IWPR Home institute for war & peace reporting
   
 Advanced Search
building peace and democracy through free and fair media

Home
Programmes
Afghanistan
Afghan Recovery Report
Africa
Zimbabwe Crisis Reports
Caucasus
Caucasus Reporting Service
Cross Caucasus Network
Central Asia
Reporting Central Asia
News Briefing Central Asia
Human Rights Reporting
Central Asia Radio
International Justice
ICC - Africa Update
ICTY - Tribunal Update
Face à la Justice - RD Congo
Facing Justice - Uganda
On the Scale - Darfur
Iran
Mianeh Reports
Iraq
Iraqi Crisis Report
Pakistan
Open Minds
Philippines
Human Rights Reporting
Syria
Syria News Briefing
Multimedia
Resources
Books
Training
IWPR Comment
Kurt Schork Awards
Photo Galleries
Sahar Fund
Past Programmes
Past Publications
CIJ Trial Reports Archive
Links
RSS Feeds
Other IWPR sites
Academy
Mianeh
Open Minds Pakistan
Regional Media Network
Rights Reporting
IWPR on acebook
witter
 



ICTY - Tribunal Update
International Justice / ICTY home
Courtside

Granic Disputes Krajina Cleansing Claims

Bos-Hrv-Srp

Former Croatian foreign minister says Operation Storm allegtions were “inaccurate and damaging”.

By Julia Hawes in The Hague (TU No 625, 20-Nov-09)

No ethnic cleansing took place in the Krajina region after Operation Storm, a defence witness told judges this week in the case against Mladen Markac, former commander of the Croatian special police.

Mate Granic, who served as a Croatian foreign minister during the military offensive in August 1995, told the Hague tribunal that although there were “individual” crimes during the days after Operation Storm, there was no evidence of widespread murder of Croatian Serbs.

Such rumours of ethic cleansing were “inaccurate and damaging”, Granic told the judges.

Markac is accused, along with generals Ante Gotovina and Ivan Cermak, of participating in a joint criminal enterprise that resulted in crimes committed against Serb civilians during and after Operation Storm, aimed at retaking the Serb-held Krajina region in August 1995.

As commander of the special police, Markac oversaw the operation and functions of special police units from around Croatia that participated in Operation Storm. According to the indictment, Markac also controlled the operations of members of the Croatian army, HV, artillery units attached to his force during the months leading up to and following the military offensive.

The indictment charges Markac with permitting, denying and minimising ongoing criminal activity – including plundering, destruction, inhumane treatment and murder – by his subordinates during Operation Storm against the Krajina Serbs.

Granic, who worked in medicine as a consultant for the World Health Organisation in the early 1990s, told the judges that he was motivated to enter politics after seeing the “danger for Croatia posed by the possibility that a greater Serbia might be formed”.

“Croatia was under direct threat,” Granic told the judges, who
entered government as deputy foreign minister, and was responsible for overseeing displaced individuals and other victims of the war. He established the government office for the “1 million” displaced persons and refugees throughout the war, Granic said.

Goran Mikulicic, Markac’s defence lawyer, asked whether a policy existed in Croatia at the time that favoured one ethnic group of victims or displaced individuals over another.

“Absolutely not,” Granic said. “Three per cent of displaced persons were Serbs. A majority of refugees were Bosniaks. There were no serious incidents there, even though it was far from easy to deal with such a throng of people.”

Still, Granic added, “there was hope that issue of reintegration could be solved peacefully” after Operation Storm.

Granic told judges that a “special constitutional law” existed that guaranteed rights to minority groups, as issued by then president Franjo Tudjman.

Mikulicic asked Granic whether there had been any issues around protecting the Serbian population living in Croatia.

“There were never any dilemmas or doubts about the fact that Serbs were Croatian citizens and should have highest possible degree of protection,” Granic told the judges.

However, he added, there were rebel Serbs in rural Croatia who were “exposed to powerful indoctrination.”

“Their leadership rejected any notion of a Croatian state,” Granic said. “That was the main problem which later on resulted in the departure of those people after Operation Storm.”

Yet Granic denied there had been a violation of the Serbs’ human rights. He said that coexistence of the Croats and Krajina Serbs was maintained through assistance, protection and cooperation with the United Nations.

Granic said the government was acutely aware of the importance of “honouring the laws of war”. He said that after a meeting on August 3, 1995, when the rules and regulations of Operation Storm were adopted, Tudjman made the decision to notify all international ambassadors of the plans.

Mikulicic asked about the reactions of the international community in the aftermath of the offensive.

Granic cited an initial reaction by Carl Bildt, the then European Union’s special envoy to the former Yugoslavia, who called the shelling of Knin “excessive, random”, and called for Tudjman to “stand trial” at Hague tribunal, Granic said.

“As minister, I had difficult accepting this [reaction],” Granic said, adding that he received information that no excessive or random shelling had taken place.

“En route to the meeting at the fortress [in Knin], I did not see a single destroyed house,” Granic told the judges.

Granic said that the numbers describing the deportation of Croatian Serbs were “exaggerated”.

Many of those individuals, Granic added, feared revenge for their refusal to recognise Croatia as a state.

“People condemned crimes and the criminal conduct on Croatian side in the aftermath of Operation Storm,” Granic said, “[but] we were busy discussing peaceful integration.”

Granic told the judges that the government received information from Knin that there were “numerous incidents of criminal acts” taking place, including looting, burning, and individual murders. Demobilisation efforts were emphasised, Granic said, and the government called for an increase in the number of soldiers to the Knin area.

“We were deeply concerned in the beginning” because of the media propaganda regarding the crimes, Granic said. Radical measures had to be taken against criminal acts, he added.

“Each one of us had to do everything we could so that all criminal acts were stopped as soon as possible,” Granic told the judges.

Granic said that he met with the interior minister to request 1,500 to 3,000 policemen to the area, a “huge territory” where there was insufficient police presence.

Professional soldiers were not committing the crimes, he added.

Mikulicic asked whether Granic had been present at a government meeting where the misconduct of special police was discussed.

“I had not heard that,” Granic said.

Mikulicic asked whether Granic had ever spoken to Markac personally. Granic said that he had met with the commander in private.

“In those conversations, did you ever observe on his part any animosity or prejudice towards Croat Serb citizens?” Mikulicic asked.

“No, I did not,” Granic replied.

Julie Hawes is an IWPR reporter in The Hague.

Feedback Form
IWPR greatly appreciates your feedback. Please tick the boxes where appropriate:
After reading the article I am more informed on the subject matter
The article influenced my view on the ICTY and/or international justice
I intend to use what I learned (in my work)
My work/education is in the field of:
IWPR may contact me to follow up
Your name (optional):
Your E-mail address (optional):



Subscribe
Past Reports
MonthIssue No.
Feb633-633
Jan630-632
MonthIssue No.
Dec627-629
Nov623-626
Oct618-622
Sep614-617
Aug612-613
Jul608-611
Jun604-607
Archive 10 09 08 07 06 05 04 03 02 01 00 99 98 97 96
Highlights
Facing Justice - UgandaFacing Justice - Uganda
Vacancies Available
On the Scale - DarfurOn the Scale - Darfur
Project Review Oct/Nov 2009
Kurt Schork Awards Videos
Kurt Schork Award Winners
A Handbook on Covering War Crimes Courts
In the News
Winnipeg Free Press"Now [the Taleban] appear to be able to launch their attacks even in the most heavily protected sections of [Kabul], "said IWPR Afghan project editor/trainer Jean MacKenzie.
McClatchy"The simple fact is that the condition of the economy has never played a major role in the minds of Iranian leaders or in Iran's national security equation," said IWPR contributor Omid Memarian on the prospect of tougher western sanctions.
BBC“I would like to imagine that at least a few senior politicians woke up this week to seriously wonder what kind of monsters they and their system have created over the years," said IWPR's Head of Asia Alan Davis, referring to Maguindanao massacre.
The New York TimesRecent double bombing in Baghdad has cast doubt on the government's ability to guarantee security and prompted fears such violence may affect voter turnout in anticipated January elections, writes iWPR reporter Ali Karim.
Past Highlights
Interview: Tribunal president on court’s completion strategy
Interview: ICJ Chief on Bosnia Genocide Case
A Handbook for Local Journalists in Crisis Areas
Introduction to the Hague Tribunal
Online Help
Guides to international law and language:
Legal Dictionary of Terms
Dictionary of International Law
Law.com Dictionary
Support
To support IWPR's work, contact Ria Burghardt, or make an ONLINE DONATION >>
IWPR thanks the following for their generous support:
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Norway Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Norway
Swedish International Development and Cooperation Agency (SIDA)Swedish Agency for International Development Cooperation (Sida)
Foreign and Commonwealth Office (UK)Foreign and Commonwealth Office, UK


© Institute for War & Peace Reporting
48 Gray's Inn Road, London WC1X 8LT, UK
Tel: +44 (0)20 7831 1030    Fax: +44 (0)20 7831 1050

The opinions expressed in IWPR Online are those of the authors and do not
necessarily represent those of the Institute for War and Peace Reporting.

Registered as a charity in the United Kingdom (charity reg. no: 1027201, company reg. no: 2744185)