1

“TheWarCriminalCult:KaradžićandŠešeljatTheHague”

IzabelaSteflja

OnMarch21,threedaysbeforeRadovanKaradžićwasfoundguiltyoftencountsof

genocide,crimesagainsthumanityandviolationsofthelawsofwar,BosnianSerb

authoritiesunveiledaplaquenamingastudentdorminKaradžić’sname.“We

dedicatedthisplacetothemanwhoundoubtedlysetthefoundationofRepublika

Srpska–RadovanKaradžić,thefirstpresidentofthisrepublic,”saidMiloradDodik,

thepresidentoftheSerbianRepublicinBosnia(“Studentdorm”2016).Oneweek

beforetheICTYreleaseditsverdictonthecaseofVojislavŠešelj,whowasontrial

forthreecountsofcrimesagainsthumanityandsixcountsofwarcrimes,Serbian

authoritiesallowedŠešeljtoholdapublicrallyinBelgradeforhispoliticalparty,

SrpskaRadikalnaStranka.ThiswasindirectviolationofICTY’sconditionthatŠešelj

staysoutofpubliclifeduringhismedicalleaveandICTY’ssubsequentorderthathe

returntoTheHagueafterheviolatedthiscondition.AttherallyŠešeljconfirmedhis

intentionstogointoelectoralvictoryratherthantoTheHague(Rovčanin2016;

“Radikali”2016).

IntheinternationalmediaKaradžić’strialandguiltyverdicthavebeen

referredtoasEurope’sbiggestaccomplishmentsinceNuremberg,whileŠešelj’s

acquittalhasbeenreferredtoasonethatseekstorewritehistoryand“avictoryfor

advocatesofethniccleansing”(Borger2016;“Vojislav”2016;Biddle2016).The

internationalreactionisastarkcontrasttothedomesticresponsetothetwotrials

amongSerbsinSerbiaandBosnia.Theaccusers–theICTYandtheinternational

media,andtheaccused–allegedwarcriminalandtheSerbianmediatherefore

abidebyentirelydifferentrulesofcommunication,speakingpasteachother.There

isnodialoguebetweenthetwocamps,onlytwodisconnectednarratives.Thetaleof

theICTYisoneofapower-hungrywarcriminalwhosemanipulationsresultedin

atrocitiesandcrimesagainsthumanity,whileKaradžić’staleisahistoryofanation

2

simplyensuringitssurvivalinfaceofmistreatmentbyothernations,and

misrepresentationandshameatagloballevel.Thispaperillustrateshowthe

accusedconstructandmobilizethesecondnarrativeandhowthelocalmedia

transmitsthewarcriminalcultscripttothelocalcommunities.Understandinghow

thewarcriminalcultiscreatedandtransmittedhelpsustounderstandwhy

ordinarySerbsparticipateintheheroizationofwarcriminalsratherthanactively

distancethemselvesfromhorrendouscrimes,whichisexactlywhattheTribunalis

tryingtoavoid.

ThispaperanalyzesKaradžićandŠešelj’s‘performances’atTheHagueand

theSerbianmedia’sconsumptionoftheseacts.IntheirperformancesKaradžićand

Šešeljmobilizenationalismthroughfivesteps.First,theaccuseddiffusetheir

individualguiltbycollectivizingthecrimesthattheyareaccusedof.Second,they

epitomizeTheHagueastheultimateenemybyassociatingtheTribunalwithNATO

forcesandtheiroperations.Third,theyconstructSerbsasthebiggestvictimsofthe

internationaljusticeprocess.Fourth,theyproducethemselvesasthesacrificial

lambsofthisprocess–martyrswhoembodythevictimhoodoftheSerbiannation.

Fifth,theyembarkonwhattheypresentasamissiontorecoverthedignityofthe

nationinfaceofundeservedshamethroughmockeryandridiculeoftheTribunal.

TheproductionofSerbiannationalismfromaboveinthe1980sand1990s

anditsroleinthewarsandelectionsintheregionhasbeenstudiedextensively.

However,thereislittlematerialexamininginternationaltrialsasmomentsof

nationalistmobilization.Iarguethatallegedwarcriminalsnotonlyusethepodium

oftheTribunaltocreatecontinuationofthenationalistnarrativefromprevious

decadesbutalsotoreinterpretandtailorittotheirneeds.Sincenationalismdoes

notexistonitsownbutis‘made’weneedtopayattentiontoimportantevents

whichactorscanusetoinitiatetwistsandturnsinthenationalistnarrative.

KaradžićandŠešeljhaveacleverschemeofmakingtheSerbsguiltybyassociation,

onlytoofferasupposedsolutiontothiscollectiveguilt–therecoveryofdignity

throughtheinterpretationofTheHagueastheimperialWest.Thewarcriminalcult

isthus‘made’inconversationwiththeimperialWestinacollectivenarrativethat

conteststhelegitimacyandtheintentionofTheHaguewhiledisguisingindividual

3

responsibility.Themediaco-producesandamplifiesthisstoryofdomesticchallenge

tothehierarchyinthedistributionofglobalpower,influenceoverinternational

institutions,andhegemonyovertheinterpretationofhistory,whichresonates

amongthepublicthatfeelsimplicatedinthecrimes.

By‘warcriminalcult’Imeanthephenomenonthroughwhichanational

leader,inthiscaseawarcriminal,solidifieshimselfintoacultleaderwhothen

enjoysthepublic’ssupporttoactoutsideofinternationallawandbasicmoral

standards.Throughthisprocessawarcriminalproduceshimselfintoatrustworthy

individual,onemorelegitimatethananinternationalinstitution.Thispaperisthus

interestedinunderstandingnationalistnarrativesthatenablethepublictogrant

amnestyandforgivenessforthemosthorrendousofcrimes.Itdoesnotmakea

judgmentinregardstothetrialproceedingsortheverdictsinthetwocases.Inthat

senseitdoesnotevaluatetheeffectivenessoftheinternationaltribunal.

Inanattempttoproblematizethewarcriminalcult,IapplyRogerBrubaker’s

renowntheoreticalworkon‘groupism’toexplainthewaysinwhichandthe

conditionsunderwhich“powerfulcrystallizationofgroupfeeling”takesplace.

Brubaker’s“EthnicityWithoutGroups”isextremelyhelpfulinunderstanding

KaradžićandŠešelj’scollectivizationofguiltduringperformancesatTheHague.In

FromVotingtoViolence:DemocratizationandNationalistConflictJackSnyder

explainstop-downnationalistmythmakingandthelimitationsofmediaduring

elections.IapplySnyder’stheoreticalframeworktoexplainnationalistmythmaking

andtheroleofmediaduringadifferent,yetstillkey,event–internationaltrialsof

leaders.

TheevidenceisbasedonadiscourseanalysisofKaradžićandŠešelj’s

speechesatTheHague,andtheframingofthetwotrialsbymajorSerbian

newspapers.Ithereforeanalyzewhattheaccusedsayontheinternationalstageand

howtheSerbianmediarespondandreinforcetheirnationalistframes.Thisis

complementedbydataIcollectedformybookproject,whichinvolvedextensive

fieldworkinSerbiaandBosniafrom2010to2013andwascomposedofsemi-

structuredinterviewswithuniversityprofessorsandstudents,communityleaders,

4

topechelonandlowerrankstaffininternationalorganizationsandinstitutions,civil

societymembers,governmentofficials,andmembersoftheopposition.

Ichosetolookatthetwocasesforseveralreasons.WhiletheSlobodan

Miloševićcasehasbeenstudiedindepthbyanumberofscholars,thecasesof

KaradžićandŠešeljhavesurprisinglyreceivedlittleattentionamongacademics.

SecondonlytoMilošević,Karadžićwasthemostpowerfulpoliticalfigureontrialat

theICTY.AsMarkoMilanovićexplains,

Karadžićwasnotamerecoginthemachine,norevenamilitaryfigure,butapoliticianattheverytopofthepyramid,orthejointcriminalenterprise,whichdevisedandorchestratedthispolicy.Inshort,heisthebestsubstituteforMiloševićthattheTribunalwilleverhave,andhistrialwillthereforebeoftremendoussymbolicimportance(2009,216-7).

Šešeljwasconsideredtobethemostentertainingandthemostintelligentfigureat

TheHague.“WatchingŠešeljincourtislikewatchingBigBrother,”1commentedone

ofmyintervieweesinBanjaLuka(IvanŠijaković,Interview,July12,2011).

Moreover,thetwocharactersontrialarequitedissimilarandhaveinthepast

competedforpoliticalpoweragainsteachother.Theyhadaverydifferentreaction

totheirHagueindictments–whileKaradžićwentintohidinginplainsight,Šešelj

voluntarilysurrendered.Mostrecently,theyreceivedverydifferentICTYverdicts–

whileKaradžićwasfoundguiltyontencountsandgivenaforty-yearsentence,

Šešeljwasacquitted.Despitethedifferentcircumstancessurroundingthetwotrials,

bothKaradžićandŠešeljsawtheinternationalstageasakeyopportunitytoinvoke

memoriesofthebrutalwarsandkeydebatesthathaveoccupiedtheSerbian

consciousnessintheiraftermath.Oncetheygrabbedtheattentionoftheiraudience

by‘grouping’guilt,thestagewassetforfurtherconstructionofthewarcriminal

cult.

1 The interviewee is referring to the popular television reality show Big Brother, rather than the character from George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four.

5

Backgroundonthetwotrials

TheInternationalCriminalTribunalforformerYugoslavia(ICTY)issuedthe

initialindictmentandarrestwarrantforRadovanKaradžićonJuly25,1995.During

thedecadethatfollowed,thereactionsoftheauthoritiesintheFederalRepublicof

YugoslaviaandRepublikaSrpskawerenegligible,withneitherrepublicwillingto

carryoutitsobligationforexecutingthewarrantsforthearrest.Thissituationled

theTrialChamberandthePresidentoftheICTYtoconcludethatthefailureofthe

indictmentwas“whollydueto”Serbiangovernments’“refusaltocooperate,”which

wasreinforcedbyharshwordsfromthePresidentoftheUNSecurityCouncilwho

notonlycondemnedtheactionsoftheSerbiangovernmentsbutthreatenedthe

introductionofeconomicsanctions(UNDocumentNo.S/1996/556andUN

DocumentNo.S/PRST/1996/34qtd.in“International”1997).Themainreasonfor

continuinginactionbytheSerbswasbelievedtobethepositionofauthority

KaradžićoccupiedamongSerbianrulingelitesinpost-wartimesandthegeneral

supportheenjoyedasanationalheroofthewarinBosnia.

Atlast,onJuly21,2008,andthirteenyearsafterhisindictmentandarrest

warrantwereissued,theSerbianauthoritiesarrestedKaradžićintheSerbian

capital,Belgrade.SinceKaradžićwasoneofthemostsought-afterfugitivesfrom

internationalcriminaljusticeand,accordingtotheinternationalandSerb

authorities,wasbelievedtobehidingquitesuccessfully,thecircumstancesofhis

arrestweresurprising,ifnot“downrightbizarre”(Milanović2009,213).Notonly

wasKaradžićfoundinBelgrade,ratherthansomeremoteandinaccessiblelocation,

buthehadbeenresidingandworkinginthecapitalasDr.DraganDavidDabić,a

practitionerofalternativemedicine,whosportedalongwhitebeardtiedinatop-

knot.Karadžić,apsychiatristbytraining,wrotearticlesforajournalAHealthyLife,

ranhisownwebsite,gavepubliclectures,andevenguest-appearedontelevision

showspromotinghisteachingsinnewagemedicineasDr.Dabić(“Footage”2008;

Lippman2008,38).Thepeculiaritiesofthiscasecontinuedastheaccused

boycottedthefirstdayofhistrial–October29,2009,withthetrialfinallyresuming

onMarch1,2010.Theaffairbegunwithtwodays,andintotalsixhours,ofopening

6

statementsbyKaradžić.Unsurprisingly,Serbiannewspapers,alongsidemanyfrom

theinternationalpress,scrambledtocapturethehighlights.

Unlike,Karadžić,VojislavŠešeljvoluntarilysurrenderedtotheICTYinlate

February2003afteranindictmentoffifteencountsofcrimesagainsthumanityand

violationsofthelawsofwar.Amongothercrimes,Šešeljwasaccusedof

inflammatoryspeechandparticipationinjointcriminalenterpriseincluding

numerouscrimescommittedbyhisparamilitarymilitiacalledŠešelj’sMen.Šešelj’s

Menareaccusedofactsoflooting,killing,rapeillegalimprisonment,forced

deportation,tortureandpersecutionagainstCroats,Muslimsandothernon-Serbs.

ŠešeljvoluntarilysurrenderedtotheICTYbecause,inhisownwords,he“relish[ed]

theprospectofaninternationalaudienceforhisdenunciationsofWesternpolicyin

theBalkans”(Simpson2003,A6).RealizinghowwelltheICTYtrialscouldbe

manipulatedforpropagandapurposes,Šešeljandhissupportersinsistedthat

Šešelj’strialbebroadcastonnationaltelevisionlikeMilošević’strialwas.2They

threatenedthatifthegovernmentdidnotagreetobroadcastŠešelj’strialthey

wouldurgesupportersoftheRadicalPartyofSerbiatoorganizeprotestralliesand

torefusetopaythemonthlylicensefeeforthenationaltelevisionnetwork(Predrag

Marković,Interview,July26,2011).In2006Šešeljwentonahungerstrike

demandingthathebegrantedtherighttopresenthisowndefense,whichwas

grantedtohimbytheICTY.

AsheistheleaderofthethirdmostpopularpartyinSerbia,Srpska

RadikalnaStranka,hecontinuedtobepoliticallyactivefromTheHagueand

continuedrunninginthegeneralelections.In2011Šešeljarguedthathiscase

shouldbedroppedbasedontheviolationofhisrighttobetriedinareasonable

amountoftime,buttheICTYrefusedhisbid.However,in2014theICTYgranted

Šešeljaprovisionalreleasebasedondeterioratinghealthandacancerdiagnosis,

whichrequiredhimtostayoutofpubliclife.Šešeljviolatedtheconditionandvowed

2 USAID’s decision to fund the broadcasting of Milošević’s trial was self-defeating as it led to the doubling of Milošević’s approval ratings and contributed to an upsurge in defensive nationalism (Lelyveld 2002).

7

nottoreturntoTheHaguevoluntarily.TheICTYrespondedbysummoningŠešeljto

returnbutthendroppedthesummons,avertingastand-offbetweentheSerbian

governmentandtheEuropeanUnion,whichwouldhaveincludedEUsanctionson

Serbia.TheICTYissuedastatementacceptingtheSerbiangovernment’sclaimthat

Šešelj’streatmentcouldnotbecontinuedatTheHague(“Hague”2016).Howexactly

medicalfacilitiesinBelgradearebetterequippedtoserveŠešeljthanthoseatThe

Haguewasnotexplainedinthestatementand,frankly,wouldbeverydifficultto

believe.ŠešeljwasacquittedonMarch31inwhatinternationalmediahasbrandeda

verycontroversialandunusualfinding.Theacquittalwasbasedonthedecisionof

twojudgeswhilethethirdjudgeexpressedstrongdissent(Bowcott2016).

OneofmyintervieweesdescribedŠešeljquiteaccuratelyas“hyper-educated,

hyper-intelligent,andhyper-crazy”(NebojšaRandjelković,Interview,June22,

2011).Šešelj’smaneuveringofhisICTYcasewaspartofhisquestforfame.Overthe

pasttwelveyearshemademediaheadlinesforhisvulgarinsultsandexpletives

aimedatICTYofficials,andforhisclaimsthattheICTYisanillegalcourt

constructedbyWesternintelligenceagencies.NationalistandmanymoderateSerbs

findŠešelj’sperformancesattheICTYveryentertaining.

Thearchetypeofthenationalnarcissist

Itmaybeeasyandevendesirabletodismissthetwoindividualsandthepeculiar

circumstancessurroundingtheircasesasaffairsoftwo‘madmen.’Theproblemin

doingsoisthatthesensationalismthattheseindividualsemployandthenarratives

thatthe‘madmen’preachdonotremaininthecourtroombutaretransmitted

thoughthemediatransitionbeltandresonateamongmembersoftheirnation.G.R.

Weaver(2006)givesussomeinsightintohowcertaintypesofindividuals—

nationalnarcissists,acategoryinwhichwecancertainlyplaceKaradžićandŠešelj

—functioningroups.Weavermaintainsthat:

Theindividualnationalnarcissistfindsproofofhisownnation’ssuperiorityinhisco-nationalists’successes,andproofoftheinjusticeofhisownfailuresintheknowledgeofhisownnation’ssuperiority…Collectivesuperiorityis‘true,’asisthe‘fact’ofothernations’comparativecollectiveinferiority(2006,64).

8

SimilarlyBenjaminPetersonarguesthatnarcissistsattempttotransfertheirown

beliefsandgoalstogroupidentitiesandmayusegroupidentityto“assistin

defensiveself-regulationofimportantaspectsofthepersonalself,especiallywhen

threatened”(2009,7).3IfindthatKaradžićandŠešeljcollectivizetheirguiltasthe

guiltimposedontheirnation,consequentlyclaimingvictimhoodstatusfor

themselvesviatheirnation.Intheprocessthey‘embody’theSerbiannation,which

givesthemenormoussymbolicpower.Theythuslife“off”and“for”nationalismand

havewhatPeirreBourdieuandRogerBrubakerrefertoasa“performative”

character(Brubaker2002,166).

I.Collectivizingguilt

TheobjectiveoftheICTYisretributivejusticeintheformofpunishmentof

particularindividuals,ortheremovalof“badapples,”inordertodistancetherestof

thegroupfrommoralresponsibilityforatrocities,andpavethewayforinter-group

reconciliation.CarlaDelPonte,chiefprosecutorinSlobodanMilošević’strial,

clarifiedthelegallogicofindividualcriminalresponsibilitybyexplainingthat“No

stateororganizationisontrialheretoday.Theindictmentsdonotaccuseanentire

peopleofbeingcollectivelyguiltyofthecrimes,eventhecrimeofgenocide”(Del

Ponte4).Therefore,theICTY’saccusationsmakedirectreferencetoKaradžićand

Šešelj,andinparticular,thewaytheyparticipatedintheBalkanwars.However,

despiteICTY’sintention,Iarguethatamajorthemethatemergedinthe

examinationofnarratives,interactions,anddiscussionsinKaradžićandŠešelj’s

trialsisadisregardforthislegalcriterionofindividualresponsibility.

InhisdefensestatementsKaradžićonlyspokeincollectiveterms-indefense

ofthenation,ratherthanhimself:“Allthetimewedefendedourselves.Wenever

embarkedontryingtoconquerMuslimterritories.”Karadžićendedhisownlegal

defencewithastatementthatisadefenseoftheSerbiannation.Heevenspoke

directlytotheSerbianaudienceratherthancourtofficials:

3 See also Morf & Rhodewalt 2001.

9

Gentlemen,thetruthisonoursideanditwillonlygostronger.Wedideverythinginourpowertoavoidthewarandtominimizetheconsequencesanddamages.Thereisnostatueoflimitationthatwillrunoutonthatandliesaren’tsubjecttostatutesoflimitationsandwewilllivetoseeit(Defencestatement,16October2012).

KaradžićwasalsoveryclearaboutintendingtoprioritizetheSerbianaudienceat

homeoverTribunalstaffpresentathistrial.Ataclosedsessionon15June2009he

stated:Iwillpresentallmyviewsinapublichearing.Thepublicatlargeis,asIsaid,

oneoftherarealliesthatIhave.”

Šešelj’sself-defensewasalsorootedinanarrativethatdefendswartime

actionsofSerbsasa‘group:’

AndwhatkindofpeoplewouldweSerbsbeifwehadnotstoodupforourownrights?…HowcouldweSerbsbeexpectedtostandbyandwatchifsomebody’sputtinginjeopardyourbrothersandsistersinCroatia?Wecouldnotsitonourhands.Wehadtofightandprotectthem(Defenceclosingstatement,14March2012).

ThroughthisprocessŠešeljandKaradžićreproduced‘Serbs’asadistinctand

unifiedgroupandconstructedthemselvesasanextensionofthatcollective.They

appealedtotheiraudience’semotionsbyevokingidealsoftruth,honor,national

unityandloyalty.ŠešeljandKaradžićareidealexamplesofBrubaker’s

“ethnopoliticalentrepreneurs”whoinvokegroupsinorderto“evokethem,summon

them,callthemintobeing”(2002,166).Brubakerfurtherexplainshowthe

reificationofagroup“canbemomentarilyyetpowerfullyrealizedinpractice”

(2002,167).Iarguethatthedefendantssucceededatmakingthepoliticalfictionof

theunified(andcollectively-guilty)Serbiannation‘real’attheTribunal,whichin

turnenabledthemtoconstructTheHagueastheultimateenemyofthatnation.

II.ProducingTheHagueastheultimateenemy

Duringtheir‘performances’KardžićandŠešeljturnedthetablesandproduced“the

West”astheguiltyparty.Šešeljcontinuouslyarguedthatthechargesagainsthim

wererootedintheWest’shostilityforSerbiaandthattheTribunalfunctionedunder

theinstructionof“Westernintelligenceservices”replacing“theAmericanCavalry,

theAmericanSixthFleet”(Defenceclosingstatement,14March2012).He

10

emphasizedthattheICTYwasabiased,illegalcourt,andthepoliticalarmofNATO

inNATO’smilitarycampaignagainstSerbia.“Youaremyenemiesbecauseyoucome

fromcountrieswhicharemembersofNATOandwhicharehostiletomy

motherland,Serbia,”saidŠešelj(“Dr.Šešelj”2013).SpeakingdirectlytotheTribunal

judges,Šešeljcontinued:

Gentlemen,ifyouwereobjectiveandunbiasedyouwouldhaveneveragreedtobejudgesofthisillegalcourt,andsinceyouacceptedthiscallingyoualsoacceptedtodeliveritstask.AllofyoucomefromcountriesthataremembersofNATO,whichbombedSerbiaruthlessly.ForthreemonthsyoukilledSerbianchildren,andyouaretryingtoconvincemethatyouareunbiased?”(“Dr.Šešelj”2013).

AtcertainpointsinhisclosingstatementŠešeljidentifiedspecific‘enemies’of

Serbia,suchas“pro-WesternforcesinEngland,Germany,theUnitedStates,the

entireEuropeanUnion,theVatican”(Defenceclosingstatement,14March2012).

KaradžićalsomadealinkbetweentheTribunalandNATO,accusingthe

TribunalofbeingimplicatedinwhathesaidwasaNATOraidofhisfamily’shome.

ThisresultedinJudgeBonomyaskingKaradžicto“callNATOheadquartersin

Brussels”insteadofmakingsuchaccusationsagainstTheHague.JudgeBonomy

emphasized“whatitisyouareclaimingisthelinktotheTribunal?”(Status

conference,19January2009).KaradžićwasundoubtedlyawarethattheICTY,

whichisabodyoftheUnitedNations,andNATOaretwodifferent

intergovernmentalorganizations.InmakingthelinkbetweenthetwoKaradžić

meanttoimplythattheICTYandNATOareruledbythesameWesternforces.Since

accordingtoKaradžić,“NATOisreallythegreatproblemoftheworld,ingeneral,”

hemeanttoassociatetheTribunalwiththebiggestenemyoftheworld,andby

default–theSerbs(Statusconference,19January2009).

ThegoalherewastocharacterizetheTribunalasanelementofwhatthe

accusedexplainedastheviolentWesterncampaignagainsttheentireSerbian

nation.Tyingpainfulmemoriesofthe1999NATObombingofSerbiatothepresent

dayworkoftheTribunalwasŠešelj’spowerfultoolindeflectingresponsibilityfrom

hisownactionsduringthewars.Thereisnobetterdefensethananoffensethat

suggeststhattheTribunalispartofaWesternalliancethatkilledSerbianchildren

11

forthreemonths.Theinventionofthisnewultimatethreattothenationresultedin

the“crystallizationofgroupfeeling”andcontinuedthereificationofthefictional,

one,andunified,SerbiannationatTheHague(Brubaker2002,167).

III.ProducingtheSerbsastheultimatevictims

Oncetheaccusedproducedthenew“offender”–TheHague,theycouldconstruct

theSerbs(asagroup)intothenewvictim.ŠešeljemphasizedICTY“injustice”

againsttheSerbswho“aretriedtolifeatthedropofahat,andtheMuslims,for

example,youengageinveryheateddiscussionsastowhetheraMuslimgeneralis

goingtogettwoyears’orthreeyears’sentence”(Defencestatement,16October

2012).KaradžićarguedthattheTribunalwasmistakeninitstargetingoftheSerbs

because“itisaterriblemisconceptionandagreatinjustice,thisportrayalofthe

SerbsasthosewhostartedthewarinBiH”(Defencestatement,16October2012).

HewishedtocorrectthestorylinebyexplaininghowSerbsinBosniawere

victimized:

Thencameaperiodofunderhanddealingsandblockagesinestablishingtheauthorities.TheSerbscouldnotgetthepoststheywerepromised,aSerbcouldnotbecomeheadofMUP,marginalizationstarted…WhattheSerbshadlivedthroughinareaswheretheywerelessthan50percent…foranentireyearnotasinglecommunityinEuropewouldputupwiththat,withthehumiliation,evenrapesandmurders…”(Defencestatement,16October2012).

ThepurposeofsuchdescriptivestatementsofSerbianvictimhoodduringthewarin

BosniawastorecycletheviewthathaditnotbeenforKaradžić’screationand

defenseofRepublikaSrpskaSerbswouldhavebeenethnicallycleansedfrom

Bosnia,orincludedasanoppressedminorityinaCroat-BosniakFederation.

BecauseKaradžićwasthewartimepresidentoftheSerbianseparatistportionof

BiH,hewishedtoportrayhimselfasthesavioroftheSerbiannationinBosnia.

DespiteICTY’snumerouseffortstoemphasizethatitstrialsareabout

individualresponsibility,KaradžićandŠešeljsuggestedthatthetrialsareabout

writinggrouphistory.Bothdefendantsmadeittheirmissionto‘write’theSerbsas

thevictimsinthehistoricaltale.TheICTYwas,touseBrubaker’sterms,the

12

“dramaticevent”thatprovidedtheopportunityforthesepoliticalentrepreneursto

“galvanizeandcrystallize”thatnarrativeandalsoto“ratchetuppre-existinglevels

ofgroupness”(Brubaker2002,171).Karadžićwentthroughdetailedexplanations

ofhowtheconflictunraveledand‘corrected’theProsecutorinhisunderstandingof

theevents.Hegavecontextaswellasdetailedaccountsofpoliticalandmilitary

events,andhisplaceinthem(Defencestatement,16October2012).Hisentire

defencewasanextremelylonghistorylecturewithKaradžićasthekeyauthor,

makinghisplaceinhistoryandsuggestinghowhewishedtoberemembered.Šešelj

alsomadehisintentiontorewritetheProsecutor’sversionofhistoryclear.He

explainedthat“Whatwillremainbehindmeherearethetranscriptsfromthetrial.

Thesearenotgoingtobeyourpersonalperceptionsoftheproceedings.”Hethen

continuedtosuggestthathisaccountisthetrueonewhilemakingamockeryofthe

CourtandtheProsecutor’sversion:“Somedaypeoplewillprobablylaughatyour

judgmentandtheywilllaughevenmoreattheindictmentandtheclosingargument

oftheProsecutor”(Defenceclosingstatement,14March2012).

IV.Martyrdomandself-embodimentofthenation

InadditiontoproducingtheSerbsastheultimatevictimgroup,theaccused

portrayedthemselvesastherepresentativesofSerbianvictimhoodatTheHague.

BothKaradžićandŠešeljemphasizedthatthecourtviolatedtheirhumanrights.

DuringhisfirstappearanceatTheHagueŠešeljcunninglyportrayedprocedures

takenforhisownprotectionasmistreatment,“torture,”anddisrespect:

Ihavebeenexposedtophysicaltortureandmistreatmenttodaybecauseuponleavingtheprison20kgheavyflatjacketwasputonmeandIconsiderthistobetortureprohibitedbyinternationallaw.Idonotneedanyflatjacket.Iamnotinanydanger…Inacivilizedworldifthereisdangeranarmoredvehicleisprovided(Firstinitialappearance,26February2003).

HealsoemphasizedthattheTrialChamberdeniedhim“therighttofinance[his]

defence”andofferedassistancethatwas“verylimitedandveryrestricted.”Šešelj

wentasfarastoaccusetheICTYofaconspiracyto“kill”him.Itisnotentirelyclear

thathisaccusationwaspurelyfigurativeandthathewasspeakingaboutICTY’s

13

intentiontoremovehimpoliticallyratherthanliterally:

Now,somuchforthepoliticalbackgroundofthistrialandtheintentionsoftheirmaincreators.Theydesignedtokillmesometimebetweentheclosingargumentandtherenderingofthejudgment.Thiswasoneoftheirattempts,andI'msurethattheywillnotgiveupsoeasily,particularlynowwhenthereiselectioncampaignunderwayandtheresultsareshowinginthepollsthattheSerbianRadicalPartyisinagoodpositionandthatitwillachievegoodelectionresults(DefenseClosingStatement,14March2012)

Conflatinghispoliticalandliteral‘death’waslikelyastrategyofmonopolizingon

theSerbianaudience’sbadmemoriesofMilošević’spassingwhileinICTYcustody.It

wasalsoawayofensuringthattheICTYgrantshimamedicalrelease.

KaradžićalsoclaimedthattheTribunalwasactingagainsthisrightsina

statementwherehesuggestedthathisfamily’sresidencewassearchedbyNATO

forcesundertheorderoforinconnectiontotheTribunalandwiththeaimto

obstructhisdefence:

Andthen,enpassant,[NATO]triedtorequisitiondocumentsthatIfounditdifficulttoamass,relatingtomyassetsandsoonandsoforthandwithrespecttotheregistry'sdecisiontoprovidefinancialresourcestome.Sothisis--theyrefertothisTribunal,becausetheyaresearchingfortwomen,twofugitives,andwithintheframeworksoftheirsearches,theyfounditnecessarytoattackmyfamily(Statusconference,19January2009).

InthisstatementKaradžićwasconflatingtheTribunalwithNATO,andtryingtolink

theTribunaltoviolentactsandtheviolationofhisandhisfamily’srights.Asan

ICTYdefenseattorneytoldme,thedefendantsbenefitedfromthefactthatthe

SerbianaudiencedidnotrealizethatineachcasethedefenceteamgoestoThe

Haguetoseewhethertheycandefendandminimizethesentencebut,iftheyfeel

thatthepossibilityissmall,“theyplaypoliticsanddonotplaybytherules,they

discreditandinsultthecourtanditslaws”(TomaVišnjić,Interview,August4,

2012).

Notonlydidthedefendantswanttoportraythemselvesastheembodimentof

Serbianvictimhoodbuttheyalsowantedtoproducethemselvesasthe‘saviors’of

thenation.Theprevioussectionillustratedhowthedefendantsmanipulatedthe

14

historicaldialoguetodrawcontinuitybetweentheideathattheSerbiannation

needed‘saving’inthepast–duringthewar,andtoday–atTheHague.This

narrativeallowedthedefendantstoembodythe‘suffering’andthepainofthe

nation.“EveryshellthatfellonSarajevohurtmepersonally…Iproposedthat

Sarajevobedemilitarized.Thatwasrejected.IproposedthatitbeplacedunderUN

administration.Thatwasrejected,”explainedKaradžićinastatementmeantto

reaffirmhisinternalizationofnationalpainandhisattemptto‘save’Sarajevo

(Defencestatement,16October2012).ThemostcitedquotationintheSerbian

pressafterKaradžić’sopeningstatementwashisdeclaration:“Iwillnotdefendmy

trivialitybutthegrandnessoftheSerbiannation”(“Branim”2010;“Holanđani”

2008;“Suđenje”2010;“Karadžić:Mene”2010).Thequotationwasundeniably

cunningbecauseitsparadoxicaltoneservedadoublepurpose.Karadžićwasableto

claimthestatusofarepresentativeofa“grand”nation,whilehischaracterizationof

himselfas“trivial,”“insignificant,”and,indirecttranslation,“small”avertedthe

negativeconsequencesresultingfromthearroganceandpompousnessofassuming

thatpostforhimself.Moreover,thequotecleverlyimpliedthatKaradžićwaswilling

tosacrificehispersonaltrialforthehonorofthenation,makingitseem

disingenuous.

MartyrdomelementswerealsoevidentinŠešelj’sspeeches.Šešeljwentoutof

hiswaytopointouthislifetimecommitmenttotheSerbiannation,includingprison

sentences:

Godforbidthatyoushouldpraisemeorhaveagoodopinionofme.Thatwouldbeaproblem.Asearlyas1984Iwasconvictedtoeightyearsinprisonforthesameideas.IwantedtheartificialMuslimnationabolished.IwantedtheartificialMontenegrinnationabolished.IwantedthenumberoffederalunitsinYugoslaviareduced.AndIdemandedthatthepersonalitycultofthecommunistdictatorTitobetoppled.Thatwasthegistofmymanuscriptthatwasseizedfrommeasamanuscript,andforthatIreceivedasentenceofeightyears'imprisonment.Doyouthinkthatthatcouldturnme?TheprisoninZenicawasmuchharderthanthisoneinScheveningenanditstillcouldnotshakemyviewsandbeliefs(Defenceclosingstatement,14March2012).

FromthisstatementitbecameevidentthatŠešeljsoughttoembodythe‘struggle’

15

fortheSerbiannation.Heportrayedhislifeasa‘battle’againstallthethreatstothe

Serbiannation–theMuslims,theMontenegrins,thefederalists,thecommunists,

and,today,theTribunal.Indeed,iftheTribunalpraisedorhadagoodopinionof

Šešeljthiswouldhavecreatedaproblemforhimashebuilthispersonain

oppositiontowhatheidentifiedastheultimateenemyoftheSerbiannation–The

Hague.InthisprocessŠešeljsoughttoidentifyhimselfastheone,trueSerbian

martyr.Itisironicthathecommentedontryingtobreakthepersonalitycultofthe

communistleaderTito,whenhewassimultaneouslybuildingacultofthe

nationalist/warcriminalleaderforhimself.

V.Mockery,ridiculeandthesuperioritycomplex

Thelaststepintheproductionofthewarcriminalcultiswhatthedefendants

portrayasamissiontorecoverthedignityofthenationinfaceofundeservedshame

throughmockeryandridiculeoftheTribunal.Karadžić’sfavouritetoolforridiculing

thetrialprocessinvolvedtheuseofhisdoubleidentityasDraganDabić.Duringhis

initialappearanceatTheHagueKaradžićdeclared:“Ihaveaninvisibleadvisorbut

I’vedecidedtorepresentmyself[hethenlaughed]”(Initialappearance,31July

2008).AnothertimehestatedthathisteamofadvisersatTheHagueincludesat

leasttwo“invisible”consultantsbecausehiszodiacsignisGemini,whichapparently

providedproofthathisDabićpersonaistosomedegreegenuineandnotacomplete

actofafugitive(Milanović2009,218).WhenKaradžićwasconfrontedaboutDabić

hedeclaredthat“DabićdidnotdoanythingthatKaradžićwouldnotdo,”and

refusedtoacknowledgeanyinconsistencyinhischaracter:

WhileRadovanKaradžićwasaphysicianinscientificmedicine,Dabićpracticedtraditionalmedicine,whichhasbeenaroundforthousandsofyears.Ibelievethatthetwotypesofmedicinearevaluableandshouldbeintegrated…Inthatsense,doctorDabićwasRadovanKaradžićandtheotherwayaround”(“Suđenje”2010).

Karadžić’sBabićwasawayofillustratinghisintellectualsuperiorityoverWestern

forces.Thiswasaslyactthatallowedhimtoavoidhiscaptureanddelayhistrial

whilelivingpubliclyinthecapitalofSerbiaandhewasobviouslyproudofit.

16

FromhisveryfirstappearanceŠešeljusedhistrialasanopportunityto

displayhismasteryofmockery:

Inmycountryitiscustomaryforthejudges,theprosecutorsandcivilemployeestowearnormal,decent,civilclothing.IamfrustratedwhenIseethejudgeswearstrangeclothing…thisassociatesmewiththeinquisitionoftheRomanCatholicchurchandpsychologicallyIfindthisunacceptableandIinsistthateveryoneshouldwearnormalcivilianclothing(Firstinitialappearance,26February2003).

ThroughthisstatementŠešeljdidnotonlyintendtoridiculeformalrobesinthe

WesternlegaltraditionbutalsotopaintSerbsas‘civilized’andsecular,andthe

Tribunalasabackwardimperialinstitutionconductingwitch-trials.Heregularly

disrespectedemployeesoftheTribunalthroughhisclaimsthat,forexample,“there

arealotofilliterateanduneducatedpeopleamongtheJudges,amongthe

Prosecutors”(Defenceclosingstatement,14March2012).Heemphasizedhis

intellectualandmoralsuperioritybysuggestingthattheheis“notafraidofthe

lawyerswhosemainconcernisnottobeinthegoodbookoftheRegistrybecause

theyareexpectingfavorsfromthem”(Defenceclosingstatement,14March2012).

ŠešeljarrogantlyboastedabouttouringtheSerbianfrontlinesduringthewarand

firingfromautomaticrifflestowardstheCroatianpositions(Defenceclosing

statement,14March2012).Thegoalofsuch‘performances’wasadisplayofhis

heroismandsuperiorityfortheSerbianaudienceswatchingthetelevised

proceedingsathome.

UnlikeKaradžić,whosemainconcernwassettingahistoricalrecordandhis

placeinit,Šešeljalsohadgoalsforthepresentandthefuture.WhileKaradžić’s

politicalcareerendedwiththeendofthewar,Šešeljwasstilltheleaderofthe

RadicalPartyofSerbiaandsoughttowinvotesinnationalelections.Thismeantthat

duringhistrialhepaintedhispoliticalopponentsinSerbiaasWesternsympathizers

andreferredtotheSerbianauthoritiesas“pro-WesterntraitorregimeinBelgrade”

and“mafiososandcriminals”(Defenceclosingstatement,14March2012).He

arguedthatthekeyreasonwhyhewasontrialwasbecauseTheHaguemadea

politicaldealwiththeSerbianauthoritiestoremovehimfrompolitics,becausehe

wasathreattotheWestern-backedfactionsintheelections.Šešeljactivelytriedto

17

buildacultforhimselfastheonlytrueSerbianpatriotandconsistentlyemphasized

hisagencyandunwillingnesstobesubjectedtoanyauthority.Inthisprocesshe

reinforcedtheideaofasinglehonestmaninabattleagainstamachine.“Iamgoing

intoelectionvictory,notTheHague,”saidŠešeljwhenICTYorderedhimtoreturnto

TheHague(Rovčanin2016).Thegoalherewastodisrespecttheentireprocess,to

turnthecourtintoonebigjokewhileemphasizinghisheroismandsuperiorityfor

theSerbianaudiencesathome:

TheHagueTribunal,insteadofbeingthebasisofnewinternationallawandinternationaljustice,itwillactuallybecomeamockeryofinternationaljudiciarysystem.Andnobodywillbegladtorefertotheprecedentsthatwereestablishedhereandthejudgmentsthatwereissuedandpassedhere,

saidŠešeljinhisclosingstatement(Defenceclosingstatement,14March2012).

Mediaasthetransmissionbeltforthewarcriminalcult

ThefollowingsectionofthepaperillustratedhowKaradžićandŠešelj’swar

criminalcultwastransmittedandreproducedforthedomesticaudiencethrough

domesticmediasources.Thetendencyofthemediatotransmitandreproducethe

cultwithoutprovokingadebateandofferingacritiqueofthedefendants’speeches

waslargelyaresultofthestateofthemediainSerbiaandRepublikaSrpska.

JournalistsWithoutBordersplacesSerbia63rdonthe2013WorldPressFreedom

Indexwhichincludes179countriesintotal.Therankingsarenotparticularly

alarming.Nevertheless,myintervieweeswereparticularlynegativeaboutthestate

ofthemediainSerbia.Ingeneraltheyarguedthatthereareno,orveryfew,

independentmediasources.TheeditorofDnevneNovineandtheeditorofSvedok

explainedthatfreedomofmediaisaneconomicissueinSerbia(ŽarkoKesić,

Interview,August30,2011;MilanDimić,Interview,August31,2011).Whatthese

editorsemphasizedisthatjournalsthatclaimtobeself-fundedareinreality

dependentonfundingfromtheirsupporterswhobelongtoparticularpolitical

factionsandexpecttheirpoliticalinclinationstobereflectedinthemediathatthey

support.Pešić,formerdiplomatandanMPinSerbia,summarizedthisreality:

18

“Thereisnofreedomofmedia–economicallydependentisnotindependent”

(Interview,August10,2011).

SrbobranBranković,CEOofTNSMediumGallupinSerbia,acompany

focusingonpublicopinion,mediaandmarketresearchwhichconductsregular

surveysandreportsofpublicopinionintheBalkans,confirmedthat“mediabuying

iscontrolledbythestate,soyoucanwritecriticallybutthestatewillbeawareofit

andwillhaveachancetorespond”(Interview,August11,2011).Theeditorof

Svedok,Dimić,expressedhisviewthatwhileduringSlobodanMilošević’sregime

onecouldbekilledforutteringthewrongwords,todayoppressionofthemediais

equallyharshbuttakesonamoresophisticatedform.“Thebigguysthatusedto

wearleatherjacketsandgoldchainsarenowinsuits.Theycutoffthe

advertisementsandthefundsifyousaythewrongthing,”saidDimić(Interview,

August31,2011).4

ThemediainSerbiasubscribetostatusquoopinions,because,asRatko

Božovićwrites,“[m]ediawhichisnotindependentofauthoritarianculturehave

beendistancedfromtheidealsoftolerance,non-violence,commonlife,andcivil

rights”(2009,165).Insteadofprovidingavarietyofstimulating,challenging,and

criticalapproaches,themediaislimitedtothenationalistnarrativeandthe

Europeanizationnarrative.InSerbiathismeansthatthenarrativeiseitheronethat

focusesoncountingcasualtynumbers,equalizingguiltonallsides,andconstructing

conspiracytheories,oronewhoseprimarygoalistobeexplicitlypro-European.

KarmenErjavecandZalaVolcicexaminetwodailynewspapersinSerbia–Blicand

VečernjeNovosti–andidentifythecharacteristicsof“nationalisticjournalism”as

conformingtoauthority,conventions,thedominantcommonsense,andmainstream

nationalisticprinciple(2007,81).Withinthisnarrativejournalistsemphasize

“historicsymbolicgloriesandterritories”andreinforce“usvs.them”reporting,

whichis“extremelyone-sidedandlackinginformationoncomplexissuessuchas

Islam,terrorism,Europe,crime,andindependence”(ErjavecandVolcic2007,81).

JournalistsinSerbiaandRepublikaSrpskacontinuouslycontemplateuponideasof

4 See also Božović 2009.

19

present-dayconspiraciesagainsttheSerbs,aswellasthereemergenceofhistorical

empires,suchasAustria-HungaryandtheOttomans,andthere-Nazificationof

Europe(“Ganić”2010;“Karadžić2010;“Monstrum”2010;“Suđenje”2010).Inthe

wordsofoneofmyinterviewees,“theythemselvesarestuckinoldstories”(Sonja

Biserko,Interview,June24,2012).

ThisoutcomeisnotsurprisingifweconsiderSnyder’sargumentaboutthe

dangersofthenewlyfreedpressininfantdemocracies.Snydercautionsthatinsuch

contextsthepresscanbecome“avehiclefornationalistappeals”ratherthanan

antidotetomanipulativepoliticalactors(2000,41).Snyderalsopointsoutthat

democratizationwassmoothestinplaceswherepowerfulelitesweregivena

comfortableexit–a“goldenparachute”(2000,41).Followingthislogicwecould

anticipatethatplacingKaradžićandŠešeljontrialatTheHague,whichinvolved

shameandblameattheinternationallevelratherthanacomfortableexit,wasnot

goingtositwellwiththesepowerfulelites.Weshouldnotbesurprisedattheiruse

oftheinternationalpodiumasamessageboardforthedomesticpress.Inasetting

wherecurrentandpast‘enemy’nationsandtheconstantthreatofimperialismand

subjugationtoforeignpowersareprominentthemes,thediscoursethatKaradžić

andŠešeljproducedatTheHaguewaswelcomedinthepress.TheSerbianpress

extensivelycirculatedthefiveelementsofthewarcriminalcult,whichbecamethe

mainnarrativeontheground.

Thefiveelementsofthewarcriminalcultinthepress

AnanalysisofthediscourseintheSerbianpressindicatesthatthekey,andthemost

problematic,implicationoflanguage,rhetoric,andsymbolsinthenewsreportsis

thecollectivizationofthetrials.InthecaseofKaradžić,theICTYsoughttoaddress

hisguiltonthreemajorcrimebases:thesiegeofSarajevo,theSrebrenicagenocide,

andthecrimesintheremaining27municipalities(Milanović2009).However,the

keythemeemerginginthenewspapernarrativesdealswithquestionsof“why”the

warwasfought,“why”Yugoslaviafellapart,and“who”wasresponsibleforthese

events.Mostimportantly,thethirdelementof“who”wasresponsiblefortheseacts

isnotpresentedinindividualbutgroupterms.ApopularnewspaperinSerbia

20

bluntlychoseKaradžić’sstatement“Idefendthepeople,notmyself”asitsheadline

(“Branim”2010).Itisunfortunatethat,onthatsameday,Dnevni-Avazinthe

Croatian-BosniakFederationconfirmedthissuggestionthatSerbs,ratherthan

Karadžić,werebeingtried,byemphasizinginitsheadline,albeitindisbeliefand

mockeryofKaradžić,that“Serbsdidnotneedanddesirethewar,Muslimsand

Croatsdid”(“Monstrum”2010).

Thepervasivenessofthegroup,ratherthanindividual,levelanalysisinthe

discoursewasnotonlyevidentintheheadlines,butthroughoutthetextofthe

articles.Politika,awell-respectednewspaperbelievedtohaveaneducatedaudience

inSerbia,organizeditsreportonKaradžić’strialintwomajorthemes:“Serbsare

notresponsibleforMarkale,”referringtothemassmurderofMuslimciviliansata

busymarketinSarajevo,and“SerbsdidnotwantawarinBosniaandHerzegovina”

(Ganić2010).Karadžić’sargumentwasthusreproducedinPolitikaandtheauthors

andeditorsofthenewsreportdidnotbothertospecifythattheclaimsweremade

accordingtoKaradžić,makingitappearasiftheargumentsrepresenttheopinionof

thenewspaper.Blic,enjoyedbyordinaryfolksinSerbia,emphasizedKaradžić’s

willingnessto“defendhisnationandtheirreasonsforwar,whichwerejustand

divine,”andconcludedwithKaradžić’swords:“wehaveastrongcasewithstrong

evidence”(“Suđenje”2010).Theuseoftheword“divine”inKaradžić’sreferenceto

thereasonsforthewar,waslikelyastrategicmoveintendedtosymbolizeholy

notionsoftheSerbiannationpopularamongSerbextremists,whichthepress

obviouslyconsumed.

TheproductionoftheTribunalaspartoftheWesterncoalitionagainst

Serbia,andthustheultimateenemyinthestory,wasobviousinthereportson

Šešelj’strial.ThereisnomediaanalysisofŠešelj’spotentialculpabilitybutafocus

onhislegalopinioninregardstotheallegedillegalityoftheICTYandthethreatthis

institutionposestotheSerbiannation,whichisinneedofdefensefromglobal

giants.ThekeythemeinanarticlewrittenbyahistorianinPolitikaisthepower

imbalanceandtheproblematicrelationshipbetweenSerbiaandtheUnitedStates.

AndwhilethearticleissupposedtobeaboutŠešelj’strialtheauthorprovidesno

discussionaboutthecrimesthatŠešeljisaccusedof(Antić2015).

21

Moreover,thelinkthatKaradžićandŠešeljmadebetweenNATOandThe

HaguewasextremelywellreceivedintheSerbianpress.Thiswasreinforcedbythe

factthattheTribunaldeliveredKaradžić’sguiltyverdictontheseventeenth

anniversaryoftheNATObombingofSerbia.Whileinternationalmediacelebrated

Karadžić’sguiltyverdictasamonumentalaccomplishmentonMarch24th2016,

SerbianmediawasfilledwithstoriesaboutchildvictimsoftheNATObombing.For

example,PrimeMinisterofSerbia,AleksandarVučić,declaredatacommemoration

ceremonythat

Thereisnojustificationfor,noreasonfor,andnomeaningto[thedeathofchildvictims],andthereisonlyawarningforusandforthe[NATOaggressors]–theyhavetotakeastandbeforeGodforthespilledblood–yesitwasblood,notacoincidence,orcollateraldamage.Yes,thiswasakillingofchildren,notastrugglefordemocracyandfreedom(Spalović2016).

TherationalitybehindICTY’sdecisiontochooseMarch24thasthedaytodeliver

Karadžić’sverdictisunclearbutunfortunatelyfeedswellintothenationalist

narrativethattheinternationalcommunitywasagainstSerbsseventeenyearsago

andstillistoday.DistancingitselffromNATOactivitymighthavebeenabetter

strategyifthegoaloftheTribunalwastoemphasizeKaradžić’sindividualguilt.

Instead,theSerbianpressassistedKaradžićinhisquesttoembodySerbian

victimhood.

ŠešeljalsomanagedtosecurethemantleofSerbianvictimhoodthroughthe

transmissionbeltoftheSerbianpress.AfterICTY’sdemandthatŠešeljendhis

medicalleaveandreturntoTheHaguelegalexpertsinSerbiarespondedbywriting

articlesinpopularnewspapersadvisingtheSerbiangovernmentnottoextradite

Šešelj.ThedialoguecenteredaroundTheHaguetreatingSerbiawithdisrespectand

infringingonitsindependenceandsovereignty,ratherthanŠešeljhimself(Vujin

2016;Vučić2016).Theargumentrangtrueevenamongthosewhodidnotidentify

themselvesasŠešelj’sfans.Ahistorianwhoidentifiedhimselfasanon-supporterof

Šešeljarguedinhisarticlethatademocraticandsovereignnationcannotgiveupits

citizentosucha“fakecourt”evenifheisapoliticallycontroversialfigure(Antić

2015).

22

Thedefendants’argumentthattheTribunalisaspacefornegotiatinghistory

didnotonlyresonateintheSerbianpressbutalsotheinternationalpress.Dan

Saxonfoundthatamongallthreegroups,“[t]heICTYisoftenperceivedashaving

theabilitytoformallydesignateaparticularnationalgroupwith‘victim’or

‘perpetrator’status”(Saxon2005,563).Theargumentsmadeintheinternational

mediatoexpressoutrageatŠešelj’srecentacquittalreinforcedtheconcernamong

Serbsthattheirplaceinhistorywasatstake.Inanarticleentitled“OutrageatUN

court’s‘rewriting’ofBalkanswars”historianswerecitedinadditiontolegalexperts,

andthejudgesinŠešelj’sverdictareaccusedof“historicalrevision”(Biddle2016).

Theyarealsocriticizedforadecisionthat“isdivorcedfromtherealityofwhatwas

happeninginCroatiaandBosnia,”ratherthanfor,forexample,thelegalelementof

havingtoproveguiltbeyondallreasonabledoubtandhavingtheadequateevidence

todoso(Biddle2016).Also,thefactthatthejudgesexpressedintheirdecisionthat

theprosecutiondidabadjobthroughoutthetrialdidnotsatisfythecritics(Bowcott

2016).

TheSerbianmediarespondedbytakingthediscussionastepfurther:not

onlywashistoryatstakebutalsothepresent.TheverdictonKaradžić’scasealso

resultedinfearsthatthepreservationoftheSerbianpoliticalunitinBosniaandits

legitimacywereinquestion.Domesticmediaanddomesticactorslinkedthefact

thatthefirstpresidentofRepublikaSrpskawasfoundguiltyofgenocideandcrimes

againsthumanitytothepossibilitythatthemereexistenceoftheSerbianrepublic

wasthreatened.ThePresidentofSerbia,TomislavNikolić,declaredthat“the

[Karadžić]judgmentcannothaveanimpactonthedestinyofRepublikaSrpska”5

andthat“Serbiawillfullyperformitsobligationsandexerciseitsrightsconstituted

bytheDaytonAgreement,inparticulartherighttosupportRepublikaSrpskaand

helphersurvive"(“Predsednik”2016).Whiletherewasnoevidenceofthe

internationalcommunity’sintentiontodismantletheSerbianRepublic,thisfear-

mongeringhypothesiswasallovertheSerbianpress.

5 See also Peter Lippman 2008, 38.

23

ThethemeofmartyrdomwasobviousintheSerbianpressandwas

reinforcedbyasortofamnestyforthedefendants,whichtheysupposedlyearned

throughtheirparticipationinthewaranddefenseoftheSerbiannation.A

reluctancetodisapproveofthetwoindividualswasevidentinthecommentsinthe

pressevenonthepartofthosewhowerenotpleasedwithKaradžićandŠešelj’s

politicalleadership.Thisattitudeofamnestywasusuallyquitesubtle,orunspoken.

HoweveronecommentatordecidedtospellitoutintheonlinecommentsofBlicby

explainingthatshe“didnotwholeheartedlysupportKaradžić’sleadership

throughouttheentire1990sbutwonderswhatwould’vebeenleftoftheSerbsin

BosniaandHerzegovinaifKaradžićandhiscroniesdidnotorganizethedefense”

(“Suđenje”2010).ThisisexactlythemessagethatKaradžićhopedwouldbe

transmittedtohisaudience.

TheexaminationoftheconversationsbetweenBliccommentatorshighlights

howthisunspokenamnestybecameenforcedthoughdiscursivegestures.For

example,twodaringonlinereadersdecidedtoquestionKaradžić’shonesty,oneby

suggestingthatKaradžić“didnotdefendtheSerbiannation,buthisarmchair,”the

otherbyaskingwhytheaccusedgointohidingiftheyhavecommittednocrimes

butactedindefenseofthenation.Whiletheybroughtupvalidpoints,both

encounteredsignificantresistanceandconfrontationfromotherreaders,andwere

toldthattheyhavegone“toofar,”orwouldbemisunderstoodasthealliesofthe

enemy(“Branim”2010;“Suđenje”2010).Theincidentsuggeststhatwhenonewas

notconvincedwithKaradžić’srhetoricandsymbolism,orchosetovoicedoubts,

repercussionsfollowed.

Thefewinthepresswhowerebraveenoughtorevealtheirreservations

wereoverwhelmedbythosewhosupportedKaradžić’suseofcollectivelanguage

andinterpretationofevents.Statementssuchas“Karadžićisguiltybeforetriedbut

atleasthewilltellthemthetruth”reinforcedthesymbolismofKaradžićasamartyr,

andconformedtoKaradžić’sargumentthatthetrialwasaboutnationalguiltand

blame.Thetrialasportrayedinthemediareaffirmedthepolarizingdiscoursethat

Karadžićproducedinhisspeecheswithhisplaceinthe“us”groupandtheICTYin

the“them”group(“Suđenje”2010).

24

SupportforŠešelj’s“martyrdom”wasstrongintheSerbianmedia.Šešeljwas

referredtoas“amanofprinciplesanddetermination”whohassufferedfrom

“misusedandpoliticizedjustice”(Rovčanin2016).Thereadersoftencommented

onhis“loyalty,”“patriotism,”and“intelligence,”andvoicedtheirsupportthrough

countlessstatementssuchas“youhavemysupport”and“youhavemyvote”

(Rovčanin2016;Antić2015).Amongtencommentsonlyonewassomewhatcritical

ofthenewspaperforactingirresponsiblebygivingmediaattentiontoŠešelj.While

thispersonrecognizedthatattentiontoŠešeljcanincitesensationalismanddistract

frommoreimportantpoliticalissuesathand,atnopointdidthiscommentator

criticizeŠešeljormakereferencetothecrimesthatŠešeljwasaccusedoff(Rovčanin

2016).Therestofthecommentatorsignoredthiscommentandcontinuedtovoice

theirsupportforŠešelj.

Inotherinstancescommentatorsdidnotignoresignsofdisagreementbut

defendedandenforcedsupportforŠešelj.Iwassurprisedtofindanarticlethat

pokedfunatŠešelj,callingouthis“primitivepoliticalexhibitionism,”andevenmore

surprisedthatPolitikatookthechancetopublishit.Thereactiontothearticlewas

howeverextremelyandentirelynegative.Theauthor’sethicalvalueswerecriticized

becausehewentafter“amanwhohasspentelevenyearsinprisoninacourtthat

hasbeenunabletoprovehisguiltandhasnowreleasedhimtodieamongsthis

own.”SomecommentatorscriticizedtheauthorfornotpraisingŠešelj’slegaland

professionalexpertiseatTheHague.Theyfurthercriticizedthenewspaperfor

allowingsuchajuvenilearticletobepublished(“PolitičkiRijaliti”2015).Therefore,

whileŠešeljcouldridiculetheinternationalcourtanditsemployeesinthemost

overtanddegradingways,anyonewhoridiculedŠešeljwasquicklyandpublicly

shutdownintheSerbianpress.Šešeljwasthereforenotonlygivenamnestyforhis

crimesbutalsoprotectedfrompublicmockery.

AreaderofVečernjeNovostiexplainedthatŠešeljisaman“whoalways

placestheinterestofhispeopleandhiscountrybeforeanythingelse.”Hecontinued

toexplainthatŠešeljis“theonewhohasshownthatheisreadytosacrificehimself

forhisnationandhismotherlandwhileothersarereadytosacrificeeverythingand

everyoneforthearmchair.”OtherreaderspointedoutthatŠešeljhadshown

25

commitmenttohisnationevenatthecostofhisownhealthbecausehewasrecently

diagnosedwithcancer(Rovčanin2016).Ahistorianwhoadmittedthatinthe1990s

Šešelj“spreadhatred,encourageddivisionismandworkedonbehalfofevil,”argued

inhisarticlethatŠešeljwenttobattlewithTheHaguefortherightintentions.

Accordingtothisauthor,“inhisepicwar[againstTheHague],Šešeljwon.”The

articlereceivedhighpraisefromtheaudiencewhorefertothetextas

“professional,”“graceful,”and“honest”(Antić2015).ThefactthatŠešeljspread

hatredduringthe1990swarwasthereforeacknowledgedanddidnotaffecthis

statusasamartyrintheSerbianpress.Theoneman’sbattleagainstthe

internationalgiantwasperceivedasanepiceventthatwassomehowmore

significantthanhiscrimes.

Theconstantcirculationofideasofmartyrdommadespaceforthe

celebrationofslynessandridiculeofinternationalcourtsintheSerbianmedia.

WhatmadeKaradžićandŠešeljevenmoreappealingtothepressisthatthey

refusedtogoundergroundintohiding.ThedoublingofKaradžićmadehimaheroic

defenderofthenationbecauseherefusedtohideandlivedanextremelypubliclife

inBelgrade‘serving’hispeopleasDr.Dabić.Ratherthanperceivinghisdouble

personaassymptomsofadisorderedpersonality,Karadžić’sdoctorpersonawas

perceivedascunningandselfless(Petrović2015,366).Whatismissingfromthe

pressisanacknowledgmentthatifKaradžićwasabletopullofftheDraganDabić

personalitysowell,hecouldalsobeputtingonagrandactattheHague,anactthat

isdeceptiveinregardstothefacts,ratherthanreflectiveoftheSerbian‘truth.’Some

ofmyintervieweesarguedthatinitsattempttoensureŠešelj’srighttodefend

himself,theICTYfailedtolimithisfreedomevenincircumstanceswhenheridiculed

judges,publiclyexposedwitnessesunderprotection,and“destroy[ed]thedignityof

thecourt”(DjordjePopović,Interview,June23,2011).However,mostperceived

thisasapositiveoutcomeindicatingthatŠešeljoutsmartedTheHagueina

remarkablyentertainingway.“WatchingŠešeljincourtislikewatchingBig

26

Brother,”6commentedaprofessorofSociology(IvanŠijaković,Interview,July12,

2011).Šešelj’ssupporterspostedvideosfromhisdefenceonsocialmedia,including

vulgarchauvinistictitlessuchas“ŠešeljrapesTheHague.”Suchvideoshave

receivedclosetoamillionhits,whichisaremarkablyhighnumberforarecording

oflegalproceedings.

Thesecondsectionofthispaperillustratedhowthedomesticmedia

respondedtoandamplifiedKaradžićandŠešelj’strialperformances.Whilethe

sectionfocusedonhowthemediatransmittedthedefendants’messagesand

reproducedthewarcriminalcult,someofthereaders’commentshintedthatthe

domesticaudienceboughtthestory.7WehavelearnedfromJackSnyder’sworkthat

thisoutcomeshouldnotbesurprising:whenpeoplearebombardedwiththesame

informationwhichispackagedtoappealtotheirpredispositionsandnoalternative

isoffered,thereisagoodchancethattheywillabsorbit.Moreover,thedefendants

ontrialarefromthesamecaliberofactorswhoduringtheelectionsinthe1990s

exploitedthenewlyfreepressandhijackedthepublicdebateforilliberalends

(Snyder2000,19).Thesepoliticalentrepreneursunderstandthepowerof

monumentalevents,suchaselectionsandtrials,andhaveexperienceworkingthe

mediachannels.

Manyofmyquiteliberalintervieweeswhosupportedtheexistenceofthe

tribunalandfullcooperationwiththeinstitution,andcalledfortheirsocietiesto

admittheirguiltandfacethepast,alsoboughtintothenarrativeproducedby

KaradžićandŠešelj.Itisnotthattheseintervieweesdidnotbelievethatthe

defendantswereguiltyofwarcrimesandcrimesagainsthumanity.Theproblem

wasthattheyalsobelievedthatthereweremanyequallyguiltyindividualsamong

Croats,BosnianMuslims,andinternationalactorsinvolvedintheconflictwhowere

6 The interviewee is referring to the popular television reality show Big Brother, rather than the character from George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. 7 To what degree this narrative is internalized by the Serbian public and the various reasons why the war criminal cult resonates at home are larger questions that I address in my book project entitled [In]Humanity on Trial: Domestic Perceptions of International Criminal Tribunals. In the book I argue that media is just one among many factors that contribute to the domestic support for leaders on trial at The Hague.

27

notbroughttotrial.8Inthiscontext,peopleoftenmadethejudgmentthat

supportingtheirowncrookswasbetterthansupportingforeigncrooks.They

believedtheirowncrookstobemoreconsistentandtrustworthyevenifsuch

individualsdisplayeddualandhighlynarcissistpersonas.Theprevalentnarrative

theninvolvedanextremelynegativeopinionofalloftheprincipalactorsinthe

conflictandinthisnarrativetheICTYwasanextensionofthatconflict,ratherthana

righteousinstitutioncorrectingthemoralwrongsofthepast.Thereisnoindication

inmyevidencethatthemediaperceivednotplayingbytherulesoftheinternational

courtasproblematic,andthereforecirculatedamessageofgenerallackofrespect

forinternationallaw.ThiscontextallowedthedefendantstoportrayTheHagueas

theultimateevilontheonehand,andtotrivializeitsimportanceontheotherhand.

ThispapertracedtheprocessthroughwhichRadovanKaradžićandVojislav

Šešeljconstructedthewarcriminalcultandreinforcedanationalistdiscoursethat

emphasizedWesternimperialistictendencies.Theanalysisofthestatementsthe

defendantsmadeincourtillustratedhowaninternationalcourtcanbecomea

podiumthatgrants‘madmen’achanceto‘perform’andremainrelevantinpublic

narratives.KaradžićandŠešeljcollectivizedtheirguiltandconstitutedtheirtrialsas

nationalratherthanindividual.Theymobilizednationalismbydeployingmythical

languageandtakingadvantageofexistingcodingbiasesandnationalframes,which

becameacceptedandgeneralizedduringtheconflict.Thispaperillustratedhowthe

defendantsrevitalizedandmodifiedthenationwhichisimportantbecause,as

Brubakerexplains,“groupnessdoesnotremainthereoutofinertia”(2002,177).It

requiresactivesocialandcognitiveworktokeepitsustained.TheSerbianpressdid

littletohamperKaradžićandŠešelj’sploystodelegitimizeandridiculethecourt,

andinsteadofferedcoverageoftheirspectacles.Throughthisprocesswarcriminals

effectivelywonthemselvesblanketamnestyathome.

SupportersoftheTribunalarguedthattelevisingtrialproceedings

encouragedthegeneralpublictoaccepthowcriminalandinhumanetheactsof

theirformerleaderswere,thereforeconvincingthepublictodistanceitselffrom

8 See also Peskin 2008.

28

theseactors.Forexample,GaryBassarguesthat“[f]orpublicattitudestoshift,

criminalleadersmustbetried–theirauraofmysteryshatteredbyshowingtheir

weaknessesandstupidities”(2000,288).Idisagreewiththesuggestionthat

internationalcriminaltrialsshowthe“weaknessesandstupidities”oflocalleaders.

TheevidencesuggeststhatKaradžićandŠešeljbecamemythologizedratherthan

delegitimizedthroughtheICTYprocess.9SabrinaRametarguesthat

“deprogramming”oftheSerbianpeoplemightbeneeded(775).Iagreethatde-

grouping,deconstruction,andde-programmingofthenationalistframeis

necessary,however,itappearsthatwecannotexpectinternationalinstitutionsto

contributetothisgoal.Snyder’spointthattheinternationalcommunityneedstobe

abletodistinguishcircumstancesthatappeartosupportimportantgoalsin

transitionalsocieties,suchasdemocratization,butcanresultin“alengthy

antidemocraticdetour”canalsobeappliedtotheobjectiveofestablishingtherule

oflaw(2000,20).Inaworldviewwhereglobalpoliticsistherealmofcrooksand

TheHagueisanextensionoftheseglobalconflicts,familiarcriminalsarepreferable

overforeigncriminals.

9 See also Stahn 2009.

29

References“Branimnarod,anesebe.”VečernjeNovosti(Srbija)1Mar.2010.“DrŠešelj’shistoricalstatementattheICTY,Hague,Netherlands.”www.anti-

censura.com,https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bM_es_sScjw.14July2013.Video.

“FootageofKaradžićindisguise.”BBCNews.EuroNews.22July2008.Video.“GanićnaredionapaduDobrovoljačkoj.”Politika(Srbija).1Mar.2010.“HaguedropssummonsforSerbsuspect,avertingstand-off.”Reuters.16March2016.“HolanđanidabraneKaradžića.”VečernjeNovosti(RepublikaSrbija).21August2008.“InternationalTribunalForTheFormerYugoslavia:InternationalArrestWarrants

andOrdersforSurrenderForRadovanKaradžićandRatkoMladić.”I.L.M.36(1997):92-5.

“Karadžić–DraganDabićinjegovdvostručanživot.”Video.GlasAmerike.24July

2008.“Karadžić:MenejeabortiraoAlijaIzetbegović.”Press(Srbija)2March2010.“MonstrumsPala:SrbimaratnijebiopotrebanvećMuslimanimaiHrvatima.”

DnevniAvaz.1March2010.“PolitičkiRijaliti.”Politika.13March2015.“PredsednikNikolić:PresudanesmedautičenasudbinuRS.”Politika.24March2016.“RadikaliodržalimeetinguBeogradu:ŠešeljtvrdidajeHaglažnisud,KaradžićosuđensamezatoštojeSrbin?”Telegraf.24March2016.“StudentdormnamedafterwarcrimessuspectRadovanKaradžić.”TheGuardian.20March2016.“SuđenjebivšemlideruRS.”Blic(Srbija).1March2010.“Vičić:NačinnakojiseHagponašapremaSrbijijevelikiproblem.”VečernjeNovosti.

13February2016.

30

“VojislavŠešelj’sacquittalisavictoryforadvocatesofethniccleansing.”TheEconomist.31March2016.Antić,Čedomir.“Šešelj”Politika.3April2015.Bass,GaryJ.2000.StaytheHandofVengeance:ThePoliticsofWarCrimesTribunals.

Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.Biddle,Jo.“OutrageattheUNcourt’s‘rewriting’ofBalkanswars.”AFP.1April2016.Bloxham,Donald.2008.“MilestonesandMythologies:TheImpactofNuremberg.”In

Atrocitiesontrial:historicalperspectivesonthepoliticsofprosecutingwarcrimes,editedbyPatriciaHebererandJurgenMatthaus.Lincoln:UniversityofNebraskaPress.

Borger,Julian.“TheRadovanKaradžićwarcrimestrialisEurope’sbiggestsince

Nuremberg.”TheGuardian.23March2016.Bowcott,Owen.“SerbnationalistVojislavŠešeljacquittedofwarcrimesatThe

Hague.”TheGuardian.31March2016.Božović,Ratko.2009.“GroundZeroofPolitics–Blockade,Stagnationand

Regression.”InBetweenAuthoritarianismandDemocracyVol.III:SerbiaatthePoliticalCrossroads,editedbyDragicaVujadinović,andVladimirGoati.Belgrade:FriedrichEbertStifungandCEDET.

Brubaker,Roger.2002.“EthnicityWithoutGroups.”ArchivesEuropéennesde

SociologieVol.XLIIIIss.2:163-189.Caspersen,Nina.2015.“Contingentnationalistdominance:Intra-Serbchallengesto

theSerbDemocraticParty.”NationalitiesPapers:TheJournalofNationalismandEthnicity34(1):51-69.

Defenceclosingstatement.VojislavSeselj.ICTYtranscript.14March2012.Defencestatement(Rule84bis).RadovanKaradžić.ICTYtranscript.16October

2012.DelPonte,Carla.2004.“Prosecutorv.SlobodanMilošević.”UniversityofToronto

Library.3May.Donia,Robert.2014.RadovanKaradžić:ArchitectoftheBosnianGenocide.

Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

31

Dragovic-Soso,Jasna.2012.“ApologisingforSrebrenica:thedeclarationoftheSerbianparliament,theEuropeanUnionandthepoliticsofcompromise.”EastEuropeanPolitics28(2).

Firstinitialappearance.VojislavŠešelj.ICTYtranscript.26February2003.Graubart,JonathanandLathaVaradarajan.2013.“TakingMiloševićseriously:

Imperialism,law,andthepoliticsofglobaljustice.”InternationalRelations27(4):439-460.

Gustafson,Carri.1998.“InternationalCriminalCourts:SomeDissidentViewsonthe

ContinuationofWarbyPenalMeans.”HoustonJournalofInternationalLaw21.Initialappearance.RadovanKaradžić.ICTYtranscript.31July2008.InternationalCommitteeoftheRedCross.2006.“ICRCCountryReportonBosnia-

Herzegovina.”Availableat:http://www.icrc.org/web/englsiteengo.nsf/htmlall/onwar_reports/$file/bosnia.pdf.September.

Judah,Tim.2000.TheSerbs:History,Myth,andtheDestructionofYugoslavia.New

HavenandLondon:YaleUniversityPress.Kumar,Krishna.2006.“InternationalAssistancetoPromoteIndependentMediain

TransitionandPost-conflictSocieties.”Democratization13(4).Lelyveld,Joseph.“TheDefendant:SlobodanMilošević’sTrail,andtheDebate

SurroundingInternationalCourts.”TheNewYorker.27May2002.Lippman,Peter.2008.“RadovanKaradžićCapturedAfterSerbsVoteOutHard-Line

NationalistGovernment.”TheWashingtonReportonMiddleEastAffairs27(7):38-9.

Milanović,Marko.2009.“TheArrestandImpendingTrialofRadovanKaradžić.”

InternationalandComparativeLawQuarterly58(Jan):212-9.Morf,C.C.,andF.Rhodewalt.2001.“Unravelingtheparadoxesofnarcissism:A

dynamicself-regulatoryprocessingmodel.”PsychologicalInquiry12.Pešić,Vesna.2009.“NationalismofanImpossibleState:AFrameworkfor

UnderstandingtheUnsuccessfulTransitiontoLegitimacyinSerbia.”InBetweenAuthoritarianismandDemocracyVol.III:SerbiaatthePoliticalCrossroads,editedbyDragicaVujadinović,andVladimirGoati.Belgrade:FriedrichEbertStifungandCEDET.

32

Peskin,Victor.2008.InternationalJusticeinRwandaandtheBalkans:VirtualTrialsandtheStruggleforStateCooperation.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Peterson,Benjamin.2009.“GoalsandGroups:TestingaFunctional(Defensive)Self-

RegulatoryModelofGroupIdentity.”ProQuestDissertationandTheses.Petrović,Vladimir.2015.“ReviewofRadovanKaradžić:architectoftheBosnian

genocidebyRobertDonia.”InNationalitiesPapers:TheJournalofNationalismandEthnicity43(2):365-367.

Ramet,Sabrina.2007.“ExplainingtheYugoslavmeltdown,2:Atheoryaboutthe

causesoftheYugoslavmeltdown:TheSerbiannationalawakeningasa‘revitalizationmovement.’”NationalitiesPapers:TheJournalofNationalismandEthnicity32(4):765-779.

Rovčanin,S.S.“Šešelj:Idemuizbornupobedu,aneuHag.”VečernjeNovosti.17

February2016.

Saxon,Dan.2005.“ExportingJustice:PerceptionsoftheICTYAmongtheSerbian,Croatian,andMuslimcommunitiesintheFormerYugoslavia.”JournalofHumanRights4.

Simpson,Daniel.“DefendantinHaguetoAimDefenseatSerbsoftheFuture.”TheNewYorkTimes.20February2003.

Simpson,Gerry.2004.GreatPowersandOutlawStates.Cambridge:Cambridge

UniversityPress.Snyder,Jack.2000.FromVotingtoViolence:DemocratizationandNationalist

Conflict.NewYork:W.W.NortonandCompanyLtd.Spalović,Dejan.“Vučić:Srbijamoradaverujeuživot.”Politika.24March2016.Stahn,Carsten.“TheFutureofInternationalCriminalJustice.”TheHagueJustice

Portal.9October2009.Statusconferenceopensession.RadovanKaradžić.ICTYtranscript.19January

2009.Thompson,Allen.2007.TheMediaandtheRwandaGenocide,editedbyAllen

Thompson.Ottawa:IDRC,PlutoPress,FountainPublishers.Vujin,Milan.“MilanVujin:Radikalenetrebaizručiti.”VečernjeNovosti.17February

2016.

33

WeaverG.R.2006.“Virtueinorganizations:Moralidentityasafoundationformoral

agency.”OrganizationStudies27(3):341-368.Wolfgram,MarkA.2013.“DidacticWarCrimesTrialsandExternalLegalCulture:

TheCasesoftheNurembergandFrankfurtAuschwitzTrialsinWestGermany.”Unpublishedmanuscript.