The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
After that the EU determined to have a more pro-active and cohesive foreign policy (however misguided) and this is reflected in the proposed high Commissioner for external affairs post in the proposed new constitution.
EU policy has also been anti-serbian since that date - a policy which was easy enough to implement whilst Russia was weak. There is no obvious self-interested reason why the EU should favour a small, Islamic, ethnic Albanian entity over a mid sized state with a strong European history and identity.
It is just possible that the EU thinks it is acting idealistically in this case. Whether it is acting wisely is another matter.
Index of Frank's Diaries
Between 700 000 and 1 million Iraqi dead caused by the US led invasion. But who wants to talk about Fallujah? Rupert Murdoch? European Parliament? RELEX?
Yet Srebrenica gets the lime light in our "free Western" media. I'm a BBC regular, and I find the number of articles on Srebrenica revealing of British foreign policy in the Balkans. Every year, the chorus starts in June, reaching a pitch in July - the anniversary of the Srebrenica massacres. And every year, 14 years after the event, Bosnian Muslims are reburying and reburying and reburying their dead. Of course, any opportunity to demonize the Serbs is good.
Here is an excellent example of the anti-Serb spin in Western media:
The Sunday Times, Nov. 3, 1996, Jon Swain
In several months of digging at mass graves in the macabre hinterland around Srebrenica, the investigators recovered far fewer bodies than they had expected. Of the thousands of men and boys from the UN safe area who were executed by Bosnian Serbs in July 1995, only a few hundred - less than 10% of the 7,000 Muslims missing - have been dug up.
The empty graves speak volumes about the conspiracy by Bosnian Serbs to cover up the massacre at Srebrenica... The more plausible theory is that bodies have been made to "disappear". As long as a year ago, American spy satellites first revealed evidence of tampering at several grave sites which, when later exhumed, yielded fewer corpses than expected.
Fantastic really. We went from 14 000 dead in Srebrenica at the height of the war, to 8 000 dead, to 7 000 dead to 1 500 bodies - mostly of adult males - were they fighters? Western media knows that most were underage women, dressed up to look like men before being raped then massacred and then « made to disappear ».
Through 1992 and 1993, Srebrenica was a safe haven for Bosnian Muslim and their Arab Mujahideen allies. Serbs in surrounding villages were constant targets of attacks coming from Srebrenica. Then came the offensive in July. There's no war without blood.
My point is this: Srebrenica wasn't the defining moment in EU politics. Srebrenica was seized by the Anglo (and German in this case) business elites as an event to (over)publicize Serb "brutality" and sell a war to pacifist European populations that would otherwise have not supported one - as was Racak in Kosovo.
There was and is massive European opposition to the Iraq war. Those few leaders who supported it - Berlusconi, Aznar, Blair have all gone, virtually hounded out of office. But the Iraq war is America's war. Srebrenica happened on our doorstep.
European leaders, with far more European support, felt that they were responsible for doing something about it. The fact that they didn't was an affront to the EU pretensions to be a world power governed by more civilised values than you know who...
I don't doubt the anti-Serbian bias in much of the media coverage. Serbia exposed the EU for the toothless tiger that it is. But it still doesn't make sense for the EU to favour a relatively very small ethnic Albanian and Islamic population over a significant European state like Serbia unless there are other issues at play.
Yes, massacres like that at Srebrenica happen in war, but they haven't happened in Europe since the Second World War. The EU's founding ideology is based on a determination not to let that happen again.
Srebrenica therefore challenged the whole raison d'etre of what the EU is about. If the EU cannot stop a relatively minor regional war on its doorstep, then what use is the EU as guarantor that war will never again be permitted in Europe?
The EU had to deal with Serbia or be laughed into irrelevancy. Serbia was a threat to the legitimacy and survival of the European Ideal and the elite who's fortunes are tied to it.
You can massacre millions in Rwanda or Kampuchea and nothing is done about it because major elites are not threatened by it. Massacre a few thousand in the U.S. or Europe and you will bear the full force of Superpower retaliation.
Index of Frank's Diaries
From my impressions calling Srebrenica only a "safe haven" after 1993 is the understatement of the year. It was a geographical cul-de-sac where people's survival was dependent on food droppings, the coinage used was cigarettes and with Serbian forces at the doorstep preventing any migration away from the enclave.
Can you also provide some evidence that, in 2007, 11 years later after your quoted newspaper clip, that body count is still stuck at 1500 bodies?
I agree with you that the Srebrenica massacre was too late a rallying point for the west against Balkan brutalities.
by Frank Schnittger - May 27 2 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 5 22 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 23 1 comment
by Oui - May 13 65 comments
by Carrie - Apr 30 7 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 272 comments
by Oui - May 2712 comments
by Oui - May 24
by Frank Schnittger - May 231 comment
by Oui - May 1365 comments
by Oui - May 910 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 522 comments
by Oui - May 449 comments
by Oui - May 312 comments
by Oui - May 29 comments
by gmoke - May 1
by Oui - Apr 30257 comments
by Carrie - Apr 307 comments
by Oui - Apr 2644 comments
by Oui - Apr 879 comments
by Oui - Mar 19143 comments