The Complexity of the Srebrenica Massacre: Fact vs. Narrative

The Srebrenica massacre remains one of the most brutal chapters in the Bosnian War. However, the narrative often surrounding this event is complex and fraught with layers of misunderstanding, strategic missteps, and ethical controversies. This article aims to dissect the causative factors and legal interpretations behind the events that unfolded, providing a nuanced perspective rather than a simplistic moral judgment.

Legal Perspectives on the Srebrenica Events

The term 'deserved' cannot aptly describe a massacre. The Srebrenica events involved a series of actions by the Bosniak Muslims and subsequently, the VRS Army of Republika Srpska. From an international legal standpoint, the elimination of the actively defending Bosniak forces, as well as the shelling and ambushes of a retreating Bosniak column, align with the Law of War. These Bosniak troops did not surrender or lay down their weapons but instead fought or attempted to escape encirclement, making them legitimate military targets under the Law of War.

In contrast, the massacres of male POWs captured in Srebrenica were not warranted under international law. These events represent a massive war crime perpetrated by the VRS Army of Republika Srpska, with direct responsibility falling on the commanding officers. This stark contrast in legal interpretations has led to a broader narrative that has sought to convey a holistic picture, albeit laden with controversy.

Preventive Measures and Their Absence

The compounded narrative of the Srebrenica massacre has, at times, obscured the preventable factors. For instance, the sanctuary represented by the UN-declared demilitarized enclave of Srebrenica could have been respected. Instead, the United States paratroopers were deployed, armed the Bosniaks to attack Serbian positions, and surrounding settlements, which escalated the conflict. This action instigated the VRS to intervene in a manner consistent with the Law of War.

The actions of the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina (ARBiH) commander, Naser Orich, were also pivotal. Rather than negotiating a surrender with Ratko Mladic, the commander of the Army of Republika Srpska, Orich fled the area six weeks before the capture of Srebrenica. His failure to fulfill his responsibilities and flee the area contributed significantly to the situation's escalation. Naser Orich, while claiming he would fight to the last man, ultimately betrayed his troops by fleeing the scene.

The Intertwined Roles of International Actors

The complex international landscape during the Bosnian War further complicates the narrative. The recognition of a Bosnia and Herzegovina as an independent state over SFR Yugoslavia's territory, facilitated by the Badinter Commission, was premature and underresourced. From 1992 to 1995, Bosnia and Herzegovina failed to meet Statehood criteria, which hindered its effective governance and international recognition.

The Carrington-Cutileiro Plan offered a compromise solution, which was ultimately dismissed by Alija Izetbegovic, then President of Bosnia and Herzegovina, despite his initial agreement. The plan would have established ethnic cantons, a structure that might have mitigated some of the conflict. Izetbegovic's withdrawal of support, influenced by US Ambassador Warren Zimmermann, who advised him to opt for an independent Bosnia, set the stage for the bloodshed that followed. This decision led to the destruction of a sovereign state and massive casualties, including thousands of Bosniaks.

The Legacy of Influence and Responsibility

While the United States and NATO have been accused of exacerbating the conflict through their support of the Bosniak forces, the complex geopolitical landscape and international relations during the period also play a significant role. The USA's 'help' was often portrayed as a noble endeavor, with statements like 'thank you for your service in Bosnia and Herzegovina!' and 'you built better.' However, the impact was fundamentally disruptive, as evidenced by the ultimate division of Bosnia and Herzegovina into two entities: Republika Srpska and the Bosniak-Croat Federation.

The aftermath of the Srebrenica massacre and the broader conflict serves as a reminder of the long-term effects of misjudgments and misplaced narratives. The narrative around the Srebrenica massacre, while critical, must be balanced with an understanding of the legal, strategic, and political factors that led to its occurrence. Only through this nuanced perspective can we truly understand the complexities of the situation and the lessons to be learned from it.