980s.

18 Q. I wanted it to be clear on the record when the use -- when use is

19 made of the word "regime," they usually mean the period when I was

20 president.

21 A. No. I mean the other regime of the Socialist Federal Republic of

22 Yugoslavia, and I was talking about the JNA and the Ministry of Defence.

23 Later on, I attacked Aleksandar Vasiljevic several times for his

24 various activities in his capacity as chief of military security, and for

25 a while he was in prison for that. If you remember the Opara and Labrada

Page 43304

1 operations, the laying of explosives to the Jewish municipality and Jewish

2 cemetery, and I accused him of stealing from the Vukovar bank during the

3 liberation of Vukovar. He stole several million Deutschmark that he never

4 turned over to the central bank. If that was war booty, that should have

5 been, according to regulations, turned over to the central service. That

6 money simply disappeared and I publicly accused Aleksandar Vasiljevic for

7 that. I also accused him as chief of the military security of initiating

8 certain crimes on the Serbian side in order to ascribe them to Serbian

9 nationalists. I mean, crimes in Western Slavonia and crimes committed

10 after the liberation of Vukovar.

11 It is curious that he was always present on the ground when these

12 things happened and nobody's prosecuting him for anything.

13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

14 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

15 Q. The next personality mentioned in paragraph 7 together with you in

16 this alleged joint criminal enterprise is Radovan Stojicic, also known as

17 Badza.

18 A. I first met Radovan Stojicic, called Badza, sometime in the summer

19 1991 in Erdut where he was staying as a volunteer of the Territorial

20 Defence of Western Slavonia, Baranja and Western Srem. I also met him at

21 a celebration after the liberation of a part of Serbian Krajina. I think

22 it was a year later.

23 As assistant military police of Serbian commander or rather head

24 of public security, a police general, he organised my arrest and the

25 arrest of my closest associates from the Serbian Radical Party when we

Page 43305

1 attempted to hold a rally in Gnjilane in the area of Kosovo and Metohija.

2 On that occasion my deputy Tomislav Nikolic and I were convicted for

3 misdemeanors, sentenced to two months in prison. Others got slightly

4 lower sentences.

5 Badza was killed in the first half of 1997 in a restaurant called

6 Mama Mia in the centre of Belgrade. We have already spoken about the

7 circumstances of his death during my previous testimony, but I can repeat

8 if you insist.

9 So we had no friendly relationship, no close relationship. We did

10 meet, but he had always been in the fiercest conflict with us, with the

11 radicals, as chief of police.

12 Q. When I questioned you about the claims of Mr. Nice, namely that

13 Serbia was a police state between 1997 and 2000, and that it was not

14 uncommon for some prominent people to be killed, that was mentioned.

15 Radovan Stojicic Badza was a close associate of mine.

16 A. Yes. And he was a very renowned, well-reputed man, and the person

17 who killed him certainly bore that in mind.

18 Q. Mr. Nice insisted also on some murders carried out by the police

19 state. However, it was mainly my associates who were killed in these

20 assassinations.

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Do you remember Zoran Todorovic, my chef -- my -- the head of the

23 Yugoslav left?

24 A. Yes. I remember that. I publicly expressed my suspicion that it

25 was Nenad Djordjevic who killed him. It later turned out that this Nenad

Page 43306

1 Djordjevic was close to Zoran Djindjic and that was indeed proven to be

2 true after the takeover in October 2000. Nobody, however, prosecuted him.

3 This Nenad Djordjevic, known as Kundak, was very prominent in that regime.

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

5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Again, look at the transcript. Interpreters.

6 So, Mr. Seselj, you say for a number of reasons, which include not

7 knowing two of these persons or knowing them only for a relatively short

8 time in terms of the relevant times in the paragraph or because of your

9 political opposition to some of them, the allegation in paragraph 7 is

10 untrue.

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. It is impossible that I should

12 belong to any sort of joint enterprise with these people, especially

13 criminal. It leaves only Arkan with whom I was constantly in conflict,

14 and I was the only politician in Belgrade who was not afraid of always

15 attacking Arkan publicly. And when I appeared in court, he withdrew his

16 charges against me. He didn't dare appear in court. And that was -- he

17 was a very dangerous man at the time.

18 It's simply improbable that we were all enumerated here as a group

19 that had a common plan, common project, common enterprise. We spent much

20 more energy on our internal conflicts and clashes than we had to spend on

21 any sort of cooperation between any two of us.

22 JUDGE ROBINSON: And of course Mr. Milosevic didn't deal with

23 himself, but you were in political opposition to Mr. Milosevic.

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. There was only one period of

25 intense cooperation from March or April 1993 until September 1993. After

Page 43307

1 the elections in December 1992, Milosevic's party was the strongest in

2 nominal terms, but it didn't have majority in the parliament. The second

3 largest one was the Serbian Radical Party. Milosevic's party offered to

4 form a coalition with us, and in the headquarters of the Socialist Party

5 the Prime Minister designate Nikola Sainovic offered us to become part of

6 the government. I as president of the Radical Party refused it. I

7 said it's impossible because we are ideological opponents. However, we

8 can give you a chance. We can support a minority government for a while

9 and if we are not happy later, we will topple it.

10 We supported that minority government of Sainovic for about six

11 months, after which we moved to topple it and that led to the fiercest

12 conflict ever between the Serbian Radical Party and Mr. Milosevic.

13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic.

14 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

15 Q. In these assassinations, Mr. Seselj, of people such as Badza,

16 Zoran Todorovic, Bosko Perosevic, Zika Petrovic, general director of

17 Yugoslav airlines, I don't want to forget any of them --

18 A. Pavle Bulatovic.

19 Q. Pavle Bulatovic, minister of defence. It was mainly my political

20 friends and sympathisers that were killed.

21 A. Although we have to say about Badza that he was involved in some

22 tobacco smuggling with a man called Cane Zabac, but this Cane Zabac was a

23 close associate of Zoran Djindjic for whom he organised various plane

24 trips to Arab Emirates to celebrate the new year. Cane Zabac was one of

25 his main financiers.

Page 43308

1 By some lapse of attention, probably, this -- Badza got involved

2 with Cane Zabac, and at one point he must have gotten in his way when the

3 latter ordered his liquidation.

4 Q. The next person on this list is Zeljko Raznjatovic, Arkan. But I

5 believe you have provided sufficient explanation about that already. If

6 you don't think you have said enough about your relationship with him, you

7 can add to what you said yesterday about Arkan.

8 JUDGE ROBINSON: You have said enough.

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If you feel it's enough, I won't

10 insist. I spoke most about him while he was alive. Now that he's dead, I

11 don't really feel comfortable talking about it but I do have to for the

12 sake of the truth.

13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. We have evidence of that.

14 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

15 Q. Now, when you look at this entire list, Mr. Seselj, it's in

16 paragraph 7, it follows that some of these alleged participants in the

17 joint criminal enterprise with whom you are joined in this paragraph are

18 people you had never met, and with some of them you were in constant

19 conflict.

20 A. And with some occasionally in conflict.

21 Q. Yes, with some occasionally in conflict. Some of them have been

22 accused of certain crimes. I won't go into that. Some not. Do you have

23 any explanation for this?

24 A. I think this was drawn up off the top of somebody's head and is

25 not grounded in any facts.

Page 43309

1 JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm not going to allow that. It can't help the

2 trial to have the witness explain why a particular person was charged with

3 a crime. That's not helping the case. So ask another question,

4 Mr. Milosevic.

5 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

6 Q. In connection with Arkan, you mentioned Dolanc.

7 A. Yes. And he was one of the most powerful people in Tito's time.

8 After Tito's death, he was still one of the most powerful people around.

9 Q. Let us now move on from the topic of Arkan which you explained

10 yesterday. You attacked Dolanc in public more than once?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. In tabs 9, 10, and 11 there are excerpts from your book, "The

13 Campaign Against Heretics," in which, would you please just take a look,

14 you published letters which you sent to the federal public prosecutor of

15 Yugoslavia.

16 A. There were also two open letters to Dolanc.

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

18 prosecutor.

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. The first open letter sent to Dolanc, it says: "To Stane Dolanc,

21 member of the Presidency of the Socialist Federative Republic of

22 Yugoslavia." The second letter also --

23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, do we need to go as far back as

24 1987? What is the next letter dated?

25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No, we don't. I simply wanted to

Page 43310

1 link this up, because Mr. Seselj was talking about the role of Dolanc,

2 from that time the role of Arkan in connection with Dolanc's activities

3 and his personal conflict and attempt to have Dolanc held responsible.

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I can understand, your

5 point is that in Dolanc's time Arkan became an untouchable criminal figure

6 in Belgrade and all of the former Yugoslavia. He was really so powerful,

7 so strong financially that one could do anything about him.

8 I remember a detail. In 1993, I learned that Zeljko Raznjatovic,

9 Arkan, had in Belgrade kidnapped and taken to Erdut and there killed Isa

10 Lero. Isa Lero was also a man from the criminal underground who had come

11 into conflict with Arkan. I even found a witness to the murder. I

12 publicly accused Arkan. I submitted a report to the police. The police

13 inspectors came to see me. We talked about it. I gave them all the

14 information I had, but then the police inspector told me that they were

15 aware of it but that they were unable to prove it because of the fear

16 among the potential witnesses. So the police was quite well-informed

17 about his criminal activities, but it was very hard to prove anything or

18 to bring charges because his support network was so widespread, and this

19 can be shown through various newspaper articles and so on.

20 In one television statement, I told him when we were debating on

21 TV, that he had pulled a sock over his head more often than I had pulled

22 one on my feet.

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

24 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

25 Q. Mr. Seselj, commenting on the questions that have to do with these

Page 43311

1 alleged members of the so-called joint criminal enterprise that Mr. Nice

2 is insisting on, you explained, when talking of your relations with Milan

3 Babic, something about the Vance Plan pursuant to which the Blue Helmets

4 arrived in the Krajina. Tell us, as you were very actively involved in

5 all this, you were supporting Babic at the time and you were very familiar

6 in great details with all the activities taking place in this connection,

7 pursuant to the Vance Plan the Security Council established the UNPROFOR

8 for, the UN protection force. That is not in dispute. Based on what you

9 know and the situation on the ground or, rather, what you know about the

10 situation on the ground, who were these forces supposed to protect and

11 from whom?

12 A. These forces deployed on the territory of the Republic of Serbian

13 Krajina were supposed to defend the Serbian population from the Croatian

14 authorities. When this plan was established, the Serb army was disarmed.

15 Its weapons were put into depots with a double lock. One key was in the

16 keeping of the Serbian army of the Serbian Krajina, and the other was in

17 the keeping of UNPROFOR officers.

18 The Vance Plan did not pre-judge a political solution to the

19 problem. The problems remained to be solved through negotiations

20 involving all the interested parties, primarily the political

21 representatives of the Serbs from the Krajina and the political

22 representatives of the Serbs from Croatia, but since the UN troops had

23 taken control over the area and guaranteed security for the Serb

24 population, in spite of this the Croatian forces brutally trampled on the

25 agreement, attacked the Serb population, taking areas such as the Miljevac

Page 43312












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 43313

1 plateau and so on and so forth.

2 The United Nations and the Western forces unfortunately tolerated

3 this. Ultimately, the Croats wages an aggression first against one part

4 and then another part of the Krajina in spite of the fact that UN forces

5 were still there causing an exodus of the entire Serb population and

6 killing many civilians, many women, children, and elderly people.

7 Unfortunately, only General Gotovina and some others have been indicted

8 here. The main perpetrators have never been indicted. And this was the

9 biggest exodus in Europe and it's still going on. The Serb population

10 still has not returned. Either they have nowhere to return to or they

11 don't dare return.

12 Q. Mr. Seselj, you will recall and I believe that Lord Owen started

13 this here and wrote about it in his book, he called the attack on the

14 Krajina the greatest ethnic cleansing during the conflict in the former

15 Yugoslavia.

16 A. Yes. This is correct. However, the Americans through the

17 Pentagon took a direct part in this ethnic cleansing. As you know, the

18 Pentagon has a very powerful company which is formerly a private company

19 but under its direct control. It's called Military Professional Resource

20 more or less.

21 Q. MPRI?

22 A. MPRI, yes. That's the name of this company which employs

23 pensioned generals, retired generals and officers to go throughout the

24 world where the American army is avoiding direct involvement.

25 During the attack on the Republika Srpska Krajina, the American

Page 43314

1 ambassador in Zagreb Peter Galbraith stood on a Serb tank killing Serb --

2 on a Croatian tank killing Serb civilians. And this could be seen on

3 television, Peter Galbraith in action.

4 Q. Let's leave this aside for a moment. Is it clear to you how it

5 was possible for a plan like that which was well known, it must have been

6 well known. In the case of Operation Flash, I presented here a stenogram

7 I received from Mr. Nice where you could see how they were preparing, how

8 they were staging an attack, where there is evidence that there was a

9 criminal plan to kill and expel the Serbs. What is your explanation that

10 only one general is indicted for this?

11 A. To avoid punishing --

12 JUDGE ROBINSON: No. Not allowed. Not allowed. He can't give

13 any useful answer to that.

14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Nice could probably give us a

15 response, and he will have to at some point, and Madam Del Ponte. Not

16 everyone listening to this is an idiot.

17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic. Mr. Milosevic, you are to proceed

18 with your questions. If you have no more questions, we will stop.

19 MR. NICE: I think that last point ought to be addressed. Again,

20 there's no question of either myself or the Prosecutor Madam Del Ponte,

21 being obliged to answer questions of that kind coming from the accused.

22 It's irrelevant to the matter of this inquiry.

23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Perhaps he was referring to your closing address

24 but never mind. We have two more minutes, Mr. Milosevic.

25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I didn't mean that. I just wanted

Page 43315

1 to express my conviction that Mr. Nice is labouring under the illusion

2 that he will not be held criminally responsible for the crime he is

3 perpetrating here. Not before your Bench, of course, but he will because

4 he is one of the criminals who --

5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I'm going to stop on that on

6 that -- I'm going to stop on that note. That comment is entirely

7 inappropriate and totally without any base or foundation.

8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

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

10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Before you conclude --

11 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone.

12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] My right and your obligation to

13 inform you of the following --

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

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

16 matter.

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

18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I believe it is, and it has to do

19 with the hearing held here about Greater Serbia and Mr. Nice's standpoints

20 and his explanations and so on and so forth.

21 JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm not going to hear anything of that.

22 We are adjourned until 9.00 tomorrow morning.

23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Tomorrow?

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

25 week. Tuesday of next week.

Page 43316

1 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.43 p.m.,

2 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 30th day

3 of August, 2005, at 9.00 a.m.