h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Srebrenica Remembered. Juli 11, 2007-07-11


Most of us know of the massacre of hundreds of Muslim men inside the U.N. “safe haven” that will say; a designated United Nations Safe Area.
General Mladic and his soldiers (Serbia) stood at the gate of the official U.N. declared “safe haven” in Srebrenica at July 11 in 1995.


It was a common feeling in the Western world, that an official declaration by the United Nations about seven safe havens in former Yugoslavia, would be enough to keep Bosnian people safe, who suddenly had to live with only Servian peoples around their village, during a civil war.
Well, the Serves had their own standards in this war and entered the save haven of Srebrenica, because they appeared to totally ignore the status of any “U.N. safe havens”.

The U.N. military in that safe has asked for air strike by U.N. and NATO, for the whole area of that haven, but they did not get it.
Furthermore, the U.N. soldiers were heavily undermanned and under armed, because, as I said, the U.N. believed that the status of that area would be enough to protect these people.

All these facts became parts of a chain of disasters with its horrible results.

These people did flee and seek safety in the U.N military compound in Srebrenica, hoping that there they would be safe at last.
So there they stood at the Gate of the U.N. compound within a safe haven and they were permitted to enter the compound. All of them.

Well, the Serves had their own violent goals and told the U.N. soldiers to push these people from their compound.
And they did.
Yes, they did.
Even the military translator was handed over to the Serves.

All refugees were executed within an hour.Total of eight thousand men and boys !!

There have been some incidental brave actions by a handful of U.N. soldiers, but for the main part; they just let the Serves do what they wanted; murder civilians because of their ethnic identity.

We did not even protest, neither even symbolically.
Who is “we”?
U.N. soldiers.
Dutch soldiers.
The U.N. colonel was so emotionally bullied by the Serbian general Mladic, that this colonel accepted a gift and had a drink with him and asking him if the gift was for his wife or for himself.


Apparently we were more concerned about the safety of our own soldiers than about the safety of those we were sent by the U.N. and NATO.

In the Netherlands we never came really in terms with the drama and so we never fully anticipated the sadness of family members.
A couples of years ago there was also a remembrance at Srebrenica,
But our prime minister did stay at home, “because the Serves are fully to blame the massacre and not the soldiers in the compound, and as far as our soldiers is concerned, they were U.N. soldiers under U.N. command.


Well, I believe one thing very, very surely.
If these U.N. Military were really concerned about the fate of these people, these soldiers – in one way or another – at least would have behaved very differently as they did at that day.

Even delivering the U.N. translator...

It’s a say with some truth in it; “when the war is over, the Dutch come in”.


P.S.
I admit that we show now these days in 2007 a different behaviour in Afghanistan. NATO as well as our militairy did learn from the U.N. safe haven formula.

And it’s also very true, that every etnic group in former Yougoslavia committed the same crimes as the Serves did.

http://www.ushmm.org/conscience/analysis/details.php?content=2005-06-23-01&page=1&menupage=


http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?q=srebrenica&uri=%2Fh2g2%2F

http://srebrenica-genocide.blogspot.com/

This is why the UN is a joke. Ask how Hezbollah has managed to totally re-arm and re-build around the feet of the UN in Lebanon.

I talked to an Irishman a few weeks ago, whose father was killed in the Lebanon 30 years ago whilst he was working for the UN and his disdain for the UN was tangible. His father died doing a thankless job trying to keep the peace between two peoples who hate each other and regard the UN as an irrelevance. The UN response - no investigation, but a very curt letter of thanks to the Irishman's Regiment (nothing to the family).

The UN set itself up outside the Green Zone in Baghdad to administer humanitarian aid. It was one of the first buildings targeted by terrorist thugs and the mission chief killed. The UN response - they ran away.

As for the Dutch in Srebenica Didn't the Dutch Government give them all medals last year?

The UN is an ideal organisation in a flawed world. I applaud the lofty aims, but despise the politicking that hamstrings it. For all the veneer of sophistication and civilisation, force is still the number one way to settle disputes in the world. Might is right and always will be.

The UN allows the pissant little non-entity countries to pretend they have a say in world affairs without actually making a commitment.

Quote; "Didn't the Dutch Government give them all medals last year?"
Yes, it did happen.
See.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6207254.stm


Still I hope that all of us support U.N. and U.N. related organisations because it's the only tool we have to minimize human suffering.
To me, it is a miracle it still exists, the U.N.

I was very glad when Donald Trump gave the U.N. one Billion dollars to keep them going.

Of course the Serves were the real killers, but NATO, UN and our Dutchbat bear the shame of having been so extremely low profile.

It makes me think of the song;


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2jp0Hjqg_A


Let's support those who became widows and orphans in Croatia, Bosnia and Serbia, because they all have very bloody hands in that civil war.
Croatia and Bosnia are too much in the shadow related to their crimes,
but the content of their crimes was exactly the same, only at a smaller scale.
It's a profit that the E.U, can at least force these young nations to behave if they want to become a member of the European Union.
It may be look like a small profit, but to me its substantial compared to nothing and continuing the roads of civil war.


Greetings from Amsterdam

Im not aware of force to settling any disputes. Not a single one on a geo-political scale. It can quell them for a time somtimes a long time.

The UN does need more support to intervene between warring parties and stop one sided aggression, but that is only a part of the UN portfolio of duties. It does some of them very well, but it could do with a lot more support to bolster its attempts at quelling armed disputes rahter than the countries who seem to have money to burn and young lives to waste throwing more and more of both into the never ending hell that is war.

Violent action is often rash and serves no useful purpose the rush to a use of force has led to a catasrophic situation in Iraq. Dont forget that men and women were sent there, they have killed and been killed, we were told to remove the threat of WMD the UN said we have found no WMD. The troops went in anyway and found no WMD. In just about every situation like Srebrenica or Rwanda the UN stated previously they needed more support and they didnt get what they said they needed. Those who were there tried and failed. Those who didint make the effort just failed.

one love

"Im not aware of force to settling any disputes. Not a single one on a geo-political scale."

World War II? The Korean War? The Vietnam War? Kosovo?

"It can quell them for a time somtimes a long time."

Which is clearly better than allowing them to continue. Look at Bosnia (ethnic tensions far from solved but at least they're not laying siege to cities any more, ditto Kosovo)

"The UN does need more support to intervene between warring parties and stop one sided aggression, but that is only a part of the UN portfolio of duties."

It can't "intervene" without using... force. The UN's failure in Bosnia was precicely because it *didn't* use force and the Serbs and other warring parties saw them as an inneffectual irrelevance.

It's also worth remembering why the UN doesn't get the support it needs which is that it's so hard for it to agree on taking any sort of action. For the UN to take action and pass a resolution the agreement of *all* the security council members is needed and that's a very rare occurance indeed. The only two I can think of are the Korean War and the first Gulf War and the former only because the USSR were boycotting the UN.