[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Facing Selective Justice
By Boba Borojevic
May 14, 2006 -- The Bosnia and Herzegovina's [Muslims] genocide case against Serbia-Montenegro, the first case in the history of that kind in which a whole country is being accused of genocide has been deliberated at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague. Although the judges at the ICJ must first decide whether they have the jurisdiction to rule in the case, the mainstream media and the western propaganda machine do not want to leave anything to chance. Almost everything about the Bosnian Muslims accusation against the Serbs is false.
In her book "Fool's Crusade", Diana Johnstone says that, "Unfortunately, disproving falsehood, especially established falsehood, is a hard task. What has been repeated over and over becomes ‘obviously true'…The collective fiction creates its own collective defense. Once the Yugoslav imbroglio was dramatized as a new version of the Nazi Holocaust, any effort to return to reality was stigmatized as the equivalent of "Holocaust denial" and critics were dismissed as "revisionists" and "negationists" comparable to apologists for Nazi crimes".
Limitation to freedom of speech and the false accusation at The Hague
A classic argument for protecting freedom of speech as a fundamental
right is that it is essential for the discovery of truth. The attempt to
assert some form of control and to limit freedom of speech has a long history.
Beside the fact that holocaust denial became illegal in ten European countries,
the Council of Europe's 2003 Additional Protocol includes an article 6
titled Denial, based on which gross minimization, approval or justification
of genocide or crimes against humanity could be punishable though this
does not have the status of law.
"The real danger, especially from the point of view of Yugoslavia is this tendency to have legislation banning denial of genocide," says Johnstone in her interview to "Monday's Encounter" on CKCU 93.1 FM. "There is a tendency for more and more groups to seek legislation similar to laws about the Holocaust to deny other genocides. Everybody wants to be the victim. There is a huge campaign to insist that Srebrenica must be called genocide. Since the Tribunal in The Hague called Srebrenica genocide, there is the possibility that if you do not call it genocide you are some kind of a criminal. This is also linked to the lawsuit that the Muslim party is bringing before the International Court of Justice in order to have Serbia condemned for genocide so that they can go on and collect billions of dollars of reparation. So, this is not only about words, it gets to be about money."
Johnstone believes that there has to be a resistance to this kind of limitation to freedom of speech.
"Having any laws that limit free speech is opening the door to all kinds of abuses," Johnstone continued. "People should be allowed to say anything, except for the classic thing of shouting ‘Fire!' in the crowded theatre; something that causes immediate danger to people. But, simply when talking about what happened in history I don't think that there should be any legal limitation whatsoever," Johnstone said.
Although there is no evidence to back the genocide charge in Srebrenica, the mainstream media and the Western politicians do not want to hear any other argument.
"That does not make any sense to me. Even if you take the worst-case
scenario the fact that the Serb forces allowed women and children to leave
Serbrenica – and they wanted to leave by the way – it is presented as a
sort of deportation. But the living conditions were terrible in Sreberenca
and the people were clamoring to get out. I just do not believe that you
can commit genocide by saving the lives of women and children," said Johnstone.
“There are several reasons,” Johnston says. “One is that Mrs. Del Ponte has lost her accused Milosevic and right away wants to start another big trial, I suppose. Of course, after what happened to Milosevic, as well as a number of other Serbs prisoners in The Hague, makes it much harder for anybody to want to turn anybody over to that Tribunal. Because it seems to be a very dangerous place. The timing came at a very crucial moment, when talks are underway about Kosovo and when there is going to be a referendum on independence in Montenegro. Of course this is not affecting Serbia only but also Montenegro. They are saying, ‘Look Serbia is terrible, Serbia is a pariah.
If you are attached to Serbia you are not going anywhere.' So this is a way of pushing people in Montenegro to vote for independence of Montenegro, which will, in my view, put people of Montenegro in great danger. Many of the votes in favor of Montenegrin independence will come from ethnic minorities, particularly Albanians who have a project to attach Montenegro, which is very small, to Albania or to Kosovo and to turn Montenegrins into a minority in an Albanian controlled entity. So, the voices are saying., Albania is good – Serbia is bad!' Leading to the conclusion that ‘Montenegrins are better of with Albanians then with the Serbs', which is very strange," added Johnstone.
Globalization: partial justice, no nation state, limited freedom
"I think that globalization and multiculturalism that you are speaking of is promoted by very strong economic interests, " says Johnstone. "What does globalization mean? It means putting certain economic interests above everything else. It means reorganizing the world according to U.S.-backed business concerns and financial investment. In order to do that you have to get rid of effective nation- states so that you end up with nothing but a bunch of little mini-states absolutely unable to defend themselves." Nation states are not favorable in the globalization concept, "because the nation state can be democratic and can defend the interests of its own population. So you break down all of the borders and you make every majority in any country feel guilty because of its minorities. This constant concern about minorities is making the majority feel guilty and feel helpless. This is the way of destroying democracy so that the world can be totally run by business interests. It is fostering, however, exactly the opposite of what it intended to do because it is encouraging a sort of nationalist backlash. But the purpose of the backlash may be to preserve a political unit in which the people can protect their own interests," continues Johnstone.
"Yugoslavia was misfortunate in being an experimental laboratory for all this. There were minorities and of course there were ethnic conflicts that existed, but they could have been dealt with in a reasonable way. The West boasted that they were making peace but they only made the situation worse. The Serbs were targeted from all sides because as the largest group they were the most interested in keeping some kind of viable state together," said Johnstone.
Diana Johnstone is a widely published essayist and columnist and the author of the book which title itself says plenty "Fools' Crusade: Yugoslavia, NATO and Western Delusions". The book contains all the crucial evidence, purposely omitted by the Western authorities and media, important to understand what had happened and what caused the war in the former Yugoslavia. This is why we wanted to know what made Diana Johnstone write this book?
"What made me write the book really was this indignation over the lies. I have worked as a journalist and been around journalism for a quite a while and I know journalists who have been there longer than I have, and who said this was the most extraordinary case of propaganda and lies they had ever seen. I just felt absolutely obliged to try to combat these lies, because this sort of distortion of historical truth is terribly dangerous for everybody. Of course the first victims of this are the Serbian people who are treated like monsters because of these lies, which identified them with Nazis and so on. But in the long run this is dangerous for everybody," concluded Johnstone.