Milosevic Questions Expert's Neutrality and Expertise

[This is the third part of a three-part series on the testimony and report of Dr. Robert J. Donia about transcripts of Bosnian Serb Assembly meetings from 1992 - 1995. The first article explored linkage evidence to Mr. Milosevic, while the second addressed evidence of crimes and cover up by the RS leadership. This part deals with Mr. Milosevic's cross examination of Dr. Donia, which will continue at an as yet unscheduled date in the future.]

At his trial for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, Slobodan Milosevic attempted to emerge once again as the defender of the Bosnian Serbs. It prompted Presiding Judge May to remind him, “You put in your question that he [the witness] is being asked to testify against the Serbs. The short fact is you are on trial here and, so far as he gives evidence against anyone, it is against you, not the Serbs.”

Mr. Milosevic began his cross examination by questioning Dr. Donia’s expertise. The Accused pointed out that the witness had spent 19 years of his professional life as a financial analyst before returning to academic work in European history, with a focus on Bosnia-Herzegovina. Dr. Donia’s testimony was his answer, showing a thorough familiarity with the RS Assembly transcripts and an understanding of contextual events.

Mr. Milosevic also accused Dr. Donia of bias in favor of the prosecution. He noted that the witness had testified in several other trials before the Tribunal and not once testified against a Muslim. Judge May intervened to point out there have yet to be any trials against Muslims [some are pending]. When the Accused suggested that Dr. Donia’s research and writing were solely about Bosnian Muslims, the witness advised the Court that he had studied social movements among Serbs in Bosnia under his mentor, a well-known Serb historian.

Pursuing his charge of bias, Mr. Milosevic suggested that the headlines Dr. Donia had written before each quotation he excerpted from the transcripts did not accurately reflect the quotation. After the Accused had put a number of examples to the witness, Judge May interrupted, “This is going to take a very long time if things are repeated. The witness explains the headlines are merely guides. The Trial Chamber is not going to be influenced by them, but will look at the actual quotations.”

However, as Judge Robinson recognized, Mr. Milosevic was pointing on what he considered discrepancies between the headlines and the contents to show that they reflected witness bias regardless of the fact that the Trial Chamber does not consider the headlines part of the evidence. “Are you suggesting that the headings indicate bias on the part of the witness and a deliberate attempt to mislead [the Court]?” Judge Robinson asked the Accused. Milosevic responded, “Of course. Certainly.” Judge Robinson then instructed him to put the question directly to the witness. In answer, Dr. Donia said, “On the contrary. [The headlines] are an effort to direct the reader’s attention to a key point in the quotation. There is no intent or entry of bias into the headlines.”

If Mr. Milosevic was successful in his efforts to show Dr. Donia as biased, it will affect the weight the judges give his testimony and his report. The excerpted transcripts speak for themselves.

However, the Accused also asserted that the witness’s selection of which quotes to include in his report to the Court showed bias as well. Judge May and the Prosecutor both made clear that the entire transcripts had been made available to Mr. Milosevic on compact disc well over a year ago with a search engine to assist him and his associates in navigating them. He is free to present additional portions of the transcripts that counter the Prosecution’s charges. He also has the opportunity to question Dr. Donia about the context and meaning of the quotes he selected. The Accused began this process in cross examination following the witness’s testimony, but was unable to complete it before the end of the Session.

When Mr. Milosevic finally turned to substantive matters, he focused on his two speeches before the RS Assembly on May 5, 1993, when he attempted unsuccessfully to persuade it to approve the Vance Owen Peace Plan. Dr. Donia excerpted significant portions of the second speech Mr. Milosevic made, which he said were in closed session. In it, the Accused points out that many of their goals have been completed, but not all. Yet, he says, the VOPP is a way toward the final goal, and he cautions them, “[W]e should employ our heads a little more, our brains, and we should spill a little less blood.”

Mr. Milosevic then attempts to assure the Assembly that Serbia will not abandon them as they seek their final goal [which is not clearly stated]. “Since you are an Assembly, you probably know that we made a united system of money transfer, that we intend to introduce the same money, that we intend to have every possible link and transaction between the economies, as well as that we are going to stabilize the entire unified area of economy, in which those Serb lands shall belong economically, culturally, educationally, and in every other aspect. . . . Let me tell you in the end, do not tell us that you feel abandoned. To us who felt your worries all the time. And we did not only mentally feel them, but we solved them and helped with all our powers and with all our capacities, for the cost of great sacrifices of the 10 million people of Serbia. We shall continue to help you, that is not disputed.”

According to Dr. Donia, the above quotations when compared with Mr. Milosevic’s first speech (allegedly in public session) show that the Accused was telling the Assembly that Serbia would continue to work with them to achieve a unified state of all Serbs. In his initial speech, Mr. Milosevic identified the overall goal as achieving equality and freedom for the Serbs [which did not require a unified state of all Serbs, as the VOPP did not]. He pointed out that in the first speech, the Accused used the term “freedom and equality” eight times, while not mentioning it once in his second speech.

Mr. Milosevic read nearly the entire texts of both speeches, a process he clearly enjoyed. He explained the references in his second speech to continued bonds with the RS. I am talking about reciprocal solidarity and links that should continue, regardless of an independent Bosnia-Herzegovina, links between the Serbs. He added that even the Dayton Agreement provided for the possibility of special ties between Serbia and Serbs in Bosnia and Croatia and Croats in Bosnia.

Dr. Donia responded that the 1993 speeches took place 2 ½ years before Dayton and the VOPP did not include a concept of special relations. He concluded, “The description of economic integration is not a description of economic integration between two sovereign states but between Serbs and Serb lands. . . . It [VOPP] is only partial realization of the goal.” Mr. Milosevic, he was saying, spoke out of both sides of his mouth. On the one hand, he gave a public speech that was palatable to the international community (VOPP, which left the Bosnian Serbs outside Serbia, would resolve the conflict). On the other, he addressed the Bosnian Serbs, assuring them he did not consider this a final resolution and that Serbia would continue to support them in achieving the ultimate goal. His failure to explicitly identify that goal, Dr. Donia suggested, was that it was understood in the RS. In contesting the Doctor’s assertion that the second speech was in closed session, Mr. Milosevic said it was carried live on radio and both speeches were published in the newspaper. It provides another possible reason for not definitively identifying the ultimate goal, so long pursued by his home audience.

Mr. Milosevic will have an opportunity to continue his cross examination when Dr. Donia returns at some unspecified future time.