VIEWPOINT FROM LONDON

HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH SHOULD BE HELD TO ACCOUNT

by Brian Gallagher

The Croatian Herald, Australia No. 985 - 26th September 2003

The New York based human rights group Human Rights Watch (HRW) has released a report recently entitled "Broken Promises: Impediments to Refugee return to Croatia". This report criticises the Croatian government over its record over Serb refugee return. The report is seriously flawed. It portrays an image of Croat antipathy towards Serbs being based on purely ethnic grounds, as opposed to the more rational grounds of mass murder of thousands of Croats by the Serbs during the war. Furthermore, it uses a former Serb occupation official in Croatia and Greater Serbia enthusiast - the notorious Savo Strbac - as a "credible" source.

The HRW report plays down the crimes of the Serbs and in particular the 'Republika Srpska Krajina' ('RSK'), the Serb occupation structure in Croatia. Moral equivalency between aggressor and victim runs throughout the report. It implies that discrimination against Serbs is due simply to their ethnicity - something that no-one can justify. HRW emphasises this by referring to a poll which states that over 80% of Croats have no objection to marrying Italians and Hungarians, but only 54% to Serbs. However, if there is antipathy towards the Serbs, it is due to their criminal behaviour during the war, not merely their ethnicity.

The Serbs invaded, occupied and ethnically cleansed one third of Croatia. This involved the mass slaughter of up to 20, 000 Croats, ethnic cleansing of hundreds of thousands, the destruction of Vukovar and many villages, bombardment of Dubrovnik, Zadar, Osijek and other cities. Many Croatian Serbs participated in all this. Those are the reasons why Croats have no great love for the Serbs. This is not to justify discrimination. But it does mitigate and provides a more rational reason for dislike of Serbs than simple bigotry. Indeed, that marriage poll shows over 50% of Croats not objecting to marrying Serbs. Given the circumstances, that demonstrates Croat tolerance, not bigotry.

The report even fails to mention that the Serbs fled Croatia under the orders of the 'RSK' leadership - which they have admitted - in a well prepared process in order to settle in areas of Kosovo and Bosnia-Herzegovina that had been cleansed of non-Serbs. Such an omission conveniently gives the wrong impression that Croats ethnically cleansed them.

Serbian crimes are played down to prevent the Croats being portrayed as victims; in light of the full circumstances few would agree to the pressure HRW demands the international community put on Croatia. HRW's shameful omission of such information distorts the entire report, and one can only conclude it was politically motivated to help the international community have a stick to beat Croatia with.

HRW are clearly unsympathetic to Croat suffering. They insensitively demand the Croatian government "build a public atmosphere in which the populace would welcome return of Croatian Serbs". What they mean is that Croats should simply forget about the horrors of Vukovar etc. Many in the international community will be delighted with HRW's crass comment - after all, many of them backed the Serbs during the war.

Shockingly, the report also uses information from Savo Strbac and his Veritas organisation, of whom I have written before. In a footnote, we are informed that the information Strbac provides appears 'credible'. We are told however, that the Croatian press considers Strbac to be biased. Strangely, HRW fails to inform us why. I am delighted to reveal what HRW don't want its readers to know.

Mr Strbac is a Greater Serbia enthusiast. He was an occupation official in the the 'RSK'. The 'RSK' was part of the "joint criminal enterprise" - as defined in the Hague Milosevic Croatian indictment - to cleanse "Croat and other non-Serb population from approximately one third of the territory of the Republic of Croatia".

Strbac made his views well known during the occupation of Croatia. As 'government secretary' of the 'RSK' he told Agence France Presse in 1995 that "Our final goal is union with other Serbs (in Bosnia and the Republic of Serbia)". Strbac's views have not changed; reportedly he still wants to restore the criminal enterprise of 'RSK' - presumably cleansed of its Croat population. Don't take my word for it. Have a look at the Veritas website at www.veritas.org.yu. The first thing you see is Greater Serbia imagery.

It gets worse. It emerged during the Milosevic trial - 29 October 2002 - that Strbac was the head of a Serb bodies commission that exchanged bodies with a Bosnian counterpart. Horrifyingly, this involved one exchange which included six people murdered specifically for this purpose. This incident is also related in the May/June 2003 edition of the respected US journal Foreign Affairs in an article by Gary J Bass. HRW should be aware of it - they are quoted in the piece.

It is disturbing to note also, that Strbac is a top adviser to the Hague Prosecutor - thus compromising all their investigations into Croat crimes in Croatia.

It beggars belief that such a man could be considered a reliable source. Surely Strbac is not the kind of individual any human rights group should take seriously?

Mr John Kraljic, President of the National Federation of Croatian Americans, wrote to HRW regarding Mr Strbac's role in the report. HRW remarked on Mr Kraljic's comments in an email to a concerned member of the public. Incredibly, they state that even if everything Mr Kraljic wrote was true it does not matter because his information was "accurate" - apparently because it coincides with OSCE figures and anyway he is only mentioned in 8 footnotes out of 333.

It does not seem to occur to HRW that the use of Strbac casts a shadow over the entire report. One wonders about the other sources they use. Furthermore, Strbac's views and background are well known in Croatia. What does that say about the biases of those compiling the report?

Another source they use is the 'satirical' magazine Feral Tribune. This magazine insults people they dislike as 'Shit of the Week'. They also have 'Championshit' and 'Shit of the year'. This is a credible source? And isn't that sort of language like the 'hate speech' human rights groups are supposed to oppose?

So what do we have in all? A report that implies some Croats antipathy towards Serbs is based purely on ethnicity rather than Serbian war crimes, and whose sources include a Greater Serbia enthusiast and a magazine which labels people 'Shit of the Week'. Not very good, is it?

Lets be clear: Serbs should be treated lawfully and properly, just like anyone else. But this report is a disgrace. Croat associations around the world - and all those concerned with human rights - should protest this report to their elected representatives, NGO's and the media.

HRW are demanding others be held to account. Let us hold them to account.

And whilst we do, lets a spare a thought for those people allegedly murdered to make up that bodies exchange. Who is seeking justice for them? Not Human Rights Watch, that's for sure.

© Brian Gallagher

My 'Viewpoint from London' column appears fortnightly in the Australian 'Croatian Herald' and thereafter at www.croatiafocus.com