Responsibility for Srebrenica

You may also like...

2 Responses

  1. Brett Bellmore says:

    I think the analogy to good Samaritan laws fails here; Good Samaritan laws would not protect the passerby who found an accident victim by the side of the road, and dragged them into the middle of traffic. The UN didn’t merely fail to protect, they arranged circumstances so as to put the Bosnians in greater peril before failing to protect. They essentially rounded up the Bosnians into convenient kill zones for the Serbians, before stepping out of the way.

    About the only defense I can see is that, given the history of UN peacekeepers, it was irrational for the Bosnians to rely upon them.

  2. Asim Jusic says:

    On UN responsibility for Srebrenica, I would concur with the above comment. UN forces did not merely provided “inefficient defense” (hence the Good Samaritan argument does not hold) as they actively helped the Serbian army to eventually commit genocide. UN forces, given that the war has been already going on for three years at a time of Srebrenica genocide, could not have possibly known what the Serb behavior would be – and the same goes for Bosnians too. Bosnians turned out to be completely irrational in their beliefs in the Srebrenica case. There is an interesting parallel, though. North of Srebrenica, there was another UN “safe heaven”, Gorazde area. In that area, Bosnians declined to surrended arms to UN forces in return for safety, and have successfully and quickly defeated Serb forces. Before doing that, they have locked up UN forces in a local school, and prevented them from leaving the site before the fighting is over. Why did they do that in Gorazde case, and not in Srebrenica case? The difference was that UN forces in Gorazde consisted of Russian and Ukrainian soldiers, which did not inspire much trust, unlike in case of Srebrenica, where, one would pressumme, the fact that UN forces consisted of Dutch Bat was meant to be “reassuring.” In vain.