[an error occurred while processing this directive]
By M. Bozinovich
Once appointed a UN Ambassador, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was eager to push feminist issues at that institution so she "naturally proposed we form a caucus, which we did, and suggested we pledge always to take each other's phone calls" writes Albright in her memoir Madam Secretary. Although on a diplomatic mission having to do official government business, the ambassador to Liechtenstein could not get through the phone line because Albright's feminist caucus was busy on it: "We shared stories and talked about how the UN was probably..." etc., etc., etc.
Far from being a feminist gab fest, the caucus's political agenda was not to promote extraordinary women to compete in the male dominated spheres of diplomacy, but rather to sidestep the competition by creating international extra jurisdictional bodies, such as the Hague Court, and use those newly created international institutions to appoint women. Says Albright: "When the international war crimes tribunal was created, we pushed for the selection of women justices..." and in the footnote, Albright outlines The Hague Court's femenology.
While neglect for the cost associated with running the Hague Court may be an indicator of Albright's desire for quality of justice, the re-election of the Bush administration and his UN ambassador nominee Richard Bolton may have signaled the Court that it is on the termination agenda.
Writes Bolton: "The idea that nations and individuals can be bound through 'international law' has a surface appeal precisely because it sounds so familiar and comfortable to citizens of countries such as ours, where we actually do live by the 'rule of law.' In reality, however, this logic is naive, abstract to the point of irrelevance from real international relations, and in many instances simply dangerous."
Opposition to Bolton in the US Senate may then be as much an appalling reaction to someone who may actually have some logical jurisprudence when the jurisdictional fiat of the Hague court is at question.
Perhaps motivated by pragmatism and less by sound jurisprudence, even the friends of The Hague Court have voiced concern over its existence. Speaking for the Foreign Policy Magazine, the US ex-war crimes ambassador David Scheffer noted that "The cost of operating a tribunal has forced the international community and the United Nations to think creatively about how to set up courts that are tailored for the unique circumstances of conflicts and the atrocities that they have to adjudicate."
Notwithstanding Scheffer's friendly predisposition to The Hague, that Court's fiat may soon be "tailored" either because of its danger cited by Bolton or its expense cited by Scheffer: Court's secretive and endless stream of indictments may no longer be a validation for its existence.
Sensing that her judicial fiat may quickly expire, Hague's chief prosecutor Carla del Ponte "released" a video that has been circulating freely depicting Serbian gunmen shooting 6 Bosnian Muslims. While Serbian authorities quickly arrested the men in the video, Carla barely moved her lip.
Politics of Srebrenica massacres then transcends feminism, impartial justice or the cost of dispensing it. Hague's "release" of a video depicting Serbian gunmen shooting Muslims was not to arrest the gunmen featured in the video and thus dispense justice impartially. Court's lack of concern for purveyors of a crime in the video indicates that the Hague Court is using the ethnicity of the gunmen in the video as a metaphor in fabricating the Muslim role in the Bosnian civil war and through that fabrication consign the role of Muslims as victims within a European milieu.
In its last days, The Hague Court is using its fiat in an asymmetrical pursuit of justice as a tool to allocate attributes of the Holocaust to the Muslims and fabricate a history of victimology for the Muslims as a deliberate European policy of a displacement victimology. Anti-Semitic in its essence, this policy of displacement victimology is congruent with Eurocrat predisposition to consign Muslim Palestinians as victims and Jews as purveyors of injustice in the Middle East.
Use of Asymmetry in Justice Dispensation
According to Reuters, the video of the Serb gunmen shooting 6 Muslims was a freely available tape circulated among Serbian police. Carla del Ponte stressed that the video was obtained from an unnamed and protected source in Serbia in December 2004 with help of Natasa Kandic, a Serb activist that has not disclosed the source of funding for her NGO. Associated Press describes Kandic as a chief of an NGO, the Humanitarian Law Center that "investigates crimes committed by Serbs during the Balkan wars."
The Hague Court then quickly authenticated the video as genuine demanding Serbian public contrition, something we are yet to see from the Bosnian Muslims for beheadings and other atrocities their countrymen purputrated.
The quick authentication of a video that consigns Muslim victimology is in a stark contrast to Hague's procrastination in authenticating videos that depict Muslim savagery and grotesque mutilations of non-Muslims. At issue is not just the beheading of a Serbian POW Rade Rogic that was immediately circulated across the web, but also a host of other videos, produced by Muslims themselves in order to authenticate their jihad in Bosnia.
According to the court proceedings of the Hague prosecutors, however, The Martyrs of Bosnia video is an unauthenticated item therefore inadmissible in the Court.
On page 8636 of Hague war crimes transcripts Judge Antonetti laments at the prosecutor: "If the Defence contests the videotapes [The Martyrs of Bosnia] founded upon the fact that we don't know the source, we do not know who produced it, et cetera, so anything that you could tell us on that would just help and be of assistance to the Chamber to decide whether they can be tendered into evidence or not."
Instead of presenting authentication documentations, Hague Prosecutor Neuman decided to talk about "potential source" of the video: "So, Your Honours, I will then start with some general remarks and talk, then, briefly about the potential source..."
The Displacement Victimology
Former British chairman of the Broadcasting Standards Commission, Lord Dubs, indicated that "In portraying Muslims... I have seen them [media] pour scorn on Christianity more than on other religions. Christianity is an easier and more acceptable target followed, to a lesser extent, by Jews and Hindus."
Richard Ingrams with the London Observer is, however, more blunt in explaining how the media censorship works in the Eurocrat media: "I have developed a habit when confronted by letters to the editor in support of the Israeli government to look at the signature to see if the writer has a Jewish name. If so, I tend not to read it."
These overt pro-Muslim sentiments in the media are but the symptoms of a Europe-wide rage of anti-Semitic and anti-American sentiments and by implication anti-Serb because Muslims husband hostilities against them. The cause of these symptoms is the EU policy of rapprochement with the Islamic world centered on Euro-Arab Dialogue (EAD) and the Euro-Mediterranean Project conceived as a coalition of Europe's French-German-Belgian core with the Muslim world in countering the American influence in the world. In October 2003, for example, EU Commissioner Romano Prodi himself offered a European partnership to the Islamic world while in November 2003, French President Jaques Chirac explained why: "Europe's roots are as much Muslim as Christian."
Muslim world then demanded that the US Defense Secretary Rumsfeld be indicted for war crimes and Belgium, at the core of the Euro-Islamic coalition, prmptly obliged.
The pro-Muslim bias in European politics has been, in fact, legalized by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe citing in its 11 point recommendations on the contribution of the Islamic civilisation to European culture that, in the field of the media, "the production, co-production and broadcasting of radio and television programmes on Islamic culture are to be encouraged."
Just as Ingrams' refusal to read Jewish views on Israel is the displacement victimology that consigns guilt to Jews for suicide bombings that Saddam Hussein financed at $25,000 a pop, that same media is consigning an exclusive guilt to Serbs for massacres in Bosnia. Witness BBC, for example, who published a picture of the execution of Muslims along with the title Serb beheading picture published eventually blaming the publication of the beheading on Serbian nationalism.
As a more significant sign that The Hague Court is executing the dictates of the Islamic Conference is the Court's refusal to indict now-dead Bosnian Muslim President Alija Izetbegovic. Islamic Conference: "Strongly condemns tendentious attempts to accuse the former Bosnian President Alija Izetbegovic of alleged involvement in war crimes during the conflict in the Balkans...Rejects any procedure to prosecute President Izebetgovic under any pretext."
The looming ten-year anniversary of Srebrenica massacres may be the culmination of the displaced victimology efforts seeking to consign an exclusive victim status to the Bosnian Muslims. The Arabic inscription on the Srebrenica monument, however, indicates that the Islamic jihad waged there may have far grander objectives with that European town. Just as Jerusalem was declared Al-Quds Al-Sharif and consigned a fictitious mythology of prophet's ascension into heavens so is Srebrenica being led through a similar fiction of an exclusive Islamic victimology leading to its eventual holiness.
Jews may never have peace because of the fiction of Al-Quds nor will
the Serbs because of Srebrenica.