Was 'Srebrenica genocide' a hoax?

[Crvena zvezda]

Was 'Srebrenica genocide' a hoax?

Posted: May 1, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern



By Aleksandar Pavic

For more than 10 years, the term "Srebrenica" has been used to denote the slaughter of "innocent Muslims" at the hands of Christians – more specifically, the Bosnian Serb army, alleged to have slaughtered, according to the version currently accepted by most major media, "between 7,000 and 8,000 Muslims" when it captured that small town in eastern Bosnia in mid-July 1995. As the story goes, the Bosnian Serbs captured this "U.N.-protected zone" and proceeded to take away and execute thousands of men, women and children in the space of several days, subsequently burying them in mass graves that are still being dug up almost 12 years later.
Belgrade-based historian and researcher, Milivoje Ivanisevic, who has been documenting Yugoslavian civil war casualties for more than a decade, has recently challenged the claims in a new booklet, "The Srebrenica Identity Card," which documents hundreds of bodies buried at the Srebrenica Memorial that were not killed in July 1995, when the alleged genocide took place, including cases of people who died natural deaths a full 13 years before the event took place.
The newest evidence offered by Ivanisevic indicates a number of those buried at the Srebrenica Memorial Complex not only were not killed in July 1995, but actually died much earlier, even in the early 1980s – more than 10 years before the civil war in Yugoslavia even started.
adsonar_placementId=1270202;adsonar_pid=663759;adsonar_ps=1451068;adsonar_zw=300;adsonar_zh=250;adsonar_jv="ads.adsonar.com";According to Ivanisevic, as of March 2007, more than 12 years after the event, a total of 2,442 bodies have been buried at the Memorial. Among those, a total of 914, or over 37 percent, were on the voting lists for the 1996 elections in Bosnia – over a year after the alleged "genocide." The voting lists themselves were approved and checked by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which supervised the elections.
A second even more significant find involves the fact that "at least 100 people" buried at the Memorial died of natural causes. Ivanisevic claims that the numbers would be even larger if he'd been allowed access to the death books in Srebrenica and the surrounding towns. Nevertheless, several names with dates of birth, death and place of demise are provided: Fetahija (Nazif) Hasanovic, b. 1955 – d. Dec.15, 1996, Srebrenica; Sukrija (Amil) Smajlovic, b.1946 – d. May 2,1996, Zaluzje; Maho (Suljo) Rizvanovic, b.1953 – d. Jan. 3,1993, Glogova; Mefail (meho) Demirovic, b.1970 – d. May 10, 1992, Krasanovici; Redzic (Ahmet) Asim, b.1949 – d. April 22, 1992, Bratunac.
Thirdly, Ivanisevic charges that several hundred soldiers as well as civilians were transferred to the Srebrenica Memorial from other cemeteries and reburied, with Muslim burial rituals. One of these is the body of Hamed (Hamid) Halilovic (1940-1982), transferred from the nearby cemetery in Kazani, who apparently died a full 13 years before the Srebrenica "genocide." Other bodies transferred from Kazani to the Srebrenica Memorial include those of Osman (Ibro) Halilovic (1912-1989), Nurija (Smajo) Memisevic (1966-1993), Salih (Saban) Alic (1969-1992), Mujo (Hasim) Hadzic (1954-1993), Ferid (Ramo) Mustafic (1975-1993) and Hajrudin (Ismet) Cvrk (1974-1992).
Fourth, using captured records of the Bosnian Muslim Army, Ivanisevic lists more than a dozen names of soldiers whose families were granted housing and social benefits due to families of soldiers killed in action before Nov. 11, 1993, when the documents were captured by Bosnian Serb army forces.
Fifth, on the basis of similarly captured documents, Ivanisevic provides several dozen names of Bosnian Muslim army fighters killed before March 7, 1994.
Ivanisevic goes on to provide names of Bosnian Muslim soldiers buried at the Srebrenica Memorial who were implicated in numerous massacres of Serbian civilians in the vicinity between 1992-1995, in which a total of over 3,000 Serbs were killed. Interestingly, the commander of the Srebrenica Bosnian army forces, Naser Oric, was given a two-year sentence by the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia, or ICTY, in June 2006 for his participation in these killings, some of which he captured on video and showed to Washington Post reporter John Pomfret, who visited him inside the "U.N. Safe Zone" in 1994.
During the 1990s, the Clinton administration used the "Srebrenica genocide" claim to enter the Bosnian civil war on the side of the Bosnian Muslims and enforce the subsequent Dayton Peace Agreement for Bosnia-Herzegovina in November 1995, with mutual recognition between Yugoslavia (now Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia). More generally, Clinton's State Department bureaucracy used the "Srebrenica genocide" – as it has since been referred to as a result of controversial verdicts pronounced by the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia in The Hague – to justify its support for Muslim-dominated political movements not just in Bosnia but in Macedonia and Serbia's Kosovo region, which is currently seeking independence. And, since most of Clinton's State Department appointments, headed by Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns, have continued running the U.S. Balkan strategy, the policy has remained intact to this day.
Thus, even as the current Kosovo Albanian independence drive is provided heavy U.S., British and German support, the Bosnian Serbs, unhappy at the prospect of being locked inside a Muslim-dominated Bosnia, are being denied independence, with the "Srebrenica genocide" being used as the chief argument – i.e., that wartime gains achieved through "genocide" cannot be sanctioned. Many observers, including a recent G2 Bulletin analysis, link Western support of Balkan Muslims at the expense of Christians as part of a broader policy of appeasing "moderate" Sunni-controlled regimes in the Middle East, as part of an anti-Iranian Shiite coalition.
Among radical Bosnian Muslim elements, the Srebrenica narrative has been used not only to rally support to the general cause of jihad, to arouse Muslim feelings of having been oppressed and persecuted by non-Muslims, but to build what some have called the "first Muslim shrine in Europe," a gathering place for Muslims from the world over with anti-Western, anti-European and anti-Christian grievances. The Memorial Complex in Srebrenica now serves as a place of pilgrimage, where Muslims can see firsthand the results of what they believe is an unprecedented atrocity against their fellow believers.
The entire Srebrenica narrative has been provided key support by Western mainstream media, headed by the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Wall Street Journal and the mainstream British, German and French media, who have laced their Balkan reporting throughout the years with references to the "Srebrenica genocide," calling it, among other things, the "worst atrocity in Europe since World War II," a "stain on the conscience of the West," etc.
From the very beginning, numerous dissenting voices both in the West and in ex-Yugoslavia have contested both the Western mass media claims and the ICTY Srebrenica-connected verdicts, but have received almost no publicity whatsoever.
In the summer of 2005, on the 10-year anniversary of the event, the "Srebrenica Research Group," composed of mostly American and British media and academic figures, as well as former U.N. civil officials and military observers with ex-Yugoslavia experience, put up a website in which the entire "Srebrenica massacre" account was reconsidered and demystified. Instead of the 7-8,000 figure, U.N. officials and U.S. Congress experts were quoted giving figures of "700-800," "the low hundreds," "about 2,000 Muslims and Serbs total," etc. Henry Wieland, head of the U.N. Human Rights Commission, who spent days interviewing Srebrenica refugees in July 1995, is quoted as saying that he did not find "anyone who'd seen any atrocity committed with their own eyes."
The forensic findings were taken to task as well, with claims that the entire process of excavation and identification of bodies was controlled by an organization founded by the late Bosnian Islamist leader, Alija Izetbegovic. And, a Canadian international law professor deconstructed the Srebrenica-connected verdicts at the ICTY, showing, among other things, that Bosnian Serb Gen. Radoslav Krstic, sentenced by the court to a 46-year term, was, in the court's own verdict, absolved of participation in – or even knowledge of – the alleged massacre, instead being sentenced according to the ICTY's own construction of "command responsibility." The prosecution's star witness, Drazen Erdemovic, a Bosnian Croat who mysteriously appeared in the ranks of the Bosnian Serb army after previously fighting in the Bosnian Muslim army ranks, claimed participation in the execution of 1,200 Srebrenica Muslims, was exempted from cross-examination, deemed by the court itself as "mentally unstable" and, ultimately, given a five-year sentence for his "cooperation." Yet, the mass media, without exception, have ignored the group's findings, even those quoting the very same mass media's own reports from the ground at the time.
The Netherlands Institute for War Documentation issued an extensive report in 2002, "Srebrenica, a \'Safe\' Area," detailing, among other things, that Srebrenica, although declared a "U.N. Safe Zone," was in fact never demilitarized, and that several thousand armed Bosnian Muslim troops were stationed in it between 1992-1995, organizing numerous lethal raids against Serbian villages in the vicinity. This claim was additionally corroborated by the U.N. secretary-general's report to the U.N. General Assembly of Nov. 15, 1999. Ivanisevic's book will soon to be translated into English. It remains to be seen whether the Western corporate mass media will continue ignoring this and other evidence debunking the claim that an anti-Muslim "genocide" took place in Srebrenica in July 1995. Some public figures in the Balkans have called for an international commission on Srebrenica, which would re-examine the evidence and make a new, more balanced and independent assessment of what took place in eastern Bosnia during the last stages of its civil war, in the summer of 1995.

[Kernunnos]

To play the card of the "bad guy" was working well even in 1995, showing that europeans could again drink the same stories of ww1 and ww2.

I wondered how could exist a nation of such bad people like Serbia while its immediate neighbours, who where part of the same historical conflicting environment, had to be carrying all such virtues of innocence.

When I saw the images of the first "concentration camp" run by Serbs I wondered how could such savage beasts let a western photographer document all this with ease, talking with the prisoners and going away with such damaging images for the serbian state without being touched, with all his footage intact.

Beside being monumetally cruel the Serbs had to be monumentally stupid: and the picture I got from my gullible press was more apt for a pulp proganda magazine than for the framework of truth.

I felt treated like a thirteen years old boy: a fishy deal.

[Crvena zvezda]

Originally Posted by Breha

To play the card of the "bad guy" was working well even in 1995, showing that europeans could again drink the same stories of ww1 and ww2.

I wondered how could exist a nation of such bad people like Serbia while its immediate neighbours, who where part of the same historical conflicting environment, had to be carrying all such virtues of innocence.

When I saw the images of the first "concentration camp" run by Serbs I wondered how could such savage beasts let a western photographer document all this with ease, talking with the prisoners and going away with such damaging images for the serbian state without being touched, with all his footage intact.

Beside being monumetally cruel the Serbs had to be monumentally stupid: and the picture I got from my stupid gullible press was more apt for a pulp proganda magazine than for the framework of truth.

Those images are known to have been propaganda. The ITV story of "concentration camps" was shown by a Japanese documentary ot have been tampered with. There is also an English documentary that also shows that the story was fake and used for propaganda. I know there is a copy on the internet, I plan to post a link tomorrow.

[Crvena zvezda]

The google video and you tube video of both documentaries has been taken down. I have a copy on DVD and will probably upload it (when I find it) on the internet , I'll try to see if there's a website that shows it. If I can;t find something I'll post a link to the upload I make.

But here's another statement regarding so called "Kosovo genocide."

A slight discrepancy:
8 years ago: Cohen Fears 100,000 Kosovo Men Killed by Serbs. (Washingtonpost.com: Cohen Fears 100,000 Kosovo Men Killed by Serbs)
Yesterday: 2,000 people still missing in Kosovo (of which about 500 are Serbs and about 200 are members of other national minorities). (2,000 people still missing in Kosovo)

I also want to counter an argument often mentioned by westerners for bombing Serbia, it is that it helped the democratic forces in Serbia. The truth is it did not. Milosevic according to most Serbian subservients to west would have fallen a year sooner without the bombing. The so-called democratic change has proven to be a failure and was one from the start as jacobins and very minor parties (some couldn't even garner 300 votes) becamse part of the government. Furthermore in every Serbian election since 1990, the Albanians could have prevented his rise with their 1.2-1.5 million potential votes. If they were oppressed under Milosevic, they chose to be oppressed.

[Kernunnos]

Originally Posted by Crvena zvezda

The google video and you tube video of both documentaries has been taken down. I have a copy on DVD and will probably upload it (when I find it) on the internet , I'll try to see if there's a website that shows it. If I can;t find something I'll post a link to the upload I make.

But here's another statement regarding so called "Kosovo genocide."

A slight discrepancy:
8 years ago: Cohen Fears 100,000 Kosovo Men Killed by Serbs. (Washingtonpost.com: Cohen Fears 100,000 Kosovo Men Killed by Serbs)
Yesterday: 2,000 people still missing in Kosovo (of which about 500 are Serbs and about 200 are members of other national minorities). (2,000 people still missing in Kosovo)

I also want to counter an argument often mentioned by westerners for bombing Serbia, it is that it helped the democratic forces in Serbia. The truth is it did not. Milosevic according to most Serbian subservients to west would have fallen a year sooner without the bombing. The so-called democratic change has proven to be a failure and was one from the start as jacobins and very minor parties (some couldn't even garner 300 votes) becamse part of the government. Furthermore in every Serbian election since 1990, the Albanians could have prevented his rise with their 1.2-1.5 million potential votes. If they were oppressed under Milosevic, they chose to be oppressed.

In the West the sole Northern League of Umberto Bossi dared to express some doubts about the bombings and proposed to mediate with Serbia.

Bossi was immediately cordoned off by the claque calling for action against the Ogres of Belgrade.

For two years, it was later revealed, the british Secret Sevices spied on Bossi movement because of his pro-serbian declarations.

[Vincent]

I hate the stories where Serbia is shown as the victim of the whole world. All sides were savage. Serbs are not innocent, but same goes with Bosnian muslims (same people after all) and Croats. We all were monsters during this war. Pause! Every other discussion on this issue is just for brainless people who got to much spear time, and who does not have a life.

[Kernunnos]

Originally Posted by ProduSlav

I hate the stories where Serbia is shown as the victim of the whole world. All sides were savage. Serbs are not innocent, but same goes with Bosnian muslims (same people after all) and Croats. We all were monsters during this war. Pause! Every other discussion on this issue is just for brainless people who got to much spear time, and who does not have a life.

Middle age and later european wars could have savage aspects too, simply there were no cameras and it was a commonly accepted fact.

Actually the civilian population could expect from members of its own army a behaviour not dissimilar from that of the occupiers, with rapes and robberies coming from within the ranks of the ones formally in charge of defending the country....

[Vincent]

Originally Posted by Breha

Actually the civilian population could expect from members of its own army a behaviour not dissimilar from that of the occupiers, with rapes and robberies coming from within the ranks of the ones formally in charge of defending the country....

I agree. We had things like that a lot here. Honourable men existed, but they were rare (now only speaking about higher ranks).

[Crvena zvezda]

Originally Posted by ProduSlav

I hate the stories where Serbia is shown as the victim of the whole world. All sides were savage. Serbs are not innocent, but same goes with Bosnian muslims (same people after all) and Croats. We all were monsters during this war. Pause! Every other discussion on this issue is just for brainless people who got to much spear time, and who does not have a life.

First time I've heard a Bosniak say such a thing. Amazing. I have a new found respect for you.

[Crvena zvezda]

Originally Posted by Breha

In the West the sole Northern League of Umberto Bossi dared to express some doubts about the bombings and proposed to mediate with Serbia.

Bossi was immediately cordoned off by the claque calling for action against the Ogres of Belgrade.

For two years, it was later revealed, the british Secret Sevices spied on Bossi movement because of his pro-serbian declarations.

I like this from an Italian. It shows the puppet government of the west in Montenegro holds a great deal of responsibility for the bombing and failure of peace talks.

Old article from voer a year ago. Mentions that Montenegro's authorities were largely responsible for nato bombing.

Italian analyst proposes Aland Islands model for Kosovo


http://news.monstersandcritics.com/mediamonitor/article_1015304.php/Italian_analyst_proposes_Aland_Islands_model_for_Kosovo

Text of report by Bosnian Serb news agency SRNA

Belgrade, 17 June: The chairman of the Italian Institute for Peace Research, Alberto L'Abate, believes that the best solution for Kosovo would be the status enjoyed by the Aland Islands in Finland, which have a predominantly Swedish population.

The Aland Islands, or "Islands of Peace", have been enjoying the highest degree of autonomy known to international law for 80 years now.

L'Abate has told [the Belgrade daily] Vecernje novosti that before the appearance of the OVK [Kosovo Liberation Army - KLA; UCK in Albanian] and the outbreak of violence, [Kosovo] Albanian leaders were ready to accept such a model for Kosovo, but that this option was ruined by official Podgorica, which did not want Kosovo to become a third republic [within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia].

"Unfortunately, the pacifist trend among the Albanians had been overpowered by warlike OVK commanders and the path of violence was chosen," said L'Abate, who collaborated with current Kosovo Premier Bajram Kosumi in the 90s on setting up parallel structures, schools, hospitals etc.

He said that this was supposed to be the preparation of Kosovo-Metohija for the implementation of the status of the Aland Islands.

L'Abate said that the Montenegrin authorities could have prevented the bombing of Serbia and that the Montenegrins were to blame to quite an extent for the war in Kosovo-Metohija.

"The Serbs, even the most ardent nationalists, were ready to recognize Kosovo as a third federal unit. Official Podgorica rejected this solution out of hand," L'Abate said.

He said that in this way the Montenegrins from the very outset prevented what could have contributed to avoiding the war.

"Things are now what they are owing to Montenegro's political egotism," L'Abate said.

Source: SRNA news agency, Bijeljina, in Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian 0639 gmt 17 Jun 05

BBC Mon EU1 EuroPol bk


L'Abate said that the Montenegrin authorities could have prevented the bombing of Serbia and that the Montenegrins were to blame to quite an extent for the war in Kosovo-Metohija.

"The Serbs, even the most ardent nationalists, were ready to recognize Kosovo as a third federal unit. Official Podgorica rejected this solution out of hand," L'Abate said.

He said that in this way the Montenegrins from the very outset prevented what could have contributed to avoiding the war.

[Crvena zvezda]

“Spontaneous defense of home and hearth”1 June 2007 | 17:33 | Source: SENSE THE HAGUE -- The trial of General Dragomir Milošević, accused of Sarajevo siege, continued at the Hague Tribunal.

The Bosnian Serb Army (VRS) did not control the hills dominating Sarajevo, defense lawyer Branislav Tapušković explained as he examined the second defense witness, Milorad Katić.

If it succeeds, presiding judge Robinson noted, the defense will “rock the foundations” of the indictment, charging General Milošević with carrying out an artillery and sniper campaign against civilian population in 1994 and 1995 from “strategic positions” around Sarajevo.

The examination-in-chief of witness Katić began with the events in 1992, when groups of people “spontaneously organized” in the municipalities of Sarajevo in order to “defend their homes and hearths”, as the defense argues.

The witness confirmed the argument about people “organizing on their own initiative”, saying that in early April 1992 he himself joined a platoon in the Novo Sarajevo Brigade, commanded by Budimir Obradović.

Katić says that members of his platoon did not have uniforms, were armed with automatic and semi-automatic rifles and their basic task was “to be disciplined and prevent any attacks by the other side in order to protect the houses, children and women”.

Neither the “self-organized Serbs” not the Bosnian Army had any snipers. “Rifles with sights fitted on” were referred to as “snipers”, he says.

The defense is using Katić's testimony to challenge a paragraph in the indictment alleging that the VRS was established when the former JNA transformed into it.

The accused Dragomir Milošević was the commander of the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps. The prosecution claims that the VRS troops took strategic positions around Sarajevo in the spring of 1992, and had “a clear line of vision of the city and the civilian population”.

The defense argues that the hills around Sarajevo were under Bosnian Army control. As Katić testified, the Bosnian Army first took the elevation above Orlić on the Žuč hill, and then the Mojmilo hill.

The witness, who spent the war in Grbavica, told the court that this area was “wedged into Sarajevo like a kidney” and exposed to constant fire from Mojmilo and Debelo Brdo and “high-rise buildings on the other bank of the Miljacka and other high points under Bosnian Army control”.

Katić’s examination-in-chief will continue.

[Crvena zvezda]

ill Slandering Serbia
Manufacture of news, faithful service on behalf of powerful interests

by George Szamuely

Global Research, June 1, 2007


Email this article to a friend
Print this article

New York Times’ firing of Judith Miller, allegedly for bad reporting, served the same purpose as the paper’s daily "Corrections" column: It suggested that everything else in the newspaper of record is pretty bloody good. It isn’t of course. Manufacture of news, faithful service on behalf of powerful interests, editorializing masquerading as reporting, mischievous misinterpretations and double standards pepper the pages much as they did when Judith Miller was on board. A classic case of the Times molding the news to make it fit to print was its recent coverage of the International Court of Justice’s ruling on Bosnia-Herzegovina’s suit against Serbia, charging genocide and demanding billions in reparations.

This was a suit in which the Times had a huge stake. The Balkan wars were halcyon days of U.S. journalism. Times reporters like John F. Burns and David Rohde collected Pulitzers reporting horrors, op-ed columnists like Anthony Lewis and Leslie Gelb weekly worked themselves up into a lather calling for bombs, all parroting the familiar line: The Serbs were to blame for the breakup of Yugoslavia; the Serbs were responsible for the wars in the former Yugoslavia; the Serbs alone committed genocide, as a matter of state policy and because they are a uniquely wicked people; and were it not for U.S. determination to bomb, the Serbs would have wiped out every ethnic group and realized their ancient dream of Greater Serbia. Not coincidentally, tales of Serb horrors, replete with photos of women wailing and girls lighting candles, serve the purpose of reassuring readers that, contrary to what they may see or hear, it is U.S. adversaries, and not the United States, that commit atrocities.

Thus the ICJ ruling that came down on Feb. 26 could not but have been a severe disappointment to the Times. The court ruled, first, that the atrocities in Bosnia did not amount to genocide. And, second, that the government of Yugoslavia not only did not commit genocide, but that it was not responsible for the killings in Bosnia because it didn’t exercise effective control over the armed forces of the Bosnian Serbs. To be sure, the court, following the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), did rule that genocide took place on one occasion—in July 1995 in Srebrenica. However, even in this case the government of Yugoslavia bore no responsibility. There was no evidence, the court said, that the attack on Srebrenica was ordered by, or was undertaken in collusion with, Belgrade. Though the ties between the Yugoslav army and the Bosnian Serb army "had been strong and close in previous years…they were, at least at the relevant time, not such that the Bosnian Serbs’ political and military organizations should be equated with organs of the FRY." Thus, the court said, the massacres at Srebrenica were not "committed by persons or entities ranking as organs of [Yugoslavia]. It finds also that it has not been established that those massacres were committed on the instructions, or under the direction of organs of [Yugoslavia], nor…that instructions were issued by the federal authorities in Belgrade, or by any other organ of the FRY, to commit the massacres, still less that any such instructions were given with the specific intent…characterizing the crime of genocide." Therefore, the court ruled, Serbia did not owe Bosnia-Herzegovina any reparation payments.

The Times’ strategy was to mischaracterize the ICJ’s ruling and at the same time to attack it for its ruling. The triumphant headline on next day’s story, written by Marlise Simons, made it seem as if the ruling was a vindication of the Times line: "Court Declares Bosnia Killings Were Genocide." Now of course this was not what the court declared. Nor, incidentally, was this one of the issues on which the court had been asked to issue a ruling. The issue was Serbia’s responsibility for the alleged genocide. Simons admitted that the court had determined that Serbia was not guilty of genocide. But, she immediately added, the court "faulted Serbia, saying it ‘could and should’ have prevented the genocide." The court said no such thing. The words Simons quotes are not to be found anywhere in the ruling. They come from statement made to the press by the ICJ’s president, Judge Rosalyn Higgins of Great Britain. She said: "The Court has found that [Yugoslavia] could, and should, have acted to prevent the genocide, but did not. [Yugoslavia] did nothing to prevent the Srebrenica massacres despite the political, military and financial links between its authorities and the Republika Srpska and the VRS." However, Higgins, for whatever reason, was mischaracterizing the ruling. The court said, "In view of their undeniable influence and of the information, voicing serious concern, in their possession, the Yugoslav federal authorities should, in the view of the Court, have made the best efforts within their power to try and prevent the tragic events then taking shape, whose scale, though it could not have been foreseen with certainty, might at least have been surmised."

There is a world of difference between saying that a person didn’t do everything in his power to prevent a crime and saying that that person could and should have prevented the crime. In fact, it was precisely because the court was unable to say Belgrade could have prevented the killings at Srebrenica that it ruled that no reparations were owed to Bosnia. "Reparations to Bosnia would be appropriate if the Court were able to conclude…that the genocide at Srebrenica would in fact have been averted if [Yugoslavia] had acted in compliance with its legal obligations. However, the Court clearly cannot do so….Since the Court cannot therefore regard as proven a causal nexus between [Yugoslavia’s] violation of its obligation of prevention and the damage resulting from the genocide at Srebrenica, financial compensation is not the appropriate form of reparation for the breach of the obligation to prevent genocide."

Despite her show of bravado, Simons knew the ruling was a major disappointment. So she began mumbling darkly about political pressures that may have been exerted on the court. The ruling, she said, "even if strictly based on the law, hews close to the political wishes of Western countries that want to pull Serbia into a wider Western European community, rather than see it isolated as a pariah state, possibly accused of genocide, with its extreme nationalists growing in strength." So Simons who reports uncritically, not to say awe, on the doings of the ICTY—a court established, financed and staffed by NATO, and whose rules of procedure and evidence are carefully crafted to ensure preordained outcomes—now has the gall to suggest that the ICJ judges, who really are international, are obeying diktats from certain unnamed "Western countries."

Simons concluded her report by asserting that "the last word on the role of the Serbian leadership in the Bosnian war has not been said." Based on the word anonymous ICTY prosecutors, she said, "The tribunal has part of the war-time records of the Supreme Defense Council, which included the former Yugoslavia’s military and political leaders….Tribunal officials have said part of the minutes of the meetings were blacked out and some whole sections were missing. But the minutes still provided much information on how the Serb leaders ‘ran their proxy army’ in Bosnia, one tribunal official said." According to Simons, Serbia made a deal with the tribunal that only its judges and lawyers could see the records, but not those of the ICJ. In their ruling, she noted, "the judges made the point that they had been prevented from seeing them." True, they did do that, but they ascribed no great significance to this, given the vast array of material that Bosnia did present.

So there we have it. According to Simons, the court ruled that genocide took place in Bosnia and that Serbia violated the Genocide Convention. But its failure to rule that genocide in Bosnia was orchestrated from Belgrade, which Simons knows to be the case, can only be explained by some kind pressure applied to the court by unnamed Western countries and because some documents had been blacked out.

To be sure, the ICJ ruling was problematic, to say the least. The court said no genocide took place in Bosnia, other than in Srebrenica. But this makes no sense. Genocide, if it means anything, is an attempt to destroy an entire nation or an entire ethnic group. If you kill many members of an ethnic group in one village, but leave them alone in the next village, and, indeed, in every other village, you may, if they are unarmed, be committing a war crime, but you are not committing genocide. Raphael Lemkin, drafter of the 1948 Genocide Convention, defined genocide as "a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves." Thus, in ruling that the killings in Bosnia didn’t amount to genocide, but that the killings in one small town—Srebrenica—did amount to genocide, the court was hardly in accord with the convention.

Moreover, the court, again following the ICTY, held that the Bosnian Serb forces had no intention even to capture Srebrenica, merely to reduce it in size. According to the court, "at some point…the military objective in Srebrenica changed, from ‘reducing the enclave to the urban area’…to taking over Srebrenica town and the enclave as a whole." Thus, the supposed "plan" to kill all of the military-age men in Srebrenica wasn’t even conceived until after the capture of the town. "The necessary intent was not established," the ICJ said, "until after the change in the military objective and after the takeover of Srebrenica, on about 12 or 13 July." In addition, the court accepted that this "intent" didn’t encompass the entire Muslim population of Srebrenica. The court, like the ICTY, didn’t dispute that the Bosnian Serb forces transported Srebrenica’s women, children and old men to safety.

Since, according to the ICJ, the takeover of Srebrenica was an improvised plan, since there was no intention on the part of the Bosnian Serbs to carry out executions until after the change in the military objectives, since Belgrade had no effective control over the Bosnian Serbs, since Belgrade didn’t know ahead of time about the intention to capture Srebrenica, since Belgrade had no armed forces of its own in Bosnia, it is hard to see what it "should have" done to prevent the alleged massacres. The United Nations, which actually had forces stationed in Bosnia, was in a far better position to do something to prevent them.

In addition to Simons’ front-pager, the