It’s not easy being President Bush these days. If you suppose that he is an American (which he probably is) and that he had sworn (twice now) to uphold the Constitution of the United States, we must conclude that defending liberty will be at the forefront of his agenda. The core of his swearing in ceremony seemed to have included a core thought with "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands."

Let’s look a little closer. I have been following the developments at the Hague Criminal Tribunal for quite some time and have collected a menagerie of exotic animals and anomalies that paraded through those Halls of Justice.

One item at a time:
1. Altering Transcripts of the Milosevic 'Trial'
By Andy Wilcoxson
[Posted 25 April 2003] Look at the two passages below.
In Passage #1, Prosecutor Jeffrey Nice suggests redacting (censoring) the transcript if President Milosevic makes remarks "for external consumption."
In Passage #2 Slobodan Milosevic is cross-examining a witness and asks a question that Nice and Judge Richard May don't like. Nice asks May to redact the question from the transcript. The question gets redacted. Then May consoles the witness, promising to protect him from "harrying" questions and order Mr. Milosevic to limit his cross-examination to "what is relevant and proper."
(As some people may be unaware, The Hague uses an adversarial system. This involves, precisely, sharp and often lengthy cross-examinations, with lines of questioning intended to "harry" the witness, with the goal of catching him in contradictions and lies. By intervening to prevent Milosevic from pursuing lines of questioning unpleasant to the witness, Judge May reveals the truth: that this is a show trial. But it is an awkward show trial, because the victim won't cooperate. Hence Mr. Nice's worry that Milosevic is speaking for "external consumption." We have a bit of a contradiction here: it's a show trial but they're afraid to have Mr. Milosevic's words shown.)
If you go to the relevant part of the video you won't have to be an expert to see that the tape has been crudely doctored.
Video at: hague.bard.edu/video/icty_env.20030401.ram Go to the 1 hour, 4 minute and 20 second mark of segment 2.
[Passage #1 begins here]
On March 31, 2003 (Page 18257 of the transcript starting on line #7)
Mr. Nice: I remind the Court that I never respond to the various allegations that are made by the accused. I'm not going to change the policy now. If at any time the Chamber thinks that these allegations may be simply for external consumption, it's always possible to redact the transcript. I'm not going to enter into any kind of a debate with the accused over that sort of allegation.
[Passage #1 ends here]
***
[Passage #2 begins here]
On April 1, 2003 (Page 18300 of the transcript starting on line #6)
Slobodan Milosevic: I see. We'll come to that later. Now, tell me, please, is it true that you went to the Radojka Lakic elementary school?
Witness Alija Gusalic: Yes.
Slobodan Milosevic: [redacted]
Mr. May: That is totally irrelevant. That's a most improper question.
Slobodan Milosevic: [Interpretation] Mr. May --
Mr. May: No, it is not a proper question, and the witness will not have to answer it. Now, kindly confine yourself to what is relevant and proper.
Mr. Nice: May that passage be redacted from the transcript.
Mr. May: Yes. Now, go on to something else.
Witness Alija Gusalic: [Interpretation] You, Mr. --
Mr. May: Mr. Gusalic.
Witness Alija Gusalic: Shame on you, Mr. Milosevic.
Mr. May: Mr. Gusalic, I can understand that you'll be annoyed, but try not to be. You will be protected from questions of that sort. You're not here to harry the witnesses or bully them, Mr. Milosevic. Now you'll confine yourself to proper questions.
Slobodan Milosevic: Mr. May, I think that this is proof that Mr. Nice is abusing this witness. He is obtaining statements from him which are not truthful.
Mr. May: You can ask the witness proper questions. Now, get -- move on to that.
[Passage #2 ends here]

END OF POINT ONE & CONCLUSION: Is it only me, or does it seem to you too, that the judge is testifying on behalf of the witness?

2. Two Secret Witnesses Claim they Survived Execution by Soldiers who weren't there...
by Andy Wilcoxson
[Posted 3 June 2003]
Monday at the Hague Tribunal the prosecution called two more black comedy witnesses against Slobodan Milosevic. The two men testified in secret under the pseudonyms, "B-1455" and "B-1098." Nothing that either man said could possibly have anything to do with President Milosevic.
Both claimed to be Muslims who had survived execution by firing squad in the vicinity of Zvornik in Bosnia in 1992.
The only problem was that they couldn't say who tried to kill them. When the Prosecution questioned them, they claimed it was the Yugoslav People's Army (JNA). And when President Milosevic questioned them, they repeated the claim that the JNA had tired to kill them, either in late May or early June.
But as President Milosevic pointed out, the JNA had vacated Bosnia in mid-May. So we have unnamed persons who are the victims of alleged crimes at the hands of soldiers who had already left.
Or maybe we have two liars. Whoever they are.
Is this supposed to be evidence against President Milosevic? Or is this just evidence of the prosecution's motto: "At The Hague it isn't what you say, it's whether you're sponsored by NATO." In the case of "B-1098" no forensic evidence was presented that would suggest an attempted execution had taken place. Moreover, "B-1098" was obviously lying. He claimed that he and 63 others had been taken to a meat processing facility and shot. How did they get to the alleged processing plant, President Milosevic asked. The witness said all 64 men had climbed onto a *2 ton truck.* The only problem is, as the President noted, you can't fit 64 men on a 2 ton truck. The witness had fallen into a common trap for liars. In his effort to project an image of credibility, he talked too much and got confused and said something ridiculous.

3. COLONIAL WARS
New liberal imperialism is making the world safe for terrorists
By Neil Clark
Reprinted from the Spectator (UK)
[Posted 14 July 2002]
'What is needed is a new kind of imperialism, one compatible with human rights and cosmopolitan values: an imperialism which aims to bring order and organisation,' argues New Labour foreign-policy guru Robert Cooper in his recent pamphlet Re-ordering the World: The Long-term Implications of September 11th.
Cooper distinguishes between two kinds of 'new colonialism' that can 'save the world': the 'voluntary' imperialism of institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank, which 'provide help for states wishing to find their way back on to the global economy', and the 'imperialism of neighbours', when states intervene to sort out 'instability' in their neighbourhood.
Cooper uses the 'humanitarian' intervention in Kosovo and the subsequent establishment there of a 'protectorate' as a shining example of how his 'new colonialism' can bring 'order and organisation'. As Cooper is so keen to talk of Kosovo, let us examine a little more closely the effect his 'imperialism of neighbours' has had on the province.
Six years ago, Kosovo was at relative peace. Albanian demands for greater independence from Belgrade were channelled through the peaceful Democratic League party of Ibrahim Rugova, while the small groups of Albanian paramilitaries that did exist were disorganised, unco-ordinated and isolated. As late as November 1997, the KLA, having been formed as the 'hardline' wing of a previous Albanian terror group, could, it has been estimated, call on the services of only at the very most 200 men.
At this point, Robert Cooper's 'new colonialists' started to get involved. Having at first declared the KLA to be a terrorist organisation, our new colonialists, with the US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright to the fore, started to see in this motley array of fanatics, cut-throats and hoodlums a perfect vehicle for their long-desired aim to topple the politically incorrect regime in Belgrade that they and other 'humanitarian' liberals so detested.
Instead of being treated as pariahs, the KLA were now to be given a makeover. Gone were the 'terrorist' epithets; the KLA were now gallant 'freedom fighters', bravely defending their people from the brutal 'fascist' regime in Belgrade. The fact that, during 1998, the KLA actually executed more of their people than they did Serbs was not widely reported in the media of Cooper's 'post-modern states'. CIA money was diverted, via Geneva, to fund KLA operations, while BND, the German secret service, provided uniforms, weaponry and instructors to knock the rag-bag KLA into shape. Britain, now under the leadership of enthusiastic new colonialists, was keen to play its part, too, diverting SAS units from their hunt for the Omagh bombers to send them instead to the mountains of northern Albania to do their bit in training the young bucks of the KLA to shoot Yugoslav postmen and, indeed, anyone else wearing the uniform of the Yugoslav state.
In siding with the KLA, it mattered not a jot to our new colonialists that they were joining forces with a group largely funded by trafficking in illegal narcotics. Ironically, on the very day that KLA hardliner Hashim Thaci (having discarded his Balaclava and combat fatigues for a designer suit) was being warmly embraced by Mrs Albright for signing the Rambouillet 'peace' treaty, Europol was submitting a report for all European interior ministers on the connection between Thaci's organisation and the Albanian drug gangs that were supplying Western Europe with more than 75 per cent of its heroin.
Not only were the KLA drug-traffickers, they were also linked incontrovertibly to Osama bin Laden's al-Qa'eda organisation. When claims that al-Qa'eda cells were active in Kosovo in the late 1990s were made by the then Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic, they were, predictably, dismissed out of hand as Serb propaganda. But one doesn't have to take Slobo's word for it when there is also available the testimony of J.T. Caruso, the assistant-director of the FBI's counter-terrorism division.
In his statement to a Congressional committee on 18 December last year, Caruso confirmed that al-Qa'eda had supported 'Islamic fighters' in Bosnia, Afghanistan, Kosovo and Chechnya. 'Al-Qa'eda,' continued Caruso, 'has active cells in 20 countries, including Pakistan, Egypt, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Chechnya and the Philippines.' Furthermore, according to a Deutsche Press report, financial support from Islamic countries to the KLA was channelled through the former Albanian chief of national security, Bashkim Gazidede, a man notorious for having 'strong links' to Islamic terror groups.
So there you have it. Just three years before the Manhattan bombings, Robert Cooper's new colonialist forces were working alongside Afghan and Turkish instructors in KLA camps, training mercenaries from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to wage holy war on the forces of another European state. One only hopes that if these erstwhile colleagues do happen to meet up shortly in an Afghan cave, they remember that they did once work together and at least exchange greetings before firing at each other.
Not surprisingly, given the massive support that they received from all quarters, the KLA were, in 1999, able to step up their campaign to remove Yugoslav forces from Kosovo. When the inevitable security backlash came from Belgrade, the redoubtable Mrs Albright was ready to hand out the ultimata, and, after the Rambouillet 'stitch-up', the new colonialists got the war against Slobo that they had long desired. After a 78-day, $7-billion bombing campaign, their dream of a 'protectorate' over Kosovo was finally realised. Three years on, what now of Kosovo?
The province, previously so diverse in its ethnic composition, has seen, under the aegis of the 'international community', no fewer than 200,000 Serbs and Roma driven from their homes, with hundreds more murdered or gone missing. So much for Robert Cooper's call for a new imperialism compatible with human rights and cosmopolitan values. The KLA, now officially disbanded, is once more being trained by the British, this time being transformed into the caring, sharing Kosovo Protection Corps. Once again, the new colonialists have provided the uniforms.
Meanwhile, the drug-running continues. The recent arrest of three ex-KLA 'freedom fighters' in Norway, after the discovery of the country's largest ever heroin haul, shows that old habits die hard. It is estimated that Kosovan/Albanian gangs now control 90 per cent of the Western trade in heroin, 15 per cent up on when the international community took control of the province.
However, it's not all doom and gloom. New jobs have been created in Kosovo; not for the local inhabitants, but instead for worthy citizens of the 'post-modern' world. As Robert Cooper proudly states, 'The international community provides not just soldiers but police, judges, prison officers, bankers and others.' For 'others', Cooper is obviously referring to semi-retired politicians and diplomats, such as Pascal Fieschi of France, the new head of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe in Kosovo, and our own Sir Paddy Ashdown, who has been widely touted as the new high commissioner of the province. Sir Paddy, though, is reported to be having second thoughts about taking on the job: perhaps he believes that stemming the multi-billion-dollar drugs trade and coaxing the Serbs and Roma back to the province so that Albanian snipers can take pot-shots at them is beyond even his prodigious talents.
In short, Kosovo is in a mess. But it is a mess that is entirely the making of the new colonialists. If Cooper and his disciples are to have their way, we must prepare for many more Kosovos in the years ahead. This might be good news for the numerous politicos and flunkeys keen to end their careers with a high-commissioner posting in some far-flung corner of the globe, but decidedly bad news for the rest of us. As the example of Kosovo shows, Cooper's new colonialism, far from bringing stability and order, has done exactly the opposite.
The only thing that can truly 'save the world', is if all the states, whether 'post-modern', 'pre-modern' or however Cooper wishes to label them, go back to minding their own bloody business.

4. AL QAEDA, THE KLA AND 'JUDGE' MAY ON PROPER CROSS-EXAMINATION
President Milosevic March 7th, with Comments by Jared Israel
On March 7th President Milosevic cross-examined one Sabit Kadriu. Mr. Kadriu has been described by The Hague "tribunal" and the mass media as a human rights activist. This by virtue of his membership in the so-called "Council for the Defense of Human Rights and Freedoms," a group run by Adem Demaci. Mr. Kadriu is an aide to Mr. Demaci.
It would be historically inaccurate to say Adem Demaci is the political adviser to the terrorist Kosovo Liberation Army. He resigned from that lofty position because he considered KLA too moderate.
Here's the Associated Press, May 2, 1999:
CROSS EXAMINATION OF SABIT KADRIU, ASSOCIATE OF THE TERROIST THINKER, ADEM DEMACI
Pres. Milosevic: You said you heard about the KLA in 1991.
Sabit Kadriu: I read in newspapers that something happened connected with that.
Pres. Milosevic: You were involved in public activities as you say since the beginning of the 1990s. Do you know about the activity of the organization of Osama bin laden in Kosovo & Metohija?
Sabit Kadriu: I heard about bin Laden this year but never before. Only when the crime was committed against American people.
Richard May: Enough about that. Mr. Milosevic.
Pres. Milosevic: Do you know about the Mujahideen and their atrocities in Kosovo & Metohija?
Sabit Kadriu: That is not true that there were Mujahideen in Kosovo. You have invented that. That is the fruit of your imagination.
Pres. Milosevic: Well, just say 'it's not correct' or 'I don't know.' You are spending time. I will read you a passage and you will tell me if that is correct or not. Al Qaeda (Reads) "functions through some of the terrorist organizations that operate under its umbrella or with its support, including..." I'm going to skip over this next bit, "Albania," etc. Do you consider that to be correct? (1)
Sabit Kadriu: That is not right, and that is the fruit of your imagination.
Pres. Milosevic: [Holds the document in the air. It includes an FBI insignia.] Well, this is the congressional statement of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. (1)
Richard May: What is the date of it?
Pres. Milosevic: December 18, last year. After September 11th.
Richard May: Very well. You can put that into evidence in due course. Meanwhile the witness says he knows nothing of it.
Pres. Milosevic: I am asking the witness, is the paragraph I read correct and he said it was not correct and it was a lie and the fruit of my imagination. And now I am going to ask you [the witness] is the following correct? [Reads] "All Qaeda supports Islamic fighters in Bosnia, Afghanistan, Chechnya and in Kosovo". Is that correct. (2)
Sabit Kadriu: I know nothing about that. I'm not here to talk about Bosnia or Afghanistan. I'm here to talk about Kosovo. There are no Mujahideen in Kosovo and that is the truth.
Pres. Milosevic: But I have asked you what do you know about their activities, not whether they are there since that is indisputable. So you want to say that you know nothing about their activity.
Richard May: No, he says there are no Mujahideen in Kosovo. That's what he says.
Pres. Milosevic: All right but he doesn't need so much assistance. Obviously Al Qaeda fighters have been identified in Kosovo, Bosnia and Albania and is that correct or not according to your knowledge?
Sabit Kadriu: I've already said I know nothing about other countries and when you speak about Kosovo I can say that there are no Mujahideen there.
Pres. Milosevic: That last passage I have quoted is from MSNBC and it says, "Sources: Congressional Research Center, Frontline." [Editor's note: Frontline is a US Television program on current issues.]

It is almost conclusive that the court agreed with the “fruit of his imagination definition of the witness – since that sentence was not redacted.

5. DETAINED US DIPLOMAT WAS CIA'S MAIN MAN IN THE BALKANS
Agence France Presse [ TUESDAY, MARCH 19, 2002 8:31:22 AM ] [Posted 19 March 2002]
Comments follow
BELGRADE
A US diplomat arrested with Serbia's deputy prime minister last week accused of espionage was the head of the Central Intelligence Agency in the Balkans, a newspaper claimed in a report to appear on Tuesday.
"From the outset of his interrogation John David Neighbor presented himself as the head of the CIA in the Balkans," Vecernje Novosti reported, quoting military sources.
It added that the diplomat remained calm while undergoing a 13-hour interrogation.
Neighbor was identified by Belgrade as the US diplomat detained by Yugoslav military police late on Thursday along with Serbian deputy prime minister, Momcilo Perisic.
The United States said yesterday it had accepted an apology from Yugoslav Foreign Minister Goran Svilanovic for the diplomat's mistreatment in Yugoslav military police custody. (2)
State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said Washington considered the case closed as a "bilateral issue" but denied reports that the detained diplomat had been involved in any kind of espionage.
"We have received a formal apology from (Svilanovic)," Boucher told reporters. "We've accepted that apology.... we view it as a public acknowledgment of the military's inappropriate and excessive actions and we now consider this closed as a bilateral issue". (1)
Earlier yesterday, Yugoslav President Vojislav Kostunica regretted that Neighbor had been detained for so long and identified by name and nationality. (3)
(C) AFP 2002 * Reprinted for Fair Use Only
timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow.asp
1) Mr. Boucher complains about the "inappropriate and excessive actions" of the Yugoslav Army. Aside from the fact that he is lying - there was nothing excessive about Yugoslav Army actions under international law - Boucher's remarks exceed in hypocrisy even what he said when the Belarussian government seized some computers the US had 'donated' to pro-US NGOs. See 'Speechless in Belarus' at
emperors-clothes.com/news/ind.htm
"Inappropriate and excessive actions." Wasn't it the United States military that spearheaded the 2.5 month long bombardment of Yugoslavia about which the New York Times commented, with kindest restraint:
"A broad spectrum of legal scholars agree that there is currently no simple, straightforward or obvious legal basis for the bombing of Serbian targets to be found in treaties, the United Nations charter or binding resolutions or [in] any other written international code...."('A Word Bolsters Case for Allied Intervention, NY Times, April 4, 1999, International Section, p. 7)
2. To learn more about "Who is Goran Svilanovic,' go to emperors-clothes.com/news/goran.htm
3. In 'We Have the Right and Duty to Arrest Spies,' I commented
that "Yugoslav President Kostunica responded in his usual two-faced fashion, first criticizing and then seemingly defending the Army action, which enjoys overwhelming public support in Yugoslavia."
emperors-clothes.com/news/ya.htm
Now we see that, true to form:
"Earlier yesterday, Yugoslav President Vojislav Kostunica regretted that Neighbor had been detained for so long and identified by name and nationality."
Poor Mr. Kostunica. He wishes to distance himself from Serbian 'Prime Minister' Djindjic, a man universally loathed in Yugoslavia. He doesn't want to criticize the Army, which enjoys popular support. But he also knows who butters his bread (the US foreign policy establishment) and so he straddles a narrow fence, with apparent discomfort. He criticizes...not exactly the arrest of Neighbor, but rather the manner in which it was carried out. And not exactly that it was abusive. More that it was done in bad taste.
First Kostunica objects to Neighbor being interrogated for "so long." This raises the question: what is the acceptable length of time for questioning a regional chief of the CIA caught receiving stolen documents from a high government official? Would nine hours be OK? Six? Three?
As for identifying Neighbor "by name and nationality," why is this lacking social polish? Should the Yugoslavs instead have announced about this spy they'd arrested: "Name: withheld. Country: withheld. Job: CIA Chief of the Balkans"?
 Jared Israel

6. $500 REWARD IF YOU CAN PRODUCE A RACIST QUOTE FROM MILOSEVIC!
by Jared Israel
[Posted 17 December 2001]
On December 11th, Slobodan Milosevic appeared and spoke before the so-called War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague. The Western mass media has repeatedly told us that Milosevic is a racist whose speeches whipped up Serbs to attack Muslims. But few Westerners have actually read his words. That's a shame, because his words flatly disprove the charge. For example, in the London 'Independent,' a Spanish intellectual named Juan Goytisolo wrote that Milosevic's speeches and writings were:
"Full of hatred and scorn for the Bosnian Muslim and the Kosovar Albanian, [and] did not differ greatly from the anti-Semitic diatribes of the Nazis." ('Independent' 21 April 1999)
Like other journalists, Goytisolo never supports this terrible accusation with one single sentence written or said by Milosevic. Instead, he quotes Franco, the Spanish Fascist and adds: Milosevic is just like Franco. That's it. That's Goytisolo's remarkable 'proof.'

In the past, this kind of 'proof' worked for many people, because they had been subjected to such 'proofs' time and again.

Milosevic has been accused by the Western media of encouraging racist acts. If he had done so, he would have had to make racist speeches.

Indeed, those Yugoslav leaders whom Milosevic and many others have accused of organizing pogroms against Serbs and 'Gypsies' did make racist speeches. For example, after Croatian troops, led by U.S. officers, drove 250,000 Serbian farmers from their ancestral homes in the Krajina section of Yugoslavia, near Croatia, Croatian President Tudjman told a radio audience: "There can be no return to the past, to the times when they [the Serbs] were spreading cancer in the heart of Croatia, cancer which was destroying the Croatian national being."

Slobodan Milosevic cannot be quoted saying such things for one reason: he never said them. He has always opposed racist words because they lead to racist deeds. His speeches are those of a socialist internationalist, very similar to the great U.S. socialist, Eugene V. Debs.

In order to break up Yugoslavia, the U.S. and Germany sponsored anti-Serb racists in Kosovo (the Kosovo Liberation Army) in Bosnia (Alija Izetbegovic's Islamists) and in Croatia (Tudjman's HDZ). Ordinary Serbian and Roma ('Gypsy') people fought back against this racism. Milosevic is unusual in that he supported their struggle, which was at the outset similar to the struggle against racism in the segregated American south. The Western media smeared Milosevic because he actively opposed the attempt by the most powerful forces to wreck Yugoslavia, using national divisions.

You can now read the transcript of Milosevic's Dec. 11th statement to the 'Tribunal'online at: www.icdsm.com/more/peace.htm

Here's the challenge: read it. If Milosevic is the monster described in the mass media then you will find something racist in this speech. And if you do, or if you can show that Slobodan Milosevich made a racist statement in any speech or interview at any time - and we have posted several links at the end of this post to help you in your search - if you can find any place where this man demeaned any ethnic group or espoused Serbian racial superiority, the ICDSM will pay you $500.

We're not a rich organization, so $500 is a lot for us, but we're ready to risk it. Are you ready to put the official line on Milsoevic to the test?

Many in the NATO countries are aware that they have not been told the truth about 9-11 or the Afghan war. We say that the same people who are lying to us about Afghanistan and 9-11 have also lied to us about Milosevic and what happened in Yugoslavia.

To read Slobodan Milosevic's statement on the latest 'indictments' by the co-called War Crimes Tribunal, go to "I Deserve Credit for Peace not War!" at
www.icdsm.com/more/peace.htm

For other speeches by Milosevic and interviews go to www.icdsm.com/milosevic/milowords.htm

Let’s stop here. There is ample evidence that our President’s vision does not cover the Hague Tribunal. Two possible explanations:
a) The Hague is a country within another country
b) The Hague is on Mars (or Venus, or Jupiter)
Let’s remember the sentence from the beginning of this article: "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands." It is pretty obvious that survival of Liberty outside of United States is going to be a huge task for any president anywhere (maybe that’s why our President has declared in the recent past, that he wants the Hague Tribunal to finish all its work by 2010, and get dissolved. I don’t see why that event can’t take place in 2005. So far, the above examples of the applied ideas of Liberty (and Justice) at the Hague do not seem to merit any existence at all. We have all sorts of deviations and escapes from the principles of Liberty and/or Democracy. We have a judge who testifies on behalf of the witness. We have the heavy handed censoring of the transcripts. We have the removal of the KLA-AL QUAIDA ties which are blatantly obvious. The above listed anomalies (animals in my menagerie collection) are not just a slight of hand or “smoke and mirrors” – they seem to be symptomatic and the recent phrase used by the new Judge (Patrick Robinson of Jamaica), stating that the defendant’s interrogation resembled “a tea on the veranda” now contains belittling of the defendant in more ways than one. Just imagine yourself in a situation where you deem your actions fair, worthy and noble, but you get to see your words erased (redacted, censored), your questioning redirected or answered by the judge not the witness, your cross-examination ridiculed. That wouldn’t be too much fun for any of us, and it certainly looks like everything opposite of survival of liberty.

Iliya Pavlovich, PhD