US embassy cable - 03THEHAGUE2769

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 04 THE HAGUE 002769 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPARTMENT FOR S/WCI - PROSPER/RICHARD, EUR - ROSSIN, 
EUR/SCE - STEPHENS/GREGORIAN, L/EUR - LAHNE, L/AF - GTAFT. 
INR/WCAD - SEIDENSTRICKER/MORIN; USUN FOR ROSTOW/WILLSON 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 1.6 FIVE YEARS AFTER CLOSURE ICTY 
TAGS: BK, HR, KAWC, NL, PHUM, PREL, SR, ICTY 
SUBJECT: ICTY: KEY WITNESSES TESTIFY TO MILOSEVIC'S CONTROL 
OF GOVERNMENT AND MILITARY 
 
(U)  Classified by Clifton M. Johnson, Legal Counselor, for 
reasons 1.5(D) and 1.6. 
 
1.  (C) Summary:  Trial Chamber III of the International 
Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) heard 
testimony from political insiders the week of October 20 as 
the Prosecution continued to present its case against 
Slobodan Milosevic.  Two key witnesses offered their versions 
of the role Milosevic played in the break up of the Former 
Yugoslavia, particularly with respect to Belgrade,s support 
for military and paramilitary forces operating in Croatia and 
Bosnia.  While the testimony was generally strong, Milosevic 
succeeded in making several assertions during 
cross-examinations that undermined parts of the testimony. 
The week of October 27 was highlighted by the appearance of 
Deputy Prosecutor Graham Blewitt as a witness.  Milosevic 
took the rare opportunity to confront a senior member of the 
Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) to challenge the legitimacy of 
the court, accuse the OTP of bias and selective prosecution, 
blame NATO bombings for crimes, and make vague allegations 
concerning Kosovar terrorism and bin Laden.  Separately, the 
trial chamber granted in full the protective measures sought 
with respect to General Clark,s testimony,  accepting each 
of the USG,s conditions for such testimony.  Clark now 
appears likely to testify in December.  End summary. 
 
------------------------------- 
Week of October 21-23 
------------------------------- 
 
2.    (SBU) On October 21, the trial chamber heard from Gajic 
Glisic, Chief of Staff for Serbian defense minister General 
Tomislav Simovic in 1991.  She sought to link Milosevic to 
paramilitaries, establish his influence over the People,s 
Army of Yugoslavia (JNA), and show his efforts to create a 
Serbian Army.  Early in her testimony, the witness publicly 
thanked "Comrade Milosevic" for saving her life.  She 
asserted that her life was in danger after General Simovic 
was "forced" out of the government, but that Milosevic 
intervened on her behalf to prevent her "liquidation."  She 
then proceeded to provide a detailed account of interactions 
between General Simovic and Milosevic.  She spoke of how no 
one ever disagreed with Milosevic, leaving the Minister of 
Defense, inter alia, without any real power.  Her testimony 
also linked Milosevic to paramilitary groups by showing that 
he provided them equipment and training.  She also testified 
that he supported them militarily through JNA operations. 
She said she was certain that Milosevic knew of the war 
crimes that were being committed by the paramilitary groups. 
Specifically, she recounted how Milosevic ordered the JNA to 
provide air support to paramilitary commander Arkan when his 
forces were pinned down in Croatia.  Glisic also testified 
that Milosevic assigned General Simovic the task of drafting 
a "secret" legislative bill that would create a "Serbian 
Army," which would replace the JNA.  These efforts were 
eventually thwarted and General Simovic was removed from 
office in December 1991. 
 
3.    (C) On October 22, Milosevic adroitly cross-examined 
Glisic.  Through his questioning, the Accused drew a 
distinction between the "volunteers" who signed up with the 
"Territorial Defense" units under the JNA versus the 
paramilitary groups.  She testified that the Minister of 
Defense only procured equipment and gave training to 
volunteers for the "Territorial Defense" units.  She did, 
however, again link Milosevic with paramilitary commanders 
Arkan and Captain Dragan.  The Accused was in unusually good 
humor, smiling on occasion and at one point joking when the 
witness offered to give him a manuscript of her book.  He 
noted that it is "good to accumulate as much paper as 
possible, thank you." 
 
4.    (SBU) On October 23, the Prosecution called Ante 
Markovic, Yugoslavia,s former prime minister.  His testimony 
sought to give the trial chamber insight into Yugoslavia,s 
government and the role Milosevic played on the eve of war. 
The witness did not make eye contact with Milosevic and never 
faced the defendant directly.  The witness asserted that he 
was eventually politically isolated after his attempts at 
federal reform were thwarted.  He resigned in December 1991. 
Markovic stated that throughout 1991 the federal 
government,s power was slowly eroded by Milosevic and other 
nationalist leaders.  He testified that the reforms he 
proposed failed in no small part because of the actions of 
Milosevic. 
 
5.    (SBU) Markovic explained how Milosevic would routinely 
say that he supported the federal government of Yugoslavia, 
yet all of his actions sought to undermine it.  Markovic said 
that Milosevic was "obviously fighting for Greater Serbia," 
though he also "used everything he could to ensure power for 
himself " if that was nationalism, then he used nationalism. 
But he was not a nationalist.  He was someone who used 
anything at his disposal to secure power for himself." 
Markovic also testified about how he confronted both 
Milosevic and Tudjman about a secret deal to divide Bosnia 
and Herzegovina between Serbia and Croatia.  He stated that 
both of them eventually admitted to this plan. 
 
6.    (SBU) Markovic,s testimony gave further substance to 
the Prosecution,s argument that Milosevic had complete 
control over the government and military.  He explained how 
no one under Milosevic ever went against him and stayed in 
power.  However, when Judge May asked for concrete examples 
of this, the witness did not have a compelling answer. 
Markovic went on to explain that Milosevic was also 
responsible for the mobilization of the JNA in Slovenia and 
its movement into Bosnia and Herzegovina.  He discussed how 
the Presidency had not authorized the military intervention, 
but that Milosevic had control over the army.  Lead 
Prosecutor Geoffrey Nice also presented a recorded intercept 
for Markovic to authenticate which showed Milosevic and 
Karadzic discussing details of military mobilization. 
 
7.    (C) Milosevic began his cross-examination of Markovic 
on the same day, although time constraints led to an 
abbreviated examination.  Milosevic, composed during the 
questioning, provoked Markovic into emotional responses.  At 
two different points, Markovic asked Judge May, "who is on 
trial, me or the Accused?"  Judge May explained to the 
witness that the Milosevic was facing serious charges and had 
a right to present his case.  Before the cross-examination 
adjourned, Milosevic sought to establish that Markovic, not 
himself, had the legal and actual power over the army. 
Milosevic attempted to show that Markovic was head of state 
and thereby had control and was thus responsible for the 
mobilization of the JNA in Slovenia.  The witness refuted 
such conclusions saying that in actuality the federal 
government had no power and that, as prime minister, he had 
no authority to authorize the military interventions. 
 
8.    (SBU) At one point, Milosevic produced a documentary 
review of the federal executive agenda for 1991 providing 
details of Markovic,s schedule, which  Markovic 
authenticated.  Milosevic said that the document came from 
the federal records archive in Belgrade and then sardonically 
noted that the entries for December were rather short.  Nice 
then noted that the archives are closed to the Prosecution 
and wondered out loud how such documents were available for 
the Accused.  Nice later requested that the court retain the 
original, against the wishes of the Accused, and also asked 
how Milosevic received this document.  The court decide to 
retain the original and to provide copies to the parties. 
Milosevic later referred to a transcript of a phone 
conversation between Markovic and United States Secretary of 
State James Baker III, in which Baker was alleged to have 
stated that the Serbian Secretary of Defense, which reports 
to the federal government, controls the army. The 
cross-examination was then adjourned and will continue at a 
later date. 
 
---------------------------------- 
Week of October 28-30 
---------------------------------- 
 
9.    (SBU) On October 28, the trial chamber heard testimony 
from two witnesses.  Michel Reviere, a journalist, provided 
the chamber with video footage that he and his cameraman took 
of the White Eagles, a Serb paramilitary group.  Reviere 
testified to his conversation with two Serbian paramilitary 
soldiers who approached him in a caf in Pale and proceeded 
to explain their exploits and methods.  The soldiers 
explained that they were not paid, but were authorized to 
loot and procure their own weapons and equipment.  The two 
soldiers then invited the journalist to their headquarters. 
The video showed the paramilitary group preparing for a 
mission, and then the journalist was allowed to go along with 
the paramilitary group as they traveled up to a sniper 
position in the heights around Sarajevo.  Shooting from both 
sides could be heard in the video clip, but no actual sniper 
activity was recorded.  The journalist traveled back up to 
the sniper position the next day to get better footage. 
 
10.   (SBU) The second witness on October 28, a Bosnian 
Muslim citizen of Sarajevo identified only as B-1345, 
testified to his experience throughout the siege of Sarajevo. 
 The witness told the court how his wife and father were shot 
dead and his mother shot in the leg by sniper fire. 
Milosevic, during his cross-examination, said that there was 
"no siege of any kind," and that this was all the 
"consequence of a civil war."  Milosevic also tried to 
question the witness regarding the shelling of the Markale 
Market on February 5, 1994, since the witness had heard 
artillery fire near the Serb front lines on that day.  He 
asked him whether he had heard of the United Nations 
Protection Force (UNPROFOR) report that concluded that there 
was no way of telling who had fired the shell.  Judge May 
stopped Milosevic,s line of questioning, since the witness 
would have no way of knowing about the report or its 
conclusions.  Milosevic continued to ask questions to which 
the witness could not possible know the answer. 
 
11.   (SBU) On October 29, the trial chamber heard from a 
crime-based witness, Jasna Denona, who testified to a 
shooting that occurred in 1991 leaving a group of Croatians 
and one Serbian dead.  The incident was investigated in 1995, 
but no charges were brought.  Ms. Denona was shot twice as 
she attempted to run from the house after the assailants had 
opened fire.  Milosevic tried to show that this was the act 
of a single criminal rather than an ethnically motivated 
crime committed by a group of soldiers.  The second witness 
to testify, a detainee in a Serbian camp in Zvornik 
identified as B-1780, described how the soldiers tortured, 
mutilated and killed the prisoners.  He told the court that 
had the scars that show the atrocities that were committed 
during his detention.  He placed Arkan,s men, among others, 
who beat and tortured the detainees.  The witness went on to 
explain to the court the gruesome events that transpired 
while he was in the camp.  He testified that later he was 
taken to the hospital, where he received nominal treatment 
for his broken ribs and arm.  He told the court how he fled 
the hospital for fear that he would be taken out and 
executed.  Milosevic tried to show that the witness was 
active in politics and local paramilitaries, but much of this 
cross-examination took place in closed session. 
 
-------------------------------------------- 
Blewitt Takes the Stand as a Witness 
-------------------------------------------- 
 
12.   (SBU) On October 30, the trial chamber heard from the 
Deputy Prosecutor, Graham Blewitt.  He testified to the 
contents of a series of letters written in 1998 from the 
Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) to then-President Milosevic 
and to the Security Council regarding the investigations into 
war crimes in Kosovo.  The letters addressed the serious 
difficulties the OTP was facing in the investigations given 
the non-cooperative position that Serbia was taking at the 
time.  Milosevic used the rare opportunity to cross-examine a 
senior member of the OTP as an opportunity to question the 
objectivity of the prosecution in general and to highlight 
the alleged bias between the investigations of war crimes 
committed by the Serbian government versus the investigations 
of NATO bombing.  Judge May repeatedly checked Milosevic and 
explained to him that the objectivity and credibility of the 
Prosecution,s efforts was not a relevant subject matter for 
this witness.  Blewitt reminded Milosevic that the OTP had 
indeed looked into questions associated with the NATO bombing 
and decided, on legal and factual grounds, not to pursue such 
an investigation.  Judge May held that only the contents of 
the letters were open to questioning for this witness. 
Milosevic continued to ask rhetorical questions, repeatedly 
referred to a report on NATO bombing, and questioned the 
credibility of the prosecution in general.  He attempted to 
link NATO bombing with supporting and protecting Kosovar 
terrorism. 
 
13.   (SBU) When Judge May repeatedly stopped his line of 
questioning, Milosevic said it was no surprise that Judge May 
was sensitive about addressing the NATO bombing issue.  At 
this, Judge May told Milosevic that his statement was 
entirely inappropriate and asked him whether he had any 
relevant questions for the witness, otherwise the court would 
adjourn.  Milosevic responded that apparently all of his 
questions where improper and that this trial was a farce, 
since the Judge sought to dictate to the defense what 
questions they are allowed to ask.  He went on further to say 
that limiting his questions to the letters serves as a smoke 
screen which masks the crimes committed by NATO and the link 
to Osama Bin Laden,s terrorist activity.  Milosevic 
attempted to draw a chain of events linking Kosovar Albanian 
terrorism to the Clinton Administration which led to NATO 
bombings.  Milosevic also questioned the legal basis of the 
Tribunal,s competency.  He asked Blewitt, as an 
international lawyer, how the Tribunal could have 
jurisdiction given that the Serbian State was looking into 
the crimes.  Milosevic also challenged the legitimacy of the 
case against him, since the prosecution indicted him after 
only investigation the case for 3-4 months.  Blewitt 
responded that they indicted Milosevic only after they had 
constructed a case that had enough evidence against him to 
support the charges.  Judge May had to continue to interrupt 
Milosevic,s overly broad line of questioning and eventually 
adjourned the hearing. 
 
--------------------------------------------- -- 
Motion Granted for Clark,s Testimony 
--------------------------------------------- -- 
 
14.   (C) On October 30, the trial chamber granted the 
prosecutions motion for protections for General Clark,s 
testimony.  The order, which is presently under seal, has 
been secure faxed to the Department.  It indicates that the 
trial chamber accepted the motion without modification or 
caveat and met the conditions of the United States in their 
entirety.  Embassy legal officers are coordinating with 
Clark,s staff to lock in a date for his testimony.  Clark 
has confirmed that he is ready to testify in December. 
 
------------ 
Comment 
------------ 
 
15.  (C) The testimony over the past two weeks highlighted 
several interesting features of the current stage of the 
trial.  For one, the Prosecution has attracted significant 
insiders with apparent credibility to give evidence of 
Milosevic,s control over key sectors of the federal and 
state military apparatus.  Embassy legal officers understand 
that the Prosecution has further insiders waiting to testify. 
 At the same time, Milosevic -- who seemed healthier and more 
vigorous and focused than in recent weeks -- continued to 
demonstrate the physical and mental stamina to cross examine 
witnesses effectively.  Equally importantly, he demonstrated 
that he retains access to Belgrade archival material to 
support his defense.  Nice correctly noted that Milosevic,s 
access flies in the face of Belgrade's continued refusal to 
provide the Prosecution with the access it needs to prosecute 
fully the case.  While such arguments may help demonstrate 
SAM noncooperation, they do not undercut the utility of such 
documents, at least when authenticated as genuine, to 
Milosevic.  Milosevic,s cross-examination of Blewitt was in 
many respects a replay of Milosevic,s approach at the early 
stages of the trial, featuring sweeping challenges ranging 
from the legitimacy of the court to the fairness of the 
prosecution to the culpability of the Kosovars and the 
international community.  While these arguments have little 
legal relevance, they serve as a reminder that Milosevic is 
prepared to mount as much a political defense as a legal one. 
  End Comment. 
SOBEL