Year and a half after the state of Serbia was acquitted of genocide charges in Bosnia and Hercegovina, the state of Croatia now got a green light to see if it can prove that Serbia committed any genocide on Croatian territory. Serbia will most likely respond with a counter charge – that Croatia committed ethnic cleansing when it expelled from their homes several hundred thousand Serbs in 1995 and made them refugees to Serbia proper. What are the actual chances of these states winning at court and how much damage they can actually do to each other?
Short answers would be “none whatsoever” and “a lot”, respectively.
If the previous Bosnia vs Serbia lawsuit failed, than this one Croatia vs Serbia will fail twice as much. In Serbia vs Croatia case, it may become legally difficult to Serbs who at the time of ethnic cleansing had Croatian citizenship.
It seems to me from this perspective that Croatia, who asked the International Court of Justice in Hague for jurisdiction over the suit back in 1999, could have decided not to press charges further after Bosnia lost the case last year. This way it seems as if Croatia already knows it can’t win, but needs the suit for internal use, ie some small scale political benefit. This leaves Serbia no choice than to file a counter suit, also knowing that chances of success are small. I expect a lot of dirty laundry to come up, both from this war and the WWII, where Serbia will try to connect the genocide of nazi puppet state of Croatia, with todays Croatia.
In short term this will have huge negative impact on relations between the two countries, and will serve only the rise of nationalism on both sides. In long term, it should however settle some unresolved questions and set up a starting point to final reconciliation, but only in theory. In praxis it could have as devastating effect as in the short term.
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 14 comments… read them below or add one }
Viktor, Serbia was not simply “acquitted of genocide charges”. This was not a criminal case so there was no acquittal, claims were simply found not proven. However Serbia was the first nation ever found to be in breach of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide. The International Court of Justice found that Serbia had failed to prevent genocide at Srebrenica (after Security Council Resolution 819 of 1993 had specifically called on Serbia to take measures to prevent genocide in Bosnia).
While the allegation of failure to prevent genocide was proven, the allegation of direct responsibility for genocide was not. However in his dissenting opinion, Judge al-Khasawneh, the ICJ’s Vice-President, observed that “Serbia’s involvement, as a principal actor or accomplice, in the genocide that took place in Srebrenica is supported by massive and compelling evidence.”
al-Khasawneh’s dissenting opinion is downloadable at http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&k=f4&case=91&code=bhy&p3=4)
In it he examines the ways in which the Court might well have found the allegations proven.
Prominent among these is the issue of the ICTY’s and ICJ’s decision not to examine unredacted copies of the Supreme Defence Council records which will probably be examined in depth when/if the Florence Hartmann case comes up.
I’m not a legal expert but I think it’s correct that if the two courts were found to be at fault in not considering the documents. in unredacted form the Bosnia vs Serbia case could be reopened, as it might also if the Karadzic trial provides evidence that would affect the basis of the ICJ decision.
I’ve copied al-Khasawneh’s disagreements with the Court’s “methodology for appreciating the facts and drawing inferences therefrom” below. Several of these issues could be raised in the Croatia vs Serbia case.
Sorry – “Prominent among these is the issue of the ICTY’s and ICJ’s decision not to examine unredacted copies of the Supreme Defence Council records which will probably be examined in depth when/if the Florence Hartmann case comes up.” – that’s the decision that I suggest will be examined in depth rather than the documents, though hopefully those will eventually be given the attention they appear to warrant..
Owen, I’ve simplified it on purpose – a lot of people are not really interested/do not have enough time to read everything in detail about this. The only thing they see now, for example is that Serbia and Croatia sue each other, and expect that court rules in somebody’s favor.
In the first case vs Bosnia the decision was very unclear, probably on purpose, to try and satisfy both sides. I consider it a success that we did not get charged over being responsible for genocide. I remember Eric wrote there is no such thing as a “genocidal nation”, but try explaining that to a regular person after your country’s being charged of a genocide.
That’s the problem, Viktor. Simplification and telling people just as much as they’re prepared to hear. There may not be such a thing as a genocidal nation but there was a genocidal state, even if so far it’s escaped having the label stuck on its forehead, and even if it may not have been the only one.
Whether or not a nation can be genocidal who can say, all one can say is there’s at least one nation that gives the very strong impression that most of it doesn’t want to know about genocide and responsibility and appears interested only in being told they’re OK and everything’s OK as long as they’re allowed to forget the past. But everything’s not OK, not for a lot of people.
About the genocidal state, the problem is that many people don’t see the difference between “there was” and “there is” let alone the difference between a state and a nation.
Plus, when you say nation, you usually refer to all people comprising it, so that would be a problem too.
Owen, I agree that everything is not ok!. But when discussing genocide I would not so overgeneralize. First we have to think how does the image of “nation that refuses to see its crimes” emerges; who is speaking in its name; and WHO belongs to the groups who negate/forget the crimes.
Most importantly, in my opinion, the question should be WHY forgetting/negating (as a part of remembering process) is happening. Blaming unidentified masses and the “irresponsible nation” who lives in the same state does not bring good to any of us.
Viktor, I was using Eric’s distinction to try and make space for all the people that have done their serious best to achieve some sort of honourable resolution of Serbia’s responsibility, as opposed to the “let’s get all this over, just allow us to move on” brigade.
Deana, how about a genocidal nation being a population that insists “We are innocent of genocide” because charges have simply not been proven when their own government still refuses to allow crucial evidence to be disclosed. How many Serbians have questioned the basis on which the charges were found not proven before proclaiming their nation’s innocence? How many Serbian voters have pressed their government to explain why it refuses to allow the evidence contained in its own records to be submitted for the inspection that could prove or disprove those charges? And how many Serbians have voted for parties whose leaders they know to be capable of participating in acts constituting genocide, of protecting the putative perpetrators of genocide or of withholding the evidence of genocide?
A nation that indulged itself in a fever of speculation about how an architect of genocide could hide himself in their midst rather than reflecting as the rest of the outside world did on the nature of that individual’s alleged crimes is a nation that gives little indication of concern for its own part in those crimes.
I’m certainly not saying all Serbians are genocidal and I’m not saying that a lot of Serbians haven’t themselves been victims of their nation’s crimes. But the fact that a lot of Serbians insist that say they should be considered to bear no responsibility is not a convincing enough reason for all the rest of us to accept that the issue of responsibility for genocide has been resolved. Is the rest of the world – and the victims who still have no justice – to be hustled by the nation of movers-on into pretending that after all those years of denial everything is OK enough? I hope not.
Owen,
if we look at the case Bosnia vs Serbia, I think the verdict did not help much either state, and especially not the victims. Do you really think this case, Croatia vs Serbia would help in reconciliation or anything else for that matter? I really don’t think so. Do you honestly think that sticking a label of genocidal state on Serbia will contribute to something? Will it help the matters in Serbia going for the better, like bringing the guilty ones to justice and Serbian public’s recognition that the genocide did happen in Vukovar, for example? I don’t think so.
I believe that state vs state will not contribute to anything because neither state cares about genocide on either side. The only ones who can do something in order to reconcile are the people on both sides, and the process of talking to each other was indeed on the way, with more Serbian people traveling to Croatia and vice versa, more interaction even on the internet particularly among younger people. Now that’s going to get worse – for example I can see the flame wars starting again, even on the non-nationalistic sites. .
I hope I’m wrong, but the theory you’re talking about is one thing and you’re basically right, but only in theory. The reality is much more complex than that, I’m afraid.
If they used census and population figures – before and after the war – along with the percentage of women and children killed, then Croatia would be found guilty of genocide.
As for Bosnia, the population figures of Bosnian Muslims is the same percentage or greater than prewar. The Muslims now dominate many of Bosnia’s large cities completely and are way up in real numbers, not just percentage.
As well, it is noted that 300,000 Bosnian Muslims immigrated to the U.S. and people remark on how virtually all of them are able-bodied, healthy, and have no sign of any torture/malnutrition.
Bosnia was more of a land/population swap, and former Secretary of State Warren Christopher even cited it as progress (or at least relief) when they got the waring parties and ethnic groups rather neatly separated after the war.
There were actually plans from those in NATO countries, before the war, started about dividing the peoples due to the political frictions growing between them.
The percentage of Serbian population has fallen more dramatically in Muslim-Croat controlled territory than the Serbian-held territory and there’s been less successful returns.
In some parts of the RS there was already 5 years ago, greater than 50% Bosnia Muslim returns to certain towns. The ones who haven’t returned mainly have a more well-off and established life in the west.
The researchers have found that the majority of dead in the Bosnian war were combatants, and the Bosnian Muslims had the largest infantry – up to 200,000. Serbs actually had a manpower shortage in Bosnia and long lines to defend.
Croatia was pretty free to station its troops and officers in Bosnia throughout the whole war. It was not blamed or sanctioned for this, and these troops and paramilitaries were attacking Bosnian Serb civilians from the very beginning of the war.
Should be pointed out that the Muslims and Croats kept operating their torture camps and prisons of captured Serbs long after the Dayton Accords.
For instance, the Silo at Tarcin concentration camp – where the Muslims gave away all the grain at the beginning of the war to empty it to enable to holding of Serbs – operated into 1997.
As well, the Serbs are the ones maimed and sporting scars from hands-on physical abuse at these camps. The ones who have records of needing surgery, missing parts of ears, having a face beaten it which shows permanently, etc. which non of these Muslims who have all these wild stories have.
Yeah, and the researchers also found that the biggest war crimes were committed by the Martians.
Viktor, I’m sorry you always end up as the jam in the sandwich. The people I’m so critical of will never acknowledge how much people like yourself do to make sure outsiders remember that there is more to Serbia than the complacent and the complicit.
I still have to say that I disagree with you about the ICJ case. It was a mess and an unsatisfactory outcome, but even the less than perfect result had two major consequences.
The ICJ’s confirmation of the ICTY verdict on Srebrenica put the brake on the lobby’s determined work of casting doubt on the facts and the ICTY finding of genocide. Of course it doesn’t stop them but they now have an uphill struggle. They can’t reject the ICJ verdict without rejecting the “accusation of genocide not proven” that they got out of it.
And the “failed to prevent genocide” conclusion established that Serbia had known about plans for genocide and colluded with them.
It was an unsatisfactory outcome for the victims, certainly, but the judgment did establish an unchallengeable baseline understanding of what had happened.
As you point out where you and I differ is over our understanding of the implications that abstract principles have for realities on the ground. What I’d say is that last year’s decision didn’t achieve anything for the victims as far as resolving their issues was concerned but without it they would be drifting further away down-current from resolution.
And I’d say the same is true on the other side of the fence, not just for Serbia but for Croatia as well. Until people face up to reality the problem is still there.
Whatever the politicians may say about the world economic crisis, Serbia isn’t immune. Serbia is buffered from some of its impact maybe because of the crisis having burst while Serbia was still at the stage of catching up again with the rest of Europe.
But do you imagine all the festivals and cheap travel that are underpinning the ability of young Serbians and Croatians to establish friendly contact are going to continue? Will that friendship last once life starts getting hard again? Or will people start finding reasons to remember the issues that everyone wanted to ignore while they were inconvenient?
I don’t think justice is a matter of “theory”, it’s a matter of practical survival in the long run. It’s not that I don’t take on board the valid points of your pragmatic argument, I just disagree with it. I guess in a way we’re arguing about 1919 and the Treaty of Versailles all over again. Was it Versailles that caused the Holocaust? Or were the roots of genocide elsewhere?
I feel guilty about tying up so much of your time and energy in these arguments when I know that’s not what this blog is meant to be about. But at the same time it’s knowing that people like you are prepared to engage with the real issues even when we disagree that stops me switching off my hearing aid
Hey, don’t feel guilty, I love a good talk.
Speaking of that, I know I probably ain’t the first to ask you this, but why don’t you start a blog of your own? You seem to leave a lot of good comments to a great number of sites. It would be good to have all that at one place.
Thanks, Viktor. Basically I’m lazy and disorganised, and my way of expressing admiration for those of you who aren’t is by coming and leaving comments at your blogs!