1 minutes before the end, and that means 20 minutes to 2.00, and that is to

2 allow the amicus some time and also time for some re-examination. I'm

3 afraid both of those will necessarily have to be curtailed.

4 Yes, let's move on. You've heard the points that have been made

5 about Bosnia and the events there in 1992 and 1993.

6 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

7 Q. Tell me, please: You were the president of parliament and

8 presided over a meeting on the 24th of September, 1992, at which the

9 deputy public prosecutor in Gospic Djoko Kalanj was relieved of duty, and

10 you also knew that Kalanj was killed already in October 1991. You

11 relieved him of duty then because he didn't turn up for work, although he

12 had actually been killed 11 months before in the crimes that had taken

13 place and that are well known. Is that right, Mr. Mesic?

14 A. I think this is notorious insinuation. Neither did I know that

15 Mr. Kalanj had been killed, nor did I know what had happened to him at

16 all. As president of the Sabor, I received a proposal from the committee

17 to nominate and relieve of duty members of parliament, and I put the

18 proposal to the vote. I later learnt that that particular individual had

19 in fact been killed.

20 Q. So he was killed first by those authorities of yours and then he

21 was relieved of duty for not turning up to work in the morning. Is that a

22 material fact, regardless of your knowledge or awareness or whatever?

23 JUDGE MAY: The witness has answered the question. Move on to

24 something else.

25 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

1 Q. Yesterday you were saying that Josip Tito was an integral factor,

2 but already in 1971, you worked towards the downfall of Yugoslavia when

3 the integral factor lead Yugoslavia and he was a Croat to boot. Isn't

4 that so?

5 A. Once again, this is notorious insinuation. My positions were one

6 thing. Croatia was not on a footing of equality because it was not able

7 to handle the foreign currency that it earned. So we didn't have clean

8 bills and arithmetic. And what I took part in was in financial fairness

9 with respect to Croatia and Yugoslavia and to clear up the accounts. Now,

10 what I was taken to task for, I talked about yesterday. I still consider

11 that Tito, with his charisma, was an integral factor. He was a politician

12 who stood at the head of Yugoslavia at the time when Yugoslavia played a

13 positive role, that is to say during the conflict between East and West.

14 He created the non-align movement with others, and that was a positive

15 factor, and that was why many people in the world were very sentimentally

16 well disposed towards Yugoslavia. And the accused knew that full well,

17 and that is why he said he was fighting for Yugoslavia at a time when he

18 was using all the resources at his disposal to ensure its breakdown. And

19 I was not tried because I jeopardised or in any other way threatened or

20 claimed that Tito was not a factor of integration. Yes, he was, but he

21 had left the world arena. He was a product of his time. He was a

22 communist. He was a Bolshevik. All that is true and correct.

23 Q. Mr. Mesic, as we are talking about the atmosphere that prevailed

24 and you say that it was Belgrade that stirred up the Serbs, is it true

25 that in 1990, in February, at Vatroslav Lisinski hall in Zagreb at the HDZ

1 rally, 32 Ustasha émigrés from a number of countries in the world attended

2 that rally and meeting? I hope that is not being challenged.

3 A. When the first congress of the Croatian Democratic Union was being

4 prepared, talks were held between the HDZ leadership and the then

5 Secretary for Internal Affairs, or rather, the Minister of the Interior of

6 the Socialist Republic of Croatia. We discussed with him this matter and

7 ascertained that some people would be coming who perhaps could be held

8 responsible for breaking the law. What was said was that everybody could

9 come who had not been tried as a war criminal, that they would be able to

10 come freely, to come and go, that they would be given free passage and

11 would not be prosecuted if they were not in fact war criminals. That was

12 the agreement that was reached.

13 Q. And do you know that, quite contrary to that Croatian extreme

14 nationalism, that the Serbs in Croatia at those first elections came out

15 in vast majority in favour of the League of Communists of Croatia led by

16 Racan and not for some kind of Serb party or any idea from Belgrade or

17 policy put forward from Belgrade? Do you know that 21 members of

18 parliament in the Sabor, that they had them -- that they were on the list

19 of the League of Communists of Croatia? Do you know about those 21, that

20 they were Serbs?

21 A. The SDP went to the elections, the party for democratic change,

22 and not the Communist Party. Many Serbs were elected, that's true. I

23 don't know their exact number. Some of them were on the SDP democratic

24 change party list, others were elected from amongst the other parties, as

25 well as the SDS, the Serbian Democratic Party. So they were members of

Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and English transcripts.

1 the Croatian parliament.

2 Q. My question to you was --

3 JUDGE MAY: We'll adjourn. You can ask the question after the

4 adjournment. Twenty minutes, please.

5 --- Recess taken at 12.15 p.m.

6 --- On resuming at 12.38 p.m.

7 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

8 Q. Very well. Is it clear that the very fact that in all the areas

9 inhabited by Serbs, 90 per cent of them were in favour of Racan's party,

10 in which the Croats were in the majority, that this shows that they were

11 in favour of a federal Yugoslavia and that they wanted to remain a state

12 building and constituent nation in Croatia? Is that correct or not?

13 A. At the referendum at which the citizens of Croatia voted on

14 whether they wanted an independent Croatia or to remain in Yugoslavia,

15 94.17 per cent voted in favour of independence. Among them were Serbians.

16 Q. Does that show that the issue is something else and that the HDZ,

17 which won the elections with extreme nationalist views, was a clear

18 message to the Serbs as to what awaited them?

19 A. I have already said that some messages were unacceptable, but

20 there was no reason for Serbs to fear. Excesses started when emissaries

21 arrived from Serbia and when the leadership in the municipalities where

22 the majority Serb population said that they were in fact ostensibly in

23 favour of Yugoslavia but they were in fact in favour of the creation of a

24 greater Serbia. They had been deceived and manipulated, because in the

25 end the programme, the plan to create a greater Serbia failed.

1 Q. You know there was no such plan, but who actually contributed to

2 the anxiety of the Serbs and to their concerns? I think that without

3 doubt, you are one of those mostly responsible for that. For example, in

4 the summer of 1990, on the occasion of your visit to Gospic, you said, I

5 quote: "The Serbs from Croatia, while they are ploughing Croatian land,

6 pray to God that rain might fall in Serbia. Lets the Serbs go to Serbia

7 but take with them only as much land as they brought when they arrived on

8 the soles of their shoes."

9 Is that what you said, Mr. Mesic?

10 A. I'm not interested in what you think of me and what I do. That is

11 completely immaterial to me. The quotation is incorrect. The accused put

12 together two things that I said. What I said was, first, that Croats --

13 that Serbs in Croatian should not plough land in Croatia while praying to

14 God that it might rain in Serbia. This was my response to those who wrote

15 graffiti on walls in Croatia saying this was Serbia. It was not Serbia.

16 It was Croatia, and that's what I wanted them to know. I wanted them to

17 know that they could not engage in implementing such a policy.

18 The second thing I said was that when Serbs arrived in Croatia,

19 they were not carrying Serb land on their shoes to transform Croatian soil

20 into Serbian soil. I wasn't saying anything about what they should take

21 away with them. What I said was that they had not brought Serbia with

22 them on their shoes. Just as the Croats who went to live in Austria, in

23 Burgenland, did not take Croatia with them on the soles of their shoes.

24 They took it with them in their hearts. But they are loyal citizens of

25 the Republic of Austria, although they are aware of their ethnic origins,

1 their Croatian origins. So my message to the Serbs was that Croatia was

2 their homeland, that they can love their former country, but that they

3 should be loyal citizens of the Republic of Croatia. In fact, my message

4 to them was that we wanted them in Croatia, not that they should leave

5 Croatia.

6 Q. Do you think that the Serbs in Croatia cannot be compared to my

7 grant workers in Austria? The Serbs lived in Croatia on their own land

8 for several centuries. They did not arrive there as migrant workers.

9 Q. I think the accused misunderstood me or at least pretends to have

10 misunderstood me. Several centuries ago Croats emigrated from Croatia to

11 Burgenland. They were aware of their Croatian origins but they are loyal

12 citizens of the Republic of Austria. They have their municipalities,

13 territories. They are protected by legislation of the Republic of Austria

14 as a national minority. This was my message to Serbs, that they should be

15 loyal citizens of the Republic of Croatia and not listen to the emissaries

16 of Slobodan Milosevic.

17 Q. Very well, Mr. Mesic, but at the pre-election rally that was held

18 in Gospic on the 2nd of March, 1990, which was attended by about 15.000

19 Croats, and because it was raining, many of them were carrying umbrellas,

20 you said there: When we Croats establish our own state, all the Serbs in

21 it will fit under a single umbrella. This rally was held on Nikola Tesla

22 Square in Gospic. Is this correct, Mr. Mesic, or not?

23 A. No, it is not correct. I don't know who attributed these words to

24 me.

25 Q. I don't have time to prove this because my time is limited.

1 A. You will never be able to prove it.

2 Q. I will prove it, just as I will prove that you worked for the

3 military counter-intelligence service and many other things that you

4 denied here?

5 JUDGE MAY: That's all comment.

6 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

7 Q. In Slovenian TV show on the 8th of November, 1995, on a private

8 television station, you said that Mr. Genscher and Pope John Paul the

9 second, with the support they gave to the break-up of Yugoslavia,

10 contributed the most to the break-up of this country. You said: I wanted

11 to transmit the idea of the collapse of Yugoslavia to those who could

12 influence its fate the most, Genscher and the pope. Genscher made it

13 possible for me to contact the Holy See and they agreed to the total

14 break-up of Yugoslavia. Is this correct or not?

15 A. First of all, I would like to ask the accused not to make me

16 laugh, because this is a place where we should be serious. I never spoke

17 about this. I never spoke of Croatia or Slovenia breaking up Yugoslavia.

18 It was Slobodan Milosevic and his regime who are working for that. I was

19 speaking of independence. When Yugoslavia lost its integrating factors,

20 when it became quite clear that the executive council, the Supreme Court,

21 the Presidency of Yugoslavia, the constitutional court, had become

22 blocked, that no institutions were functioning, it was quite clear that

23 such a federation, such as it was, was untenable. And when it became

24 quite clear that Croatia had to seek a way out, and this way out could

25 only be in independence, we had to look to those who would support our

1 right to independence.

2 Q. Mr. Mesic, at a press conference in Belgrade, in the press centre,

3 in December 1990, you said that there were no misunderstandings in

4 Yugoslavia since the HDZ, or rather, that these misunderstandings did not

5 begin when the HDZ came to power in 1990 but that they started, in fact,

6 in 1918. Do you remember this?

7 A. Yes, I remember that very well. The misunderstandings did not

8 arise when the HDZ came to power. The misunderstandings date further

9 back. If necessary, I can explain that. The Austro-Hungarian monarchy

10 could not be preserved according to the same model in which it had

11 existed. The Austrian emperor, Franz Josef did not understand what was

12 going on on the territory of this great empire. Franz Ferdinand thought

13 that on the territory of the former empire, a personal union should be

14 established, just modelled on the commonwealth, so that parts of the

15 Austro-Hungarian monarchy should become independent and that a personal

16 union should be established. This was the threat to greater Serbian

17 policy which existed then, because they knew that the ambitions to break

18 up Bosnia and Herzegovina would no longer exist if this came to be.

19 Because from Garasanin onward, greater Serbian policy wanted Serbia to

20 expand across the River Drina. If the peoples and the states on the

21 territory of the empire became independent, Serbia would no longer be able

22 to expand its borders across the River Drina. That is why the

23 organisation called "the Black Hand" decided to assassinate Franz

24 Ferdinand in Sarajevo.

25 JUDGE MAY: I think we've probably exhausted that topic in 1918.

1 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

2 Q. Is it clear, Mr. Mesic, from what you said - and here I include

3 your presence in Siroki Brijeg in Bosnia and Herzegovina, for those who

4 don't know where Siroki Brijeg is - where the Croatian historical rights

5 in Bosnia were put forward, Boban and you and most other participants

6 advocated this, and it was only Kljujic who advocated Bosnia as a whole,

7 as an entity, which is why he was replaced. Is that true or not?

8 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, we've already dealt with Mr Kljujic.

9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

10 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

11 Q. But when you parted ways with Tudjman - while you were

12 implementing this policy, you advocated the same views - you said that

13 Croatia was a twilight zone, that it was approaching the model of Paraguay

14 that it was a risk zone, and that the rules that applied there were --

15 A. I have to explain again. I said that Croatia -- in Croatia the

16 rule of law did not apply, that there were abuses, that there were crimes,

17 that tycoons appeared who were destroying the Croatian economy, which is

18 why I parted ways with that policy. I demanded that Croatia function as a

19 state in which the rule of law applied, and I demanded that Nazi and

20 fascist symbols which here and there appeared in Croatia should be done

21 away with. Today, Croatia is discussing a law, a bill, in parliament on

22 banning Nazi symbols and punishing those who put forward such symbols in

23 the future.

24 Q. Very well, Mr. Mesic. Are you claiming that you yourself did not

25 personally contribute to the development of this fascist climate towards

1 the Serbs when you were one of the top leaders of the HDZ? Later on you

2 call this a twilight zone, but did you contribute to its creation or not?

3 Do you consider yourself responsible, co-responsible, for the creation of

4 this twilight zone and the expulsion of the Serbs from Croatia?

5 A. I think that this is entirely wrong. I was an anti-fascist from

6 my youth. My whole family was on the Partizan side. Not a single member

7 of my family was on the other side. Eleven members of my family were

8 killed fighting on the anti-fascist side. I am a convinced anti-fascist,

9 and I find all this distasteful.

10 Q. Is it correct, then, that you criticised Tudjman for signing the

11 Vance-Owen Plan when representatives of the UN were deployed in the

12 territories where there was a conflict - these were the UN-protected

13 areas - and you criticised him because Croats could not enter the Krajina

14 until a political solution was found? Is this correct or not?

15 A. I criticised many decisions made by President Tudjman and

16 supported others, depending on the point in time. When Tudjman suggested

17 that a referendum on Croatian independence be held, I felt that the

18 elections had been enough for citizens of Croatia to show what they

19 wanted. I thought it was enough. But Tudjman said: No. Let's have a

20 referendum.

21 I opposed the referendum, but later on I saw that in that

22 case Tudjman had been right. Sometimes I supported Tudjman, sometimes I

23 did not. But I cannot discuss now every instance where I supported him or

24 not, because I think this is of no interest to this Tribunal.

25 Q. In agreement with Tudjman, when you, the prime minister, you

* Continued at: http://www.icdsm.org/more/mesic-9.htm

The Freedom Association in Belgrade and the ICDSM, based outside Yugoslavia, are the two organizations formed at the request of Slobodan Milosevic to aid in his defense.

Up until now our main work has been threefold. We have publicized the truth about The Hague's phony trial. We have organized research to help President Milosevic expose NATO's lies. And we have initiated legal action in the Dutch and European Courts.

Now our job has increased. The defense phase of the "trial" starts in May 2003. No longer will Mr. Milosevic be limited to cross-examining Hague witnesses. The prosecution will be forced further onto the defensive as victims of NATO's aggression and experts from Yugoslavia and the NATO countries tell what really happened and expose media lies. Moreover, Mr. Milosevic will call leaders, from East and West, some friendly and some hostile to the truth.

The controlled mass media will undoubtedly try to suppress this testimony as they have tried to suppress Mr. Milosevic's cross-examinations. Nevertheless this phase of the "trial" will be the biggest international forum ever to expose NATO's use of racism, violence and lies to attack Yugoslavia.

We urgently need the help of all people who care about what is happening in The Hague. Right now, Nico Steijnen , the Dutch lawyer in the ICDSM, is waging legal battles in the Dutch courts and before the European Court, about which more news soon. These efforts urgently require financial support. We now maintain a small staff of Yugoslav lawyers in Holland, assisting and advising Mr. Milosevic full-time. We need to expand our Dutch facilities, perhaps bringing in a non-Yugoslav attorney full-time. Definitely we must guarantee that we have an office and office manager available at all times, to compile and process evidence and for meetings with witnesses and lawyers and as a base for organizing press conferences.

All this costs money. And for this, we rely on those who want Mr. Milosevic to have the best possible support for attacking NATO's lies.

************
Here's how you can help...
************

* You may contribute by credit card. By the end of September we will have an ICDSM secure server so you can contribute directly on the Internet.

For now, you can contribute by credit card in two ways: *

You can Contribute by Credit Card over the Telephone by calling:

ICDSM office, USA: 1 617 916-1705
SLOBODA (Freedom) Association office, Belgrade: 381 63 279 819

You can Contribute using PayPal at:
https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=icdsm%40aol.com
PayPal accepts VISA and MasterCard

You can Contribute by mail to:
ICDSM
831 Beacon St., #295
Newton Centre, MA 02459 (USA)

- OR -

You can Contribute by wire transfer to Sloboda Association

Intermediary:
UBS AG
Zurich, Switzerland
Swift Code: UBSWCHZH

Account with:
/ 756 - CHF
/ 840 - USD
/ 978 - EUR
Kmercijalna Banka AD
SV. Save 14, 11000 Belgrade, FR Yugoslavia
Swift Code: KOBBYUBG

Beneficiary: Account No. 5428-1246-16154-6
SLOBODA
Rajiceva 16, 11000 Belgrade, FR Yugoslavia