Serbia leader: "Srebrenica not genocide"

telecaster · 02-06-2012 8:57pm #1

LINK

Tomislav Nikolic doesn't look to be a model of diplomacy or bridge building. His views are a bit disturbing.

Peculiar way to go about endearing himself to the EU.

What's he at?

Kristopherus · 02-06-2012 9:07pm

Sabre-rattling already:eek:. But then he did'nt get that attitude from the wind.:mad:

wes · 02-06-2012 10:26pm

I taught Serbia was moving on, but looks like they haven't. Really sad to see this kind of stupid still happening in Serbia. Amazing that there President would deny crimes that were so well documented.

The Corinthian · 03-06-2012 12:38pm

He's not denying that "grave war crimes" were committed, but is questioning the label of genocide.

I can understand this to a degree because for something to be genocide it has to be "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group", so I suspect that he is questioning that it fits this definition.

Genocide is a pretty overused term, often erroneously, because of the emotional impact that it imparts. Many genocides in history have been quietly forgotten, while other events have been claimed to be genocides even though they simply don't fulfil the above definition - in both cases often this classification (or lack thereof) have been as a result of political pressure.

This is not to say that the Srebrenica massacre was not genocide, of course. There is plenty of evidence of the use of ethnic cleansing at the time, as a means to eliminate a population through displacement, and genocide would simply be the next step in this process. At the same time, only men were killed, women and children were not, which puts in question the motivation of targeting a specific population.

As with the debates on the genocides (or alleged genocides) in Armenia, Tasmania, Foibe and even Ireland (the Famine has been claimed to has been a deliberate genocide), I suspect this will be debated for a long time to come.

Personally, from what I can see, the Srebrenica massacre probably does fit the definition of genocide.

KyussBishop · 03-06-2012 1:05pm

Here's an interesting article on this same topic, which pulls in Noam Chomsky and John Pilger, and is greatly critical of their views on whether or not this was genocide:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/21/ratko-mladic-genocide-denial

It puts an interesting contrast on those authors assumed impenetrable integrity, and where the limits of that lie.

Manach · 03-06-2012 1:06pm

Historically the massacre was a rather extreme return to the regional norms. The internecine strife in the region has been ongoing since at least Roman times though various degrees of violence. Once the dominant superpower's influence wanes, another round of such conflicts will start up.

Crann na Beatha · 03-06-2012 1:19pm

This post has been deleted.

Channel Zero · 03-06-2012 10:07pm

KyussBishop wrote: »

Here's an interesting article on this same topic, which pulls in Noam Chomsky and John Pilger, and is greatly critical of their views on whether or not this was genocide:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/21/ratko-mladic-genocide-denial

It puts an interesting contrast on those authors assumed impenetrable integrity, and where the limits of that lie.

Wow. That sure is a proper ding-dong between Monbiot and Chomsky an Co.
Wasn't aware of it till now.

Monbiot, although spot on in many things, and can see his point on this to an extent, is imo seriously overstretching it with the "genocide denier" tack.

Link to Herman's response here:
http://www.zcommunications.org/george-monbiot-and-the-guardian-on-genocide-denial-and-revisionism-by-edward-s-herman

Media Lens were involved too:
http://www.medialens.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3203

Eggy Baby! · 03-06-2012 10:33pm

KyussBishop wrote: »

Here's an interesting article on this same topic, which pulls in Noam Chomsky and John Pilger, and is greatly critical of their views on whether or not this was genocide:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/21/ratko-mladic-genocide-denial

It puts an interesting contrast on those authors assumed impenetrable integrity, and where the limits of that lie.

And here's an interesting response by Herman and Peterson:
http://www.zcommunications.org/george-monbiot-and-the-guardian-on-genocide-denial-and-revisionism-by-edward-s-herman

KyussBishop · 04-06-2012 1:51pm

I've actually come across a ton of interesting discussions on this on the MediaLens bulletin board that I found; search 'monbiot' on pages going back to roughly 20th May:
http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens

Outside of the many posts bashing him, there are plenty of interesting points in the discussion, and on the wider potential biases in the Guardian.
The latter (biases in Guardian) I find particularly interesting, because I've been closely following the very noticeable/dishonest smear job on WikiLeaks/Assange the Guardian has been engaging in for the last year and a half (though ya, doesn't relate much to this thread

).

RubyRoss · 05-06-2012 9:35am

I think the Chomsky criticism is more specifically about the labelling of genocide as a media trope and a tool for western interests.

E.G. there was a huge controversy over a 1992 photograph of an emaciated Bosnian in a transit camp, which the media explicitly framed in terms of Nazi concentration camps. In the photograph, it is the journalists not the Bosnians who are ‘behind’ the fence.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/LIE/BOSNIA_PHOTO/bosnia.html

For some, Chomsky’s criticism is tantamount to condoning Serb actions but I think he has a point regarding the use of the label genocide along with Nazi comparisons to drum up support for Western intervention.

The nub of the matter is intervention and whether you think it is justified or desirable. Chomsky apparently doesn’t which is sad given the plight of the Bosnians.

But he has a point regarding the demonization of the Serbs which justified the subsequent NATO bombings and gave rise to considerable resentment in Serbia.

telecaster · 05-06-2012 2:40pm

Whether Chomsky, Nikolic or anyone else wants to argue over the definition of genocide, it is a fact that subordinates of Ratko Mladic have been found guilty of genocide by the UN War Crimes Tribunal and are serving life sentences for that offence.

SOURCE: http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/jun/10/hague-bosnian-serb-srebrenica-genocide

The International Court of Justice also recognizes the Srebrenica massacre as genocide.

Nikolic said:

"It is very difficult to indict someone and prove before a court that an event qualifies as genocide."

But this - as he of course knows - has already been done.

It looks as if he has more interest in snuggling up to Putin than in the EU.

Putin from 26th May summit with Nikolic:

"We have provided the year before the Serb side of a loan of 200 million dollars and is now ready to issue the second tranche of $ 800 million. We look forward to our partners in Serbia concrete proposals on the feasibility of proposed projects"

JustinDee · 06-06-2012 10:11am

"Chef Monbiot is a curiously sad figure. All those years of noble green crusading now dashed by his Damascene conversion to nuclear power's poisonous devastations and his demonstrable need for establishment recognition – a recognition which, ironically, he already enjoyed"

- Typical Pilger. Sanctimonious tosh from someone who should check their own domain is in order before chucking brickbats at others.

Pilger's crusades on behalf of Aboriginal land rights, for example, can only take a step to the pure when he hands over his properties in Australia to the relevant local tribes.

Eggy Baby! · 06-06-2012 4:28pm

Pilger's crusades on behalf of Aboriginal land rights, for example, can only take a step to the pure when he hands over his properties in Australia to the relevant local tribes.

Who says his land belonged to the Aboriginals?

JustinDee · 06-06-2012 9:16pm

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

Who says his land belonged to the Aboriginals?

The tribes who come from where his properties are situated.

Duggys Housemate · 07-06-2012 1:08pm

Chomsky has denied genocides in his time, notably Pol Pot. In this case the numbers aren't there. I know the declaration in the UN says genocide can be "in part" an attempt at killing a group, but how few? one?

telecaster · 07-06-2012 1:25pm

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Chomsky has denied genocides in his time, notably Pol Pot. In this case the numbers aren't there. I know the declaration in the UN says genocide can be "in part" an attempt at killing a group, but how few? one?

The essence of Chomsky's writings on Cambodia was that America had committed a genocide at least on par of that which occurred under the Pol Pot regime yet the American media hung everything on Pot and asked few questions of the US Military operations there.

He also suggested that America's assaults on Cambodia contributed to an environment which facilitated support for the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. The implication being that America has a case to answer for the atrocities carried out by the Pot regime

Some of his writings on the topic are here

It's not dissimilar to the Srebrenica controversy he found himself in, the recurring message is that the crimes of ''official enemies'' are given precedence over the warcrimes committed by the ''good guys'' (America, NATO, Britain). Chomsky has been down this road several times.

Duggys Housemate · 07-06-2012 1:54pm

telecaster wrote: »

The essence of Chomsky's writings on Cambodia was that America had committed a genocide at least on par of that which occurred under the Pol Pot regime yet the American media hung everything on Pot and asked few questions of the US Military operations there.

He also suggested that America's assaults on Cambodia contributed to an environment which facilitated support for the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. The implication being that America has a case to answer for the atrocities carried out by the Pot regime

America bombed the place, which isn't a genocide. Nor do bombings cause Pol Potism, plenty of places have been bombed, and most have not become communist. Or Produced the Khymer Rouge - the Western force which produced the Khymer Rouge, would be French Communism.

And in fact at the time he denied anything was going on, and refused to believe the extent of the situation because his sympathies are on the left, and Pol Pot was a left wing dictator. In either case he is engaging in moral equivalence, or blaming the West for a genocide which was caused by ideologies which were the exact opposite to western capitalist ideologies.

Some of his writings on the topic are here

It's not dissimilar to the Srebrenica controversy he found himself in, the recurring message is that the crimes of ''official enemies'' are given precedence over the warcrimes committed by the ''good guys'' (America, NATO, Britain). Chomsky has been down this road several times.

And quite the reverse in his writings. In fact, the crimes of the Eastern Block were not really reported, even in the Cold war, because they happened behind closed doors. Nobody really knows what is going on in North Korea, for instance.

Srebrenica, is an interesting case, there is no reason for left-wingers to be pro-serbian post the break up of the Soviet Union, but they were so used to banging the Russian drum they became effectively slavophiles.

The Corinthian · 07-06-2012 2:26pm

telecaster wrote: »

The essence of Chomsky's writings on Cambodia was that America had committed a genocide at least on par of that which occurred under the Pol Pot regime yet the American media hung everything on Pot and asked few questions of the US Military operations there.

This kind of moral equivalence is not unusual on the far left. An example that you see from time to time is relating to Chavez and the 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt. This is vocally criticized by the left, yet when reminded that Chavez himself attempted a coup d'état in 1992, you'll tend to see those same voices either go silent or fall over themselves to justify his attempt.

In the case of Srebrenica, I suspect that the principle reason that Chomsky, et al, question it as qualifying as genocide is not so much out of support for Serbia (and its ally Russia), but because the accusations of such are principally coming from the West, in particular the US - a case of the enemy of my enemy is my friend, as it were.

However, just because Chomsky, et al have questionable motives for questioning Srebrenica as a genocide, does not mean that it was a genocide, of course.

Genocide is ultimately the "deliberate and systematic destruction" of (part of) a group and it is difficult to really say if what happened in Srebrenica was that. On one side, an ethnic population was not targeted; only the men, and targeting them was militarily strategic as eliminating them denied potential soldiers to the Bosnian militias. At the same time, it also constituted a fairly effective way to depopulate a specific area or region of members of a particular ethnic group.

The question is whether that depopulation, through murder, was a motivation (note, it simply has to be a motivation, it does not need to be the primary or sole one) or simply a by-product of a war crime which was motivated by other concerns? And that it the kernel if it.

Duggys Housemate · 07-06-2012 2:58pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

However, just because Chomsky, et al have questionable motives for questioning Srebrenica as a genocide, does not mean that it was a genocide, of course.

Genocide is ultimately the "deliberate and systematic destruction" of (part of) a group.

I agree and "part of" is too loose anyway, part of could be one person.

R P McMurphy · 07-06-2012 3:21pm

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

And in fact at the time he denied anything was going on, and refused to believe the extent of the situation because his sympathies are on the left, and Pol Pot was a left wing dictator. In either case he is engaging in moral equivalence, or blaming the West for a genocide which was caused by ideologies which were the exact opposite to western capitalist ideologies.

Ah but Pol Pot was such an extraordinary person he certainly attracted the admiration of Maggie thatcher and her government to the extent the SAS were training his forces for a return to power

telecaster · 07-06-2012 3:56pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Genocide is ultimately the "deliberate and systematic destruction" of (part of) a group and it is difficult to really say if what happened in Srebrenica was that.

I've cited earlier where International courts have already ruled that Srebrenica was genocide.

Is there reason to think the ruling was incorrect? They were years reviewing evidence before they came to that verdict.

The Corinthian · 07-06-2012 4:21pm

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

I agree and "part of" is too loose anyway, part of could be one person.

Yes and no; what matters is the "deliberate and systematic" aspect really, even if it is 'part of' or even only one person, the intention is there, whatever about ability; although I'd admit that I'm being guilty of pedantry in saying this.

So yes, the 'part of' can be too loose in reality which is why one should look at such cases in context. The Srebrenica massacre represented about 8,000 deaths. Given the pattern of ethnic cleansing in former Yugoslavia at the time, where specific areas were targeted, then that that number represented just under 30% of the Bosniak population of 27,572 in that municipality in 1991, which is pretty significant. In reality, ethnic cleansing had been taking part there for a few years by then, so that percentage was likely much higher by then.

As I said earlier, it is very difficult to say if this action was a deliberate policy of genocide, either principally or in part, as there is also a good military argument for having targeted only the male population of fighting age (elderly men appear not to have been specifically targeted).

However, on balance, I would have to say that it is more than likely that deliberate destruction of the Bosniak population in that area was at least one motivation, even if it was not the primary one. As such it would likely qualify as genocide.

telecaster wrote: »

I've cited earlier where International courts have already ruled that Srebrenica was genocide.

Is there reason to think the ruling was incorrect? They were years reviewing evidence before they came to that verdict.

Well then, let's close the thread now then. A Papal Bull has been issued and the discussion is closed, I suppose.

Cannibal Ox · 07-06-2012 4:56pm

His nickname was Little Sloba. He was Milosevic's right hand man during the 90s and his party is nationalist. He's also one of the smartest Serbian politicians and has spent the past couple of years attracting the centre vote in Serbia as well as holding onto the nationalists. But, his core is the nationalist element that still exists in large enough numbers so his views on things like Srebrenica and Kosovo are largely, with a kind of wink and a nod, in line with nationalist sentiment, even if has had to soften it down (relatively) to get into the president's office.

He is also going to have the former president, Tadic, sitting underneath him as prime minister. And even if he is a bit erratic, he's no extreme nationalist. He was the man who oversaw the most recent spate of arrests. And you should also know that over 5% of the votes in the first round were spoiled (and I'd guarantee that the vast majority of that 5% were under the age of 40). This is a pretty divided country with an extremely complex history and relationship with its neighbours. So the views of one politician, even if he is the president, aren't exactly representative of the whole country (although there is still a significant proportion who wouldn't be exactly enamoured towards the ICTY).

plasmaguy · 07-06-2012 6:41pm

While Chomsky used to talk a lot of sense, he lost touch with reality a long time ago in his attempts to always take the opposite view to the general consensus. Often the general consensus is dead right.

Eggy Baby! · 10-06-2012 7:03pm

America bombed the place, which isn't a genocide.

They killed enormous amount of Laotians and Cambodians, and many more died of starvation and exposure dues to their farms and homes being blown up. And they regarded Pol Pot's crowd as the legitimate government of Cambodia as he and the Khmer Rouge waged a guerrilla war against Vietnam when they invaded. And it was convenient for them to blame the atrocities of Pol Pot on "Communism", thereby taking a swipe at the Russians.

Duggys Housemate · 10-06-2012 7:33pm

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

America bombed the place, which isn't a genocide.

They killed enormous amount of Laotians and Cambodians, and many more died of starvation and exposure dues to their farms and homes being blown up. And they regarded Pol Pot's crowd as the legitimate government of Cambodia as he and the Khmer Rouge waged a guerrilla war against Vietnam when they invaded. And it was convenient for them to blame the atrocities of Pol Pot on "Communism", thereby taking a swipe at the Russians.

Again bombing is not genocide, nobody considers the allied bombings of the Allies to be genocide. And the Khymer Rouge were most certainly communists.

Eggy Baby! · 10-06-2012 10:05pm

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Again bombing is not genocide, nobody considers the allied bombings of the Allies to be genocide. And the Khymer Rouge were most certainly communists.

I agree that the Americans didn't genocide the Cambodians. To say that is to go way overboard. But you can kill millions of people and it may not be a genocide. That however, doesn't make the perpetrator of such massacres morally superior.

The Khmer Rouge were Communists, but most of the deaths caused by them were due to radical social engineering (essentially moving large amounts of urban or rural populations all over the place) and murder of dissidents so technically deaths can't be attributed to the Communist ideology. At that time, the Americans more or less believed all Communists were the same, and equated Stalinism with Maoism with Leninism with Marxism with Titoism. Therefore they attributed the ludicrous death toll in Cambodia to "Communism". Hell, the Cambodians weren't even aligned with the Russians but with the Chinese.

The Khmer Rouge self-identified as Communists. Whether or not they practised it was one thing. People can claim to be something and do contradictory things.

Duggys Housemate · 10-06-2012 10:39pm

That's like saying the inquisitors were merely "self-identified" Christians.

Eggy Baby! · 11-06-2012 12:32am

The Inquisitors no more adhered to the principles of Christianity than Pol Pot to those of Communism.

Tea drinker · 11-06-2012 8:11pm

Interesting thing which comes up from time to time is how many of the dead are combat deaths?

The autopsy reports produced by the ICTY between 1996 and 2002 yielded evidence for only 1,923 dead persons, many clearly combat victims. More recently, the International Commission for Missing Persons (ICMP) has claimed over 6,500 bodies whose DNA shows a link to members of the Srebrenica population. But this evidence has not been made available to the defense in legal cases, and DNA evidence cannot distinguish combat and execution deaths or establish time or place of death.

http://www.srebrenica-project.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=152

Serbia leader: "Srebrenica not genocide"

Comments