The last working days of the Hague Court offered us court dramas. We recently witnessed how the convicted war criminal, Ratko Mladić, cursed the judges after they sent him to life imprisonment for the four-year strangulation of Sarajevo and the genocide in Srebrenica. He was taken out of the courtroom for a medical examination because the punishment "excited him a lot." Mladić's theatrical exit from the courtroom was not worthy of a soldier.
A few days ago, we watched the suicide of another convicted war criminal, Slobodan Praljak. This HVO commander in the so-called Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosnia, was sentenced to 20 years in prison. Praljak disputed the validity of the verdict and drank poison from a small glass that he somehow managed to bring into the courtroom. He died an hour later.
Like Mladić before him, Paljak chose the easier option than facing the consequences of his actions during the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The fact that Paljak committed suicide is not a confirmation of his personal courage and faith in his own innocence. On the contrary, it was a cowardly act of shirking responsibility and a pathetic manifestation of freedom.
Of course, Praljak will be posthumously turned into a hero and celebrated as a proud son of his people who "went into legend" as befits a soldier. In national mythologies, suicide is an integral part of the construction of the concept of "chivalry" that legitimizes the narrative of the victim. In our area, the factory of myths never stopped working at full steam.
In addition to confirming the earlier verdict against the officers of the so-called Herceg-Bosna, the court panel pointed out that they, together with the Croatian president Tuđman, participated in a "joint criminal enterprise" in the desire to ethnically cleanse the Muslim population from the territory of BiH to which the Croats claimed.
This is a very significant element of the judgment and could have far-reaching consequences. It establishes a clear link between the political leaders in Croatia at the time and the military activities of the Bosnian Croats. It is confirmed that those military actions against the Muslim population were the product of political decisions made in coordination with the then government structures in Zagreb. It also deconstructs the story of Croatian defense engagement in Bosnia and Herzegovina during the 1990s. As lawyer Anto Nobilo noted, anyone who participated in the war in Bosnia was, in effect, participating in a "joint criminal enterprise." In the end, this part of the judgment actualizes the need to thoroughly investigate a question that has been on the lips of many for a long time: Croatian aggression against Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The reactions of Croatian officials and Croatian political leaders in BiH to the confirmation of the verdict and Praljak's suicide are anchored in the nationalist narrative. This is not surprising. This confirmation of the previous judgment, like all other judgments of the Hague Tribunal, has nothing to do with any nation or group. The Trial Chamber clearly identified the individuals responsible for the crimes committed. Nevertheless, Croatian politicians were quick to assert that the verdict is an example of a "moral injustice" committed against the Croatian people. The comments of political leaders of Croats in BiH were on the same background.
This confirms that all nationalists think and act the same, and that warmongering, conspiracy theories and generalizations to hide the truth have never been the exclusive property of apologists for crimes in Pale, Banja Luka, Belgrade, and Podgorica.
Even this confirmation of earlier judgments will not contribute to reconciliation in the region. As has been said many times before, the court in The Hague was not created for this purpose. Formed in the spirit of the former court in Nuremberg, the international court in The Hague had the obligation to legally prosecute high-ranking officials for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Expectations that this court will assess who is guilty of the wars in Yugoslavia have no support in reality.
The region is ruled by war elites and they should not be expected to admit any degree of responsibility. Insisting on the narrative of victimhood and innocence that had to defend itself from aggressive neighbors is, among other things, what kept those girls in power and free all these years.
The region is divided as it was in the early 1990s. Public discourses are dominated by national heroes and traitors, absolute victims and absolute aggressors. Although it is not unachievable, it is unlikely that such nationalist fortresses will be dismantled in the near future.
Dr. S. Pavlović, University of Alberta, Dr. A. Buturović, York University
Bonus video:
