EU to let Serbia join EU without Mladic handover?

FutureTaoiseach

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2005
Messages
7,980
Website
greatdearleader.blogspot.com
In another abandonment of democratic principles by the bureaucrats in Brussels and their hangers-on in national-capitals, a majority on the European Council wants to forward Serbia's EU-membership application to the European Commission, and may use a ruse to get around a Dutch veto. In an appalling betrayal of the 8,000 victims of the Srebrenica Massacre and the thousands of Croatians massacred under the orders of Goran Hadzic, the member state govts want to remove the handover of Ratko Mladic and Goran Hadzic as preconditions for Serbian EU membership. This calls into question Europe's boasts as being (in the pompous boasts in the Lisbon text) 'an area of freedom and justice'. There can be no justice while states harbouring genocidal war-criminals are allowed to join the EU without delivering them to the International War Crimes Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia for trial. Would Germany be allowed into the EU ig it harboured Walter Rauf? The govt must oppose Serbian EU membership unless and until Mladic is handed over to the Hague:
The Dutch Parliament decided on Wednesday (October 13th) that a debate on Serbia's EU bid should be postponed until the country shows full co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY).
The decision came ahead of a meeting of the 27-nation bloc's foreign ministers on October 25th, when the diplomats are scheduled to discuss whether Belgrade's membership application should be referred to the European Commission (EC) for its opinion.
The Dutch parliament, however, said that the issue must be put on hold until chief ICTY prosecutor Serge Brammertz's next report on Serbia's co-operation with the UN tribunal, which he is due to submit in early December. If that demand is rejected by the other 26 foreign ministers, The Netherlands will reportedly insist that both the submission of Serbia's application and any other moves linked to its EU accession be made conditional on its full co-operation with The Hague-based court.
Dutch lawmakers believe that Belgrade has been fulfilling its obligation to hand over indicted war criminals only under strong international pressure. They are pushing particularly for the arrest of former Bosnian Serb military commander Ratko Mladic, one of the remaining two fugitives still sought by UN prosecutors.
The other EU member states believe, however, that Serbian authorities are making strong efforts to capture Mladic and former Croatian Serb political leader Goran Hadzic and should therefore be allowed to move forward on the path towards eventual membership.....
Meanwhile, directors Neil Jordan and Jim Sheridan are among signaturies calling on Micheal Martin to block Serbian EU membership. The Dail is expected to vote on an EU Stabilisation and Association Agreement with Serbia in coming weeks. It is claimed that the member state govts may try a ruse to get around a Dutch veto by voting that the matter is a "technical" matter than a "political" one. If the former, QMV is used (55% of the member states including 65% of the EU's population), whereas if it is "political", it requires unanimity. The "technical" option has never before been invoked for EU Enlargement. A country harbouring 2 genocidists responsible for the world war-crimes seen in Europe since 1945 is surely the least worthy of such a concession. :roll:
 
Last edited:


FutureTaoiseach

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2005
Messages
7,980
Website
greatdearleader.blogspot.com
Didn't NATO commit a lot of war crimes during that war as well? Why isn't Bill Clinton being tried?
The casualties from the NATO bombings were miniscule compared to approximately 200,000 that died in the Bosnian war before then. The Serbs were committing genocide. That has already been established by the Hague. They rounded up 8,000 Muslim men and boys and butchered them. To let it go is to reward genocide and to render the oft-repeated line "never again" just another meaningless political-slogan. Bill Clinton waited 2 yrs to do anything. There were television pictures of emaciated concentration-camp victims in Omarska. The Genocide Convention allows military intervention to stop an ongoing genocide and the UNSC backed the action by allowing "all necessary means" to stop the Bosnian conflict.
 

Interista

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
4,123
approximately 200,000 that died in the Bosnian war
Have you got a source for that? Most estimates I've read suggest the number of victims was about half that.

To let it go is to reward genocide
Do you only believe this in the case of Serbia? Croatia is also on course to join the EU. What about their war leaders?
 

the_rebubblican

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 24, 2010
Messages
344
Should the EU push through Serbia's membership using that technicality it'll be another long lasting fracture in European solidarity which is being seriously tested enough already. Scandalous...
 

typical

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 8, 2010
Messages
575
I don't really follow you here. The way I read it, Serbia are saying "we haven't caught him yet" as opposed to "you can't have him". Wouldn't the constructive thing to do be to allow them to progress toward membership and offer them assistance to track down and capture these guys, making it a technical matter?
 

acme

Active member
Joined
May 7, 2009
Messages
258
Didn't NATO commit a lot of war crimes during that war as well? Why isn't Bill Clinton being tried?
I understand, your saying an innocent life killed has the same value, if
its killed by the US or by Serbian death squads.

But I'm with big nose on this one, not to accept Serbia without them
giving up their war criminals first.
 

TaxHavenSite

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 17, 2010
Messages
388
I understand, your saying an innocent life killed has the same value, if
its killed by the US or by Serbian death squads.

But I'm with big nose on this one, not to accept Serbia without them
giving up their war criminals first.
But why punish the whole people of Serbia over something two maniacs did over 10 years ago?
 

FutureTaoiseach

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2005
Messages
7,980
Website
greatdearleader.blogspot.com
I don't really follow you here. The way I read it, Serbia are saying "we haven't caught him yet" as opposed to "you can't have him". Wouldn't the constructive thing to do be to allow them to progress toward membership and offer them assistance to track down and capture these guys, making it a technical matter?
There has been an historical pattern of former state-perpetrators of genocide protecting the perpetrators. This also has to be seen in the context of widespread support for Mladic in national opinion polls (up to 65% oppose his handover). This is a society which has not fully come to terms with its past and embraced European values as reflected in the European Convention on Human Rights. Allowing them in is morally-equivalent to Holocaust-denial and rewarding obstruction of the ITFY Tribunal.
But why punish the whole people of Serbia over something two maniacs did over 10 years ago?
Sounds like the Nuremberg defence of "I was just following orders". There were 120,000 in the Bosnian-Serb army (in reality the Yugoslav Army controlled by Slobodan Milosevic). It's not like they acted alone. The ICJ has also ruled that Srebrenica was a genociede:
ICJ said:
The Court concludes that the acts committed at Srebrenica falling within Article II (a) and (b) of the Convention were committed with the specific intent to destroy in part the group of the Muslims of Bosnia and Herzegovina as such; and accordingly that these were acts of genocide, committed by members of the VRS in and around Srebrenica from about 13 July 1995.[20]
 
Last edited:

acme

Active member
Joined
May 7, 2009
Messages
258
Didn't NATO commit a lot of war crimes during that war as well? Why isn't Bill Clinton being tried?
I understand, your saying an innocent life killed has the same value, if
its killed by the US or by Serbian death squads.

But I'm with big nose on this one, not to accept Serbia without them
giving up their war criminals first.

But why punish the whole people of Serbia over something two maniacs did over 10 years ago?
Because its the only way to make an impact,
Its not a sanction, but it serves the same purpose.
Soapy words don't cut it, with the Serbs.
 

Al.

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 1, 2008
Messages
1,618
In another abandonment of democratic principles by the bureaucrats in Brussels and their hangers-on in national-capitals, a majority on the European Council wants to forward Serbia's EU-membership application to the European Commission, and may use a ruse to get around a Dutch veto. In an appalling betrayal of the 8,000 victims of the Srebrenica Massacre and the thousands of Croatians massacred under the orders of Goran Hadzic, the member state govts want to remove the handover of Ratko Mladic and Goran Hadzic as preconditions for Serbian EU membership. This calls into question Europe's boasts as being (in the pompous boasts in the Lisbon text) 'an area of freedom and justice'. There can be no justice while states harbouring genocidal war-criminals are allowed to join the EU without delivering them to the International War Crimes Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia for trial. Would Germany be allowed into the EU ig it harboured Walter Rauf? The govt must oppose Serbian EU membership unless and until Mladic is handed over to the Hague:Meanwhile, directors Neil Jordan and Jim Sheridan are among signaturies calling on Micheal Martin to block Serbian EU membership. The Dail is expected to vote on an EU Stabilisation and Association Agreement with Serbia in coming weeks. It is claimed that the member state govts may try a ruse to get around a Dutch veto by voting that the matter is a "technical" matter than a "political" one. If the former, QMV is used (55% of the member states including 65% of the EU's population), whereas if it is "political", it requires unanimity. The "technical" option has never before been invoked for EU Enlargement. A country harbouring 2 genocidists responsible for the world war-crimes seen in Europe since 1945 is surely the least worthy of such a concession. :roll:
Why do you pretend to be against the European Union, yet are 100 percent for its propaganda? You've just validated Germany's warmongering in the Balkans, which started in 1991.
 

cry freedom

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 8, 2009
Messages
2,338
Why do you pretend to be against the European Union, yet are 100 percent for its propaganda? You've just validated Germany's warmongering in the Balkans, which started in 1991.

Could you explain please?
 

cry freedom

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 8, 2009
Messages
2,338
Didn't NATO commit a lot of war crimes during that war as well? Why isn't Bill Clinton being tried?
I hereby award you the 2010 Slab Murphy prize for whataboutery.
 

White Rose

Well-known member
Joined
May 29, 2007
Messages
624
Neil Jordan and Jim Sheridan are against it which makes me feel that maybe Serbia should be allowed join
 

SevenStars

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 17, 2009
Messages
4,201
Could you explain please?
Because most of the allegations of "Serbian" war crimes were faked by the western interests seeking to rip apart multi-faith Yugoslavia in a heinous sectarian war.

All glory to the anti-fascist Yugoslav fighters of both the 40s and the 90s.
 

fluffykontbiscuits

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 7, 2010
Messages
7,063
Because most of the allegations of "Serbian" war crimes were faked by the western interests seeking to rip apart multi-faith Yugoslavia in a heinous sectarian war.

All glory to the anti-fascist Yugoslav fighters of both the 40s and the 90s.
So the mass graves they found were just props by a Serbian version of Jim Henson?

Serbia unearths mass grave | Radio Netherlands Worldwide



Bosnians discover largest mass grave in Europe containing over 2000 bodies « How Bosnian and Balkan wars started facts timeline history crimes
 

Thac0man

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 13, 2006
Messages
6,444
Twitter
twit taa woo
Because most of the allegations of "Serbian" war crimes were faked by the western interests seeking to rip apart multi-faith Yugoslavia in a heinous sectarian war.

All glory to the anti-fascist Yugoslav fighters of both the 40s and the 90s.
More than a little suprised at that claim, from you, not AI who is a proven fascist. No one was fighting to defend 'Yugoslavia'. Post 1991 'Yugoslavia' existed only as a nom de gare of it largest constituant part, Serbia. Is anyone really suggesting that the likes of Arkan, Karadic, Mladic or Vojslav Sjesjl fought for a unified Yugoslavia as opposed to a Greater Serbia? Not one of them was a socialist either. I would draw your attention to the fact also that the Serbs were Nazi allies during WWII, a fact that is steadfastly avoided bySerbian Ultra-nationalist today. Indeed Tito scored his greatest victory over the Nazis by defeating the Nazis allies, the Serbian Chetniks at the battle of Naretva.

'Yugoslavia' was also a multi-ethnic entity. Given that, to what do you attribute the genocideal actions of Serb ultra-nationalists in killing tens of thousands of innocent non-Serb civilians in cold blood? What exactly was those peoples crime that they had to be slaughtered, their villages and homes burned and ploughed into mass graves?
 

SevenStars

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 17, 2009
Messages
4,201
More than a little suprised at that claim, from you, not AI who is a proven fascist. No one was fighting to defend 'Yugoslavia'. Post 1991 'Yugoslavia' existed only as a nom de gare of it largest constituant part, Serbia. Is anyone really suggesting that the likes of Arkan, Karadic, Mladic or Vojslav Sjesjl fought for a unified Yugoslavia as opposed to a Greater Serbia? Not one of them was a socialist either. I would draw your attention to the fact also that the Serbs were Nazi allies during WWII, a fact that is steadfastly avoided bySerbian Ultra-nationalist today. Indeed Tito scored his greatest victory over the Nazis by defeating the Nazis allies, the Serbian Chetniks at the battle of Naretva.
First off lets get something clear about Akran and the war in Bosnia....Corrupt officers in the Yugoslav would lead their men in taking land from the Islamists and than some oil baron in Saudi Arabia would buy the land that was taken and the officer would than call his man to retreat....This led to the likes of Arkan deserting and doing their own deals with the Saudis. He wasnt a "chetnik" (though he was scum too just mercenary as opposed to fascist scum). And yes I accept as the war drove on the chetniki and "Serbian nationalism" increasingly surfaced.

The Chetniki in the WWII era were scum but they were not Nazies...Indeed Dradja or whatever he is called who led them started out as a general in the army and resigned when the kingdom of Yugoslavia capitulated to the Hitlerites. Indeed the Chetniki scum fought against the Hitlerite Ustache...There was another pro-Nazi Serbian movement but it had little support outside of Belgrade. Most Serbians were on the side of the red star as were most Bosnians....It was the Croats who were most guiltly of aiding the Hitlerites.
 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top