Srebrenica: Fifteen Years On

Tony Brown

This year sees the fifteenth anniversary of the terrible events of July 1995 in the Bosnian town of Srebrenica when more than 8,000 Bosnian Muslim men of fighting age were massacred by Serbian forces - the worst atrocity of its kind in post-World War II European history. Controversy has surrounded the role of the international community – the UN and EU in particular – in dealing with the violent conflict in the former Yugoslavia. A UN Protection Force had been introduced in the region and had created so-called ‘safe areas’ which proved entirely ineffective. In 2002, the Dutch Government resigned in the light of a report investigating the part played by the Dutch Army in the Srebenica situation and criticizing what was described as “an ill-conceived and virtually impossible peace mission.”

The Srebrenica massacre has been referred to as a genocide by the judgments of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the International Court of Justice. The Serbian general responsible for the massacre, Ratko Mladic, has never been brought to justice and is currently a fugitive.

On 29 March 2010 the Serbian Parliament adopted a Resolution apologizing for the massacre. The text of the resolution said: "The parliament of Serbia strongly condemns the crime committed against the Bosnian-Muslim population of Srebrenica in July, 1995" and expressed "condolences and an apology to the families of the victims because not everything possible was done to prevent the tragedy." The Resolution did not directly call the crime "genocide", as survivors had demanded but it has been welcomed in international circles as an important advance and as helpful to Serbia’s relationship with the European Union.

Just months after Srebenica, in November 1995, the Dayton Accord brought an end to the war and created the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina, with a weak central government but divided into two semi-independent entities: the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, inhabited mainly by Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats and the Serb controlled Republika Srpska, each with its own government. The Dayton system has brought peace and has seen democratic elections at national and local level. It has produced the integration of the three armies which had fought in the terrible war into a multiethnic force which has already seen service with the United Nations. There has been a widespread return of refugees and displaced persons and, with substantial international aid, a faltering beginning of economic development.

On the other hand, the complex political system, overseen by the High Representative of the international community, has created effective deadlock on many important policy issues. Layers of bureaucracy and ethnic quota systems have led to inefficiency and corruption. The leader of Republika Srpska, Milorad Dodik, threatens a referendum on secession while the Bosnian Muslim leader, Haris Silajdzic, calls for the dissolution of Republika Srpska. Efforts to negotiate a new constitution to replace Dayton, reduce the role of the High Representative and provide a workable framework for political, economic and social progress are on-going but extremely difficult, given the standpoints of the leadership of the three ethnic groupings. The prospect of a General Election in October has inevitably produced an outpouring of populist rhetoric on all sides, with promises to protect narrow group interests.

Bosnia and Herzegovina is a potential candidate country for EU accession and, in 2008 a Stabilization and Association Agreement (SAA) which will enter into force once its ratification process has been completed. An Interim Agreement on Trade and Trade-related issues which was signed on the same day, entered into force on 1 July 2008. Steps to finalize a visa liberalisation arrangement are at an advanced stage. The EU deploys considerable resources in the country. The EU Special Representative, Valentin Inzko, who also has the status of High Representative, took up his position in March 2009. The EUFOR military mission remains in the country but it has been systematically reduced in strength. An Irish unit will be withdrawn later this year. An EU Police Mission continues to assist in the difficult task of creating a unified police force.

Bosnia and Herzegovina is also a candidate for NATO membership, seeing this as a crucial step in ensuring stability and security in the region. As with EU membership, the NATO aspiration enjoys support across ethnic and political divides. The success of the army unification project state is seen as strengthening the case for acceptance into the formal preparatory stages of NATO membership at the forthcoming Tallinn meeting of Foreign Ministers and the planned 2011 Lisbon Summit. Significantly, Bosnia and Herzegovina has been elected to non-permanent membership of the UN Security Council for 2010-2011 having served on the UN Human Rights Council for the period 2007-2010.

For Bosnia and Herzegovina to succeed in these two crucial membership bids the fundamental weaknesses of the current constitutional and political structures must be overcome. And the underlying realities of a multi-ethnic community must be confronted. The newly appointed High Representative of the European Union, Catherine Ashton summed it up in her first visit to the Balkans:

“But numerous challenges remain. Everyone in Bosnia and Herzegovina wants to join the European Union – every citizen, and most elected leaders it would seem. But the spirit of compromise to get there is plainly lacking at the political level. Let me be clear: Bosnia and Herzegovina can only join the European Union as one country, by speaking with one voice, and by respecting individual human rights and the different cultures of the constituent peoples. Politics of division and flirtations with secessionist rhetoric are as harmful as they are pointless. The EU will never accept the break-up of Bosnia and Herzegovina; we look forward to seeing the country instead as a member of the EU one day, with strong entities working within a single functional state.”

These are strong words but they must be followed up with focused and effective EU action tounderpin the efforts to produce a new constitutional order which can function without recourse to international oversight of the kind offered by the Office of the High Representative. The role of the EU Special Representative must be concentrated on the implementation – by both sides – of the EU accession process. This will require a new clarity on issues such as the relationship between Serbia, as an EU applicant state, and the Serb leadership of Republika Srpska with firm insistence on the acceptance of the long term existence and EU aspirations of the single state of Bosnia and Herzegovina. There must also be honesty on the EU side concerning the Union’s enlargement strategy – and in particular the Thessaloniki promises on the Western Balkans – which seem to have lost momentum since the accession of the Central and Eastern European countries.

It is to be hoped that the fifteenth anniversary of Srebrenica and the important acknowledgement of responsibility by the Serbian Parliament will have the effect of concentrating the attention of all stakeholders on the prospects for progress in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Surely, the most meaningful memorial for those murdered and those forced to flee their homes would be the transformation of their divided country into a modern, European democracy offering the children and grandchildren of Srebenica a future of peace and prosperity.

As an Independent forum, the Institute does not express any opinions of its own. The views expressed in the article are the sole responsibility of the author.