While the majority of the world is commenting on tonight’s Oscar awards ceremony, we in Serbia (and Bosnia) are commenting whether Serbia is genocidal state or not. You probably heard most of the news coverage on this event, but as the verdict is being read this very moment it occured to me that you maybe haven’t heard enough personal opinions on the matter, at least from the Serbian side.
First of all, it’s a very, very complicated situation and no matter what they decide a lot of people will be unsatisfied on both sides. That’s why it seems from this very moment that the court in Hague will find a diplomatic solution – neither side will come out like a complete winner, but there will also be some elements in the verdict that should satisfy as many as possible in both countries.
Actualy this is exactly what i was hoping for. Because:
If they decide that the state of Serbia is guilty of genocide, it would be a great burden to bear for the citizens that really can’t be held responsible to such an extent. In these citizens i will dare to include even those that voted for Milosevic back at the beggining of the nineties, because i truly believe that even they didn’t and couldn’t predict such evil coming to power at that time. Those that continued voting for him could plead insanity.
This would also allow for some paradox things when it comes to paying the war damage: Bosniaks living in Serbia would technicaly have to pay to the Serbs living in Republika Srpska. But that’s the minor detail really, as well as the whole potential payment of approx 100 mlrd dollars to Bosnia. There are bigger concenquences than economical ones.
The guilty verdict would possibly satisfy lot of people that lost members of their families and friends in Bosnia, but as much as i try to understand their insisting on this, i can’t – it is impossible for me to think what i would have think if i was in such a situtation. This is the only thing i can think of from the rational perspective: it may sound rough, but what is done is done, and i somehow believe no verdict or anything else for that matter can bring satisfaction.
Last, but not least, this kind of verdict would completely demolish all reputation that Serbia had in the world for good, and that reputation has been already shaken badly. From my perspective, it would only do more damage than good, because i stopped believing that catarsis can happen here no matter what happens, even after a verdict like that.
If they reject the charges completely, that would, on the other hand, give strenght to those that try to deny that the genocide in Srebrenica took place at all, which is something that i certailny would not like to see happen.
Like i said, the matter is so complicated that i think this is more of a lose-lose situation than anything else. Thus the middle-way decision is probably the best solution in this case- damage-control in a way.
For a good analysis of the situation and trial, i recommend reading Eric’s posts on the whole matter.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 53 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
I certainly hope, as I’ve said before, that they put Mladic and Karadzic on trial. It’s the only way the truth would have any chance of coming out. But I doubt that the Hague honestly wants them in custody and on trial, unless they plan to just take things nice and slowly as they are with Seselj, in the hope that they will die off as they “allowed” Milosevic to do just before he entered the Srebrenica phase of the trial. The ONE THING they don’t want is a thorough investigation of Srebrenica. The next Serbian government should INSIST on that investigation. In the meantime the west will continue to use Srebrenica as a whip to keep Serbs in line — the very last thing they want is for the details of Srebrenica to be explored or for the west to have to provide real evidence to back the accusatory propaganda that has served them so well.
Glas javnosti
11. mart
Sutra dodatak Glasa javnosti:
LIČNA KARTA SREBRENICE
Milivoje Ivanišević, istraživač ratnih zločina u bivšoj BiH, u svom
ogledu “U traganju za istinom”, dokazuje da postoje najmanje dve lične
karte grada Srebrenice vezane za događaje u julu 1995. Po prvoj, koju
potpisuju bosanski lideri u Srebrenici, dogodio se genocid koji presudom
Međunarodnog suda pravde nije primereno kažnjen. Po drugoj, koju svojom
izjavom potpisuju Milorad Dodik i Vlada RS, u Srebrenici se dogodio
ratni zločin, a ne genocid. Autor se pozvao na 51 dokument, publikaciju
i novinski članak.
Konačan spisak srpskih žrtava srebreničkog kraja, koji se zove Birač, i
nalazi se u zoni odgovornosti 8. taktičke grupe Armije BiH sa sedištem u
Srebrenici i pod komandom N. Orića, utvrđen je znatno kasnije (“Knjiga
mrtvih srba”, Centar za istraživanje zločina nad srpskim narodom, 2006),
a objavljen je povodom deset godina od oslobođenja Srebrenice.
Navedeni spisak sadrži imena 3.262 srpske žrtve. Prema dosadašnjim
podacima, oko 27 odsto ili oko 880 stradalih su pripadnici vojnih i
policijskih formacija. Ostalo ili 73 odsto, odnosno 2.382 žrtve su civili.
Manipulacija u UN
Za razliku od međunarodnih institucija i UN, za koje se pretpostavljalo
da su neutralni, znalo se da države članice NATO, predstavljajući se
pred javnošću kao međunarodna zajednica, sve vreme podržavaju
secesionističke pokrete. Iznenađenje je i saznanje da UN nisu neutralne
i da podržavaju muslimansku stranu
U Zagrebu je već 21. aprila 1993, samo pet dana pošto je Srebrenica
proglašena za zaštićenu zonu, komandant Unprofora švedski general
Valgren objavio da je demilitarizacija završena.
U stvari, na podsticaj SAD i nekih zapadnih država, politika UN koju je
dosledno izvršavao tadašnji podsekretar za mirovne operacije UN Kofi
Anan, bila je da se muslimani ne razoružaju. Kofi Anan je, sprovodeći
takvu politiku, posle samo dva dana (23. aprila) poslao poverljivu
poruku generalu Valgrenu o predstojećoj poseti delegacije Saveta
bezbednosti, koju je predvodio venecuelanski ambasador. U toj poruci je
naveo: “Imajući u vidu vaše javne tvrdnje da je Srebrenica potpuno
demilitarizovana, ne vidim potrebu da Unprofor učestvuje u potrazi za
oružjem od vrata do vrata. Vas će, nesumnjivo, delegacija SB upoznati sa
snažnim osećanjem, koje je prisutno među nekoliko zemalja članica, da
Unprofor ne sme previše aktivno da učestvuje u razoružavanju žrtava”.
To je bio način da se, na intervenciju Kofija Anana, izigra Rezolucija
SB i da se u Srebrenici sačuvaju muslimanske oružane formacije i
terorističke bande.
Civili nisu bili meta
Nigde ne postoji naređenje da se zauzme Srebrenica. To je zaključak koji
je dao i holandski Kraljevski institut za ratnu dokumentaciju (RIOD).
Isto mišljenje izneo je i Žan Rene Ruez, glavni istražitelj Haškog
tribunala za Srebrenicu. On je u jednom intervjuu za sarajevski
nedeljnik Dani na pitanje novinara “da li imate elemente koji bi
potvrdili prethodne planove o ovim masakrima” odgovorio: “Ne, nisu
postojali prethodni planovi”. Slična je tvrdnja i poznatog francuskog
advokata Žaka Veržesa, koji citira reči generala F. Morijona: “Ubeđen
sam da je stanovništvo Srebrenice bilo žrtva višeg interesa, ali višeg
interesa koji se nalazio u Sarajevu i NJujorku, a sigurno ne u Parizu.”
Za komandu operacije “Krivaja 95”, izvedene sa malim brojem vojnika,
iznenađenje je bilo što su muslimani odustali od odbrane ne samo seoskog
područja zaštićene zone već i same Srebrenice. Ni u jednoj varijanti
plana “Krivaja 95” nije bilo predviđeno da će muslimani napustiti
Srebrenicu, kao što nije bilo predviđeno ni da srpske jedinice uđu u taj
grad.
Prilikom oslobođenja Srebrenice, jedinice VRS prošle su kroz 42
muslimanska ili pretežno muslimanska sela, 16 od muslimana okupiranih
pretežno srpskih sela srebreničke i pet pretežno muslimanskih sela
bratunačke opštine i pretresli sve kuće, pomoćne zgrade, skrovita mesta.
Iza njih nije ostala nijedna muslimanska žrtva. Stotine pojedinačnih i
kolektivnih grobnica ostalo je po srpskim selima kroz koja je prošla
muslimanska vojska.
Srebrenica i Memorijalni centar i mezarje
Ne treba da čudi što su Potočari izabrani za tako veliko svetilište i
jedino kultno mesto ne samo muslimana BiH i bivše Jugoslavije već i
Evrope. Tu se rodio ratni predvodnik Naser Orić i, po svim lokalnim
verovanjima, Memorijalni centar-mezarje podignut je u njegovu čast.
Prema verovanju muslimana, Potočari treba da postanu simbol genocida nad
njima u BiH. I više od toga, oni nude da Potočari budu za muslimane ono
što je za Jevreje Aušvic, a za Srbe Jasenovac.
Bilo bi, svakako, logičnije da je za Memorijalni centar izabrana
lokacija nekog od stratišta: Kozluk, Branjevo, Pilica, Petkovci…
Streljanje zarobljenih muslimana nije predmet ove rasprave. Sporan je
broj streljanih, ali nije sporno da su streljani samo vojnici, a ne i
civili.
Posebno su značajne primarne masovne grobnice koje je, za potrebe
Tribunala, istraživao Din Mening. Ukupno su u navedenim grobnicama,
prema ovim podacima, pronađeni posmrtni ostaci 1.824 tela. U ekspertizi
Dina Meninga ekshumirano je 1.883 tela. Od otkopanih tela utvrđeno je da
je muškaraca 1.656. A samo jedna ženska osoba. Za ostale nije utvrđen pol.
U tužbama Tribunala te brojke su znatno drugačije i veće.
Zloupotreba mrtvih
U spiskovima pokopanih žrtava iz jula 1995. nalazi se veliki broj osoba
koje su bile registrovane kao birači opštine Srebrenica za izbore
naredne 1996. godine. Raspolažemo njihovim imenima, ali ovom prilikom
daćemo samo brojčani pregled. Od imena navedenih u prvom ukopu navodnih
žrtava, 271 bila je u biračkom spisku za 1996. godinu, u drugom ukopu
85, trećem 31, četvrtom 140, petom 252 i šestom ukopu 135. To je 914
osoba ili nešto više od 37 odsto od ukupnog broja ukopanih. Logično je
pretpostaviti da su to osobe umrle prirodnom smrću od jula 1995. do jula
2006. godine, kada je izvršen poslednji ukop, a ne žrtve Srebrenice
stradale prilikom povratka Srba u taj grad. Da su u pitanju žrtve
potvrđuje i činjenica da je organizator izbora Oebs imao na raspolaganju
više od godinu dana da ih briše iz spiska srebreničkih birača. To nije
učinjeno.
Drugi sporan slučaj odnosi se na osobe za koje postoje sudska rešenja da
su umrle prirodnom smrću.
U mezarje su, radi stvaranja neistinite slike o velikom broju nedužnih
civilnih muslimanskih žrtava, prenošeni posmrtni ostaci kako boraca tako
i civila sa drugih lokacija i ponovo su, ritualno i uz verske obrede,
pokopavani. I ovom vrstom obmane javnosti obuhvaćeno je nekoliko stotina
ljudi.
(at M. Bozinovich’s blog at Serbianna.com)
Britain’s displacement victimology
In April, 130 British doctors demanded that Israel gets expelled from the World Medical Association. Later in the same month, British National Union of Journalists appealed to the UK public to boycott Israeli goods. In late May, British University and College Union (UCU), representing teachers in universities and institutions of Higher Education throughout the UK, launched a boycott of Israeli academics and academic institutions. Immediately after this announced boycott, UKs Royal Institute of British Architects announced intentions to join the boycott but of Jewish architects.
Disgusted, Steven Weinberg, professor at the University of Texas at Austin and a 1979 Nobel laureate in Physics, recently canceled his visit to UK citing anti-Semitism arising from the “desire to pander to the growing Muslim minority in Britain”.
The reply he got was the snobbish “very sad”.
It should come to no surprise that Professor Weinberg’s protest could not have moved UKs Imperial College.
Back in April, government backed study of UK schools found that British are dropping Holocaust from history lessons to avoid offending Muslim pupils “whose beliefs include Holocaust denial”.
Meanwhile, British contemporary press is full of headlines touting an alleged genocide of Muslims in Srebrenica, where Bosnian Muslim combatants have massacred Christian Serb civilians prior to being dealt with in the like manner when they lost their grip on the city.
Britain’s displacement of the real Holocaust of Jews with a fictitious one of Muslims of Srebrenica is the displacement victimology that is the latest raging bull fad of the European academia so that the barrage of boycotts Israel is exposed to right now is just an overt expression of the social convulsion that Britain, indeed Europe itself is undergoing.
Even at the World Bank, where the UK led the way in removing “the Jew” Paul Wolfowitz, a statistical incubation is fervently being done to backbone this displacement victimology. Much to the happiness of the Islamic world, says one consultant to the World Bank, the European “Muslim youth, despite the environment of their upbringing, have a desire to keep alive their culture and religion,” which, as we know, incorporates displacement of Jewish Holocaust in favor of a fictitious one at Srebrenica.
As a result, concludes this consultant “Finding out and implementing necessary changes to European integration policies will inevitably lead to less division and fear, and more prosperity and development, not to mention a sense of shared national unity”.
Recent report by the Times of London, however, suggests that Britain has already found the necessary change Muslims seek of Europeans. Citing UKs Office for National Statistics list, the Times concludes that “Mohammed will likely become the most popular name for baby boys in Britain by the end of” 2007.
We are all eagerly awaiting UKs policy for 2008.
← Previous Comments