Wednesday, April 27, 2005


ICDSM Sofia-New York-Moscow
Velko Valkanov, Ramsey Clark, Alexander Zinoviev (Co-Chairmen),
Klaus Hartmann (Chairman of the Board), Vladimir Krsljanin (Secretary),
Christopher Black (Chair, Legal Committee), Tiphaine Dickson (Legal


ICDSM Statement on the Contempt Charges Brought Against Kosta Bulatovic and
the Imposition of In Absentia Proceedings Against President Slobodan

21 April 2005

The ICTY has now charged a defense witness for Slobodan Milosevic, Kosta
Bulatovic, with contempt, for refusing to continue testifying in the course
of proceedings-- known as in absentia-- carried out in absence of the
accused, who was kept at the ICTY's detention unit, as he was too ill to
attend the day's proceedings.

First, in violation of basic legal rights, and, indeed, of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Slobodan Milosevic was denied the
right to represent himself. The Trial Chamber held that he was too ill to
ensure his own representation, and rather than order an adjournment of the
proceedings, or a stay, or a mistrial, or, indeed, any other reasonable legal
measure routinely employed by legitimate courts around the world, they
instead imposed counsel upon an unwilling accused, counsel who'd previously
acted as parties in the proceedings, a glaring, formal conflict of interest.

The ICTY has now compounded this violation by carrying out in absentia
proceedings, and by bringing criminal charges against a defense witness who
refuses to cooperate with this exceptionally transparent attempt to remove
the accused from his own defense, and perhaps to gag him entirely.

It is increasingly clear that the proceedings undertaken by the ICTY
against Slobodan Milosevic are themselves in contempt. In contempt of the
basic rules of International Law and, indeed, of principles of human decency.
An accused person has the right to represent himself and obviously has a
right to be present for, and participate in, his own trial. To go so far as
to criminally charge a witness who refuses to cooperate with massive
violations of rights guaranteed by international instruments such as the
the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights has brought this
institution to a new low, and threatens the future of International Law.

These contempt proceedings are absolutely illegitimate and can only serve
to set back even further the cause of justice and, indeed, the truth.

These in absentia proceedings appear to be the result of a deliberate
design, and were wholly predictable from the very moment, last summer, when
former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's two previous employees,
David Scheffer and Michael Scharf, publicly lobbied in the International
Herald Tribune and the Washington Post, respectively, for the imposition of
the very measures being carried out today. Mr. Scheffer did not hide his
contempt for internationally recognized basic human rights by demanding
that late Trial Chamber President Richard May "permanently pull in his
well-worn leash" by gagging President Milosevic, then "pumping the
proceedings into his cell". Neither Scheffer nor Scharf, in their public
demands for the gagging of President Milosevic, concealed their view that
the ICTY is a political rather than legal body. They are both architects of
the institution, and therefore they would know. Their lobbying appears to
have been successful and will have devastating effect, as appears to be
their intention, on any future international criminal proceedings. Indeed,
both have made clear at different moments that their intention is to insure
that Saddam Hussein, for example, would not have the right to claim U.S.
aggression against Iraq.

President Milosevic has always maintained his opposition to this body--as
one that was illegally constituted and is employed to justify aggression
and violate national sovereignty--as well as his firm commitment to the
people of Yugoslavia that he would establish that the so-called Balkan wars
were, in fact, one war--a war against Yugoslavia, carried out in violation
of International Law.

In order to prevent him from doing this, the most fundamental tenets of
criminal procedure and, indeed, of international law must be further violated
and its future jeopardized.

There is only one positive aspect of these perverse proceedings: they bring
clarity to the situation and make clear once and for all that the ICTY is
not a legal body but, rather, abuses power that it does not even legally




President Milosevic has the truth and law on his side. In order to use that
advantage to achieve his freedom, we must fight this totally discredited
tribunal and its patrons through professionally conducted actions which
would involve the Bar Associations, the European Court, the UN organs in
charge and the media.

Our practice has shown that ad hoc voluntary work is not enough to deal
properly with these tasks. The funds secured in Serbia are still enough only
to cover the expenses of the stay and work of President Milosevic's legal
associates at The Hague (one at the time). The funds secured by the German
section of the ICDSM (still the only one with regular contributions) are
enough only to cover minimal additional work at The Hague connected with
contacts and preparations of foreign witnesses. Everything else is lacking.


3000-5000 EUR per month is our imminent need.

Our history and our people oblige us to go on with this necessary action.
But without these funds it will not be possible.

Please organize urgently the fundraising activity
and send the donations to the following ICDSM accounts:

Peter Betscher
Stadt- und Kreissparkasse Darmstadt, Germany
IBAN: DE 21 5085 0150 0102 1441 63


Vereinigung für Internationale Solidarität (VIS)
4000 Basel, Switzerland
PC 40-493646-5


All of your donations will be used for legal and other necessary
accompanying activities, on instruction or with the consent of President
Milosevic. To
obtain additional information on the use of your donations or to obtain
advice on the most efficient way to submit your donations or to make bank
transfers, please do not hesitate to contact us:

Peter Betscher (ICDSM Treasurer) E-mail:
Phone: +49 172 7566 014

Vladimir Krsljanin (ICDSM Secretary) E-mail:
Phone: +381 63 8862 301


Saturday, April 23, 2005

Trial Moves On Without Milosevic

[Today, 19 April 2005, is the tenth anniversary of the bombing of the Murrah Federal Bldg in Oklahoma City. At a memorial service for the families of the 168 victims, 19 of whom were children, attended by prominent US terrorists like Dick Cheney and Bill Clinton, 168 seconds of silence were observed and, thereby, added to the decade-long silence as to the real nature, causes and perpetrators of this heinous, but by now quite ordinary, act in the on-going Western genocide of the innocents.

One is forced to wonder how such a crime could go unresolved for so long. When videos of live network news broadcasts of 19 April 1995, since abjectly suppressed and banished from any public scrutiny, clearly show that the explosion that blew the facade off the Murrah Bldg came not from some horseshit and fuel-oil-ladened rental truck parked at the curb, but from within this FBI field office; and that there were at least two other, unexploded, bombs recovered by local bomb squads and Federal anti-terrorist units from inside the structure after the initial blast .

How Timmy McVeigh could go to his death without ever snitching off his masters;

How the murder of Chandra Levy, McVeigh's contact in the Federal Bureau of prisons, could go unsolved to this day;

How the silence as to the realities of the 1993 WTC bombing;

the assassination of the two Hutu presidents of Rwanda and Burundi, Juvenal Habyarimana and Cyprien Ntaryamira, by the Tutsi RPF on 6 April 1994;

the bombing of the Sarajevo breadlines and Markale marketplace (1993-94) by the Bosnian (Muslim) government but internationally blamed on the Bosnian Serbs;

all the fuzzed out acts of 'friendly-fire' and 'false-flag' terrorism blamed on Arabs in the last 35 years, culmiating in 9/11, where the most improbable story of 19 young Arab terrorists, in the service of a cave-dwelling Saudi Svengali, hijack 3 or 4 civilian airliners and crash them into monuments to Western financial and military hegemony, a lie of such brazen bluster as to be almost infantile, in support of which not a single shred of material evidence has ever been furnished, and over which the silence has been deafening and the ignorance carcinogenic.

How this omerta become a dumb-show has turned the Western world into the land of the living dead not only buggers reason, it cries out in pain and despair, begging for more and stronger drugs.

But this wrenching away of historical truth, this unanesthetized extraction of the very essence of humanity, the knowledge of self; this criminalization of justice continues today and grows more and more insidious and arrogant with each incompetent ruling of the ad hocs. For today also marks the beginning of the in absentia trial of Slobodan Milosevic at the ICTY in The Hague. None of us who follow this trial is particularly surprised, but it's difficult not to be more than a little sickened by the gory grossness of yet another miscarriage.

So below you will find the article that broke this story of The Hague trying to cross-examine one of President Milosevic's witnesses while he is too ill to attend court; as well as a reposting of Maitre Tiphaine Dickson's two articles (Substantial Disturbance and Star Chamber) on the crude machinations of this lawless judiciary that NATO has engaged to continue its wars against the feckless victims of globalized waste capitalism.


News by priority, April 19, 2005

Trial moves on without Milosevic | 15:46 | FoNet

THE HAGUE -- Tuesday – The Hague Tribunal has decided to continue
the court process against Slobodan Milosevic even if the defendant
cannot make it to court because of illness.

The trial is scheduled to continue with a cross-examination of
defense witness Kosta Bulatovic, without Milosevic being present,
which Bulatovic has refused.

“I came here at the invitation of my president Slobodan Milosevic,
and I am his witness and no one else’s and without his presence I
will not speak, nor give any statements.” Bulatovic said.

Hague President Patrick Robinson told Bulatovic that Milosevic’s is
sick and that it has been decided that his testimony must continue
without the presence of Milosevic in court. Robinson said that
Milosevic will be able to see a video of the continuation of
Bulatovic’s testimony, read the transcript and will have the ability
to recall the witness if he wishes to.

“You can recall me, even if I am current not healthy and it was very
hard for me to come here in the first place. If you recall me, I will
try and come again, but without the presence of Milosevic I will not
agree to any questioning. I would feel ashamed and defeated if this
happened, and I’d rather take death home than defeat.” Bulatovic

"Substantial Disruption" at The Hague: Will Slobodan Milosevic be Tried In Absential? --by Tiphaine Dickson
Nov 9, 2004

[From Kivu, in Eastern Congo, where the UN, in its decade-long collaboration with Rwandan President Paul Kagame's marauding, mass-murdering RPF (the bastard sons of Museveni's Ugandan National Army that began this latest, fully US-DoD-backed seige of Central Africa in Oct 1990, and has not paused even to spit out the undigestible remains of the now nearly 9 million souls it has devoured), has recently renewed its fiery wasting of Rwandan refugees camps and the Hutu lives they so feebly protected; to Falluja, in Iraq, where legions of god- and drug-addled American youths, products of that vile shit-sausage machine that is Western junk culture, have launched an assault on 'Iraqi terrorist rebels' (what we now call those who resist that particular occupation unto annihilation that comes wrapped as American-style democracy); to The Hague, in The Netherlands (The Low Countries, how fucking appropriate!), where one man, Slobodan Milosevic, continues to stand up in defense of Historical Truth and International Justice against the real Terrorists--those who would lay waste to entire nations, not to control their territory and resources, but for no other reason than that they have no other reason to be--or no other means by which to continue their monstrous reproduction: All this seemed to have been put on Pause while the US went through its quadrennial pageant: Its little mime or dumbshow to decide who'll be prom queen for the next four-year episode of Every Time It Reigns It Reigns Terror from Heaven? Well, some folks still have their heads out (and up) and are keeping track of just about every crooked shyst going down out there. Here's Me Dickson's latest contribution to the Real Deal. I just don't know how the kinds of people get involved in the ad hocs, so devoid of decency--or even of what used to pass for humanity, before the term was kidnapped and pimped out by the Genocidaire Left--and so unsuceptible to secular reason will be even the least bit fazed by this sort of strong, well-founded argument. Can't hurt, I guess. --mc]

"Substantial Disruption" at The Hague:

Will Slobodan Milosevic be Tried In Absentia?

by Tiphaine Dickson

In an appellate decision which appears to have been painstakingly devised to convince public opinion that President Milosevic's rights have been restored--or even, as stated by some media, "increased", or exaggerated in favor of the defendant--the ICTY has opened the door to in absentia trials before international bodies, and reduced fundamental trial rights into mere "presumptions", matters of discretion.

Ominously, this decision is the direct echo of reports that the ICTY will be shut down quickly by the US, well ahead of the deadline imposed by the UN Security Council's "completion strategy". The Milosevic case is the last remaining thorn in the side of the institution whose outright politicization he has exposed. But his defense is far more threatening still: threatening to establish that the "Balkan Wars" were in fact one war, against Yugoslavia, waged by Western powers in their own interests. The Appeals Court has now fashioned a device to prevent that case from being made at the ICTY, which would close down, rather than hear the evidence.

The decision handed down by the ICTY's President, Theodor Meron, who also acts as President of the Appeals Chamber, as well as a Trial Chamber judge, permits Slobodan Milosevic's effective removal from the courtroom. Indeed, the judgment states that "substantial disruption" of a trial does not necessarily have to be intentional to justify holding proceedings in the absence of the accused, and that even the ill health of a defendant can constitute such a "substantial disruption". In such cases, according to the ICTY's "court of last resort", both imposition of counsel and removal from the proceedings are justified.

The current situation is infinitely worse than that brought about by the Trial Chamber's ultimately embarrassing ruling imposing counsel against the wishes of Mr. Milosevic, and granting what were described as "rights" to assigned counsel who had acted for another party in the proceedings as amici curiae. Imposed counsel predictably failed to present any meaningful defense, as scores of witnesses refused to participate in proceedings that shared characteristics with the notorious Star Chamber. In fact, most of the recalcitrant witnesses expressed their view that what the imposed counsel were presenting was not and could not be Mr. Milosevic's defense at all, and that their participation would only serve to further violate his fundamental rights.

Playing out as predicted

Presciently, perhaps, the ICTY's designated counsel had, themselves, argued against imposition of counsel last August 13th, stating that they were "concerned that the witnesses to be called by the accused, whilst they may be willing to cooperate with him, would in the event of a conflict make themselves unavailable to the Amici Curiae as imposed counsel." Despite having expressed this concern almost three months ago, Mr. Steven Kay and Ms. Gillian Higgins accepted their assignments without objection, and for two months, the "defense" of Slobodan Milosevic stumbled along gracelessly from postponement to postponement as only 5 witnesses were called. Stunningly, counsel failed to object to irrelevant, inflammatory, and frankly discriminatory--if not actually racist--cross-examinations by the prosecution team, who judged it necessary to attempt to impugn a witness' credibility based on his ethnic affiliation (Greek) and religion (Greek Orthodox). No objection was made to a question posed as to whether the father of the witness had donated money to a Serbian NGO, the Serbian Unity Congress, an organization dedicated to the preservation of Serbian heritage with chapters in 9 countries. But the question was posed to suggest, somehow, in an almost textbook display of impermissible cross-examination, that the witness could be tainted by his father's support for what was assumed to be a shadowy Serb outfit. Guilt by association disguised as cross-examination, but the imposed counsel let it slide. The Trial Chamber had no comment about this line of questioning, nor did it upbraid the Prosecutor, Mr. Nice, for "wasting time on irrelevant matters", even during a cross-examination that delved into obscure issues of comparative theology. Another cross-examination focused witheringly on why Serbs would think they were "so special", and deserve to live in one territory because they were "historic victims." (800 000 people-- Serbs, Jews, Roma-- were killed at the Croatian Ustase-run Jasenovac concentration camp. These systematic murders constitute one of the tragic chapters of the Holocaust, and can assuredly be considered to be a "special" part of Yugoslav history.) It goes without saying that no remotely similar question was asked of Elie Weisel about his people, when he testified during Biljana Plavsic's sentencing hearing in December 2002. Some questions are indecent and cannot be asked. Others, however, equally indecent and revisionist in their assumptions are asked, and with full impunity.

Ethics, suddenly

Only a little over a week ago did the imposed counsel request to be withdrawn from the case, citing ethical quandaries that should have been clear to them many months ago--that obviously were clear to them, since they had already articulated them, in detail, last August, in their arguments opposing the imposition of counsel. Before the Appeals Chamber, on October 21st, they complained of the fact that neither President Milosevic nor the witnesses were cooperating with them, again, a state of affairs they had themselves predicted, and therefore had reason to believe would play out precisely the way it did. To the Appeals Chamber, Mr. Kay made the following submission which could be interpreted as blaming President Milosevic for the predictable consequences of imposition, and for the "substantial disruption" of proceedings caused as a result: "… in terms of a solution, it may be that he undertakes his own consequences rather than us wasting resources believing, and people kidding themselves, making believe that what is happening here is a proper defense."

Who's to blame?

From the very first day of the court-appointed defense, it was made clear who was to be blamed for the dysfunction: Slobodan Milosevic. On September 7th, when the first witness was called by Mr. Kay, he told the court that he'd failed in his attempts to obtain instructions from his "client". Patrick Robinson, who presides over these proceedings, took pains to have the record reflect that President Milosevic was responsible for the non-cooperation. And reminded all that counsel had been imposed because Mr. Milosevic was unfit to represent himself, and unfit to question witnesses before assigned counsel. How, then, could he be expected to be "fit" enough to instruct imposed counsel?

When the defendant, on the first day of what should have been his defense, which he had been waiting to make since his dubious "transfer" to The Hague, demanded that his right to self-representation be restored, Mr. Robinson responded that he didn't want to hear the "tired refrain". How "tired" could it have been on the very first day of the defense?

There is a simple explanation for the fatigue, and it is that this defense must come to an end before it begins. Could it be that for this purpose a two-part strategy was designed? First, impose counsel and let the measure inevitably "backfire", then feign the re-establishment of the right to self-representation in a decision permitting the Trial Chamber to proceed in absentia, for part, or the remainder, of the defense case.

It is important to note that despite a subsequent denial from Washington, US media recently published comments by Undersecretary for arms control John Bolton, stating that the last Bush administration was dissatisfied with proceedings at the ICTY, and wished to see its "completion strategy" accelerated. In other words, close it down, transfer cases back to domestic courts, and even grant amnesty. Last June, the ICTY adopted an amendment to its rules of procedure and evidence permitting just such deferrals. Undersecretary Bolton and other senior State Department officials are said to believe that the "ICTY has degenerated into a politicized tribunal", but their complaints are aimed solely at Carla Del Ponte, and not at any of the other equally politicized organs of the institution. Yet the players in Washington know full well that the ICTY is a political body, as they created it as such. Indeed it has been stated without irony by those closest to its establishment, such as Professor Michael Scharf, that the institution was established to "educate Serbs", "pin responsibility on Milosevic", and "promote catharsis" by permitting "newly-elected" leaders to distance themselves from the policies of Milosevic. But, in order to accelerate the completion strategy, someone else must be faulted for the politicization of the ICTY, and who better than the Prosecutor--who was, perhaps, carefully chosen so that her demise would satisfy everybody: her employers and detractors as well. Washington also clearly stated its frustration with the pace of the Milosevic case, which has as of yet failed to produce a conviction. From Bolton's comments, it is obvious that President Milosevic would not be a suitable candidate for transfer to the jurisdiction of Serbia and Montenegro, unlike, for example, Operation Storm's Ante Gotovina, whose indictment--described as "bogus"--could conveniently be deferred to Croatia. Mere days after this article was published in the Washington Times, ICTY President Theodor Meron traveled to Zagreb, to discuss the "completion strategy" with the Croatian government, according to an ICTY press release. This, coincidentally, while the Appeals Chamber was deliberating on the appeal launched against imposition of counsel.

Despite the clear direction this case is taking, the Appeals Chamber of the ICTY has attempted--and, perhaps, , to some extent successfully--to give the appearance of having overturned an unfair decision as a legitimate Appeals Chamber and a judicial institution.

It has further attempted to give the appearance of providing excessive fairness to the accused in portraying the ICTY as an embattled underdog. The fairness afforded is an illusion, and the decision will serve to prevent Slobodan Milosevic from presenting his defense.

"Substantial disruption"

The Appeals Chamber decision is signed only by ICTY President Theodor Meron. In the course of arguments before the appellate body, President Milosevic argued that he could not present a meaningful defense while represented by counsel, since this political prosecution, before a political body, requires a political defense. The ICTY Code of conduct for defense lawyers indeed forbids counsel from " diminish(ing) public confidence in the International Tribunal (...) or otherwise bring(ing) the International Tribunal into disrepute." It is thus inconceivable that a defense lawyer could argue the ICTY's illegality or illegitimacy-- a cornerstone of Mr. Milosevic's defense-- without breaching the body's ethical rules. President Meron responded to Mr. Milosevic's arguments with the following statement: "I really believe, and I believe that all my colleagues very strongly believe that this trial is not a political trial. It is a legal trial under human rights and due process to determine, under international law and the Statute, whether—to determine whether you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt or you are not. And we would not have been conducting those proceedings this way if we were not convinced that this is really not only a legal trial, but I believe it is a model of a fair trial."

The Appeals Chamber, reviewing the decision to impose counsel on an obviously competent law school graduate, made in the course of this "model of a fair trial"--a move unprecedented since the Star Chamber, and not even attempted by the Apartheid judiciary against Mandela, or Nazi Germany against Dimitrov--held, without relying on any authority whatsoever, that "substantial disruption of the proceedings" for the purposes of stripping an accused of the right to be tried in his presence, as well as the right to self representation, does not require any proof that the accused had the intention of disrupting the proceedings. Ill health suffices to violate an accused person's most fundamental right, a position contrary to international law and domestic practice. Illness warrants provisional release, or an end of the proceedings, not a supplementary violation of rights. The justification set out by Mr. Meron is the following: "But it cannot be that the only kind of disruption legitimately cognizable by a Trial Chamber is the intentional variety." Not a single case is cited. This argument states "it cannot be", therefore "it should be". Here, then, is the acknowledgement that this measure is not only contrary to practice, and in violation of the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights, but predicated on the idea of "illegal but good", or rather "illegal, but expedient" (and "discretionary").

Unprecedented assault against fair trial rights

The Appeals Chamber has further committed an unprecedented assault on internationally recognized human rights. The right to self-representation--described by Mr. Meron himself as "indispensable cornerstone of justice", "placed on a structural par" with the other rights set out at article 21 of the Statute (and article 14 of the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights)--becomes a mere "presumptive right" that the ICTY Trial Chambers can apply in a discretionary manner:

"As the Appeals Chamber has previously noted, a Trial Chamber exercises its discretion in "many different situations – such as when imposing sentence, in determining whether provisional release should be granted, in relation to the admissibility of some types of evidence, in evaluating evidence, and (more frequently) in deciding points of practice or procedure." A Trial Chamber’s assignment of counsel fits squarely within this last category of decisions. It draws on the Trial Chamber’s organic familiarity with the day-to-day conduct of the parties and practical demands of the case, and requires a complex balancing of intangibles in crafting a case-specific order to properly regulate a highly variable set of trial proceedings."

So the respect of that right--and of, one might conceive, the other rights "placed at a structural par" with it, those enumerated in Article 20, paragraph 4 of the Statute--are no longer "entitlements", to be "enjoyed in full equality", as set out by Article 20 of the Statute, but a matter of discretion for the Trial Chamber. Those entitlements constitute the minimum fundamental fair trial rights under international law, and guarantee the following to a defendant in a criminal trial: the right to be informed promptly and in detail in a language which he understands of the nature and cause of the charge against him; the right to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defense and to communicate with counsel of his own choosing; the right to be tried without undue delay; the right to be tried in his presence, and to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing; to be informed, if he does not have legal assistance, of this right; and to have legal assistance assigned to him, in any case where the interests of justice so require, and without payment by him in any such case if he does not have sufficient means to pay for it; the right to examine, or have examined, the witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; the right to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in the International Tribunal; the right not to be compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt.

This remarkable perspective on basic fair trial rights invites discretionary "adjustments" or "balancing" of the other enumerated rights, since they are on a "structural par" with the right to self-representation. In other words, if all these rights have the same value, what prevents a Trial Chamber from violating them equally, as they have done with the right to self-representation, which the Appeals Chamber has upheld? This "discretion" will further be employed to severely curtail the duration, scope and subject matter of questions, as well as the very possibility of calling certain witnesses altogether.

Since the Trial Chamber has been granted the "wise discretion" to deal with the "myriad health-related difficulties that may arise in the future", and the power to craft "an appropriate set of responses to every possible eventuality", it is entirely plausible, and in fact highly likely that non-intentional "disruption" will be found to exist, whether for health reasons or "non-cooperation". Then, this partial "self-representation", and even presence at the hearings, will be dispensed with. Considering the record of the Trial Chamber, in particular judges Robinson and Bonomy, and their impatient attitude (calling Mr. Milosevic "petulant" and "puerile"), the Appeals Chamber decision can be interpreted as an invitation to remove the President entirely from the proceedings.

If the ICTY were not a political construct, it could and would simply restore President Milosevic's right to self-representation. Judicial institutions are independent bodies who suffer no interference from the executive branch; they do not rewrite their own rules in mid-trial, they do not emerge from the ether, survive for a few years, then hurry to shut down their operations. Criminal courts are committed to an unwavering respect for the Rule of law, which in adversary proceedings means that people can only be tried "in an ordinary manner, before the ordinary courts of the land". Courts do not engage in public relations activities, "outreach programs", nor do they attempt to influence the policies of foreign governments.

And as Mr. Kay compellingly argues that no lawyer can meaningfully represent President Milosevic as assigned counsel, or even as "stand-by counsel" without violating professional ethics, we see that there can be no defense at all unless the right to self-representation is restored.

The Appeals Chamber did not restore Slobodan Milosevic's right to self-representation, but rather provided the Trial Chamber with the tools it requires to see to it that Washington's completion strategy is carried out swiftly. In the process, it has dealt a blow to the fundamental fair trial rights guaranteed by the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights. The ICTY's endgame, as illustrated by the strategy designed to prevent Slobodan Milosevic from further exposing the institution's political nature, provides a valuable lesson: there is nothing to be gained by establishing ad hoc political courts, be they in Europe, Africa, or anywhere else. When justice is used as an instrument to justify the crime of aggression, and when ad hoc bodies do not even consider aggression within their jurisdiction, there is no point in calling what emerges from the exercise "international law." The sole superpower does not agree to being submitted to the International Criminal Court's jurisdiction yet lays a gruesome siege on Fallujah. And the sole superpower wishes Slobodan Milosevic's microphone switched off, once and for all. It is imperative we at least attempt to ponder why that is.

Tiphaine Dickson is a criminal defence lawyer specialized in international criminal law based in Montréal. She was lead counsel for the defence in one of the first UN trials prosecuting genocide before the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.


[Here's the version of Tiphaine Dickson's paper on the moribund prospects for proceeding toward truth and justice in the the Milosevic trial (and even the very real possibility of an imminent euthanasia of Tribunal, itself!). This is just as it was presented on Saturday, 26 February, 2005, at the ICDSM's International Law Conference in the Golden Tulip Belair Hotel in The Hague.

Because Maitre Dickson was unable to attend, I was given the high honor of reciting this paper before an audience of a couple hundred or so ICDSM members and loyalists from several nations, and a presidentium made up of some of the great legal minds of our day: Ramsey Clark, former US Attorney General (USA); Professor Velko Valkanov, Chairman of the Bulgarian Human Rights Committee; (Clark and Valkanov have been joined as co-chairman of the ICDSM by the Russian writer Alexander Zinoviev); Professor Aldo Bernardini, international law, Teramo University (Italy); Christopher Black, international criminal lawyer, Chair, Legal Committee of the ICDSM (Canada)(and lead counsel on General Ndindiliyimana's trial at the ICTR in Arusha); Dr John Laughland, the renouned journalist (UK); Dr Alexandar Mezhyaev, international law, Kazan (Russia); as well as Indian legislator and legal scholar Bekim Singh.

Dr Laughland's analysis of how The Hague Tribunal (the ad hocs, in general) have perverted the Nuremberg principles was another highlight of the conference. And most heartening to many of us was that serious consideration was finally given to the obvious need for linkage with and solidarity among the various political trials going on today and being planned for the near future: From Rwanda to Iraq to Palestine to Sudan, all interested eyes right now are turned to the trials of President Milosevic and the other Serbian military officers and government officials, and on General Ndindiliyimana and the other Hutu representatives of the Habyarimana governtment of Rwanda. For in these ICe houses, the ad hocs, lies the future of international (in)justice, victors' justice, and the ominous principle of 'might makes right.'

But the most astounding occurrence of the whole event was the absolute total media black-out of of this ICDSM function. Now that President Milosevic is making it unmistakeably clear, day after day and witness after witness, that the true origins and execution of the events leading to the destruction of his country, Yugoslavia/Serbia, have had almost nothing to do with the charges laid by the Prosecutor against him and his fellow defenders of the peace--and that this grotesque intoxication of the international public which was brought about by the craven complicity of the media with the spin-monsters of the real Western war mongers in the Balkans, has forced the fearless fourth estate to flee like burnt leeches from this, once upon a time, 'Trial of the Century;, into seeking refuge from the insults of their government minders by covering trials of the sendentary like those of Scott Petersen and Michael Jackson. --But maybe the press couldn't get to the Golden Tulip because they had to prep for the Academy Awards the next evening. --mc]


Beyond The Star Chamber:
Shutting Down the Milosevic Defense in The Hague
Tiphaine Dickson

On February 14th, The Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) hearing the Milosevic case resumed proceedings after having adjourned the week before following a UN physician’s opinion that Slobodan Milosevic would require some days to recover after having been affected by influenza in early February. Media coverage had again complained of “delays in the trial”, and of illness—generally described as “bouts of flu”—as the cause of “lost time”. The Chamber faulted President Milosevic for “wasting time” in his examination of the former Foreign Minister of Yugoslavia with respect to the secession of the former republics and of foreign involvement in the conflicts that ensued as a result. Mr. Milosevic was told the questions—of obvious relevance, and, indeed, of crucial importance—were “pointless”. The Prosecutor has asked that the proceedings continue in the absence of Mr. Milosevic. The situation is ominous and there is evidence that the ICTY is poised to take radical measures, including the interruption, and, ultimately, the premature conclusion of Slobodan Milosevic’s defense.

Indeed, the ICTY, a UN Security Council institution, has set the stage to justify ending these proceedings, —while holding President Milosevic responsible for the result—, in four rulings, two of which were handed down in the last two weeks. First, counsel was imposed against the defendant’s will. Second, in absentia proceedings were approved. Third, imposed counsel was not allowed to withdraw from the case for ethical reasons. And finally, the duration of the Prosecution’s case was artificially reduced, while the time afforded to Slobodan Milosevic was inflated by counting his cross-examination of Prosecution witnesses as time devoted to his defense, in an unusual order devoted to statistics. Slobodan Milosevic is either directly or indirectly made responsible for the unfortunate state of affairs in all four decisions. All is in place to wrap things up.

In September, the Trial Chamber imposed counsel against the clear wishes of the defendant, a practice described by the United States Supreme Court as having been largely abandoned since the unlamented demise in the late 16th and early 17th centuries of the Star Chamber, an executive entity infamous for trying political cases. The Trial Chamber’s decision to impose counsel with broad powers to determine the strategy of the defense created a crisis, as defense witnesses refused to cooperate with imposed counsel Steven Kay and Gillian Higgins, previously ICTY-appointed amici curiae (friends of the court), thrust upon Slobodan Milosevic as defense advocates, seemingly oblivious to the fact that they’d been parties to the proceedings for over two years, and that this created—at minimum—an apparent conflict of interest. Mr. Kay complained bitterly, and publicly, about the non-cooperation of defense witnesses (the Chamber had already received Slobodan Milosevic’s list of witnesses when they imposed counsel), and complained of Milosevic’s lack of cooperation as well, bringing the proceedings to a virtual standstill with a mere trickle of witnesses making the trip to testify in The Hague.

The imposition of counsel upon an unwilling accused—in clear violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which provides for the minimum fundamental right to defend oneself in person—was approved, as a matter of law, by the Appeals Chamber (the initial imposition of counsel was appealed again by Mr. Kay and Ms. Higgins) last November. The ruling reduced this right—which is guaranteed by the ICTY’s own Statute as a minimum fundamental right—to the rank of a mere “presumption”. In so doing, the ICTY’s President, American Theodor Meron, stated that all the “minimum” fundamental rights afforded to the accused by the ICTY’s Statute (which were imported, almost verbatim, from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, leaving out only—inexplicably—the Covenant’s provision of the right to be tried by an independent, impartial, and competent court) were “on a par” with the right to represent oneself in person. In other words, the right for a defendant to represent himself is just a “presumption”, as are all the other basic, fundamental, internationally recognized, minimal trial rights provided by the ICTY’s Statute: such as the right to know the nature of the charge, the right to remain silent, the right to present evidence in the same conditions as the Prosecutor, the right to an interpreter, and the right to be tried in one’s own presence. In fact, they are all stripped of their essence as rights. The ad hoc international legal order holds them to be mere “presumptions” that can be violated at the discretion of a trial chamber when expedient, or “justified”. And as they are no longer really rights, it then follows that they cannot even really be violated. And if they can’t be violated, there is not much incentive to respect them, much less to guarantee them, as “minimal rights”, nor to sanction or remedy their breach.

President Meron’s decision was almost universally understood as having handed a victory to President Milosevic, as it overturned, not the legality, nor even the propriety, of the imposition of counsel, but rather the modalities set out by the Trial Chamber for such “assignment” of counsel—that term, ‘assignment’, is the ICTY’s delicate formulation—. Hence, President Meron directed that Mr. Milosevic be allowed to present his defense and question his own witnesses, with imposed counsel on standby in case of illness. Elsewhere in the Appeals Chamber ruling, however, President Meron made a startlingly ominous claim: the right to be tried in one’s presence is not absolute (it seems this right, too, is but a “presumption”) and can be obviated by “substantial disruption” of the proceedings. This disruption need not be deliberate or even intended by the accused, and can be caused merely by illness. The possibility of holding in absentia proceedings in the Milosevic case as a result of illness (as had been forcefully advocated by the former US Ambassador for War Crimes Issues, David Scheffer, in the International Herald Tribune last summer), had just been approved by the Appeals Chamber.

In early February, President Meron denied a request by imposed counsel to resign from the proceedings, citing ethical incapacity to continue in the absence of cooperation from their “client”, and complaining of his public criticism of their work. The British barristers directly blamed President Milosevic—the very person whose rights are being violated by this imposition—for their ethical predicament: “[T]he accused has made a relationship of ‘candid exchange and trust’ impossible”. President Meron accordingly took Kay and Higgins’ word for it, and laid responsibility for their inability to act for an unwilling accused squarely at the feet of the very victim of the measure: “an accused does not have the right to unilaterally destroy the trust between himself and his counsel.” (Although, as President Milosevic had pointed out at a previous hearing, it is impossible to destroy, unilaterally or otherwise, something that never existed in the first place.) Thus, citing the Appeals Chambers’ previous ruling in the equally astonishing (and dismal, from a legal and human rights perspective) –the case of General Vidoje Blagojevic, President Meron resolved any and all ethical issues—including such questions of interest to lawyers everywhere as: how do you represent a client who refuses your services[?], who will not speak to you[?], whose witnesses do not trust you, who will not communicate facts to you, (such as those relevant to a defense, including alibi), and how does one act for an unwilling accused when one has acted for another party in the very same proceedings?—Meron resolved these questions by insisting on counsel’s obligations towards the ICTY, an institution not recognized as a legitimate legal body by Slobodan Milosevic. President Meron held that: “In such circumstances, where an Appellant unjustifiably resists legal representation from assigned Counsel, Counsel’s professional obligations to continue to represent the accused remain.”

It is unfortunate that President Meron’s decision does not reveal whether the British Bar Council provided an opinion with respect to the ethical issues raised, or whether one was in fact sought by imposed counsel. Whatever the position of the UK Bar, a venerable institution whose opinion might well have been of assistance in this debate; as far as the ICTY is concerned, Mr. Kay and Ms. Higgins must continue to act, since President Meron held that President Milosevic cannot be allowed to “manufacture” a reason for counsels’ withdrawal by refusing to cooperate. To “permit” him to do so, wrote Theodor Meron, would be to “render nugatory” the Appeals Chamber’s decision to approve imposition of counsel! One can only admire the perfection of that argument’s circularity.

As a final indication that these proceedings may well (soon) be derailed, late last week, the Trial Chamber issued an odd calculation of the time devoted by both sides, the Prosecutor and Mr. Milosevic, to the presentation of their respective cases. The ruling goes so far as to count the minutes the institution has apparently suffered through in what was once billed as “The Trial of the Century”. This bizarre accounting of time, unheard of in normal trials, and glaringly at odds with known practice in the adversarial system, is meant to suggest that these proceedings have gone on for a tediously long time and that in “bending over backwards” the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia now risks violating the “integrity” of international justice if it continues to afford such overwhelming fairness to the accused. Such a suggestion stands in sharp contrast to the reality of a skewed process which has from the moment the defendant was indicted—that being at the height of an illegal bombing campaign, in the course of a war of aggression against the nation of which he was the legitimate President, by a Prosecutor who diligently informed the media that President Milosevic’s new status would disqualify him from negotiating peace in Kosovo—has not been characterized by fairness at all, but by the steady violation of President Milosevic’s rights and of international law, itself.

These proceedings have, indeed, on occasion, been excruciatingly slow, but the main victim has been President Milosevic, who was “transferred” to The Hague—that is to say, he was snatched from a Belgrade detention facility without recourse to common law courts and in violation of the Yugoslav constitution, according to the (then) Yugoslav constitutional court—and detained under UN authority since June 28th, 2001. It is astonishing to note that international justice, or what attempts to portray itself as such, would tolerate the four and a half year detention of a man suffering from malignant hypertension, and worse yet, employ his illness as a justification for imposing counsel, ONLY AFTER his defense had begun, in a display of medical concern much less apparent during Ms. Del Ponte’s inexplicably historical/political marathon presentation of evidence, much of which was not immediately relevant, to put it mildly, to the charges contained in the indictments. That the ICTY would attempt to blame Slobodan Milosevic for this interminable trial is absurd. Indeed, the Prosecution’s case, presented while investigations were ongoing, was for many observers unintelligible, and meandering.

His surprisingly underreported defense, however, threatens to shed some light on what he (and increasingly, his witnesses) have described, not as the “Balkan Wars”, but as a single war against Yugoslavia, a state no longer in existence, whose last days were punctuated by aerial bombardments not seen in Belgrade since those carried out by the Allies at the end of WWII and Nazi Germany in 1941. THAT is the war President Milosevic is beginning to investigate in his defense, and that may well be the reason why suddenly “time is being wasted”, the “trial has drawn on long enough”, and that the “integrity” of the proceedings is now at stake. Indeed, this defense could well present the very “substantial disturbance” required to bring it—and perhaps the whole institution—to a untimely end.


Occupations militaires - La prostitution érigée en système--Le 26 mai 200

[Here's what the Left's first 'successful Humanitarian Intervention' into Yugoslavia was really all about. And all those who worship at the Church of Chomsky (whose cunning linguistic recontortion of the Bosnian Serb Military's safe evacuation of the women and children of Srebrenica into a 'trucking out of genocide survivors'--as if they'd been herded into cattle trucks, instead of voluntarily boarding the several dozen tourist buses actually used in the neutralization of what had long been a hostage situation in that most unsafe of UN Safe Havens--has proved essential to the maintenance of a sufficient level of Serb demoniztion in light of all the recent discoveries of the mass media's mass of lies about mass graves and weapons of mass destruction), and the rest of the Trot social-spoilers at WuSsWuSs, Wanx-mail, SpleenLeft, or Swines (who continue to assign all evil to popular leaders who, in the 70s, 80 and 90s, had dealings with the Western credit and arms monopoly--from Milosevic to Mugabe, from Fidel to Saddam, the idea of Revolutionary Socialists holding state power in popular governments is something the anti-Communist Left has been unable to stomach except in their most abstract, theoretical and solipsistic imaginings.) Well, below you'll find the real result of those Chicago School Straussian/Trotskyite longings for an 'International Revolution à tout prix'. In this respect, Leo, Leon, Mad Albright, Uncle Milty Friedman, and W's new road-dog, 3$Bill, would have made great card partners: The cardinal rule of Western Waste Culture: No matter WHAT the cost of doing Business (esp where the lives of children are concerned), PAY IT! --mc]

Occupations militaires - La prostitution érigée en système

Richard Poulin
Professeur, département de sociologie, Université d'Ottawa; professeur invité, Universität Innsbruck; auteur de La Mondialisation des industries du sexe, à paraître à l'automne

Édition du mercredi 26 mai 2004

Les soldats de la force de l'OTAN au Kosovo (KFOR) et le personnel de l'ONU contribuent à alimenter l'essor de la prostitution dans la province de Serbie à majorité albanaise, affirme Amnesty International dans un rapport rendu public le 6 mai dernier.

Selon l'organisation de défense des droits humains, 20 % des clients des réseaux de prostitution au Kosovo sont des soldats de la KFOR et des policiers de la MINUK (Mission des Nations unies), qui contribuent de la sorte à fournir «une part substantielle des revenus», évaluée à 70 %, de l'industrie du sexe.

Il semble paradoxal que dans un pays qui a connu les horreurs de la guerre civile, certaines des violations des droits humains les plus élémentaires soient commises par la communauté internationale censée apporter la paix et permettre la reconstruction du pays. Toutefois, ce paradoxe n'en est pas un : le stationnement de troupes armées d'occupation développe les infrastructures prostitutionnelles et, par conséquent, la traite des femmes et des enfants aux fins de prostitution. Cet essor se traduit également par une augmentation de la clientèle locale et régionale.

La mise en place de telles infrastructures est encouragée, sinon pilotée par les forces d'occupation. Elle est l'une des fondations sur lesquelles se déploie le tourisme sexuel.

Les installations récréatives de la Corée

L'industrie massive de la prostitution et la traite des êtres humains qui l'accompagne en Asie du Sud-Est a pris son essor grâce aux guerres du Viêt-nam et de Corée.

À la fin des années 50, le gouvernement américain et la République de Corée ont signé un traité de défense mutuel qui a formellement accordé des bases militaires aux troupes américaines en Corée du Sud. Une des clause du traité prévoyait la mise en place de Rest and Recreation sites pour les soldats américains. Dans ces sites, les bordels étaient subventionnés par le gouvernement coréen, qui a ainsi pu édicter ses règles : il a estimé que des filles «de réconfort militaire» devaient «servir» 29 militaires par jour. Le gouvernement a même évalué que les contacts sexuels ne devaient pas dépasser les 30 minutes.

La pauvreté engendrée par la guerre ainsi que ses dislocations familiales et sociales ont permis au gouvernement coréen de recruter des femmes en promettant un emploi gouvernemental bien payé mais qui, en fait, était celui de prostituée pour les soldats américains.

À la fin des années 90, on dénombrait 18 000 personnes prostituées enregistrées et 9000 non enregistrées au service des 43 000 militaires états-uniens stationnés en Corée. Aujourd'hui, 8500 femmes, originaires surtout des Philippines et de la Russie, sont victimes de la traite aux fins de prostitution pour les militaires américains de la Corée. Elles ont pu entrer au pays au moyen de visas de «divertissement» délivrés par le gouvernement à la suite de négociations avec l'association des propriétaires de bars des camptowns.

En 2003, un rapport du ministère de la Défense américain reconnaissait que les soldats américains avaient «encouragé» la traite de femmes aux fins de prostitution en Corée.

Les bordels de réconfort nippons

Entre 1937 et 1945, l'armée japonaise d'occupation a utilisé entre 100 000 et 200 000 Coréennes qui ont été incarcérées dans des comfort stations (bordels de réconfort). Ce système était institutionnalisé : des officiers nippons recevaient une formation de l'armée pour apprendre à bien gérer l'approvisionnement en marchandises inanimées et vivantes pour le «réconfort» des soldats. La majorité des prostituées (approximativement 80 %) était d'origine coréenne, la plus ancienne colonie japonaise. Au fur et à mesure de la guerre et de l'occupation de divers pays par les troupes impériales, des bordels ont été ouverts et approvisionnés en femmes provenant des nouvelles colonies de Chine, des Philippines, de Birmanie, d'Indonésie, de la Malaysia, de Singapour et du Timor. Ces femmes étaient jugées inférieures d'un point de vue racial, ce qui légitimait leur esclavage sexuel. Elles étaient régulièrement battues et torturées. Si elles tombaient enceinte, elles étaient assassinées.

Quelques jours seulement après la défaite japonaise, l'Association pour la création d'installations récréatives spéciales, financée indirectement par le gouvernement japonais, ouvrait un premier bordel de réconfort pour les troupes américaines d'occupation. À son point culminant, cette association «employait» 70 000 personnes prostituées japonaises.

Les Rest and Recreation sites en Thaïlande

À la différence de la Corée, les Rest and Recreation sites développés pendant la guerre du Viêt-nam n'ont pas été directement rattachés aux bases militaires. Ces établissements se sont développés en Thaïlande et aux Philippines. Les États-Unis ont conclu une entente avec la Thaïlande en 1967 pour que le pays soit un lieu «de repos et de loisir» pour ses soldats. C'est un général de la Royal Air Force thaïe qui a négocié cette entente qui a permis un afflux énorme de devises fortes dans l'économie du pays. Son épouse a dirigé la première agence de tours sexuels de la Thaïlande pour les militaires américains.

Approximativement quatre millions $US ont été prêtés à l'époque au pays pour financer la construction des nombreux Rest and Recreation sites. Entre 1962 et 1976, environ 700 000 militaires américains sont allés «se reposer et reprendre des forces» dans les bordels thaïlandais. On estime aujourd'hui à deux millions le nombre de personnes prostituées, dont 300 000 enfants, en Thaïlande, une destination prisée des touristes sexuels.

L'utilisation d'«installations récréatives» fait encore partie des politiques du Pentagone. Immédiatement après la première guerre contre l'Irak, les troupes américaines ont été envoyées en Thaïlande pour y prendre du «bon temps».

La Bosnie-Herzégovine

La traite des femmes a radicalement augmenté avec la présence de la mission de pacification de l'ONU en Bosnie-Herzégovine. L'histoire de la mise en place de l'Arizona Market en Bosnie est édifiante à cet égard. Ce vaste marché détaxé, créé en 1992 par la SFOR (Force de stabilisation de l'OTAN), porte le nom d'un désert américain car les autorités militaires des États-Unis y ont piloté la création d'une zone franche «pour réconcilier par le commerce» les populations serbo-croate et bosniaque.

Dans cette zone du nord du pays, laissée sous autorité américaine et internationale après 1999, le système proxénète a établi son marché. Les femmes y sont vendues comme l'étaient les esclaves victimes de la traite des négriers. Le processus de vente se déroule comme suit : les jeunes femmes montent sur une scène d'un bar quelconque, y font quelques pirouettes pendant que les acheteurs inspectent leur corps et même leur bouche avant de faire une offre, entre 980 et 1967 $US pour les plus convoitées. Les filles passent de main en main et sont vendues plusieurs fois. Une des mineures rapatriées par l'Organisation internationale pour les migrations (OIM), âgée de 14 ans, a été vendue 22 fois.

L'OIM évalue à 10 000 le nombre de personnes prostituées clandestines en Bosnie. En 2002, un rapport de la MINUK suspectait 227 boîtes de nuit et bars de Bosnie d'être partie prenante dans la traite des femmes et des enfants aux fins de prostitution. L'OIM estime que 250 000 femmes et enfants de l'Europe de l'Est sont victimes de la traite via la Serbie et les États voisins, dont un grand nombre se retrouve dans les nouveaux protectorats internationaux de la Bosnie et du Kosovo pour desservir soldats, policiers et membres des ONG.

Un certain nombre de rapports font état de dissimulation de la participation d'équipes spéciales de la police de l'ONU ou de soldats sous le commandement de l'OTAN dans la traite des femmes et des enfants aux fins de prostitution. Mais peu à peu, la vérité s'est frayé un chemin. Les soldats de la SFOR, le personnel de l'ONU ainsi que celui des 400 ONG de Bosnie non seulement profitent du marché prostitutionnel comme clients mais en sont même des trafiquants proxénètes dans certains cas.

Un rapport de l'ONU, non publié à l'extérieur de la Bosnie, met en évidence la complicité de la police locale, de la SFOR et même de l'International Police Task Force (IPTF) dans de nombreuses affaires de prostitution, de traite ou de «protection» de ces industries en échange d'argent ou de passes gratuites.

Une ancienne employée de l'ONU, mise à pied après avoir dénoncé aux plus hautes autorités de l'ONU et de la SFOR de la Bosnie-Herzégovine l'implication de certains de leurs membres dans la traite, a intenté une poursuite en justice contre son employeur, la société de sécurité britannique DynCorp Aerospace, une filiale de la société américaine DynCorp Incorporated, chargée, entre autres, du recrutement des officiers de l'IPTF. Selon ses accusations, des employés de la DynCorp ont contrefait des documents pour faciliter le transport de femmes victimes de la traite en Bosnie.

En 1998, des accusations ont été portées contre des soldats italiens, portugais et égyptiens, sous le commandement de l'OTAN, pour leur implication dans un réseau de prostitution d'enfants -- des fillettes âgées de 12 à 14 ans -- à Sarajevo. L'OTAN a écarté ces allégations du revers de la main.

Ajoutons à ce sombre tableau le fait que les accords de paix de Dayton de 1995 permettent à l'ONU «le mouvement complet et libre» et ne lui confèrent «aucune responsabilité pour des dégâts à la propriété». L'annexe B accorde l'immunité juridique au personnel de l'OTAN pour ses actions «dans toutes les circonstances et à tout moment». Il est désormais soumis «à l'autorité exclusive» de la justice des pays d'origine, peu importe les infractions criminelles commises en Bosnie.

Au Kosovo, une loi interdisant le trafic des femmes a été promulguée en février 2001. Toutefois, les dispositions visant à protéger les victimes n'ont pas encore été mises en application. Des membres de la force internationale de maintien de la paix et des forces de la police civile qui ont été soupçonnés d'être impliqués dans la traite des femmes n'ont pas été poursuivis malgré les dispositions juridiques applicables en la matière. Pour l'instant, la MINUK n'a fait qu'édicter un code de conduite et distribuer massivement des préservatifs à ses troupes..Les pouvoirs occidentaux gouvernent les «protectorats» de la région comme les anciens maîtres coloniaux dirigeaient leurs empires. La prostitution y est érigée en système. La communauté internationale est complice des trafiquants : la Bosnie et le Kosovo sont désormais deux plaques tournantes de la traite d'êtres humains et de la prostitution.

Greg Elich responds to an article in the Saturday, April 09, 2005, Press Action, 'Zimbabwe's Very American Election', by Gene C. Gerard

[These are some very important comments by Greg Elich on the recent elections in Zimbabwe. The pattern of targeting certain nations, nations that strive for some autonomy from--or even just to limit their dependence on--Western waste capitalist models, is getting tighter and tigher with the choked-down frequency of these socially engineered regime changes, counter-revolutions, really, becoming dizzying. From Iraq to Rwanda to Yugoslavia to Afghanistan to Georgia to Belarusse to Ukraine to Kyrgystan to Zimbabwe, the goal is to introduce Western brokers into the quotidien commercial and financial relations that move the country, and, without altering any basic material relationships, like the sources of power, food, raw materials, or finished goods, merely overlay the entire economic life of the country with a pall of private commissions and transaction fees that eventually suffocates the people and leaves the country in ruins. See Iraq or Serbia for a prime examples. --mc]

The original article and comments can be found at

Part 1:
Mr. Gerard has written some interesting articles for Political Affairs. Here, however, I fear that in his eagerness to make some points about the last U.S. Presidential election, he has fallen into the trap of swallowing the Bush-Blair line on Zimbabwe hook, line and sinker.
Space is limited, so I will just comment on a few assertions. It is not true that the Mugabe government “essentially runs all media outlets in Zimbabwe.” True, the sole television station is state-owned, although private stations from neighboring South Africa can be seen. There are privately-owned radio stations, and privately-owned newspapers outnumber state-owned. With the exception of the Daily Mirror, all of these newspapers are rabidly anti-government and the level of vituperation heaped upon the government in these papers rivals that of privately-owned media in Venezuela.
Election officers were not appointed by the Mugabe government. The five members of the commission were appointed by Parliament, with input from both ZANU-PF and the MDC. President Mugabe was responsible for choosing only the president of the commission.
Zimbabwe fully implemented the SADC electoral standards, and was among the first nations of the region to put these into effect. The new electoral laws were worked out in Parliament, including the adoption of several amendments submitted by the opposition MDC, such as the use of indelible ink.
Ten percent of voters were turned away because they either had failed to bring proper identification or they had reported to the wrong district (presumably many of them later in the day ended up at the proper voting place). Observer teams noted that this problem was due to insufficient efforts at voter education and that it affected both parties equally.
It is not true that Mugabe’s supporters killed hundreds of opponents in the 2002 election. In all, a total of 58 people were killed, and this included both ZANU-PF supporters killing MDC and MDC-supporters killing ZANU-PF. Too many, to be sure, but considerable progress was made at subduing the hotheads on both sides, and by all accounts the election went off peacefully.

Part 2:
International obsevers found the Zimbabwean election to have been free and fair. The MDC loudly complained that vote totals announced in the afternoon did not match the final totals. But then, interim totals could hardly be expected to match final totals. It is important to note that as part of the electoral reforms, both parties had members stationed at each polling place, to act as monitors. The MDC had 4 monitors at each polling site. According to the anti-government New Zimbabwe, “a senior MDC official told this website that the party’s polling agents had checked their figures against the results announced by the ZEC, and the numbers TALLIED.” Despite the lack of evidence, the official was still committed to the view that there had been rigging. “we are clutching at straws, to be honest,” he admitted.
In the view of the MDC, as is the case with the Bush Administration, the only “free and fair” election is one which the neoliberal, privatizing MDC wins. Yet all independent polls taken before the election showed a sharp drop in support for the MDC, and the polls matched very closely the final results of the poll, which by the way, were 78 seats for ZANU-PF and 41 for the MDC, not the totals given in Gerard’s article. It is not by chance that as soon as the first polls came out, weeks before the election, the Bush Administration started screaming “fraud!” Now, how can one cry “fraud” weeks before an election even takes place, unless it is to plant that conviction in the minds of the Western public? Alas, the technique works all too well.
International observers found the election to be “free and fair.” The SADC mission noted, “In a number of situations, they (MDC) did not bring evidence to back their complaints.” The South African team reported, “With regard to the alleged use of food distribution as a political tool, the mission was unable to verify the truthfulness of same, where follow-ups were made.”

Part 3:
As so often in the past, where a nation has been marked by the U.S. for “regime change,” the public is fed a steady diet of disinformation and deliberately distorted information, all designed to win public support for the campaign to topple the goverment. Zimbabwe is no different. It is not by chance that ruinous sanctions have been imposed on Zimbabwe. The Bush Administration fears that a successful Zimbabwe would set a precedent that could lead to a second African revolution. Having already won formal indepedence, for the most part Africa has still to win economic and political independence from Western domination. A Zimbabwe which says no to Western power, which maintains a mixed economy in which the state-owned sector plays a major role cannot be allowed to succeed. Moreover, having implemented a land reform process which has reversed the obscene ownership patterns inherited from apartheid Rhodesia, Zimbabwe has already proved an inspiration to many in Africa. Far preferable, from the Bush Admininstration’s standpoint, to install in power the MDC, a party which has already shown it knows how to take orders from its masters, and which has promised to implement a rapid and complete privatization program and to pass laws offering advantageous terms for Western corporate investors.
Huge issues are at stake, but alas, far too often, the Western left falls for the red herrings tossed by U.S. leaders.

Hot'L Rwanda Propaganda Gas Bag Bursts--Sickening Entire Planet -- by Mick Collins

Hot’L Rwanda Propaganda Gas Bag Bursts
Sickening Entire Planet

7 April 2005—Eleven years ago last night (6 April 1994 at 8:20 pm) the presidents of Rwanda and Burundi, Juvenal Habyarimana and Cyprien Ntaryamira, along with several members of their general staffs and the French crew of the Falcon 50 business jet handed down to the Rwandan government by the Socialist President of France, François Mitterand, were brutally assassinated when a SAM 16 missile, fired by a Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) ‘rebel’ death squad known as ‘The Network’, at the command of the current Rwandan president, Paul Kagame, and under the supervision of Belgian and US special advisors, blew the plane to bits on its final approach to the only runway at Kigali’s Kayibanda airport left open by the occupying ‘rebel’ forces in their attempts to interdict the resupplying of Rwandan government forces, and dropped it right into the garden of Habyarimana’s presidential estate. This ghastly liquidation of two African (Hutu) heads of state has been deliberately fogged out for more than a decade by the Humanitarian Genocide junkies, who often refer to it as ‘an accident’ or the work of extremists Hutus within the Habyarimana government itself, so as to punch up the bloodbath it supposedly, though not necessarily (see below), unleashed: The Rwandan Genocide of 100 Days (7 April to 4 July 1994) which is supposed to have claimed the lives of 800,000 Tutsis and Moderate Hutus.

The most disgusting irony for us here at CirqueMinime, 10-year-residents of Paris, is how, in covering for the RPF ‘rebels’ and their monstrous exactions since 1 October 1990, the debut of a four-year reign of terror bent on destroying the 30 year Rwandan Revolution with a heavily armed invasion of that densely populated Central African nation from neighboring Uganda, the French public, bringing their national pastime of collaboration with Western gangsterism to new depths of craven servility, have almost proudly taken on the mantle of ‘genocidaires’, and, much as when French pilots, in the name of the Left government of Trotskyite PM Lionel ‘old train’ Jospin, bombed the grave sites of their own war heros in Yugoslavia in 1993-94 and 1999, have turned off their historical memories with regard to all their francophone brothers and sisters who were needlessly murdered by Paul Kagame and his Anglophone, US DoD-equipped and trained ‘maquisards’: the most pitiable example of the RPF’s anti-French revenge for the defeat of their October 1990 invasion being the two French communications officers, Lts Didot and Maier, who were monitoring the radio frequencies at Kayibanda on that April night in 1994, and were, the next morning, brutally murdered, along with their wives and children, by Kagame’s ‘rebels’. . . . But don’t get me started here! This is more for The General’s Book on Rwanda than for this movie review.

Last week, Terry George and United Artists finally unleashed Hot’L Rwanda onto a fully self-loathing Parisian public—and not a minute too soon. I’d been chomping to write about this film since I’d heard that its star, Don Cheadle, and his role model for the film, manager of the Hotel des Milles Collines, Paul Rusesabagina, were making the Stop The Fucking Genocide (STFG) circuit with those other noted ‘fat shithouse rats’ (FSHRs), Harvard’s Samantha Power, the NY Time’s Nicholas Kristof, Canadia’s Cowardly Lion, UN General Romeo Dallaire (quirkily portrayed under a nom de lache [Gen Oliver] by the cinematic flatliner Nick Nolte), to call attention to the dastardly government genocide de jour in Darfur. I was so overwrought with the instrumentalised fallaciousness of yet another Rwandan Genocide propaganda balloon being floated by the Human Rats lobby that I just couldn’t sit idly by while everyone with a cyber soap box—but especially the Trot Left—was putting beaucoup d’mileage on their (digital) mouths behind this first of the last great genocides of the late 20th century.

And this was a week that was fraught with interesting revelations vis à vis designer genocides:

The noted humanitarian and gun-runner Bernie Kouchner, founder of Doctors Without Scruples and point man in Kosovo for the French Culture à Gaspillage, confessed in the latest installment of his on going (and on, and on, and on going) autobiography that the late Bosnian president and arm-chair mujahadeen, Alija Izedbegovic, on his death bed, had admitted to trumping and pumping up the whole Bosnian Death and Rape camp furor, as well as the much bally-hooed ‘shellings’ of the two breadlines and the Markale marketplace in Sarajevo (not to mention the whole incident at Srebrenica which Izzy cut to order [at least 5,000 slices] for Bill Clinton—Izedbegovic was the Left’s Pizza Man of massacres: he really delivered), all on the advice of the CIA, DIA and US PR agency Ruder Finn, in order to gain sympathy for his illegal secessionist government from, and to plant the notion of a Bosnia genocide firmly in, the mawkishly sentimental mind of the international community.

So all those photos of Bosnian Muslim concentration camp victims that Clinton and Blair brandished like so many imported Chinese Communist machetes (to get this image you really have to see Hot’L R—or better yet, ask Professor Chossudovsky @ how the imported machetes tipped him that the Hutus had PLANNED the genocide of the Tutsis—I mean, why else would a country, with such dense vegetation, whose chief economic activity is the growing of tea and coffee, have a million machetes lying around if they weren’t planning a genocide, right?)—these brazen images that cudgeled the world public into a murderous hatred of the Serbs (and many of which currently adorn the unbiased walls of The unbiased Hague Tribunal’s unbiased president’s office), captured and cropped by award-winning British tele-journalist, ITN’s Penny Marshall, from inside a barbed wire enclosure at the Trnopolje displaced persons camp, to make it appear that her subjects were on the bad side of the wire, had long ago been discredited.

In fact, it was President Milosevic’s attempt to run the video of the Thomas Deichmann reportage debunking this New Holocaust by the New Serb Nazis marketing doggle that drove the network news media right back to their home offices and put The Trial of the Century back behind the Gardening Sections of the national papers. And this blackout has only grown darker with time and President Milosevic’s expanding exposure of the media lies that underpinned the Western destruction of his country.

So what has been used to cover the Western aggression against—unto the recently completed total irradication of—the state of Yugoslavia? That’s right: The charge of genocide in Bosnia against the Serbs. In fact, the same week that Dr K confessed to touching up the x-rays for his Serb extermination camp diagnosis, and demonstrating that the Historical Record has no bearing on its adjudications, The Hague Tribunal sentenced three Bosnian Serb officials of that mining company turned displaced persons camp at Trnopolje, Mr Kvocka, Mr Radic, and Mr Zigic, to twenty-five years to life for taking part in ‘a joint criminal enterprise’ leading to the crime, stipulated to though never proven, of murder in the context of a genocide. Go figure, huh.

And much of this historical reversal has been written from the Old Writers Annexes of the Hollywood dream factory—turning History inside out like one of those cheap Sears panchos Zappa used to sing about—just for the sake of some Human Rights and National minority lobbies’ money. Hot’L R is just the latest in a long line of propaganda pieces developed on a multi-million dollar commission from the same Humanitarian jackals that are currently trying to turn the whole of Africa into a free trade and free-fire zone.

How much did Michael Winterbottom take to turn the first victim of the war in Bosnia from an Othodox Slav to a Roman Catholic Bosnian or Croat wedding guest in his ‘Welcome to Sarajevo’? Or to make it look like it was the Bosnian Serbs, instead of the Muslims, who were barging onto buses to forbid people (esp. children) from leaving the Bosnian capital? Or for changing the name of the little girl who is whisked off to British safety by his teabag journalist-hero from its Slavic original to a mock Muslim equivalent? The situation wasn’t dramatic enough as it was? Or was Hollywood channeling the US’s insensate support for Muslim and Croat anti-Yugoslav aggression (on the bad-faith counseling of George Soros’ International Crisis Group and Ruder Finn) to a dozing international community?

How did that coffee mug emblazoned ‘ALBANIA’ get into Jackie Brown’s cupboard in the eponymous Tarantino film?

Who got to Mamet on ‘Wag the Dog’ so’s he’d confer (a priori) victimhood on the whole sorry Albanian nation and excuse their brutal aggression against the southern Serbian province of Kosovo?

Who signed off on Billy Freidkin’s demonizing of President Milosevic and the Serbian MUP’s anti-terrorist campaign in Kosovo (here the Serb special police kill only old folks and little blonde girls while worshipping at a huge poster of the Yugoslav president) in the teaser to the Tommy Lee Jones/Benny Del Toro snooze-a-thon, ‘The Hunted’?

Anybody pull Mad Albright’s XXL coat to the fact that John Moore kiped all those satellite images of mass graves around Srebrenica she promised to share with all of us for his Gene Hackman/Owen Wilson-Abraham/Isaac fable, ‘Behind Enemy Lines’? (This film was loosely based on the experiences of US Air Force fighter/bomber pilot Scott O’Grady, who admitted he’d been briefed by military intelligence that the Bosnian Muslims had detonated the shell in the Markale marketplace to make it look like the Serbs had fired it, and thus triggered—on the eve of yet another peace deal agreed to by the Bosnian Serbs and scotched by the Muslims—the 14-day, 1994 terror bombing of Srpska that got Scotty shot down in the first place.)

Man, it doesn’t get much boguser than that—unless, maybe, it’s this Spike TV show I saw while visiting the US last XanaXmas. It went on about time-traveling NSA operatives who find themselves in Bosnia trying to rescue two downed American pilots: One of these captured death merchants, a Col Something, is of unusual interest to the US Special Forces rescuers: ‘You know, we better hook ‘em up and save Col Something, ‘cause she’s a woman. And you know how the Serbs treat women!’ Now, can you imagine that sort of thing being said about any other people?

Also this week, Jacques-Roger Booh-Booh, Kofi Annan’s man in Rwanda (in 1993-94, Annan was head of UN Peacekeeping Operations) and in charge of the UNAMIR troops led by Canadian General Romeo Dallaire, revealed in his new (and somewhat tardy) book, ‘Le patron de Dallaire parle’ (‘Dallaire’s Boss Speaks Out’), the full extent to which Dallaire and the UN, supposedly acting as a neutral mediation force between the two sides in what was known at the time, euphemistically, as the Rwandan civil war, acted, in fact and in deed, to undermine the UN’s mission through the surreptitious gathering (and transmitting to the RPF) of electronic intelligence from bugs in Booh-Booh’s office, and to subvert all efforts on the part of the Rwandan Habyarimana government toward peace and power sharing with the RPF ‘rebels’ within the context of the Arusha Accords. Dallaire is also described by Booh-Booh as having criminally aided and abetted the RPF ‘rebels’ in their seizure of the high-ground in Kigali (facilitating the RPF’s fully-armed encampment on the CND, the site of the Rwanda National Assembly) and the maintenance of a constant and consistent flow or arms and war materiel to the RPF ‘rebels’, against all international sanctions, and including the SAM 16 missiles used to murder the two Hutu presidents and their staffs. Thus, one now has to wonder just who the devil in the title of Dallaire’s monstrously long and cringingly self-important tome (‘Shaking Hands with the Devil’—of which Booh-Booh claims to have been unaware) actually is. I don’t know that he ever shook hands with Kagame, but Dallaire certainly claims to have had enough sleep-overs chez Paul to have shaken more’n one of Kagenstien’s lethal extremities.

So, knowing what I know about Yugoslavia and Rwanda, about the wily charms of the Bosnian Muslim, the KLA, and the You-can’t-be-too-tall,-too-thin,-too-rich-or-too-Tutsi lobbies, I wasn’t expecting much more’n I got from Hot’L Rwanda. In fact, it was pretty much a rehash of the false humanitarian drivel in Elmore Leonard’s ‘Pagan Babies,’ which was, itself, a rehash of the slick New Yorker’s Phillip Gourevich gossipy book, ‘We Wish to Inform You . . .’, or umpteen HBO features (‘Sometime in April’) and independent documentaries (‘Après) that have gobbled up all the story money for Rwanda.

I wasn’t surprised either when our Hot’L manager hero, Paul Rusesabagina, so artfully played by the hardest working man in show bidness since Sammy Jr. Davis, Don Cheadle, slaps down a horse-choking wad of cash money to pay the vile war profiteer comme Super Fly Mac Daddy, Geo RutagUnda (why they changed George’s name from RutagAnda sorta got by me, but then I’m not a lawyer.) for the commodities he needed to comfort his hotel guests, because I knew from something the real George had written that, in fact, each time he dealt with Paul of the Milles Collines, he was paid by check, checks that were, in the grand tradition of Hollywood’s creative bookkeeping, never honored. Just as the real Rusesabagina never honored his promise to testify at the trial of his old boyhood pal, and the real savior of the hotel guests, George Rutaganda.

And I knew all about the ‘Hutu Power Radio’ hate-speech trope which Terry George works way past the limits of credibility—the French make quite a big deal about Hutu hate-speech as it seems to them the cinch dominoe in this genocide game—and all the ‘Chop down the tall trees’ coded mumbo jumbo, and calling the Tutsis ‘cockroaches’ at every possible opportunity (of course, this handle was given by the ex-pat Tutsis to their own invading forces, right after the social revolution of the early 60s drove these feudalists into exile, because they always snuck back into Rwanda at night), and all the paranoid prattling about Tutsi spies everywhere (when it is on the books that by the time of the reinvasion from Uganda in February 1991, there were anywhere from 4,000 to 12,000 Tutsi RPF ‘rebel’ infiltrators throughout Rwanda). Even after President Habyarimana’s plane is shot down by the RPF ‘rebels’ (Irish Trots, please take note: no one in-country EVER suspected the plane came down because of mechanical failure or pilot error!), the ‘Hutu Army’ (as the Rwandan Armed Forces are called in this film) is not given so much as a day-pass to be paranoid about the ‘Enemy Inside Its Gates’ (a riff on the historical revisionist WWII film by Jean-Jacques Annaud, with my old pals Ed Harris, as the totally boss Hugo Boss-clad sniper, and Bob Hoskins, playing Nikki Krouschev as a cross between Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd—only in Europe is this film called by its real name, ‘Stalingrad’! History à la H’wood, as in Polanski’s ‘The Pianist’, always colors the defeated Nazis more sympathetically than the victorious and liberating Red Army because the Krauts had sexier uniforms.)

But I don’t want you to think that all my STFG and FSHR mockery is meant in any way to diminish the horrors that were visited on Rwanda and Yugoslavia—or any of the other targeted nations, like Iraq or Sudan. It is just that laughs have always been my way of dealing with fear and horror and, especially, hypocrisy. Let no one think that the carnage depicted in Hot’L R was in anyway disproportionate to the slaughter that actually went down—and continues to go down today—in the paving of the great free trade super-slab from the Congo to the White Nile. Millions and millions of lives have been wantonly sacrificed to the malignant reflexes of modern waste capitalism. But the ways in which this very real and fully qualified genocide has been described to the world—its origins and its perpetrators and beneficiaries—have only served to cover up the real nature of this monstrous criminal enterprise, and allowed it to be repeated again and again.

Here’s a list of incidents taken from chapter two of The General’s Book on Rwanda which goes a small way to describe the RPF ‘rebel’ itinerary that was the real source and purpose of the bloodbath in Rwanda between 1 October 1990 and 4 July 1994. I found this in

by Cercle rwandais de réflexion
Septembre 1994

* First of October 1990, tens of thousands of civilians (mostly peasants) were massacred by the RPF ‘rebels’ in and around the Mutara region.

*19 February 1991, attacks by RPF ‘rebels’ from in and around Kinigi and Kigombe all the way to the outskirts of Ruhengeri led to the executions of more than 300 civilians and the sacking and pillaging of their homes and belongings.

*Between 23 January and 226 January 1991, the city of Ruhengeri and its surroundings were attacked and sacked by the RPF ‘rebels’. Tens of thousands of civilians were savagely massacred. More than a hundred thousand people were displaced and their homes systematically pillaged and destroyed. Many civilians were forced into combat—many of them died of cold in the mountains. At this same time, some peaceful Tutsis known as Bagogwe (from the communes of Kinigi and Nkuli) were cold-bloodedly massacred by RPF 'rebels' wearing civilian clothes or disguised as Rwandan Army personnel.

*In March 1991, the RPF 'rebels' attacked a Rwandan refugee camp in the western Tanzanian district of Karagwe (cit., Marchés tropicaux et méditerranéens of 7 June 1991). A dozen people were killed.

*May 1992, RPF 'rebel' infiltrators (again dressed as civilians or as Rwandan Army soldiers) undertook a wave of terrorist bombings, like those in the marketplace in Ruhango (17 dead, May 1, 1992) and the bus station in Kigali (6 dead, May 2, 1992).

*June 1992, the RPF 'rebels' attacked the town of Byumba and killed thousands of innocent civilians. the survivors went to fill the ranks of Rwandans 'internally displaced' by the 'civil war' which by this time numbered some 300,000. In the displaced persons camps where these hapless peasants were herded, fifty or so died every day of illness or hunger.

*At the beginning of September 1992, the RPF 'rebels' attacked Nyabwishongezi and massacred thousands of civilians. This led to the exodus of hundreds of peasants toward the displaced persons camp at Ngarama. (cit., Africa Confidentiel of Monday, October 2, 1992.)

*From the 8th to the 26th of February, 1993, in the prefectures of Byumba, Kigali, and Ruhengeri, several thousand civilians were herded into houses and massacred by the RPF 'rebels' purely and simply because they belonged to certain political parties, the MRND and CDR. These systematic massacres of civilian populations, essentially Hutus, were recorded thusly:

On the 8th of February 1993, at the secondary school in
Musanze (commune of Kigombe, Ruhengeri), 22 Hutu
students were hauled together by the RPF 'rebels' and
killed immediately by grenade.

On the 8th of February 1993, at Nyamagumba (commune
of Kigombe, Ruhengeri), 18 women and babies were
forced into a house and killed with bayonets.

On the 11th of February 1993, in the commune of
Kidaho, more than 1,500 people were forced by
RPF 'rebels' into the courtyard of the city hall and
machine gunned to death.

On the night of the 11-12th of February 1993, in the
commune of Nyarutovu (Ruhengeri), more than 500
people were herded together and massacred by the
RPF 'rebel' Army.

On the 12th of February 1993, at the Health Centre
of Gasiza (the commune of Kinigi, Ruhengeri), the
sick and those who had fled fighting elsewhere, people
of all ages, were massacred by the RPF 'rebels' using
automatic weapons.

Between the 8th and the 15th of February 1993, at the
trading post in the commune of Nyamugali (Ruhengeri),
more than180 civilians were massacred by RPF 'rebels'.

On the 17th of February 1993, in the displaced persons
camp at Rebero in the commune of Bwisige (Byumba),
300 displaced persons were murdered by RPF 'rebels'.

On the 26th of February 1993, at Rwobe in the commune
of Bwisige (Byumba), 5 people were gunned down by RPF

At Kisaro in the commune of Buyoga (Byumba), a dozen
people were massacred by the 'rebels' of the RPF.

Many thousands of people were wounded by bullets and
died for lack of emergency aid. Along with these
atrocities, it should be noted that disorder, desolation,
hunger and cold struck mercilessly those who fled the
horrors of this war. 5,000 of these people were taken
to Gisoro in Uganda as hostages by the RPF 'rebels' and
their fate remains unknown.

*Another testimonial to the reign of terror carried out by the RPF in February 1993 came from Michel Lefevre in his article entitled '900,000 people suddenly uprooted: A Peace Volunteer recounts the horror of events taking place in Rwanda (OXFAM-QUÉBEC DANS LE MONDE. Montréal, Saturday 27 November 1993). He writes:

'Unfortunately, the 8th of February 1993, the
wind changed. . . . A new, massive attack by the
(Rwandan) Patriotic Front in the north of the
country forced the Rwandan and international
aid workers to flee from their camps. The
warehouses were looted. Care facilities were
destroyed. The temporary shelters were sacked.
All our work had to be reinitiated. In the space
of two weeks, the number of refugees gathered there
rose from 350,000 to 900,000. [. . .] Their homes
burned, their crops destroyed, everyone wept silently
over the death or disappearance of a parent, a child
or a friend.'

The protection of displaced persons was supposed to be assured by the Minister for Social Affairs, but, at the time, this Minister could not hide his sympathies for the RPF 'rebels' and their murderous actions, and he treated with arrogance all those many displaced persons who had escaped this programmed killing.

*April 1993: the assassination of a prominent political party leader, the MDR’s Emmanuel Gapyisi, by the network of RPF ‘rebel’ death squads, which were, at that time, according to certain Rwandan newspapers, under the command of Faustin Twagiramungu, who went on to become the Rwandan Prime Minister during the Genocide of 100 days. (cit., Africa International, June 1994)

*During the night of 17-18 November 1993, the RPF ‘rebels’ massacred the civilian residents of the demilitarized zone [in the north east of the country, this buffer region separated the RPF forces based in Mulundi and the forces of the Rwandan Army] in the communes of Kidaho, Nkumba, Nyamugali and Cycru in the prefecture of Ruhengeri. The total killed: 51 Hutus. A non-exhaustive list of these victims is given in a letter, dated 18 November 1993, to the Secretary General of the UN from the associations for the defense of human rights, ARDEVI-TABARA and MISERICORDIA. Before their deaths, these victims were subjected to all manner of torture and inhumane and degrading treatment.

*February 1994, RPF infiltrators assassinated the Hutu leaders Félicien Gatabazi of the PSD in Kigali, as he was returning from a meeting with Faustin Twagiramungu, and Martin Bucyana of the CDR in Butare.

*March 1994, the director of the tea factory in Cyohoha-Rukeri, his associates and a part of their families were massacred by the RPF ‘rebels’ in the zone above the DMZ controlled by the RPF. The cars that were bringing them home from work were hit by rockets fired from the RPF ‘rebel’ lines. At that very moment, a mass grave containing more than 80 bodies was uncovered in the tea planations under the control of the RPF ‘rebels’.

*In January 1994, in the sub-prefecture of Kirambo in the prefecture of Ruhengeri, the RPF ‘rebels’ massacred several dozen innocent civilians at the very moment that a peace agreement was being signed instituting a definitive cease fire.

*At the resumption of hostilities on 7 April 1994, to the north of Kigali in the commune of Mugambazi (prefecture Kigali), the RPF ‘rebels’ corralled all those who fled the fighting into the classrooms of the main schools of Shagasha and Gipfundo and, after locking them inside, tossed grenades into the classroom, killing hundreds of innocent civilians in a most atrocious fashion.

*A little while before that, the RPF ‘rebels’ set the same scene in the commune of Kanzenze (prefecture of Kigali), to the east of the capital, where several dozen civilians were locked into classrooms and burned alive with grenades

*Between the 7th and the 20th of April 1994, the RPF ‘rebels’ systematically massacred (with machetes, grenades and rockets) several thousand Hutus living in the neighborhoods of Kacyiru, Kimihurura, Remera, Gasyata, and Rugenge (Kigali city).

*From the 10th to the 25th of April 1994, the RPF ‘rebels’ massacred, with machetes and machineguns, more than 200 civilians, mostly Hutus, in the region of Kiziguro (commune of Murambi, Byumba). Similar killings were carried out in the communes of Gikoro, Gikomero and Rubtingo (Kigali). Other large scale massacres of Hutus were carried out by the RPF ‘rebels’ in the region of Kabuga (commune Rubungo) on the pretext of ‘pacification of conquered territory’. The number of dead is estimated at more than 5,000.

*Toward the end of April 1994, the RPF ‘rebels’, aided by troops from Burundi, massacred more than 30,000 people (both Burundian and Rwandan Hutus) in the regions of Sake (Kibungo), Bugesera (Kigali) and Mugina (Gitarama). Next the killing spread into the regions of Ruhango, Nyanza and Gitarama; in these last regions, tens of thousands were killed and those who managed to escape were by then (July 1994) forced to flee toward Bugesera and Kibungo.

*The 30th of April 1994, the RPF ‘rebels’ bombed the operating room of the Central Hospital of Kigali. Hundreds of children were killed on the grounds, while many patients and hospital staff were wounded.

*May 1, 1994, the RPF ‘rebels’ launched six bombs into a group of civilians who had taken refuge at the Parish of Sainte Famille, in the middle of Kigali, killing 13 and wounding hundreds. [this is the often photographed and otherwise cited massacre at the Eglise Sainte Famille--mc]

*3 May 1994, the RPF ‘rebels’ closed the border between Rwanda and Tanzania to stop the Rwandans fleeing the war. The Akagera river was glutted with more than 20,000 corpses. This same day, after having burned 19 vehicles in the Industrial Park and bombing Radio Rwanda, the ‘rebels’ bombed the national brewery and the altar of the Church of the Holy Family [Eglise Sainte Famille again!]: hundreds were killed.

*3 June 1994, the RPF massacred the Archbishop of Rwanda, Vincent Nsengiyumva, the Bishops Joseph Ruzindana and Thaddée Nsengiymva, as well as 13 priests in Kabgayi, all Hutus. This assassination was not an accident. These innocent victims had vowed not to abandon in the Center of Kabgayi the 30,000 displaced and shell-shocked people they had taken in their charge, the majority of whom were Tutsis. These were men of peace who sought dialogue (organized meetings of different parties in the conflict, denounced the aggressors, took strong positions, etc., . . .) and wanted to create a rapproachment between the two warring sides, but, to the RPF ‘rebels’, they were going to put a stop to their planned conquest of Rwanda.

*Previously, in the territory it occupied, the RPF, author of all the above-cited massacres, had savagely murdered Father Joaquim Vallmajo (of Spain) and the Hutu priests, Alexis Havugimana, Athanase Nkundabanyanga, Christian Nkiliyehe, Joseph Hilimana, Ladislas Muhayemungu, Fidèle and Gaspard Mudashimwa (cit., the testimony of Father Guy Theunis and Jef Vleugels in “Le FPR poursuit ses massacres de la population et des religieux”).

So, as you can see, there was plenty enough killing in Rwanda to fill out any director’s Genocide script—be he Terry George or George Romero. In fact, many of these massacres are cited in the Dallaire book, but the morally handicapped Canadian writes them all off to lapses in the otherwise ironclad RPF discipline—seems to me the RPF ‘rebs’ had more lapses than discipline. But the killing was not coming from the Rwandan government or the Rwandan people. The killing was the direct result of a foreign invasion (a 100% US production, according to Boutros-Boutros Ghali), the purpose of which was to seize control of the country and place it very firmly under the domination of Western (Anglophone) Imperialist exploitation. Today, Paul Kagame, the ‘liberator’ of Rwanda, commands the greatest proportion of the export of the strategic mineral coltan from Congo. And with great regularity, President Kagame orders the slaughter of Hutu refugees in Eastern Congo in the name of Rwandan national security against . . . the recurrence of the Hutu Genocide.

In considering the Nuremburg War Crimes Trials, one must recall that while this court had ample evidence of Nazi genocide, it still found that the ‘mother of all war crimes’ is the crime against peace, the initial unprovoked aggression that leads to all the other horrors of war.

Therefore, the next time you hear someone going on about putting an end to genocide, be it Milosevic’s genocide of Kosovo Albanians, Karadzic and Mladic’s genocide of Bosnian Mulsims, Saddam’s genocide of the White Kurds, the ‘Arab’ government of Sudanese president al-Bashir’s genocide of the ‘Africans’ in Darfur, Mugabe’s genocide of his own Zimbabwean people (or is it the White British farmers? a stretch there either way!), or the Extremist Hutus’ genocide of the Tutsis: take a look into the recent history of the targeted nation, and I’ll bet you a carton to a pack you’ll find a Western-backed invasion of that neo-liberally brutalized country that leads directly to an economic and political occupation and reorganization, and an eventual selling-off (privatization) of all national assets.

It’s hard for this old day-player to admit it—no, it’s not and it never has been!—but Hollywood, that old mafia money laundry, is in the vanguard of the Fascist evisceration of History—the victory of the gangsters over the guerillas—that is anaesthetizing an already dreary world into a docile acceptance of the military wasting of all life on this slaveship planet earth. We are soon to be like the extras covering the dirt roads and plugged up the rivers in Hot’L Rwanda.

Mick Collins