Shrevenitza report (no spam)

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed Apr 10, 2002 1:57 pm

It's out: the historian's 1000 page report on the notorious Shrevenitza Massacre, when a small Dutch UN force stood aside for Serb troops to enter the Muslim enclave. 7,500+ Muslim men and boys were massacred, and subsequently discovered in the refugee camp. A photographer actually caught the results of the atrocities--many of the bodies, shot directly at point blank range--on film. That film was shown on Dutch television, the night before the report was released.

Blame is placed first on Radko Mladic, the Serb army commander who had a history of encouraging rampant rape and torture of civilians. He remains at large. Most of the rest of the blame is split between the Dutch government of the day and the UN, which incorrectly assessed the threat, then corrected that assessment, and didn't bother sending along adjusted instructions to the Dutch unit at Shrevenitza. Now, everyone can get down to the business of seeing if they can bring anybody to specifically admit guilt--always a hard thing to do with governments.

How do we go about preventing another Shrevinitza? Why does the UN seem so bureaucratically mired in warzones?

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Wed Apr 10, 2002 2:15 pm

A lot of times, the UN mission is not clearly defined, nor are its rules of engagement. Take for instance the time when one Serb general (it may have been Mladic) took hostage several UN peacekeepers and chained them to tactical and strategic targets during the NATO air campaign. Why did the UN essentially turn a blind eye to this? They should have stomped on the Serbs (hard!) for taking hostages, then hit them again for using UN peacekeepers to do it. However, no one in the UN had the guts to stand up to Milosevic or the will to make him pay.

In order for all of the political ramifications of deploying UN peacekeepers to settle, the mission is usually watered down from its original intent and the teeth are taken out of the peacekeeping force with restrictive rules of engagement and/or a narrow scope of operations.

This leads to the perception that UN peacekeepers are impotent and more trouble than they're worth. It also discredits the United Nations as an international organisation and the governmental entites which invite peacekeeping soldiers on to its soil.

Few nations want to place their own soldiers in harms way on foreign soil for what amounts to a minimal gain in pursuing "national interests". Two notable exceptions are the Canadians, who have the only monument to peacekeepers, and the Pakistanis, who send peacekeepers all over the world basicially for money (the UN pays a fee for each peacekeeping soldier deployed, so if you can keep your expenses below the cost of putting that soldier in the field, you can turn a profit in peacekeeping).

In order for any UN peacekeeping force to be credible and effective, it must not only have a clear mission, but it must be backed by the military and political will to complete that mission. My understanding is that the Dutch force in Srebrinica had neither.

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed Apr 10, 2002 8:08 pm

Originally posted by HighLordDave
In order for any UN peacekeeping force to be credible and effective, it must not only have a clear mission, but it must be backed by the military and political will to complete that mission. My understanding is that the Dutch force in Srebrinica had neither.

That's not quite the impression that Radio Nederland's various reports and interviews are conveying that the report defines. Of course, there have also been cries of "whitewash," and demands for a parliamentary inquiry; but it seems that the Dutch troops actually *assisted* the Serb forces in dividing the Muslim men and boys from everyone else, then handed them over--in fact, accepting shared responsibility. This wasn't just a case of lacking military or political will (though obviously, these elements were there, as well). Rather, this is a complex story without easy answers, but a horrific massacre that has gone unaddressed.

CM · Post by CM » Thu Apr 11, 2002 1:26 am

Just to add to this: The day the actual news broke that the Massacre had taken place, UN HQ in some muslim countries were attacked. The UN ****ed up the mission in Bosnia, too many people died when they shouldn't have, only because Blue Helmets can't take an active stance to protect the people. My Poli Sci teacher is going to kill me, but I don't remember why - but UN forces are not allowed to fire even when they see a crime being committed. That is why they were so ineffective in Seirra Leone.

fable · Post by **fable** » Sun Apr 14, 2002 4:39 pm

UN are allowed to fire back, @CM. The problem is the wording of the specific mandate, and how that mandate is passed along to the military arm by UN bureaucrats. There have been difficulties with both aspects of the problem in the past, repeatedly so--never more than in the case of one Canadian general in charge of UN forces during the recent Bosnia-Herzegovenian War, who called the UN military department and identified himself by name, only to be asked if he had anything to do with the UN.

CM · Post by CM » Tue Apr 16, 2002 1:29 am

Actually fable there i would disagree. My prof would kill me but i have forgotten the actual specific names of the mandates the UN forces are given, so i will make up names for the three.

1. This is peace enforcing. This rarely used, it gives the UN forces the right to fire at will and actively seek out and stop the offenders. This is the actions of a normal military. To date I do believe it has been used only 3 times. This is the mandate the UN forces should have been given in Sierra Leone, but were not. That is why they UN forces were captured, because they could only defend themselves when fired upon. So if they are sitting idle and then out of no where 200 people attack they have very little chance of defending themselves. That is one of the reasons teh bristish forces were brought in, as they could active seek out and attack rebel strongholds. The UN forces could not.

2. The Second forum is peace keeping. This is the mandate for most UN forces, they are there to keep the peace and not enforce it. Forces at points have been ordered to keep out of local conflicts and they can not go after criminals etc. They can only counter-attack and even then there scope is limited, i think they aren't allowed to kill when firing back, but i am not sure. this is the mandate provided in Bosnia and SL. Here NATO does far better than the UN. Firstly NATO forces can hunt and grab the enemy or criminals. The UN forces by mandate can't do that unless they are peace enforcing. Something that i think all UN missions should be.

3. This is observer status, basically this is where they are forces, but they can't get involved in any aspect of the military conflict. They again are military forces and personel, but they can't attack or counter-attack. This is very rarely used, unless they create a UN mission like teh one in Kashmir, which has its own military unit, but it is there to protect the the UN observers.

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Apr 16, 2002 8:08 am

@CM, we're not in disagreement. I'm saying it all depends on the mandate issued, and so are you. You're earlier statement I interpreted as meaning that UN forces can never fire, but you've amended that. Numbers of times UN forces have been allowed to fire isn't the issue; the fact that they can fire, depending upon the mandate, is.

UPDATE: I just heard that within the last hour the Dutch government has resigned. There was a firestorm of criticism after the government as a whole was blamed for the masacre in a published report (along with other major culpability being placed on the UN), but without specific ministers being named.

Pregethwr · Post by **Pregethwr** » Tue Apr 16, 2002 8:52 am

15 members of the Dutch Government have resigned, not including the Prime Minister.

However there is an election in 1 Month, after which there will be a new cabinet, and the present cabinet will stay in position until then.

Therefore the resignation has no real meaning - it is a symbolic act.

Gruntboy · Post by **Gruntboy** » Tue Apr 16, 2002 8:58 am

Originally posted by fable
but it seems that the Dutch troops actually *assisted* the Serb forces in dividing the Muslim men and boys from everyone else, then handed them over--in fact, accepting shared responsibility.

(no additional context removed)

Be careful with that, Fable. I interpreted it as the Dutch Troops not having a mandate to carry out an evacuation. They stood by as the Serbs carried out thier own "evacuation". If people wish to read this as implicit assistance, that is difficult to prove!

It appears to me that the small number Dutch troops were caught in the middle of this horrible mess.

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Apr 16, 2002 9:01 am

Be careful with that, Fable. I interpreted it as the Dutch Troops not having a mandate to carry out an evacuation. They stood by as the Serbs carried out thier own "evacuation". If people wish to read this as implicit assistance, that is difficult to prove!

@Grunt, the report I heard on Radio Nederland actually stated that the Dutch troops were effectively forced under the command of the Serbs, and that some members of the Dutch forces were involved, however unwillingly, in separating out the men from the women and children. These weren't my conclusions. These were relayed as statements of the report.

Note, I nowhere stated that they bore primary responsibiity, but only quoted this material as illustration that quite a bit of blame can be spread around. The report also singled out the Dutch commander, who attempted to cover-up what happened directly after the massacre took place.

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Apr 16, 2002 9:08 am

Originally posted by Pregethwr
Therefore the resignation has no real meaning - it is a symbolic act.

Symbolic acts have a considerable meaning in politics and affairs of state. If they didn't, the Dutch government simply wouldn't have bothered resigning. Instead, they met in emergency session (in itself, an indication of the seriousness of this "symbol") after two key cabinet ministers dropped out, and the entire cabinet ended up offering their resignations. To quote the most popular Dutch newspaper, DE TELEGRAAF states that "in countless places in The Hague crisis meetings were being held about the approaching end of the Purple Coalition, which has existed for nearly eight years." They usually don't make such predictions in front page headlines without having at least something to back it up.

Pregethwr · Post by **Pregethwr** » Tue Apr 16, 2002 9:21 am

not saying it doesn't have meaning, or that it is not a decision/crisis with rammifications, however it is different from the bald healdine 'Dutch Government resigns'

It is more "Dutch Government resigns" (but not until next month) (when a new Government was due anyway)

To be honest the Dutch and the Canadians have both now reprimanded their peacekeepers for failings/atrocities abroad. And this is good. However I wouldn't say either the Netherlands or Canada was a problem in world affairs, or indeed that they particularly contribute to any problem.

It is just they are more liberal, and more self-critical

CM · Post by CM » Wed Apr 17, 2002 2:36 am

Originally posted by fable
@CM, we're not in disagreement. I'm saying it all depends on the mandate issued, and so are you. You're earlier statement I interpreted as meaning that UN forces can never fire, but you've amended that. Numbers of times UN forces have been allowed to fire isn't the issue; the fact that they can fire, depending upon the mandate, is.

UPDATE: I just heard that within the last hour the Dutch government has resigned. There was a firestorm of criticism after the government as a whole was blamed for the masacre in a published report (along with other major culpability being placed on the UN), but without specific ministers being named.

Ah ok, so we are in agreement.
I also heard that the PM is resigning as well, this was late last night on CNN.
So the whole cabinent and the PM are off.
And i agree with Fable here.
The act is important.
Frankly i very happy with their gesture.
In most countries the govt would have sad sod off and left it at that.

Rudar Dimble · Post by **Rudar Dimble** » Wed Apr 17, 2002 5:43 am

I am form The Netherlands. (btw: it's Sbrenica).

It's a hot item here, but as we saw an TV last night other countries are talking about it too.

We have no governement at the moment, but the elections were already planned from May, so it isn't that bad after all.
There are two bad things though:

1. Our nationalist Pim Fortuyn, who really scares me with his thoughts will profit form this and will get more votes (every vote for his is one to much).

2. The decision whether to buy the JSF plane or not has been delayed, which will cost a lot of jobs in future.
I am worried about the jobs, not about the JSF, because I think The Netherlands shouldn't be buying it in the first place. As a protest against the diplomacy of the USA. They are going way to far with their protectionism and their battle against 'terrorism'.

Don't get me wrong, I think 11-9 was a terrible day, but the USA overreacted... Worse things happen in other countries

CM · Post by CM » Wed Apr 17, 2002 5:56 am

Originally posted by Rudar Dimble
<snip>Don't get me wrong, I think 11-9 was a terrible day, but the USA overreacted... Worse things happen in other countries

Ouch You may get flamed for that.
A warning in advance!

Rudar Dimble · Post by **Rudar Dimble** » Wed Apr 17, 2002 6:18 am

Originally posted by CM

Ouch You may get flamed for that.
A warning in advance!

May be, but it is true. When it hits the USA then it is a world disaster, but when it hits another country it's just a topic on the evening news (here in holland as well, coz the dutch governement is sucking USA's ****. Well, not anymore

)

CM · Post by CM » Wed Apr 17, 2002 6:22 am

ooohhhh damn....well...err...it was nice to meet you!

I agree with your sentiments.

Gruntboy · Post by **Gruntboy** » Wed Apr 17, 2002 6:27 am

Originally posted by Rudar Dimble
Don't get me wrong, I think 11-9 was a terrible day, but the USA overreacted... Worse things happen in other countries

There's an oxymoron in that sentence. And a moron wrote it.

Unless you were in NYC on 9/11 or Srebrenica when the massacre was going down, you don't need me to tell you where you can shove your "opinion".

Rudar Dimble · Post by **Rudar Dimble** » Wed Apr 17, 2002 6:33 am

That's a typical American reaction. Thinking they are the greatest country on earth. But how can YOU judge that the thing happened on 11-9 is at least as bad as what happened in Bosnia or let's say Indonesia. You weren't there either! And that's just what you said. You can't judge something when you weren't there.

This also means that we can't judge WWII, meaning we aren't able to say that what has happened there was terrible, while everybody knows it...

Think about that

Rudar Dimble · Post by **Rudar Dimble** » Wed Apr 17, 2002 6:36 am

I see that you are from the UK and not from USA so some things in me previous post aren't correct.. But I do think that since you are a moderator you have to give an example what to do and what not to do, and I think you have to respect my opinion and not calling eachother names!!!