Breaking Down Democracy

Download (PDF, 2.67MB)

Arch Puddington
Breaking Down Democracy:
The Strategies, Goals, and Methods of Modern Authoritarians
Freedom House, Democracy Studies. June 2017

Contents

Executive Summary
Introduction: Modern Authoritarians: Origins, Anatomy, Outlook
Chapter 1. Validating Autocracy through the Ballot
Chapter 2. Propaganda at Home and Abroad
Chapter 3. The Enemy Within: Civil Society at Bay
Chapter 4. The Ministry of Truth in Peace and War
Chapter 5. The Rise of ‘Illiberal Democracy’
Chapter 6. Flacks and Friends
Chapter 7. Bullying the Neighbors: Frozen Conflicts, the Near Abroad, and Other Innovations
Chapter 8. Back to the Future
Conclusion: Authoritarianism Comes Calling

Executive Summary

The 21st century has been marked by a resurgence of authoritarian rule that has proved resilient despite economic fragility and occasional popular resistance. Modern authoritarianism has succeeded, where previous totalitarian systems failed, due to refined and nuanced strategies of repression, the exploitation of open societies, and the spread of illiberal policies in democratic countries themselves. The leaders of today’s authoritarian systems devote fulltime attention to the challenge of crippling the opposition without annihilating it, and flouting the rule of law while maintaining a plausible veneer of order, legitimacy, and prosperity.

Central to the modern authoritarian strategy is the capture of institutions that undergird political pluralism. The goal is to dominate not only the executive and legislative branches, but also the media, the judiciary, civil society, the commanding heights of the economy, and the security forces. With these institutions under the effective if not absolute control of an incumbent leader, changes in government through fair and honest elections become all but impossible. Unlike Soviet-style communism, modern authoritarianism is not animated by an overarching ideology or the messianic notion of an ideal future society. Nor do today’s autocrats seek totalitarian control over people’s everyday lives, movements, or thoughts. The media are more diverse and entertaining under modern authoritarianism, civil society can enjoy an independent existence (as long as it does not pursue political change), citizens can travel around the country or abroad with only occasional interference, and private enterprise can flourish (albeit with rampant corruption and cronyism).

This study explains how modern authoritarianism defends and propagates itself, as regimes from different regions and with diverse socioeconomic foundations copy and borrow techniques of political control. Among its major findings:

  • Russia, under President Vladimir Putin, has played an outsized role in the development of modern authoritarian systems. This is particularly true in the areas of media control, propaganda, the smothering of civil society, and the weakening of political pluralism. Russia has also moved aggressively against neighboring states where democratic institutions have emerged or where democratic movements have succeeded in ousting corrupt authoritarian leaders.
  • The rewriting of history for political purposes is common among modern authoritarians. Again, Russia has taken the lead, with the state’s assertion of authority over history textbooks and the process, encouraged by Putin, of reassessing the historical role of Joseph Stalin.
  • The hiring of political consultants and lobbyists from democratic countries to represent the interests of autocracies is a growing phenomenon. China is clearly in the vanguard, with multiple representatives working for the state and for large economic entities closely tied to the state. But there are also K Street representatives for Russia, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Turkey, Ethiopia, and practically all of the authoritarian states in the Middle East.
  • The toxic combination of unfair elections and crude majoritarianism is spreading from modern authoritarian regimes to illiberal leaders in what are still partly democratic countries. Increasingly, populist politicians—once in office—claim the right to suppress the media, civil society, and other democratic institutions by citing support from a majority of voters. The resulting changes make it more difficult for the opposition to compete in future elections and can pave the way for a new authoritarian regime.
  • An expanding cadre of politicians in democracies are eager to emulate or cooperate with authoritarian rulers. European parties of the nationalistic right and anticapitalist left have expressed admiration for Putin and aligned their policy goals with his. Others have praised illiberal governments in countries like Hungary for their rejection of international democratic standards in favor of perceived national interests. Even when there is no direct collaboration, such behavior benefits authoritarian powers by breaking down the unity and solidarity of the democratic world.
  • There has been a rise in authoritarian internationalism. Authoritarian powers form loose but effective alliances to block criticism at the United Nations and regional organizations like the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the Organization of American States, and to defend embattled allies like Syria’s Bashar al-Assad. There is also growing replication of what might be called authoritarian best practices, vividly on display in the new Chinese law on nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and efforts by Russia and others to learn from China’s experience in internet censorship.
  • Modern authoritarians are working to revalidate the concept of the leader-for-life. One of the seeming gains of the postcommunist era was the understanding that some form of term limits should be imposed to prevent incumbents from consolidating power into a dictatorship. In recent years, however, a number of countries have adjusted their constitutions to ease, eliminate, or circumvent executive term limits. The result has been a resurgence of potential leaders-forlife from Latin America to Eurasia.
  • While more subtle and calibrated methods of repression are the defining feature of modern authoritarianism, the past few years have featured a reemergence of older tactics that undermine the illusions of pluralism and openness as well as integration with the global economy. Thus Moscow has pursued its military intervention in Ukraine despite economic sanctions and overseen the assassination of opposition figures; Beijing has revived the practice of coerced public “confessions” and escalated its surveillance of the Tibetan and Uighur minorities to totalitarian levels; and Azerbaijan has made the Aliyev family’s monopoly on political power painfully obvious with the appointment of the president’s wife as “first vice president.”
  • Modern authoritarian systems are employing these blunter methods in a context of increased economic fragility. Venezuela is already in the process of political and economic disintegration. Other states that rely on energy exports have also experienced setbacks due to low oil and gas prices, and China faces rising debt and slower growth after years of misallocated investment and other structural problems. But these regimes also face less international pressure to observe democratic norms, raising their chances of either surviving the current crises or—if they break down—giving way to something even worse.

In subsequent sections, this report will examine the methods employed by authoritarian powers to neutralize precisely those institutions that were thought to be the most potent weapons against a revitalized authoritarianism. The success of the Russian and Chinese regimes in bringing to heel and even harnessing the forces produced by globalization—digital media, civil society, free markets—may be their most impressive and troubling achievement.

Modern authoritarianism is particularly insidious in its exploitation of open societies. Russia and China have both taken advantage of democracies’ commitment to freedom of expression and delivered infusions of propaganda and disinformation. Moscow has effectively prevented foreign broadcasting stations from reaching Russian audiences even as it steadily expands the reach of its own mouthpieces, the television channel RT and the news service Sputnik. China blocks the websites of mainstream foreign media while encouraging its corporations to purchase influence in popular culture abroad through control of Hollywood studios. Similar combinations of obstruction at home and interference abroad can be seen in sectors including civil society, academia, and party politics.

The report draws on examples from a broad group of authoritarian states and illiberal democracies, but the focus remains on the two leading authoritarian powers, China and Russia. Much of the report, in fact, deals with Russia, since that country, more than any other, has incubated and refined the ideas and institutions at the foundation of 21st-century authoritarianism.

Finally, a basic assumption behind the report is that modern authoritarianism will be a lasting feature of geopolitics. Since 2012, both Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping have doubled down on existing efforts to stamp out internal dissent, and both have grown more aggressive on the world stage. All despotic regimes have inherent weaknesses that leave them vulnerable to sudden shocks and individually prone to collapse. However, the past quarter-century has shown that dictatorship in general will not disappear on its own. Authoritarian systems will seek not just to survive, but to weaken and defeat democracy around the world.

Une peinture terne et simpliste de l’Afrique

Béchir Ben Yahmed
Béchir Ben Yahmed

L’éditorial de Béchir Ben Yahmed (BBY) intitulé “Sombre tableau du continent” offre une peinture terne et simpliste de la situation du continent. La substance de l’article prête ainsi le flanc à la critique et à l’objection sur trois points :

  • Les clichés et la dichotomie artificielle
  • Les statistiques de routine
  • L’approche décontextualisée

Clichés et dichotomie

D’entrée de jeu, Béchir Ben Yahmed évoque le cliché de l’afro-optimisme, dont le revers est, on le sait, “l’afro-pessismisme”.  Ces expressions équivalent certes à l’euro-pessimisme et à l’euro-optimisme. Mais la comparaison est déplacée et l’on doit admettre que l’application de ces mots à l’Afrique est plus significative. Pourquoi ? Parce que les pays européens ont, indéniablement, des économies, des infrastructures sociale et des institutions culturelle plus solides. Alors que l’Afrique, elle, ne parvient pas à se dégager de la tutelle et de l’hégémonie occidentales. Les fluctuations boursières, les contradictions politiques, etc. fondent l’optmisme des uns et le pessimisme des autres sur le “Vieux Continent”, certes. Mais les populations et les élites n’en bénéficient pas moins de niveaux de vie élevés.
Cela n’est pas le cas en Afrique, où tous les pays sont des entités à deux niveaux ; à la base se trouvent des masses paupérisées depuis des décennies, au sommet trônent des élites politiques récentes, qui, en général, sont à la remorque de l’Europe. Les sociétés africaines vivent en permanence dans cette disjonction entre dirigeants et dirigés. Un  exemple majeur concrétise ce fossé ; d’un côté les populations ont “leur langue maternelle ; c’est-à-dire une langue ni écrite ni lue, qui ne permet que l’incertaine et pauvre culture orale” ; de l’autre, les dirigeants “n’entendent et n’utilisent” que les langues europénnes. Je cite ici Portrait du Colonisé par Albert Memmi, compatriote Tunisien de Béchir Ben Yahmed. En un mot, afro-optimisme et afro-optimisme sont des concepts et des expressions de l’élite africaine (francophone, anglophone, lusophone). Ces mots n’appartiennent pas au répertoire lexical et ne relèvent pas du comportement linguistique des populations. Autant dire que la distinction entre Africains optimistes et pessimistes constitute plutôt une dichotomie artificielle et superficielle.

Les statistiques habituelles

M. Yahmed continue avec une sélection de statistiques qui confirment sa son opinion présente, mais pas son parcours de combattant et sa vision originelle de l’Afrique. On relève les passages suivants :

  • Le produit intérieur brut du Nigeria et de l’Afrique du Sud, respectivement de 415 milliards et de 280 milliards de dollars par an.
  • La position économique de ces deux pays
    • 46,7% de la production totale de l’Afrique subsaharienne
    • 31,9% de la production africaine en général
  • Le poids démographique de quatre pays :
    • Nigéria, 184 millions d’habitants
    • Ethiopie : 91 millions
    • Egypte : 91 millions
    • RDC, 85 millions

Béchir Ben Yahmed évoque ensuite, sans pause ni transition, des faits d’actualité dominants au Nigéria et en Afrique du Sud. Ainsi, parlant du Nigéria, il écrit que le président Muhammadu Buhari est “malade et … ne dit rien — ni à son peuple ni aux Africains — du mal qui l’a maintenu éloigné de son pays pendant deux longs mois et l’empêche de reprendre son travail à un rythme normal”. Mais BBY aurait dû rappeler l’acte de transfert provisoire du pouvoir au vice-président Yemi Osinbajo, signé par Buhari et approuvé par la branche judiciaire (Sénat et Assemblée fédérale). De la sorte, l’équipe Buhari n’a pas totalement répété l’indécision du gouvernement de Umaru Yar’adua en 2008.

Quant à l’Afrique du Sud, l’éditorial dénonce le comportement du président Jacob Zuma “notoirement corrompu et dont l’obsession est de voir son ex-femme lui succéder au terme de son deuxième et dernier mandat. Pour se protéger d’éventuelles poursuites judiciaires”. L’article met ici en exergue un mal plus étendu, à savoir, la mal-gouvernance des héritiers de Nelson Mandela. Car avant les scandales financiers de Zuma, le pays de l’Arc-en-ciel a connu l’incompétence et l’affairisme de Thabo Mbeki. Négociateur dans le conflit ivoirien dans les années 2004-2005, il essuya la contestation de son rôle par les opposants du président Gbagbo, qui se plaignirent de son zèle à placer plutôt les produits d’exportation de son pays, et de sa partialité.

Cela dit, les économies du Nigéria et de l’Afrique du Sud sont —à l’image du reste du continent — exocentrées et dépendent de l’exploitation pétrolière et de l’extraction minière, respectivement. Pire, les deux sont loin de panser les plaies profondes de leur passé et de corriger les handicaps de leur présent. Pour le Nigeria, ce sont la guerre civile du Biafra, (1966-1970), la confiscation du pouvoir par l’armée pendant trois décennies environ, la corruption, les insurrections armées du  MEND dans le Delta du Sud-est, les ravages encore plus criminels de Boko Haram dans le Nord-est. En Afrique du Sud,  la libération et l’élection du président Mandela marquèrent la fin de l’Apartheid, certes, et le changement de régime politique. Mais, les rênes du pouvoir économique n’ont pas changé de main. Par exemple, citons le massacre en 2012 de 34 mineurs grévistes de la mine de platine de Marikana. Les forces de l’ordre au service du gouvernement de l’ANC commirent une tragédie qui rappelle la boucherie de Sharpeville en 1960. L’ex-couple Jacob et Nkosazana Dhlamini Zuma réussira-t-il là où le duo Bill et Hillary Clinton a échoué ? Leur plan tient-il en compte la crise endémique de la société africaine, dont certaines couches affichent une xénophobie d’autant plus regrettable que la lutte contre l’Apartheid fut soutenue par la plupart des pays africains ?

Un éditorial qui décontextualise l’Afrique

L’éditorial de BBY contient seulement le nom de l’Afrique. Il ne désigne nommément ni l’Asie, ni l’Amérique, ni l’Europe. Et pourtant l’auteur sait à quel point les autres parties du monde sont redevables à l’Afrique en  matières premières. Que font-ils, au nom de la solidarité humaine, pour prévenir les dérives récurrentes ou pour aider à punir les auteurs de crimes de sang et de guerre ? L’Afrique est le seul continent à ne pas siéger en permanence au Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU. A-t-elle une chance d’en être membre un jou ? Voire.
En attendant, la pendule de l’Histoire marche sans arrêt. Elle balance entre la paix et la guerre, la prospérité et la misère, la droiture et la corruption. La stagnation et les revers de l’Afrique sont évidents. Mais en même temps l’on note des efforts de correction et de prévention. Ainsi, des magistrats du continent siégeant dans les Chambres africaines extraordinaires, (CAE), et en vertu d’un accord entre l’Union africaine (UA) et le Sénégal, ont jugé, reconnu coupable et condamné l’ex-dictateur tchadien Hissène Habré, le 9 janvier dernier. De même, sous la menace d’une intervention militaire coordonnée et d’une arrestation par les forces de la CEDEAO, Yahya Jammeh a dû céder le pouvoir à Adama Barrow, son successeur démocratiquement élu.
Il y a donc une dynamique positive que l’éditorial de Béchir Ben Yahmed ne mentionne pas. L’article réflète une vision en tunnel qui ne sied guère au fondateur de l’hebdomadaire Jeune Afrique et président du Groupe éponyme. Pis, aucune ébauche de solution n’est indiquée. Et Le ton  pessimiste persiste du début à la fin. Il ne sert à rien d’énumérer les faillites du continent, si l’on ne le replace dans le contexte de son passé historique négatif, c’est-à-dire l’esclavage, la colonisation, la néo-colonisation et la perpétuation des hégémonies étrangères nonobstant les indépendances nominales, juridiques et politiques. De même, l’Afrique souffre le plus, certes. Mais les autres contients ne s’en tirent pas non plus à bon compte. Du Brésil aux USA, en passant par la Chine, l’Inde, la Russie, l’Union Européenne, le ras-le-bol des laissés-pour compter et la réprobration contre les politiciens et les élites économiques se manifestent, ouvertement, ou en sourdine.Et la mondialisation en porte la responsabilité. L’environnement global du 21è siècle est un géant aux pieds d’argiles. Sa tête (les économies avancées) est dans les nuages post-industriels et cybernétiques. Mais une grande partie de son corps (les damnés de la terre, Fanon) vit 20e siècle, voire au 19e. En particulier, l’Afrique gémit entre le marteau des hégémonies extérieures et l’enclume d’élites nationales défaillantes et dans certains criminelles. Toutefois, l’épidemie Ebola (2013-2014) a montré à quel point la fragilité de l’être humain et la nécessité de la solidarité planétaire.

Pour terminer, il est étonnant de la part de Béchir Ben Yahmed, auteur du livre Les années d’espoir : 1960-1979, d’appliquer à l’Afrique des oeillères réductrices, simplificatrices et simplistes. Engagé dans les tranchées depuis son départ du gouvernement de Habib Bourguiba en 1957, il continue de jouer un rôle prééminent dans la presse francophone. Pour ma part, je réitère ici mes remerciements à Jeune Afrique pour sa dénonciation infatigable de la dictature de Sékou Touré, président de la Guinée (1958-1984). Je compte republier sur mon site Camp Boiro Mémorial le dossier élaboré que BBY et son équipe exposèrent au public durant le « Complot Peul », qui aboutit à la liquidation atroce de Telli Diallo, premier secrétaire général de l’Organisation de l’Unité Africaine, devenue l’Union Africaine.

Ce qui manque à l’éditorial “Sombre tableau du continent”, c’est la longue expérience, la sagacité et la largesse de vue d’un acteur avéré et d’un témoin émérite de l’Afrique contemporaine.

Tierno S. Bah

Corruption. Och-Ziff : main basse sur l’Afrique

Daniel Och, chairman & CEO, Och-Ziff Capital
Daniel Och, chairman & CEO, Och-Ziff Capital

Comment le fonds d’investissement américain Och-Ziff a fait main basse sur l’Afrique.

Entre 2007 et 2011, le fonds américain Och-Ziff a laissé ses intermédiaires soudoyer de hauts dirigeants pour s’emparer des matières premières du continent. Une enquête dévoile, avec une rare clarté, ces circuits occultes.

Avec un capital de US $39 milliards, l’un des fonds d’investissement les plus puissants de la Bourse de New York, des intermédiaires troubles, des transactions opaques et des dizaines de millions de dollars de pots-de-vin qui arrivent, parfois en cash, jusque dans certains palais présidentiels d’Afrique.

Lire également Conakry : plaque-tournante de l’Escroquerie internationale et Corruption minière : Afrique – USA

L’affaire Och-Ziff a tous les ingrédients d’un polar du XXIe siècle, où les requins de la finance occidentale rencontrent un continent plein de promesses pour les spéculateurs.

Les confessions d’Och Ziff

L’histoire commence en 2007, en plein boom des matières premières, une période propice à toutes les dérives. Elle prend fin le 29 septembre 2016. Ce jour-là, après cinq années d’enquête, la Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC, le gendarme des marchés financiers américains) annonce avoir conclu un accord avec Och-Ziff.

Le fonds d’investissement, spécialisé dans la gestion et la vente d’actifs, reconnaît avoir enfreint la législation américaine anticorruption, admettant notamment être à l’origine du versement de quelque 100 millions de dollars (environ 77 millions d’euros) de dessous-de-table sur le continent entre 2007 et 2011. Il s’engage à payer 413 millions de dollars d’amende et de pénalités, dont plus de 2,2 millions à titre personnel par son fondateur, Daniel Och.

Surtout, Och-Ziff accepte de faire la lumière sur ses manquements. C’est ce qui donne tout son poids aux deux comptes rendus de l’enquête publiés par la SEC et la cour fédérale du district est de New York. Leur lecture est une plongée dans l’univers trouble des transactions autour des matières premières africaines. Cet univers, tous les observateurs avertis du continent l’imaginent.

« Jeu de piste »

Mais rarement une photographie de ce milieu a été aussi détaillée : on y trouve des dates, des montants, la nature des montages financiers… Il ne manque qu’une chose : les noms des acteurs de cette histoire. L’affaire devient ainsi un véritable jeu de piste pour deviner qui se cache derrière les descriptions. Mais, parfois, le pedigree est si précis qu’il ne laisse guère de doute.

C’est le cas de l’un des personnages centraux de cette affaire, le « partenaire RD Congo » d’Och-Ziff, décrit comme un « homme d’affaires israélien tristement célèbre », qui dispose de « liens étroits avec les responsables gouvernementaux du plus haut niveau en RD Congo » et détient « des intérêts significatifs dans le diamant et l’industrie minière dans ce pays ».

D’après l’enquête américaine, une partie des fonds (des centaines de millions de dollars) qu’Och-Ziff a reconnu avoir prêtés à ses sociétés a servi à corrompre des officiels congolais. Notamment afin de mettre la main sur des actifs miniers alléchants détenus par la société canadienne Africo Resources.

Alors que la propriété de ces actifs est contestée devant les tribunaux congolais, en 2008, un associé de l’Israélien tente, toujours selon l’enquête, d’influer sur le cours de la justice par l’intermédiaire d’un avocat. « Il doit s’arranger avec la Cour suprême, le procureur général et des magistrats, il veut 500 [000 dollars] pour donner à tous les officiels », écrit-il à l’Israélien.

« On ne peut accepter un résultat mitigé, répond celui-ci. Africo doit être baisé et achevé totalement !!!! [sic] ». La veille du jugement, les Canadiens, sous pression, acceptent de revendre leurs parts à une société contrôlée par Och-Ziff et le « partenaire RD Congo ».

Joseph Kabila, président de la R.D. du Congo
Joseph Kabila, président de la R.D. du Congo

Dan Gertler, Groupe Fleurette
Dan Gertler, Groupe Fleurette

Identifications

Ce dernier ne s’arrête pas là. Au total, il serait à l’origine du versement de 10,7 millions de dollars au « responsable RDC 1 », une personne « haut placée capable d’agir et d’influencer officiellement sur les dossiers miniers ». À cela s’ajoutent 23,5 millions de dollars pour son plus proche conseiller, le « responsable RDC 2 ».

Ce conseiller est décrit comme un « ancien gouverneur du Katanga », « ambassadeur itinérant et parlementaire » jusqu’à sa mort, le « 12 février » 2012. En tout, ce réseau actif entre 2007 et 2011 aurait permis à Och-Ziff de réaliser 91 millions de dollars de profit sur les actifs congolais.

Selon l’agence financière américaine Bloomberg, le « partenaire RD Congo » a été identifié comme étant Dan Gertler, le « responsable RDC 1 » comme le président Joseph Kabila lui-même, et le numéro deux comme son plus proche conseiller d’alors, Augustin Katumba Mwanke.

Le porte-parole du groupe Fleurette de Gertler, cité par l’agence, « conteste vigoureusement toutes les accusations de méfaits dans n’importe laquelle de ses relations en RDC, y compris celles avec Och-Ziff ». Pour Barnabé Kikaya Bin Karubi, le conseiller diplomatique du président congolais, l’identification de Bloomberg est une « déduction malveillante » : « Les noms cités dans la presse n’apparaissent à aucun moment dans les documents. »

Ces derniers permettent plus difficilement d’avancer des hypothèses sur l’identité des responsables du Niger, du Tchad, de Guinée et du Congo-Brazzaville cités dans l’enquête. Laquelle n’établit pas, d’ailleurs, que tous aient été directement soudoyés, et ne précise pas non plus les bénéfices qu’Och-Ziff aurait réalisés dans ces pays. Reste que, selon les enquêteurs américains, des intermédiaires ont bien été payés pour les approcher.

L’un d’eux, un « consultant gabonais » grassement rémunéré, aurait payé des pots-de-vin au Niger et au Tchad entre 2007 et 2009. Un temps, Och-Ziff tente de lui faire « signer des clauses anticorruption ». Le Gabonais refuse, ce qui n’empêche pas la poursuite de leur collaboration…

Selon le Financial Times, ce profil correspond à celui de Samuel Mébiame, le fils de l’ancien Premier ministre gabonais Léon Mébiame (décédé en 2015). L’homme a été arrêté aux États-Unis en août pour un motif lié à cette enquête. Contactés par JA, ses avocats n’ont pas souhaité commenter une « affaire en cours ».

Il y a aussi cet autre « consultant » (mais qui pourrait être le même), qui se vante en 2011 d’avoir « l’accès exclusif » à une compagnie minière en Guinée, ou encore de pouvoir organiser « une rencontre avec le représentant et le fils [d’un haut responsable gouvernemental guinéen] à Paris ».

Le partenaire sud-africain

Quant au volet congolais (Brazzaville) de l’enquête, il établit que, en 2010, 13 millions de dollars ont été décaissés à destination du « partenaire sud-africain » d’Och-Ziff et d’un « intermédiaire Congo-B » à qui l’on demande d’« organiser une transaction » avec « un responsable gouvernemental de haut niveau au Congo-Brazzaville ». Au bout du compte, une entreprise contrôlée par Och-Ziff et son « partenaire sud-africain » mettent la main sur 25 % d’un bloc pétrolier de ce pays.

Ce « partenaire sud-africain » est, peut-être, l’intermédiaire qui revient le plus souvent dans cette enquête. D’après la description qui en est faite, il a de proches connexions avec un « ancien responsable gouvernemental » qui est aussi « un homme d’affaires à succès grâce à son conglomérat basé en Afrique du Sud ». Il est également lié au « cofondateur » du même conglomérat, qui n’est autre que le PDG d’« Africa Management Limited ».

Cette société d’investissement sud-africaine a longtemps été dirigée par Mark Willcox et a été cofondée par l’ancien ministre sud-africain de l’Habitat Tokyo Sexwale. Un troisième Sud-Africain, proche des deux premiers, est cité par le Financial Times dans le cadre de cette affaire : Walter Hennig. Ce dernier a plusieurs activités en Afrique de l’Ouest. Les avocats des trois hommes se refusent à tout commentaire.

Ce « partenaire sud-africain » aurait aussi proposé un autre deal à Och-Ziff en 2007, lequel aurait eu lieu dans un « pays d’Afrique de l’Ouest » et « coût[é] 20-25 millions de dollars (ce qui [aurait] inclus 5 millions pour la campagne de l’élection présidentielle en cours…) ». Finalement, Och-Ziff refuse.

L’affaire en restera-t-elle là ? Si Och-Ziff a accepté cet accord, c’est probablement pour éviter que l’enquête n’aille plus loin. Par ailleurs, on imagine mal les tribunaux des pays concernés s’en saisir. Mais l’affaire Och-Ziff pourrait bien, déjà, avoir fait une victime collatérale : les sociétés américaines cotées vont désormais réfléchir à deux fois avant d’investir sur le continent.
Quand les milliards de Kadhafi alléchaient les requins de Goldman Sachs

« Les réunions sont extraordinaires. Ils ont 77 milliards, la moitié en liquide, et aucune idée d’à qui les donner […]. Je n’ai pas été aussi excité depuis longtemps ! » Le 7 mars 2007, un des cadres d’Och-Ziff avait bien du mal à cacher son enthousiasme dans ses e-mails. Quelques heures plus tôt, il avait rencontré des responsables du Libyan Investment Authority (LIA) à Vienne.

À l’époque, les sanctions contre le régime de Mouammar Kadhafi viennent d’être levées et un fonds souverain a été créé pour faire fructifier les gigantesques masses d’argent issues du pétrole libyen : le LIA. De quoi attiser les convoitises des financiers américains. Par l’intermédiaire d’un agent libanais basé à Londres, Och-Ziff parvient à obtenir la gestion de 300 millions de dollars (environ 225 millions d’euros) du LIA et gagne 100 millions de dollars de revenus sur ces opérations. Pour cela, trois officiels libyens auraient touché pour près de 3,4 millions de dollars de pots-de-vin.

Le fonds libyen a également attiré l’attention de la banque américaine Goldman Sachs. Selon une enquête de Bloomberg Businessweek, celle-ci aurait envoyé sur place, en 2007 et 2008, l’un de ses partenaires, l’Austro-Marocain Driss Ben-Brahim, ainsi que l’un de ses jeunes commerciaux, Youssef Kabbaj, pour leur proposer des investissements. Ce dernier, natif de Rabat passé par le lycée Louis-le-Grand (Paris) et le MIT, est notamment chargé d’« enseigner » les bases de la finance aux responsables du LIA – ce qui donne souvent lieu à des voyages tous frais payés. Un autre employé de Goldman Sachs s’amuse, dans un message révélé par le magazine, d’avoir « fait un cours sur des produits structurés à effet de levier à quelqu’un qui vit au milieu du désert avec ses chameaux ».

Sur les conseils de la banque américaine, le LIA finit par souscrire des produits financiers effectivement complexes – et risqués. Et ce quelques mois avant la crise financière de 2008… Le fonds libyen y perd 1,2 milliard de dollars. Goldman Sachs, elle, conserve ses commissions. Un procès entre les deux parties s’est ouvert en juin, à Londres. Le jugement doit être prononcé ce mois-ci.

Pierre Boisselet
Pierre Boisselet

 

Pierre Boisselet
Jeune Afrique

Sable Mining. The Deceivers: Guinea and Liberia

Entitled “The Deceivers” Global Witness’ Report investigates and exposes the corrupt practices of British businessmen  Phil Edmonds and Andrew Groves. Operating from London, the duo is present in the mining sector in Liberia, Guinea  Mozambique, South Africa, Zimbabwe…. I reprint here the Guinea and Liberia sections of the report. This version of the document corrects a glaring geography mistake: Liberia, not Gambia, shares with Guinea the Western chimpanzees habitat zone. And it includes relevant pictures and germane links.
Tierno S. Bah

Global Witness. “The Deceivers”, Sable Mining. “Guinea: The Prize”
Global Witness. “The Deceivers”, Sable Mining. “Guinea: The Prize”

As a spin bowler for the England cricket team Phil Edmonds won a reputation for deception and guile. He and his business partner Andrew Groves put those skills to use on the stock market, fleecing millions from investors as they carved out an African business empire with bribery and dirty tricks.

Guinea: The Prize

After Liberia, Edmonds and Groves set their sights on a new prize: Mount Nimba in Guinea. To win it, their company Sable Mining—still listed on AIM-got close to the future president, backing the campaign that brought him to power, courting his son and paying millions to one of his close friends to advance their business with bribery.

Phil Edmonds
Phil Edmonds

August 2010. Guinea is in the grip of election fever as the impoverished West African nation prepares to end five decades of dictatorship with its first free vote. Presidential candidate Alpha Condé is flying in with Sable Mining chief Andrew Groves—and Sable’s man in Conakry is worried the price of bribes is about to skyrocket.

Aboubacar Sampil
Aboubacar Sampil

“Once we get there on a plane with presi, the future head of the country, and two ‘big-shots’ from a big western company, trust me, prices will inflate like crazy,” Sable’s Guinean agent, Aboubacar Sampil, wrote in a 28 August email to a Sable executive. “Folks in the admin will try to get a lot, lot more for each step, leading to a minimum of about $500,000 not including the minister’s share.”

The email is among a cache of documents leaked to Global Witness by sources who requested anonymity.

Andrew Groves
Andrew Groves

Sable, listed by Edmonds and Groves on AIM in 2008, had spent the previous months lining up its first iron ore rights in Liberia. Now it was backing Condé’s campaign in neighbouring Guinea. To get close to Condé, Sable was courting his son, Alpha Mohammed Condé —with the implication that when his father became president, Sable’s interests in Guinea would be taken care of.

Alpha Mohammed Condé
Alpha Mohammed Condé

We look forward to bringing this political collaboration to life,” Alpha Mohammed wrote to Sable on 4 August 2010. “It will make my dad all the more comfortable to support our business partnerships and trust us as a team to be solution providers for many of the challenges he will face.

As Sable took care of campaign logistics—booking flights for the Condés, arranging meetings with a Liberian minister and the heads of South African intelligence, and offering the loan of a helicopter—its agent Sampil, an old confidante of Condé and a member of his entourage, was on the ground in Guinea scouting for permits.

To get them, he wanted money for bribes. Four times that August Sampil asked Sable for money via Alpha Mohammed’s Paris bank account, leaked emails seen by Global Witness show.

Now it is very important to make money transfer to the Alpha bank account. That can help to finalise faster with the technicians of the ministry,” Sampil wrote on one occasion. “They started giving me some information that I have to pay for. You know how things work.

Prime territory

Alpha Mohammed had sent Sable his bank details earlier in the month—but wiring cash to the son of a high-profile politician was proving tricky. “We are having a few issues with our risk/compliance people in terms of getting this payment made,” wrote Sable’s London lawyer on 17 August. Groves suggested routing the payment through a Sable account in South Africa.

Alpha Condé paid,” Groves wrote a few hours later to say he had sent the son his money. But 10 days later Sampil, who had asked for 15,000 euros, was still complaining that the transfer hadn’t come through.

Alpha Mohammed told Global Witness that he had never “attempted to use improper influence to assist Sable”—though the emails show that he was aware of plans to send bribe money through his account.

Any payments to Alpha Mohammed Condé from Sable Mining would have been for consultancy work or reimbursement for travel,” a spokesman for the Guinean government said. Alpha Mohammed “would be able to show that his bank never had more than 10,000 euros in his account”.

Sampil declined to comment for this report. Edmonds and Groves told Global Witness that if any bribery occurred in Guinea, it was without their knowledge. Jim Cochrane, Sable chairman since 2014, said the company obeys the law wherever it operates and that questions from Global Witness had “prompted a further internal review of all these matters, many of which were subject to review a number of years ago”.

Global Witness’s investigation did not reveal any evidence of wrongdoing by Alpha Condé Sr.

Condé won the election. And whatever Sampil was doing for Sable, by January 2012 his efforts were paying off. One of the key permits Sampil had applied for during the election campaign—when he was soliciting bribe money from Sable—came through: iron ore exploration rights in Mount Nimba on the Liberian border, prime mining territory close to concessions held by multinationals BHP Billiton and Arcelor-Mittal.

Sampil was handsomely rewarded. Sable appointed him a non-executive director with an annual salary of $120,000 and in 2014 paid him $6 million in “consultancy fees”. His importance to Sable “cannot be underestimated”, the company’s lawyer said in a 2012 court filing.

Sampil “does not hold any position with the government of the Republic of Guinea and does not represent the administration in any capacity”, the company told the Times. Payments to him were “fully justifiable and have been disclosed fully”, Cochrane wrote to Global Witness.

There was just one problem with the Nimba permit: it was illegal.

Special treatment

Maps of the exploration area granted to Sable show that it overlapped with the Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve, a World Heritage Site on Unesco’s danger list, home to the rare Western chimpanzee, already extinct in nearby Gambia Liberia, and the critically endangered Western Nimba viviparous toad, one of the only toad species that spawns live young.

About the Western Chimpanzees, watch Gilles Nivet’s documentary movie Le Pacte de Bossou. — T.S. Bah

While Sable’s permit was later adjusted to skirt the reserve just outside the boundary, in some places it remained less than 90 metres from the park. It also covered swathes of the buffer zone surrounding the reserve, which is also internationally recognised.

Letting Sable operate there “contravenes commitments made by our government to the international community”, warned environment minister Samady Touré in a letter to the mining minister on 9 August 2012, four days after the permit was revised. The company’s activities “are incompatible with the current status of the Strict Nature Reserve” under Guinean law, wrote Touré, who requested the cancellation of the permits.

“This contract involves a licence on the buffer zone of the Nimba site and not the protected area. It was believed that this would have lower negative impact,” a spokesman for the Guinean government told Global Witness in an email. “The basic premise of preferential treatment for Sable from the Condé government is simply incorrect.”

‘A quick and dirty job’

Touré’s protests went unheeded and three months later he was dismissed. Unesco officials who visited Nimba in 2013 feared for the future of the reserve. Sable’s planned mine could squeeze a band of endangered chimpanzees into a narrow corridor between mining concessions, said the Unesco team’s report, and forest landscapes already threatened by hunting, logging and farming would be isolated and fragmented.

But with no power to stop Sable, all Unesco could do was urge the company to carry out environmental impact assessments to the “highest international standards”. The report Sable produced in February 2015 didn’t come close, according to a senior Unesco official who spoke on condition of anonymity.

It was a “quick and dirty job”, the official told Global Witness. Sable’s consultants spent so little time in the field that they even mistook passing migrant birds for native wildlife.

“The bird inventory has as the two most common species two migrant species from Europe because they just did the inventory on the days they came through,” the official said. “It is very clear that they didn’t do proper baseline studies.”

Parts of the report, seen by Global Witness, look suspiciously like a hasty cut-and-paste job. Sable’s concession is a “nesting site for marine turtles”, it says. Nimba is 270 kilometres from the sea.

Secret recordings

On the ground in Nimba, Sable plied local officials with gifts to keep them on-side. In secret recordings of speeches from a village ceremony in July 2013, Guinean officials can be heard thanking Sable for its gifts: Sable renovated the local prefect’s house; local environmental and mining officials received 11 motorcycles and a pick-up truck.

With the officials taken care of, Sable had just one hurdle left to clear: getting its ore out of Guinea.

It was a nut that far bigger mining companies had failed to crack. Guinea’s big iron deposits are in the country’s south and east, from where the easiest export route is a short haul across Liberia to the coast by rail. But Guinea’s government was desperate for infrastructure, insisting that companies fund a much longer and costlier railway to the Guinean capital that would carry passengers as well as ore.

In August 2013, Sable succeeded where its competitors had failed when a Guinean ministerial decree granted the company the right to export through Liberia. With the Guineans onside, the Liberians followed, signing an export deal with Sable on 23 January 2013.

In London, the news sent Sable stock rocketing more than 300 per cent. But Edmonds and Groves may not have been telling investors the whole story. The Liberian railway was in the hands of international steel giant Arcelor-Mittal and the arrangement to use it was far from a done deal.

“There’s nothing agreed yet on the railway,” a person with close knowledge of talks between Arcelor and Sable told Global Witness, speaking anonymously due to the confidentiality of the discussions. Far from having secured an export route, Sable was more likely to end up fighting a “lengthy court battle”, the person said. The railway deal is “not yet consummated”, the Liberian government told Global Witness.

‘Just do what I do’

With a rail deal nowhere near as close as he was publicly claiming, Groves offered Arcelor an alternative: buying Sable’s ore “at the mine gate”, leaving the larger company to take care of transportation. But Arcelor officials suspected Groves of exaggerating the quality of Sable’s deposit, cherry-picking the best samples to make the overall quality seem higher, insiders say.

Even as iron ore prices slumped in 2014, Sable continued to tell the markets that Nimba was a workable prospect. But it’s unsure the company will ever get any iron out of Guinea.

Since Sable arrived in West Africa, Guinea has been hit by a deadly Ebola epidemic that left 2,536 dead and few companies with appetite for the foreign investment needed for recovery. But Andrew Groves has some advice for those who do feel equal to the challenge, say two people who attended a meeting with him in 2014.

Just get them all round the table—army, police, government, environmental, doesn’t matter who it is—we get them all round the table and we just give them money to make things happen and it all just goes away,” Groves said, according to one of them (the other gave a similar account). “You should just do what I do. Because everything goes smoothly when you do it like I do.

Global Witness

Next, Liberia: The Bribes

The Butcher’s Trail. When Justice Wins!

I reprint here the Introduction (21 pages) and, next, Chapter 13 (“The Legacy”, 29 pages) of Julian Borges’ book entitled The Butcher’s Trail : how the search for Balkan war criminals became the world’s most successful manhunt. New York : Other Press, 2016. xxx, 400 pages : illustrations, maps.
That said, I encourage BlogGuinée’s visitors to get and read this work. It is a well-written account of a key episode in the permanent and worldwide struggle against dictatorship, human rights violations, genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Readers beware! This book is neither casual nor trivial. It stands out asrather substantial and substantive. And it reads as a well-researched, organized and written contribution. It is, in sum, the fruitful labor of an inquisitive mind and an investigative journalist who (a) has great mastery of his native tongue, and (b) built up a detailed knowledge of his topic. Julian Borge’s admirable talent serves here a noble cause: the defense of truth through the quest for justice.
The author of The Butcher’s Trail remains focused and stays on topic. True, he makes cursory connections to related facts and events. However, he sticks to the former Yugoslavia, from 1995 to today. I thus selected the above mentioned section because they include references to Africa. These are just tidbits. However, the entries convey potent and relevant connotations; one points to Nelson Mandela, the other to the International Criminal Court.

Nelson Mandela
Contrary to Robert Mugabe, —his junior comrade— the late Madiba decided to leave active politics after just one term as the first elected president of post-Apartheid South Africa. Yet, in retirement he cast a shining light on his beloved country, his continent and on the entire planet. He still does so posthumously. For death has not dimmed his star. To the contrary, his name is enshrined in the pantheon of the greatest men and women in History. And his symbol as patriot and statesman lives on.

The ICC
Julian Borger joins the battle by shedding light on the history of this institution. He writes: “Slobodan Milošević, the Yugoslav president who became the first head of state to stand before an international tribunal for crimes perpetrated in a time of war.
This sentence debunks the claim that Western powers single out African dictators for investigation, indictment, prosecution and trial. It shatters the myth that the ICC targets only African presidents, or that the international community is engaged in a political and judicial witch hunt against African politicians. So, they seek to elude scrutiny and evade justice by plotting an Africa withdrawal from the ICC. In vain!

Read Rev. Desmond Tutu’s In Africa, Seeking a License to Kill.

The fact is that autocrats, presidents-for-life, tyrants, warlords, and potentates have plagued the continent since the independence series of the 1960s. The list of countries and culprits is tedious:  Rwanda (Juvénal Habiyarimana), Zaire/RDC (Mobutu), Kenya (Uhuru Kenyatta), Uganda (Idi Amin), Zimbabwe (Robert Mugabe), Somalia (Syad Bare), Sudan (Omar al-Bashir), Egypt (Hosni Mubarak), Tunisia (Zine El Abidine Ben Ali), Libya (Muammar Gaddafi), Algeria (Bouteflika), Mali (Moussa Konaté), Burkina Faso (Blaise Compaoré), Chad (Hissène Habré), Togo (Gnassingbé Eyadema), Ethiopia (Mengistu Haile Mariam), Eritrea (Isaias Afwerki), Gabon (Omar Bongo), Nigeria (Sani Abacha), Denis Sassou-Nguesso (Congo), CAR (Bokassa), Cameroon (Paul Biya), Equatorial Guinea (Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo), Liberia (Charles Taylor), Sierra Leone (Fode Sankon and the RUF), Gambia (Yahya Jammeh),  Côte d’Ivoire (Laurent Gbagbo), etc.

In Guinea, since 1958, the country’s five presidents (Sékou Touré, Lansana Conté, Moussa Dadis Camara, Sékouba Konaté, Alpha Condé) sadly belong all in the same category of ruthless predators.

Reconciliation: a code word for impunity
Guinea’s current president, Alpha Condé, wants to sweep under the carpet the September 28, 2009 massacre of hundreds of civilians, followed by mass rapes. He refuses to let the judicial branch handle the trial of  the members of the military junta headed by former Captain Moussa Dadis Camara. Holding up the investigation, he plan to delay the court as long as he is president. To cover up his maneuvers he has propped up a puppet and sycophantic national commission of truth and reconciliation. Such extra-judicial efforts are cynical, misguided, wrong, vicious, and malevolent. They disregard totally the grievances and calls for justice by plaintiffs collectives that group survivors and family members of Guinea’s death camps and killing fields: Camp Boiro, Camp Keme Bourema, Mont Kakoulima, Mont Gangan, etc. M. Condé’s reconciliation slogan is simply a code word for impunity.
But The Butcher’s Trail tells us that the commitment for justice is tireless and  permanent. It must go on everywhere, in Guinea and elsewhere around the globe.
Note. I have embedded the audio file of Julian Borger’s interview by Scott Simon on National National Public Radio (Washington, DC), Weekend Edition, dated Saturday March 26, 2016. The conversation focuses on the trial of Bosnian war criminal Radovan Karodzic which ended that week in The Hague. The transcript is appended to the mp3 document.
Tierno S. Bah


The butcher's trail : how the search for Balkan war criminals became the world's most successful manhunt

Introduction

« The gripping, untold story of The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and how the perpetrators of Balkan war crimes were captured by the most successful manhunt in history. Written with a thrilling narrative pull, The Butcher’s Trail chronicles the pursuit and capture of the Balkan war criminals indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal in The Hague. Borger recounts how Radovan Karadžić and Ratko Mladić—both now on trial in The Hague—were finally tracked down, and describes the intrigue behind the arrest of Slobodan Milošević, the Yugoslav president who became the first head of state to stand before an international tribunal for crimes perpetrated in a time of war. Based on interviews with former special forces soldiers, intelligence officials, and investigators from a dozen countries–most speaking about their involvement for the first time–this book reconstructs a fourteen-year manhunt carried out almost entirely in secret. Indicting the worst war criminals that Europe had known since the Nazi era, the ICTY ultimately accounted for all 161 suspects on its wanted list, a feat never before achieved in political and military history. »

The Echo of Nuremberg

“The Security Council thought we would never become operational. We had no budget. We had nothing. Zero.”
—Antonio Cassese, first president of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia

Julian Borge
Julian Borge

The trail came to a halt in a forest clearing. A man emerged from the trees at the agreed time, but the friend he had come to meet was nowhere to be seen. The man waited, feeling increasingly out of place. It was a burning hot day in late July, and he was flabby and pale from years spent in colder climes.
He regretted having come home, but he had no real choice. By the summer of 2011, the man had spent seven years as a fugitive, most recently in Russia, and was out of money. The only people on earth prepared to help him were here, in Serbia, where he could surely still count on a handful of true believers from the old days of national struggle. But where were they now?
As the appointed hour came and went, the only sounds in the forest were birdsong and the wind in the leaves. But the man was not alone. All along the path as it wound through the trees, he had been watched intently. As he emerged into the clearing, the illusion of solitude lasted just a few more moments before exploding with shouts and a blur of movement. In an instant, there were men all around him in white T-shirts and black knitted masks, pointing guns, gripping him by the wrists and shoulders.
One of the men, a police officer, began a recitation: “Goran Hadžić, we are arresting you …”
It was a name that had scarcely been heard for years. Even its owner had stopped using it, in favor of a string of aliases. But two decades earlier, Goran Hadžić had been a name to reckon with in this corner of the Balkans. He had been a president, albeit of a trumped-up little statelet with jagged edges—a bite taken out of one reborn country, Croatia, to be chewed and swallowed by another, Serbia, its covetous neighbor.
When the exhausted federal experiment that was Yugoslavia collapsed, its constituent republics were left to fight over its corpse. Serbia was the biggest and most predatory, spurred on by the most ruthless leader. Slobodan Milošević truly was a man for all seasons—a Socialist turned banker turned nationalist despot and unflinching war criminal. His preference was for a Serb-dominated Yugoslavia, but if he could not have that, he would carve out a Greater Serbia at the expense of his neighbors.
Hadžić was Milošević’s puppet, but the sort of puppet that belongs in a horror film, a bloodied ventriloquist’s dummy. He helped preside over the first large-scale slaughter of innocent civilians in Europe since the Nazi era. From August to November 1991, the early days of Yugoslavia’s dismemberment, the baroque Croatian town of Vukovar, which had sat comfortably by the Danube for centuries, was razed to the ground by Serb artillery.
Once the town had fallen, some three hundred Croat men and teenage boys, many of them wounded, were taken from a hospital to a nearby farm where they were beaten and tortured by Serb soldiers and paramilitary volunteers serving with the Yugoslav army. They were driven away at night in trucks, ten to twenty at a time, taken to a wooded ravine, and executed. Only a handful escaped. In all, 263 men and boys were killed, the youngest aged sixteen. There was also one woman among the victims. Their bodies were dumped in a mass grave and covered by a bulldozer.

In Western capitals, it seemed beyond comprehension that wholesale slaughter was being committed once more in the heart of Europe. In the early nineties, it was a continent preoccupied with harmonizing food safety standards and the many other intricate chores of building a closer union. The dark past, two generations earlier, was buried under layer upon layer of democracy, diplomacy, and bureaucracy, or so it seemed from Brussels. The return of mass murder was deeply shocking. An entire town was pulverized, and its surviving Croats and minorities driven out with the goal of creating a swath of territory that would be home only to Serbs.
The process was called “ethnic cleansing,” a turn of phrase beyond George Orwell’s darkest satire. Like all the most effective propaganda, it worked by inversion. It took an act that was inherently dirty and gore-spattered and made it sound like a salutary rite of purification. It was a “cleansing” that left a permanent stain on everyone and everything it touched.
The “purified” mini-state was named the Republic of Serbian Krajina (Republika Srpska Krajina, or RSK), and Hadžić became its despot. He was thirty-three years old, a former warehouseman for an agro-industrial company in Vukovar who had been a leading light in the local League of Communists in his youth. He was picked for the role of the RSK’s warlord because he had made the same ideological swerve to nationalism as Milošević. He had plenty of ambition and no evident scruples. He was perfect.

Twenty years on, Hadžić was isolated and abandoned. His realm, the RSK, had been swept away, and Milošević had been dead for more than five years. In an effort to help him make ends meet, one of Hadžić’s childhood friends tried to sell a plundered artwork, but the intended favor only helped corner him. It was a painting attributed to the Italian artist Amedeo Modigliani, taken as booty during the Croatian war. The art market was awash with such looted treasure, real and fake, but it was also thick with informers and spies. The French external intelligence service, the General Directorate for External Security (Direction Générale de la Sécurité Extérieure, or DGSE), had a particularly strong presence. One of its officers was even given a special award for extended service undercover in the Balkan art world 1. The French alerted Serbian intelligence, who monitored Hadžić’s friend and set a trap. In the wooded hills of Fruška Gora National Park near the Serbian-Croatian border, he was cornered and captured like the last grizzled specimen of a once ferocious breed.

The masked policemen turned him toward a camera to capture the moment. Surprise had given way to realization and resentment on Hadžić’s hangdog face. By now he was fifty-two years old. The warrior’s beard was gone, leaving a graying mustache and sagging jowls. The only familiar features left from his glory days were the angry eyes and the sneer, which once looked at home with his camouflage fatigues but now jarred with the baby-blue T-shirt he had chosen for his meeting.

The pathetic scene at the end of the forest trail marked the culmination of a long and extraordinary history. Hadžić was the last fugitive to be caught in a fifteen-year manhunt, involving the pursuit, arrest, or surrender of all those indicted for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide by a special court created by the United Nations in The Hague, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY).

The ICTY, or the Hague Tribunal as it came to be popularly known, was established in 1993 as an experiment in international justice. It was the first time in the history of conflict that a truly global court had been created to pursue war criminals. It embodied the conviction that a universal sense of humanity could and should be upheld in the face of mass atrocities, transcending national jurisdiction.

The dramatic landmark trials at The Hague have been the subject of several books and countless articles. But those trials would never have taken place if the defendants had not been tracked down, arrested, and brought to court. That pursuit itself was a historic achievement. It took a very long time, but by 2011 all 161 people on the ICTY list of indictees faced justice one way or another. Former prison camp guards and ex-presidents all stood before the same tribunal. More than half the suspects were tracked down and captured. Others gave themselves up rather than lie awake every night wondering whether masked, armed men were about to storm into their bedroom. Two committed suicide. Others decided they would rather die in a blaze of gunfire and explosives than be taken alive. Two of them got their wish.

The individuals and agencies who pursued the suspects were many and various, but most did their work in the shadows, their successes never acknowledged. This account is based on interviews with more than two hundred of these people—former soldiers, intelligence officials, investigators, data analysts, diplomats, and officials from a dozen nations who were directly involved in the manhunt, most of them speaking about their actions for the first time. A majority agreed to talk only on the promise of anonymity, as the arrest operations are still classified in their home countries. Part of the narrative is also based on a trove of previously secret British government documents, declassified by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in response to a request under the Freedom of Information Act.

Special forces from six countries took part in the hunt, the biggest special operations deployment anywhere in the world before 9/11. Polish commandos made history by becoming the first soldiers to carry out an arrest on behalf of the tribunal—to the surprise of many, including their own government. Britain’s Special Air Service (SAS), who carried out NATO’s first manhunting missions in Bosnia, brought techniques learned in Northern Ireland. The participation of a newly formed German special forces unit in an arrest operation, at the cost of some serious injuries, marked the first time that country’s soldiers had gone into action since 1945. And the skills acquired in the Balkan manhunt by America’s elite soldiers in Delta Force and SEAL Team Six would soon be applied to the looming war on terror and to another manhunt—for Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida’s leaders.

An alphabet soup of Western spy agencies, including the CIA, NSA, Britain’s MI6 and GCHQ (Government Communications Headquarters), and France’s DGSE, conducted a parallel manhunt in the shadows with varying degrees of success. Despite the millions spent, none proved as effective as a small, secretive tracking unit inside the Hague Tribunal, which hugely enhanced the clout of the once-derided court.

From time to time, this multinational array of soldiers, spies, and sleuths acted in concert, following a trail that led from the Balkans west to the Canary Islands and Buenos Aires, and east as far as St. Petersburg and the Black Sea resort of Sochi. Just as often, they tripped over one another in their pursuit of conflicting national and institutional interests. That helps explain why the manhunt took so long 2. The story of the manhunt’s success contains within it many stories of failure. To survivors and families of victims waiting for justice, it did not feel like a triumph at the time. It is only now, when it is all over, that it stands out. There has been nothing quite like it in history.

The ICTY did not just complete its mission, rare enough for a UN operation and all the more striking in view of the patchy and ambivalent support it received from the major powers. The relentless pursuit of the indictees also made legal history. It led to the arrest and trial of Milošević, the first sitting head of state ever to be charged with war crimes by an international court. At the time of writing, the two men who presided over the worst of the atrocities in Bosnia—Radovan Karadžić, the Bosnian Serbs’ political leader, and his military commander, Ratko Mladić—are on trial for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. The trail of blood was followed, not just to the immediate perpetrators of the mass atrocities but all the way to the orchestrators, the master butchers themselves.

Along the way, the ICTY defined mass rape for the first time as a crime against humanity in international law, as a result of atrocities committed by Bosnian Serb forces in the town of Foča. It was a legal breakthrough that would have meant little without the actions of German and French special forces, who tracked down the rapists and brought them to The Hague.

Before the ICTY’s creation, there was no institutional framework for judging war crimes and crimes against humanity. There was an attempt to put Napoleon Bonaparte’s commanders on trial for treason in 1815, but the effort collapsed. More than a century later, the British government sought to prosecute Kaiser Wilhelm for war crimes but failed to persuade Holland, where the Kaiser had taken refuge, to hand him over 3.

After the Second World War, the question loomed once more of what to do with leaders, officials, and soldiers responsible for mass atrocities, and it was by no means inevitable they would be put on trial. Winston Churchill, Joseph Stalin, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt initially approved a plan for summary executions of top Nazis, lest their survival help rally their followers 4. The trials in the ruined city of Nuremberg were something of a lastminute decision.

Meanwhile, in Tokyo a parallel tribunal was established for Japanese war crimes suspects, but Emperor Hirohito and members of the imperial family were exempted. Neither Tokyo nor Nuremberg succeeded in drawing a line in human history, despite the hopeful mantra of “never again.” More than forty-five years later, mass murder returned to the modern, industrialized world.

Genocide and other mass atrocities challenge our idea of what it is to be human. The acts perpetrated against innocent victims are so grotesque and disturbing, we recoil from their contemplation. We prefer them to be either far away or long ago. When Yugoslavia began to fall apart, the rest of Europe started to distance itself, like neighbors of a dying household. Shutting their doors, they convinced themselves that if they looked the other way, they would never catch the disease. Western politicians diagnosed “ancient ethnic hatreds” let loose by the fall of Communism as the cause of the bloodshed 5. It was one of a litany of excuses for not getting involved, but it explained nothing.

The history of the ethnic communities that made up Yugoslavia had indeed been marked by sporadic bouts of violence but those eruptions had been interspersed by long periods of peaceful coexistence. The same could be said of most regions in Europe’s diverse and turbulent continent.
Yugoslavia marched into hell because its leaders took it there. When Communist dogma lost its already tenuous hold on people’s minds with the fall of the Iron Curtain, the more ideologically flexible and unscrupulous of the fading Communist elite, led by Milošević, switched to nationalism. The leaders packaged it as a new emotional certainty in the face of the chaos and fear left by the collapse of the old order. The challenges of converting a totalitarian state into a democracy, or turning a command economy into a free market, were waved away with colorful flags, hazy nostalgia, and folk music. Political power at the breakup of Yugoslavia depended on the ability to weave myths, wield arms, and manipulate reality.

No one was better at this than Milošević, but he was not alone. His Croatian counterpart was another rebranded Communist, the former Partisan officer turned nationalist Franjo Tudjman. In Bosnia and Herzegovina (a), Alija Izetbegović, a paler and frailer version of the national strongman, unfurled his party’s green flag and offered his people a sense of Muslim identity. It was a defensive nationalism, however. Bosnia’s Muslims generally did not nurse irredentist ambitions, but they were afraid that the revival of backward-looking nationalism among their neighbors would once more mark them as prey. Izetbegović was playing a dangerous game, waving a green banner with little to defend it.

His neighbors Milošević and Tudjman did not make the same mistake. As Yugoslavia collapsed, they armed their foot soldiers. Milošević had access to a near-bottomless arsenal thanks to Serb domination of the Yugoslav National Army (Jugoslavenska Narodna Armija, or JNA), once one of the largest militaries in Europe. The Croats took a smaller share of the JNA arms stockpile and as war approached they smuggled in weaponry to narrow the gap.

Milošević and Tudjman drew up maps expressing their dreams for a Greater Serbia and a Greater Croatia, aspirations that left little if any room for Bosnia. Neither of these despots regarded the Muslims—known as Bosniaks (b)—as a distinct ethnic group, viewing them respectively as renegade Serbs or Croats who had converted to Islam.

The new nationalist maps were clear and simple, filled with solid blocks of color. The reality of Yugoslavia on the other hand was uncommonly messy. It was pockmarked and spattered by more than a thousand years of human interaction, mingling Croats and Serbs with Illyrians, Romans, Goths, Asiatic Huns, Iranian Alans, and Avars.
The mix was stirred repeatedly by outside powers and rival empires—Roman, Frankish, Byzantine, Habsburg, and Ottoman—who scattered its constituent parts, occasionally adding new ingredients. Religion and ethnicity were intertwined throughout, creating both harmony and discord. The people of the western Balkans largely converted to Catholicism under the sway of the Franks and Habsburgs. Those in the east followed the Orthodox Christianity of Byzantium. Caught in between, many of the mountain people of central Bosnia converted to Islam after the Ottomans arrived from the east in the fifteenth century.

Mixing, migration, and intermarriage intensified during the two incarnations of Yugoslavia, as a monarchy in between the interwar period and as a Socialist federal republic after the Second World War. The mingling was made all the easier by the fact that the three biggest communities—Serbs, Croats, and Bosnian Muslims—shared a common language (c).

The result was a complicated country that looked nothing like the simple ethnic maps being circulated in the death throes of Yugoslavia. Making allowances for ethnic nuance would have robbed the nationalist message of its simplicity and power. Rather than change their maps, the nationalist leaders sought to force change on the flesh and blood of the region, creating ethnically pure territories, by terror when necessary. Whether they were nationalists or not, one community after another was confronted by the brutal violence unleashed by a deceptively simple question: Why should I be a minority in your country, when you could be a minority in mine? 6

Yugoslavia unraveled in a succession of increasingly ferocious wars. The first in Slovenia was little more than a prelude. After ten days of skirmishes with Slovene separatists in the early summer of 1991, the JNA withdrew. There were hardly any Serbs in the renegade republic, and Milošević let it go. He was conserving his strength for the next battle.

Croatia, which had a sizable Serb population (d), had declared independence on the same day as Slovenia. Milošević and Tudjman may have seen eye to eye on the division of Bosnia but they had very different maps of Croatia. Milošević wanted the Serb-inhabited area, the Krajina, for a Greater Serbia, while Tudjman’s map of Croatia was all one color. His independence constitution downgraded the new nation’s Serbs, about one in nine of the population, from a constituent people to one of many minorities. His rhetoric played into Milošević’s hands. Belgrade television had been stoking local Serb fears with reminders of what happened the last time Croatia had been officially independent. It had been a Nazi puppet state, run by the fascist Ustasha movement that committed genocide against Jews, Serbs, and Roma in Croatia and Bosnia. Memories of the death camps may have faded in Western Europe, but they were kept fresh in the Balkans by the propaganda of resurgent nationalism.

As soon as he was confident he had secured the Serb enclaves in Croatia, Milošević turned his attention to Bosnia. The techniques were the same. Proxies were armed, under the direction of Karadžić, a psychiatrist and poet from Sarajevo. In Bosnia, regular Yugoslav units simply swapped insignia and declared themselves to be the Bosnian Serb army, commanded by Mladić, a veteran JNA officer.

With Milošević’s support, Karadžić and Mladić would go on to oversee the ethnic cleansing of Serb territory, the siege of Sarajevo, and ultimately the massacre of Srebrenica. The embryonic Muslim-led army organized by Izetbegović was no match for Serb forces, and in 1993 it was forced to fight on two fronts when the Bosnian Croats, egged on by Tudjman, turned on their Bosniak neighbors.
An estimated twenty thousand people died in the Croatian war. About a hundred thousand were killed in Bosnia. The much higher death toll in Bosnia reflects its greater ethnic diversity—more territory to be cleansed—and the relative defenselessness of the Bosniak population. More than 80 percent of the civilians killed were Bosniak 7. Overall across the region, two civilians were killed for every three soldiers who died in battle. The whole conflict was characterized by random brutality. Psychopaths were made masters of the life and death of their former neighbors. Their barbarity was invariably sanctified by the nationalist leaders as self-defense against an enemy depicted in grotesque terms, as either Nazi Ustasha, wild-eyed Islamic fundamentalists, or Serb Chetnik  marauders (e).

The genocide of the Nazi era had set a precedent for mass killing that was never erased, only half buried under Tito’s slogan “Brotherhood and Unity.” Half a century later, the ghosts of Yugoslavia’s past arose and nationalism once more cut like a hacksaw through the human bonds that had held diverse communities together, unleashing murder. In the name of the nation, everything would be allowed.

The Serbs were by no means alone in committing mass atrocities. Croatia was also responsible for the ethnic cleansing of Serbs from its territory, as well as Muslims from the parts of Bosnia that Croatian nationalists coveted. The Muslim-led Bosnian army carried out serious crimes, running a small but appalling prison camp just southwest of Sarajevo, for example. The Kosovo Liberation Army carried out brutal reprisals against Serb civilians. Members of all these groups were brought before the ICTY for judgment. But Serbs were responsible for most of the mass atrocities and accordingly Serb names made up the majority of The Hague’s wanted list.

Faced with such an enormous moral challenge at a time of volcanic upheaval across the whole of Europe, Western leaders dithered. Neither they nor their armies were equipped doctrinally or intellectually to halt the Balkan atrocities in 1992. A newly united Europe failed its first great test. Its troops had rehearsed fighting as junior members of an alliance against a massed Warsaw Pact offensive on the German plains. They had not been trained to parachute into an ethnic conflict.

Meanwhile, the American military was still recovering from the trauma of Vietnam. Colin Powell, who was the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff when Yugoslavia collapsed, had gone to fight in Indochina as a young officer and then spent much of his military career trying to ensure his country did not repeat the mistake. His eponymous doctrine stipulated that the United States should only go to war if it could deploy overwhelming force for clearly defined national interests with broad public support. Bosnia ticked between one and zero of those boxes.

On the campaign trail in 1992, Bill Clinton had promised to use American military might to stop the mass killing in Bosnia 8, but once he was in office that promise was quickly forgotten. The young president, who had avoided serving in Vietnam, did not have the confidence to take on the military.

Unwilling to intervene to stop the slaughter, the UN Security Council took two initiatives to try to mitigate it. It sent in peacekeepers to safeguard deliveries of humanitarian aid, and it established the ICTY to prosecute war crimes in the hope of deterring further atrocities.
Blue-helmeted UN troops were sent into the thick of the war, but they arrived shackled with restrictive rules of engagement that allowed them to open fire only to defend themselves, not to protect the civilian victims falling like mown grass around them. By escorting aid convoys, the UN Protection Force (UNPROFOR) could stop Bosnians from starving, but not from being shot or blown apart. They became passive witnesses to genocide. At times their compliance with Serb intimidation went to the very edges of complicity.

So when the UN Security Council gathered in February 1993 to vote the Hague Tribunal into life,a the global powers already owed a huge debt to the victims of Yugoslavia, and the rhetoric of the occasion made weighty promises of what the new court would achieve.
“There is an echo in this Chamber today,” declared Madeleine Albright, the American envoy to the UN and a former refugee from genocide herself. “The Nuremberg Principles have been reaffirmed … this will be no victors’ tribunal. The only victor that will prevail in this endeavor is the truth.”9

In reality, the court came into being as an exercise in penance and distraction, the unstable product of high ideals and low politics. For the world powers at the UN Security Council it was a gesture toward justice in lieu of military intervention. The mass atrocities would not be prevented, but they would be judged after the victims were dead. This is how the ICTY was born: as a substitute. It represented the promise of justice tomorrow in place of salvation today for the people of Yugoslavia.
Most of the nations who brought this new judicial creature into being had no expectation that it would ever function properly. It was initially so short of money it could not afford to lease a court building, and it took eighteen months to find a chief prosecutor. No one of the right caliber wanted to do the job. The judges found themselves presiding over an empty theater of justice, without prosecutors or anyone to prosecute. Antonio Cassese, an Italian professor of international law appointed as the tribunal’s first president, complained: “The Security Council thought we would never become operational. We had no budget. We had nothing. Zero.”10
Cassese’s judges were paid on an ad hoc basis. The UN granted them just enough money for a handful of computers and two weeks’ rent on a suite of offices in The Hague’s Peace Palace. Looking for more space, Cassese heard that the insurance company Aegon was only using part of its faded Art Deco building on Churchillplein. He decided to rent it, but squeezing money out of the UN was so hard that the tribunal was unable to put down a deposit on a long-term lease before the summer of 1994. Prosecutors and investigators shared a cafeteria with Aegon’s actuaries and account managers, which meant they could never discuss cases at lunch, for security reasons. And they only had enough room for a single court, a converted conference room. But what good was a court anyway, without defendants?
Just at the point when the judges were considering mutiny or resignation, Nelson Mandela kept the tribunal alive by helping to persuade Richard Goldstone, a South African lawyer and veteran anti-apartheid campaigner, to take the chief prosecutor’s job in July 1994 11. In the eighteen months it had taken to find someone suitable, thousands of people had died in Bosnia and Herzegovina. And the tribunal was still far from functional. There was no one willing to carry out arrests. Goldstone’s staff scrambled to piece together a string of indictments wherever there was evidence to do so, but the overwhelming majority of the seventy-four indictments issued in the Goldstone era concerned small fry—camp guards who had tortured their former neighbors and who could be readily identified by survivors. The urgency to demonstrate the tribunal was operational left no time to build more sophisticated cases against the master butchers.
The court’s first defendant was a perfect example of this “low-hanging fruit” syndrome. Duško Tadić had been a particularly sadistic guard at two notorious Bosnian Serb prison camps, Omarska and Keraterm. He fled to Germany after the war but was spotted in a benefits office in Munich by camp survivors, who called the local police. In November 1994, Tadić arrived in The Hague to become the world’s first war crimes defendant for two generations. Yet for all the tribunal’s attempts to play up the echoes of Nuremberg, it was clear this brutal turnkey was no Hermann Göring or Joseph Goebbels. Most of the other names on Goldstone’s indictment list were similarly inconsequential. Their pictures were printed on posters distributed among UNPROFOR battalions, who tacked them up on their barracks notice boards and ignored them.
The international community was finally shocked out of its indecision and half measures by the worst single massacre of the Bosnian war, the murder of more than eight thousand men and boys by Serb forces after the fall of the Muslim enclave at Srebrenica in July 1995. A handful survived the mass executions, acting dead and climbing out of mass graves over the bodies of their friends and relatives. It was impossible for the world to ignore their testimony, but the most chilling account of all was to come from one of the killers.
Dražen Erdemović was a Bosnian Croat locksmith married to a Serb. In a country that was falling apart, with its people forced to choose sides according to ethnicity, Erdemović belonged nowhere. At different points in the swirling conflict he had served in the Croat, Bosnian, and Serb armies, trying to survive in noncombat jobs. But in July 1995, when he was twenty-three, he was dragooned into a Serb execution squad at Srebrenica, where he witnessed things he would never be able to forget. The awful scenes were lodged deep in his brain.
Eight months later, Erdemović started looking for someone to confess to. He called the US embassy in Belgrade but was turned away, so he went to the press 12. The police, who tapped journalists’ phones as a matter of course, picked him up but it was too late. His story was all over the world, and the Milošević regime had little choice but to hand him over to The Hague 13.
Erdemović became the first person since Nuremberg to be sentenced by an international tribunal for crimes against humanity. But he will be remembered mostly for the excruciating testimony he gave on the events of July 16, 1995, when 1,200 men and boys were killed at a single site.
They would bring out groups of ten people out of the bus and, of course, they were looking into the ground. Their heads were bent downwards and their hands were tied and they were blindfolded … They took them to the meadow. So we started shooting at those people. I do not know exactly. To be honest,… I simply felt sick 14.
NATO intervention and a Croatian ground offensive forced a peace treaty, signed in November 1995 by Milošević, Tudjman, and Izetbegović at an air force base in Dayton, Ohio. But Milošević was not quite done with war. In a brutish epilogue to his decade of misrule, he sent troops into Kosovo in 1998 to crush a fledgling insurgency by the province’s Albanians. Like his earlier adventures, it left a mountain of corpses—more than ten thousand dead—and backfired totally. NATO intervened again in March 1999 with a bombing campaign that forced Milošević to withdraw his troops three months later. Kosovo declared independence in 2008.
Once more, Western intervention only came after the dead were already in their graves 15. Justice arrived even later. The Dayton Accords did indeed stop the killing in Bosnia, but the divisions created by ethnic cleansing were frozen in place. The persistent influence of Karadžić, Mladić, and Milošević meanwhile threatened to render Dayton meaningless and make the Hague Tribunal a colossal farce.
Yet by 2011, the ICTY manhunters had crossed off all the names on their indicted list. As this book goes to press, the last trials are under way. Karadžić and Mladić are in the dock facing the very people they tried to obliterate. Witness testimony is streamed live online. Millions of documents have been analyzed and saved. Transcripts are posted online. The buried crimes of the past are dug up and laid in the open for all those who can bring themselves to look.
It was a more substantial endeavor than the hunt for Nazis after World War II. The US-led investigators at Nuremberg had the advantage that most of their suspects had already been captured or had surrendered. The prosecutors mostly chose defendants according to the prisoners of war they already had in their cells, rather than according to the scale of their crimes. Only one prominent Nazi was tried in absentia because he could not be found—Hitler’s private secretary, Martin Bormann, whose remains were identified in 1998 16. The real precursor to the ICTY manhunt was the US Department of Justice’s Office of Special Investigations, established in 1979. Over the next quarter century, OSI “Nazi hunters” tracked down and prosecuted more than a hundred war criminals who had tried to hide in the United States 17.
Whereas the Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals never escaped the taint of “victors’ justice,” the ICTY represented the first genuine attempt at an international reckoning for war crimes on all sides in a conflict. The judges and prosecutors were drawn from around the world, and the defendants came from four fledgling nations—Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia, and Kosovo.18 The effort to bring them to justice was long, uneven, and mired with mistakes, but it ultimately emerged as the most successful manhunt in history and an extraordinary testament to the tenacity of a remarkably small group of people. This book tells their story.

Slobodan Milošević
Slobodan Milošević

Franjo Trudman
Franjo Trudman

Radovan Karadžić
Radovan Karadžić

Ratko Mladić
Ratko Mladić

Notes
a. This is the full name of the Socialist Republic and then the independent nation, which will mostly be referred to simply as Bosnia for the rest of the book, for the sake of brevity.
b. Bosnian Muslims formally adopted the term “Bosniaks” to describe themselves in 1993.
c. Known in Yugoslav days as Serbo-Croat, it now known as Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian (BCS). Apart from a handful of differences in vocabulary, the only major distinction is that the Serbs use the Cyrillic alphabet.
d. About 11 percent of Croatia identified as Serb.
e. Chetniks were Serb bands who harried the Turks during the Ottoman era and during the Second World War were revived as a royalist resistance movement that fought first against then for the Nazi-backed regimes in Zagreb and Belgrade.

1. Former DGSE agent Pierre Martinet said that one of his colleagues earned an award for undercover service in the Balkan art world. The possession of high-quality art in the hands of thugs like Hadžić and his circle is not as far-fetched as it might appear on the surface. Art theft was a lucrative sideline of ethnic cleansing. A senior Serbian official told me that in some cases, when looted artifacts fell into the hands of Yugoslav intelligence officials who realized what they were worth, they set out to track down the owners, not to return their property but to kill them, eliminating a potential obstacle to selling the work on the global art market. See Pierre Martinet, DGSE Service action: Un Agent sort de l’ombre (Paris: Editions Privé, 2005).
2. It was literally a manhunt. There was just one woman on the list of indictees, Biljana Plavšić, and she turned herself in.
3. For a comprehensive history of the long quest for international justice, see Gary Jonathan Bass, Stay the Hand of Vengeance: The Politics of War Crimes Tribunals (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000).
4. Ibid., 12.
5. Britain’s prime minister at the time, John Major, bizarrely blamed the Bosnian war on “the collapse of the Soviet Union and of the discipline that that exerted over the ancient hatreds in the old Yugoslavia.” As Noel Malcolm pointed out in his book Bosnia: A Short History (London: Macmillan, 1994): “The ‘discipline’ exerted by the Soviet Union on Yugoslavia came to an abrupt and well-publicized end in 1948, when Stalin expelled Tito from the Soviet-run Cominform organization.”
6. A question attributed to Kiro Gligorov, Macedonia’s first president after independence.
7. The figures given in this paragraph are according to Mirsad Tokaca, The Bosnian Book of the Dead (Sarajevo: Research and Documentation Centre and Humanitarian Law Center of Serbia, 2013).
8. David Rieff, Slaughterhouse: Bosnia and the Failure of the West (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995), 27.
9. Julia Preston, “UN Security Council establishes Yugoslav War Crimes Tribunal,” Washington Post (February 23, 1993).
10. Bass, Stay the Hand of Vengeance, 215.
11. Ibid., 220.
12. Louise Branson, “Serbian Killer Turned Away by US Embassy,” The Sunday Times (March 17, 1996).
13. In return for his testimony Erdemović wanted to move his family to the West and be given immunity from prosecution. The tribunal was unwilling to guarantee the latter. On March 2, 1996, perhaps in the hope of forcing events, he and another soldier arranged to meet a correspondent for the French newspaper Le Figaro. They sat down to talk in a small country hotel near the Hungarian border. Erdemović was just twenty-five with a face still pockmarked by acne. He had been drafted into the black-uniformed Tenth Sabotage Detachment, which performed some of the gory labor in executing the eight thousand Muslim men and boys captured at Srebrenica. The Serbian security services stopped the journalist at the airport and confiscated the tapes of her interview with Erdemović. He was arrested half an hour later but prosecutors intervened quickly to ensure he was given up to the Hague Tribunal. Erdemović was flown to The Hague but was not granted immunity.
14. Ultimately, the judges reduced his sentence to five years because they accepted his argument that he had taken part in the executions on threat of death. His commander told him, “If you do not wish to do it, stand in the line with the rest of them and give others your rifle so that they can shoot you.” ICTY transcript, Erdemović trial, November 19, 1996.
15. On July 15, 2014, a civil court in The Hague held the Netherlands accountable for the deaths of the men and boys the Dutch UN battalion handed over to the Bosnian Serbs at Srebrenica. “Dutch State Liable for 300 Srebrenica Massacre Deaths,” Associated Press (July 16, 2014).
16. Skeptics still doubt the official story that Bormann committed suicide after a failed attempt to flee Berlin in 1945. The Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal always believed that Bormann and his entourage managed to escape to South America.
17. A 2008 internal Department of Justice history of the OSI, “Striving for Accountability in the Aftermath of the Holocaust,” was obtained by the National Security Archive at George Washington University.
18. The ICTY also looked into possible violations by NATO in its 1999 bombing campaign against Serbia, which was aimed at forcing Belgrade to withdraw its troops from Kosovo, but prosecutors decided there was insufficient evidence that civilian casualties were intentional.

Next, The Legacy