MishpishSerbs not genocidal criminals, Bosnians disagree
March 3rd 2007 01:12
The International Court of Justice, located in The Hague, ruled on Feb 26 that Serbia is innocent of the genocide that occured during the Bosnian war 1992-1995. Not sure if that means that genocide didn't happen or that they don't think the Serbs were directly responsible?
The case was launched by Bosnia back in 1993 (a prime example of the international communities "quick justice") after hundreds of thousands of Bosniaks and Croats had been ethnically cleansed by Bosnian Serb force. At the time; Sarajevo and other cities were under siege, the Serbian flag flew from the coast of Croatia to the southernmost tip of Kosovo.
Bosnia is an uneasy federation of two autonomous bits, one Serb and the other Bosniak and Croat.
The court did rule that genocide DID take place in Eastern Bosnia, and 'reprimanded' Servia for failing to stop it. The ruling then went on to say that Bosnia could not demand reparations.
Not exactly a victory for Bosnia in any regard.
According to the Economist, "Conspiracy theorists think the ICJ delivered its verdict under political pressure. The argument is that Serbia, which faces the loss of Kosovo, its southern province, had to be appeased in some way. A bigger question concerns the evidence before the court. Serbia had to give incriminating transcripts to the United Nations war-crimes tribunal, which like the ICJ is in The Hague—but it did so only on condition that cases were heard in camera, to stop the evidence falling into the ICJ's hands."
In the meantime, the European Union confirmed its decision to cut the peacekeeping force in Bosnia. The force started at 7,000 in 2004 and will be down to 2,500 by the end of 2007. yet Bosnia is not really in a place to assert itself as an independent nation. The country is being run by an appointed high representative who has the power to sack government and impose laws.
This week's decision by the ICJ further proves the argument the the Genocide Convention is hopelessly out of date and nearly impossible to find a guilty ruling. The thing was written after WWII after the Holocaust. The Holocaust was a rare event. Most governments or militants don't take the same organised and well-documented approach to genocide that the Germans did. It's hard to prove genocide when it has to be ruled by a criminal court that lacks teeth.
www.bosniaaftermath.com
The case was launched by Bosnia back in 1993 (a prime example of the international communities "quick justice") after hundreds of thousands of Bosniaks and Croats had been ethnically cleansed by Bosnian Serb force. At the time; Sarajevo and other cities were under siege, the Serbian flag flew from the coast of Croatia to the southernmost tip of Kosovo.
Bosnia is an uneasy federation of two autonomous bits, one Serb and the other Bosniak and Croat.
The court did rule that genocide DID take place in Eastern Bosnia, and 'reprimanded' Servia for failing to stop it. The ruling then went on to say that Bosnia could not demand reparations.
Not exactly a victory for Bosnia in any regard.
According to the Economist, "Conspiracy theorists think the ICJ delivered its verdict under political pressure. The argument is that Serbia, which faces the loss of Kosovo, its southern province, had to be appeased in some way. A bigger question concerns the evidence before the court. Serbia had to give incriminating transcripts to the United Nations war-crimes tribunal, which like the ICJ is in The Hague—but it did so only on condition that cases were heard in camera, to stop the evidence falling into the ICJ's hands."
In the meantime, the European Union confirmed its decision to cut the peacekeeping force in Bosnia. The force started at 7,000 in 2004 and will be down to 2,500 by the end of 2007. yet Bosnia is not really in a place to assert itself as an independent nation. The country is being run by an appointed high representative who has the power to sack government and impose laws.
After the ICJ judgment one commentator argued that Bosnians had to find a common history, otherwise they would have no common future. Today Bosniaks, Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Serbs teach children radically different stories about the war. Yet fate has decreed that they must share their state. Bosnia has made great progress over the past decade. The trick will be to get its citizens to co-operate, and not let the past rob Bosnia of a future.
(From the Economist)This week's decision by the ICJ further proves the argument the the Genocide Convention is hopelessly out of date and nearly impossible to find a guilty ruling. The thing was written after WWII after the Holocaust. The Holocaust was a rare event. Most governments or militants don't take the same organised and well-documented approach to genocide that the Germans did. It's hard to prove genocide when it has to be ruled by a criminal court that lacks teeth.
| 26 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
