The Invisibility of Albanian Victims, An Expert View
The Invisibility of Albanian Victims, An Expert View
After two days of testimony by Dr. Slavenko Terzic, Director of the History Department at the Serbian Academy of Arts and Sciences (SANU), Slobodan Milosevic may have regretted selecting an extreme nationalist as a history expert in his trial for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide in The Hague.
Dr. Terzic's narrow, simplistic world view, dominated by heroic Serb victims and Albanian terrorists and drug traffickers, is not one even Milosevic so consistently portrays. His obvious bias prompted Prosecutor Geoffrey Nice to begin cross examination by asking, 'Your report, does it contain a single remark favorable to Albanians or Kosovo Albanians?' When pressed for an example, Terzic lamely answered that his report states Albanians had their own newspapers and university, to which Nice retorted, 'Are you saying they are literate and read?'
The witness's inability to even comprehend how to answer the question said much about how he regards Albanians. Trying to think of an Albanian victim between WWII and the 1999 NATO bombing, he could only come up with those who died while attacking legitimate authority. Nice summarized: '[There were] no other Albanian victims apart from those who merited expulsion or death because they took violent action?' Milosevic interrupted before the witness could answer.
A few minutes later, however, Terzic expanded on the 'significant problem in terms of the fate of Europe and the world,' presented by drugs, arms, white slaves and mujahedin in Kosovo. 'Albanians are in charge of a large part of drug trafficking in Europe and the U.S.,' he said. Nice again asked if he had anything good he wanted to say about Albanians. Complaining that the Prosecutor was putting words into his mouth, the historian told the Court that he had had an Albanian roommate at university. 'I am not saying the Albanian minority are drug traffickers,' he said.
Nice suggested to the witness that organized crime has occurred in many states transitioning from communism, which he seemed to hear as linking the mafia only to Serbia and Russia. With assistance from Judge Robinson, he came to understand the question, yet his answer was contradictory: 'I am not an expert in drug trafficking. But I follow what is written,' he said, referring to an article calling Kosovo the black hole of Europe in terms of drug trafficking.
Terzic's report and testimony up to this point elicited a strong response from the Prosecutor: 'You came to support the Accused with a one-sided account, utterly favorable to the Serbs and utterly unfavorable to the Kosovo Albanians. That's what you've been doing for a day and a half, isn't it?' The witness disagreed, calling Nice one-sided.
In a similar intervention with the witness, Nice asked if he knew the difference between giving evidence and arguing a cause. Terzic admitted that he did not. That fact was evident throughout his testimony as he lectured the judges (and Nice) on proper and improper cross examination, attempted to question the Prosecutor, evaded direct answers while expounding on his points at length. On at least one occasion, he even overruled a question from Milosevic to speak about what he deemed important. His conduct elicited a number of cautions from the Bench, who also directed Milosevic to control his witness. The Court reminded Milosevic that they only need a brief outline of relevant historical matters to provide a context for the charges. Beyond that, it is not relevant. The Court will not be deciding on which version of history is correct.
Despite the Prosecutor's attempt to explain the proper role of an expert witness, Terzic continued to give his strongly biased account of Serb-Albanian history and to show his pro-Serb bias in other ways. He opposed the formation of the Albanian Academy of Sciences in Kosovo because other states only have one academy and the Serbian Academy (SANU) already existed -- but also because there weren't enough qualified Albanian elite. He was appalled over Srebrenica, but couldn't say who was responsible without examining primary sources on both sides (he considers the Bosnian conflict a civil war). He signed a June 1996 Declaration with other intellectuals, appreciating Radovan Karadzic's contribution to peace and calling for the ICTY charges against him to be repealed. When Nice pointed out that he added his signature to facts he could have no knowledge about, he said he relied on international law experts who were also signatories. The unverified facts were that Karadzic 'never gave a single order nor passed a document that could have inflamed hatred, called for or encouraged genocide of the war enemies, Muslims and Croats.'
Under Nice's cross examination, Terzic reiterated his view that the Serb dispute with Albanians was part of the larger Christian conflict with Islam, not mentioning that a sizeable minority of Albanians are Catholic.
Referring to Terzic's Report where he mentioned that Vaso Cubrilovic's 1937 proposal to move Albanians from Kosovo to Albania and Turkey was never implemented, Nice asked him about the dangerous influence of the report on its republication in the Radical Party magazine in 1995. The report speaks of an anarchic Albanian element that drove a wedge between north and south Serbian lands, preventing development of cultural, economic and political ties. Cubrilovic wrote that Serbia had managed to push most of the settlements back, but resettlement of Albanians to Turkey or Albania would resolve the problem. Noting that Germany had resettled its Jews without great international outcry (this was written in 1937), population resettlement could be accomplished in Kosovo without starting a world war. The right psychological climate must be created, bringing state pressure to bear on the Albanians. Private initiatives could help, aided by issuing guns to local Serbs. 'Another tool which Serbia has used very pragmatically since 1878, covert torching of Arnaut [Albanian] towns and villages,' could be used, Cubrilovic stated.
Terzic said he knew nothing about the statement's republication in 1995. He dismissed the document as the opinion of a private individual that was never submitted to a state organ. As to whether it was dangerous propaganda in 1995, he responded that Cubrilovic's writings provide the option of resettling a population, not of persecuting it. Distressingly, even when Nice pointed out Cubrilovic advocated use of force to accomplish resettlement, Terzic did not appear to understand that forced expulsion of a population is a crime (persecution under the ICTY statute). When Nice asked whether he agreed with Cubrilovic that Serbia used the practice of covert torching of Albanian villages from 1878 on, to force Albanians to move from Kosovo, the witness evaded answering. Only after interventions by Judges Bonomy and Robinson did he finally respond that he had no information to support that.
Terzic was no more familiar with Ivan Stambolic's 1995 book in which he interviews Cubrilovic, then an old man. There, Cubrilovic, having had a change of heart, expresses horror at the lengths to which Serbs went in advocating a Greater Serbia by connecting all Serbian lands. Nice asked, 'What were Serbs doing other than by force of arms seeking for Serbs in Bosnia . . . that very independence you were saying was inappropriate for Kosovo Albanians?' Terzic replied that Albanians were a minority in Serbia and had their own mother country of Albania, while Serbs were a constituent people of the former Yugoslavia, apparently without any mother country. If readers fail to follow this 'logic,' it's likely the Court will, too.
Nice advised the Court that he had two more issues he wished to explore on cross examination with this witness. One is a report by the International Crisis Group on the alleged 'Albanianization' of Kosovo, which Terzic said he had not read. Though he protested vehemently about having to read it, because it is not what he came to testify about, Milosevic did not come to his rescue. Nice expressed his view directly to the witness: 'Dr. Terzic, my suggestion is that if you were a fair minded historian doing your best to be a proper court expert, you would be familiar with the document and ready to deal with it. Since you have not, I have taken careful steps to give you a chance to read it so you can say which parts are wrong and why. Do you understand?' When the witness protested that he had just received the document, Judge Robinson showed no sympathy, saying he could read it during the one day adjournment. Milosevic did not protest.
The racism inherent in Terzic's view was palpable. He appears to have accepted an entire system of thought and way of making sense of the world that is based on bigotry so deeply ingrained he cannot see it. In this world, there are no Albanian victims, nor Serb aggressors. Only the opposite exists. What this means is that the destruction of an Albanian village, the murder of an Albanian child, the rape of an Albanian woman simply do not exist. They are invisible. Albanians do not count as human beings deserving of empathy and concern. There is no need to explain where such a construction of reality leads. Those with the power and prestige to widely propagate such a world view bear special responsibility for the inevitable harm it causes.
Dr. Terzic's narrow, simplistic world view, dominated by heroic Serb victims and Albanian terrorists and drug traffickers, is not one even Milosevic so consistently portrays. His obvious bias prompted Prosecutor Geoffrey Nice to begin cross examination by asking, 'Your report, does it contain a single remark favorable to Albanians or Kosovo Albanians?' When pressed for an example, Terzic lamely answered that his report states Albanians had their own newspapers and university, to which Nice retorted, 'Are you saying they are literate and read?'
The witness's inability to even comprehend how to answer the question said much about how he regards Albanians. Trying to think of an Albanian victim between WWII and the 1999 NATO bombing, he could only come up with those who died while attacking legitimate authority. Nice summarized: '[There were] no other Albanian victims apart from those who merited expulsion or death because they took violent action?' Milosevic interrupted before the witness could answer.
A few minutes later, however, Terzic expanded on the 'significant problem in terms of the fate of Europe and the world,' presented by drugs, arms, white slaves and mujahedin in Kosovo. 'Albanians are in charge of a large part of drug trafficking in Europe and the U.S.,' he said. Nice again asked if he had anything good he wanted to say about Albanians. Complaining that the Prosecutor was putting words into his mouth, the historian told the Court that he had had an Albanian roommate at university. 'I am not saying the Albanian minority are drug traffickers,' he said.
Nice suggested to the witness that organized crime has occurred in many states transitioning from communism, which he seemed to hear as linking the mafia only to Serbia and Russia. With assistance from Judge Robinson, he came to understand the question, yet his answer was contradictory: 'I am not an expert in drug trafficking. But I follow what is written,' he said, referring to an article calling Kosovo the black hole of Europe in terms of drug trafficking.
Terzic's report and testimony up to this point elicited a strong response from the Prosecutor: 'You came to support the Accused with a one-sided account, utterly favorable to the Serbs and utterly unfavorable to the Kosovo Albanians. That's what you've been doing for a day and a half, isn't it?' The witness disagreed, calling Nice one-sided.
In a similar intervention with the witness, Nice asked if he knew the difference between giving evidence and arguing a cause. Terzic admitted that he did not. That fact was evident throughout his testimony as he lectured the judges (and Nice) on proper and improper cross examination, attempted to question the Prosecutor, evaded direct answers while expounding on his points at length. On at least one occasion, he even overruled a question from Milosevic to speak about what he deemed important. His conduct elicited a number of cautions from the Bench, who also directed Milosevic to control his witness. The Court reminded Milosevic that they only need a brief outline of relevant historical matters to provide a context for the charges. Beyond that, it is not relevant. The Court will not be deciding on which version of history is correct.
Despite the Prosecutor's attempt to explain the proper role of an expert witness, Terzic continued to give his strongly biased account of Serb-Albanian history and to show his pro-Serb bias in other ways. He opposed the formation of the Albanian Academy of Sciences in Kosovo because other states only have one academy and the Serbian Academy (SANU) already existed -- but also because there weren't enough qualified Albanian elite. He was appalled over Srebrenica, but couldn't say who was responsible without examining primary sources on both sides (he considers the Bosnian conflict a civil war). He signed a June 1996 Declaration with other intellectuals, appreciating Radovan Karadzic's contribution to peace and calling for the ICTY charges against him to be repealed. When Nice pointed out that he added his signature to facts he could have no knowledge about, he said he relied on international law experts who were also signatories. The unverified facts were that Karadzic 'never gave a single order nor passed a document that could have inflamed hatred, called for or encouraged genocide of the war enemies, Muslims and Croats.'
Under Nice's cross examination, Terzic reiterated his view that the Serb dispute with Albanians was part of the larger Christian conflict with Islam, not mentioning that a sizeable minority of Albanians are Catholic.
Referring to Terzic's Report where he mentioned that Vaso Cubrilovic's 1937 proposal to move Albanians from Kosovo to Albania and Turkey was never implemented, Nice asked him about the dangerous influence of the report on its republication in the Radical Party magazine in 1995. The report speaks of an anarchic Albanian element that drove a wedge between north and south Serbian lands, preventing development of cultural, economic and political ties. Cubrilovic wrote that Serbia had managed to push most of the settlements back, but resettlement of Albanians to Turkey or Albania would resolve the problem. Noting that Germany had resettled its Jews without great international outcry (this was written in 1937), population resettlement could be accomplished in Kosovo without starting a world war. The right psychological climate must be created, bringing state pressure to bear on the Albanians. Private initiatives could help, aided by issuing guns to local Serbs. 'Another tool which Serbia has used very pragmatically since 1878, covert torching of Arnaut [Albanian] towns and villages,' could be used, Cubrilovic stated.
Terzic said he knew nothing about the statement's republication in 1995. He dismissed the document as the opinion of a private individual that was never submitted to a state organ. As to whether it was dangerous propaganda in 1995, he responded that Cubrilovic's writings provide the option of resettling a population, not of persecuting it. Distressingly, even when Nice pointed out Cubrilovic advocated use of force to accomplish resettlement, Terzic did not appear to understand that forced expulsion of a population is a crime (persecution under the ICTY statute). When Nice asked whether he agreed with Cubrilovic that Serbia used the practice of covert torching of Albanian villages from 1878 on, to force Albanians to move from Kosovo, the witness evaded answering. Only after interventions by Judges Bonomy and Robinson did he finally respond that he had no information to support that.
Terzic was no more familiar with Ivan Stambolic's 1995 book in which he interviews Cubrilovic, then an old man. There, Cubrilovic, having had a change of heart, expresses horror at the lengths to which Serbs went in advocating a Greater Serbia by connecting all Serbian lands. Nice asked, 'What were Serbs doing other than by force of arms seeking for Serbs in Bosnia . . . that very independence you were saying was inappropriate for Kosovo Albanians?' Terzic replied that Albanians were a minority in Serbia and had their own mother country of Albania, while Serbs were a constituent people of the former Yugoslavia, apparently without any mother country. If readers fail to follow this 'logic,' it's likely the Court will, too.
Nice advised the Court that he had two more issues he wished to explore on cross examination with this witness. One is a report by the International Crisis Group on the alleged 'Albanianization' of Kosovo, which Terzic said he had not read. Though he protested vehemently about having to read it, because it is not what he came to testify about, Milosevic did not come to his rescue. Nice expressed his view directly to the witness: 'Dr. Terzic, my suggestion is that if you were a fair minded historian doing your best to be a proper court expert, you would be familiar with the document and ready to deal with it. Since you have not, I have taken careful steps to give you a chance to read it so you can say which parts are wrong and why. Do you understand?' When the witness protested that he had just received the document, Judge Robinson showed no sympathy, saying he could read it during the one day adjournment. Milosevic did not protest.
The racism inherent in Terzic's view was palpable. He appears to have accepted an entire system of thought and way of making sense of the world that is based on bigotry so deeply ingrained he cannot see it. In this world, there are no Albanian victims, nor Serb aggressors. Only the opposite exists. What this means is that the destruction of an Albanian village, the murder of an Albanian child, the rape of an Albanian woman simply do not exist. They are invisible. Albanians do not count as human beings deserving of empathy and concern. There is no need to explain where such a construction of reality leads. Those with the power and prestige to widely propagate such a world view bear special responsibility for the inevitable harm it causes.
