“When my friends and colleagues asked me in the weeks before my testimony jut how I felt about the fact that Slobodan Milošević was to cross-examine me himself, my answer was that it couldn’t be any worse than my interview with Nick Gowing of BBC World Television. In coming to the Hague Tribunal, I saw that I had been unjust towards my BBC colleague, and while I was preparing for my testimony, I decided on a different tactic – to look my inquisitor in the eye and ’sweep’ him…

On the victims in the Dubrava prison “Some guards and Albanians were killed in the bombing, but the bodies that I saw were not dusty and damaged, there was something strange about that pile of corpses”Killed in the bombing

This was the statement made by Jacky Rowland, BBC journalist and former Serbian correspondent following her testimony before the ICTY in the proceedings against Slobodan Milošević. Jacky Rowland is well known in the Hague for her report from the Dubrava prison in Kosovo, where the foreign journalists were taken by the Serbian officials to see, as they explained, bodies of those killed in the NATO bombings, in which she commented that it was “unclear” as to how the victims were killed. In addition to arousing interest for being the first journalist cross-examined by Milošević, Jacky Rowland has also touched on an existing debate among journalists – whether they should testify in court as witnesses, how that relates to the journalists code, and whether that makes their profession even more dangerous.

We spoke with Jacky Rowland, now a BBC correspondent from Washington the day following her return to London, obviously very satisfied with the way she “looked her inquisitor in the eye”.

NACIONAL: How did the cross-examination go? What did Milošević ask you?

As you likely known, the reason I was called to testify was the Dubrava prison in Kosovo, or rather, my assessment that some of the bodies I saw there were not victims of the NATO bombing.

Aggressive with witnesses

Of course, the Serbian officials and Milošević claim that all the victims were the victims of the NATO bombing. I questioned that, as I questioned that situation I found on my second visit to the prison. Milošević’s tactics with other witnesses, as I noticed, was to try to discredit them and their claims through insults. I we’ve seen that he really can be aggressive with the witnesses. I though that he would take the same approach with me. When I looked at him, I saw that he was looking at me with condescension, as though he loathed me. That was the beginning of his cross. He got a copy of my report off the Internet, and though he defends himself, he most certainly has a team of investigators working like crazy for him in various places.

That was a radio report that I also sent from Kosovo several days prior to my visit to the prison, in which I described how the situation in Kosovo was much more complex than had been described by the printed reports we heard from Macedonia and Albania, where the Kosovo refugees had fled to. I explained how in certain regions of Kosovo, despite the fact that a hundred thousand Albanians had been forced to flee, that people were trying to get back to living a normal life. Milošević had read that report as well as others, and he asked me if that proved that things were not as bad as had been shown and thought up. I thanked him for reading the report, because that was the proof that I had been reporting objectively, giving a complete picture of the very complicated situation in Kosovo.

That’s when he began a series of questions of a rhetorical type, for example: “Do you understand that the local governments in the Autonomous Region of Kosovo consisted of Albanians, Romas, Turks, Muslims, and Bosnians? Do you understand that in the government of the Autonomous Region of Kosovo, Serbs were a minority?” In that question I focused on the word autonomous and said, “Mr. Milošević, I do not think it is correct to say that in May 1999 that Kosovo was an autonomous region, as it was you who took away that status many years prior”. I think that was the turning point in my cross-examination.

Kind and Polite

NACIONAL: How did it come to a turning point?

Milošević began to laugh uproariously: “Don’t focus on such small detail…” he said. But I think that’s when he realized he would have to try harder, that I would be no easy target and that I would turn attention to the details. That’s when the questions began concerning my objectivity and that of the BBC. It was almost as though it wasn’t a cross-examination, but rather than both the BBC and I were on trial. He asked me if as a BBC reporter I had covered cases in which civilians had been killed, such as the train incident, the Chinese embassy, hospitals, etc. I responded that my coverage had been the same, regardless of whether the victims were Serbian or Albanian. I emphasized that several days prior to the bombing I made a special report on the BBC in which I commented that the international media had frequently demonized the Serbian people. I had spoken with many ordinary Serbs, many young people, and I had asked them how it felt to be demonized, to which Milošević shouted out, “I would love to see that report!” admitting that the BBC was objective. I also emphasized that the British government had criticized the BBC during the Kosovo bombings for airing reports that were overly sympathetic.

NACIONAL: What did he ask you in connection with the Dubrava prison?

That came at the very end of the questioning. Of course, he attempted to contest my claims that some of the victims had not been killed in the bombing. He asked me how I came to that conclusion, I looked him in the eye and said, “Mr. Milošević, when I look at you now, I see that your body is untouched, I see you have both arms, I see the lines of your face. If you were to be hit with a bomb, I believe that by looking at your body, I would be able to come to a conclusion on how you died.” It seemed as though this was not awkward for him, he was leaned up against a chair, with his arms crossed as though he was protecting his body while I described what could happen if he really were hit by a bomb.

The cross-examination lasted a lot longer than was expected, as the judge granted Milošević with 45 minutes per witness. I would say that after I contested the autonomy of Kosovo, his tone changed, and I think he liked that intellectual confrontation. It would be too much to say that he ‘enjoyed’ himself, but certain colleagues, who have been reporting on the case for months, told me after I came out of the courtroom that he was more kind and polite with me than with any other witness. He addressed me as ‘Ms. Rowland’ and when he wanted me to look at a photograph, he wouldn’t say, ‘look at this’, he would say ‘Would the witness look at this photograph…’

Visit to the Dubrava Prison

NACIONAL: You made many reports on the Dubrava Prison, but in the cross-examination you were called upon because you said it was ‘unclear’ how those people died. Can you bring our readers up to date on this?

In May 1999, the people from the Media Center, the pseudo-official Serbian information center led an entire convoy of journalists to see what had happened during the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. NATO had bombed the Dubrava prison several times, we were taken there twice. The first time we saw several dead bodies, and I have to say that those bodies really were due to the bombing. On the second visit, three days later, the prison had been bombed over the weekend and was heavily damaged, there were many more causalities, not only Albanians and guards, but there was something strange about the heap of bodies. It didn’t seem to me that this was the result of the bombing: the bodies were not dusty or damaged, and if someone has died in a bombing you expect them to be covered in dust and debris.

I was unable to conclude just how those people died, I was simply left upset and concerned about the way they looked. Some had their pants pulled down, you could see their underwear, which was strange. For me, this really was a horrifying experience, and when I left the prison the second time, I said that it was a very suspicious place and that perhaps some horrible things had happened there.

Testimony before the Tribunal

NACIONAL: Why did you decide to testify before the Tribunal? Some believe that journalists should accept the invitation to testify, while others are against it.

For me that was an easy decision. My testimony is already public knowledge and is available on the Internet. Everything I knew and saw was described in detail in my reports for the BBC. I have no secret sources or people I have to protect; my sources are my own eyes and ears. I believe that journalists are witnesses; our job is to be a witness everyday. What I’ve seen in the former Yugoslavia, in Moscow, in Washington, that is testimony…that’s our job, the only difference here is that I made that testimony before a court of law. The American journalists are more hesitant to testify in court, saying that with that their job could become more dangerous, but I don’t agree with that. If a war criminal is disturbed by the fact that his evil acts could be made publicly known, that is a further concern for him. Journalists send their photographs around the world, and I think that war criminals see our cameras, satellites and equipment as a greater danger than our appearing in ten year’s time at his trial. If a war criminal wants to prevent the publication of proof of his crimes, then he has to kill the journalist simply for doing his job. That is the greatest danger we face. Our job is inherently dangerous.

NACIONAL: You, then, are convinced the testifying does not endanger the journalist, and though an article may not, testimony may directly result in condemnation? As such, the journalist can endanger his sources of information, or be left without them.

Who can truly measure the level of danger? I really don’t believe that testifying can increase the danger. I have to say that the decision is a matter of conscience. The circumstances surrounding every case are different. For example my testimony could endanger my source, or my translator, and if I felt that it could endanger someone’s life in Yugoslavia or Kosovo, then I would certainly think differently. But this was not the case, I had no intelligence sources, because I only reported what I personally saw.

NACIONAL: Is it true that the BBC is against its journalists testifying in court?

Not, it’s not true, as BBC journalists have testified in other cases. For example, BBC journalist Martin Bell testified, though I can’t remember in which case, and reporter Jeremy Bell also testified. I would assume that my testimony perhaps aroused greater attention since it deals with Milošević and a prominent trial. I testified with the knowledge and approval of the BBC.

Coming to Sarajevo

NACIONAL: You came to the former Yugoslavia in 1997. Why?

I first came to teach journalism. I came to Sarajevo first, in 1997, as part of the BBC’s school of radio reporting. I was in that school for six months. This school has existed in Sarajevo for many years, teaching television journalist to Serbs and Muslims, though I cannot recall if there were any Croats in the school. When I first came to Sarajevo, I knew very little about the region, having never visited it before. I never covered the wars in Bosnia and Croatia, because at that time, I was the Middle Eastern correspondent. But I quickly became interested in the region, about the people living there, it just got under my skin. My days in Sarajevo were very interesting, things were just getting back to normal after the war…

NACIONAL: Then you went to Belgrade, where you spent three years. What were your experiences there? Did you ever meet Milošević, or ask him for an interview?

It was a hectic and interesting time. I reported from Belgrade from October 1998 to 2001. At that time, Milošević was not giving many interviews. I tried to set up a meeting on several occasions, through Goran Matić for example, the Yugoslav press secretary, I asked if I could interview Milošević or Mirjana Marković, and he would just say, ‘There’s no point in even asking.’ He made few public appearances, only a few times during the campaign was he seen, at the opening of a new bridge, railroad track or party congress, and I wasn’t there. The problem was in the fact that I was the only BBC reporter, and I rarely left the room where I wrote my reports and interview, while the photographers would send me pictures, so that I had never seen Milošević in person until the trial. Of course, I interviewed the opposition and the dissidents, Vuk Drašković, Djindjić, Koštunica, a lot of people. At that time, many high profile people were killed, such as Arkan while I was in Belgrade, then there were the September 2000 elections and the famous events of October 5. I was in Belgrade at the time, though I shouldn’t have been because the Milošević regime forced me out.

NACIONAL: Though you were forced out, you didn’t leave the city.

I was actually forced out after the September elections.
I was threatened during the elections that they would force me to leave, they accused the BBC of unfair reporting during the campaign, for acting like a member of the opposition, but really, I was forced out just prior to Milošević’s expected re-election, in which he really did not win. When they ordered me to leave the country, I simply refused as I was convinced that Milošević would lose power and that was something I did not want to miss. I became an “illegal enemy”, hiding with some friends in Voždovac.

NACIONAL: What if they found you?

The least that could happen would be that they arrest me, take me to the border and throw me out of the country, though I could have been thrown in prison and accused of espionage, which fortunately, was not the case. I was a little anxious, but I decided it was worth the risk.

NACIONAL: You were also in Belgrade during the time of the NATO bombing. Were you facing hostility because you were a foreigner?

Truly, I was surprised because personally, putting the journalism profession aside, I met with no hostility. Of course the people were upset with NATO, but that was never transformed into hostility towards me, and I was surprised to have thought – had Yugoslavia bombed London, had the situation been the other way around, I’m sure that the British would be very mean to me. They treated me as a person, not as an exponent of the British Army or NATO. The people who were my friends remained that way. During the actual bombing, I was forced out of the country for five weeks. When the bombing ended, I returned there.

Incident with Slavnić

NACIONAL: Was your life ever in danger during the NATO bombing?

I had some bad experiences. We were arrested in Nikšić in April 1999 by the military police on charges of spying, we were held for 23 hours before they concluded that it wasn’t us and we were released. I recall that a Serbian police office really took it out on me during my four hour interrogation in Belgrade in May 1999. We were in the bar of the ‘Reka’ restaurant on the Danube, the police arrested us and during the interrogation the police officer hit me with his walkie-talkie with all his might, and my arm hurt for weeks after that.

NACIONAL: The once famous basketball player Zoran Slavnić attacked you on the street in Belgrade. Supposedly you sued him.

That was much later, actually just prior to my leaving the country, and I wouldn’t view that as a political event, it was a street attack. I soon afterwards left the country, filed a report with the police, he was interrogated and received a restraining order. But by that time, I had already left, as I had been moved to Moscow, and there were more important things in my life that going to court in Serbia.

Pink Leather Suit

NACIONAL: What were your experiences in Kosovo?

During the bombing, I was in Kosovo a few times, because it was difficult for the press to enter the region. I have to say that I was very disappointed with what happened in Kosovo. I think it is a disgrace that they haven’t found a way for varying ethnic groups to live side by side, it is a disgrace that the Serbian population has had to leave Kosovo, just as it was a disgrace that the Albanian people had to leave. Today, the Serbs and other groups, like the Roma, are being evicted from their homes. Perhaps it’s an understandable act of retaliation, but it is not acceptable.

NACIONAL: You’ve only passed through Croatia?

When I first came to Sarajevo in 1997, I spent a night at the Zagreb airport due to some bad weather. While I lived in Sarajevo, one of my favorite ways to spend the weekend was to go by car to Dubrovnik, one of the most beautiful cities in the world. I really spent a lot of time there.

NACIONAL: How else did you spend your free time?

I didn’t have much free time while working in Belgrade, as my tempo was very hectic, but I had many friends there. Some like to only have foreign friends while they are in another country, but not me, I like to make friends with the locals, and that’s how it was in Sarajevo, Belgrade and Kosovo, and my experiences from those cities are more than positive. We did the usual things in our spare time, night clubs, restaurants, shopping. What did I buy? One of my favorites is a pink leather pants suit and some really beautiful antique pieces of furniture.

NACIONAL: After Belgrade you went to Moscow. Why?

I was transferred, as a promotion, to Moscow, where I spent a year. This was really interesting for me, because I could enter into Afghanistan at the very beginning of the war, and I was one of the first foreigners to do so. However, my most interesting journalism experience was working in the Balkans and my testimony before the ICTY! Now I am the Washington correspondent, and there’s not much interesting to say about that, it’s not a particularly interesting city except for being one of the world centers of power. At the end of September, I will be heading to Moscow again. I travel a lot, but I always consider London to be my home.

Biography

Born October 13, 1964 near London
Graduated in French and German from Oxford University
1989 joins the BBC
becomes BBC correspondent from Jerusalem
1997 teaches radio journalism at the BBC school in Sarajevo, coming to the former Yugoslavia for the first time
1998-2001, reported for the BBC from Belgrade and Kosovo
2001 BBC correspondent for Moscow
2002 BBC correspondent for Washington
“I was born near London, and I graduated in German and French at Oxford University . I joined the BBC in 1989. My first real work was in Northern Africa and Jerusalem, and then I reported from Sarajevo, Belgrade, Kosovo, Moscow, Washington and Afghanistan. There will be time for Paris and Berlin, where I will better use my degree, and I hope that Paris is next. I will be 38 this October. I was very unhappy when the prosecutor in The Hague said I was 38, I thought ‘that’s not for another six weeks, don’t make me old before my time’. I am not married. With respect to private life, the journalism profession is a very difficult one for a woman,” said Jacky Rowland for Nacional.