This essay is part of a weekly feature on my blog that presents interesting stories from elsewhere in the world, particularly Africa, that are little reported in the American media. It's part of my campaign to get people to realize there is a lot going on in the world outside the US, Israel and Iraq.
Do you remember Srebenica? Most people probably don't. Ten years ago this month, the Bosnian city was the site of Europe's worst massacre since World War II.
During the Bosnian war, the city had been designated a 'safe haven' by the United Nations. Dutch UN peacekeepers were deployed to the city. Unfortunately, the powerful members of the UN Security Council would only give it a weak mandate because no western country was willing to take a strong position against the genocide. Much like in Rwanda, the large powers criminally forced UN peacekeepers to witness genocide without permitting them to act. This loathsome act was in many ways worse than if the powers had required the so-called peacekeepers to withdraw entirely; by remaining, the foreigners gave the false hope that they would take action to halt the nightmare.
When Bosnian Serb* forces invaded the city, the Dutch soldiers (they were not really allowed to be peacekeepers) requested aerial assistance but none came. The 'peacekeepers' were taken hostage by the Bosnian Serbs, who promptly liquidated the city of its male population. Some 5000 civilian males escaped, but nearly 8000 were massacred.
(*-it is now widely believed that Serbs from Slobodan Milosevic's regime in Serbia also participated in the slaughter)
Gen. Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic, alleged architects of the massacre, have been indicted by the UN War Crimes Tribunal but have not been handed over to the Hague body.
With preparations are underway for services to mark the 10th anniversary of the slaughter, police recently discovered a large cache of explosives at the commemoration site.
The UN chief prosecutor has refused to attend the commemoration ceremonies until indicted war criminals Mladic and Karadzic are captured.
1 comment:
I'd consider Somalia a different category than the other two. However, after Somalia, Americans weren't really willing to risk their soldiers lives in far off places where they felt consequences of inaction would not affect them. This is why Clinton was unwilling to risk any of his personal political popularity on Bosnia or Rwanda. And by 1994, when Rwanda happened and Bosnia was heating up, his personal popularity was on the wane anyway, as evidenced by the Republican sweep of domestic legislative elections that November.
Your portray this inaction as merely carelessness or inattention. In fact, his administration was quite active in making sure no outside intervention (even non-American intervention) happened in those places.
Post a Comment