U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT BLOCKING SACIRBEY'S TESTIMONY - May 29, 2009

The US State Department is now trying to block Ambassador Muhamed Sacirbey’s travel to The Hague in order to testify in the prosecution for war crimes of Serbia’s, (during Slobodan Milosevic’s rule), military chief of staff General Momcilo Perisic. (Sacirbey, now regular contributor to the EuropeanCourier.org, was Bosnia & Herzegovina’s Foreign Minister, UN Ambassador and Agent before the International Court of Justice during its war with Serbia and the Bosnian Serbs) It is a rather odd alignment. While Sacirbey, both an American and Bosnian, seeks to testify regarding Perisic’s culpability for such horrific events as the Srebrenica genocide, the siege of Sarajevo and war crimes committed in Croatia, at least certain Bosnian and US officials have worked to deny the Tribunal the opportunity of this key witness. The ICTY, (International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia), has sought to allow Sacirbey to appear for some time. Tribunal investigators and prosecutors have traveled to meet him in US to hear his evidence and receive his evidence. The ICTY Office of the Prosecutor sees Sacirbey as a crucial witness to link the Belgrade regime of Milosevic to the war crimes in Bosnia & Herzegovina. The ICTY is also authorized by United Nations Security Council resolutions to compel cooperation by all states including, Serbia, Bosnia & Herzegovina and the United States.

The ICTY Office of the Prosecutor, (OTP), has successfully compelled the Bosnia & Herzegovina Council of Ministers, including its Serb Chair, to allow Sacirbey to leave the US temporarily to testify in The Hague. (Sacirbey is presumably wanted by BiH authorities for extradition in “an ongoing investigation” regarding “allegations” for “abuse of office.” The case has numerous unusual considerations besides the fact that it now extends for over 6 years: Sacirbey has never been charged and he has sought to compel completion of any such investigation by coming before a BiH Court. The investigation is now pursued by a US State Department appointed lawyer in the BiH Prosecutor’s office, Drew Engle).

However, now the US State Department has challenged the authority of the BiH Council of Ministers in granting the ICTY’s request that Sacirbey be allowed to travel to The Hague. The ICTY Judges’ Chambers has already granted Sacirbey “safe passage” to The Hague to testify. However, the US Government is trying to block his travel despite any lack of evidence or legitimate fear that Sacirbey is a “flight risk”, and despite having contended in the past that the US was only acting as a “mouthpiece,” an agent on behalf of the BiH Government in pursuing extradition against Sacirbey.

We speak with Sacirbey regarding this rather odd situation where he apparently has been blocked repeatedly from appearing before the ICTY, at least for the last year and a half. The US Second Circuit in New York will now hear the matter brought on petition by Sacirbey and the ICTY Prosecutor’s Office, (indirectly through Sacirbey).

Here is a quick interview with Mr. Sacirbey about the situation:
 
Q: This seems an almost unbelievable set of facts. So just to gain some handle: You have been a potential witness on behalf of the Prosecution in more than one case?

MS: Yes.

Q: Slobodan Milosevic and General Perisic, potentially others?

MS: Yes.

Q: As a former Bosnian official, it may seem that you are extracting revenge by testifying against Serbian officials?

MS: I have no hate toward any people or even the defendants as individuals. By my past function as a Bosnian official, my training as a US attorney and my American values, I feel that I’m obliged to deliver justice for the benefit of the many victims and not to allow history to be written. I was also one of the Tribunal’s initial proponents working for its establishment at the United Nations, and I continue to support its work, even if I may not agree at times with its decisions.

Q: You did not testify in the Milosevic case, although as I understand you were extensively interviewed by Sir Geoffrey Nice, the lead prosecutor in that case. Why did you not testify?

MS: Simply stated, Sir Geoffrey’s team was not given access to me after I was locked up by the US Government presumably for extradition to Bosnia & Herzegovina. Sir Geoffrey’s team and I spoke by phone before my detention, already in 1992-93. Soon thereafter I was locked up. Sir Geoffrey continued to try to gain access to me while I was held, but was effectively blocked by the US Government….

Q: Despite a treaty obligation by the US as well to cooperate with the ICTY request and investigation?

MS: Yes. Regardless, after I was released, (when some BiH officials questioned why I was being locked up during an “investigation”), Sir Geoffrey flew to NY and we continued our discussion over a 3-4 day period in September 1994 in preparation for my testimony as a rebuttal witness. Unfortunately Milosevic died before judgment and the full exposure of his case.

Q: Did Sir Geoffrey Nice share your perspective on the betrayal of Srebrenica and the Karadzic/Holbrooke deal?

MS: Perhaps you can ask Sir Geoffrey. We do stay in contact, and it is fair to say that both of us believe that justice will not rest until the whole truth is brought to light.

Q: And your testimony in the Perisic case is as I understand sought by Mark Harmon, a former US Justice Department prosecutor and with the ICTY now for 15 years. Is it not ironic that the US Government appears to be trying to frustrate the efforts of not only the ICTY but also a well-respected ICTY prosecutor, an American with his own Justice Department service?

MS: Yes.

Q: Maybe it would be appropriate to ask who has been trying to block your appearance before The Hague Tribunal, (ICTY)?

MS: Those in Bosnia & Herzegovina, Serbia but most significantly in the US Government who are not interested in my testimony being heard before the Tribunal.

Q: You have been long the source of the charge, perhaps the first to state publicly, that Holbrooke made a deal with Karadzic. Similarly, you have also charged that US and some internationals officials made a deal to betray Srebrenica to Milosevic, Mladic and Karadzic. Could this be the motive for trying to deny obstruct your testimony before the Tribunal?

MS: Personally, I’m confident that I understand their game and motives, but that I leave to your readers and not speculation. What I will testify to are facts. It is clear though that the State Department not only has record of the Karadzic/Holbrooke deal, but also has continued to deny it. To state it diplomatically, US State Department officials have not been truthful regarding this deal and have continued to deceive American and Bosnian citizens, including the US Congress. The evidence is now overwhelming of the deal but also knowledge of it within the State Department and intelligence services. At least some have known of the deal from the outset, apparently recorded as early as a July 22, 1996 report from the US Embassy in Sarajevo back to the State Department in Washington.

Q: Is this the focus of your testimony?

MS: As I understand I will be on the stand for several days, perhaps a week. It would not be appropriate for me to preempt my testimony in this interview.

Q: Perhaps the most strange aspect of this matter is that US Government, while claiming to be acting purely an agent, or “mouthpiece,” on behalf of the Bosnian Government, it is now interfering in the decisions of that government in your case.

MS: The purported Bosnian extradition request and the BiH authorities have all along only been a pretext.

Q: How?

MS: The presumed Bosnian prosecutor leading this “case” is actually an American effectively appointed by the US State Department. While the US claims that it is purely acting in my extradition on behalf of BiH authorities, the person managing this whole process is a de facto US State Department agent, Drew Engle. They have on the one hand represented this as an extradition process to try to deny the normal US Constitutional due process rights, since presumably the State Department is acting in a purely administrative rather than prosecutorial function. On the other hand, the whole matter is orchestrated by actual and de facto US officials.

Q: Did not the BiH Government though act officially to allow your travel to The Hague? 

MS: Yes, but now the US State Department has urged the US Second Circuit to ignore that decision using Drew Engle, apparently standing as a Bosnian official, to contend that the BiH Government did not have authority. However, it is more brazen in that the US State Department has argued “act of state doctrine” to urge US Courts not review what is happening in BiH with respect to the “investigation” purportedly directed at me. On the other hand, the US State Department directly now pierces the sovereignty, decisions of the BiH Government when it suits its agenda in blocking my testimony.

Q: The Bosnian Government’s decisions appear in chaos, or at least in contradiction?

MS: Individuals representing themselves as speaking on behalf of BiH authorities are not only acting against the interests of the country and citizens they ostensibly represent, but they are also culpable for “abuse of office” and even corruption.

Q: Could these “officials” face consequences?

MS: Yes, but these so called Bosnian officials feel shielded because they are acting at the behest other US Government officials. US Government officials have undermined the “rule of law” and are frustrating the interests of justice, as well as contradicting US stated objectives in Bosnia & Herzegovina. If the ICTY has determined that Muhamed Sacirbey’s testimony is essential to satisfy the interests of justice in a matter involving war crimes, thousands murdered and millions deprived, how could the State Department obstruct in right conscience and in view of the principles upon which the US is founded and presumably encourages on a global basis? After my testimony, it can still continue to pursue whatever agenda against me, but any purported investigation or offense, including “abuse of offense” directed against me cannot compare to the interests of justice now at issue before the Tribunal.