We’ll poison you like Milosevic.” International lawyer on the death of the President of Yugoslavia in the Hague dungeons

This interview was first published in Minsk Pravda, Minsk, Belorussia, on November 23, 2024, following an International Conference held in Belgrade, November 13 on the reasons for and consequences of NATO's attack on Yugoslavia and the crimes its member nations committed there.

Alexei Elovik,

1. You, more than anyone else, know the mechanisms of the work of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and often criticize it. What are the main shortcomings of the Tribunal’s work?

Response:

We cannot talk about “shortcomings” when talking about this NATO controlled tribunal. We can only talk about its illegality, its show-trial procedures, its fabricated charges against all the accused, its use of “trial” techniques which were designed to suppress the facts, to turn justice into injustice, and spread propaganda.

The ICTY and the ICTR (they are sister tribunals, both controlled by the same forces and people for the same objectives) have no legal or legitimate existence, since to creat them the Security Council acted outside its jurisdiction under Chapter VII of the UN Charter dealing with threats to international peace and security.

There is no jurisdiction provided to the Security Council to create such tools. The idea for them was proposed first by the Germans, for example, Hans Dieter Genscher, who called for the creation of the ICTY as an additional tool to achieve the break-up of Yugoslavia, and the Americans, British and French pushed the idea through the Security Council at a time when Russia was under the control of the Yeltsin government which went along with American wishes even against Russia’s own interests, and when the Chinese were also weaker than they are now and wanted to appear to be for “human rights” and so on,  the mantra used in the propaganda backing the creation of the ICTR. It was a mistake. But once the ICTY was created, the Russians lost control of it (as a Russian deputy ambassador informed me in 2011) and the Chinese the same.

From the first day of its creation the ICTY was controlled by the US and its NATO allies. It is funded not only by the UN general budget but also private donations from mainly American corporations. Its rules of procedure and evidence break all the rules of fair trials in any other jurisdiction of the world. Hearsay evidence is allowed and encouraged, the use of secret witnesses in the trials was widespread, the purpose being to revent the public and the defense from checking the veracity of their claims. Witnesses brought before the ICTY by the prosecution were scripted, that is told what to say, evidence was fabricated, documents forged. The judges acted not as unbiased arbiters of justice but as active agents of the prosecution. They tried to intimidate not only the prisoners in front of them, but also those defence counsel that ried to resist.

They pereferred to accept lawyers for the defense who either had no experience in criminal trials, or very little, who were easy to manipulate. There were many of these. Some lawyers of the defence were acutally working for the prosecution and were used to try to get prisoners to plead guilty crmes that never took place or they fed the prosecution information.

Those defence counsel who had the courage to actively defend the accused were spied on, threatened, not paid, had their phones tapped, harassed in all sorts of ways, and denied the resources necessary to investigate the prosecution claims and to find witnesses to refute those cliams. They worked under very difficult circumstances.

The judges treated accused and defence counsel with contempt. At the ICTY, accused were not allowed to sit next to their counsel during the trial which made it very difficult to respond to events in the trial.  This is just a sketch of the problems with this fake tribunal.

2. The creators of the Tribunal talk about its “objectivity” because representatives of Croats, Serbs, Muslims and Albanians were involved in the process. At the same time, neither Franjo Tudjman nor Alija Izetbegovic were indicted, unlike Slobodan Milosevic. Why was this?

Response: 

They make this claim of objectivity to fool the world public about the fascist nature of this tribunal.  The only reason they charged a few Croats or Bosnians and Albanians along with the Serbs was to make it seem as if they were objective. But it was all theatre. The charges against them were equally unfounded. All the prisoners held by the ICTY were and are scapegoats for the crimes of the real criminals, the NATO leaders and military officers involved in the break up of Yugoslavia throughout the 1990s and the final brutal aggression against Yugoslavia in 1999. They are the ones who committed crimes. They are the ones who should be brought before a tribunal. But of course, as Louise Arbour stated in 1999, when she was the prosecutor, NATO is the gendarme of the tribunal, the tribunal is an arm of NATO. So, of course they never charged NATO allies like Tudjman and Izetbegovic, for the same reason they never charged the NATO leaders, because it was and is a tool of NATO created to achieve NATO objectives.

People have to understand that the ICTY and ICTR had one main purpose, propaganda. They were and are propaganda machines which have three objectives; spreading through the world a false narrative of the wars involved, putting the blame for those wars on the victims of the aggressors, covering up the real role of the USA and its allies in those wars, and demonising and slandering the leadership of the countries attacked. Their final purpose was to portray the leadership of the countries they attacked as criminals in the eyes of the world and their own people. In other words, in the case of the ICTY, the objective was to justify their aggression.

3. In his interviews, Slobodan Milosevic emphasized Germany’s destructive role in the destruction of Yugoslavia and its anti-Serb policy. Did he tell you the reason why the West turned so strongly against the Serbs?

Response:

The USA and its allies have never given up the goal that Hitler had, the destruction of the Soviet, now Russian state.  This was the principal reason that NATO was created, not as a defensive alliance as it claims to be, but as an offensive military pact aimed at the USSR and now the Russian Federation.  The destruction of Yugoslavia was necessary to achieve this objective because it was, despite its problems, a working socialist state, was a founding and strong member of the Non-Aligned Movement, and was closely linked by culture and history to Russia. In order for the US to advance its aggression against Russia, which we saw develop with the eastward expansion of NATO and the coup d’état in Ukraine in 2014, they had to eliminate Yugoslavia, since they could not afford to have Yugoslavia still existing on their southern flank, just as Hitler could not engage in Operation Barbarossa in 1941 until he had subdued Yugoslavia first.

When the NATO attack of 1999 took place, Yugoslavia was a rump state with Serbia its heart and centre. Many think the war was against the Serbs. This is correct in one sense, since they were the heart of the resistance, but the main objective was the destruction of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.  We see this now in all the media even in the east, with references to the “Kosovo” war and so on. Yugoslavia is not mentioned. It has been erased from consciousness and history. We are meant to forget it existed and what it stood for. Too many adopt this shameful and historically incorrect attitude.

4. Many Serbian nationalists blame Milosevic for not being tough enough in the conflicts in Bosnia and Croatia, for making agreements with the West, for signing the Dayton Accords. Did he want peace at all costs, or did Yugoslavia have no realistic means of protecting the Serbian population outside its borders?

Response:

President Milosevic was always trying to achieve a peaceful resolution of the conflicts that broke out, instigated by the West, during the 1990’s. He hated war and wanted peace. He tried to achieve that under difficult circumstances in which he faced threats and aggression from the West. He was lied to, mislead, and slandered by the western politicians and media. Yes, he tried to work out a peaceful resolution in the various conflicts in the break away republics As he told me, he did the best he could at the time and that looking back on things, maybe mistakes were made, or things could have been done differently, but at the time, with the information and resources he had, he and his government (because he did act alone) acted in what they then thought were the best interests of the people.  For people to scapegoat him is easy for those who were not there or involved. But remember, Milosevic and his government were nearly isolated. They had little assistance from Russia and China at the time, which were both weaker then. Belarus supported Yugoslavia, but no great powers existed to step in and help, as is the situation now. 

The fault lies not with Milosevic or his government but with the Americans, British, Germans, French, Canadians and the rest who stirred up these conflicts and pushed them to their ultimate conclusion.

5. In April 1999, Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko visited Belgrade at the height of NATO’s bombing campaign in support of Milosevic. Minsk officially invited Yugoslavia to join the union state of Russia and Belarus. Did Slobodan Milosevic remember this act of our president and our country?

Response:

Yes, on April 14, 1999, President Lukashenko arrived in Belgrade under the threat of NATO bombs and held a long meeting with President Milosevic . One of the topics was the proposal of Yugoslavia joining the Union state. My understanding is that is was a proposal from Milosevic since to quote my friend Vladimir Krsljanin, Yugoslav Foreign Minister for African Affairs and Ambassador, and former aide to President Slobodan Milošević,

“The President’s visit was also connected with our initiative to join the Union State of Russia and Belarus. On April 12th, both chambers of the Parliament of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia decided on Serbia’s accession to the Union State. Two days later, Aleksandr Lukashenko arrived in Belgrade. We had the support of Belarus and many in Russia in this initiative, but, unfortunately, we did not enlist Yeltsin’s support. Therefore, this initiative was not implemented under Slobodan Milošević, who remained in power for another year and a half. And after that, the new Western puppets didn’t want to think about it at all.”

Lukashenko’s statement issued on April 15 indicates it was a Yugoslav initiative supported by Lukashenko when he stated:

“We have also discussed issues of the alliance with Russia and Belarus. I am the president of the High Council of Russia and Belarus Alliance, the body that reaches final decision about the Yugoslav initiative to join that alliance.

President Milosevic has already been in contact with the president of Russia and me talking about many issues, including the alliance with Belarus and Russia, about the wish of Yugoslavia to be in that alliance.

“Today I received notes addressed to me and the president of Russian Federation with Yugoslav appeal for the consideration of the wish of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to join the Russia and Belarus Alliance in the nearest future. 

“A Letter that is addressed to the president of Russia will be given to him right away and placed on the agenda of the High Council. I will also work on the initiation of this issue in the Alliance Parliament.”

 Unfortunately, with the lack of support from Yeltsin, the initiative could not be advanced,

Yes, Milosevic remembered this meeting and spoke highly of President Lukashenko and valued his support. He regretted it could not go forward.

6. According to the official version, Slobodan Milosevic died of a heart attack in prison because he refused to take medication prescribed by doctors. Why do you not agree with this version?

Response:

These are NATO-ICTY lies.  He never refused to take necessary medication. In fact it was the ICTY that refused him permission to travel to Moscow for three days to have a stent inserted into one of his arteries which would have releived his heart issue as his doctors advised. The ICTY refused, and that, and the stress of the trial, could have killed him, which would amount to criminal neglicence or manslaughter, a form or murder.  But there is evidence he was poisoned.

The ICTY refused to permit a normal coroner’s inquest and conducted their own internal ‘investigation” headed by one of the ICTY judges named Parker The Parker Report contains information that indicates he had two drugs in his body which should not have been there. One was a derivative of an anesthetic and the other was a drug named Rifampacin. He was not taking either of them, Rifampicin is used to treat TB and other illnesses that he did not have. So what was it doing in his blood? Well, one of its side effects is to accelerate the metabolic breakdown of other drugs, to eliminate them from the body quickly. It is significant that when Milosevic was found unconscious in his cell, no medical help was called for several hours and an autopsy delayed many more hours after he died.  This is more than ssucpicious. But we have further evidence,

President Milosevic himself wrote a letter to the Russian ambaasdor in The Netherlands,  three days before he died, stating that the was convinced he was being poisoned.

 But two years after his death, in July 2008, I was approached one evening by a CIA officer at the Rwanda tribunal in Tanzania, who told me they were going to kill me unless I backed off in the trial in which I was defending General Ndindilyimana, Chief of Staff, Rwanda Gendarmerie, that is, unless I stopped causing them trouble by bringing out the truth about that war.  He said to me, “to convince you we are serious you should know we poisoned your friend Milosevic and we can poison you.”  I will leave the reader to draw their own conclusions.

The death of Slobodan Milosevic was clearly the only way out of the dilemma the NATO powers had put themselves in by charging him before the Hague tribunal. The propaganda against him was of an unprecedented scale. The trial was played in the press as one of the world’s great dramas, as world theatre in which an evil man would be made to answer for his crimes. But of course, there had been no crimes, except those of the NATO alliance, and the attempt to fabricate a case against him collapsed into farce.

The trial was necessary from NATO’s point of view in order to justify the aggression against Yugoslavia and the putsch by the DOS forces in Belgrade supported by NATO, by which democracy in Yugoslavia was finally destroyed and Serbia reduced to a NATO protectorate under a Quisling regime.  His illegal arrest, by NATO forces in Belgrade, his illegal detention in Belgrade Central Prison, his illegal rendition to the former Gestapo prison at Scheveningen, near The Hague, and the show trial that followed, were all part of the drama played out for the world public, and it could only have one of two endings, the conviction, or the death, of President Milosevic.

Since the conviction of President Milosevic was clearly not possible after all the evidence was heard, his death became the only way out for the NATO powers. His acquittal would have brought down the entire structure of the propaganda framework of the NATO war machine and the western interests that use it as their armed fist.

 NATO clearly did not expect President Milosevic to defend himself, nor with such courage and determination.  The media coverage of the beginning of the trial was constant and front page. It was promised that it would be the trial of the century. Yet soon after it began the media coverage stopped and the trial was buried in the back pages. Things had gone terribly wrong for Nato right at the start. The key to the problem is the following statement of President Milosevic made to the judges of the Tribunal during the trial:

“This is a political trial. What is at issue here is not at all whether I committed a crime. What is at issue is that certain intentions are ascribed to me from which consequences are later derived that are beyond the expertise of any conceivable lawyer. The point here is that the truth about the events in the former Yugoslavia has to be told here. It is that which is at issue, not the procedural questions, because I’m not sitting here because I was accused of a specific crime. I’m sitting here because I am accused of conducting a policy against the interests of this or another party.”

The prosecution, that is the United States and its allies, had not expected a real defence of any kind. This is clear from the inept indictments, confused charges, and the complete failure to bring any evidence that could withstand even basic scrutiny. The prosecution case fell apart as soon as it began. But once started, it had to continue. Nato was locked into a box of its own making. If they dropped the charges, or if he was acquitted, the political and geostrategic ramifications were enormous. Nato would have to explain the real reasons for the aggression against Yugoslavia. Its leaders themselves would face war crimes charges. The loss of prestige cannot be calculated. President Milosevic would once again be a popular political figure in the Balkans. The only way out for NATO was to end the trial but without releasing Milosevic or admitting the truth about the war.  This logic required his death in prison and the abandonment of the trial.

7.  Have you experienced pressure from Western countries, tribunals or non-profit organizations in your defense of Slobodan Milosevic? How was it expressed?

Response:

Yes, from MI6 agents, CIA, CSIS (Canadian secret intelligence service), ranging from direct physical threats as I stated above, to being surveilled, interviewed, and from some pro-NATO groups and personalities in the western media slandering me, trying to destroy my reputation. I remember boarding a KLM fight one day in 2006 and opening up a copy of The Guardian to see a long article attacking me for defending Milosevic, and I was called a traitor by others. 

8. Milosevic died without being convicted. At the same time, Western propaganda presents him as one of the worst war criminals of the 20th century. What do you think could change the opinion of Western society? Is Milosevic’s legal rehabilitation possible in the foreseeable future? How can the truth about the events in Yugoslavia be conveyed to Americans and Europeans?

Response:

Only the truth can change opinions but there is no means to get that truth before the public for the media is totally controlled, discussion in the universities is controlled.  The propaganda is almost total

But President Milosevic does not need “rehabilitating”. He was never legally condemned. What needs to be said is that this man stood virtually alone against NATO in the show trial they put him through. He was the point of the spear of the resistance to NATO all through the trial. He never gave up, he fought them with energy and courage and showed them to be the criminals and cowards they are, the gangsters they are.  They arrested him as a criminal but he became martyr to the anti-NATO, anti-imperialist resistance, a hero of our time and must be remembered as such, an example to all of us that we too can stand up to them just as he did, and to fear nothing but the failure to resist.