Russian Politician Testifies About West's 'Genetic Enmity' to Russia

A former member of the Russian Duma (lower house of Parliament), Nikolai Ryzhkov, testified for his former South Slav ally, Slobodan Milosevic, in the latter's trial for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. He had earlier refused to testify unless the Trial Chamber's decision appointing counsel for the Accused was overturned.

Ryzhkov told the Court the Duma passed a resolution on October 2, 1998, to the effect that NATO was planning an aggression against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY). This was no shocking revelation, however. FRY and KLA actions in Kosovo had been the subject of international diplomatic efforts since at least March 1998. On September 23, the UN Security Council, acting under Article VII, passed Resolution 1199, calling for a cease fire and withdrawal of Serb Security units that were being used for civilian repression in the province. When FRY action resulted in three civilian massacres, NATO approved use of military force against the FRY if it failed to comply with the UN Resolution by October 16. At the eleventh hour, Milosevic agreed. Against this background, Ryzhkov's testimony is neither surprising nor sinister. (While Russia supported Resolution 1199, it opposed the use of force to enforce it.)

As Milosevic struggled to formulate questions that did not bring an objection from the Prosecutor or a rebuke from the Bench for their leading nature, Ryzhkov read from a 27 March 1999 Statement of the Duma opposing NATO bombardment of the FRY which began on March 24. Describing it as 'the most serious political crisis in the last two decades' and a 'black day in the history of Europe,' the statement condemned the attack on the FRY's sovereignty. Armed aggression, it maintained, would not prevent the humanitarian crisis, but only cause it to deteriorate, leading to more deaths. It declared that the Duma 'stands by Yugoslavia,' which has the right to self-defence by 'any and all available means.' The Court informed the Accused that it is not especially helped by the opinions of the Russian or any other parliament on questions it might have to decide, e.g. whether FRY acted in self-defence.

Ryzhkov testified that he visited the FRY during the bombing and saw its results -- bridges, houses and buildings destroyed, the television center and tower damaged. 'Generally speaking, we saw a lot of damage. We did not see any military targets destroyed, only civilian.' He did not say how he distinguished between civilian and military targets. Nor did he identify specific buildings that were damaged.

On a later visit to Kosovo in August after the war was over, the witness told the Court he saw what really happened there. Based on that and information available to the Duma, he concluded the massive exodus of refugees from Kosovo was the result of NATO bombing. The witness also offered his opinion that ethnic cleansing only started after the international forces appeared -- and was carried out against Kosovo Serbs when Albanian terrorism forced 250,000 of them (according to him) to flee.

Another Duma Resolution of June 17, 1999 condemned Javier Solana, NATO Secretary General at the time, for supporting and encouraging genocide by organizing aggression against the FRY. He did not explain the basis of the genocide allegation. In December, Ryzhkov wrote a letter to Chief ICTY Prosecutor Carla Del Ponte representing the Duma's view that NATO actions constituted crimes against humanity. He said she eventually responded that her office lacked competence to investigate. On cross examination by Geoffrey Nice, Ryzhkov said he did not read the Prosecution's decision setting out reasons for not pursuing alleged crimes by NATO.

The former Duma deputy told the Court he viewed Albanian terrorism as similar to and a model for Chechyan terrorism in Russia. Kosovo Albanians, he said, were separatists, financed from Europe and the Middle East. While he never heard Milosevic espouse a Greater Serbia, he said he heard quite a bit about a Greater Albania. Ryzhkov warned that it remains 'a festering ulcer in the middle of Europe that can burst at any time. . . .'

In response to questions from Milosevic, the Witness acknowledged meeting Radovan Karadzic on two occasions, in 1993 and 1994. Karadzic, he said, was not obedient to Milosevic, but in fact was critical of him. As for the former President (of Serbia and Yugoslavia) himself, Milosevic 'was always seeking a peaceful solution,' he concluded.

When it was Geoffrey Nice's turn to question the Witness, he read from a letter Ryzhkov sent to Mirko Marjanovic, vice president of Milosevic's Socialist Party (SPS) on June 28, 2002, concerning his attitude to the Yugoslav Tribunal: 'The Court against Slobodan Milosevic is a continuation of NATO aggression against Yugoslavia. We in Russia reject the illegal Hague Tribunal and demand it cease its activities.' Ryzhkov affirmed that was not only his view, but that of the Duma.

Nice then confronted the Witness with a Joint Communique dated 12 September 2003, signed by 30 Russian parliamentarians in which it was claimed that the Prosecution had brought 'mountains of suspicious documents' and 'hundreds of false witnesses' against the Accused in the Hague trial. Ryzhkov resisted identifying any of the alleged false witnesses, claiming it was not his task to seek details, but to analyze. When pressed, he referred to a witness who claimed he had been shot with an automatic weapon, but had survived through the grace of God. The implication was it could not possibly be true that a man survived automatic weapon's fire and his explanation of divine intervention proved it.

In attempting to show the Witness's bias, Nice secured admissions that characterized him as a Slavophile, who believes the 'West' is attempting to destroy Slav civilization. Serbia, he said, was an outpost of 'our civilization' which had fought Hitler's attempts to destroy the Slavs as well. In his writings, which Nice quoted in Court, Ryzhkov describes the destruction of Russia as the real aim of the 'West.' Human Rights Watch, he said, was founded by the Americans to interfere in the internal affairs of Russia. The former Soviet Communist Party member wrote in his book 'The Yugoslav Golgotha' that the West (the U.S.) chose Yugoslavia to destroy because it wouldn't allow NATO to deploy its bases there, presumably as a launching pad to Russia. When Nice pressed Ryzhkov to identify which U.S. act led to the break-up of Yugoslavia, he declined, but insisted that without the U.S. it would not have been possible.

Nice ended his cross examination by attempting to show that Ryzhkov and the Duma's view of events in Yugoslavia and support for the FRY were not universal in Russia. He read from another Duma commission report to the effect that Serbia's limiting the autonomy of Kosovo jeopardized Albanian rights and deepened conflict in the province. It also criticized Yugoslav authorities for failing to pursue all possible peaceful solutions. Ryzhkov derisively replied he was not part of 'that' commission. When Nice asked if Russian President Boris Yeltsin held a critical view of the Duma and had called Milosevic a 'most cynical politician,' the Witness replied that he could not recall. He insisted, however, that Yeltsin met with Milosevic and they discussed a peaceful resolution of the Kosovo crisis.

The Court is faced with evaluating the relevance of much of Ryzhkov's testimony. Milosevic, not NATO or the KLA, is on trial in this proceeding. While a state has a right to take action against armed insurrections or defend itself against outside aggression, it does not enjoy the right to retaliate indiscriminately against innocent civilians. Crimes of others do not justify a state -- through the commands of its leader -- in committing crimes of its own.

As Judge Robinson pointed out, the Duma's conclusions about NATO intent and responsibility are not helpful to the judges, who must make their own decisions based on direct evidence. Ryzhkov's direct evidence was limited to what he personally observed in Serbia and Kosovo, which mostly lacked detail, and what Milosevic and Karadzic said to him. The Court will weigh that evidence against the Prosecution's evidence and any additional evidence Milosevic presents on the issues.