Full text of Indictment:"Citizens of Norway against Norwegian Foreign Mi

       --
____ CP||CKA KY/\TYPA ____ No. 847  Poruka od:  sbmpesic <sbmpesic@worldnet.att.net>

http://www.balkan.cc
================

Today, Norwegian citizens have demanded that the country's foreign
minister, Mr. Knut Vollebæk be tried and condemned for "Crimes against
Peace and a Common Plan or Conspiracy to Commit such Crimes". This is the
first time any Norwegian has been accused of such offenses against the
charter of the United Nations and The Hague and Vienna conventions. 

Thus, we feel that it is every Norwegian's duty, however remote the Balkan
conflict may seem, and whatever conception of it one has had so far, to
take the time to study these accusations. We want to stress that this is
not a move in the propaganda war between the parties, even if some of them
may depict it as such. It is a demand for indictment based on Norwegian and
international law, and Norwegian authorities are bound to treat it on that
ground.

A copy of this demand for indictment is forwarded to the international
tribunal for the former Yugoslavia at The Hague. By its own statute, this
tribunal is bound to investigate the matter we set forth, if necessary to
demand extradition of Mr. Vollebæk and ultimately to try and sentence him
in accord with international law, should Norwegian authorities not treat
the matter expeditiously, effectively and legally correct.

Purpose of the Indictment

An indictment this serious warrants an extensive explanation. Much of what
we know about the Balkan conflict has been reported in fragments, and the
information as such has not always been reliable. Nevertheless, were we to
give the shortest possible reason for the indictment, we would quote the
four paragraphs preceding the indictment proper. We demand legal action
Recognizing that these acts are in violation of the Charter of the United
Nations and preceding and pursuant international law,

Convinced of the need to establish that no-one shall be exempt from
international justice,
Aware that current and future implementation of international justice
depends on our moral obligation, as well as our obligation under Norwegian
and international law, to contribute to an impartial, fair and strict
implementation of the letter and spirit of international law,

Concerned that any exception made from these principles may in fact and law
weaken the universal respect for and adherence to international justice and
law, thus justifying and facilitating further breaches of international law.

We consider it to be beyond any doubt that the belligerent acts against
Yugoslavia constitute a breach of the most important articles of the UN
charter, which in its very first articles assures each country a right to
sovereignty and protection against attacks by foreign states or organizations.

In itself, this is enough to indict Mr. Vollebæk.

Grounds of the Indictment

Nevertheless, many Norwegians – possibly a majority of us – will protest
that Kosovo presents us with a catastrophe of such dimensions that even
international law must be set aside. We do not agree: One wrongdoing must
never be met with another. But even those who justify the bombing of Serbia
in this way, presume that foreign minister and chairman of the OCSE Knut
Vollebæk has at least acted in the spirit of international law, if not
abiding by its letter.

This is not correct.

Just as Norway has a constitution that supersedes all our other laws, e.g.
the penal code or civil law, the UN charter is the global constitution.
Singular jurisdictions – ranging from environmental issues to war – are
established through international agreements. The UN charter states that
the right to interfere in national conflicts by use of arms lies with the
Security Council alone. Any other military intervention is a war of
aggression. All civilized nations accept that the conventions we refer to
supersede national law. The most important conventions we base our
complaint on, are the conventions of The Hague, Vienna and Geneva. To put
it in simple terms, the Hague convention demands that disputes be settled
by pacific means, while the Vienna convention forbids the use of threats in
international negotiations; and establishes that accords signed under the
threat of belligerent force are null and void. The Geneva Convention sets
down rules for warfare, should the parties be unable to settle their
dispute by peaceful means. Finally, the Human rights convention guarantees
each individual certain immutable basic rights disregarding its nationality.

In other words, if you are among those who believe that the attack against
Serbia is justified, you might claim that Mr. Vollebæk has violated the
Hague and Vienna conventions to fulfill the Human rights and Geneva
conventions. You may also feel that the chairman of the OCSE has not acted
in defiance of article one, which obligates him to settle conflict by
peaceful means and forbids the waging of war. After all, as OCSE chairman,
he has gone to lengths to make President Milosevic sign the so-called
Rambouillet Accords, just as the Kosovar Albanians have done. Mr. Vollebæk
had made it sufficiently clear that NATO was going to bomb Serbia if Mr.
Milosevic did not sign, and neither his nor NATO's ultimatum could be
misunderstood.

State of the Law

Parts of the indictment concern themselves with those very Rambouillet
Accords, which are the basis for NATO's attack. To fully understand some of
the charges, you must know the essential features of the accords as well as
of Yugoslav history in this century. They are both closely interrelated.
You should also be aware that the indictment is based both on the letter
and implementation of international law, just as any Norwegian sentence is
passed in accordance with the law's text and earlier judgments referring to
that law. In this case, the most important relevant legal proceedings are
the so-called Nuremberg tribunals, i.e. the cases against German war
criminals after World War II. The decisions made and conclusions drawn
there have since become guiding principles for international justice. Here,
you will also find the legal definitions of the charges we demand be raised
against Mr. Vollebæk. Thus, it is essential that you understand that we
refer to legal concepts and custom only when quoting these proceedings. In
no conceivable way is anybody implying that there is common ground between
the foreign minister and the men on trial at the Nuremberg tribunal. Should
anyone claim otherwise, that is a blatant lie.

Milosevic and the Rambouillet Document

Once that is said, we should add that very few – if any – of those behind
this indictment have sympathy for Slobodan Milosevic. We are all appalled
by the atrocities that have been committed against innocent people in the
Balkans during his reign. Should anyone claim otherwise, that is untrue as
well.
We have stated earlier that the foreign minister on any account is guilty
of contravening international law by defying the UN charter. Additionally,
he has been instrumental in the breaches against the Hague convention that
you will find in the indictment. Some of them are based on the content of
the Rambouillet document. Since one of the parties has refused to sign it,
we will not refer to it as a treaty or agreement. It has been suggested
that the document as such is reasonable enough, and that the Kosovo
conflict may have been settled in a satisfactory manner, had only Mr.
Milosevic signed it.

You have not seen the Rambouillet document, and you have been given no
explanation as to why Mr. Milosevic refused to sign it, other than the
assumption that he is a ruthless powermonger who will stop short of nothing
in his pursuit of a Greater Serbia. It is virtually impossible for the
common man to get hold of the document proper, and the inquiries we have
made, show that only a very few Norwegian journalists have actually seen
it. If you have access to the Internet, you might try to look for it. All
the Western foreign departments, including Norway's, have extensive sites,
as have NATO, OCSE, USA's information agency and the Rambouillet
negotiation itself. You will not find the document there – and certainly
not the version containing the Serb reservations. The Norwegian foreign
department, whose minister is chairman of the OCSE, does not hand it out.
In simple terms, this means that Norwegians do not know the document we
have gone to war for.

The American Chief of Counsel at the Nuremberg tribunal, Robert N. Jackson,
states that certain facts are so obvious that there is no need to discuss
them in detail, and thus let them take away time from important matters of
prosecution and defense. Nevertheless, we feel obliged to give space to
some such facts, since they have not been widely publicized, and one might
otherwise assume that they are known only to the people of Russia and
Serbia. We have good reasons to assume that some of the parties in the
conflict have tried to conceal them.

Historical Background

Throughout this century, and long before that, the Balkans have been the
possibly most controversial territory in Europe. The reasons behind this
are so complex and so many that it would be impossible to cover them all
here. It should suffice to remind you that one world war started here, and
that another led to a ferocious in-fighting between the different ethnic
groups in Yugoslavia. Essentially, the Serbs fought the Croatians and
Muslims, who sided with the so-called Axis powers, Germany and Italy. The
atrocities committed against Yugoslavs – mainly Serbs – are well
documented: The bombing of Belgrade; the slave camps; the "Blood Road" here
in Norway; the forced splitting up of Yugoslavia into vassal states or
protectorates like Croatia and Kosovo. At the same time, the Russians
fought the Axis powers in a war that demanded inconceivable sacrifices.
Both Serbs and Russians count their dead in millions. For nearly four
years, Russian and Serbs (and, of course, many other peoples) fought a
desperate battle against all odds before the Allies finally invaded
Normandy and established a second front that gave Russia and Yugoslavia
some relief. As you know, both these countries were occupied, and the
Eastern peoples felt that the Western allies knowingly let them down by
establishing a Western front this late. They felt that the West cynically
let others sacrifice themselves to keep its own losses at a minimum.
Whether they were right to feel that way, is not for us to judge. However,
we will establish some facts that cannot be denied:
Firstly, Serb and Russian citizens are adamant never again to permit
foreign armed forces on their territory. If you doubt this is true, you may
want to ask Norwegians who have experienced the Second World War, in
particular those who have had personal contact with Russian and Serb slave
laborers in Norway.

Secondly, it is completely out of the question for any Russian or Serb – no
matter the time or circumstance – to put up with the deployment of armed
forces in any way associated with the powers that have inflicted such
suffering upon them – first and foremost Germany and Italy, but to a
certain extent Great Britain and the United States.

Thirdly, most Russians and Serbs feel that the West has cynically exploited
their countries' economic and strategic weakness following the collapse of
the Warsaw Pact to promote the same long-term goals one has pursued
throughout this century: To cut them off from the Mediterranean and the
Bosporus, to secede Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo, to create
instability in other areas, such as the Vojvodina, and to create an
alliance of potentially hostile states around their borders. In Russia's
case, that would amount to Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary, for
Yugoslavia the territorial entities that have been re-established today.
One should add that many Russians and Yugoslavs believe that one of the
reasons behind the brutal conflict on the Balkans is the actions taken by
those very NATO countries after the fall of the Berlin wall. It was duly
noticed that Germany was the first country to recognize Slovenia and
Croatia, and that by doing so the Germans forced the rest of the European
Community and NATO to follow suit. Also, it led to considerable anxiousness
when German chancellor Helmut Kohl expressed doubts against the validity of
the eastern border between Germany and Poland. A considerable amount of
Serbs feel that they, above all, have become the victims of the Balkan
conflict, and even though there is – and should be – no way to measure
human suffering statistically, it is a fact that 700,000 Serbs have been
driven from their homes during this conflict; from Croatia, Slovenia,
Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo, far more than any other ethnic group. When
the terms "ethnic cleansing" and "Greater Serb ambitions" on the Balkans
are use, one should also remember this: Most Russians and Serbs are
concerned with two things above all; to live in peace and never, ever,
become victims of Croatian, Muslim, German or Italian ambitions again. Or
of European disregard. The inhuman unfolding of the conflict on the Balkans
should be seen against this background, too.

We consider these three facts to be universal knowledge, and we accuse
anyone who claims not to have known them, to lack an understanding of history.

Information about the War

Forth, the common citizens of Belgrade for example, are used to receive
information both through Western media – by satellite TV, radio and the
Internet – and their own government's media. They are given a far more
versatile insight into the positions of the opposing parties than is the
common citizen of Oslo. Since Western media give the impression that only
the Serbs are subject to propaganda and censorship, we quote British
foreign minister Robin Cook, who according to the daily press release from
his own ministry (4/1/99) says: "We are also stepping up the propaganda
war. We have evidence that the people of Serbia want to know the truth
about what is going on in Kosovo, a truth that has been denied to them by
the authorities in Belgrade. [He goes on to state that Serb media are
largely controlled by Milosevic, then describes the contents of two
Internet websites set up by his government.] Since including material in
Serbian last Friday, the Foreign Office website has already received 10,000
hits from Serbia alone." Many Russians and Serbs perceive the Western
propaganda as hateful and unfair, especially when it compares Mr. Milosevic
to Adolf Hitler or Serbs to Nazi Germans: They feel that the depiction of
forced transports by railway, genocide and ethnic cleansing on purpose try
to create an image of Serbs comparable with the German SS, and that one
turns Nazi atrocities that have in fact been committed against Serbs around
to give the impression that they committed them against other ethnic
groups. When only a very few Serbs even bother to try and relate their
viewpoints to the West these days, the reason is that most feel their
stands and attitudes will not be reported fairly anyway.

The Situation Today

Whether these viewpoints are well-founded or not, is up to everyone to
consider individually. Regarding the three initial points, one may find
them irrational: Just as today's Russia under Boris Yeltsin's leadership
cannot be compared to the Soviet Union under Stalin or Bresnyev, there is
no comparing democratic countries like Germany and Italy with states ruled
by Mussolini, Hitler or Kaiser Wilhelm. Yet, Norwegians would never
consider abolishing our military presence in northern Norway on the ground
that today's Russia has no strategic interests in the northern regions –
however democratic the country may be or become. The Serbs' anxiety over
NATO's strategic goals, multiplied by thousands due to their high-priced
experiences in near history, cannot just be ignored. Doing so is not just
absurd and irresponsible, under certain circumstances it may be a crime.

We repeat that certain facts are universal, and that anyone who claims not
to have known them, either lacks a basic knowledge of history or does not
speak the truth. Furthermore, we repeat that the Russian and Serb fear of
NATO – Italy and Germany in particular – is amongst these universally known
facts. We also find it appropriate to remind you that as we write, Belgrade
is being bombed by planes taking off from Italian airbases.

The Foreign Minister's Part

There are several reasons why we demand that Mr. Vollebæk, and not, for
example Prime minister Bondevik, be indicted. International law establishes
that any participant in a war of aggression (A "crime against peace") is
individually responsible. There is no refuge in diplomatic immunity or
office, nor is it a valid defense to claim one was following orders from a
superior. International law has put into practice that anyone – from prime
minister to fighter pilot – in principle is equally guilty and must be
indicted and eventually convicted.

But we are not on a vendetta. It is our responsibility to establish that we
respect and abide with the standards of justice, so that others may do the
same. As chairman of the OCSE, Mr. Vollebæk is in a special position where
he has had a significant influence on the outcome of the Rambouillet talks
and the subsequent war against Serbia. He is one of the key players. We see
it as our duty to pronounce that each people is obliged to indict and
sentence its own criminals. We urge the citizens of all parties involved in
the Balkan conflict, especially Serbia and Germany, the countries bearing
the heaviest current and historic responsibility, to take the same step
that we do. It is our responsibility to point out to them that they can
expect no international justice if they do not provide for domestic
justice. We are convinced that, just like us, the citizens of these other
states are troubled and disconsolate about the plight our countries'
leaders and soldiers have brought upon us. We hope to have given them a
tool, but the work has to be done by the citizens of each country. Our
message to them is:

We do not put up with standing helplessly by while the Balkan crisis
worsens each day, and we also refuse to believe that this disaster was
unavoidable. At the same time, it is our duty to see to it that those
responsible on all sides are put to justice, to at least prevent national
and international lawlessness from consolidating the right of the strongest
the next time as well. Our politicians have neither been able to secure a
fair and peaceful solution to the Balkan problem, nor have they managed to
implement the necessary amendments of international law to give the global
community the means to intervene in humanitarian disasters like the one we
are facing.

The Balkan Charter

Thus, we appeal to all virtuous forces to demand these actions from our
authorities:
To immediately contribute to establishing talks with the parties of the
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia – in particular the Yugoslav government – to
deploy peacekeeping forces with no association to the NATO alliance. To
guarantee that these forces carry out their assignment fairly and
effectively, the parties should also accept that these troops be monitored
by a neutral corps of observers. It would desirable that this corps
represent the member nations of the OCSE, but if the OCSE no longer is
trusted by the parties, this is no requisite.

To immediately take the necessary legal steps to establish whether NATO's
attack on Yugoslavia is in accordance with international law, and to
suspend all political, economic and military support to the attack until
this has been done. To permanently stop the attacks if they are deemed
extra-legal.
To immediately make the necessary arrangements so that all those
responsible for the grave breaches of international law committed
throughout the Kosovo conflict, may be tried and sentenced for violation of
these laws, including planning and waging wars of aggression and crimes
against peace, as set down in fact and law.

To appeal to the international community and each of its nations to follow
Norway's example to establish beyond doubt that we do not accept any
violation of international law, no matter if it takes place in or between
sovereign states; and no matter whether the perpetrators feel protected by
morality; national, diplomatic, political or military status, immunity or
power. The prosecution must be made universal and individual.

To act as soon as possible to amend international agreements, including, if
necessary, the UN charter, to ensure that it will no longer be possible to
violate peace and fundamental human rights as we have lately seen done in
the former Yugoslavia and other countries. In particular this includes, but
is not restricted to, the duty of the international community to intervene
effectively and timely in this kind of disasters.

The Grounds of Indictment

The Fact of the Rambouillet Document

We will now particularize our reasons for demanding an indictment:

We consider it an irrefutable fact that chairman of the OCSE and foreign
minister Vollebæk before, during and after the Rambouillet talks was fully
aware that no Serb at any conceivable time or circumstance would accept a
treaty that, amongst other points, contain clauses demanding that the Serbs
invite NATO to deploy armed troops, with or without German and Italian
contingents, on Serb territory ("Implementation II", chapter 7, art. 1 a
and b – p. 54), the Serbs invite the UN Security Council to pass a
resolution endorsing and adapting such a deployment, despite the fact that
the Security Council on two occasions has passed resolutions (1160 and
1199) that clearly state that any right to military intervention lies with
the Security Council alone. ("Implementation II", chapter 7, art. 1 a – p.
54),
these troops be immune from indictments, or even investigations, of any
crimes they may commit, not just in Kosovo, but in all of Yugoslavia. This
expressively includes criminal acts. ("Appendix B", pt. 6 a and b – p. 77),
Kosovo – a territory in a sovereign state – be given its own constitution
and corresponding constitutional institutions, such as a president and a
supreme court. ("Constitution", chapter 1 – p. 7–25),
the Serbs thank the OCSE for its contributions to peace and stability in
Kosovo. (Preamble – p. 1).
Its has been put forward that Mr. Milosevic was the only reason this
agreement was not signed. This has been done in the confidence that the
general public was going to be unaware of the actual text of the agreement
or the historical background why the Serbs were sure to deny signing it. By
contributing to this, Mr. Vollebæk has not just faced the Serbs with an
ultimatum he knew must lead to war, but also prevented other mediators to
advance proposals for a solution acceptable to the parties. Time after
time, Mr. Vollebæk has stated that the Serbs had the choice between Mr.
Milosevic' signature and a NATO attack. In reality, Mr. Milosevic had
little bearing on the refusal to sign – it is doubtful that Mr. Vollebæk
would have found any Serb who would have signed such conditions.

At the latest when one reads that the demand for an own Kosovo constitution
is amongst the non-negotiable clauses for Serbia to avoid bombing, one will
understand that the aim of this document could not have been to make way
for a military action on humanitarian grounds. Had the intention indeed
been to deploy troops to come to the rescue of the Kosovar people, the OCSE
would not have supported the insistence on such a controversial demand, but
deferred the question until one had intervened in and settled the regional
hostilities.

The Ultimatum

By the very fact that Mr. Vollebæk must have known that these demands were
unacceptable from the very start, this is in principle similar to the
ultimatum the German government presented to Austria in 1938 and
Czechoslovakia at the outset of World War II. Amongst other things, this
constitutes a violation of the Hague convention, which imposes on the
parties to seek peaceful solutions to conflicts based on international law.
(The Nuremberg Judgment, p. 21 and 37–39 inter aliae)

Chairmanship of the OCSE

In his capacity of chairman of the OCSE and Norwegian foreign minister, Mr.
Vollebæk must have been aware from the very beginning that he would or
could not submit acceptable premises for negotiations. At the very least in
his first capacity, he was obligated to see to it that the OCSE and
organizations promoting the same ultimatum, were replaced with individuals
or organizations that could make essential contributions towards a peaceful
solution of the conflict. By obstructing this, he knowingly violated the 

Hague convention.

By falsely creating an image that only the Serbs government's
irresponsibility interfered with the signing of a peace agreement, he
knowingly set the stage for an international climate that in fact
restrained any other parties than the OCSE and NATO to mediate. This has
led us into a situation where practically any initiative on any other
premises than armed NATO intervention, will automatically be refused by the
West.

Crimes against Peace

Together with politicians, administrative and military personnel in NATO
and the OCSE, Mr. Vollebæk has participated in a Common Plan or Conspiracy
to Commit Crimes against Peace.
This makes the accusations directly related to these Crimes against Peace
even more grave. Primarily, they are concerned with the participation as
such in waging war, but they also include the acts we have complained of so
far. We quote page 371 of the Nuremberg trial, where the prosecutor states
that

"(1) The Charter imposes "individual responsibility" for acts constituting
"crimes against peace";

(2) The term "Crimes against peace" embraces planning, preparation,
initiation, or waging of illegal war;

(3) The term "Crimes against peace" also embraces participation in a common
plan or conspiracy to commit illegal war;

(4) An illegal war consists of either a war of aggression, or a war in
violation of international treaties, agreements, or assurances; (these two
kinds of illegal war might not necessarily be the same; it will be
sufficient for the prosecution to show either that the war was aggressive
irrespective of breach of international treaties, agreements or assurances,
or that the war was in violation of international treaties, agreements or
assurances irrespective of whether or not it was a war of aggression; [the
prosecution will prove that the defendants were guilty of both]);

(5) Individual criminal responsibility of a defendant is imposed by the
Charter not merely by reasons of direct, immediate participation in the
crime. It is sufficient to show that a defendant was a leader, an
organizer, instigator, or accomplice who participated either in the
formulation or in the execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit
crimes against peace. In this connection, the Charter declares that the
responsibility of conspirators extends not only to their own acts but also
to all acts performed by any persons in execution of the conspiracy." [Pt.
1–4 refer to the charter's article 6, pt. 5 to article 7]
We make these charges current in the case against Mr. Vollebæk. He stands
individually responsible for his acts, and cannot hide behind diplomatic
notes, judicial opinions, statements or the like. Moreover, he stands
responsible for the damages brought upon the sovereign state of Yugoslavia,
irrespective of the fact that he did not personally participate as a
combatant: "Every day in the courts of countries associated in this
prosecution, men are convicted for acts that they did not personally commit
but for which they were held responsible because of membership in illegal
combinations or plans or conspiracies." (P. 169)

The UN Charter

It is a universally acknowledged fact that international law prohibits acts
of war against a sovereign state, and that neutral states warrant a special
protection under these laws. When we state that Mr. Vollebæk has personally
taken part in a common plan or conspiracy to wage illegal war "in violation
of international treaties, agreements, or assurances", we are primarily
referring to the UN charter, which initially (Article 1 and later) declares
that the rights of the sovereign state are inviolable; that disputes –
regardless of their nature – must be settled by peaceful means; and that
the United Nations alone have the right to intervene by force in disputes
between nations (Articles 37, 42–43, 48, 52 inter aliae). This is widely
known, so we will focus on the specific duties the foreign minister had
according to international law. We refer to the UN charter, which
explicitly states that:

"The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the
decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter."
(Article 25)

The Security Council

This statement leaves no doubt that neither the OCSE, NATO, Norway or any
individual, in this case the foreign minister, may threaten with, plan or
carry out bombing or other acts of war without an explicit order by the
Security Council. In the both resolutions that are most often quoted as a
(legal) justification to bomb Yugoslavia, the main issue is the
international community's demand that the parties in Kosovo end their
hostilities; and that certain measures be taken to restore individual
safety and collective security in the area. The paragraphs relating
directly to international military actions read:

"[The Security Council] Emphasizes that failure to make constructive
progress towards the peaceful resolution of the situation in Kosovo will
lead to the consideration of additional measures." [Resolution 1160, 31
March 1998, pt. 19]

The parties are instructed to find a peaceful solution, and we take it for
granted that the Security council presupposed that any proposal for a
solution was to have a genuine possibility to be accepted by both parties.

When this failed for well-known reasons, the Security council adopted the
following:
"[The Security Council] Decides, should the concrete measures demanded in
this resolution and resolution 1160 (1998) not be taken, to consider
further action and additional measures to maintain or restore peace and
stability in the region." [Resolution 1199, 23 September 1998, pt. 16]

Three Areas of Responsibility

In addition to the general assurances given by its member states,
assurances that Mr. Vollebæk is responsible for carrying out, the United
Nations explicitly state that the Security council reserves the right to
military action. The UN member nations renounce this right in several of
the charter's articles, e.g. 24, 27 and 42. By defying these obligations,
Mr. Vollebæk has committed grave offenses against international law on
three counts: As Norwegian representative to the UN, he has disregarded his
solemn covenant to respect and abide by those articles in the charter that
secure sovereign states against assaults and reserve the use of force for
the Security council. As Norwegian cabinet member and his special
responsibility for out foreign and security policy, both nationally and
through his presence in NATO's organs, he has contributed to the
implementation of warfare against Yugoslavia. In this function at the very
least he was obligated to point out to the relevant parties, i.e. the
Norwegian parliament and cabinet; and the NATO council that the attack
violated international law and to oppose it by any and all legal means.
Instead, he actively participated in the planning and implementation of the
attack. Lastly, but not less importantly, the foreign minister failed his
obligation to contribute to a pacific settlement of the hostilities through
his chairmanship in the OCSE. We have already particularized that.

NATO

Thus, Mr. Vollebæk's obligations toward the UN and OCSE are indisputable.
For the record, we also wish to summarize his obligations towards the NATO
charter. We consider it universally known that NATO's first and foremost
task is to unite its members in a defensive alliance to protect the
individual state from being attacked by a foreign power. An attack on one
of its countries is considered an attack on the alliance as a whole.
Nevertheless, there is no reason to dismiss that NATO has a wider purpose
as well, namely to ensure the stability of the area that embodies its
sphere of interest. Few will dispute that a European country like
Yugoslavia lies within this sphere. To put it in simple terms, the claim
that NATO may interfere before a regional conflict evolves into a threat to
a member state or the alliance as such, deserves some merit. At least since
Hungary joined the alliance, the organization might pronounce that such a
situation is at hand. Whether the individual member states act in
accordance with their own charter, is their own business anyway – as long
as the organization proper does not violate international law. When that
happens, each perpetrator stands individually responsible for his acts. But
according to the UN charter, NATO as an organization has a responsibility
as well. The United Nations explicitly reserve the right to utilize
"regional arrangements or agencies for enforcement action under its
authority." With special regard to military organizations like NATO, the
charter states:

"But no enforcement action shall be taken under regional arrangements or by
regional agencies without the authorization of the Security Council, with
the exception of measures against any enemy state, as defined in paragraph
2 of this Article, provided for pursuant to Article 107 or in regional
arrangements directed against renewal of aggressive policy on the part of
any such state, until such time as the Organization may, on request of the
Governments concerned, be charged with the responsibility for preventing
further aggression by such a state." [Article 53, pt. 1]

This article leaves no doubt that the "organization" – NATO, in this case –
has no right to intervene in the Balkan conflict without UN authorization,
even given the possibility that NATO should interpret international law in
such a way that the encroachments in Kosovo constitute aggressive policies
by a hostile state. Probably, this is the reason that the chapter 7,
article 1 of the Rambouillet document (see above) states that the Serbs
must request the Security council to deploy NATO troops in their country:
It would seem that one of the agreeing parties must be forced to give
NATO's military intervention a legal justification after the act. In this
light, it is easier to understand why the foreign minister and his
coconspirators under international law so far have insisted they will
accept no solution to the conflict that does not include signing this
document. (The other paragraphs referred in this article are irrelevant to
the Kosovo conflict.)

Individual Responsibility

In this context, it should be appropriate to reiterate that the
responsibility for these violations of international law is individual, and
that no one – from prime minister to fighter pilot or drafted personnel who
in any way contribute to make this attack possible – can disclaim
responsibility. Everyone must individually consider his own participation
in the acts of war, since one will be made responsible regardless of
whether one followed orders or one's place in the political or military
hierarchy. As we have already pointed out, it is our task to bring justice
to the primary responsible Norwegian, not to start a vendetta. Thus, we
quote the Nuremberg sentence, which points out that only combatants
traditionally had been tried for breaking international law, but that
leaders of state are equally guilty:

"In the opinion of the [Nuremberg] Tribunal, those who wage aggressive war
are doing that which is equally illegal, and of much greater moment than a
breach of one of the rules of the Hague Convention." (P. 40)

Furthermore, the judgment establishes that "resort to a war of aggression
is not merely illegal, but is criminal. The prohibition of aggressive war
demanded by the conscience of the world, finds its expression in the series
of pacts and treaties to which the Tribunal has just referred." (P. 41) It
goes on:
"It was submitted that international law is concerned with the actions of
sovereign States, and provides no punishment for individuals; and further,
that where the act in question is an act of State, those who carry it out
are not personally responsible, but are protected by the doctrine of the
sovereignty of the State. In the opinion of the Tribunal, both these
submissions must be rejected. That international law imposes duties and
liabilities upon individuals as well as upon States has long been recognized.

Many other authorities could be cited, but enough has been said to show
that individuals can be punished for violations of international law.
Crimes against international law are committed by men, not by abstract
entities, and only by punishing individuals who commit such crimes can the
provisions of international law be enforced." (P. 41)

The tribunal refers to the special protection heads of state, foreign
ministers and diplomats have according to international law, and points out
that nobody can resort to such protection, since the essence of
international justice must be that "individuals have international duties
which transcend the national obligations of obedience imposed by the
individual state. He who violates the laws of war cannot obtain immunity
while acting in pursuance of the authority of the state if the state in
authorising action moves outside its competence under international law."
(P. 42)

The charter for the international tribunal for war crimes committed in the
former Yugoslavia mirrors this principle (Article 7). This is not just a
solemnly sworn principle. It is established by judicial practice. It is the
law.

The UN Charter and the Hague Convention I

As foreign minister and chairman of the OCSE, Mr. Vollebæk has "used the
foregoing positions, his personal influence, and his intimate connection
with political, administrative  and military leaders of states and
organizations, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the
Organization for Cooperation and Security in Europe (OCSE) and The Kingdom
of Norway inter aliae in such a manner that: he promoted the military and
economic preparation for war against a sovereign state, to wit: the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia; he participated in the planning and preparation for
Wars of Aggression and Wars in Violation of International Treaties,
Agreements and Assurances." According to international law, these are
criminal acts and defy the UN charter and Hague Convention for the pacific
settlement of international disputes, parts I and II.

The Hague Convention III

Finally, we wish to clarify a matter that has been raised after a statement
by the Prime minister, Mr. Bondevik. He has (publicly, but not officially)
expressed the view that Norway is not at war. This has received some
attention, but generally been regarded as one politician's attempt to
downplay the situation. Nevertheless, this might influence Norway's legal
status and the liability of the foreign minister. Amongst other things, one
should point out that Mr. Bondevik, if he adheres to this viewpoint, might
actually deprive a fighter pilot shot down in Yugoslavia of his protection
under the Geneva convention. If the cabinet's assessment is that Norway is
not at war, it makes the foreign minister liable to prosecution for
violations of the Hague convention III relative to the opening of
hostilities, articles 1 and 2, that prohibit states to resort to
belligerence without a prior declaration of war. This obviously presupposes
that the government admits that Norwegian military personnel, such as our
fighter pilots, participate as combatants. However, there is reason to
believe that the ultimatum set forth by Mr. Vollebæk and other
representatives of the NATO and OCSE, have imposed threats of warfare on
the Yugoslavs, and constitute "a reasoned declaration of war." Due to the
uncertainty the Prime minister has created about the question, it is up to
the judiciary to establish whether international law has been violated on
this count. One way or the other, the fact remains that the very ultimatum
and the following declaration of war (as established by actual warfare)
constitute violations of international law.

It is up to the Norwegian legal system to pursue the grave accusations we
have today set forth against the Norwegian foreign minister. In articles 10
and 29, the statutes of the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of
Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian
Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991
establish the duties laid upon Norwegian authorities in the course of
investigation and indictment. We assume that article 3 of the statutes give
the tribunal jurisdiction over the charges. Furthermore, its rules of
procedure and evidence, part II, rules 7–12, 46–55 inter aliae, advise of
the actions to be taken if Norwegian authorities do not adhere to the rules
established through the tribunal's charter. In view of this, we are
confident that Norwegian and international judiciary will fulfill their
obligations under national and international treaties and law.
Nevertheless, the development of the Kosovo crisis is so disquieting that
must insist our authorities take immediate action regardless of the status
of the accused, so that the international community does not once again
face a fait accompli forced upon it by violence rather than law. Thus, we
hope that the tribunal does not have to enforce its jurisdiction in this
matter.

Our Obligations

It is our duty to see to it that justice is not once again dictated by the
law of superior force, and we attempt to achieve the hopes expressed by
Chief of Counsel Robert N. Jackson in his opening statement:
"Wars are started only on the theory and in the confidence that they can be
won. Personal punishment, to be suffered only in the event the war is lost,
will probably not be a sufficient deterrent to prevent a war where the
warmakers feel the chances of defeat to be negligible.

But the ultimate step in avoiding periodic wars, which are inevitable in a
system of international lawlessness, is to make statesmen responsible to
law. And let me make clear that while this law is first applied against
German aggressors, the law includes, and if it is to serve a useful purpose
it must condemn aggression by any other nations, including those which sit
here now in judgment. We are able to do away with domestic tyranny and
violence and aggression by those in power against the rights of their own
people only when we make all men answerable to the law."

We now heed his words.

André Savik
Kjellfrid Nome
Geir Furuseth
Kjell Askildsen
Torben Grue
Grethe Wallin Hansen
Stein Georg Kvernberg
Peter Anton Lorentzen
Ole Paus
Asgeir Sunde

                                __
______________________________CP||CKA KY/\TYPA_______________________________
      SERBIAN CULTURE CULTURA SERBIA SERBISCHE KULTUR LA CULTURE SERBE
              CEPbCKAYA KY/\TYPA CULTURA SERBA SRPSKA KULTURA
               Poruke na listu CP||CKA KY/\TYPA posaljite na
                         srpska_kultura@4cbiz.net