Hrvatski

Relativiziranje povijesti ili kako će žrtva postati agresor

Davor Dijanović

Hrvatsko kulturno vijeće,14. ožujka 2009.

English

The Relativization of History or How to Become a Victim of the Aggressor

Davor Dijanović

Croatia, 14 Mar 2009

  Odlukom Sudskog vijeća Okružnog suda u Beogradu optuženicima za Ovčaru određene su 193 godine zatvora što je bezmalo 40 godina manje nego u prvoj presudi iz prosinca 2005 g[1]. Ne treba biti vrsni matematičar kako bi izračunali da za život svakog ubijenog na Ovčari nije dosuđena niti jedna godina zatvora. Unatoč zadovoljstvu dijela vladajuće nomenklature tj. premijera Ive Sanadera koji «smatra kako se pokazalo da je Srbija spremna suditi za ratne zločine[2]», nemoguće se oteti dojmu da je izrečena kazna dobrano premala. Zar je život mučenog, tučenog, ponižavanog i ubijenog čovjeka zbilja tako bezvrijedan? Dakako, nijedna kazna, ma kako rigorozna ona bila, neće majkama vratiti sinove, ali je red da žrtve Ovčare dobiju barem dostojnu povijesnu i moralnu satisfakciju. Konačno, i zastupnik u Skupštini Srbije Žarko Korač složio se kako je kazna premalena i usporedio je s onima koje u Srbiji danas dobivaju «normalni» kriminalci[3].

Međutim, ova presuda neminovno nas vraća na sramotnu presudu Haaškoga suda Vukovarskoj trojci iz rujna 2007 g. Kako znamo Mile Mrkšić osuđen je na 20 godina zatvora, Veselin Šljivančanin na 5 godina zatvora, dok je za Miroslava Radića donesena oslobađajuća presuda[4], a žalbe neće niti biti. Presuda je sama po sebi skandalozna, no još je skandaloznije to da se u presudi krivcima proglašavaju srpske paravojne postrojbe, a ne Jugoslavenska Narodna Armija. U presudi je također utvrđeno da u Vukovaru nije počinjen genocid. S time se slaže i g. Milorad Pupovac koji tvrdi da «u Hrvatskoj nije bilo genocida[5]». Ako znamo da nitko iz vojnog vrha JNA i jugoslavenskog političkog vodstva do sada nije osuđen, nije teško zaključiti kako je na djelu politička amnestija tadašnjeg jugoslavenskog vojnog i političkog vrha. Ne treba zaboraviti niti sramotnu presudu kojom je Haaški sud oslobodio generala ABiH Sefera Halilovića za zločin nad hrvatskim civilima u Grabovici i Uzdolu 1993 g[6]. Davnih su doduše dana oni malo ozbiljniji političari i intelektualci primjetili kako cilj Haaškoga suda nije utvrđivanje povijesne istine, a još manje osiguranje pravde žrtvama, već je riječ o sudu koji je u potpunosti instrument politike, što donesene presude zorno potvrđuju.

Dobronamjeran čovjek teško da može shvatiti ovakve poteze Haaškoga suda, ali dovoljno je pročitati knjigu Florence Hartmann «Mir i kazna» i Carole Hodge «Velika Britanija i Balkan» kako bi se vrlo jasno vidjelo što se to iza brda valja. A valja se – Zapadni Balkan[7]. U knjizi «Velika Britanija i Balkan» jasno je apostrofirano kako je cilj britanske politike na Balkanu jačanje koncepta «Velike Srbije», dok nam knjiga Florence Hartmann svjedoči na što je sve međunarodna politika spremna nebi li ostvarila svoje strateške ciljeve. Dakako, ovdje je riječ o «politički korektnim» knjigama, u onima «politički nekorektnim», kao što je primjerice knjiga dr. Johna Colemana «Diplomacija prijevarom», stvari su još mnogo bolje objašnjene.

Dosadašnji rad i donesene presude Haaškoga daju naslutiti koja bi to povijesna «istina», o kojoj se toliko po medijima govori, mogla biti utvrđena: na prostoru Jugoslavije vodio se «građanski rat» u kojemu u kojemu su sve strane «jednako krive». Međutim, ako nitko iz tadašnjeg vojnog i političkog vrha Jugoslavije ne bude osuđen, nije nemoguće da će Hrvatska na kraju ispasti i veći krivac. Na ovu tezu može se gledati s podsmijehom, ali za nju itekako postoje realni temelji. Naime, osuda srpskih paravojnih postrojbi potrebna je, ali je još potrebnija osuda JNA i tadašnjeg političkog vrha . Takve presude nema, a teško da će je i biti. S druge pak strane, one obrambene, hrvatskim se generalima Gotovini, Čermaku i Markaču (vojnome vrhu HV-a!) u Haagu sudi za «zajednički zločinački pothvat» dok se Oluja naziva «etničkim čišćenjem». Ako presuda Haaga potvrdi da je u Domovinskome ratu postojao «zajednički zločinački pothvat» i da je počinjeno «etničko čišćenje» to će značiti da je temelj hrvatske države - zločin. Jer, Domovinski je rat temelj hrvatske države dok je upravo Oluja simbol Domovinskoga rata.

A kako je sud u Haagu politički sud i kako ta politika zahtjeva simetriju krivnje i kriminaliziranje Oluje, pa izmišljanjem i nebuloza kao što su «prekomjerno granatiranje» i «topnički dnevnici», takav je scenarij posve izvjestan. Zanimljivo je kako Haaški sud nije docirao o «prekomjernom granatiranju» kada se sudilo za Vukovar i kako tada nije bilo govora o «zajedničkom zločinačkom pothvatu». Ali kako uopće očekivati drukčiji scenarij kada i domaći političari i pravnici smatraju da je Oluja «etničko čišćenje»? Tako dr. Žarko Puhovski tvrdi da je «tijekom i nakon operacije Oluja počinjeno etničko čišćenje Srba[8]», dok odvjetnik Ante Nobilo tvrdi da je «Oluja bliže genocidu nego Vukovar[9]». Da tako nešto kaže Tomislav Nikolić ili Vojislav Šešelj, ne bi nas začudilo. No dok to kažu osobe koje gotovo svakodnevno gledamo u mainstream medijima onda je to u najmanju ruku žalosno. A još je žalosnije kada predsjednik države govori ovako o svome prethodniku: «Druga je tamna mrlja na režimu Franje Tuđmana odnos prema Srbima u Hrvatskoj. Iako je istina da su oni, izmanipulirani od Slobodana Miloševića i uz pomoć Jugoslavenske armije koja se raspadala i pretvarala u srpsku armiju, počeli otvorenu pobunu protiv Hrvatske, istina je i to da je Tuđman povukao mnoge poteze koji su naprosto morali antagonizirati Srbe u Hrvatskoj, a da je rat iskoristio za to da smanji njihov broj u skladu sa svojim zamislima da u Hrvatskoj ne treba biti više od 3% Srba u ukupnom korpusu stanovnika[10]».

Među proklamiranim ciljevima Haaškog suda stoji također da je cilj Suda «doprinijeti ponovnom uspostavljanju mira i poticati pomirenje na području bivše Jugoslavije[11]». Na prvi pogled riječ je o sasvim benignome cilju, pa koji to razuman čovjek nije za mir i pomirenje? Međutim, kao što se kuća ne može graditi na pijesku tako se ni mir ne može graditi na klimavim temeljima. Ova točka svakako pogoduje jugonostalgičarima i jugofilima raznih vrsta koji dan-danas nisu prežalili raspad jugoslavenske državne tvorevine, tvorevine nastale i rapadnute na krvi i stravičnim zločinima. Nema dana da dežurni dušebrižnici i kreatori javnoga mnijenja ne poučavaju neuki hrvatski narod kako je potrebno izgrađivati «dobrosusjedske odnose», voditi «politiku pomirbe» I «suočiti se s istinom». Mišljenja sam međutim da smo u «politici pomirbe» ipak prekoračili razumne granice. Kako drugačije objasniti da je Vojislav Stanimirović, koji je nakon pada vukovarske bolnice vrištao da je «18. novembra 1991. pao poslednji bastion, poslednje uporište ustaške vlasti u Vukovaru - vukovarska bolnica[12]», do nedavno participirao u zakonodavnoj vlasti? Kako objasniti da jedan Rade Leskovac, čiju su nam pročetnički stavovi jako dobro znani, može u udarnom terminu HTV-a (Piramida) tvrditi da Srbi nisu krivi za rat[13]? Ako se zakon o amnestiji pobunjenika i može ekskulpirati željom da se reintegracija Podunavlja provede mirnim putem, kako opravdati ovakve stvari? Da je netko pred 13 ili 14 godina rekao da će se ovako nešto događati uopće ne trebamo sumnjati da bio počašćen pridjevima koje nije primjereno spominjati.

Jedan je od ciljeva Haaškog suda i sprječavanje revizionizma. No kako stvari teku povijest će ipak biti temeljito revidirana. Hipotetski govoreći, u slučaju osude Gotovine, Čermaka i Markača (a kako vidimo Haag ih je odlučio usuditi ne birajući pritom sredstva!) i okvalificiranja Oluje kao zločinačkog pothvata, bit će osuđen sam vojni vrh RH. S druge strane, osude jugoslavenskog vojnog i političkog vodstva nema. Postoji mogućnost da se Oluja pravno okvalificira kao «zajednički zločinački pothvat» i etničko čišćenje. S druge strane, presuđeno je da nad hrvatskim građanima nije izvršeno etničko čišćenje i da nije bilo zajedničkog zločinačkog pothvata. Nije teško vidjeti kakav zaključak iz navedenih premisa proizlazi. Čak i u slučaju da Ante Gotovina, koji je postao svojevrsni parapolitički simbol Oluje i Domovinskoga rata, bude oslobođen, presuda neće imati nimalo manju težinu ako budu osuđeni Čermak i Markač. Ponovno treba spomenuti – u niti jednoj supranacionalnoj instituciji nema niti jednog jedinog akta koji potvrđuje da je Hrvatska bila žrtve JNA-četničke agresije.

Slika pokojnog predsjednika Franje Tuđmana i generala nakon oslobođenja Knina, urezana je svakom Hrvatu u srce. Svjedoči na dane ponosa i slave. Danas, 14 godina iza, Tuđman je posredstvom plaćeničkih sluganskih medija kriminaliziran, jedne se generale naziva zločincima, druge lopovima, treće psihopatima. Što se to dogodilo u posljednih 10-ak godina? Zašto smo dopustili da medijske zvijeri rastrgaju Domovinski rat? Zašto i dalje to mirno gledamo ne suprotstavljajući se takvome zločinu? Hoće li nas zbog toga prokleti mrtve kosti? Pitanja je bezbroj. Nikako ne htijući prizvati ovakav crni scenarij treba se ipak zapitati: što ako zbilja tako bude? Kakvu će u tom slučaju za pedeset ili sto godina povijest učiti mladi naraštaji u hrvatskim školama? Hoće li naraštaji koji dolaze znati što se zbilja događalo devedesetih u Hrvatskoj? Nadamo se da hoće. Laž nikada neće pobijediti istinu, žrtve pale za hrvatsku, ta nevidljiva vojska mučenika donijet će nam pobjedu. Da, roditi će rod od slavnog sjemena! A ako neće, sam ću zazvat pakla vatre da spale sve, i grom da ropski narod satre!( (T. Ujević).

[1]www.jutarnji.hr, 12.3. 2009.

[2] www.vecernji.hr, 12. 3. 2009.

[3] www.index.hr, 13.3. 2009.

[4]www.jutarnji.hr, 27.9.2008.

[5]Novi list, 19.11. 2008.

[6] Jutarnji list, 16. 10. 2007.

[7]Kovanica “Zapadni Balkan” – eufemistički naziv za ponovnu Jugoslaviju - spomenuta je već 1996 g. u Tindemansovom izvješću EU vladama. Posredstvom medijske propagande vrlo brzo ulazi u političko-medijski rječnik. 7. studenog 2008. održan je Forum ministara pravosuđa i unutarnjih poslova Europske unije – Zapadni Balkan (http://www.pravosudje.hr/default.asp?ru=1&gl=200811070000004&sid=&jezik=1).

[8] www.index.hr, 24.1. 2009.

[9]www.jutarnji.hr, 23.11. 2008.

[10]Predavanje predsjednika Republike na temu: “Nastanak samostalne Hrvatske - demokratska Hrvatska” (http://www.predsjednik.hr/default.asp?ru=93&gl=200305220000011&sid=&jezik=1).

[11] http://www.un.org/icty/bhs/frames/tribunal.htm

[12]http://www.hic.hr/velika-srbija32.htm, 13.3.2009., 12.3.2009.

[13]www.24sata.hr, 12.4.2007.

The decision of the Judicial Council of the District Court in Belgrade for the defendants convicted of war crimes committed at Ovcara (see also here) in 1991 amounted to  193 years in prison, 40 years less than in the first verdict passed in December 2005 [1]. One does not have to be a skilled mathematician to conclude that for the life of each person murdered at Ovčara, the perpetrators did not even receive one year in prison.  Despite the satisfaction of portions of the ruling nomenclature in Croatia, including Prime Minister Ivo Sanader, who "believes that Serbia has shown it is ready to stand trial for war crimes [2], it is impossible to rid myself of the impression that the sentence pronounced is well too lenient.  Is the life of a person who was tortured, beaten, disparaged and murdered really so pitiful?  Of course, no punishment, no matter how rigorous it is, will not return the children of mothers, but the victims of Ovčara  deserve to receive at least some historical and moral satisfaction.  Finally, a member of the Assembly of Serbia, Zarko Korač agreed that the punishment rendered was too soft, comparing it to criminals in Serbia, who get "normal" criminal sentences. [3].

However, this verdict inevitably brings us back to the shameful verdict passed by the Hague Tribunal in the case of the  Vukovar Three from September 2007.  As we already know, Mr. Mile Mrksic was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment, Veselin Sljivancanin to 5 years imprisonment, while Miroslav Radic was acquitted of all counts with which he had been charged.[4]  What more, the court decision will not be appealed (Radić case). The verdict itself is scandalous, but what is even more scandalous is the fact that guilt was rendered against  Serbian paramilitary units, while the Yugoslav National Army was absolved of any guilt whatsoever.  The verdict also concluded that genocide was not committed in Vukovar.  Such claims are also supported by Milorad Pupovac, leader of the Independent Serbian Democratic Party (SDSS),  who claims that "genocide was never committed in Croatia. [5]  One would then have to come to the conclusion that since not a single member of the JNA high command, nor any of its highest political leaders have been bought before a court and sentenced for their crimes, that they have been offered some sort of political amnesty.  One should also not forget the shameful verdict passed in the Hague when the Tribunal acquitted Gen. Sefer Halilovic of the ABiH for crimes against Croatian civilians in Grabovica and Uzdol 1993. [6]  It should come as no surprise then when one takes into consideration the fact that in the formative years of the Tribunal, politicians and intellectuals alike had already come to realize that the establishment of the ICTY would not serve to uncover real historical truths related to crimes committed in wartime, even less to reserve justice for victims of the war, but to serve merely as a political instrument to serve the needs of those controlling the judicial reigns of power, which has been made further evident when one takes the work of the Tribunal to date into account.

Man can hardly comprehend the motive behind the workings of the Hague Tribunal, but for an even better understanding of the nature of activity in the Hague,  one is encouraged to read the books written by Florence Hartmann "Peace and Punishment" and "Britain and the Balkans" by Carole Hodge in order to get a much better picture of the "political situation".  What one can come to conclude is that there is some sort of concept that comes to be understood - the existence of the so-called Western Balkans [7]. In the book "Great Britain and and the Balkans" the foreign policy goals forwarded by Great Britain are clearly outlined, that is to strengthen the concept of the existence of a "Greater Serbia", while Hartmann's book does well to outline the steps that would be taken in the case that the international community could not achieve its strategic goals. Of course, in question here are "politically correct" books, compared to those which are "politically incorrect", such as Dr. John Coleman's book "The Diplomacy of Deceit", in which things are much better explained.

The work of the Tribunal including the judgements which have been passed to date give reason to question exactly what kind of historical "truth" the Tribunal has sought to uncover which has been spoken of so much in the mainstream media, but the actual picture and the conclusions to this point display a much different picture.  It has become more and more apparent over time that the war in Yugoslavia was nothing more than a civil war, and as such, all sides would have to be held equally responsible for any crimes committed in the end.  The fact that not a single person within the political or military leadership of Yugoslavia has been sentenced for their crimes clearly demonstrates this fact to be true, but according to the facts and evidence, it could still be hard to believe that Croatia could theoretically in the end carry the brunt of the blame for the war; a war in which it stood up for the defence of its territorial integrity.  That Croatia would suffer such a fate could only be viewed as ironic, but the trial of members of Serb paramilitary units, the Yugoslav government and JNA soldiers alike is of course more than necesary, but to this point, nothing has been done to realize such aims, and sadly it seems that nothing will ever be done to bring such criminals to justice.  On the other hand, generals Gotovina, Cermak and Markac are all standing trial before the Tribunal on charges of participating in a joint criminal enterprise, with Oluja being labeled as an act of ethnic cleansing.  If the Croatian generals are found guilty, that would mean only one thing in the end - that the basis for the foundation of the new Croatian state is a war crime in and of itself, as the Croatian War of Independence is the foundation of the Croatian state, and Oluja is perhaps the greatest symbol of Croatia's struggle for independence from Yugoslavia.

It is indeed evident that the Haague Tribunal is indeed a politically motivated legal institution, but what is even more interesting is the relative symmetry between what constitutes a war crime and the criminalization of the Oluja military operation, especially when one takes the concept of "deliberate acts of bombing", for example, into consideration, while the same logic was not applied during the trial of the Vukovar Three, nor was there any mention of the existence of a "joint criminal enterprise."  But it is very difficult to expect to draw any other conclusions when Croatia's own politicians and lawyers have already come to the conclusion that Oluja was in fact a criminal act, and not only a criminal act, but an act of ethnic cleansing.  This is demonstrated in the remarks made by dr. Zarko Puhovski, who claimed that during and after Oluja, ethnic cleansing of Serbs from the Krajina region had been committed [8], while Croatian lawyer Ante Nobilo concluded that "Oluja was closer to genocide in comparison to what happened in Vukovar." [9]  If someone such as former leader of the Serbian Radical Party Tomislav Nikolic or wartime paramilitary commander Vojislav Seselj (now on trial in the Haague) were to say something of that nature, it would not come as any sort of surprise.  But to hear such things from people who we see everyday in the mainstream media, then it can only be viewed as shameful.  What is even more shameful is how Croatia's current president Stjepan Mesic speaks of his predecessor, dr. Franjo Tudjman, saying that the definition of his authoritarian regime was most darkly reflected in his relations with the Serb minority in Croatia.  Even if it is true that they were manipulated by former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic into starting an armed uprising against Tudjman's regime with the help of the JNA, it is also true that Tudjman made his own moves in order to antagonize the Serb minority as a way to make an excuse for war, so that Tudjman could realize his goals in effectively trying to decrease the number of Serbs living in Croatia, as according to his logic, there should be no more than a three per cent Serb minority living in Croatia [10].  

Among the stated goals of the Haague Tribunal following its inception was the "promotion of peace and reconciliation on the territory of the former Yugoslavia." [11]  At first glace, it is easy to see that the initial aims set out by the Tribunal were in fact quite benign, for how could any man not favour peace and reconciliation?  Just as a house cannot be built of sand, peace in the same way cannot be achieved using the application of unstable principles.  But it is this exactly which is even more apparent today as there still exists a large number of people who never came to terms with the collapse of Yugoslavia, and still to this day long that it may one day return.  As such, the same things are constantly spoken of daily in Croatia - of the need to establish stable relations with all neighbouring countries which came to be out of the former Yugoslavia; to lead a political line of reconciliation towards the former Yugoslav republics, and, surprisingly enough, to come face to face with the truth.  But the problem lies therein that the version of the truth held to be true by those who fall into the camp of being classified as "Yugo-lovers" is an all-out lie.  Further, they forget that the Yugoslavia they still long for was a nation which was constituted on incalculable human suffering and war crimes.  One would have to believe then that pursuing a political line of reconciliation would overstep the bounds of human reason.  How could one explain in any different terms that Vojislav Stanimirovic, who on the day when the Vukovar Hospital fell under occupation of the JNA and Serb paramilitary forces proclaimed that "on November 18th, the last bastion of Ustasa rule in Vukovar - the Vukovar Hospital [12], himself until very recently was a member of the political establishment?  How else could it be explained that Rade Leskovac, whose pro-Cetnik views are well known in Croatia, could appear on Croatian state television and openly say that the Serbs were not to blame for the war? [13]  If the law of amnesty for insurgents requires that the re-integration of the Podunavlje region should be achieved peacefully, how can one give credence to such claims?  Had someone foreseen such results 13 or 14 years ago, it would not even come into question that such a being would be highly revered for having such foresight which certainly cannot be seen so far in advance.

One of the stated goals of the Tribunal, as stated, has always been the prevention of revisionism.  Nevertheless, as time goes on, there is still the real possibility that history itself will be changed, or in this case, as some may argue, mutated.  Hypothetically speaking, when the judicial proceedings of Gotovina, Cermak and Markac are taken into account, especially when it one is reminded that the Oluja military operation has already been labelled as a "joint criminal enterprise", it has to be realized that it is the High Command of the Croatian Army that is on trial.  To the contrary, Yugoslavia's political and military leaders to this day have never even had to take the stand or spend a single day in court.  There is then the possibility that Oluja possibly will be classified as a joint criminal enterprise and ethnic cleansing if the generals are convicted of the crimes they were alleged to have committed.  Conversely, it has already been ruled in the court that no such ethnic cleansing was ever committed against the Croatian civilian population during the war in Croatia and that a joint criminal enterprise had never in fact been in place.  Thus, the conclusions become rather obvious.  One only has to look at Gotovine, who as a result of his heroic efforts to free his homeland from enemy occupation, became a larger than life para-political living symbol both of Oluja and the Croatian Homeland War.  But one has to remember that even if he is acquitted of all charges, such an acquittal will carry with it a very weak resonance if either Cermak or Markac do in fact end up behind bars.  It also cannot be forgotten that not a single document exists in any supranational institution which claims that Croatia was a victim of JNA-Cetnik aggression.  

The picture of deceased President Franjo Tudjman and the generals following the liberation of Knin is carved into the heart of every true Croat.  It is, and forever will serve as a witness glorifying those days of pride and celebration which were celebrated back in 1995, but today, fourteen years later, Tudjman is being criminalized by the corporate media, the generals are being labelled as war criminals, others are called thieves, and yet others are psychopaths.  What happened in the past ten years?  How have we allowed the media to stain the Homeland War?  Why do we continue to sit and watch in peace, and do nothing in defence of ourselves against the very same aggressor with whom we went to war?  Will the bones of our dead be forever cursed because of our relative inaction?  The stream of questions are endless.  Such a possibility is shrouded in blackness, but what is to be if this is in fact the result in the end?  What will be learned of this war, fifty or one hundred years down the road, when future generations of students learn to observe the history of their nation?  Will they know the truth about what happened in the 1990's in Croatia?  We can only hope they will, for lies can never prevail over truth and in the name of those who fell for Croatia, that invisible army of war martyrs will bring everlasting and eternal victory to the Croatian people.  The seed of a new generation will be planted.  If it is not so, I myself will call on hell to burn everything, and signal thunder from the skies to destroy the refugee nation! (Tin Ujevic poetry)

[1] www.jutarnji.hr, 12.3. 2009.

[2] www.vecernji.hr, 12 3. 2009.

[3] www.index.hr, 13.3. 2009.

[4] www.jutarnji.hr, 27.9.2008.

[5] The new list, 19.11. 2008.

[6] www.jutarnji.hr, 16 10. 2007.

[7] The coin "Western Balkans" - euphemistic name for the re-Yugoslavia - has been mentioned already in 1996, Mr. Tindemans report EU governments. Through media propaganda very quickly entered the political-media dictionary. 7. November 2008. held a forum of Ministers of Justice and Internal Affairs of the EU - Western Balkans (http://www.pravosudje.hr/default.asp?ru=1&gl=200811070000004&sid=&jezik=1).

[8] www.index.hr, 24.1. 2009.

[9] www.jutarnji.hr, 23.11. 2008.

[10] Lecture by the President of the Republic on the topic: "The independent Croatia - Croatia democratic" (http://www.predsjednik.hr/default.asp?ru=93&gl=200305220000011&sid=&jezik=1).

[11] http://www.un.org/icty/bhs/frames/tribunal.htm

[12] http://www.hic.hr/velika-srbija32.htm, 13.3.2009., 12.3.2009.

[13] www.24sata.hr, 12.4.2007.

Srbija, BiH i Hrvatska, bit će zemlja Balkanska… ili: Hrvatska neće biti ničija kolonija?