Sir, - It is, to my mind, appalling that the Western powers have sought, through a combination of blackmail and bribery, to subvert the democratic order and rule of law in Yugoslavia.
I refer, of course, to the Western insistence that aid to Yugoslavia be conditional on the hand-over of Slobodan Milosevic to the Hague Tribunal. This has caused the Serbian government to act against the clear wishes of democratically elected officials and in breach of an order of its own constitutional court in handing over Mr Milosevic on the eve of a conference to address this question of aid.
It is overwhelmingly clear that Mr Milosevic should stand trial for acts he perpetrated while in power and, if found guilty, should be punished accordingly. The question here is not if Mr Milosevic should, be brought to trial, but where and by whom. And there are at least three good reasons why this should not happen in the Hague.
1. An examination of indictments issued by the Hague Tribunal will reveal that it has been used as an instrument to achieve political ends by the Western powers mainly responsible for its establishment. Despite clear evidence linking Mr Milosevic to atrocities carried out by paramilitary gangs in Bosnia from 1992 onwards, Mr Milosevic was indicted only in 1999 after the West lost patience with him when peace talks over Kosovo broke down and NATO commenced its bombing of Yugoslavia.
2. Any crimes committed by Mr Milosevic were committed on the territory and against the peoples of the former Yugoslavia. It is by far preferable, therefore, that, if at all possible, he should stand trial in Yugoslavia - as would be the normal course of events. If this were to happen, it would give the people emerging from over a decade of brutalising abuse of power an opportunity to face up to the crimes committed in their name and to take responsibility for bringing the perpetrators to justice in a manner both peaceful and fair. This would allow Yugoslavia to grow as a nation, to strengthen its adherence to the rule of law and its respect for human rights and to eventually move towards reconciliation with its neighbours.
3. For a number of reasons (not least the NATO bombing), there is powerful anti-Western sentiment in Yugoslavia and a strong resistance to any act (such as the extradition of Mr Milosevic to the Hague) which could be seen as a surrender to the West. In the interest of stability in this vulnerable democracy, and out of respect for the dignity of its people, Mr Milosevic should stand trial at home.
Mr Kostunica, President of Yugoslavia, and the man who defeated Mr Milosevic in elections and who led the peaceful revolution that removed him from power, understood these matters and therefore opposed the extradition which was carried out illegally and without informing him by the Serbian Prime Minister, Mr Djindjic, who never managed to defeat Mr Milosevic in popular elections.
Now the Yugoslav Prime Minister has resigned, the position of Mr Kostunica, a man of integrity and understanding, is under threat and Yugoslavia once again may be plunged into chaos. There will be a price to be paid (if not today, then tomorrow) for this latest act of destablisation by the West in the Balkans. But who will pay it? Not the armchair strategists of the West but most likely the ever-suffering people of the Balkans.
Will we ever learn? - Yours, etc.,
Michele O'Kelly, Convent of Mercy, Cork Street, Dublin 8.