The whole conflic there was a disaster in the making from decades earlier, when the delegates at the peace conference after WWI thought it would be smart to put together all these little countries into one huge one. Morons.
Bosnia wasn't put together then, it was a country for centuries before that. I realize you're talking about Yugoslavia in general, and it's a legit point, but it's not the whole story. The war in Bosnia was not the inevitable end result of decades-old failed nation-building any more than it was the inevitable carnage of centuries of 'ethnic hatred'. That's not to say that the history of Yugoslavia isn't important to understanding Bosnia, or that genuine deep-seated hatreds didn't play a part, but this was a contemporary war which, first and foremost, was deliberately brought about by ultra-nationalist politicians who took advantage of a power vacuum and the reemergance of buried grievances. We need to remember that this war was brought about by deliberate actions and contemporary actors. The West let itself off the hook by taking the line that the war was inevitable.
Yes, because of course the Netherlands were solely responsible for the complete mission in Yugoslavia and were free to call the shots around Srebrenica. We were the ones who decided to turn Srebrenica into a safe haven and we were the ones who made the rules. Idiot.
You're making a strong argument that the Netherlands shouldn't bear all the blame for what happened, and I agree. But "not completely responsible" does not equal "deserves an apology."
The case that's running, from the translator whose brother was employed by the UN, but was refused entrance because of not having a UN ID-card, and went missing afterwards, is pretty strong IMO. I think that's where UN bureaucracy went kafkaesque on the ground level. The other, apparently upcoming cases against Holland or the UN from survivors in Bosnia, have a lot less chance, I guess. Apart from the ethical side I doubt whether any court wants to set a precedent there, it would scare off future UN participants. About an apology from UN to Holland, that's ridiculous, Holland represented the UN and was thus part to blame. If you can't stand the heat, don't get into the fire. I know your keen on scoring points for the US here, but this isn't fvcking supermario. It's about genocide. The UN and Holland failed in preventing it and shouldn't shove that under the carpet, but learn from it instead. It needs to be looked in the face if we want a different, better UN, one that does succeed in superceding the US, rather than opposing it, and one with the balls to back up its resolutions. Did it ever occur to you that non-US citizens might feel a lot less safe under a US umbrella. People don't want to end up on the wrong side of a US gain/loss analysis. That's the people you'll have to share the world with, whether it suits your views or not.
Who was supposed to protect the civilians? The Netherlands was responsible for protecting those who went to Srebrenica. They failed and they failed miserably. Accept the consquences of your inactions and take responsibility for it. You owe them an apology, they don't owe you crap. And you call me the idiot.
The Dutch soldiers were outgunned and outmanned, not to mention being hampered by the UNs weak, overly political, peace-keeping policy. And it was also an American General that said that the people of Screbrenica won't be hurt. But he couldn't to ******** because of the ********ing Rules of Engagement brought out by the UN.
Saves me the time of typing something along those lines. Then again, Dante seems to know something we don't. He's right about one thing though. We shouldn't even have joined in and should never join a UN mission again unless we get to decide when to shoot (within reasonable boundaries) and how to be armed.
Way to simplify things. I urge you to read more about the entire war in Bosnia and the specific situation in Srebrenica just to see how fvcked up the whole situation was and how poor was the understanding of it by NATO, UN, EU and US. Here's just a little example. After UN troops were sent to Srebrenica to protect it, Naser Oric, one of the high ranking Muslim commanders in the city, decided to take advantage of the situation by attacking surrounding Serb villages thinking that Serbs would not have the cajones to retalliate because of the presence of UN troops. When you're sent in to protect 12000 people and one arseh*le and his buddies use you as a human shield, how do you deal with it? If he keeps doing it, sooner or later he'll provoke an attack and if you let him get his arse kicked, 12000 innocent people will die. You're not exactly told this kinda ********** might happen when you're sent on a peacekeeping mission. Add to this the fact that earlier that year, when NATO planes bombed Serb positions around Sarajevo, Serbs retaliated by taking UN soliders hostage and threatening to literally tie them to their ammo storages, and wouldn't you carefully consider what you do as a UN soldier?
No actually I was not interested in scoring points for the US. Yet after reading the responses I am simply amazed at the thinking of some posters on this matter.
A BBC timeline: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/675945.stm Peacekeeping is tricky business. You can't pick sides, you have to put up with ******** from both and always be taking the highroad to have any chance of success. Every side will test you, and one misstep can turn the whole excersize into a heap of steaming doggie do. The article gives a sense of the mission.
Excerpt from the BBC article above: "...The Serb forces did not withdraw, but at 0900 Colonel Karremans received word from Sarajevo that his request for close air support had been submitted on the wrong form."
The choice the Serbs basically gave the Dutch was that if they didn't let the men go they would bomb the entire complex, women and babies included, and events in the previous weeks had proved that that wasn't an idle threat. And that was just one complicating factor. Things weren't as black and white as you seem to think. Not that Dutch people are very proud of that episode, mind. But at least the responsible Dutch government resigned over this and Holland is now investing heaps and heaps of money into building democracy and a sound legal system in the region. In short, the Dutch government have taken responsibility for their actions. Which is a lot more than you can say about most governments that screw up, don't you agree?