Languages
Pages
Legal
1
“TheWarCriminalCult:KaradžićandŠešeljatTheHague”
IzabelaSteflja
OnMarch21,threedaysbeforeRadovanKaradžićwasfoundguiltyoftencountsof
genocide,crimesagainsthumanityandviolationsofthelawsofwar,BosnianSerb
authoritiesunveiledaplaquenamingastudentdorminKaradžić’sname.“We
dedicatedthisplacetothemanwhoundoubtedlysetthefoundationofRepublika
Srpska–RadovanKaradžić,thefirstpresidentofthisrepublic,”saidMiloradDodik,
thepresidentoftheSerbianRepublicinBosnia(“Studentdorm”2016).Oneweek
beforetheICTYreleaseditsverdictonthecaseofVojislavŠešelj,whowasontrial
forthreecountsofcrimesagainsthumanityandsixcountsofwarcrimes,Serbian
authoritiesallowedŠešeljtoholdapublicrallyinBelgradeforhispoliticalparty,
SrpskaRadikalnaStranka.ThiswasindirectviolationofICTY’sconditionthatŠešelj
staysoutofpubliclifeduringhismedicalleaveandICTY’ssubsequentorderthathe
returntoTheHagueafterheviolatedthiscondition.AttherallyŠešeljconfirmedhis
intentionstogointoelectoralvictoryratherthantoTheHague(Rovčanin2016;
“Radikali”2016).
IntheinternationalmediaKaradžić’strialandguiltyverdicthavebeen
referredtoasEurope’sbiggestaccomplishmentsinceNuremberg,whileŠešelj’s
acquittalhasbeenreferredtoasonethatseekstorewritehistoryand“avictoryfor
advocatesofethniccleansing”(Borger2016;“Vojislav”2016;Biddle2016).The
internationalreactionisastarkcontrasttothedomesticresponsetothetwotrials
amongSerbsinSerbiaandBosnia.Theaccusers–theICTYandtheinternational
media,andtheaccused–allegedwarcriminalandtheSerbianmediatherefore
abidebyentirelydifferentrulesofcommunication,speakingpasteachother.There
isnodialoguebetweenthetwocamps,onlytwodisconnectednarratives.Thetaleof
theICTYisoneofapower-hungrywarcriminalwhosemanipulationsresultedin
atrocitiesandcrimesagainsthumanity,whileKaradžić’staleisahistoryofanation
2
simplyensuringitssurvivalinfaceofmistreatmentbyothernations,and
misrepresentationandshameatagloballevel.Thispaperillustrateshowthe
accusedconstructandmobilizethesecondnarrativeandhowthelocalmedia
transmitsthewarcriminalcultscripttothelocalcommunities.Understandinghow
thewarcriminalcultiscreatedandtransmittedhelpsustounderstandwhy
ordinarySerbsparticipateintheheroizationofwarcriminalsratherthanactively
distancethemselvesfromhorrendouscrimes,whichisexactlywhattheTribunalis
tryingtoavoid.
ThispaperanalyzesKaradžićandŠešelj’s‘performances’atTheHagueand
theSerbianmedia’sconsumptionoftheseacts.IntheirperformancesKaradžićand
Šešeljmobilizenationalismthroughfivesteps.First,theaccuseddiffusetheir
individualguiltbycollectivizingthecrimesthattheyareaccusedof.Second,they
epitomizeTheHagueastheultimateenemybyassociatingtheTribunalwithNATO
forcesandtheiroperations.Third,theyconstructSerbsasthebiggestvictimsofthe
internationaljusticeprocess.Fourth,theyproducethemselvesasthesacrificial
lambsofthisprocess–martyrswhoembodythevictimhoodoftheSerbiannation.
Fifth,theyembarkonwhattheypresentasamissiontorecoverthedignityofthe
nationinfaceofundeservedshamethroughmockeryandridiculeoftheTribunal.
TheproductionofSerbiannationalismfromaboveinthe1980sand1990s
anditsroleinthewarsandelectionsintheregionhasbeenstudiedextensively.
However,thereislittlematerialexamininginternationaltrialsasmomentsof
nationalistmobilization.Iarguethatallegedwarcriminalsnotonlyusethepodium
oftheTribunaltocreatecontinuationofthenationalistnarrativefromprevious
decadesbutalsotoreinterpretandtailorittotheirneeds.Sincenationalismdoes
notexistonitsownbutis‘made’weneedtopayattentiontoimportantevents
whichactorscanusetoinitiatetwistsandturnsinthenationalistnarrative.
KaradžićandŠešeljhaveacleverschemeofmakingtheSerbsguiltybyassociation,
onlytoofferasupposedsolutiontothiscollectiveguilt–therecoveryofdignity
throughtheinterpretationofTheHagueastheimperialWest.Thewarcriminalcult
isthus‘made’inconversationwiththeimperialWestinacollectivenarrativethat
conteststhelegitimacyandtheintentionofTheHaguewhiledisguisingindividual
3
responsibility.Themediaco-producesandamplifiesthisstoryofdomesticchallenge
tothehierarchyinthedistributionofglobalpower,influenceoverinternational
institutions,andhegemonyovertheinterpretationofhistory,whichresonates
amongthepublicthatfeelsimplicatedinthecrimes.
By‘warcriminalcult’Imeanthephenomenonthroughwhichanational
leader,inthiscaseawarcriminal,solidifieshimselfintoacultleaderwhothen
enjoysthepublic’ssupporttoactoutsideofinternationallawandbasicmoral
standards.Throughthisprocessawarcriminalproduceshimselfintoatrustworthy
individual,onemorelegitimatethananinternationalinstitution.Thispaperisthus
interestedinunderstandingnationalistnarrativesthatenablethepublictogrant
amnestyandforgivenessforthemosthorrendousofcrimes.Itdoesnotmakea
judgmentinregardstothetrialproceedingsortheverdictsinthetwocases.Inthat
senseitdoesnotevaluatetheeffectivenessoftheinternationaltribunal.
Inanattempttoproblematizethewarcriminalcult,IapplyRogerBrubaker’s
renowntheoreticalworkon‘groupism’toexplainthewaysinwhichandthe
conditionsunderwhich“powerfulcrystallizationofgroupfeeling”takesplace.
Brubaker’s“EthnicityWithoutGroups”isextremelyhelpfulinunderstanding
KaradžićandŠešelj’scollectivizationofguiltduringperformancesatTheHague.In
FromVotingtoViolence:DemocratizationandNationalistConflictJackSnyder
explainstop-downnationalistmythmakingandthelimitationsofmediaduring
elections.IapplySnyder’stheoreticalframeworktoexplainnationalistmythmaking
andtheroleofmediaduringadifferent,yetstillkey,event–internationaltrialsof
leaders.
TheevidenceisbasedonadiscourseanalysisofKaradžićandŠešelj’s
speechesatTheHague,andtheframingofthetwotrialsbymajorSerbian
newspapers.Ithereforeanalyzewhattheaccusedsayontheinternationalstageand
howtheSerbianmediarespondandreinforcetheirnationalistframes.Thisis
complementedbydataIcollectedformybookproject,whichinvolvedextensive
fieldworkinSerbiaandBosniafrom2010to2013andwascomposedofsemi-
structuredinterviewswithuniversityprofessorsandstudents,communityleaders,
4
topechelonandlowerrankstaffininternationalorganizationsandinstitutions,civil
societymembers,governmentofficials,andmembersoftheopposition.
Ichosetolookatthetwocasesforseveralreasons.WhiletheSlobodan
Miloševićcasehasbeenstudiedindepthbyanumberofscholars,thecasesof
KaradžićandŠešeljhavesurprisinglyreceivedlittleattentionamongacademics.
SecondonlytoMilošević,Karadžićwasthemostpowerfulpoliticalfigureontrialat
theICTY.AsMarkoMilanovićexplains,
Karadžićwasnotamerecoginthemachine,norevenamilitaryfigure,butapoliticianattheverytopofthepyramid,orthejointcriminalenterprise,whichdevisedandorchestratedthispolicy.Inshort,heisthebestsubstituteforMiloševićthattheTribunalwilleverhave,andhistrialwillthereforebeoftremendoussymbolicimportance(2009,216-7).
Šešeljwasconsideredtobethemostentertainingandthemostintelligentfigureat
TheHague.“WatchingŠešeljincourtislikewatchingBigBrother,”1commentedone
ofmyintervieweesinBanjaLuka(IvanŠijaković,Interview,July12,2011).
Moreover,thetwocharactersontrialarequitedissimilarandhaveinthepast
competedforpoliticalpoweragainsteachother.Theyhadaverydifferentreaction
totheirHagueindictments–whileKaradžićwentintohidinginplainsight,Šešelj
voluntarilysurrendered.Mostrecently,theyreceivedverydifferentICTYverdicts–
whileKaradžićwasfoundguiltyontencountsandgivenaforty-yearsentence,
Šešeljwasacquitted.Despitethedifferentcircumstancessurroundingthetwotrials,
bothKaradžićandŠešeljsawtheinternationalstageasakeyopportunitytoinvoke
memoriesofthebrutalwarsandkeydebatesthathaveoccupiedtheSerbian
consciousnessintheiraftermath.Oncetheygrabbedtheattentionoftheiraudience
by‘grouping’guilt,thestagewassetforfurtherconstructionofthewarcriminal
cult.
1 The interviewee is referring to the popular television reality show Big Brother, rather than the character from George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four.
5
Backgroundonthetwotrials
TheInternationalCriminalTribunalforformerYugoslavia(ICTY)issuedthe
initialindictmentandarrestwarrantforRadovanKaradžićonJuly25,1995.During
thedecadethatfollowed,thereactionsoftheauthoritiesintheFederalRepublicof
YugoslaviaandRepublikaSrpskawerenegligible,withneitherrepublicwillingto
carryoutitsobligationforexecutingthewarrantsforthearrest.Thissituationled
theTrialChamberandthePresidentoftheICTYtoconcludethatthefailureofthe
indictmentwas“whollydueto”Serbiangovernments’“refusaltocooperate,”which
wasreinforcedbyharshwordsfromthePresidentoftheUNSecurityCouncilwho
notonlycondemnedtheactionsoftheSerbiangovernmentsbutthreatenedthe
introductionofeconomicsanctions(UNDocumentNo.S/1996/556andUN
DocumentNo.S/PRST/1996/34qtd.in“International”1997).Themainreasonfor
continuinginactionbytheSerbswasbelievedtobethepositionofauthority
KaradžićoccupiedamongSerbianrulingelitesinpost-wartimesandthegeneral
supportheenjoyedasanationalheroofthewarinBosnia.
Atlast,onJuly21,2008,andthirteenyearsafterhisindictmentandarrest
warrantwereissued,theSerbianauthoritiesarrestedKaradžićintheSerbian
capital,Belgrade.SinceKaradžićwasoneofthemostsought-afterfugitivesfrom
internationalcriminaljusticeand,accordingtotheinternationalandSerb
authorities,wasbelievedtobehidingquitesuccessfully,thecircumstancesofhis
arrestweresurprising,ifnot“downrightbizarre”(Milanović2009,213).Notonly
wasKaradžićfoundinBelgrade,ratherthansomeremoteandinaccessiblelocation,
buthehadbeenresidingandworkinginthecapitalasDr.DraganDavidDabić,a
practitionerofalternativemedicine,whosportedalongwhitebeardtiedinatop-
knot.Karadžić,apsychiatristbytraining,wrotearticlesforajournalAHealthyLife,
ranhisownwebsite,gavepubliclectures,andevenguest-appearedontelevision
showspromotinghisteachingsinnewagemedicineasDr.Dabić(“Footage”2008;
Lippman2008,38).Thepeculiaritiesofthiscasecontinuedastheaccused
boycottedthefirstdayofhistrial–October29,2009,withthetrialfinallyresuming
onMarch1,2010.Theaffairbegunwithtwodays,andintotalsixhours,ofopening
6
statementsbyKaradžić.Unsurprisingly,Serbiannewspapers,alongsidemanyfrom
theinternationalpress,scrambledtocapturethehighlights.
Unlike,Karadžić,VojislavŠešeljvoluntarilysurrenderedtotheICTYinlate
February2003afteranindictmentoffifteencountsofcrimesagainsthumanityand
violationsofthelawsofwar.Amongothercrimes,Šešeljwasaccusedof
inflammatoryspeechandparticipationinjointcriminalenterpriseincluding
numerouscrimescommittedbyhisparamilitarymilitiacalledŠešelj’sMen.Šešelj’s
Menareaccusedofactsoflooting,killing,rapeillegalimprisonment,forced
deportation,tortureandpersecutionagainstCroats,Muslimsandothernon-Serbs.
ŠešeljvoluntarilysurrenderedtotheICTYbecause,inhisownwords,he“relish[ed]
theprospectofaninternationalaudienceforhisdenunciationsofWesternpolicyin
theBalkans”(Simpson2003,A6).RealizinghowwelltheICTYtrialscouldbe
manipulatedforpropagandapurposes,Šešeljandhissupportersinsistedthat
Šešelj’strialbebroadcastonnationaltelevisionlikeMilošević’strialwas.2They
threatenedthatifthegovernmentdidnotagreetobroadcastŠešelj’strialthey
wouldurgesupportersoftheRadicalPartyofSerbiatoorganizeprotestralliesand
torefusetopaythemonthlylicensefeeforthenationaltelevisionnetwork(Predrag
Marković,Interview,July26,2011).In2006Šešeljwentonahungerstrike
demandingthathebegrantedtherighttopresenthisowndefense,whichwas
grantedtohimbytheICTY.
AsheistheleaderofthethirdmostpopularpartyinSerbia,Srpska
RadikalnaStranka,hecontinuedtobepoliticallyactivefromTheHagueand
continuedrunninginthegeneralelections.In2011Šešeljarguedthathiscase
shouldbedroppedbasedontheviolationofhisrighttobetriedinareasonable
amountoftime,buttheICTYrefusedhisbid.However,in2014theICTYgranted
Šešeljaprovisionalreleasebasedondeterioratinghealthandacancerdiagnosis,
whichrequiredhimtostayoutofpubliclife.Šešeljviolatedtheconditionandvowed
2 USAID’s decision to fund the broadcasting of Milošević’s trial was self-defeating as it led to the doubling of Milošević’s approval ratings and contributed to an upsurge in defensive nationalism (Lelyveld 2002).
7
nottoreturntoTheHaguevoluntarily.TheICTYrespondedbysummoningŠešeljto
returnbutthendroppedthesummons,avertingastand-offbetweentheSerbian
governmentandtheEuropeanUnion,whichwouldhaveincludedEUsanctionson
Serbia.TheICTYissuedastatementacceptingtheSerbiangovernment’sclaimthat
Šešelj’streatmentcouldnotbecontinuedatTheHague(“Hague”2016).Howexactly
medicalfacilitiesinBelgradearebetterequippedtoserveŠešeljthanthoseatThe
Haguewasnotexplainedinthestatementand,frankly,wouldbeverydifficultto
believe.ŠešeljwasacquittedonMarch31inwhatinternationalmediahasbrandeda
verycontroversialandunusualfinding.Theacquittalwasbasedonthedecisionof
twojudgeswhilethethirdjudgeexpressedstrongdissent(Bowcott2016).
OneofmyintervieweesdescribedŠešeljquiteaccuratelyas“hyper-educated,
hyper-intelligent,andhyper-crazy”(NebojšaRandjelković,Interview,June22,
2011).Šešelj’smaneuveringofhisICTYcasewaspartofhisquestforfame.Overthe
pasttwelveyearshemademediaheadlinesforhisvulgarinsultsandexpletives
aimedatICTYofficials,andforhisclaimsthattheICTYisanillegalcourt
constructedbyWesternintelligenceagencies.NationalistandmanymoderateSerbs
findŠešelj’sperformancesattheICTYveryentertaining.
Thearchetypeofthenationalnarcissist
Itmaybeeasyandevendesirabletodismissthetwoindividualsandthepeculiar
circumstancessurroundingtheircasesasaffairsoftwo‘madmen.’Theproblemin
doingsoisthatthesensationalismthattheseindividualsemployandthenarratives
thatthe‘madmen’preachdonotremaininthecourtroombutaretransmitted
thoughthemediatransitionbeltandresonateamongmembersoftheirnation.G.R.
Weaver(2006)givesussomeinsightintohowcertaintypesofindividuals—
nationalnarcissists,acategoryinwhichwecancertainlyplaceKaradžićandŠešelj
—functioningroups.Weavermaintainsthat:
Theindividualnationalnarcissistfindsproofofhisownnation’ssuperiorityinhisco-nationalists’successes,andproofoftheinjusticeofhisownfailuresintheknowledgeofhisownnation’ssuperiority…Collectivesuperiorityis‘true,’asisthe‘fact’ofothernations’comparativecollectiveinferiority(2006,64).
8
SimilarlyBenjaminPetersonarguesthatnarcissistsattempttotransfertheirown
beliefsandgoalstogroupidentitiesandmayusegroupidentityto“assistin
defensiveself-regulationofimportantaspectsofthepersonalself,especiallywhen
threatened”(2009,7).3IfindthatKaradžićandŠešeljcollectivizetheirguiltasthe
guiltimposedontheirnation,consequentlyclaimingvictimhoodstatusfor
themselvesviatheirnation.Intheprocessthey‘embody’theSerbiannation,which
givesthemenormoussymbolicpower.Theythuslife“off”and“for”nationalismand
havewhatPeirreBourdieuandRogerBrubakerrefertoasa“performative”
character(Brubaker2002,166).
I.Collectivizingguilt
TheobjectiveoftheICTYisretributivejusticeintheformofpunishmentof
particularindividuals,ortheremovalof“badapples,”inordertodistancetherestof
thegroupfrommoralresponsibilityforatrocities,andpavethewayforinter-group
reconciliation.CarlaDelPonte,chiefprosecutorinSlobodanMilošević’strial,
clarifiedthelegallogicofindividualcriminalresponsibilitybyexplainingthat“No
stateororganizationisontrialheretoday.Theindictmentsdonotaccuseanentire
peopleofbeingcollectivelyguiltyofthecrimes,eventhecrimeofgenocide”(Del
Ponte4).Therefore,theICTY’saccusationsmakedirectreferencetoKaradžićand
Šešelj,andinparticular,thewaytheyparticipatedintheBalkanwars.However,
despiteICTY’sintention,Iarguethatamajorthemethatemergedinthe
examinationofnarratives,interactions,anddiscussionsinKaradžićandŠešelj’s
trialsisadisregardforthislegalcriterionofindividualresponsibility.
InhisdefensestatementsKaradžićonlyspokeincollectiveterms-indefense
ofthenation,ratherthanhimself:“Allthetimewedefendedourselves.Wenever
embarkedontryingtoconquerMuslimterritories.”Karadžićendedhisownlegal
defencewithastatementthatisadefenseoftheSerbiannation.Heevenspoke
directlytotheSerbianaudienceratherthancourtofficials:
3 See also Morf & Rhodewalt 2001.
9
Gentlemen,thetruthisonoursideanditwillonlygostronger.Wedideverythinginourpowertoavoidthewarandtominimizetheconsequencesanddamages.Thereisnostatueoflimitationthatwillrunoutonthatandliesaren’tsubjecttostatutesoflimitationsandwewilllivetoseeit(Defencestatement,16October2012).
KaradžićwasalsoveryclearaboutintendingtoprioritizetheSerbianaudienceat
homeoverTribunalstaffpresentathistrial.Ataclosedsessionon15June2009he
stated:Iwillpresentallmyviewsinapublichearing.Thepublicatlargeis,asIsaid,
oneoftherarealliesthatIhave.”
Šešelj’sself-defensewasalsorootedinanarrativethatdefendswartime
actionsofSerbsasa‘group:’
AndwhatkindofpeoplewouldweSerbsbeifwehadnotstoodupforourownrights?…HowcouldweSerbsbeexpectedtostandbyandwatchifsomebody’sputtinginjeopardyourbrothersandsistersinCroatia?Wecouldnotsitonourhands.Wehadtofightandprotectthem(Defenceclosingstatement,14March2012).
ThroughthisprocessŠešeljandKaradžićreproduced‘Serbs’asadistinctand
unifiedgroupandconstructedthemselvesasanextensionofthatcollective.They
appealedtotheiraudience’semotionsbyevokingidealsoftruth,honor,national
unityandloyalty.ŠešeljandKaradžićareidealexamplesofBrubaker’s
“ethnopoliticalentrepreneurs”whoinvokegroupsinorderto“evokethem,summon
them,callthemintobeing”(2002,166).Brubakerfurtherexplainshowthe
reificationofagroup“canbemomentarilyyetpowerfullyrealizedinpractice”
(2002,167).Iarguethatthedefendantssucceededatmakingthepoliticalfictionof
theunified(andcollectively-guilty)Serbiannation‘real’attheTribunal,whichin
turnenabledthemtoconstructTheHagueastheultimateenemyofthatnation.
II.ProducingTheHagueastheultimateenemy
Duringtheir‘performances’KardžićandŠešeljturnedthetablesandproduced“the
West”astheguiltyparty.Šešeljcontinuouslyarguedthatthechargesagainsthim
wererootedintheWest’shostilityforSerbiaandthattheTribunalfunctionedunder
theinstructionof“Westernintelligenceservices”replacing“theAmericanCavalry,
theAmericanSixthFleet”(Defenceclosingstatement,14March2012).He
10
emphasizedthattheICTYwasabiased,illegalcourt,andthepoliticalarmofNATO
inNATO’smilitarycampaignagainstSerbia.“Youaremyenemiesbecauseyoucome
fromcountrieswhicharemembersofNATOandwhicharehostiletomy
motherland,Serbia,”saidŠešelj(“Dr.Šešelj”2013).SpeakingdirectlytotheTribunal
judges,Šešeljcontinued:
Gentlemen,ifyouwereobjectiveandunbiasedyouwouldhaveneveragreedtobejudgesofthisillegalcourt,andsinceyouacceptedthiscallingyoualsoacceptedtodeliveritstask.AllofyoucomefromcountriesthataremembersofNATO,whichbombedSerbiaruthlessly.ForthreemonthsyoukilledSerbianchildren,andyouaretryingtoconvincemethatyouareunbiased?”(“Dr.Šešelj”2013).
AtcertainpointsinhisclosingstatementŠešeljidentifiedspecific‘enemies’of
Serbia,suchas“pro-WesternforcesinEngland,Germany,theUnitedStates,the
entireEuropeanUnion,theVatican”(Defenceclosingstatement,14March2012).
KaradžićalsomadealinkbetweentheTribunalandNATO,accusingthe
TribunalofbeingimplicatedinwhathesaidwasaNATOraidofhisfamily’shome.
ThisresultedinJudgeBonomyaskingKaradžicto“callNATOheadquartersin
Brussels”insteadofmakingsuchaccusationsagainstTheHague.JudgeBonomy
emphasized“whatitisyouareclaimingisthelinktotheTribunal?”(Status
conference,19January2009).KaradžićwasundoubtedlyawarethattheICTY,
whichisabodyoftheUnitedNations,andNATOaretwodifferent
intergovernmentalorganizations.InmakingthelinkbetweenthetwoKaradžić
meanttoimplythattheICTYandNATOareruledbythesameWesternforces.Since
accordingtoKaradžić,“NATOisreallythegreatproblemoftheworld,ingeneral,”
hemeanttoassociatetheTribunalwiththebiggestenemyoftheworld,andby
default–theSerbs(Statusconference,19January2009).
ThegoalherewastocharacterizetheTribunalasanelementofwhatthe
accusedexplainedastheviolentWesterncampaignagainsttheentireSerbian
nation.Tyingpainfulmemoriesofthe1999NATObombingofSerbiatothepresent
dayworkoftheTribunalwasŠešelj’spowerfultoolindeflectingresponsibilityfrom
hisownactionsduringthewars.Thereisnobetterdefensethananoffensethat
suggeststhattheTribunalispartofaWesternalliancethatkilledSerbianchildren
11
forthreemonths.Theinventionofthisnewultimatethreattothenationresultedin
the“crystallizationofgroupfeeling”andcontinuedthereificationofthefictional,
one,andunified,SerbiannationatTheHague(Brubaker2002,167).
III.ProducingtheSerbsastheultimatevictims
Oncetheaccusedproducedthenew“offender”–TheHague,theycouldconstruct
theSerbs(asagroup)intothenewvictim.ŠešeljemphasizedICTY“injustice”
againsttheSerbswho“aretriedtolifeatthedropofahat,andtheMuslims,for
example,youengageinveryheateddiscussionsastowhetheraMuslimgeneralis
goingtogettwoyears’orthreeyears’sentence”(Defencestatement,16October
2012).KaradžićarguedthattheTribunalwasmistakeninitstargetingoftheSerbs
because“itisaterriblemisconceptionandagreatinjustice,thisportrayalofthe
SerbsasthosewhostartedthewarinBiH”(Defencestatement,16October2012).
HewishedtocorrectthestorylinebyexplaininghowSerbsinBosniawere
victimized:
Thencameaperiodofunderhanddealingsandblockagesinestablishingtheauthorities.TheSerbscouldnotgetthepoststheywerepromised,aSerbcouldnotbecomeheadofMUP,marginalizationstarted…WhattheSerbshadlivedthroughinareaswheretheywerelessthan50percent…foranentireyearnotasinglecommunityinEuropewouldputupwiththat,withthehumiliation,evenrapesandmurders…”(Defencestatement,16October2012).
ThepurposeofsuchdescriptivestatementsofSerbianvictimhoodduringthewarin
BosniawastorecycletheviewthathaditnotbeenforKaradžić’screationand
defenseofRepublikaSrpskaSerbswouldhavebeenethnicallycleansedfrom
Bosnia,orincludedasanoppressedminorityinaCroat-BosniakFederation.
BecauseKaradžićwasthewartimepresidentoftheSerbianseparatistportionof
BiH,hewishedtoportrayhimselfasthesavioroftheSerbiannationinBosnia.
DespiteICTY’snumerouseffortstoemphasizethatitstrialsareabout
individualresponsibility,KaradžićandŠešeljsuggestedthatthetrialsareabout
writinggrouphistory.Bothdefendantsmadeittheirmissionto‘write’theSerbsas
thevictimsinthehistoricaltale.TheICTYwas,touseBrubaker’sterms,the
12
“dramaticevent”thatprovidedtheopportunityforthesepoliticalentrepreneursto
“galvanizeandcrystallize”thatnarrativeandalsoto“ratchetuppre-existinglevels
ofgroupness”(Brubaker2002,171).Karadžićwentthroughdetailedexplanations
ofhowtheconflictunraveledand‘corrected’theProsecutorinhisunderstandingof
theevents.Hegavecontextaswellasdetailedaccountsofpoliticalandmilitary
events,andhisplaceinthem(Defencestatement,16October2012).Hisentire
defencewasanextremelylonghistorylecturewithKaradžićasthekeyauthor,
makinghisplaceinhistoryandsuggestinghowhewishedtoberemembered.Šešelj
alsomadehisintentiontorewritetheProsecutor’sversionofhistoryclear.He
explainedthat“Whatwillremainbehindmeherearethetranscriptsfromthetrial.
Thesearenotgoingtobeyourpersonalperceptionsoftheproceedings.”Hethen
continuedtosuggestthathisaccountisthetrueonewhilemakingamockeryofthe
CourtandtheProsecutor’sversion:“Somedaypeoplewillprobablylaughatyour
judgmentandtheywilllaughevenmoreattheindictmentandtheclosingargument
oftheProsecutor”(Defenceclosingstatement,14March2012).
IV.Martyrdomandself-embodimentofthenation
InadditiontoproducingtheSerbsastheultimatevictimgroup,theaccused
portrayedthemselvesastherepresentativesofSerbianvictimhoodatTheHague.
BothKaradžićandŠešeljemphasizedthatthecourtviolatedtheirhumanrights.
DuringhisfirstappearanceatTheHagueŠešeljcunninglyportrayedprocedures
takenforhisownprotectionasmistreatment,“torture,”anddisrespect:
Ihavebeenexposedtophysicaltortureandmistreatmenttodaybecauseuponleavingtheprison20kgheavyflatjacketwasputonmeandIconsiderthistobetortureprohibitedbyinternationallaw.Idonotneedanyflatjacket.Iamnotinanydanger…Inacivilizedworldifthereisdangeranarmoredvehicleisprovided(Firstinitialappearance,26February2003).
HealsoemphasizedthattheTrialChamberdeniedhim“therighttofinance[his]
defence”andofferedassistancethatwas“verylimitedandveryrestricted.”Šešelj
wentasfarastoaccusetheICTYofaconspiracyto“kill”him.Itisnotentirelyclear
thathisaccusationwaspurelyfigurativeandthathewasspeakingaboutICTY’s
13
intentiontoremovehimpoliticallyratherthanliterally:
Now,somuchforthepoliticalbackgroundofthistrialandtheintentionsoftheirmaincreators.Theydesignedtokillmesometimebetweentheclosingargumentandtherenderingofthejudgment.Thiswasoneoftheirattempts,andI'msurethattheywillnotgiveupsoeasily,particularlynowwhenthereiselectioncampaignunderwayandtheresultsareshowinginthepollsthattheSerbianRadicalPartyisinagoodpositionandthatitwillachievegoodelectionresults(DefenseClosingStatement,14March2012)
Conflatinghispoliticalandliteral‘death’waslikelyastrategyofmonopolizingon
theSerbianaudience’sbadmemoriesofMilošević’spassingwhileinICTYcustody.It
wasalsoawayofensuringthattheICTYgrantshimamedicalrelease.
KaradžićalsoclaimedthattheTribunalwasactingagainsthisrightsina
statementwherehesuggestedthathisfamily’sresidencewassearchedbyNATO
forcesundertheorderoforinconnectiontotheTribunalandwiththeaimto
obstructhisdefence:
Andthen,enpassant,[NATO]triedtorequisitiondocumentsthatIfounditdifficulttoamass,relatingtomyassetsandsoonandsoforthandwithrespecttotheregistry'sdecisiontoprovidefinancialresourcestome.Sothisis--theyrefertothisTribunal,becausetheyaresearchingfortwomen,twofugitives,andwithintheframeworksoftheirsearches,theyfounditnecessarytoattackmyfamily(Statusconference,19January2009).
InthisstatementKaradžićwasconflatingtheTribunalwithNATO,andtryingtolink
theTribunaltoviolentactsandtheviolationofhisandhisfamily’srights.Asan
ICTYdefenseattorneytoldme,thedefendantsbenefitedfromthefactthatthe
SerbianaudiencedidnotrealizethatineachcasethedefenceteamgoestoThe
Haguetoseewhethertheycandefendandminimizethesentencebut,iftheyfeel
thatthepossibilityissmall,“theyplaypoliticsanddonotplaybytherules,they
discreditandinsultthecourtanditslaws”(TomaVišnjić,Interview,August4,
2012).
Notonlydidthedefendantswanttoportraythemselvesastheembodimentof
Serbianvictimhoodbuttheyalsowantedtoproducethemselvesasthe‘saviors’of
thenation.Theprevioussectionillustratedhowthedefendantsmanipulatedthe
14
historicaldialoguetodrawcontinuitybetweentheideathattheSerbiannation
needed‘saving’inthepast–duringthewar,andtoday–atTheHague.This
narrativeallowedthedefendantstoembodythe‘suffering’andthepainofthe
nation.“EveryshellthatfellonSarajevohurtmepersonally…Iproposedthat
Sarajevobedemilitarized.Thatwasrejected.IproposedthatitbeplacedunderUN
administration.Thatwasrejected,”explainedKaradžićinastatementmeantto
reaffirmhisinternalizationofnationalpainandhisattemptto‘save’Sarajevo
(Defencestatement,16October2012).ThemostcitedquotationintheSerbian
pressafterKaradžić’sopeningstatementwashisdeclaration:“Iwillnotdefendmy
trivialitybutthegrandnessoftheSerbiannation”(“Branim”2010;“Holanđani”
2008;“Suđenje”2010;“Karadžić:Mene”2010).Thequotationwasundeniably
cunningbecauseitsparadoxicaltoneservedadoublepurpose.Karadžićwasableto
claimthestatusofarepresentativeofa“grand”nation,whilehischaracterizationof
himselfas“trivial,”“insignificant,”and,indirecttranslation,“small”avertedthe
negativeconsequencesresultingfromthearroganceandpompousnessofassuming
thatpostforhimself.Moreover,thequotecleverlyimpliedthatKaradžićwaswilling
tosacrificehispersonaltrialforthehonorofthenation,makingitseem
disingenuous.
MartyrdomelementswerealsoevidentinŠešelj’sspeeches.Šešeljwentoutof
hiswaytopointouthislifetimecommitmenttotheSerbiannation,includingprison
sentences:
Godforbidthatyoushouldpraisemeorhaveagoodopinionofme.Thatwouldbeaproblem.Asearlyas1984Iwasconvictedtoeightyearsinprisonforthesameideas.IwantedtheartificialMuslimnationabolished.IwantedtheartificialMontenegrinnationabolished.IwantedthenumberoffederalunitsinYugoslaviareduced.AndIdemandedthatthepersonalitycultofthecommunistdictatorTitobetoppled.Thatwasthegistofmymanuscriptthatwasseizedfrommeasamanuscript,andforthatIreceivedasentenceofeightyears'imprisonment.Doyouthinkthatthatcouldturnme?TheprisoninZenicawasmuchharderthanthisoneinScheveningenanditstillcouldnotshakemyviewsandbeliefs(Defenceclosingstatement,14March2012).
FromthisstatementitbecameevidentthatŠešeljsoughttoembodythe‘struggle’
15
fortheSerbiannation.Heportrayedhislifeasa‘battle’againstallthethreatstothe
Serbiannation–theMuslims,theMontenegrins,thefederalists,thecommunists,
and,today,theTribunal.Indeed,iftheTribunalpraisedorhadagoodopinionof
Šešeljthiswouldhavecreatedaproblemforhimashebuilthispersonain
oppositiontowhatheidentifiedastheultimateenemyoftheSerbiannation–The
Hague.InthisprocessŠešeljsoughttoidentifyhimselfastheone,trueSerbian
martyr.Itisironicthathecommentedontryingtobreakthepersonalitycultofthe
communistleaderTito,whenhewassimultaneouslybuildingacultofthe
nationalist/warcriminalleaderforhimself.
V.Mockery,ridiculeandthesuperioritycomplex
Thelaststepintheproductionofthewarcriminalcultiswhatthedefendants
portrayasamissiontorecoverthedignityofthenationinfaceofundeservedshame
throughmockeryandridiculeoftheTribunal.Karadžić’sfavouritetoolforridiculing
thetrialprocessinvolvedtheuseofhisdoubleidentityasDraganDabić.Duringhis
initialappearanceatTheHagueKaradžićdeclared:“Ihaveaninvisibleadvisorbut
I’vedecidedtorepresentmyself[hethenlaughed]”(Initialappearance,31July
2008).AnothertimehestatedthathisteamofadvisersatTheHagueincludesat
leasttwo“invisible”consultantsbecausehiszodiacsignisGemini,whichapparently
providedproofthathisDabićpersonaistosomedegreegenuineandnotacomplete
actofafugitive(Milanović2009,218).WhenKaradžićwasconfrontedaboutDabić
hedeclaredthat“DabićdidnotdoanythingthatKaradžićwouldnotdo,”and
refusedtoacknowledgeanyinconsistencyinhischaracter:
WhileRadovanKaradžićwasaphysicianinscientificmedicine,Dabićpracticedtraditionalmedicine,whichhasbeenaroundforthousandsofyears.Ibelievethatthetwotypesofmedicinearevaluableandshouldbeintegrated…Inthatsense,doctorDabićwasRadovanKaradžićandtheotherwayaround”(“Suđenje”2010).
Karadžić’sBabićwasawayofillustratinghisintellectualsuperiorityoverWestern
forces.Thiswasaslyactthatallowedhimtoavoidhiscaptureanddelayhistrial
whilelivingpubliclyinthecapitalofSerbiaandhewasobviouslyproudofit.
16
FromhisveryfirstappearanceŠešeljusedhistrialasanopportunityto
displayhismasteryofmockery:
Inmycountryitiscustomaryforthejudges,theprosecutorsandcivilemployeestowearnormal,decent,civilclothing.IamfrustratedwhenIseethejudgeswearstrangeclothing…thisassociatesmewiththeinquisitionoftheRomanCatholicchurchandpsychologicallyIfindthisunacceptableandIinsistthateveryoneshouldwearnormalcivilianclothing(Firstinitialappearance,26February2003).
ThroughthisstatementŠešeljdidnotonlyintendtoridiculeformalrobesinthe
WesternlegaltraditionbutalsotopaintSerbsas‘civilized’andsecular,andthe
Tribunalasabackwardimperialinstitutionconductingwitch-trials.Heregularly
disrespectedemployeesoftheTribunalthroughhisclaimsthat,forexample,“there
arealotofilliterateanduneducatedpeopleamongtheJudges,amongthe
Prosecutors”(Defenceclosingstatement,14March2012).Heemphasizedhis
intellectualandmoralsuperioritybysuggestingthattheheis“notafraidofthe
lawyerswhosemainconcernisnottobeinthegoodbookoftheRegistrybecause
theyareexpectingfavorsfromthem”(Defenceclosingstatement,14March2012).
ŠešeljarrogantlyboastedabouttouringtheSerbianfrontlinesduringthewarand
firingfromautomaticrifflestowardstheCroatianpositions(Defenceclosing
statement,14March2012).Thegoalofsuch‘performances’wasadisplayofhis
heroismandsuperiorityfortheSerbianaudienceswatchingthetelevised
proceedingsathome.
UnlikeKaradžić,whosemainconcernwassettingahistoricalrecordandhis
placeinit,Šešeljalsohadgoalsforthepresentandthefuture.WhileKaradžić’s
politicalcareerendedwiththeendofthewar,Šešeljwasstilltheleaderofthe
RadicalPartyofSerbiaandsoughttowinvotesinnationalelections.Thismeantthat
duringhistrialhepaintedhispoliticalopponentsinSerbiaasWesternsympathizers
andreferredtotheSerbianauthoritiesas“pro-WesterntraitorregimeinBelgrade”
and“mafiososandcriminals”(Defenceclosingstatement,14March2012).He
arguedthatthekeyreasonwhyhewasontrialwasbecauseTheHaguemadea
politicaldealwiththeSerbianauthoritiestoremovehimfrompolitics,becausehe
wasathreattotheWestern-backedfactionsintheelections.Šešeljactivelytriedto
17
buildacultforhimselfastheonlytrueSerbianpatriotandconsistentlyemphasized
hisagencyandunwillingnesstobesubjectedtoanyauthority.Inthisprocesshe
reinforcedtheideaofasinglehonestmaninabattleagainstamachine.“Iamgoing
intoelectionvictory,notTheHague,”saidŠešeljwhenICTYorderedhimtoreturnto
TheHague(Rovčanin2016).Thegoalherewastodisrespecttheentireprocess,to
turnthecourtintoonebigjokewhileemphasizinghisheroismandsuperiorityfor
theSerbianaudiencesathome:
TheHagueTribunal,insteadofbeingthebasisofnewinternationallawandinternationaljustice,itwillactuallybecomeamockeryofinternationaljudiciarysystem.Andnobodywillbegladtorefertotheprecedentsthatwereestablishedhereandthejudgmentsthatwereissuedandpassedhere,
saidŠešeljinhisclosingstatement(Defenceclosingstatement,14March2012).
Mediaasthetransmissionbeltforthewarcriminalcult
ThefollowingsectionofthepaperillustratedhowKaradžićandŠešelj’swar
criminalcultwastransmittedandreproducedforthedomesticaudiencethrough
domesticmediasources.Thetendencyofthemediatotransmitandreproducethe
cultwithoutprovokingadebateandofferingacritiqueofthedefendants’speeches
waslargelyaresultofthestateofthemediainSerbiaandRepublikaSrpska.
JournalistsWithoutBordersplacesSerbia63rdonthe2013WorldPressFreedom
Indexwhichincludes179countriesintotal.Therankingsarenotparticularly
alarming.Nevertheless,myintervieweeswereparticularlynegativeaboutthestate
ofthemediainSerbia.Ingeneraltheyarguedthatthereareno,orveryfew,
independentmediasources.TheeditorofDnevneNovineandtheeditorofSvedok
explainedthatfreedomofmediaisaneconomicissueinSerbia(ŽarkoKesić,
Interview,August30,2011;MilanDimić,Interview,August31,2011).Whatthese
editorsemphasizedisthatjournalsthatclaimtobeself-fundedareinreality
dependentonfundingfromtheirsupporterswhobelongtoparticularpolitical
factionsandexpecttheirpoliticalinclinationstobereflectedinthemediathatthey
support.Pešić,formerdiplomatandanMPinSerbia,summarizedthisreality:
18
“Thereisnofreedomofmedia–economicallydependentisnotindependent”
(Interview,August10,2011).
SrbobranBranković,CEOofTNSMediumGallupinSerbia,acompany
focusingonpublicopinion,mediaandmarketresearchwhichconductsregular
surveysandreportsofpublicopinionintheBalkans,confirmedthat“mediabuying
iscontrolledbythestate,soyoucanwritecriticallybutthestatewillbeawareofit
andwillhaveachancetorespond”(Interview,August11,2011).Theeditorof
Svedok,Dimić,expressedhisviewthatwhileduringSlobodanMilošević’sregime
onecouldbekilledforutteringthewrongwords,todayoppressionofthemediais
equallyharshbuttakesonamoresophisticatedform.“Thebigguysthatusedto
wearleatherjacketsandgoldchainsarenowinsuits.Theycutoffthe
advertisementsandthefundsifyousaythewrongthing,”saidDimić(Interview,
August31,2011).4
ThemediainSerbiasubscribetostatusquoopinions,because,asRatko
Božovićwrites,“[m]ediawhichisnotindependentofauthoritarianculturehave
beendistancedfromtheidealsoftolerance,non-violence,commonlife,andcivil
rights”(2009,165).Insteadofprovidingavarietyofstimulating,challenging,and
criticalapproaches,themediaislimitedtothenationalistnarrativeandthe
Europeanizationnarrative.InSerbiathismeansthatthenarrativeiseitheronethat
focusesoncountingcasualtynumbers,equalizingguiltonallsides,andconstructing
conspiracytheories,oronewhoseprimarygoalistobeexplicitlypro-European.
KarmenErjavecandZalaVolcicexaminetwodailynewspapersinSerbia–Blicand
VečernjeNovosti–andidentifythecharacteristicsof“nationalisticjournalism”as
conformingtoauthority,conventions,thedominantcommonsense,andmainstream
nationalisticprinciple(2007,81).Withinthisnarrativejournalistsemphasize
“historicsymbolicgloriesandterritories”andreinforce“usvs.them”reporting,
whichis“extremelyone-sidedandlackinginformationoncomplexissuessuchas
Islam,terrorism,Europe,crime,andindependence”(ErjavecandVolcic2007,81).
JournalistsinSerbiaandRepublikaSrpskacontinuouslycontemplateuponideasof
4 See also Božović 2009.
19
present-dayconspiraciesagainsttheSerbs,aswellasthereemergenceofhistorical
empires,suchasAustria-HungaryandtheOttomans,andthere-Nazificationof
Europe(“Ganić”2010;“Karadžić2010;“Monstrum”2010;“Suđenje”2010).Inthe
wordsofoneofmyinterviewees,“theythemselvesarestuckinoldstories”(Sonja
Biserko,Interview,June24,2012).
ThisoutcomeisnotsurprisingifweconsiderSnyder’sargumentaboutthe
dangersofthenewlyfreedpressininfantdemocracies.Snydercautionsthatinsuch
contextsthepresscanbecome“avehiclefornationalistappeals”ratherthanan
antidotetomanipulativepoliticalactors(2000,41).Snyderalsopointsoutthat
democratizationwassmoothestinplaceswherepowerfulelitesweregivena
comfortableexit–a“goldenparachute”(2000,41).Followingthislogicwecould
anticipatethatplacingKaradžićandŠešeljontrialatTheHague,whichinvolved
shameandblameattheinternationallevelratherthanacomfortableexit,wasnot
goingtositwellwiththesepowerfulelites.Weshouldnotbesurprisedattheiruse
oftheinternationalpodiumasamessageboardforthedomesticpress.Inasetting
wherecurrentandpast‘enemy’nationsandtheconstantthreatofimperialismand
subjugationtoforeignpowersareprominentthemes,thediscoursethatKaradžić
andŠešeljproducedatTheHaguewaswelcomedinthepress.TheSerbianpress
extensivelycirculatedthefiveelementsofthewarcriminalcult,whichbecamethe
mainnarrativeontheground.
Thefiveelementsofthewarcriminalcultinthepress
AnanalysisofthediscourseintheSerbianpressindicatesthatthekey,andthemost
problematic,implicationoflanguage,rhetoric,andsymbolsinthenewsreportsis
thecollectivizationofthetrials.InthecaseofKaradžić,theICTYsoughttoaddress
hisguiltonthreemajorcrimebases:thesiegeofSarajevo,theSrebrenicagenocide,
andthecrimesintheremaining27municipalities(Milanović2009).However,the
keythemeemerginginthenewspapernarrativesdealswithquestionsof“why”the
warwasfought,“why”Yugoslaviafellapart,and“who”wasresponsibleforthese
events.Mostimportantly,thethirdelementof“who”wasresponsiblefortheseacts
isnotpresentedinindividualbutgroupterms.ApopularnewspaperinSerbia
20
bluntlychoseKaradžić’sstatement“Idefendthepeople,notmyself”asitsheadline
(“Branim”2010).Itisunfortunatethat,onthatsameday,Dnevni-Avazinthe
Croatian-BosniakFederationconfirmedthissuggestionthatSerbs,ratherthan
Karadžić,werebeingtried,byemphasizinginitsheadline,albeitindisbeliefand
mockeryofKaradžić,that“Serbsdidnotneedanddesirethewar,Muslimsand
Croatsdid”(“Monstrum”2010).
Thepervasivenessofthegroup,ratherthanindividual,levelanalysisinthe
discoursewasnotonlyevidentintheheadlines,butthroughoutthetextofthe
articles.Politika,awell-respectednewspaperbelievedtohaveaneducatedaudience
inSerbia,organizeditsreportonKaradžić’strialintwomajorthemes:“Serbsare
notresponsibleforMarkale,”referringtothemassmurderofMuslimciviliansata
busymarketinSarajevo,and“SerbsdidnotwantawarinBosniaandHerzegovina”
(Ganić2010).Karadžić’sargumentwasthusreproducedinPolitikaandtheauthors
andeditorsofthenewsreportdidnotbothertospecifythattheclaimsweremade
accordingtoKaradžić,makingitappearasiftheargumentsrepresenttheopinionof
thenewspaper.Blic,enjoyedbyordinaryfolksinSerbia,emphasizedKaradžić’s
willingnessto“defendhisnationandtheirreasonsforwar,whichwerejustand
divine,”andconcludedwithKaradžić’swords:“wehaveastrongcasewithstrong
evidence”(“Suđenje”2010).Theuseoftheword“divine”inKaradžić’sreferenceto
thereasonsforthewar,waslikelyastrategicmoveintendedtosymbolizeholy
notionsoftheSerbiannationpopularamongSerbextremists,whichthepress
obviouslyconsumed.
TheproductionoftheTribunalaspartoftheWesterncoalitionagainst
Serbia,andthustheultimateenemyinthestory,wasobviousinthereportson
Šešelj’strial.ThereisnomediaanalysisofŠešelj’spotentialculpabilitybutafocus
onhislegalopinioninregardstotheallegedillegalityoftheICTYandthethreatthis
institutionposestotheSerbiannation,whichisinneedofdefensefromglobal
giants.ThekeythemeinanarticlewrittenbyahistorianinPolitikaisthepower
imbalanceandtheproblematicrelationshipbetweenSerbiaandtheUnitedStates.
AndwhilethearticleissupposedtobeaboutŠešelj’strialtheauthorprovidesno
discussionaboutthecrimesthatŠešeljisaccusedof(Antić2015).
21
Moreover,thelinkthatKaradžićandŠešeljmadebetweenNATOandThe
HaguewasextremelywellreceivedintheSerbianpress.Thiswasreinforcedbythe
factthattheTribunaldeliveredKaradžić’sguiltyverdictontheseventeenth
anniversaryoftheNATObombingofSerbia.Whileinternationalmediacelebrated
Karadžić’sguiltyverdictasamonumentalaccomplishmentonMarch24th2016,
SerbianmediawasfilledwithstoriesaboutchildvictimsoftheNATObombing.For
example,PrimeMinisterofSerbia,AleksandarVučić,declaredatacommemoration
ceremonythat
Thereisnojustificationfor,noreasonfor,andnomeaningto[thedeathofchildvictims],andthereisonlyawarningforusandforthe[NATOaggressors]–theyhavetotakeastandbeforeGodforthespilledblood–yesitwasblood,notacoincidence,orcollateraldamage.Yes,thiswasakillingofchildren,notastrugglefordemocracyandfreedom(Spalović2016).
TherationalitybehindICTY’sdecisiontochooseMarch24thasthedaytodeliver
Karadžić’sverdictisunclearbutunfortunatelyfeedswellintothenationalist
narrativethattheinternationalcommunitywasagainstSerbsseventeenyearsago
andstillistoday.DistancingitselffromNATOactivitymighthavebeenabetter
strategyifthegoaloftheTribunalwastoemphasizeKaradžić’sindividualguilt.
Instead,theSerbianpressassistedKaradžićinhisquesttoembodySerbian
victimhood.
ŠešeljalsomanagedtosecurethemantleofSerbianvictimhoodthroughthe
transmissionbeltoftheSerbianpress.AfterICTY’sdemandthatŠešeljendhis
medicalleaveandreturntoTheHaguelegalexpertsinSerbiarespondedbywriting
articlesinpopularnewspapersadvisingtheSerbiangovernmentnottoextradite
Šešelj.ThedialoguecenteredaroundTheHaguetreatingSerbiawithdisrespectand
infringingonitsindependenceandsovereignty,ratherthanŠešeljhimself(Vujin
2016;Vučić2016).Theargumentrangtrueevenamongthosewhodidnotidentify
themselvesasŠešelj’sfans.Ahistorianwhoidentifiedhimselfasanon-supporterof
Šešeljarguedinhisarticlethatademocraticandsovereignnationcannotgiveupits
citizentosucha“fakecourt”evenifheisapoliticallycontroversialfigure(Antić
2015).
22
Thedefendants’argumentthattheTribunalisaspacefornegotiatinghistory
didnotonlyresonateintheSerbianpressbutalsotheinternationalpress.Dan
Saxonfoundthatamongallthreegroups,“[t]heICTYisoftenperceivedashaving
theabilitytoformallydesignateaparticularnationalgroupwith‘victim’or
‘perpetrator’status”(Saxon2005,563).Theargumentsmadeintheinternational
mediatoexpressoutrageatŠešelj’srecentacquittalreinforcedtheconcernamong
Serbsthattheirplaceinhistorywasatstake.Inanarticleentitled“OutrageatUN
court’s‘rewriting’ofBalkanswars”historianswerecitedinadditiontolegalexperts,
andthejudgesinŠešelj’sverdictareaccusedof“historicalrevision”(Biddle2016).
Theyarealsocriticizedforadecisionthat“isdivorcedfromtherealityofwhatwas
happeninginCroatiaandBosnia,”ratherthanfor,forexample,thelegalelementof
havingtoproveguiltbeyondallreasonabledoubtandhavingtheadequateevidence
todoso(Biddle2016).Also,thefactthatthejudgesexpressedintheirdecisionthat
theprosecutiondidabadjobthroughoutthetrialdidnotsatisfythecritics(Bowcott
2016).
TheSerbianmediarespondedbytakingthediscussionastepfurther:not
onlywashistoryatstakebutalsothepresent.TheverdictonKaradžić’scasealso
resultedinfearsthatthepreservationoftheSerbianpoliticalunitinBosniaandits
legitimacywereinquestion.Domesticmediaanddomesticactorslinkedthefact
thatthefirstpresidentofRepublikaSrpskawasfoundguiltyofgenocideandcrimes
againsthumanitytothepossibilitythatthemereexistenceoftheSerbianrepublic
wasthreatened.ThePresidentofSerbia,TomislavNikolić,declaredthat“the
[Karadžić]judgmentcannothaveanimpactonthedestinyofRepublikaSrpska”5
andthat“Serbiawillfullyperformitsobligationsandexerciseitsrightsconstituted
bytheDaytonAgreement,inparticulartherighttosupportRepublikaSrpskaand
helphersurvive"(“Predsednik”2016).Whiletherewasnoevidenceofthe
internationalcommunity’sintentiontodismantletheSerbianRepublic,thisfear-
mongeringhypothesiswasallovertheSerbianpress.
5 See also Peter Lippman 2008, 38.
23
ThethemeofmartyrdomwasobviousintheSerbianpressandwas
reinforcedbyasortofamnestyforthedefendants,whichtheysupposedlyearned
throughtheirparticipationinthewaranddefenseoftheSerbiannation.A
reluctancetodisapproveofthetwoindividualswasevidentinthecommentsinthe
pressevenonthepartofthosewhowerenotpleasedwithKaradžićandŠešelj’s
politicalleadership.Thisattitudeofamnestywasusuallyquitesubtle,orunspoken.
HoweveronecommentatordecidedtospellitoutintheonlinecommentsofBlicby
explainingthatshe“didnotwholeheartedlysupportKaradžić’sleadership
throughouttheentire1990sbutwonderswhatwould’vebeenleftoftheSerbsin
BosniaandHerzegovinaifKaradžićandhiscroniesdidnotorganizethedefense”
(“Suđenje”2010).ThisisexactlythemessagethatKaradžićhopedwouldbe
transmittedtohisaudience.
TheexaminationoftheconversationsbetweenBliccommentatorshighlights
howthisunspokenamnestybecameenforcedthoughdiscursivegestures.For
example,twodaringonlinereadersdecidedtoquestionKaradžić’shonesty,oneby
suggestingthatKaradžić“didnotdefendtheSerbiannation,buthisarmchair,”the
otherbyaskingwhytheaccusedgointohidingiftheyhavecommittednocrimes
butactedindefenseofthenation.Whiletheybroughtupvalidpoints,both
encounteredsignificantresistanceandconfrontationfromotherreaders,andwere
toldthattheyhavegone“toofar,”orwouldbemisunderstoodasthealliesofthe
enemy(“Branim”2010;“Suđenje”2010).Theincidentsuggeststhatwhenonewas
notconvincedwithKaradžić’srhetoricandsymbolism,orchosetovoicedoubts,
repercussionsfollowed.
Thefewinthepresswhowerebraveenoughtorevealtheirreservations
wereoverwhelmedbythosewhosupportedKaradžić’suseofcollectivelanguage
andinterpretationofevents.Statementssuchas“Karadžićisguiltybeforetriedbut
atleasthewilltellthemthetruth”reinforcedthesymbolismofKaradžićasamartyr,
andconformedtoKaradžić’sargumentthatthetrialwasaboutnationalguiltand
blame.Thetrialasportrayedinthemediareaffirmedthepolarizingdiscoursethat
Karadžićproducedinhisspeecheswithhisplaceinthe“us”groupandtheICTYin
the“them”group(“Suđenje”2010).
24
SupportforŠešelj’s“martyrdom”wasstrongintheSerbianmedia.Šešeljwas
referredtoas“amanofprinciplesanddetermination”whohassufferedfrom
“misusedandpoliticizedjustice”(Rovčanin2016).Thereadersoftencommented
onhis“loyalty,”“patriotism,”and“intelligence,”andvoicedtheirsupportthrough
countlessstatementssuchas“youhavemysupport”and“youhavemyvote”
(Rovčanin2016;Antić2015).Amongtencommentsonlyonewassomewhatcritical
ofthenewspaperforactingirresponsiblebygivingmediaattentiontoŠešelj.While
thispersonrecognizedthatattentiontoŠešeljcanincitesensationalismanddistract
frommoreimportantpoliticalissuesathand,atnopointdidthiscommentator
criticizeŠešeljormakereferencetothecrimesthatŠešeljwasaccusedoff(Rovčanin
2016).Therestofthecommentatorsignoredthiscommentandcontinuedtovoice
theirsupportforŠešelj.
Inotherinstancescommentatorsdidnotignoresignsofdisagreementbut
defendedandenforcedsupportforŠešelj.Iwassurprisedtofindanarticlethat
pokedfunatŠešelj,callingouthis“primitivepoliticalexhibitionism,”andevenmore
surprisedthatPolitikatookthechancetopublishit.Thereactiontothearticlewas
howeverextremelyandentirelynegative.Theauthor’sethicalvalueswerecriticized
becausehewentafter“amanwhohasspentelevenyearsinprisoninacourtthat
hasbeenunabletoprovehisguiltandhasnowreleasedhimtodieamongsthis
own.”SomecommentatorscriticizedtheauthorfornotpraisingŠešelj’slegaland
professionalexpertiseatTheHague.Theyfurthercriticizedthenewspaperfor
allowingsuchajuvenilearticletobepublished(“PolitičkiRijaliti”2015).Therefore,
whileŠešeljcouldridiculetheinternationalcourtanditsemployeesinthemost
overtanddegradingways,anyonewhoridiculedŠešeljwasquicklyandpublicly
shutdownintheSerbianpress.Šešeljwasthereforenotonlygivenamnestyforhis
crimesbutalsoprotectedfrompublicmockery.
AreaderofVečernjeNovostiexplainedthatŠešeljisaman“whoalways
placestheinterestofhispeopleandhiscountrybeforeanythingelse.”Hecontinued
toexplainthatŠešeljis“theonewhohasshownthatheisreadytosacrificehimself
forhisnationandhismotherlandwhileothersarereadytosacrificeeverythingand
everyoneforthearmchair.”OtherreaderspointedoutthatŠešeljhadshown
25
commitmenttohisnationevenatthecostofhisownhealthbecausehewasrecently
diagnosedwithcancer(Rovčanin2016).Ahistorianwhoadmittedthatinthe1990s
Šešelj“spreadhatred,encourageddivisionismandworkedonbehalfofevil,”argued
inhisarticlethatŠešeljwenttobattlewithTheHaguefortherightintentions.
Accordingtothisauthor,“inhisepicwar[againstTheHague],Šešeljwon.”The
articlereceivedhighpraisefromtheaudiencewhorefertothetextas
“professional,”“graceful,”and“honest”(Antić2015).ThefactthatŠešeljspread
hatredduringthe1990swarwasthereforeacknowledgedanddidnotaffecthis
statusasamartyrintheSerbianpress.Theoneman’sbattleagainstthe
internationalgiantwasperceivedasanepiceventthatwassomehowmore
significantthanhiscrimes.
Theconstantcirculationofideasofmartyrdommadespaceforthe
celebrationofslynessandridiculeofinternationalcourtsintheSerbianmedia.
WhatmadeKaradžićandŠešeljevenmoreappealingtothepressisthatthey
refusedtogoundergroundintohiding.ThedoublingofKaradžićmadehimaheroic
defenderofthenationbecauseherefusedtohideandlivedanextremelypubliclife
inBelgrade‘serving’hispeopleasDr.Dabić.Ratherthanperceivinghisdouble
personaassymptomsofadisorderedpersonality,Karadžić’sdoctorpersonawas
perceivedascunningandselfless(Petrović2015,366).Whatismissingfromthe
pressisanacknowledgmentthatifKaradžićwasabletopullofftheDraganDabić
personalitysowell,hecouldalsobeputtingonagrandactattheHague,anactthat
isdeceptiveinregardstothefacts,ratherthanreflectiveoftheSerbian‘truth.’Some
ofmyintervieweesarguedthatinitsattempttoensureŠešelj’srighttodefend
himself,theICTYfailedtolimithisfreedomevenincircumstanceswhenheridiculed
judges,publiclyexposedwitnessesunderprotection,and“destroy[ed]thedignityof
thecourt”(DjordjePopović,Interview,June23,2011).However,mostperceived
thisasapositiveoutcomeindicatingthatŠešeljoutsmartedTheHagueina
remarkablyentertainingway.“WatchingŠešeljincourtislikewatchingBig
26
Brother,”6commentedaprofessorofSociology(IvanŠijaković,Interview,July12,
2011).Šešelj’ssupporterspostedvideosfromhisdefenceonsocialmedia,including
vulgarchauvinistictitlessuchas“ŠešeljrapesTheHague.”Suchvideoshave
receivedclosetoamillionhits,whichisaremarkablyhighnumberforarecording
oflegalproceedings.
Thesecondsectionofthispaperillustratedhowthedomesticmedia
respondedtoandamplifiedKaradžićandŠešelj’strialperformances.Whilethe
sectionfocusedonhowthemediatransmittedthedefendants’messagesand
reproducedthewarcriminalcult,someofthereaders’commentshintedthatthe
domesticaudienceboughtthestory.7WehavelearnedfromJackSnyder’sworkthat
thisoutcomeshouldnotbesurprising:whenpeoplearebombardedwiththesame
informationwhichispackagedtoappealtotheirpredispositionsandnoalternative
isoffered,thereisagoodchancethattheywillabsorbit.Moreover,thedefendants
ontrialarefromthesamecaliberofactorswhoduringtheelectionsinthe1990s
exploitedthenewlyfreepressandhijackedthepublicdebateforilliberalends
(Snyder2000,19).Thesepoliticalentrepreneursunderstandthepowerof
monumentalevents,suchaselectionsandtrials,andhaveexperienceworkingthe
mediachannels.
Manyofmyquiteliberalintervieweeswhosupportedtheexistenceofthe
tribunalandfullcooperationwiththeinstitution,andcalledfortheirsocietiesto
admittheirguiltandfacethepast,alsoboughtintothenarrativeproducedby
KaradžićandŠešelj.Itisnotthattheseintervieweesdidnotbelievethatthe
defendantswereguiltyofwarcrimesandcrimesagainsthumanity.Theproblem
wasthattheyalsobelievedthatthereweremanyequallyguiltyindividualsamong
Croats,BosnianMuslims,andinternationalactorsinvolvedintheconflictwhowere
6 The interviewee is referring to the popular television reality show Big Brother, rather than the character from George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. 7 To what degree this narrative is internalized by the Serbian public and the various reasons why the war criminal cult resonates at home are larger questions that I address in my book project entitled [In]Humanity on Trial: Domestic Perceptions of International Criminal Tribunals. In the book I argue that media is just one among many factors that contribute to the domestic support for leaders on trial at The Hague.
27
notbroughttotrial.8Inthiscontext,peopleoftenmadethejudgmentthat
supportingtheirowncrookswasbetterthansupportingforeigncrooks.They
believedtheirowncrookstobemoreconsistentandtrustworthyevenifsuch
individualsdisplayeddualandhighlynarcissistpersonas.Theprevalentnarrative
theninvolvedanextremelynegativeopinionofalloftheprincipalactorsinthe
conflictandinthisnarrativetheICTYwasanextensionofthatconflict,ratherthana
righteousinstitutioncorrectingthemoralwrongsofthepast.Thereisnoindication
inmyevidencethatthemediaperceivednotplayingbytherulesoftheinternational
courtasproblematic,andthereforecirculatedamessageofgenerallackofrespect
forinternationallaw.ThiscontextallowedthedefendantstoportrayTheHagueas
theultimateevilontheonehand,andtotrivializeitsimportanceontheotherhand.
ThispapertracedtheprocessthroughwhichRadovanKaradžićandVojislav
Šešeljconstructedthewarcriminalcultandreinforcedanationalistdiscoursethat
emphasizedWesternimperialistictendencies.Theanalysisofthestatementsthe
defendantsmadeincourtillustratedhowaninternationalcourtcanbecomea
podiumthatgrants‘madmen’achanceto‘perform’andremainrelevantinpublic
narratives.KaradžićandŠešeljcollectivizedtheirguiltandconstitutedtheirtrialsas
nationalratherthanindividual.Theymobilizednationalismbydeployingmythical
languageandtakingadvantageofexistingcodingbiasesandnationalframes,which
becameacceptedandgeneralizedduringtheconflict.Thispaperillustratedhowthe
defendantsrevitalizedandmodifiedthenationwhichisimportantbecause,as
Brubakerexplains,“groupnessdoesnotremainthereoutofinertia”(2002,177).It
requiresactivesocialandcognitiveworktokeepitsustained.TheSerbianpressdid
littletohamperKaradžićandŠešelj’sploystodelegitimizeandridiculethecourt,
andinsteadofferedcoverageoftheirspectacles.Throughthisprocesswarcriminals
effectivelywonthemselvesblanketamnestyathome.
SupportersoftheTribunalarguedthattelevisingtrialproceedings
encouragedthegeneralpublictoaccepthowcriminalandinhumanetheactsof
theirformerleaderswere,thereforeconvincingthepublictodistanceitselffrom
8 See also Peskin 2008.
28
theseactors.Forexample,GaryBassarguesthat“[f]orpublicattitudestoshift,
criminalleadersmustbetried–theirauraofmysteryshatteredbyshowingtheir
weaknessesandstupidities”(2000,288).Idisagreewiththesuggestionthat
internationalcriminaltrialsshowthe“weaknessesandstupidities”oflocalleaders.
TheevidencesuggeststhatKaradžićandŠešeljbecamemythologizedratherthan
delegitimizedthroughtheICTYprocess.9SabrinaRametarguesthat
“deprogramming”oftheSerbianpeoplemightbeneeded(775).Iagreethatde-
grouping,deconstruction,andde-programmingofthenationalistframeis
necessary,however,itappearsthatwecannotexpectinternationalinstitutionsto
contributetothisgoal.Snyder’spointthattheinternationalcommunityneedstobe
abletodistinguishcircumstancesthatappeartosupportimportantgoalsin
transitionalsocieties,suchasdemocratization,butcanresultin“alengthy
antidemocraticdetour”canalsobeappliedtotheobjectiveofestablishingtherule
oflaw(2000,20).Inaworldviewwhereglobalpoliticsistherealmofcrooksand
TheHagueisanextensionoftheseglobalconflicts,familiarcriminalsarepreferable
overforeigncriminals.
9 See also Stahn 2009.
29
References“Branimnarod,anesebe.”VečernjeNovosti(Srbija)1Mar.2010.“DrŠešelj’shistoricalstatementattheICTY,Hague,Netherlands.”www.anti-
censura.com,https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bM_es_sScjw.14July2013.Video.
“FootageofKaradžićindisguise.”BBCNews.EuroNews.22July2008.Video.“GanićnaredionapaduDobrovoljačkoj.”Politika(Srbija).1Mar.2010.“HaguedropssummonsforSerbsuspect,avertingstand-off.”Reuters.16March2016.“HolanđanidabraneKaradžića.”VečernjeNovosti(RepublikaSrbija).21August2008.“InternationalTribunalForTheFormerYugoslavia:InternationalArrestWarrants
andOrdersforSurrenderForRadovanKaradžićandRatkoMladić.”I.L.M.36(1997):92-5.
“Karadžić–DraganDabićinjegovdvostručanživot.”Video.GlasAmerike.24July
2008.“Karadžić:MenejeabortiraoAlijaIzetbegović.”Press(Srbija)2March2010.“MonstrumsPala:SrbimaratnijebiopotrebanvećMuslimanimaiHrvatima.”
DnevniAvaz.1March2010.“PolitičkiRijaliti.”Politika.13March2015.“PredsednikNikolić:PresudanesmedautičenasudbinuRS.”Politika.24March2016.“RadikaliodržalimeetinguBeogradu:ŠešeljtvrdidajeHaglažnisud,KaradžićosuđensamezatoštojeSrbin?”Telegraf.24March2016.“StudentdormnamedafterwarcrimessuspectRadovanKaradžić.”TheGuardian.20March2016.“SuđenjebivšemlideruRS.”Blic(Srbija).1March2010.“Vičić:NačinnakojiseHagponašapremaSrbijijevelikiproblem.”VečernjeNovosti.
13February2016.
30
“VojislavŠešelj’sacquittalisavictoryforadvocatesofethniccleansing.”TheEconomist.31March2016.Antić,Čedomir.“Šešelj”Politika.3April2015.Bass,GaryJ.2000.StaytheHandofVengeance:ThePoliticsofWarCrimesTribunals.
Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.Biddle,Jo.“OutrageattheUNcourt’s‘rewriting’ofBalkanswars.”AFP.1April2016.Bloxham,Donald.2008.“MilestonesandMythologies:TheImpactofNuremberg.”In
Atrocitiesontrial:historicalperspectivesonthepoliticsofprosecutingwarcrimes,editedbyPatriciaHebererandJurgenMatthaus.Lincoln:UniversityofNebraskaPress.
Borger,Julian.“TheRadovanKaradžićwarcrimestrialisEurope’sbiggestsince
Nuremberg.”TheGuardian.23March2016.Bowcott,Owen.“SerbnationalistVojislavŠešeljacquittedofwarcrimesatThe
Hague.”TheGuardian.31March2016.Božović,Ratko.2009.“GroundZeroofPolitics–Blockade,Stagnationand
Regression.”InBetweenAuthoritarianismandDemocracyVol.III:SerbiaatthePoliticalCrossroads,editedbyDragicaVujadinović,andVladimirGoati.Belgrade:FriedrichEbertStifungandCEDET.
Brubaker,Roger.2002.“EthnicityWithoutGroups.”ArchivesEuropéennesde
SociologieVol.XLIIIIss.2:163-189.Caspersen,Nina.2015.“Contingentnationalistdominance:Intra-Serbchallengesto
theSerbDemocraticParty.”NationalitiesPapers:TheJournalofNationalismandEthnicity34(1):51-69.
Defenceclosingstatement.VojislavSeselj.ICTYtranscript.14March2012.Defencestatement(Rule84bis).RadovanKaradžić.ICTYtranscript.16October
2012.DelPonte,Carla.2004.“Prosecutorv.SlobodanMilošević.”UniversityofToronto
Library.3May.Donia,Robert.2014.RadovanKaradžić:ArchitectoftheBosnianGenocide.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
31
Dragovic-Soso,Jasna.2012.“ApologisingforSrebrenica:thedeclarationoftheSerbianparliament,theEuropeanUnionandthepoliticsofcompromise.”EastEuropeanPolitics28(2).
Firstinitialappearance.VojislavŠešelj.ICTYtranscript.26February2003.Graubart,JonathanandLathaVaradarajan.2013.“TakingMiloševićseriously:
Imperialism,law,andthepoliticsofglobaljustice.”InternationalRelations27(4):439-460.
Gustafson,Carri.1998.“InternationalCriminalCourts:SomeDissidentViewsonthe
ContinuationofWarbyPenalMeans.”HoustonJournalofInternationalLaw21.Initialappearance.RadovanKaradžić.ICTYtranscript.31July2008.InternationalCommitteeoftheRedCross.2006.“ICRCCountryReportonBosnia-
Herzegovina.”Availableat:http://www.icrc.org/web/englsiteengo.nsf/htmlall/onwar_reports/$file/bosnia.pdf.September.
Judah,Tim.2000.TheSerbs:History,Myth,andtheDestructionofYugoslavia.New
HavenandLondon:YaleUniversityPress.Kumar,Krishna.2006.“InternationalAssistancetoPromoteIndependentMediain
TransitionandPost-conflictSocieties.”Democratization13(4).Lelyveld,Joseph.“TheDefendant:SlobodanMilošević’sTrail,andtheDebate
SurroundingInternationalCourts.”TheNewYorker.27May2002.Lippman,Peter.2008.“RadovanKaradžićCapturedAfterSerbsVoteOutHard-Line
NationalistGovernment.”TheWashingtonReportonMiddleEastAffairs27(7):38-9.
Milanović,Marko.2009.“TheArrestandImpendingTrialofRadovanKaradžić.”
InternationalandComparativeLawQuarterly58(Jan):212-9.Morf,C.C.,andF.Rhodewalt.2001.“Unravelingtheparadoxesofnarcissism:A
dynamicself-regulatoryprocessingmodel.”PsychologicalInquiry12.Pešić,Vesna.2009.“NationalismofanImpossibleState:AFrameworkfor
UnderstandingtheUnsuccessfulTransitiontoLegitimacyinSerbia.”InBetweenAuthoritarianismandDemocracyVol.III:SerbiaatthePoliticalCrossroads,editedbyDragicaVujadinović,andVladimirGoati.Belgrade:FriedrichEbertStifungandCEDET.
32
Peskin,Victor.2008.InternationalJusticeinRwandaandtheBalkans:VirtualTrialsandtheStruggleforStateCooperation.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Peterson,Benjamin.2009.“GoalsandGroups:TestingaFunctional(Defensive)Self-
RegulatoryModelofGroupIdentity.”ProQuestDissertationandTheses.Petrović,Vladimir.2015.“ReviewofRadovanKaradžić:architectoftheBosnian
genocidebyRobertDonia.”InNationalitiesPapers:TheJournalofNationalismandEthnicity43(2):365-367.
Ramet,Sabrina.2007.“ExplainingtheYugoslavmeltdown,2:Atheoryaboutthe
causesoftheYugoslavmeltdown:TheSerbiannationalawakeningasa‘revitalizationmovement.’”NationalitiesPapers:TheJournalofNationalismandEthnicity32(4):765-779.
Rovčanin,S.S.“Šešelj:Idemuizbornupobedu,aneuHag.”VečernjeNovosti.17
February2016.
Saxon,Dan.2005.“ExportingJustice:PerceptionsoftheICTYAmongtheSerbian,Croatian,andMuslimcommunitiesintheFormerYugoslavia.”JournalofHumanRights4.
Simpson,Daniel.“DefendantinHaguetoAimDefenseatSerbsoftheFuture.”TheNewYorkTimes.20February2003.
Simpson,Gerry.2004.GreatPowersandOutlawStates.Cambridge:Cambridge
UniversityPress.Snyder,Jack.2000.FromVotingtoViolence:DemocratizationandNationalist
Conflict.NewYork:W.W.NortonandCompanyLtd.Spalović,Dejan.“Vučić:Srbijamoradaverujeuživot.”Politika.24March2016.Stahn,Carsten.“TheFutureofInternationalCriminalJustice.”TheHagueJustice
Portal.9October2009.Statusconferenceopensession.RadovanKaradžić.ICTYtranscript.19January
2009.Thompson,Allen.2007.TheMediaandtheRwandaGenocide,editedbyAllen
Thompson.Ottawa:IDRC,PlutoPress,FountainPublishers.Vujin,Milan.“MilanVujin:Radikalenetrebaizručiti.”VečernjeNovosti.17February
2016.
33
WeaverG.R.2006.“Virtueinorganizations:Moralidentityasafoundationformoral
agency.”OrganizationStudies27(3):341-368.Wolfgram,MarkA.2013.“DidacticWarCrimesTrialsandExternalLegalCulture:
TheCasesoftheNurembergandFrankfurtAuschwitzTrialsinWestGermany.”Unpublishedmanuscript.
Top Related