Clark said nothing new in The Hague — will his name alone be enough to secure Thaçi’s acquittal?

With the testimony of Wesley Clark, both the defence and the prosecution have exhausted all witnesses. The time has now come for closing arguments and, as widely expected, for the first-instance judgments in the case against the former KLA leaders before the Kosovo Specialist Chambers. But was the former American general the “key witness” whose testimony helped Thaçi and the others take a step toward an acquittal? Interlocutors for Kosovo Online believe that Clark merely continued in the same direction as all previous defence witnesses.

Written by: Veljko Nestorovic

In the trial of the former KLA leaders, the defence did not dispute that hundreds of Serbs — but also Albanians, Roma, and others — had been killed in Kosovo by KLA fighters. Instead, the defence strategy was based on the argument that these were acts of revenge rather than a joint criminal enterprise, and that Hashim Thaçi and the other accused neither ordered such acts nor had the ability to control the situation.

Amer Alija, a lawyer from the Kosovo Humanitarian Law Center, told Kosovo Online that Wesley Clark’s testimony followed that same line.

“The defence proposed seven witnesses in total, and all were heard. They all testified along the same lines, and the defence strategy was to prove that the KLA was not an effective structure; that commanders in different zones within Kosovo were the main leaders and had authority over the soldiers in their respective territories. The defence’s goal — and the goal of these witnesses, including Wesley Clark — was to prove that the accused, including Hashim Thaçi, did not have effective control and were not in a position to issue orders to commanders operating across various zones,” Alija said.

He further noted that a legal battle is underway between the prosecution and the defence over whether the elements of command responsibility and joint criminal enterprise have been met.

“The defence carefully chose who should testify, and as we know, all these witnesses were involved in some way during the war in Kosovo — whether in negotiations or through direct contacts with KLA leaders and with the Serbian side. Their testimony is based on their own knowledge and observations about who played what role during the war.”

Speaking about the main defence arguments, Alija explained:

“The key argument is that effective control over the entire territory could not have existed due to the circumstances at the time. The defence is trying to prove that the KLA was not a vertically organised hierarchy but a horizontal one — meaning each commander acted on his own responsibility within his zone. The defence’s strategy is to show that the KLA General Staff or those now on trial did not have the authority to control everything happening during the war.”

Alija believes that first-instance judgments should be delivered next year.

“Today there will be a status conference before the Specialist Chambers. The parties will agree on how much time they need to submit their final briefs. After that, the accused have the right to testify if they wish. If not, then the defence and prosecution will agree on how much time they need to prepare their closing arguments. I expect that the first-instance judgment will be delivered at the beginning of next year,” he said.

Security studies researcher Nikola Vujinovic believes that former U.S. General Wesley Clark, during his testimony in The Hague, built upon earlier defence testimonies claiming that the KLA was not an organised formation and that crimes against Serbs were committed as acts of revenge.

Vujinovic told Kosovo Online that Clark’s testimony — and that of other defence witnesses — in a way serves to justify the crimes committed against Serbs.

“Yes, this follows the line of all defence witnesses. These are common narratives claiming that the KLA was not a formation capable of any real command or management of the conflict in Kosovo. It all fits into the story that ‘evil Serbs committed countless crimes, so everything that happened to them afterward was revenge and deserved.’ This is a form of justification, including for what is happening now — because, supposedly, if they committed crimes and genocide in the 1990s, they deserve to be treated as criminals even today.”

He added that Clark used the opportunity to defend his own historical role in the conflict:

“For example, he insisted that everything associated with him — including the alleged order to attack the Russian battalion at Slatina airport in 1999 — was untrue. He claimed that the late General Jackson invented that story. I believe Clark’s testimony would have been very different if General Jackson were still alive,” Vujinovic said.

According to him, the prosecution was not particularly successful in cross-examination.