Blah blah, doesn’t really say much. But doesn’t anyone else think this…
In an unprecedented agreement between the court and the US, Washington will be allowed to review Mr Clark’s testimony before it is made public.
The US will have two days to apply for parts of the testimony to be removed from the public record if it considers them harmful to US national interests.
An edited recording is due to be made public on Friday.
…is a bit odd? Just, you know, a little? What exactly would Clark say that could be “harmful to US national interests”? (I’ve long given up saying things like “what gives them the right to do that anyway?” Nothing does. Arrogant bastards etc etc, move on.)
I actually posted about this a while back when it was first announced and I’ve still not been able to work it out. The fact is that there’s no interest in the Milosevic trial in the US anyway; I doubt most people know he’s on trial at all. Kosovo was That Great War Where We Beat The Evil Serbs and that’s it. Given the success of the whitewashing that’s gone on already despite the open availability of evidence, I can’t see how Clark saying things in a court that nobody in the US pays attention to anyway is going to make any difference. (I think it rather goes without saying that the USG doesn’t care what anyone else thinks. “Harmful to US national interests” means “harmful to the interests of the administration”.)
I can only assume that they thought that the testimony that Milosevic might have got out of Clark might be embarrassing to incumbents and be picked up by domestic political opponents, though given it took place during the Clinton administration… perhaps the decision was made with Clark being a potential President in mind. Or perhaps any hint of the US siding with Islamic terrorists – well, okay, up until 1998 the KLA were listed by the State Department as terrorists, but then they were moved to the Freedom Fighter list – would look bad overall. Perhaps the implications that the KLA were and are actually directly connected to al Qaeda that I’ve seen around have some truth to them. I don’t really know enough about the situation to make a decision on that.
Or maybe I’m wrong about it being motivated by purely domestic concerns and actually, Clark could reveal something that the US knows and other NATO countries don’t… I’m suspicious of this sort of reasoning though. Presuming that someone is hiding incredible secrets of an unknown nature seems to stray too far from Occam’s Razor, is a hallmark of a lot of paranoid conspiracy stuff (see Kelly case) and I reckon is a black mark against a theory.
Maybe it’s just a reflex reaction to an American being asked to testify before an international court. Maybe they don’t think there’s anything that he might say that’s damaging, but they want to set a precedent and make a statement that they can dictate terms.
Basically I haven’t a clue, none of the theories I can think of seem particularly plausible, and nobody seems to care or have noticed. It gets three short paragraphs on the BBC.
Incidentally, if you check this US Immigration page about KLA terrorist activities, you find that it lists as one of its sources:
Socialism Today. June 1999. Issue 39. “The KLA and the Struggle for Kosovar Self-determination” [Internet] <http://www.socialismtoday.org/39/kla39.html> [Accessed on 13 June 2000].
Damn communist infiltrators, hacking into uscis.gov!