Gotovina Trial Watch

UN OFFICIAL CASTS DOUBT ON INDISCRIMINATE SHELLING CLAIMS

 

Former special envoy observed following artillery attack that damage to the town of Knin was “unexpectedly minor”.

By Goran Jungvirth in Zagreb

Testifying this week as a defence witness for accused Croatian general Ante Gotovina, Yasushi Akashi, ex-United Nations special envoy for the former Yugoslavia, said it was not clear if the town of Knin had been indiscriminately shelled during a Croatian army offensive in August 1995.

At that time, Akashi was based at the UN headquarters in Zagreb, from where he reported developments in the war and mediated in negotiations between the Croatian government and the rebel Serb leadership.

This week at the Hague tribunal, the defence questioned the witness about reports he received from UN observers in the field which said that Knin had been shelled indiscriminately by Croatian troops during Operation Storm, which began on August 4, 1995.

When the defence presented him an observers’ report which stated that 200 to 300 shells had landed on the town in the first 30 minutes of the attack, the witness said it “shouldn’t be assumed” that the shelling was indiscriminate.

“Two hundred to 300 shells could mean unselective shelling but it could mean that all those shells were dropped on military installations,” he said.

Generals Gotovina, Ivan Cermak and Mladen Markac are accused of war crimes committed against Serbs by troops under their command during and after Operation Storm.  According to the indictment, Gotovina was overall operational commander of the offensive in the southern portion of the Krajina region, Markac was in charge of special police units, and Cermak commanded the Knin garrison.

The indictment states that the generals took part in a joint criminal enterprise designed to drive the Serb population from Croatia.  It is estimated that between 150,000 and 200,000 Serbs left the region around the time of the offensive.

Prosecutors allege that Croatian forces shelled civilian areas, and say that at least 30 people were killed in Knin and at least 150 across the entire Krajina region between August and November 1995.

During the trial, some former UN staff members deployed in the area at the time have testified that rather than just aiming at military targets, Croatian troops randomly shelled Knin.

But this week, their former superior Akashi cast doubt on this conclusion.

At several points during his testimony, the witness, who testified via video link from Japan, was unable to answer questions about the events of Operation Storm and its aftermath, saying he couldn’t remember.

Gotovina’s defence lawyer Luka Misetic presented to the court some documents and notes signed by Akashi during that time. He read out a telegram which Akashi sent to the then UN secretary general Kofi Annan after the witness visited Knin on August 7, 1995.

Reading this out, Misetic said Akashi had written that his general impression was that Knin “suffered damage from the shelling, but that it is, although visible, unexpectedly minor”.  Akashi confirmed to judges that he had written the telegram.

To counter prosecution claims that Knin was indiscriminately shelled, Misetic quoted further from Akashi’s telegram.  Akashi had written that “damage to the structure of the city itself is much smaller than I expected, lots of houses are completely intact,” Misetic read.

During the trial, prosecutors have also presented UN staff reports which said that Knin’s hospital was targeted by the Croatian army’s shelling, and outlined the damage done to this.

However, this week, Gotovina’s defence presented Akashi with notes the witness made when he visited the hospital in the aftermath of the assault.

In these, Akashi described the hospital as “functional, without major damages”, and noted that it had only been hit by one projectile.

During his testimony, Misetic asked Akashi if he could remember being told about Croatian soldiers committing crimes at that time, and the witness replied that he could not.

Other UN staff have testified for the prosecution that they witnessed Croatian soldiers taking part in arson and looting during the attack.

“I can’t remember anything concrete about what they [my colleagues] told me about Croatian forces’ behaviour,” he said.

Akashi also said he could not remember if he had ever received reports that Croatian troops systematically plundered the city.

He added, however, that he was “very proud” that Croatian soldiers had offered accommodation and shelter in their barracks to Serb civilians.

He said that he saw this when he visited refugees who had been placed into Croatian army barracks following Operation Storm.

Misetic also asked Akashi about political negotiations he took part in at that time.

The defence told the court that Milan Martic, who led the Serbs’ armed rebellion in Krajina, had at one point refused a peace agreement which Akashi had tried to reach. The witness confirmed this version of events.

Martic is currently serving a 35-year prison term, after being convicted at the Hague tribunal of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Akashi described a meeting held between the Croats and Serbs on July 3, 1995, which he confirmed was one of the last attempts to avoid Operation Storm.  While the Croats agreed to a solution presented at this meeting by the UN, Martic refused, the witness confirmed.

“We were extremely bitter after that meeting, because it turned out that it was futile,” Akashi said.

The defence has argued throughout the trial that Croatia had wanted to come to a peaceful agreement over the status of Krajina, but that the Serbs had rejected this.

This week, the defence also presented excerpts from a report Akashi wrote to the UN general secretary around the time of the operation which said that the main worry of Serbian civilians then was that they would not be able to leave Croatia.

Akashi said he knew this from his conversations with refugees, when he visited them in the barracks where they were living.

Contrary to the prosecution, which argues that Croatian officials conspired to expel the Serb population of Krajina, the defence states that they left willingly.

To support this argument, Misetic presented documents containing details of certain pacts between the UN and the Croatian government, in which the latter agreed to the former’s demands that the Serbs’ human rights be respected and their free passage out the country be guaranteed.

Misetic said that in Akashi’s report to the then UN general secretary, he described a chat he had had with group of Serbs displaced from their homes.

“The thing that struck me the most during my contact with them was the fact that they all expressed their wish to leave Croatia,” Akashi said in the report, as read out by Misetic.

“Maybe the biggest worry among refugees was … if they will be able to leave Croatia and go to Bosnia or Serbia, when that will be possible, and will the UN assist them,” Akashi wrote in his report, according to Misetic.

When it was its turn to question the witness, Markac’s defence asked him to compare the 1995 destruction of Knin, with that of the Croatian town of Vukovar as well as that of the Bosnian capital, Sarajevo.  Vukovar was left devastated in 1991, after a three-month siege by Serbian forces, while Sarajevo endured a four-year siege by Bosnian Serb forces from 1991 to 1995.

“The destruction of Vukovar was complete. It can’t compare with what I found in other cities, while the destruction of Sarajevo was more severe than that of Knin,” Akashi said.

When questioned by Cermak’s defence team, Akashi spoke about a meeting he had held with the defendant.  He said that Cermak had been cooperative with the UN, had acted effectively, and had appeared to believe that the human rights of local Serbs should be respected.

Akashi was the 25th witness brought by Gotovina’s defence.  Next week, Cermak’s defence team will start to present its case.

Goran Jungvirth is an IWPR-trained journalist.

Ex-UN official says destruction of Knin less than expected

 

ZAGREB,  Sept 15 (Hina) - A former United Nations high-ranking official, Yasushi Akashi, on Tuesday told the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) that during his visit to Knin on 7 August 1995 he had concluded that the extent of the destruction of the town was less than he had expected.

Akashi testified in the trial of Croatian Army generals Ante Gotovina, Ivan Cermak and Mladen Markac who are accused of indiscriminate shelling of the southern Croatian town of Knin during the August 1995 Operation Storm when the Croatian forces retook southern and central areas of the country from rebel Serbs.

Akashi, who had served as the UN Secretary-General’s special envoy to the former Yugoslavia and mediated in negotiations between the Croatian authorities and rebel Serbs, said that he could not remember whether he had ever received reports with allegations that Croatian troops had systematically plundered Knin and could not remember whether Serb civilians who found shelter in the UN base in Knin wanted to leave the area or remain in Croatia.

Luka Misetic, a lawyer for Gotovina, however presented a coded telegram which the witness sent on 7 August 1995 to New York with his assessment that all refugees he had talked with had expressed a wish to leave Croatia and asked UN assistance in their departure.

Akashi, who testified via video link from Japan, said that he could not say who was the author of that telegram or of other reports that were sent to the UN headquarters at the time.

Akashi explained that he had compiled reports with general political contents and that reports of other kinds were written by his assistants and other UN staff.

Akashi’s most frequent answer about the political and military circumstances ahead of Operation Storm was that he could not remember.

He, however, indirectly accused the then rebel Serb leader Milan Martic for the failure of negotiations led between the Croatian authorities and Serb rebels before the operation was launched.

According to the witness, Martic first agreed to the conditions for Croatia’s jettisoning of the military operation only to refuse them later.

Akashi said that everybody had been embittered by the outcome of the talks he had held with Martic on 3 July 1995, which was one of the last attempts to prevent the Croatian military offensive.

According to Akashi, the Croatian government was very concerned about a possibility for negative events in Operation Storm to portray Croatia in a bad light.

We counted on Croatia having an interest in keeping a good image in the eyes of the western countries, however, we might have been too optimistic about it, he said.

(Hina) ms

The entire day of testimony can be viewed here:

US military expert finishes testimony at ICTY

ZAGREB, 11 Sept 2009 (Hina) – Defense witness for General Ante Gotovina  finished his testimony before the Hague Tribunal on Friday after the Prosecution’s cross-examination  on the use of artillery on Knin during Operation ‘Storm’, at which point he reaffirmed his claims that the use of artillery was in accordance with the comprehensive operative concept of that operation.

”The use of artillery was within the operation’s comprehensive concept”, said US military expert witness Geofrey Corn.

Croatian generals Ante Gotovina, Mladen Markac and Ivan Cermak are charged before the International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia  with war crimes committed during Operation ‘Storm’.

According to the witness, Gotovina did not order the shelling of military targets in Knin before the start of this Operation, although they were within range of his artillery and this was interpreted by the witness as relevant information in assessing the situation.

”Prior to ‘Storm’ General Gotovina did not order fire on military targets in Knin even though they were within range of his artillery capacities for indirect fire. This is relevant for my assessment of his methods of decision-making because this implies that the use of capacities in ‘Storm’ was within his comprehensive operative concept”, said the witness.

”This piece of information supports my conclusion that Gotovina did not act with the intent  to use weapons to expel or to target civilians in Knin”, said Corn. 

”What is relevant is that there was a comprehensive plan that all of this falls within because it shows that artillery was used solely as support in priority tasks”, the witness added.

Referring to segments of the so-called Brioni meeting, the Prosecutor attempted again to establish illegitimacy of actions in connection with the flight of civilians from Knin, however, the witness answered that he took account of that possibility as well when he was writing his report but that he does not agree with the Prosecutor’s evaluation.

”If Gotovina thought that the departure of civilians could affect the enemy’s decision to fight during that meeting at Brioni, it would not be improper for him to take this into consideration, but he is not allowed to use his combat capabilities for the purpose of producing this result.  I do not believe that in the wider context the only possible reasonable conclusion that could be drawn from the transcripts of the Brioni meeting is that he agreed to the use his combat forces for the purpose of spreading fear among the civilian population in order to accomplish a miltiary or political goal”, said the witness. 

Since the witness thought the artillery attack on the field next to the so-called Northern Barracks was justified, the Prosecutor asked him ”would it be legitimate to enage in occasional shelling of any part of Knin where forces of the so-called20Republic of Serb Krajina were potentially gathering?”.

”Gotovina could have come to a reasonable conclusion that this was just one of several locations which the enemy could use as an assembly point. With respect to the same, occasional targeting of that location would jeopardize the enemy’s capabilities of carrying this out and contribute to diminishing their capabilities of conducting maneuvers as they wish”, established Corn.

The witness continued to say: ”the field was very close to the barracks where certain elements of the brigade were located, a unit which the commander could have used as a reserve. Therefore, due to its vicinity to the Northern barracks and the nature of that location, I feel that this situation is entirely different from that (of a potential artillery attack) of any other field in Knin”.

The trial against the three Croatian generals before the Hague Tribunal is scheduled to continue on Tuesday.

(Hina) ms

Watch the entire day’s testimony here:

Witness says it can’t be concluded that Knin was shelled indiscriminately

ZAGREB,

Sept 8 (Hina) - Retired US Army officer Geoffrey Corn, who is a defence witness for Croatian General Ante Gotovina, on Tuesday told the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague that he could not agree with one of the main arguments of the prosecution that the southern Croatian town of Knin was targeted randomly during Operation Storm, when Croatian forces retook areas from Serb rebels in early August 1995.

Corn, a civilian legal adviser in the US military and a special adviser on war matters, said that it could not be concluded beyond a doubt from testimonies of international representatives on the ground that Knin, which used to be the stronghold of Serb rebels, had been shelled randomly.

During his cross-examination before the UN tribunal, the defence witness said that statements and testimonies of United Nations observers and eye-witnesses, which were available to him, did not explicitly state that the shelling of Knin was indiscriminate.  According to him, those testimonies indicated that an impression was made that the entire town was the target of the attack.  The witness went on to say that he had concluded from documents on the matter that the enemy dispersed military targets throughout the town, that is, the targets were not isolated at one place.

Given that some high-importance targets were in the inner part of the town, this meant that the enemy treated the town as something that should be protected, the witness said.

According to him, witnesses did not necessarily have a clear conception of what was going on in the town.

He also said that there was a difference as to whether some of the shells that might have hit militarily unacceptable targets, that is parts of town, had been fired there on purpose or whether they were stray shells.

Gotovina and two other generals, Ivan Cermak and Mladen Markac, are on trial for war crimes committed by Croatian troops during and after the Croatian military offensive known as Operation Storm, which crushed a Serb insurgency in central Croatia in August 1995.

(Hina)
ms

 

Watch the entire cross examination of the witness here:

The cross examination continued on Thursday Sept 10th.  Here is the first session:

Prosecution expert misinterprets military doctrine, US witness tells ICTY trial

ZAGREB,

Sept 7 (Hina) - Retired US Army officer Geoffrey Corn began his testimony as a defence witness in the trial of Croatian Army General Ante Gotovina at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague on Monday.

A civilian legal adviser in the US military and a special adviser on war matters, Corn had contacted Gotovina’s defence team after discovering certain mistakes in a report presented by a prosecution witness, Harry Konings of the Netherlands, during his testimony earlier this year.

Corn challenged the part of the report relating to the necessity of use of so-called forward spotters in artillery attacks.

It is absolutely true that the use of forward spotters for direct fire is an ideal situation from the operational and humanitarian points of view. Operationally, the possibility of achieving a desired effect with the use of minimum resources increases.  From the humanitarian point of view, the commander gets a better picture of potential collateral damage, the witness explained.

Although this is true, the tone of the paragraph suggests that unless you have targets in a populated area under human control, that is, unless you have forward spotters, you should not engage those targets, he said in disagreement with the report.

The witness cited as examples hundreds of cruise missiles that had been fired on Baghdad and air strikes against Serbia and Iraq in 2003.  The enemy used populated areas as their strongholds and the allies routinely used indirect fire to defeat those forces.

According to the report by the Dutch expert, indirect fire can be used only if you know that there are no civilians or that it will have no effect on the civilians, as if so-called collateral damage was something that cannot happen, Corn said, adding that collateral damage was an unfortunate aspect of warfare.

Collateral damage occurs in a complex process of firing on previously designated targets that you identify, while experts assessing gun fire effectiveness or civilian affairs experts make a joint assessment of potential collateral damage based on the number of civilians there. When the time to fire comes, a commander uses a previously prepared assessment, Corn said.

The point is that a commander has to think about the consequences and his obligations under the law, but to claim that indirect fire must not be used is distorting the existing rules and laws, he added.

Dutch artillery expert Harry Konings inexplicably distorts the military doctrine, Corn said regarding a point in the report saying that a decision on the use of artillery can be made only if a target is beyond the possibility of collateral damage.

Corn insisted this was not required by the laws of war.

That is a prohibition of collateral damage per se.  If that was true, we would not even mention it, because what brings it about would never be used, and we know that the laws of war do not require that, he said.

Corn said that it was a commander’s duty to ensure that military targets in an area populated by civilians are engaged in accordance with the law of armed conflict.

The defence teams representing the two other generals in the case, Ivan Cermak and Mladen Markac, do not intend to examine the witness. His cross-examination is expected to take several days.

Gotovina, Cermak and Markac are on trial for war crimes committed by Croatian troops during and after a Croatian military offensive, known as Operation Storm, which crushed a Serb insurgency in central Croatia in August 1995.
(Hina)
vm

News - Novi List 6.2.2009
Slobodan Milosevic’s spy Lazarević testified in defense of Gotovina

Milosevic wanted to make another Srebrenica from Topusko

Rijeka - First a long-time member of the Yugoslav Counterintelligence Services, then counterintelligence agent of Serbia and the Krajina Serbs, then to The Hague as a witness against his chief, Slobodan Milosevic, Slobodan Lazarevic has become the first of 67 witnesses whom the defense of General Ante Gotovina is planning to examine in The Hague.  Lazarević, an insider witness, who at the time of Operation Storm was an officer of the Krajina army was in Sector North, in constant contact with the leaders of Serbian state security Jovica Stanisic and Frenki Šimatović.  Through Lazarević, the Gotovina defense team is challenging the very core of the allegations against General Gotovina, arguing that Belgrade - and not the attack by the Croatian forces - was responsible for the evacuation of the Serb population from Krajina, because the majority of the population left their homes before the arrival of Croatian forces.

 

 

Milosevic organized the emigration of Serbs
Lazarević received a detailed plan of the Croatian attack the night before Operation Storm from a European observer, but the government of Slobodan Milosevic in Belgrade had already been determined that the Serbs move out of Croatia, in order to be settled in Kosovo.  According to Lazarevic, Mile Martic personally issued instructions on the evacuation and the panic in Krajina was instigated by Orthodox priests, the Krajina ministry of information, as well as Belgrade, consciously igniting the fear of the Serb population of the arrival of Croatian forces, hoping to encourage the exodus of the Krajina Serbs to Kosovo.  Lazarević testified he could not prove anything regarding the existence of an agreement by Milosevic and Tudjman regarding Krajina, but, he says, “it was painfully obvious to the rest of us that Krajina was alone, abandoned by Belgrade,” and “alone it could not be defended, it was clear to everyone there”.

“They told all of us the same word: persevere, and I think that we were being sacrificed,” explained Lazarević, stressing that Belgrade wanted to draw a propaganda benefit from their “sacrifice”.

“The idea from Belgrade was to make a Srebrenica in Topusko, accuse the Croatian side, and show the world that we are all the same and that there are no innocents” claims Lazarević.

From Topusko create another Srebrenica
The witness in The Hague courtroom convincingly explained that the Serb rebellion in Croatia was, in fact, in the control of the top level of the Serbian government, detracting from the prosecution’s claims, especially regarding an “undefended” Krajina.  “The men in Krajina were not civilian men, because all the men were mobilized, and all were armed,” the witness recalled.

Lazarević clearly explained his intelligence task in Krajina during the conflict: obstruct the work of observers of the UN and other European observers, in order that they could not track the maneuvers of the local Serb forces, and thereby recognizing what has already been known: that all Serbian translators in the negotiations with the Croatian side were, in fact, his spies.

Testifying that he had personally been on four rounds of international negotiations with Croatia about solving the Serbian question in Croatia, Lazarević acknowledged that each time before negotiations he went to Belgrade to receive instructions, in which the Serb negotiators suggested only delays, and that nothing is signed.

The witness without adornment described life in the former Krajina and its militarized and isolated population, in which “every issue was resolved with weapons”.

“In Krajina each residence had two weapons,” explained Lazarević, arguing that amongst the Serbs in Krajina during Operation Storm, the clearing and settlement of old accounts was not rare.

Krajina was based on the belief that Serbs cannot live with Croats, which is why the Krajina systematically expelled and killed Croats.  Whoever had a different opinion, in the Krajina was objectionable. For example, Dmitar Obradovic, the leader of Vrginmost, was assassinated by Serb forces, who later accused the Croatian side of the crime.

When it was clear that nothing will be able to stop the Croatian forces, the Serbian population already had been in the columns heading to Bosnia and Serbia, as they were all aware that in the Krajina there were no innocents and that they would, if they stayed, be overtaken by revenge.  “Everyone was to blame for something, no one could say that they had not done anything and, therefore, all had a reason to depart from Croatia”, said the witness.

Lazarević, after testifying against Milosevic in 2002, entered the witness protection program and since then has been living in a foreign location. In the court he testified in English.

Denis Romac

The Hague - At the ICTY trial of the three former Croatian Generals, Ante Gotovina, Mladen Markac and Ivan Cermak, defense attorneys for Mladen Markac and Ivan Cermak gave their opening statements asserting their respective client’s innocence.  Defense attorneys for Ante Gotovina had given their opening statements at the commencement of the trial in March of 2008.  Watch the full opening statements here.

Cermak Defense Opening Statement

Markac Defense Opening Statement