POLITICAL ANALYSIS / Srebrenica: Devaluing Genocide

At this time of recalling the event that took place in the area of Srebrenica town in July 1995 during the civil war in Bosnia, the characterization of that event remains controversial. The execution of a few thousand Bosnian Muslim military aged-men committed by armed forces of Bosnian Serbs has been branded a genocide by the United States, its EU followers, and Bosnian Muslims (Bosniacks). However, it was not a genocide according to the other side involving Bosnian Serbs, Serbia, and their allies. Both sides have legal experts supporting their views.

There is no balance between the two opposed sides. The pro-genocide side is better organized, abundantly funded, and very loud. The counterpart hangs back in defensive trenches and is aggressively silenced every time it dares to speak. While legal and ethical justifications are readily aired, vigor behind the silencing efforts raises the question regarding political motives of the silencers.

Why Srebrenica is not a genocide

Can the single event of executing military aged-men by armed forces of Bosnian Serbs be characterized as a genocide committed over the entire Bosnian Muslim population? Legally, a genocide is an intended destruction of large groups of people based on racial, national, ethnic, religious, or cultural roots. When this definition is applied to the Srebrenica 1995 event, the answer to the question above is – no! The Srebrenica killing could possibly be a war crime, but not a genocide.

Genocides recognized in the recent history include the Holocaust (5 million Jewish victims) and Rwanda (1 million Tutsi victims). Raphael Lemkin, the creator of the genocide concept, wrote about genocides over large ethnic groups in the Central and South Americas. Spanish conquerors threw into slavery, murdered and forcibly converted to Catholicism many people. Lemkin also insinuated that genocidal acts could have been committed by other European colonial powers in their conquests that were not shy of mass murder and forcible cultural conversions.

There may have been genocides in the recent history yet to be recognized. For instance, World War II murdered over 35 million of Slavic peoples, most of them Russians. Nazis considered these another minor race to be destroyed. Millions of Chinese perished during the Sino-Japanese wars in the same period. Millions were killed by the American military in its aggressive war in Vietnam. Millions perished in recent American wars in Iraq and in the Middle East. Still, recognizing genocide requires making a concentrated effort usually by the victorious side.

To grasp why the Srebrenica killings did not constitute a genocide, one just needs to look at some simple facts:
• A singular event cannot constitute a holistic policy of destruction of the Bosnian Muslims;
• The number of victims is far below those in the recognized genocides (estimates of Srebrenica figures range from 2,000-8,000);
• The victim group composition was narrowed down to men and teenagers of the military age, while children, women and elders were set free. It makes no sense that a genocide perpetrator would release women as they are the key to perpetuating the very group to be eliminated, to paraphrase a former UN commander in Bosnia, Canadian Gen. MacKenzie (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_MacKenzie ).

International law specialists also cite the first two points above and agree that an intent of destruction cannot be identified in the case of Srebrenica execution. One is Canadian professor William Schabas, a world expert on genocide. Other legal experts stress that the notion of genocide has been arbitrarily stretched in decisions of the Hague Tribunal (for example, K. Southwick, 2005, https://utd.edu/~mjleaf/southwickGenocide.pdf ).

There is also a political analysis that reveals some shocking details. For example, Norwegian documentary entitled “A town betrayed” offers evidence that Alija Izetbegovic, advised by his foreign sponsors, consciously victimized the people of Srebrenica in order to win the war against the Bosnian Serbs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhOq8ev6YhI&feature=youtu.be ).

Foreign sponsors to Bosnia war

The civil war in Bosnia was a baby of American foreign policy. In the process of breakup of Yugoslavia the peoples of Bosnia could have found their way of living together within a smaller Yugoslavia. But Bill Clinton’s government of the time sponsored the extremist Muslim party led by Alija Izetbegovic, who advocated an exclusive Muslim state intolerant to other religions. Upon the sponsor’s advice, Izetbegovic’s party pushed for a referendum for Bosnia’s secession. Boycotted by the non-Muslim inhabitants of Bosnia, Serbs and Croats, that move became the overture to the civil war.
When the war started, the American sponsor was pushing Izetbegovic toward conflict rather than cooperation every time when some agreement or resolution could have been reached. Britain’s Premier Tony Blaire was a loyal partner in wrongdoing. The bloodshed unfolded, masses of Bosnia’s people of all ethnicities suffered and perished in the war.

With help of special operation forces and propaganda proliferated by PR firms, the foreign sponsors successfully detracted attention from themselves and vilified Serbs in Bosnia and Serbia. Srebrenica was a trap the Izetbegovic’s sponsors prepared in order to get NATO involved in a direct war against the Bosnian Serb army. Effectively betraying his own kin, Izetbegovic believed that a few thousand Muslim victims of Srebrenica would not count much in Allah’s notebook.

Genocide as political instrument

In the last 20 years, the notion of genocide has been used for branding warring factions involved in civil wars. International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia was established in Hague, Netherlands, especially for investigating crimes in civil wars that accompanied the process of disintegration of Yugoslavia. However, from the very beginning, political agendas overshadowed legality of the Tribunal’s decisions. Indicatively, most of the indicted are Serbs. Persons from other nations that lived in Yugoslavia have rarely been accused; if they were, they were usually acquitted. The most notorious case is mafia boss Naser Oric.

Paramilitary troops of Oric had terrorized Serbs in the Srebrenica region and murdered about 2,500 elders, children, and adults of both genders. Oric used Srebrenica as the basis, although it was a designated UN safe heaven. The Srebrenica execution in 1995 was largely motivated by a revenge to Oric’s horrendous crimes. Norwegian documentary “A Town Betrayed” makes this point convincingly. Touted “the defender of Srebrenica,” Oric betrayed the town and its people before the July attack by the Bosnian Serb army.

Incapability to prosecute war criminal Oric devalues the concepts and law of genocide. In addition, putting millions of victims in historical genocides in the same category with thousands of Srebrenica victims appears as discounting the genocide concept. Worse yet, this may offend the victims of established genocides. By dogmatically insisting despite technical shortcomings that a genocide was committed in Srebrenica, the Hague Tribunal and its sponsors endorse politics over law. The sum-effect is that genocide was turned into an arbitrary instrument for political pressure. It is so in spite of calls for “reconciliation” issued in the recent EU resolution and the failed UN declaration, which was championed by the Great Britain.


20th anniversary

The commemoration on the 20th anniversary of the Srebrenica tragic wartime event went in the way fitting with its chaotic history. It gathered the usual suspects in Srebrenica. Bill Clinton, the architect of the Bosnian war and the Srebrenica tragedy, showed up only to endorse his failing project; the only thing he could offer to the region that couldn’t heal in the past 20 years was empty rhetorical shells. But he clearly stated that NATO needed Srebrenica as a justification for its overt military intervention in the Bosnian war. Represented (curiously) by the Queen’s daughter, the 12th in the line of succession to the throne, Britain confirmed a hardliner pro-genocide stance. Days before the commemoration, it tried to push it into a UN resolution albeit with no success.

The EU official for foreign policy and security didn’t show up at the commemoration, fittingly so as the event and the location weren’t secured properly. Serbia’s Prime Minister also knew that but still showed up, only to be booed and stoned, barely escaping lynch. All these anniversary happenings fit the big picture of Srebrenica and Bosnia delusions, exposing a failed policy of blaming exclusively the Serbian side for Bosnia's continuing troubles.

Victims are victims and should be honoured regardless their side. Crime is crime, and it should be sentenced appropriately on each side. That is so, if a path of justice is followed. But it is not so in the case of Srebrenica and the civil war in Bosnia. The victor writes history and debits the defeated with all the evil the war had brought. The foreign mentors keep helping wholeheartedly. A lip-service to law and justice is being done and consciousness is happy for being killed. The mission impossible, or multi-ethnic Bosnia by a Pax-Americana recipe, still keeps going.