Milosevic Planning Political Show

Slobodan Milosevic is expected to try to prove that the international community conspired to destroy Yugoslavia, when his trial reconvenes after the summer recess.

The former Yugoslav president’s defence strategy is likely to amount to a long-running political show, in which he hopes to get a host of prominent western politicians called as witnesses.

Milosevic’s expected tactics will pose serious challenges for a tribunal already grappling with the issue of the defendant's declining health.

His high blood pressure led the start of the second half of his trial, scheduled for this week, to be postponed until August 31 – a week after the tribunal starts working again following its summer break.

Judges may be forced to contest Milosevic’s defence strategy - risking accusations of bias - if the defendant fails to properly respond to the charges against him; presents a manifestly weak legal case; or turns the Hague courtrooms into a political forum.

Judging from his recent performances and the words of his legal advisers, the former Yugoslav president seems set to give the court a run for its money.

“Our strategy will be to attack, to accuse,” explained Uros Suvakovic, vice president of the Belgrade-based Sloboda committee, which was set up to help Milosevic’s defence.

“The biggest crime [in the period while Milosevic was in power] was the murder of Yugoslavia. And that was committed by the [US president Bill] Clinton administration, the governments of Germany and Austria, and the Vatican,” he added.

The committee - run by people once very close to Milosevic’s wife Mirjana Markovic - has raised around 23,000 euro for the president’s legal fund.

Lawyer Dragan Ognjenovic, one of Milosevic’s officially-appointed legal aids, said the thrust of the case would be to prove that there was only one conflict taking place in the region - the “war against Yugoslavia as a sovereign state, led by the politicians in the so-called international community”.

Milosevic has been charged with 66 counts covering war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide – all of them allegedly committed during the conflicts in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo between 1992 and 1999.

The approach announced by his advisers and recently also by Milosevic himself, during a status conference in The Hague, suggests that the defendant’s views of the proceedings have changed little from those he expressed in his opening statement in the first few days of the trial in February 2002.

At the time, he called the wars in Yugoslavia “the result of the wills and interests of the great western powers” and “a form of settling scores” these had with the rapidly-disappearing communist systems.

On the subject of Kosovo, Milosevic is likely to try to depict the refugee crisis and civilian victims of the 1999 war as a result of the NATO bombardment of Serbia, rather than the action of his security forces.

With regard to the Bosnian and Croatian conflicts, Milosevic is expected to argue that he had no control over local Serb politicians and that the assistance he gave them was purely humanitarian.

“It will be a highly political defence,” believes Dutch legal journalist Heikelina Verrijn Stuart, a longtime observer of the Milosevic trial. “I also expect him to begin quite chaotically - bring too many people to testify, fail to construct a solid storyline, and have no clear time-frame.”

The former Yugoslav president has so far shown some legal skill in his handling of the proceedings. For two years, he has vigorously cross-examined prosecution witnesses - in many cases taking up as much of their time as their examination in chief - and recently he has engaged in extensive legal debates with the judges over the time allotted him for the preparation of his defence.

But observers point out that it is one thing responding to the prosecutor’s case and quite another constructing a coherent legal defence. They say the task of defending himself in such a complex trial may require expertise he simply does not have.

“I do not think Milosevic actually possesses the legal capacity to defend himself,” said Verrijn-Stuart. “And from what we’ve seen so far I also doubt his legal team is up to presenting the kind of defence he is badly in need of.”

Judith Armatta, a legal expert observing the trial for the Coalition for International Justice, CIJ, agrees.

"Global conspiracy has little to do with most of the things he’s accused of. Claiming that Serbia acted in self defence is the wrong strategy to use against charges of genocide - and accusing other people of other crimes does not help prove that one has not committed the offences that one has been charged with," she said.

Moreover, it would appear that mounting a political defence could end up being more of a challenge than Milosevic initially envisaged.

To stand a chance of proving his case, the defendant would have to ensure that at least some of the high-ranking western politicians on his witness wish list actually appear in court. These include the former US president Bill Clinton, British premier Tony Blair, German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and the chief US negotiator in former Yugoslavia Richard Holbrooke.

The court has ordered Milosevic to submit his request for witnesses in written form before they will issue any subpoenas. As IWPR went to press, there was no indication that the defendant - who does not engage in written correspondence with the tribunal - had done so.

Milosevic wants to call 1,631 witnesses in his defence and has bitterly complained that the 150 days allotted to him would not be enough to present his case.

If, as seems likely, he pursues a political defence strategy, the tribunal may have to insist that he’s represented by a lawyer.

“In the case he goes with the political defence and doesn’t answer the charges put to him, the tribunal should stop him, and impose a lawyer,” said Armatta. “In order for Milosevic to have a fair trial, he would have to address the concrete charges brought against him. And if he doesn’t do it himself, somebody should do it for him.”

But some observers believe such a unilateral action is unlikely. “The judges can’t say 'your defence is unacceptable',” one legal expert with a knowledge of the case told IWPR. “They would have to let him do his bit and try to steer the trial in a much more subtle way.

“The whole issue will be about the relevance of certain witnesses and their testimonies, or of a particular line of questioning. They will do everything [they can] to avoid debating his defence strategy.”

Tribunal insiders suggest that judges will try to ensure that he sticks to relevant issues and keeps his case focused.

But whatever course of action the judges take, they will have their work cut. “ If they impose counsel on Milosevic, he will not cooperate. If they let him go on with his defence, they will have to be very strict. There will be criticism whatever they do,” said Verrijn-Stuart.

Ana Uzelac is IWPR programme manger in The Hague. Beth Kampshrorin Belgrade contributed to this report.