Tracking Milosevic's Responsibility: Veton Surroi & others put Milosevic on notice of crimes
Days 32-33
Tracking Milosevic's Responsibility: Veton Surroi & others put Milosevic on notice of crimes
Days 32-33
Veton Surroi, newspaper publisher, journalist, human rights activist and member of the Kosovar Albanian delegation at the unsuccessful Rambouillet and Paris negotiations in 1999, gave testimony to the Tribunal that revealed Slobodan Milosevic as the man behind the curtain, the man with ultimate control. Reinforcing the earlier testimony of Lord Paddy Ashdown and two leading Kosovo Verification Mission members, Mr. Surroi's evidence supports the Prosecution's charge that Milosevic had command responsibility for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Kosovo.
Shortly after the massacre of a leading KLA member and nearly his entire family, Mr. Surroi accompanied other Kosovar Albanian leaders to a meeting with Milosevic at the 'White Palace' in Belgrade. When he confronted Milosevic with the massacre of women and children carried out by Serbian police, Milosevic declared it was 'insane' to think Serbian police would kill children. Why then, Surroi asked, had an international forensic team been denied access to do an investigation, a question that apparently went unanswered. Mr. Surroi testified, 'I had the impression that he [Milosevic] was very well informed. Because he explained the details about how the operation had been conducted.' The testimony tends to show that Milosevic had intimate knowledge of police operations in Kosovo at that time (March 1998). It also shows that he was made aware of allegations that a massacre of civilians took place. It will be up to him to show that he took appropriate action by investigating and punishing those responsible.
In spring 1998, under pressure from the 'International Community,' Milosevic appointed a team to negotiate with a Kosovar Albanian team on issues underlying increased violence in the province. Mr. Surroi testified that, while people from Milosevic's inner circle (Nikola Sainovic and Ratko Markovic) attended the meeting, 'they had no decision-making power. It remained with the man they considered their boss.' Mr. Surroi said there were no follow-up meetings. Interestingly, Milosevic did not challenge this statement in cross examination, though he had previously maintained that the FRY team made themselves available for 11 meetings to which the Albanians did not come. The Kosovar Albanian team had demanded the presence of international mediators, which Milosevic refused, based on his position that Kosovo was an internal matter for Serbia and the FRY. To the Albanians, the offer of negotiation was a sham.
Also pointing to Milosevic's behind-the-scenes control was the behavior of the Serbian negotiating team sent to Rambouillet as a last ditch attempt to prevent NATO intervention. Mr. Surroi testified that the conditions for negotiating included that participants would have power to reach an agreement. Yet that turned out not to be the case with the Serbian Delegation, when Nikola Sainovic left the talks to consult with Milosevic in Belgrade. 'I asked [Ambassador Chris] Hill why members of the Serbian delegation were being allowed to go to Belgrade and he replied Sainovic had asked to consult with the accused because the accused would make the decisions.'
When no agreement was reached in Rambouillet, this scene was repeated in Paris during the final unsuccessful round of talks. '[President Milan] Milutinovic introduced himself as someone who could assist the Belgrade delegation, but at the final moment, when it came to signing the agreement, according to three international mediators, he said his boss in Belgrade would have to make decisions and he could do nothing,' Mr. Surroi testified. While not conclusive, Mr. Surroi's testimony points to Milosevic as the puppet master, the man behind the scenes who pulled the strings.
In addition to widening the path to Milosevic's door, Mr. Surroi was given an opening by Milosevic to display his eloquence, while challenging Milosevic's contention that Kosovo had been a bastion of freedom, equality and human rights. When Milosevic asked how Mr. Surroi was able to accomplish all he had in life if the regime was so repressive, Mr. Surroi answered: 'I won freedom myself, while confronting all obstacles placed in my path by the system. I did not feel a free man as I do today. I didn't feel myself to be free when my colleagues were taken in for questioning by the state security. When people were killed by the security forces and no one was held to account. Or when the police beat me because I was protesting against war, when I was sentenced to prison for protesting against war. Everyone measures the consequences of what lies ahead. I could either give in or continue. I wasn't given freedom by the system or the state. I won this freedom myself.' Clearly bested by Surroi, Milosevic dismissively replied, 'There's no sense listening to these pathetic tirades.' At this point, Judge May intervened to admonish him for making the comment and to point out the court was equally not going to listen to 'pathetic tirades' from Milosevic.
Milosevic then tried a different approach to attack Mr. Surroi's credibility and undermine his stature. On direct examination the witness testified that he had been sentenced to prison for 60 days by an administrative court for participating in a nonviolent protest against the regime's repression. Putting a variety of questions to him on cross examination, Milosevic attempted to show that he had not been imprisoned at all because the sentence was 'administrative.' Mr. Surroi answered that he served two days in jail of his 60 day sentence in a proceeding initiated under a provision of the penal code which prohibited 'offending the feelings of the Serbs and Montenegrins.' Demonstrating his lack of legal skill, Milosevic continued with this line of questioning, demanding to know who among Kosovar Albanian politicians and public personalities had been imprisoned. When Surroi named several, Milosevic asked how long they had spent in prison. Told '60 days,' he responded contemptuously, 'Once again, this is an administrative punishment and not a court judgment.' At this point, Judge May interrupted, 'They ended up in prison whatever it was,' bringing the questioning to an end.
In the end, Milosevic, with his use of misrepresentation, humiliation and bullying in cross examination, was no match for Veton Surroi, whose stands on principle have earned him opprobrium as well as respect across ethnic lines.
Shortly after the massacre of a leading KLA member and nearly his entire family, Mr. Surroi accompanied other Kosovar Albanian leaders to a meeting with Milosevic at the 'White Palace' in Belgrade. When he confronted Milosevic with the massacre of women and children carried out by Serbian police, Milosevic declared it was 'insane' to think Serbian police would kill children. Why then, Surroi asked, had an international forensic team been denied access to do an investigation, a question that apparently went unanswered. Mr. Surroi testified, 'I had the impression that he [Milosevic] was very well informed. Because he explained the details about how the operation had been conducted.' The testimony tends to show that Milosevic had intimate knowledge of police operations in Kosovo at that time (March 1998). It also shows that he was made aware of allegations that a massacre of civilians took place. It will be up to him to show that he took appropriate action by investigating and punishing those responsible.
In spring 1998, under pressure from the 'International Community,' Milosevic appointed a team to negotiate with a Kosovar Albanian team on issues underlying increased violence in the province. Mr. Surroi testified that, while people from Milosevic's inner circle (Nikola Sainovic and Ratko Markovic) attended the meeting, 'they had no decision-making power. It remained with the man they considered their boss.' Mr. Surroi said there were no follow-up meetings. Interestingly, Milosevic did not challenge this statement in cross examination, though he had previously maintained that the FRY team made themselves available for 11 meetings to which the Albanians did not come. The Kosovar Albanian team had demanded the presence of international mediators, which Milosevic refused, based on his position that Kosovo was an internal matter for Serbia and the FRY. To the Albanians, the offer of negotiation was a sham.
Also pointing to Milosevic's behind-the-scenes control was the behavior of the Serbian negotiating team sent to Rambouillet as a last ditch attempt to prevent NATO intervention. Mr. Surroi testified that the conditions for negotiating included that participants would have power to reach an agreement. Yet that turned out not to be the case with the Serbian Delegation, when Nikola Sainovic left the talks to consult with Milosevic in Belgrade. 'I asked [Ambassador Chris] Hill why members of the Serbian delegation were being allowed to go to Belgrade and he replied Sainovic had asked to consult with the accused because the accused would make the decisions.'
When no agreement was reached in Rambouillet, this scene was repeated in Paris during the final unsuccessful round of talks. '[President Milan] Milutinovic introduced himself as someone who could assist the Belgrade delegation, but at the final moment, when it came to signing the agreement, according to three international mediators, he said his boss in Belgrade would have to make decisions and he could do nothing,' Mr. Surroi testified. While not conclusive, Mr. Surroi's testimony points to Milosevic as the puppet master, the man behind the scenes who pulled the strings.
In addition to widening the path to Milosevic's door, Mr. Surroi was given an opening by Milosevic to display his eloquence, while challenging Milosevic's contention that Kosovo had been a bastion of freedom, equality and human rights. When Milosevic asked how Mr. Surroi was able to accomplish all he had in life if the regime was so repressive, Mr. Surroi answered: 'I won freedom myself, while confronting all obstacles placed in my path by the system. I did not feel a free man as I do today. I didn't feel myself to be free when my colleagues were taken in for questioning by the state security. When people were killed by the security forces and no one was held to account. Or when the police beat me because I was protesting against war, when I was sentenced to prison for protesting against war. Everyone measures the consequences of what lies ahead. I could either give in or continue. I wasn't given freedom by the system or the state. I won this freedom myself.' Clearly bested by Surroi, Milosevic dismissively replied, 'There's no sense listening to these pathetic tirades.' At this point, Judge May intervened to admonish him for making the comment and to point out the court was equally not going to listen to 'pathetic tirades' from Milosevic.
Milosevic then tried a different approach to attack Mr. Surroi's credibility and undermine his stature. On direct examination the witness testified that he had been sentenced to prison for 60 days by an administrative court for participating in a nonviolent protest against the regime's repression. Putting a variety of questions to him on cross examination, Milosevic attempted to show that he had not been imprisoned at all because the sentence was 'administrative.' Mr. Surroi answered that he served two days in jail of his 60 day sentence in a proceeding initiated under a provision of the penal code which prohibited 'offending the feelings of the Serbs and Montenegrins.' Demonstrating his lack of legal skill, Milosevic continued with this line of questioning, demanding to know who among Kosovar Albanian politicians and public personalities had been imprisoned. When Surroi named several, Milosevic asked how long they had spent in prison. Told '60 days,' he responded contemptuously, 'Once again, this is an administrative punishment and not a court judgment.' At this point, Judge May interrupted, 'They ended up in prison whatever it was,' bringing the questioning to an end.
In the end, Milosevic, with his use of misrepresentation, humiliation and bullying in cross examination, was no match for Veton Surroi, whose stands on principle have earned him opprobrium as well as respect across ethnic lines.
