1. Kim H

   I think you’ve presented a very fair and balanced commentary on a very difficult situation. I wish more people could discuss it rationally and with contained emotion. Alas- that rarely seems to happen.

   Feb 26th, 2007

2. bganon

   ‘The guilty verdict would possibly satisfy lot of people that lost members of their families and friends in Bosnia’

   This is something I think people need to understand and we must tell them fairly but firmly that court processes are not there to provide moral, emtional satisfaction or some moment of vindication. They are there to establish the facts, not to weigh up whether somebody is worthy of the ulimate status of ‘genocide victim’.

   This ruling doesnt make any of the thousands of murdered in Bosnia any more forgotten or less worthy but relatives (on the Bosniak side) will feel that it does. From a personal perspective that is understandable but what sickens me is the encouragement these people got from those who should know better to see the court ruling in these emotional terms. This includes members of the Bosniak government, certain liberal international journalists and so on. Those people will be nowhere to be seen as victims will feel let down again.

   The best friend you have isnt a moron who pats you on the back and tells you what you want to hear, its the guy who tells you something honestly sometimes at the risk of the friendship itself. Better to risk a friendship than for the poor families of the victims to feel even more devestated after the verdict leaves them feeling victimised all over again.

   I am talking here about personal experiences where I’ve been forced to play the ‘bad guy’ role.

   I’ve said in a number of places on the internet that I will await the verdict and respect the decision. I do respect the decision and think it is important now that all those in former Yugoslavia feel the same way. International justice isnt a pick and mix when you respect the decisions that decide in your favour and you reject those that rule against ‘you’.

   The balance seems about right to me although I’m yet to read the complete findings. History will record this verdict and in my opinion the concensus by analysts and in the history books will mirror the opinion on the International Court.

   I think that all the victims of the wars of former Yugoslavia should be remembered today. This isnt a victory or a defeat. People have to learn lessons.

   Feb 26th, 2007

3. Blackbird

   I have commented on this ruling at Misha Glenny’s article on Comment Is Free at guardian.co.uk with the following. The same comment is appropriate to this posting.

   ——-

   What this ruling conveniently skips over, just like the Serbian governments of late have done, is the question of whether Srebrenica was in fact genocide. There are far too many questions, questions that the West and the ICTY are happy to leave unasked so that they don’t have to answer them, and that Serbian government officials are too cowardly (quaking as they are for EU membership which if they were men they would reject outright) to put on the table.

   Questions such as:

   1. What genocidal killers put the Muslim women and children on buses first to get them out of a dangerous area as they prepare for a firefight they could see coming?

   2. How many actually died at Srebrenica when at least 3,000 of the men supposedly victimized there have since voted in Bosnian elections?

   3. How was it that the Red Cross at the time of the Srebrenica “massacre” had on their website information about 5,000 muslim men who had left the area. No specific records were kept to check which of them subsequently returned to the area.

   4. Where are the “8,000+” bodies?

   5. How is it that a self-admitted killer, Naser Oric, who brutally massacred many elderly, helpless Serbs in villages around Srebrenica just prior to the so-called Srebrenica massacre, and who took videos of his murderous acts to show off with — how is it that then he is let off by the ICTY to come back to Bosnia for a hero’s welcome?

   6. Isn’t it possible that many fewer Muslim men were killed at Srebrenica than is touted by the West and Bosnia, and that at worst they were revenge killings for an exasperated Serbian military who could not stop Naser Oric?

   7. Isn’t it true that Izetbegovic and Clinton were in cahoots to incite and inflame just such an incident as Srebrenica, and did everything possible to enable it to happen so that Bosnians, and their Western backers, would have the “moral authority” to justify the continued demonization of Serbia and continued involvement of the West in the Balkans for “humanitarian” reasons.

   8. Isn’t it that Srebrenica is taken at face value as it has been misreported all over by a lazy, biased media with complete disinterest in the actual facts mainly because there is no one in the Serbian leadership who has the guts to challenge it?

   It’s time this tale was thoroughly challenged, researched and factually reported in fine detail. It’s time we stopped swallowing the crap we are spoon fed.

   Feb 27th, 2007

4. blackbird

   Here’s another reader’s comment about Srebrenica at the same site:

   CountVronsky

   Comment No. 450452

   February 27 0:41

   GBR

   The views on Srebrenica are always polarised. For the vast majority who depend on the media for their potted history it must seem incredible that anyone could doubt the simple “facts” which we are endlessly told like a mantra: 8,000 men and boys murdered in cold blood.

   The problem is that you only have to read any account more than a couple of pages long to discover that this is a simplistic exaggeration. First, the vast majority of those missing went missing from a column of 12-15,000 men a third of whom were armed and a sufficiently effective fighting force to break through the Bosnian Serb lines to reach Tuzla. Many were killed in the process.

   Some surrendered and were then executed. Some surrendered at Potocari and were not seen again, presumed killed.

   But two weeks later when neighbouring Zepa fell there was no massacre and many Bosnian Muslims fled to Serbia and were handed over to the Red Cross. This was before the allegations of a massacre at Srebrenica had really taken over the collective consciousness of the West.

   Some of the Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica had committed atrocities against Serbian villages killing hundreds of civilians (women and children too) in a bestial fashion. There was “bad blood” literally.

   None of this is to excuse a massacre – but to overstate the awful facts (and there were some awful things done) is only to indulge a moral sense of superiority and to encourage “victimhood” amongst the Bosnian Muslims and “persecution complex” in the Serbs.

   I repeat is absolutely clear that not all the Muslims who died around Srebrenica in July 1995 were “murdered”.

   The important thing is to read an accurate account as far as can be assembled – and there are many unknowns still – the closest I have found is the mammoth inquiry by the Netherlands Institute for War Documentation:

   http://213.222.3.5/srebrenica/

   Read even a small part of this and see if you still think it is wise to characterise a massacre as a premeditated genocidal act.

   I am firmly of the opinion that it is irresponsible and cheapens both the charge and the status of the ICJ as a serious body of international arbitration.

   Feb 27th, 2007

5. Viktor

   Blackbird, you are going off-topic, this is no place for conspiracy theories so please don’t bother flooding the post with more genocide denials. The court already ruled on that, so you better move on to something you can actually dispute.

   Feb 27th, 2007

6. Blackbird

   http://byzantinesacredart.com/blog/2007/02/serbia-cleared.html

   Feb 27th, 2007

7. Blackbird

   Who’s talking about conspiracies, Viktor? Certainly not I. I’m talking about the fact that the truth has yet to come out about Srebrenica, whatever that truth turns out to be. I’m certainly not ready, like you, to bend over for another lashing by the West because they told us it’s so. I’m completely baffled by your attitude. You can’t wait, it seems, to hang your head as you acknowledge your nation’s blame in something. I’d like to see you JUST ONCE answer a specific point I have made instead of coming back at me with lame generalities because you like to feel guilty for something that you’ve been told to feel guilty about. I’m sick of generalized demonizations — I want to see some more truths come out; you know, some actual facts, even if that’s a foreign concept to you.

   There are many examples of lies about Serbs during these wars having been exposed. I suppose none of those have sunk in, even with some “Serbs.”

   Feb 27th, 2007

8. Viktor

   I don’t feel guilty. But the genocide did happen. I feel ashamed for the monsters that did it and who thought they are doing me a favour by doing it. But i can’t feel guilty instead of someone else. Best and least i can do is to say that I am sorry that it happened.

   That’s exactly what the court decided: Serbia is not guilty – but there was a genocide. And that FACT is what you are still trying to dispute, and that’s what i have problem with.

   Like i said this is the downside of the verdict – that there will always be someone to interpret this decision by saying that now, since Serbia is aquitted most charges, it is clear the genocide did not happen at all.

   Sorry, but it did happen. And now it’s official.

   Feb 27th, 2007

9. Cvijus

   Viktore, you say that you feel ashamed for the monsters that committed the crimes, which is a humane sentiment, however, stating that you feel ashamed I somehow get the impression that you bare some guilt in these crimes, as if you contributed to the execution of these crimes. Knowing you, I know you haven’t got anything to do with these crimes, and then I wonder why do you feel ashamed. You know that I’m also against those crimes, but I personaly don’t feel ashamed because there’s no personal liabilty of mine in what happened. But I judge those crimes, saying that those who commited them are complete idiots and they should be behind bars. But to feel ashamed, it means that I could do something to prevent those crimes, but what could I do?

   As for the verdict, I’m satisfied and find it highly just. But let’s be honest, the reason Bosnia-Herzegovina pressed charges against Serbia was of pure political reasons, and you can see it from the reactions of Bosniak officials. They are pleased that Serbia is the first country on earth to be accused of not preventing a genocide. How can such an attitude contirbute to reconciliation? It seems that they were more worried on putting an etiquete on Serbia, than to receive justice for their victims. And I’m also worried on what will happen with Republika Srpska. Will the Bosniak side try to achieve their hegemony on entire Bosnia-Herzegovina, or will they now get their asses to work and make the country (both entities) to prosper economically?

   Feb 27th, 2007

10. bganon

    Well I’ve read the judgement in full including which judge voted for what. As I see it Srebrenica is only a part of the issue but not the main one.

    The main issue is / was the genocide charge which Bosnia brought against Serbia – and which (by a pretty healthy majority by the way) proved to be false or at least not proven. Serbia / Mg were also found not guilty in complicity to genocide. There is no right to an appeal.

    Further Bosnia cannot sue for reperations. This bodes well generally for Serbia.

    I have to say that having read what the judges found Serbia guilty of I am in agreement. The judges verdict confirms what I’ve learnt about the Yugoslav wars through talking with people who took part, chatting with hacks, getting chummy with NGOists, debating with revisionists, and what I’ve learnt through reading a variety of books. I really have spoken to them all. The judges findings are in line with what I’ve learnt.

    Serbia has failed to transfer Ratko Mladic to the Hague thus violated the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the crime of Genocide. There is no question on this. We (the people) were lied to time and again by the Serbian government post 2000 which said they didnt know his whereabouts. Note the ruling doesnt mention Karadzic which is a positive – there is no sense that the ICC in its ruling tried to throw everything at Serbia for the sake of making a point.

    Also I agree that Serbia violated the obligation to prevent genocide as outlined by the court in its reasoning. I would add that there was a brief period when Milosevic closed the border with REpublika Srpska but that wasnt because he was trying to stop war crimes. It was because the Pale leadership defied him. How dare they! For a couple of months of anti Pale propoganda on Serbian government controlled television and media versus years of pro-Pale propoganda. There is no contest really.

    I’d even add that Serbia is slightly fortunate – although I doubt that Serbia is guilty of genocide upon Bosnia I do wonder if evidence was produced on say Mladic still being employed by VJ at the time he was Bosnian Serb commander, how that would have impacted on their decision. That is one of my few reservations if we are talking about the complete truth here.

    Now I would add that the decision in no way exonorates the role of the Bosnian Serbs. If anything the finger is most firmly pointed in their direction (but because of this stupid nation state sytem nothing can be done under the concept of international justice). However, I’d also add that this isnt an excuse for Serbs from Serbia to wash themselves clean by blaming everything on the Bosnian Serbs. We know who provided moral, military and political support. Who knows whether a more peaceful solution could have been sought if Milosevic, as the most powerful national leader, would have told the Bosnian Serbs from the outset that diplomacy and not war was something he would not compromise on.

    Now the Serbian ‘side’ certainly isnt the only one responsible so the fact that I’m only looking at this from the Serbian perspective doesnt mean other nation states of the former Yugoslavia or NATO are not guilty. However, it is a fact that other states are not being charged in the international court. If they were I would discuss that.

    Regarding Viktors feeling – I am very much of the individual persuasion (as you guys well know by now) but I also think that there is scope for moral responsibility or just plain human solidarity with others. Thus I dont believe that people like Viktor have anything to feel bad about. What occured in the region certainly wasnt his fault. It wasnt mine either but heres the nub, deep down I do feel a little responsible. Whats more I know that many other ordinary people (through closing their eyes or choosing to believe propoganda bear some moral responsibility, yes more than I do, more than Viktor does). Perhaps people like Viktor sense that and for that reason his sense of responsiblity becomes stronger by way of overcompensating through the lack of remorse expressed by those who do bear some responsibility?

    In Serbia people tried to justify the bombardment of Sarajevo when they should have been protesting against it or at the very least trying to keep a little self respect by not supporting the bombardment. Many of these people have ‘melted away’. They do not continue the propoganda spewed at the time – that all Serbs in Sarajevo were being held hostage by Mujahedeen or Turks. They just keep quiet either kidding themselves that they always thought the bombardment of Sarajevo was bad or just focus on their own victimhood. It is they who bear some moral responsibility. Further I think a heartfelt apology from people (in the right circumstances) like that would be both good and cathartic for those people and for those in Sarajevo. Of course not just them, to name another example many people from Croatia who also felt so delighted when they saw hundreds of thousands of (Serb) civilians being ethnically cleansed on their TV sets. Moral responsibility.

    I must say Blackbird I do think what happened at Srebrenica was as close to Genocide as we’ve seen in the Yugoslav wars. Of course the word is political and used these days like ‘dobar dan’. But again I dont think this is the main issue in the ruling.

    Feb 27th, 2007

11. Blackbird

    I think it is a very SIGNIFICANT part of the ruling and the one that is most bandied about, that there WAS a genocide committed at Srebrenica. Let’s go ahead and call it a massacre for argument’s sake, but we don’t even know how many were actually killed. I agree that anyone who was involved in any kind of massacre should be thrown in jail, never to see the light of day again, but we have yet to receive any factual evidence, as opposed to conjecture and propaganda, about Srebrenica. It was a war, people! They don’t fight wars by playing cards and drinking sljivovic together!

    Why don’t you want to know more when you hear that at least 3,000 of those supposedly killed and perhaps as many as 5,000 have voted since Srebrenica in Bosnian elections?

    Why is it that my point about the possibility of revenge in the middle of a war isn’t even considered by any of you? Revenge was given as so acceptable a reason for murdering Serbs in Kosovo, but it’s always DIFFERENT if the Serbs are the victims! If in an atmosphere of a beastially murderous rampage by Naser Oric a frustrated Serbian military fought Muslims and executed a lot of the ones they captured, why is that genocide? Did Hitler save the women and children like the Bosnian Serbs did? The meaning of genocide is complete perverted in the Balkans, as and when it serves the West. It seems to serve some Serbs, too, and I can only ask myself WHY? Why is it that you don’t even question? What about all the unanswered questions?? What?

    I would be pleased to see Mladic and Karadzic on trial, just to finally get at some of the facts. I am beginning to think that the only reason they haven’t been “handed over” is that the West doesn’t really want them because of what they might say publically. It’s a good game, and politically positive for the West to demand them and it serves them even better to never get them.

    It’s very telling that Milosevic died just before the Srebrenica part of his trial was to begin.

    What whip would they use on the Serbs if Srebrenica turned out not to be as they have smeared it?

    Feb 27th, 2007

12. bganon

    ‘Why don’t you want to know more when you hear that at least 3,000 of those supposedly killed and perhaps as many as 5,000 have voted since Srebrenica in Bosnian elections?’

    Again, this doesnt have much to do with the charges vis-a-vis Serbia which is what the post is about. If we were debating Srebrenica then of course we could debate / dispute facts and statistics all day long.

    The main issue in this context is that Serbia was found not guilty of causing or conspiring to cause what happened at Srebrenica.

    Moral responsibility is another matter that I’ve already mentioned.

    On your Milosevic point, actually I read the complete judgement now. They did refer to evidence produced in the Milosevic trial. It seems to me that this verdict justifys the opinion that Milosevic would have been acquitted on the genocide charges at the Hague Tribunal. One can only speculate what else this verdict means in terms of what Milosevic would have been found guilty of. Also interesting is the reaction of Del Ponte. Strange almost, she says she was satisfied with the result but surely she could not have been? And what implications will the verdict have on other Serb generals standing trial at the Hague for Bosnia related charges?

    Further what impact will the verdict have on the Croatian genocide case? It looks very much like Croatia will fail to show that genocide even occured on its territory let alone that it was carried out by the Serbian government. That blows a huge hole in the oft repeated concensus in Croatian society about Serbian culpability for almost everything that happened in that period. Now spokesmen are saying they are seriously thinking about dropping the charges and seeking direct agreement.

    Whilst on that issue look at where that leaves the Montenegrins with their cosying up to the Croatians – they have already paid some war reperations.

    A direct agreement is what I think the states should have done in the first place. Look at the situation with Bosnia now. Serbia was willing to reach a deal with Bosnia which probably would have included some financial compensation (without calling it war damages, or that might make Serbia culpable legally). Now the Bosn(iaks)ians wont get a single Euro from Serbia.

    And look at this from a historic perspective as well. Until now there had been 2 (or more) narratives concerning the wars in Yugoslavia. The ICC’s decision appears to lend support (admittedly it isnt conclusively that way, but that is how it appears) to the premise that the wars were not about one side comitting all the war crimes against the others. Some will read this as proof that what happened in Bosnia was a civil war not Serbian agression. Certainly there is room for debate in reading the judgement but equally certain the judgement provides more support for the civil war narrative than the agression one.

    These are all landmark issues and Srebrenica may be a part of that story but it is only a part of the whole story.

    Feb 28th, 2007

13. Blackbird

    I agree with you, bganon, in what you have said just now. I don’t dispute what you say at all.

    Nevertheless, I think that Serbia will have a very hard time moving on while Srebrenica is held over her head — Serbia will always be culpable, or, at least, Serbs will always be culpable even if the whole country is not blamed. It seems to me that Srebrenica is THE issue, at the very crux of the whole matter of these wars, and until it is cleared up as to the actual facts Serbs will be tainted — even if the rest of the world ever forgets (which it won’t be allowed to — Clinton will regularly visit the place on anniversaries to keep his career going), Serbs themselves will carry the burden of this guilt, which may or may not be deserved, just because of something SOME Serbs did (and it’s still a big question in my mind whether they did it, or whether they did it as it has been described).

    It’s not exactly an exonoration, is it, to be told that, no, you did not, as a state, plan and support genocide, but there was a genocide that some of your people committed.

    The Srebrencia story is central to this ruling, not just a small part. It is my firm belief that the whole story needs to be blown wide open and whatever is found should be dealt with, whether with reparations, apologies and prison sentences for those responsible, or a full exoneration and clarity that this was war, not genocide.

    Furthermore, I think that Serbia should press its own case of genocide against Croatia, and that that charge should encompass the time period going back to Jasenovac. It’s time the world knew about and acknowledged that. There is no history book in American schools that even mentions Jasenovac, that’s how lopsidedly the West regards the Balkans.

    OK. I’m done.

    Feb 28th, 2007

14. Blackbird

    Sorry — just one more thing. I think this is worth a look to any of you, particularly Andy Wicoxson’s remarks. Andy is highly knowledgable about what went on in the former Yugoslavia and could take on anybody in a debate about those issues. He is currently finalizing a book about Milosevic.

    http://www.milosevic-discussion.com/discussion/viewtopic.php?t=3066

    Feb 28th, 2007

15. Ian Cresswell

    My take on this is similar to Viktor, and Eric at East Ethnia. In general I think they did a reasonably good job and the general outcome is about the best that could have been expected. An outright win for either side would have been worse.

    In my opinion that court was wrong about complicity-even within their own high standards of proof. But really, this is quite a sematic quibble. I still don’t think that should have led to any financial penalties.

    Lots of comment here in the UK if you’re interested

    Ian Williams

    Antonio Cassese

    Marko Attila Hoare posts his reaction on the Drawing a Line Under It’ thread here

    Oliver Kamm

    Lenin’s Tomb

    Mar 1st, 2007

16. bganon

    Thanks for the links Ian. Last night I watched one of those evening talk shows on Bosnian TV. It was a one on one with a senior member of Haris Silajdzics party.

    When Silajdzic’s man said he was unhappy with the verdict the host commentated that he was not. Silajdzic’s geezer was surprised and asked why and the host said it was simply a matter of relations becoming much worse with Belgrade and with Banja Luka in general then he gave an example.

    He said that if Belgrade was found guilty of genocide that no Bosnian(k) politician would be able to travel to Belgrade, that it would be politically unacceptable to meet with the leaders of a genocidal state.

    Silajdzic’s man was pretty surprised by the point and didnt know how to respond. He went back to expressing disapointment but didnt contradict the hosts view.

    I must admit not to looking at it so much from a Bosniak perspective in that way.

    It goes without saying that I truly hope that things improve both in Bosnia and Serbia.

    Mar 2nd, 2007

17. bganon

    I see that comments are closed at Harry’s place. There is one point since you mentioned Hoare, Ian.

    He mentions ‘non Serbs’. I read the judgement and it states that the Bosnian side didnt justify its representation of using that word. In other words all the allegations refer to crimes against Bosniaks, not non Serbs.

    One of the main reasons for that is that the Bosnian legal team didnt bother trying to prove that crimes were committed against ‘non Serbs’ they focussed on crimes against Bosniaks.

    Mar 2nd, 2007

18. Ian Cresswell

    Yeah bganon, as I understand it the targetted group has to be defined positively, not negatively. He’s using the language from the Milosevic indictment that he helped to write.

    I was going to ask you something too. I don’t follow the logic here.

    “Further what impact will the verdict have on the Croatian genocide case? It looks very much like Croatia will fail to show that genocide even occured on its territory let alone that it was carried out by the Serbian government. That blows a huge hole in the oft repeated concensus in Croatian society about Serbian culpability for almost everything that happened in that period.”

    You’re right I think that Croatia will be unable to prove that genocide took place. But I don’t see that it follows from that that Milosevic wasn’t the guiding hand behind the ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity that did take place.

    Mar 2nd, 2007

19. bganon

    ‘But I don’t see that it follows from that that Milosevic wasn’t the guiding hand behind the ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity that did take place’

    I think that the verdict saying that Serbia failed to prevent crimes means that in their opinion Serbia (Milosevic) must have been in a position to prevent those crimes. I concur with this and as you know thats been my view from the beginning.

    I’m not sure that one can read that Milosevic was guilty of crimes against humanity from the verdict. At least I cant remember reading words that suggested this. By all means post a quote if I missed it.

    Of course that doesnt mean he was innocent of crimes against humanity – or that this verdict clears him either. That isnt – again as I understand it, what this case was about in concrete terms.

    My original point on this issue still stands. I watch the Croatian media pretty regularly and there is still this unwillingness (despite some high profile individual war crimes cases) to accept any responsibility for what happened at break up. This includes consistent justification of the ethnic cleansing Operation Oluja and so on.

    Much of the Croatian feeling for the Bosnia v Serbia case in Croatia was bitter disapointment. It wasnt really because of Bosniak victims, it wasnt even because of the implications for the Croatian case – although that was part of it. The sad thing is that the most important thing appears to be fear that this verdict might disturb the Croatian concensus that Croatia was an innocent victim and that any Croatian crimes were individual but Serbia was a pure agressor and its crimes were organised, if not genocidal (upon Croatia as well as Bosnia). Its as if there is a fear that if people were to drop the emotion and take a cold hard look at what happened some would not like the results.

    I think it is high time the emotion was dropped.

    As you know this has always been a worry of mine (in Croatia but also in Serbia) and things have slowly been improving in Croatia. Perhaps this verdict will help. Victim status really doesnt help when one is trying to get to the truth.

    Yes, I think you are right on Hoare. Still, its a bit disapointing that he hasnt bothered to read the judgement at any length. I suppose he feels bitterly disapointed too and might not want to read, or he’s still pissed about international justices issues / including the Hague.

    Perhaps it was an oversight on his part but what I said about too much emotion and a cold hard look might apply to him as well. I suppose we will see a retort on the BosniaReport site soon in terms of referring to Serbian nationalists claiming victory. I hope it wont be defined in these terms.

    Mar 2nd, 2007

20. Ian Cresswell

    I think to be fair to Marko that the judgement had only been published for a day or so. I hadn’t had the time to read much of it by that point either. I’m quite sure he understands the issues better than I do.

    His response was more positive than I expected. There was some pragmatism in there. Of course he’ll see it as a blow to the cause of justice, and in a way it is, but punitive damages would not have served the cause of justice either.

    In general Bosnia’s most vociferous supporters have complained of the allegedly excessive level of proof required, and they’ve pointed the dissenting opinion of the vice chair. He does make at least one valid criticism about the lack of access to some key documents. But there has also been an acknowledgment from most that the not guilty verdict for direct responsibility was correct.

    In my view nationalists or revisionists cannot draw comfort from this judgement because if they do, if they proclaim that it exonerates them- then all you have to do is read a few passages to them and see if they endorse what it says about events. Not just about Srebrenica but also Prijedor, Brcko and so on.

    Left revisionists face a particular problem in that the ICJ is the anti-imperialists favourite court. It has a deserved reputation for being independent minded and not under the control of the United States.

    Mar 2nd, 2007

21. Blackbird

    Some of you are so ready, almost eager, to accept Srebrenica as a genocide. I put it to you that there are those, like Andy Wilcoxon below, who know a good deal more about it than what you have heard or read, and think differently.

    “...I did not assert that 8,000 people from Srebrenica were killed. I said that EVEN IF 8,000 people had been killed Srebrenica still couldn’t rightfully be called “genocide”.

    I agree that the total number of deaths is probably about 2,500 killed, of which 200 to 400 were executed and the remainder killed in battle.

    My point was that Mladic only entered Srebrenica AFTER that column of 15,000 Muslims from Srebrenica attacked the Bosnian-Serb lines. There is no dispute on this score. Muslim witnesses at the Hague Tribunal have freely admitted that the ABiH ordered all males born 1980 or later to join the military column that was set out to attack the Bosnian-Serb lines and break through to Tuzla on July 10, 1995.

    My whole point is that the Muslim attack precipitated everything that followed. I agree that Srebrenica was a trap set-up between NATO and Sarajevo. But at the end of the day, Mladic never would have gone into the enclave had 15,000 Muslims not just launched an attack against his troops him from inside of it.

    My other point is that the deaths of the vast majority of those Muslims was the direct result of a MUSLIM war crime. Putting unarmed civilians in the middle of your military attack group is a war crime and a violation of the Geneva Conventions, and that is precisely what the Muslims did in Srebrenica.

    Most of the guys in that military attack group didn’t have weapons or military training, yet they were part of the group of 15,000 who was attacking the Bosnian Serb lines. I’ll bet that a boat load of those people got killed. The Serbs were firing at them from a distance with mortars and anti-aircraft guns and had no way to know who had a rifle and who didn’t. I am going to guess that the vast majority of the casulties were among those Muslims who found themselves on the middle of the battlefield without military training.

    What happened with the Muslims from Srebrenica is a prime example of why mixing civilians with your military attack group is a war crime. The men who died in that column of 15,000 died as the result of a MUSLIM war crime, not a Serbian war crime.

    The only war crime that the Serbian side might have committed was the 200 – 400 executions, and that all depends on who Erdemovic and the 10th Sabotage group were really working for. They were a unit of the VRS, but may have been acting outside the command of the VRS when they carried out the executions. They didn’t have any trouble acting as a cohesive unit in Zaiere in 1997, and they have certainly enjoyed international protection ever since Srebrenica. The only one who even tried to prosecute them for the killings was Milosevic, but DOS set them free shortly after October 5th.”

    Mar 3rd, 2007

22. Nina Brenjo

    If anyone’s interested to read a summary of worldwide media opinions on the verdict, go to Reuters AlertNet:

    Is it sane and useful to let Serbia off the hook for genocide?

    [link to AlertNet]

    Mar 5th, 2007

23. bganon

    I should just point Nina that I’m not actually a blogger at Bosnia Vault.

    I’m a blogger here at the Belgrade Blog (or should be) and over at B92.

    ‘He does make at least one valid criticism about the lack of access to some key documents. But there has also been an acknowledgment from most that the not guilty verdict for direct responsibility was correct.’

    Well, its a point. The other point is concerning Mladic and whether and how direct the JA and the Serbian governments control over him was. However, and this is specifically stated in the judgement, even if evidence was produced that Mladic was still an employee of JA or similar this still would not have returned a guilty verdict for the charges of genocide.

    The other point concerning files and so on can be answered this way. The court said (this can be verified think there is a press release somewhere on the net) that it had all the evidence it needed to make a judgement months ago. It did not compell the Serbian government to send additional files which some say would help to implicate Serbia. It is my understanding that the court could have obliged Serbia to send files and could have gone to the UN and sought sanctions if Serbia did not comply. That didnt happen.

    Anyway its a done deal now.

    Last night there was an interesting dicussion on Impression of the Week. Milorad Pupovac made an all too rare appearance on Serbian television, Sonja Biserko was there as was another guy.

    Pupovac made the greatest impression upon me. He does have a slightly pompous air about him (I think its the pregnant pauses – a la Silajdzic or Cedo Jovanovic) but he’s a really decent guy and holds a hell of a lot of moral authority as a leading Serb in Croatia. The crux of his message, when the host Olja Beckovic showed a few clips on the Croatian media where countless public figures were queuing up to condemn the decision and to say that the international community always favoured Serbia since the second world war (try telling that to Serbs!!!), was that one should keep ones own house in order and Serbs and Croats should not be constantly looking over the Drina to complain about this and that, rather they should try to constructively solve problems.

    Mar 5th, 2007

24. Blackbird

    How can Serbia be responsible for not preventing a genocide, especially if it’s highly doubtful that it WAS a genocide? I don’t believe it was. Not for a minute. They have not shown any evidence that it was and I don’t believe anyone who really checks it out can sincerely believe it was. One has to be PREDISPOSED to believe Srebrenica was a genocide to manipulate the information about it to fit that agenda. It’s an ASSUMPTION, not a fact.

    But, again, how can you hold a country responsible for preventing a genocide — if there was one — in ANOTHER country? Who is going to be held responsible for not stopping the genocides in Rwanda and Darfur? The U.S.? Germany? Oh, yeah….right! And when are they going to hold Croatia responsible for such things in Croatia?

    Bunch of b*llocks — the whole thing. It’s all political; nothing more, nor less.

    Sonja Biserko, indeed! Why does anyone in Serbia give her the time of day!?? Can she please emigrate to where she belongs — to Germany, perhaps?! Or to one of Soros’s Serb-hating communes – or, wait, is Belgrade one of those?

    Mar 5th, 2007

25. Viktor

    Bganon, I agree about Pupovac, he had some really good comments on the show – mind your own yard was just one of them.

    Ian and Nina, – thanks for the links, it’s really usefull to see all reactions from as many blogs as possible on this matter.

    Blackbird, Olja Beckovic in the same show had a comment to one viewer who also had his doubts about the genocide like you do: you can still talk about it but not for long, because it will soon be punishable by law also in Serbia to deny any kind of confirmed genocide.

    Mar 6th, 2007

26. Blackbird

    “...it will soon be punishable by law also in Serbia to deny any kind of confirmed genocide…”

    And whose hands does that play into, and isn’t it a complete disgrace?! We are truly moving into a more fascist world. In the end Hitler will win with tactics like these being instigated by so called “liberals”.

    But I have a good question, and this has been my beef all along: when was Srebrenica CONFIRMED as genocide? If that requires evidence and bodies, then in hasn’t been confirmed YET.

    I hope all those who are so eager to proclaim it genocide will get to eat their own hearts out (metaphorically speaking) when the truth eventually comes out — no matter how hard governments are trying to stop that happening. And I hope all of those who are so eager to be self-hating Serbs will finally get a good reason to hate themselves — for not pursuing the truth in the first place.

    Mar 6th, 2007

27. Ian Cresswell

    “But I have a good question, and this has been my beef all along: when was Srebrenica CONFIRMED as genocide? If that requires evidence and bodies, then in hasn’t been confirmed YET.”

    It’s been confirmed in report after report by all the parties most directly involved and now 2 different international courts. A more sensible question would be why has Srebrenica got the attention that many other great crimes haven’t?

    It is however pointless to pretend nothing has been investigated nor that the abundant evidence is not easily accessible to anyone prepared to check themselves.

    http://www.domovina.net/srebrenica/page_006.php

    “because it will soon be punishable by law also in Serbia to deny any kind of confirmed genocide.”

    Is this actually going to become law?

    I see it as part of increasingly worrying trend, as Germany has raised the possibility of Holocaust Denial being made illegal across Europe. You can’t legislate for being wrong, or foolish, because these are thought crimes. If genocide denial is said as part of incitement to violence of some kind then the state can become involved and it should prosecute for incitement. There is no need to ban certain ideologies and its wrong in principle. Free speech means many things and one of them is the right to speak offensive, illogical rubbish.

    Mar 6th, 2007

28. Blackbird

    We KNOW why Srebrenica has been singled out, Ian. That is not an unaswered question.

    You have posted a link. Would you like a few dozen others that contradict it? No…not much point in playing these games is there? If one wants to believe something one will — actual, conclusive evidence or no.

    Still, if you want links let me know…

    Mar 6th, 2007

29. bganon

    Blackbird if you are interested you can see the trascript of that program with Pupovac, Biserko et al – utisak nedelje here (in Serbian)

    Mar 7th, 2007

30. Nino Belicki

    Saša,

    “Thus the middle-way decision is probably the best solution in this case- damage-control in a way.”

    U were correct, Court did make “ballanced” verdict, but not for “damage control” and peacemaking in region but as broader political investment of key intl community players into “european” serbia, on expanse to serbian neighbores, and never forget most important – into Yugoslavia as geopolitical term that Int.comm. has started to recreating.

    Just as You do, it seems almost everyone gave up from asking catarsis from serbian politicians and whole serbian nation (and thats why serbia will continue to live in 90s, with 40% of parlamentarians made of (national)socialists and radicals) .

    Verdict is very wierd, since it confirmed that Serbia did organized, gave money and logistics etc to serbian forces in bosnia, but that genocide happened “localy”. In other words, in srebrenica there was group of individuals that just for no reasons decided to surround and after one year time to execute several 1000s of people.

    Also, key Yugoslav generals and political officials directly responsible for war conflicts in exYU (aka Kadijevic, Adzic, Jovic etc, serb dominated) are not even mentioned as possible convicts. Reason is of course not because its hard to prove their connection and roles, but to amnest them, SFRY and all international political gang in early 90s in form of Major’s british conservatives, Mitterand’s french socialists and Bush senior’s republicans supporting what they were promissed to get – local political limited executions against antiYugoslav “forces” in SFRY.

    Verdict is very dangerous benchmark for future international relations that gives very wide definition of responsibilities for (war)crimes in conflicts, depending on political and not real decisions, in stronger rules logic. This is in direct interest only of all global (aka USA) and local (aka Serbia) bullies around the globe.

    Mar 7th, 2007

31. bganon

    Welcome Nino, please visit us from time to time!

    It seems to me that you are doing what too many analysts seem to be upto in our part of the world. They are looking at the verdict as if it is political – as if the international community somehow excercised control over the international legal system and decided that Serbia should not be punished too much.

    I dont agree with this view. I allow scope for political influences on the judges (as I also allow increased scope for political influences on the Hague Tribunal) but I dont believe that so many judges (from a variety of countries) can be influenced to give Serbia a slap without punishing it too much. That isnt within their remit. No, their job was to focus on the evidence provided and to come to a decision based on the evidence.

    From what I read of your post unless I’m mistaken (apologies if I am) you dont seem to have read the verdict. Each verdict is explained in some detail – and the voting figures of judges are provided. Within this there is scope for criticism but that isnt from a political perspective in my opinion.

    For example if you read the verdict you would know ‘In other words, in srebrenica there was group of individuals that just for no reasons decided to surround and after one year time to execute several 1000s of people’ isnt true.

    The judges clearly state that the republika srpska leadership carried out the crime, not a bunch of disorganised Serbs or paramilitaries who just happened to decided to kill those people.

    ‘Also, key Yugoslav generals and political officials directly responsible for war conflicts in exYU (aka Kadijevic, Adzic, Jovic etc, serb dominated) are not even mentioned as possible convicts.’

    Again the decision was made on all the evidence made available to them from the Hague or from the Bosnian (Bosniak) team.

    ‘Reason is of course not because its hard to prove their connection and roles, but to amnest them, SFRY and all international political gang in early 90s in form of Major’s british conservatives, Mitterand’s french socialists and Bush senior’s republicans supporting what they were promissed to get – local political limited executions against antiYugoslav “forces” in SFRY’

    And to finish that popular Croatian argument off this shows that the British and others always supported Serbia since the second world war right upto today when there are still hundreds of thousands of refugees and displaced persons living in Serbia and that Serbia will lose Kosovo! Pro Serbian I tell you!

    The nuance in this argument I see is to name Major governments and so on. Well Major and Bush senior arent in power today . Blair and Bush junior are and the French largely support Kosovo indepdence so if we want to politicise this argument with todays governments how come the ICJ came to the decision it did. Is it because the US, British and French governments are pro Serb? Again the notion is quite amusing given the continued demands for Ratko Mladic, Kosovo status issue and the increased pressure on Republika Sprksa. Was the ICJ decision to name (and shame) Republika Srpska a political plan to try to abolish republika sprksa. That has become the view of some Serb nationalists from Banja Luka.

    Honestly I think you pay too much attention to those quasi analysts of international relations. We have the conspiracy theorists too, it doesnt mean you have to take them too seriously.

    Some of those analysts ought to be asked the real question instead of hiding behind other argument. The Croatian charge of genocide against Serbia was that true or politically motivated? Is there scope for sorting out Serbo-Croatian relations once and for all rather than to hide behind an issue between two seperate nation states. (Serbia and Bosnia)

    Pozdrav

    Mar 7th, 2007

32. bganon

    One last issue Ian see this link:

    http://www.bosnia.org.uk/news/news_body.cfm?newsid=2252

    Its a re-post from Henry Jackson society. If you base their primary argument for Kosovo independence to Kosovo they will do themselves out of Republika Srpska.

    BTW I dont think the point about banning genocide denial was serious. A serious cold headed public debate on Srebrenica would be far more beneficial.

    Mar 7th, 2007

33. Blackbird

    bganon,

    Thanks for the link.

    Mar 7th, 2007

34. Nino Belicki

    bganon,

    thanks for the link with b92 interview with mr. pupovac and rest.

    Key word and solution of all political problems in region was mentioned by mrs Biserko – chronology (be it historical or political).

    “as if the international community somehow excercised control over the international legal system”

    there is no international legal “system”. USA cut it in very roots since it prevented Court in the Hague to turn into constant international Court for (war)crimes. International legal “system” is made of red phones among washington, london, paris, mosqow and lately beijing. all others who wants to get any money and parts of intrl “subjectivity” from “the system” (be it lil states aka croatia, or lil individuals as judges in ICTY) – must obey.

    “Was the ICJ decision to name (and shame) Republika Srpska a political plan to try to abolish republika sprksa. That has become the view of some Serb nationalists from Banja Luka.”

    serbs in banja luka have that view because they are not aware that only thanks to political will of the states I mentioned above they (bosnian serbs) have gotten republic or srpska, state that has been missing half of pre-war population! Since majestic 5 (constant members of UN Council of security) allowed creation of RoS in ’95, its sure it will continue to exist, and as time will pass bosnian serbs should fear less and less… unless ->

    Only thing that has been undermining serbian position is, ironicly, attempt of international community to bring peace to this region by equaling war responsibilities to “all sides in conflict”, which has been confusing Serbs across whole exYU – it prevents them to get rid of bearers of so called “milosevic’s” policy (heritage), and also keeping antiserb sentiment among croats, bosniaks and albanians.

    “The Croatian charge of genocide against Serbia was that true or politically motivated?”

    Of course politically motivated! Several people including mr. Pupovac in that radio show noticed that word “genocide” in croatia and bosnia has become the only synonim for describing large scale executions, mostly due to brainwashing about genocide that serbian side was serving to whole yugoslavia in 2nd half of 80s and early 90s.

    I can’t believe (infact, I can ) how bosnian and croatian sides were stupid to start “genocide” charges which were 1. very hard to prove 2. impossible to achieve due to political relations 3. basicaly didnt happen in exact meaning of that word (if we dont count ethnic cleansing as genocide).

    Mar 7th, 2007

35. bganon

    Nino

    ‘International legal “system” is made of red phones among washington, london, paris, mosqow and lately beijing. all others who wants to get any money and parts of intrl “subjectivity” from “the system” (be it lil states aka croatia, or lil individuals as judges in ICTY) – must obey.’

    I think this is an exaggeration – when did you get so cynical! Whereas there is room to establish that ICTY is prone to political influence (one can look at its funding, inconsistencies etc) – up until the Bosnia vs Serbia verdict nobody has ever seriously suggested that ICJ decisions are politically motivated. Now that a verdict that some dont like came about the ICJ is a political instrument. Sounds a little like sour grapes or would this be said if Serbia was found guilty of genocide as well? I dont think so. I dont think that the ICJ judges were on the phone to political leaders in their respective countries. By the way if we think this is the way the world truly operates then we might as well drop all war crimes charges and admit that Slobodan Milosevic was right both in his world view and the way he conducted politics.

    ‘Since majestic 5 (constant members of UN Council of security) allowed creation of RoS in ’95, its sure it will continue to exist’

    But that isnt the case. The Dayton Agreement allows(ed) Republika Srpska to exist – as far as I know the 5 permanent members have never made any resolution on RS – perhaps I’m wrong on this and they rubber stamped the Dayton Agreement. But ok it was the Americans who originally ‘allowed’ RS to exist. But thats only because they thought it would be more trouble for them if RS wasnt allowed to exist. Similar is true for Kosovo by the way. The US realpolitik means if at all possible they try to recognise the ‘reality’ on the ground and to avoid trouble. They failed to do this in Iraq of course.

    What I cant believe is that our states cant reach some kind of bilateral agreement(s) rather than ‘throw the book’ in the international courts.

    Now there is a possibility of Serbia pressing couter charges concerning Oluja. I saw Nobilo last night on RTS saying this was a ‘good move’ by Serbia even if he didnt agree with it personally – he also said that he was listening to the discussion in the RTS studio and remarked he found it amusing and absurd that the same discussions were being held

    in Zagreb except with reverse positions and he suggested more studio link ups so both audiences could see the absurdity.

    ‘in croatia and bosnia has become the only synonim for describing large scale executions, mostly due to brainwashing about genocide that serbian side was serving to whole yugoslavia in 2nd half of 80s and early 90s’

    That is a silly reason and to be honest with you it sounds like an excuse. The Bosnian and Croatian people have been brainwashed into immitating Serbian academics of SANU of more than a decade ago? Sorry to sound like a nationalist but the Croatian and Bosnian people must be exceptionally weak minded to behave in this way if its true. If Puopvac said this it is a mistake. However, I like the way he takes his share of responsibility.

    But I dont believe its true. I do believe that its much easier to paint a black and white story in which your people conviniently are victims and those who fought against them were genocidal. That way self – examination will never be complete. It will always be about the actions of the enemy and if that doesnt work it will be about the actions (or inactions) of other countries. That is what we are seeing in Bosnia and Croatia, not some latent reaction to Serbian brainwashing!

    Mar 8th, 2007

36. Ian Cresswell

    If the ICJ was controlled by the great powers it would never have reached the stage of giving any kind of verdict. The UK was lobbying the Bosniaks quite hard to withdraw the suit. It certainly doesn’t rule in favour of the great powers- notoriously ruling against the US in a case brought by Nicaragua in 1986. And only recently against Israel which has the patronage of the greatest power.

    That doesn’t mean the great powers aren’t in charge in a broader sense— you’ll notice how the US took no notice of the Nicaragua ruling and that Israel has taken no steps to comply with the ruling on the wall. Without even feeling much of a need to explain or justify it.

    Also quite revealing Bosnia was originally also going to bring a suit against the UK. Bosnia couldn’t do without British aid, reconstruction money and troops never mind broader economic and diplomatic support. Bosnia needed British goodwill so it never went anywhere. That is how power is exercised-not by leaning on the kind of independent minded people more likely to do the opposite of what they are told to do at the ICJ, or even the ICTY.

    Mar 8th, 2007

37. Ian Cresswell

    On the Henry Jackson society point and RS. You can only argue for RS independence on the same basis for Kosovo if the parallel doesn’t breakdown somewhere. If course there are similarities but there is one crucial difference. The Albanian majority in Kosovo has not come about through genocide or ethnic cleansing. They have been the majority for a long time in a contigous piece of territory. That status was recognised in the Yugoslav constitution. There has been ethnic cleansing of course but that didn’t fundamentally change the course any referendum would take. RS cannot say this. Large parts of RS had a Serb minority that expelled or killed the majority population. It would be difficult to describe Srebrenica voting to join Serbia (which is what RS independence means) as a victory for self determination.

    The problem is that most Serbs are unlikely to see it that way, because on the face of it it looks unfair and discriminatory. And then there is the fact that Bosnian Serbs have rights just like everyone else and you can’t and shouldn’t impose a form of govt on them that they don’t accept.

    Mar 8th, 2007

38. bganon

    ‘The Albanian majority in Kosovo has not come about through genocide or ethnic cleansing.’

    There has been ethnic cleansing (not necessarily ouvert) in Kosovo throughout the ages both by Serbs and Albanians although granted the Albanians would still have a majority in Kosovo without the 60,000 or so currently ethnically cleansed Serbs and additional number of Roma. Genocide is an issue I think we could rule out in light of the Bosnia / Serbia ruling. Thank heavens no time has to be spent on arguing that!

    But I’m not sure how your point relates to Republika Sprksa. You are suggesting that states founded on ethnic cleansing or genocide have less of a right / no right to exist? According to past creation of nation states whether a state has been founded or not has had nothing to do with whether people were ethnically cleansed or victims of genocide. More than one country has committed genocide on the original native population and many, many countries were created upon ethnic cleansing.

    Now you can move the argument around for Kosovo and I’d have to reply. Ok, yes, if I am in a sense arguing for Republika Sprska (actually I’m not I’m arguing for consistency) then I can see how the same argument can be used in favour of Kosovo indepdence. My beef is that others refuse to see it. The Bosnia Report types dont (no they refuse to see – that is they dont want to see) any similarities between RSrpska and Kosovo. Plainly the situation is similar.

    I dont see this then as a Serbian problem I see this as a lack in universal standards – an inconsistency with how decisions are brought in the international system.

    Now since you mentioned the legal aspect (or at least inferred it mentioning status) we can also talk of the Banditer comission et al.

    Not that I’m at all fond of going the legal route, because it leads to endless discussions about what is legal and what isnt.

    However, if Kosovo is in the final analysis (and that is what Jackson seems to suggest) simply about an area that has a majority and that majority has a right to self-determination, then the same rule should apply to Sprkska.

    Actually the nub for me is this – the majority in RepSrpska wont go away and are unlikely to change their minds. As in every other former Yugoslav state / area the international community will in the end have to recognise the reality on the ground. This is what history has shown us in the recent conflict.

    Mar 8th, 2007

39. bganon

    ‘That is how power is exercised-not by leaning on the kind of independent minded people more likely to do the opposite of what they are told to do at the ICJ, or even the ICTY.’

    The media equivalent analogy is self censorship I suppose.

    What I still fail to understand is how exactly this ‘political’ decision of the ICJ was brought. The suggestion being made in this part of the world by those that dont agree with the verdict is that orders came from London, Paris and Washington. My mind truly boggles at the idea that people believe that international justice can function in such a manner.

    The only conclusion to be made if we are to believe this is that international justice does not exist and if it doesnt exist then we should be allowed to break the rules (as ‘they’ – whoever they may be, do).

    Mar 8th, 2007

40. Ian Cresswell

    “Actually the nub for me is this – the majority in RepSrpska wont go away and are unlikely to change their minds.”

    Quite so.

    And the same is true in Kosovo- this is where the parallel is strong.

    “More than one country has committed genocide on the original native population and many, many countries were created upon ethnic cleansing.”

    True but many states were founded on slavery, or racial superiority. There are some practices that should belong in the past and, at the very least, should not be rewarded. Doesn’t the prospect of RS joining Serbia make you feel a little uneasy?

    Mar 8th, 2007

41. Blackbird

    “...Bosnian Serbs have rights just like everyone else and you can’t and shouldn’t impose a form of govt on them that they don’t accept..”

    That’s big of you, Ian.

    The war in Bosnia started precisely because the Bosnian Serbs, who were the major landowners, I believe, because they were more agrarian than the Muslims and Croats in Bosnia, did not accept being ruled over by the a government led by Izetbegovic, if Bosnia seceded (illegally by the way – but that’s another discussion).

    Albanians in Kosovo became the majority because (1) they harrassed Serbs for decades in order to make them leave, (2) they were supported by Tito who instigated anti-Serbian/pro-Albanian policies, (3) their enormous families were supported by the Yugoslav state, (4) they knew a good thing when they saw it and they were determined to grab it for themselves, and (5) on the whole they’re expert liars and manipulators, which on the whole the Serbs are not.

    If you think that the Albanians in Kosovo are justified in getting independence then I hope Britain loses Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales — if that’s all that sovereignty means. The world can become composed of countless tiny un-self-supporting little statelets. Maybe the U.S. can be broken down, too, starting with the California and Texas seceding since we have such a high number of Mexicans there – it’s only a matter of a short time before they will be in the majority. If the Albanians deserve Kosovo independence, then certainly the much nicer (so far) Mexicans deserve their independence from the U.S., too. I’m sure I’ll root for it.

    Mar 8th, 2007

42. Ian Cresswell

    “If you think that the Albanians in Kosovo are justified in getting independence then I hope Britain loses Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales — if that’s all that sovereignty means.”

    All they have to do is vote for it. I favour the Union but would be opposed in principle to that union being imposed upon people. They either see a need for the institution of the UK or they don’t- the institution exists to serve the people-not the other way round.

    There isn’t a major political party in the UK that would not accept a Scottish vote for independence. And the process for NI joining the Republic of Ireland is set out in an international treaty- a majority have to vote for it in both the North and South of Ireland, not the UK as a whole.

    I think you misunderstand what sovereignty is all about.

    Mar 8th, 2007

43. Blackbird

    I understand sovereignty just fine, including about what serves whom.

    There is also the matter of not so much being served as being pandered to as the Kosovo Albanians were by Tito.

    I think you misunderstand what intimidation, harassment and plain theft is all about, ala Kosovo.

    Furthermore, compare an independent future Scotland, or even Northern Ireland, to today’s Kosovo. Would Scotland be run by a narco-mafia that also trades in human cargo? Would Scotland become the provider of 80% of Europe’s heroin? Is there a Scottish mafia in Edinburgh, London, Manchester and New York? Will the Scots destroy all things that reminded them of the English? Are the Scots part of a larger world religion that is bent on world domination? Do the Scots have their sights on expanding into Enland as well and other neighboring countries to create a Greater Scotland? Will the Scots invite Osama’s people to plan their jihad in Scotland?

    And just how long have the Scots dominated Scotland in numbers and how does that compare to the Albanians in Kosovo? A closer analogy between Kosovo and Scotland seceding from the states they belong to would be to have the Irish move en masse to Scotland and push all the Scots into England and then declare that they, the Irish, want to be independent from Britain by taking Scotland away.

    Mar 8th, 2007

44. Ian Cresswell

    “I understand sovereignty just fine, including about what serves whom.”

    I think I can tell who you’d live to be serving you. A docile Albanian who knows his place.

    Mar 8th, 2007

45. Blackbird

    Well that’s a cheap shot, especially directed at someone from a family with a long history of trade, interchange and neighborliness with Kosovo Albanians.

    Yeah, THAT’s what I want, Ian. To have someone be subservient to me. Sure thing. Because that’s the opposite of having someone lord it over one, as the Kosovo Albanians are doing now, as they did during WWII — right? That MUST be it. Is THAT your logic? It couldn’t possibly be that I support equality, huh, and that that’s why I am so outraged by the unegalitarianism that Kosovo represents now? Egalitarianism: an idea that the Albanians have never even comprehended.

    You don’t have the slightest inkling of the kind of tolerance Serbs showed to the Albanians in Kosovo — bending over backwards, back breaking tolerance, and what it got them was arrogance and appropriation on the part of the Albanians.

    So goody two shoes Ian thinks that supporting Hitler’s goals in Kosovo is fine. Well done; the Brits, Americans and Germans have finally made Hitler’s desires possible. Pat yourselves on the back!

    I’ll tell you what, Ian. YOU go and live in Kosovo, if it’s so fine now. I think it’s the least you can do to prove your position. As for me, I’d go live next door to a Bosnian Serb any time you like, despite your snide insinuation about them. In fact they can come and live next door to me, too. But the same offer doesn’t go to a Bosnian Muslim who might shoot me up next Valentine’s Day when I’m shopping or something which will result in him being buried with honors for it back home after an American cop takes him down.

    Mar 8th, 2007

46. bganon

    Well here it is at Bosnia Report:

    http://www.bosnia.org.uk/news/news_body.cfm?newsid=2255

    ‘...the Court bent over backwards, split every hair possible and employed multiple and demonstrable logical contradictions in its efforts to avoid finding Serbia guilty of the most serious charges – genocide, conspiracy to commit genocide, incitement to genocide and complicity in genocide. This travesty of justice requires a serious re-evaluation of international law concerning genocide, as well as our attitude to it.’

    I agree with his last comment. Think its time for Marko to re-evaluate his attitude towards international justice! I bet the concept of international justice went downhill the moment he stopped working for the Hague tribunal. I mean really, doesnt he ever look in the mirror for his own responsibility. If it were me I would at least consider whether it was my own attitude or work at the Hague (Milosevic’s charge sheet and evidence collated – after all the ICJ would have looked at it) that allowed Serbia to get off if that was what I believed.

    But, no its always somebody elses fault. Funny that it sounds and feels so familiar…

    Mar 9th, 2007

47. Ian Cresswell

    “If it were me I would at least consider whether it was my own attitude or work at the Hague (Milosevic’s charge sheet and evidence collated – after all the ICJ would have looked at it) that allowed Serbia to get off if that was what I believed.”

    They managed to prove the facts, its how they can be described and the intentions of the perpetrators that hasn’t convinced either the ICJ or the ICTY. It absoloutely crucial to remember that. The events were proven.

    Still, its hair splitting. There isn’t that much difference between for example “Crime against humanity:Extermination” and Genocide.

    If only Milosevic had lived a few more weeks….would he have been remembered for the genocide acquittals or the crimes against humanity convictions?

    “This travesty of justice requires a serious re-evaluation of international law concerning genocide, as well as our attitude to it.’”

    Indeed. Don’t have unrealistic expectations of what legal systems can achieve. And he is right to point out that a number of individuals have got off very lightly indeed.

    If Mladic never reaches court that will indeed be a travesty of justice. I notice the authorities in Serbia are saying they don’t know where he is again. Nothing changes does it?

    Mar 9th, 2007

48. Blackbird

    Prat.

    Mar 9th, 2007

49. Blackbird

    Excerpts. Read the whole thing at

    http://serbianna.com/blogs/bozinovich/

    The desperate search for an Islamic Holocaust

    March 7th, 2007

    ‘...“There may be windows of opportunity for us now and in the future. We must seize these opportunities.”

    That window of opportunity was the Bosnian Muslim suit against Christian Serbia alleging genocide. Regrettably for the Islamic Uma, the World Court ruling failed to anoint Islam with its desperately seeking Holocaust… committed against Muslims somewhere and, please! by anybody.

    As a calculated idea, the desperately seeking Islamic need to have… a genocide of Muslims, even if fictitious….would raise Islam’s moral standing against Jews and create a more favorable ethical environment in which they can justify their ultimate goal of Jewish extermination.

    Muslim genocide suit against Serbia… has several additional mendacious legal aims.

    By seeking…a reduction in the number of victims required to define a genocide and thus acquire…political power to convert a murder of any Muslim into a genocide of one!

    ...more significant for the Western global war on terror…all of the Bosnian Muslim men that died at Srebrenica were militant combatants…create a legal fiat where a Western military response against Islamic militant combatants such as the ones in Afghanistan and Iraq would, in fact, be declared a genocide.

    As a court with no sovereign people to give it legislative power but a grant of appointed diplomats, the World Court did have, this time, enough wisdom to avoid setting a self annihilating precedent.

    Mar 10th, 2007

50. bganon

    ‘They managed to prove the facts’.

    Well it depends on which facts you are talking about. If you talking about genocide at Srebrenica thats one thing. Its pretty clear to most observers (of whichever political persuasion) that too many charges were levelled against Milosevic. But lets not go into the inadequacies of the way the prosecution conducted their case against him. We would be here all day if we did so. Better to discuss how international justice didnt live upto our grand expectations of it – ie ‘we’ dont agree with a verdict so its either the judges or the concept of international justice that is wrong. ‘We’, however, did everything right, ‘we’ are the (self appointed) guardians of morality and ‘we’ represent the cries of the victims.

    ‘If only Milosevic had lived a few more weeks….would he have been remembered for the genocide acquittals or the crimes against humanity convictions?’

    I think both. However, only the latter would be remembered if there hadnt been such a big deal made concerning the G word before then. Bear in mind I dont have any truck in minimising war crimes. I think everybody must look at their own conduct.

    Some individuals have got off lightly theres no doubt. I dont know if you saw Del Ponte’s statement at the Haradinaj trial – it looks as if she feels responsible – she seemed frustrated and determined to throw the book at Ramush. Probably fueled by the fact that dear Haradinaj had been getting at witnesses.

    I dont think any or every verdict I disagree with qualifies for the words ‘travesty of justice’ but I can understand when somebody feels they failed professionally or have an emotional ‘investment’ in something. Again it does help upon occasion (cathartic) to admit ones own failures rather than to accuse everybody else of getting it wrong to come to terms with a decision. However, note that I did predict this type of bitter rebutal at the Bosnia Report site. I guess Marko was always going to be the author.

    ‘I notice the authorities in Serbia are saying they don’t know where he is ‘

    Steady Ian, give the government a chance to be formed first! If the new Serbian government doesnt deliver on this issue then I dont have a problem with pressure but there is no government yet.

    Mar 10th, 2007

51. Blackbird

    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.

    Mar 10th, 2007

52. Blackbird

    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.

    Mar 11th, 2007

53. Blackbird

    (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.

    Jun 11th, 2007

1. Croatia vs Serbia genocide suits at the United Nations' court | Belgraded blog - Nov 19th, 2008

Reply to “My Verdict”