SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC.ORG. Monday, January 24, 2005<\/p>\n
Professor Markovic Concludes His Testimony<\/p>\n
<\/b>Written by: Andy Wilcoxson<\/p>\n
Professor Ratko Markovic concluded his testimony at The Hague trial of
\nSlobodan Milosevic on Monday. Prosecutor Nice made his best effort to
\ndiscredit the witness over the course of the cross-examination.<\/p>\n
Professor Markovic has written a number of scholarly papers over his 40-year career in constitutional law. Mr. Nice\u2019s cross-examination generally went to show that Markovic raised criticisms of the 1974 constitution. However, this does not damage the credibility of the witness, on the first day of his examination-in-chief Professor Markovic said he was \u201cno fan of the 1974 constitution.\u201d<\/p>\n
In order to damage the credibility of the witness Mr. Nice would have had to
\ndemonstrate that Professor Markovic improperly applied constitutional law when he was a judge on the Constitutional Court. Or that he acted outside of the law when he was the Deputy Prime Minister of Serbia. Mr. Nice demonstrated neither. The only thing Mr. Nice demonstrated was that
\nProfessor Markovic exercised his right, as a scholar, to raise criticisms of
\nthe constitution at times when he did not hold public office.<\/p>\n
Mr. Nice\u2019s cross-examination tactics were particularly underhanded. In one
\ncase Mr. Nice read from an article that Professor Markovic had written for a Belgrade magazine called \u201cLegal Life.\u201d In the article Markovic wrote of the possibility that lands inhabited by Serbs could be unified. Mr. Nice claimed that this article was a platform for the establishment of Greater-Serbia.<\/p>\n
When Milosevic re-examined the witness the parts of the article that Mr.
\nNice had not read were read out. It turns out that the article advocated one
\npolitical option, and that option was the preservation of Yugoslavia. The
\narticle said that Yugoslavia was the best solution for the south Slav
\npeoples. The part of the article that made reference to the unification of
\nSerbian lands was put forward as a possible scenario. On top of that it was
\npresented as an unattractive scenario, according to the article any attempt
\nto implement this scenario would lead to war and sanctions from the
\ninternational community.<\/p>\n
This is only one example of manipulation by the prosecutor, Mr. Nice claimed that the article advocated Greater-Serbia, when the article advocated Yugoslavia\u2019s preservation and cautioned against attempts to establish Greater-Serbia, since this would lead to war and sanctions.<\/p>\n
Mr. Nice took liberties with the truth regarding the talks in Rambouillet.
\nProfessor Markovic had testified that the NATO occupation of Yugoslavia
\nmandated by the so-called \u201cRambouillet Agreement\u201d was one of the major
\nstumbling blocks that caused the talks to breakdown. Markovic said that the demand for NATO occupation had not been disclosed until the last day of the Rambouillet conference.<\/p>\n
In a feeble attempt to refute that claim, Mr. Nice read an extract from a
\nletter that Markovic sent to the Contact Group prior to the talks,
\nindicating a readiness to discuss the presence of the international forces
\nin Kosovo.<\/p>\n
Markovic, stuck to his original testimony, insisting that he referred to
\ninternational forces, \u201cbut not military forces, as they can be civilian
\nforces too.\u201d He also noted that the document presented at Rambouillet called for the wholesale occupation of Yugoslavia, not just the international
\npresence in Kosovo that his letter indicated a willingness to discuss.<\/p>\n
Mr. Nice, now desperate to save NATO\u2019s reputation, resorted to telling
\noutright lies. Mr. Nice claimed that the \u201cinternational community\u201d was well
\nintentioned at Rambouillet. Mr. Nice based that claim firmly on the
\ntestimony of Zoran Lilic.<\/p>\n
President Lilic never testified to these alleged \u201cgood intentions\u201d of the
\ninternational community at Rambouillet. Quite the contrary, he testified
\nthat he had no direct knowledge, and that the indirect knowledge he did have went to show that no proper negotiations had taken place.<\/p>\n
This is what Lilic said about Rambouillet when he testified on July 9, 2003
\n(see transcript page 23997): \u201cWhen it comes to Rambouillet and everything that went on there, I know about that from the press, actually, from the media. I wasn’t included in that whole process.\u201d Lilic\u2019s comment about the process was as follows, \u201cthere wasn’t any proper negotiating between two sides that should have negotiated. For an agreement to exist, there must have been two sides.\u201d<\/p>\n
As we can see from Lilic\u2019s own words, things are not the way that Mr. Nice
\nput them. No well meaning person could use that testimony to make claims
\nthat the international community had good intentions at Rambouillet.<\/p>\n
Mr. Nice\u2019s attempts to challenge Professor Markovic were unsuccessful, and usually completely nonsensical. One example of a nonsensical attack was Mr. Nice\u2019s line of questioning regarding the 30th and 40th personnel centers of the Yugoslav Army, which Markovic knew nothing about. Mr. Nice exploited Professor Markovic\u2019s lack of knowledge of regarding the personnel administration of the federal army to suggest that he was an incompetent official.<\/p>\n
Professor Markovic was the Deputy Prime Minister of Serbia; in other words he held an office on the level of the republic, not on the level of the
\nfederal government. The federal government administers the army. Therefore, the army was not in his sphere of activities. Expecting Professor Markovic to know about personnel administration in the federal army is like expecting the lieutenant governor of Iowa or Minnesota to know about personnel administration policies in the U.S. Army.<\/p>\n
During cross-examination Mr. Nice claimed that Milosevic and Tudjman entered into a conspiracy to carve-up Bosnia at a meeting held in Karadjordjevo in 1991. Professor Markovic denied this, and President Milosevic ripped this conspiracy theory to shreds when he reexamined Markovic.<\/p>\n
Milosevic and Markovic both agreed that acceptance of the Cutliero Plan, a
\nyear after the Karadjordjevo meeting, negated the possibility that Serbia
\nhad designs to carve-up of Bosnia.<\/p>\n
The Cutliero Plan, which had been agreed to by all three sides before the
\nBosnian war started, called for a unified and independent Bosnia. If
\nMilosevic were attempting to execute some conspiracy that he had concocted at Karadjordjevo with Tudjman, then he would not have voiced his support for the plan. The only reason the war started in the first place was because Alija Izetbegovic withdrew his signature from the plan.<\/p>\n
Professor Markovic\u2019s testimony took-up the entire day. The trial will resume tomorrow with a fresh witness.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC.ORG. Monday, January 24, 2005 Professor Markovic Concludes His Testimony Written by: Andy Wilcoxson Professor Ratko Markovic concluded his testimony at The Hague trial of Slobodan Milosevic on Monday. Prosecutor Nice made his best effort to discredit the witness over the course of the cross-examination. Professor Markovic has written a number of scholarly papers … <\/p>\n