Bosnia-Herzegovina: challenging the notion of civil war

The SANU memorandum was the continuation of the same old objective. The ideas contained in this document started to take shape soon after the death of Josip Broz Tito, and were fully conceived several years before the Serbian aggression on Bosnia-Herzegovina took place. It had the full backing of the military muscle of JNA (one of the largest military forces in Europe at the time of the aggression). In order to compel the JNA to fully support this Serbian nationalistic goal it had to be purged of all pro-Yugoslav officers by the Milosevic national-socialist regime in Belgrade.

Slobodan Milosevic was SANU’s political executor. For Milosevic, it was to preserve and increase his political power. Perhaps he was the most practical choice of the Serbian nationalist academic elite as the most reliable executor of that traditional Serbian strategic objective at the time: although it is debatable whether Milosevic was a true nationalist or simply a power-hungry politician who rode the waves of the emerging Serbian ultra nationalism for his own personal reasons.

The spiritual inspirers of the SANU Memorandum goals however, were the top brass of the hierarchy of the Serbian Orthodox Church, which traditionally had been the harbinger of Serbian Orthodox nationalism: a dangerous fusion of religion and nationalism.

The “war” in Bosnia was not a civil war. In fact, it was not a war in any traditional sense of the word. American veteran journalist, David Rieff, has properly called it a slaughter. The late Bosnian president, Alija Izetbegovic, used to say, “There will be no war in Bosnia, for to have a war there needs to be two sides willing to fight each other". He was right, for Bosniaks and other patriotic citizens of Bosnia-Herzegovina did not want to fight the war. They didn't believe it was possible. Regardless of their sincere beliefs, they suffered a real genocide.

A new holocaust in Europe: slaughterhouse supervised by the United Nations

Serbian aggression against the sovereign and internationally recognised state of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the genocide of ethnic Muslim civilians from 1992-1995 is undoubtedly the single most heinous crime against humanity in Europe since the Nazi holocaust of the Jewish people during World War II.

While crimes committed by the Nazis were much greater in scope and number, they were largely hidden from the world’s public. The Serbian genocide in Bosnia against its Muslims was systematically committed while the international community watched. It could have easily been prevented had there been a stronger political will on the part of the great powers of the Western world to act more decisively. The genocide in Bosnia was the most televised and documented massacre of a civilian population of a single nation in human history.

Imposition of unjust arms embargo

How is it possible that the UN did not allow Bosnia-Herzegovina, which it had just recognised as an independent state, to defend its sovereignty, territorial integrity and its peoples from aggression? The basic right to self-defence enshrined in the United Nations Charter is legitimately afforded to every state, no matter what its size or geographical location, but was blatantly denied to Bosnia-Herzegovina. This was done by the misguided policy of imposing an arms embargo on all the former republics of SFRJ. This embargo, in the final analysis, was unjust, illegitimate and immoral.

By imposing the arms embargo on Bosnia the UN gave outright assistance to the Serbs, leading to genocide, ethnic cleansing, expulsions, destruction of the religious and cultural institutions of Bosniak people, rapes and the other atrocities, without fear of being challenged. The arms embargo ensured the hands of Bosniaks were tied so they could not resist their own slaughter. The UN abandoned one of its own members to be dismembered and destroyed at the will of Serbian perpetrators.

Delayed armed Western intervention to halt the genocide

The rise of ethno-nationalism in the post-cold war era and the question of self determination, as well as problems of minority rights and territorial disputes among other things, are usually stated as some of the major causes of ethnic conflict in Bosnia.

The myth of the so-called “ancient hatreds” that purportedly existed for centuries between the different ethnic groups of former Yugoslavia in general, and Bosnia and Herzegovina in particular, usually occupies centre stage when scholars try to ascertain some of the major causes of conflict in the Balkans. This, of course, is only a myth and totally contradicts the inter-ethnic collaboration and tolerance between the various groups that inhabited the geographical space of the former Yugoslavia for many centuries.

Unfortunately, and for Bosniaks indeed very tragically, even the president of the world’s most powerful country, Bill Clinton, purportedly came to believe in this myth. It was reported that Clinton read the book The Balkan Ghosts written by the American journalist Robert Kaplan, which gave the ancient “ethnic hatred” version of the contemporary Bosnian history. “They’ve been fighting each other for 500 years”, Clinton reportedly said. “We need to stay out of there.”

But this was not the real reason for his reluctance to use force to stop genocide in Bosnia, but a “superstructure” that provided him with a good excuse not to get involved. Although some accomplished and reputable Western scholars successfully challenged Kaplan’s myth they were unable to convince the Clinton administration to fulfill his pre-election promises. It is just one example of how some of the most powerful Western decision-makers have often conveniently manipulated this and other myths to justify their failure to halt genocide in Bosnia.