Download - HistoricalBackground
The Institute for Domestic and International Affairs
International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia
Background Information
Rutgers Model United Nations 16-19 November 2006
Director: Samuel Zeidman
© 2006 Institute for Domestic & International Affairs, Inc. (IDIA)
This document is solely for use in preparation for Rutgers Model
United Nations 2006. Use for other purposes is not permitted without the express written consent of IDIA. For more
information, please write us at [email protected]
A Note on Nomenclature _______________________________________________________ 1
Ethnicities _______________________________________________________________________ 1 Nationalities______________________________________________________________________ 1
Historical Background_________________________________________________________ 3 World War II and the Rise of Tito ___________________________________________________ 4 After Tito: The Breakup of Yugoslavia _______________________________________________ 6 Slovenia and Croatia ______________________________________________________________ 8 Bosnia and Herzegovina___________________________________________________________ 10 Safe Area Srebrenica as a Refugee Collection Point ____________________________________ 13 Reaction to Srebrenica ____________________________________________________________ 16 Kosovo _________________________________________________________________________ 17
Works Cited ________________________________________________________________ 18
Rutgers Model United Nations 2006 1
A Note on Nomenclature To better understand the various conflicts of the Balkan Peninsula and of the
refugee crisis at large, it is necessary to define specific terminology. These terms will
make some of the complexities of this area more manageable, and will offer the reader a
better comprehension of the tensions of the region. Definitions and explanations that
follow should be considered generalizations and not hard and fast rules. Moreover,
statements of religious affiliation should be limited to descriptive understanding only.
Ethnicities Bosniak: Nation of people generally collected in the center of what is today Bosnia and Herzegovina. Bosniaks are typically of the Muslim faith, and represent the northern-most territorial boundary of the Ottoman Empire until the end of World War I. Croat: Nation of people generally collected in the Republic of Croatia during the time of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Croats are typically Roman Catholic and identify largely with their European neighbors. Croatia was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire until the end of World War I. Serb: Nation of people found in eastern Bosnia, eastern Croatia (Slavonia) and throughout Serbia. Serbs are typically practice the eastern order of Orthodox Catholicism. Serbia was largely controlled by the Ottoman Empire until the end of World War I. Slovene: Slovenes are most closely related to their European neighbors and are typically Roman Catholic.
Nationalities Bosnian: Bosnians are citizens of the present state of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Bosnia has historically been a mixture of Bosniaks, Croats, and Serbs throughout history. Bosnians are typically split by those with an affinity toward Turkish or Western culture. Croats settled largely in the western regions (Herzegovina), Bosniaks largely in the center (Bosnia), and Serbs can be found primarily in the eastern regions of the country (Republika Srpska). Croatian: Croatians are citizens of the present state of Croatia. Before the 1990s, Croats were located primarily in the southern (Dalmatia) and central (Croatia)
Rutgers Model United Nations 2006 2
regions. Serbs were often found to be living in the eastern regions (Eastern Slavonia). Macedonian: Macedonians are citizens of the Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia (FYROM). Due to its proximity to Albania, the FYROM had a substantial Albanian population.
Serbian1: Serbians are citizens of the present state of Serbia and Montenegro. Before the war, Serbia was home primarily to Serbs, but there also existed significant Hungarian and Albanian populations. After the war, Serbia is made up almost entirely of Serbs. Slovenian: Slovenians are citizens of the present state of Slovenia. Slovenians are very close in their relationships to Europe and the population is largely homogenous.
Before the breakup of Yugoslavia, all six republics were members of the Socialist Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY)
1 In the post-war period, the remnants of the former Yugoslavia were limited to Serbia and Montenegro, and Montenegro gained independence in 2006. Serbia is considered to have dominated Montenegro in both political and military arenas. As such, the Montenegrans were not significant players during the conflicts of the 1990s.
Rutgers Model United Nations 2006 3
Historical Background To conceptualize the nationalism upon which leaders in the 20th Century
mobilized their citizens during the conflicts in the southern Slavic region, one must begin
in the fourteenth century. The Battle of Kosovo Polje occurred on Vidovdan, or St.
Vitus Day, in 1389 and became a date enshrined in the national consciousness of Serbs.
On this day, the Serbs lost to the conquering
Ottoman Empire as it sought to establish a
stronghold in Europe. To this day, the Serbian
Orthodox observe this holiday. Despite its
importance to the collective tradition of the
Serbian people as an anniversary of their
ancestors valiantly fighting against oppression,
it represents an occasion after which Serbs
would be subjugated by their Ottoman masters.2
Nevertheless, St. Vitus Day would retain its
historical significance for those rallying behind
Serb national pride even at the end of the 20th
Century. The idea of an independent Serbian state, though, did not come into favor until
the 19th Century. The Southern Slavic states began achieving independence in 1878 with
the Congress of Berlin, which followed the Russo-Turkish War. Under that agreement,
both Serbia and Montenegro became independent, and Bosnia and Herzegovina came
under the control of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. National tensions remained, however,
and at the beginning of the 20th Century they culminated in what became a global war.
On 28 June 1914, St. Vitus Day, the assassination of the Habsburg Archduke
Franz Ferdinand by a Serbian nationalist named Gavrilo Princip became the spark that
ignited the “powder keg of Europe,” a principle cause of the First World War. Ferdinand,
2 John B. Allcock, Explaining Yugoslavia (New York: Columbia University Press, 2000), 316-7.
Western Balkans
Rutgers Model United Nations 2006 4
according to popular opinion at the time, was in favor of “trialism,” which was a proposal
to grant the southern Slavs autonomy within Austria-Hungary.3 One month following the
assassination, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia. The assassination was not the
sine qua non of a widespread European conflict. Under the many treaties and alliances in
effect in Europe at the time, widespread war in hindsight, seemed inevitable. World War
I officially began on 1 August 1914, though the Balkan states were not its primary focus
of battle. The war sounded the death knell for the Ottoman Empire, which even before
the war was in such decline that it had earned the nickname “the sick man of Europe.”
Upon the conclusion of the Great War in 1918, the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and
Slovenes came into being.
On 28 June 1921, the Vidovdan Constitution outlined a predominantly Serbian,
centralist government for the Kingdom, although in 1929 the President of Serbia
suspended the constitution in favor of establishing a dictatorship. After a decade of
autocratic rule, a Sporazum (compromise) allowed for an independent government based
in Croatia. Called Hrvatska, its federal structure arguably may have blossomed into the
“First Yugoslavia.” The chaos of the Second World War, however, arrived before the
new government had sufficient time to create orderly and structured rule.4
World War II and the Rise of Tito Two years after the German invasion of Poland, World War II began directly
affecting the fledgling government in Yugoslavia. In 1941, the Nazis invaded
Yugoslavia and quickly installed a Ustaša regime in Croatia sympathetic to Adolf Hitler
and Benito Mussolini. The states surrounding Yugoslavia began annexing its territory as
their own in the name of ethnic rights.5 Meanwhile, both Germany and Italy established
protectorates in Serbia and Montenegro, respectively. In Croatia, the Ustaša government
operated a concentration camp, Jasenovac, in which both Serbs and Jews faced
3 Carole Rogel, The Breakup of Yugoslavia and the War in Bosnia, (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1998), 6. 4 Allcock, 269. 5 Rogel, 10.
Rutgers Model United Nations 2006 5
Ustaša: The Ustaše was a Croatian far-right organisation put in charge of the Independent State of Croatia by the Axis Powers in 1941. They pursued Nazi/fascist policies and were subsequently expelled by the communist Yugoslav partisans and the Red Army in 1945. Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ustasha
extermination. The extent to which this death camp killed Serbs would become an
important issue of debate in the ensuing dialogue that became Yugoslavia.
Widespread resistance to the occupation soon became the norm. By the next year,
fighting between rival collaborationist and resistance factions plunged the state into civil
war. The conflict pitted members of the same
nationality and even family against each other.
During this time, more than any other, such
fratricidal conflict set the grim precedent of ethnic
conflict in the region.6 In the end, Josip Broz Tito,
whose parents were Croatian and Slovenian, and
who lived in Serbia, emerged the victor as leader of
the communist resisters.
By 1945, Tito had attained sufficient control of the region to establish the Socialist
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY). The Yugoslav government under Tito
deemphasized nationalism on the grounds
that it led to the destabilization of the
region underscored throughout World War
II.7 The SFRY consisted of six republics:
Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia,
Montenegro, Serbia, and Slovenia, and
two autonomous areas within Serbia
Kosovo8 and Vojvodina. The SFRY
initially aligned itself with the Soviet Union only to face expulsion after a confrontation
between Tito and Soviet leader Joseph Stalin in 1948. No longer a part of the Soviet
Union, the SFRY captured the attention of the West, from which it now received aid,
6 Jeffrey S. Morton, et al. (ed.), Reflections on the Balkan Wars: Ten Years After the Break Up of Yugoslavia (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004), 6. 7 Ibid, 6. 8 Kosovo, the site of the battle that bears its name from 1389, had become a haven for a largely Albanian population, while Vojvodina was primarily a Hungarian region.
Map of Serbia and its Constituent Provinces
Rutgers Model United Nations 2006 6
though it remained a communist government. Continuing his practice of non-alignment,
Tito continued his rule until his death in 1980, effectively balancing his relationship with
both the United States and the Soviet Union.
In order to limit the effect of nationalism, Tito implemented a variety of programs
that sought to unite Yugoslavia as a single country, not of six constituent republics.
Economic development programs were established throughout the country, ensuring that
despite its communist nature, that prosperity could be had in all sectors. In addition, Tito
strongly advocated intermarriage among ethno-linguistic groups. The product of a mixed
marriage, Tito believed strongly that if there was a meaningful interrelation among the
people of Yugoslavia, then it would be unlikely that these groups would turn on
themselves in any sort of a violent way.
After Tito: The Breakup of Yugoslavia The death of Tito, the charismatic ‘president-for-life’ who gained fame and power
as a leader of a resistance movement during World War II, placed Yugoslavia in similar
circumstances as the Fifth Republic in France after De Gaulle stepped down. A
government created around a uniquely popular personality now lacked that unifying
executive, and changes in the government were inevitable. Consequentially, the
nationalism that Tito had worked so hard to suppress renewed itself in force in the years
following his passing, and other aspects of the “Titoist” ideology that prevailed during his
rule crumbled as well.9 In 1986, the Serbian Academy of Sciences published a
memorandum accusing Tito of causing the economic woes of Serbians through a variety
of discriminatory policies, including granting equal authority within the federal
government to Kosovo. The Academy felt the territory rightfully belonged to Serbia as
part of “Greater Serbia” ideals. Historically, Kosovo had long been a part of Serbia,
however it had become ninety per cent Albanian and just ten per cent Serb by the 20th
9 Allcock, 241.
Rutgers Model United Nations 2006 7
Century. During this time, the majority of Kosovars, afraid of the growing Serbian
nationalism present even under Tito, clamored for uniting Kosovo with Albania.10
During this wave of nationalist sentiment, a heretofore inconspicuous bureaucrat
named Slobodan Milošević capitalized upon the prevailing attitudes of those who
sympathized with the memorandum. He soon rose to the leadership of the Serbian
League of Communists (SKS). He had, as a member
of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia, moved
through the ranks by giving speeches and pledging
actions that appealed to Serbian nationalists. Many of
these promises particularly addressed the protection of
minority of Serbs who lived in Kosovo.11 In a speech
delivered to what was estimated as a crowd of nearly
one million people on the 600th anniversary of Serbian
defeat on the fields of Kosovo Polje, Slobodan Milošević responded to an attack on
Serbian nationalists by Albanians by calling for “unity and prosperity,” a common reprise
in Yugoslavia, however his speech was considered to be wildly nationalistic, and some
felt that is was a harbinger of things to come. Slovenia, afraid of further consequences
arising from the newest applications of the Greater Serbia philosophy, organized a
walkout of a session of the communist congress in Belgrade in January 1990. The Croat
delegation followed, effectively sealing the fate of the League of Communists.
In that year, nationalist sentiments across the region revealed themselves in the
subsequent elections held in the Yugoslav republics. In Croatia, former communist
Franjo Tudjman, the candidate of the nationalist Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ), won
the presidency. In Slovenia, the presidential victor was Milan Kucan, also a former
communist. Milošević won in Serbia, representing the new Social Democratic Party.
Momir Bulatovic, a reformist who nevertheless allied with Milošević, achieved victory in 10 Morton, 6. 11 Week in Review Desk, “A Whirlwind of Hatreds: How the Balkans Broke Up,” The New York Times, 14 February 1993. Online: Lexis-Nexis, http://www.lexis-nexis.com.
Slobodan Milosevic
Rutgers Model United Nations 2006 8
Montenegro. Lastly, Alija Izetbegović of the Muslim Party of Democratic Action won in
Bosnia-Herzegovina. Shortly before the elections, Milošević took $1.8 billion from the
Yugoslavian federal bank and used it to subsidize various Serbian interests, which no
doubt helped assure his victory. At the same time, Milošević began replacing high level
military officials with Serbs.
The trend toward nationalism in the governments of the Yugoslav republics
seemed to undermine the overarching federal structure. Although international actors
like the European Community, the United States, and the International Monetary Fund all
saw a unified Yugoslavia in their best interests, ultimately the tension between nations
became insurmountable.
Slovenia and Croatia On 15 May 1991, according to the standard of rotation of the presidency, Croatian
President Stipe Mesic was to assume the post; however the president at the time refused
to step down. Borisav Joric, a Serb in association with Milošević, would not relinquish
his office and was supported in his resistance by Serbia, Montenegro, Kosovo, and
Vojvodina. In response, Croatia held referenda to move toward independence and was
successful, creating its own national guard. Slovenia, considered by most states to be
more European than Yugoslavian, declared its independence on 25 June 1991 after
considerable deliberations and planning. Seizing on an opportunity, and fearful of being
dragged into the wrong side of a war, Croatia declared its independence on the same day
in a somewhat less organized fashion. In response, the Yugoslavian National Army
(JNA), with its Serb military commanders, was ordered into Slovenia, however the
Slovene National Guard and police effectively suppressed the campaign and it was
abandoned after just ten days. Foreign Ministers of the European Community (EC)
began an embargo on arms to Yugoslavia on 5 July of that year, seeking to avoid open
Rutgers Model United Nations 2006 9
war.12 Two days later, the EC facilitated the Brioni Agreement, formally ending the
conflict there.
Croatia fared much worse than Slovenia in its
efforts against the JNA.13 Fighting erupted
throughout Croatia, devastating the resorts in the city
of Dubrovnik, on the Adriatic, along with two
heavily populated cities in east Croatia, Osijek and
Vukovar. It was in the east of Croatia that Serbia
began its policy of “ethnic cleansing,” in an attempt
to rid Croatia of Croatians and other non-Serbian
nationalities.
Again, the EC attempted to negotiate truces,
all of which ended shortly after going into effect, often on the same day as their signing.14
The United Nations began its involvement in the conflict with the passage of economic
sanctions, including Security Council Resolution 713, which established an embargo on
arms sales to all of Yugoslavia. These sanctions
had no immediate effect, however their long term
ramifications would shape the ensuing conflict.
Then, in 1992, invoking Chapter VIII of the UN
Charter, the United Nations finally brokered a ceasefire, to be monitored by a protection
force (UNPROFOR) of 14,000 peacekeepers.15 At the time of the ceasefire, the situation
in Croatia was already dour: the Serbs had already taken control of one third of the state,
12 Sir Russel Johnston, “The Yugoslav conflict- Chronology of Events from 30th May 1991- 8th November 1993,” Defence Committee of the Western European Union. Online: http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/academic/history/marshall/military/a-weu/document/yugodefc.rus (Accessed 15 April 2006). 13 Rogel, 25. 14 Johnson. 15 United Press International, “Security Council to Approve Peace Force to Yugoslavia,” 20 February 1992. Online: Lexis-Nexis, http://www.lexis-nexis.com.
Croatia
Ethnic Cleansing: the mass expulsion and killing of one ethic or religious group in an area by another ethnic or religious group in that area Source: wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Rutgers Model United Nations 2006 10
ten thousand people had been killed, thirty thousand wounded, and the fighting had
displaced 730,000 refugees, Croat and Serb alike.16
Bosnia and Herzegovina The United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) established its headquarters
in Sarajevo with the intention of basing its administration away from the conflict in
Croatia. Unfortunately, fighting would soon come to Bosnia as well. In 1992, fearing
domination by Serbian government forces, Bosnian citizens passed a referendum for
independence, and gained international recognition from the United States and the EC.
Consequently, the Serb-controlled JNA turned its attention to Sarajevo, beginning an epic
siege there on 5 April, involving heavy artillery fired upon the city by Serb forces from
its surrounding hills.17 Escalating tensions forced the
relocation of UNPROFOR to Zagreb, as Radovan
Karadzic, the head of the Serbian Democratic Party, led
Bosnian Serb troops into combat against the
multinational Bosnian government forces. Karadzic
aimed to create a contiguous Serbian territory
encompassing western Bosnia and the Krajina region of
Croatia, along with Sarajevo.18 The Bosnian Serbs
were incensed by the independence maneuver by the
predominantly Muslim population, and sought to establish a region in which it believed
that the rights of Serbs would be protected. While potentially noble in purpose, this
effort relied upon ethnic cleansing, in process. Izetbegović called for international help,
and on 22 May 1992, the United Nations recognized and admitted Bosnia-Herzegovina as
a sovereign state; one week later, it levied sanctions upon Serbia and Montenegro for
being the aggressor in the conflict. Despite this seemingly supportive stance, the United
16 Rogel, 26. 17 Final report of the United Nations Commission of Experts�established pursuant to�security council resolution 780 (1992). Online: http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/comexpert/ANX/VI-01.htm#I.C (accessed 18 April 2006). 18 Rogel, 32.
Alija Izetbegovic
Rutgers Model United Nations 2006 11
Nations maintained its arms embargo on the whole of Yugoslavia, including the
munitions-weak state of Bosnia.
As in Croatia, the sanctions had little mitigating effects. In fact, these sanctions
made it quite difficult for Bosnia to defend itself from its Serbian attackers. Of the states
involved in the conflict, the Serbians had access to the formidable JNA and held onto
major munitions building facilities in the former Yugoslavia, the Croatians received
munitions from Germany, the United States, and other supporters, but Bosnia lacked
access to the very weapons it needed to defend itself. Instead of trying to thwart
continued combat, the arms embargo served as a veritable advantage for the invading
Serbians who were able to maintain a significant weapons cache for use in its efforts.
The presence of ethnic cleansing, genocide, and mass rape forced many Bosnians
to flee, causing an influx of refugees in the surrounding areas. Amidst the atrocities, the
international community struggled to find an end to the conflict. A Security Council
resolution established a no-fly zone over Bosnia, and granted the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) the authority to enforce it. The EC and the UN established the
International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia (ICFY) in September to seek a
political solution to the fighting. In an attempt to ease the refugee crisis, the UN also
passed resolutions creating nominal “safe areas” in Sarajevo, Bihać, Goražde, Srebrenica,
Tuzla, and Žepa, though these lacked effective mechanisms of enforcement.
The ICFY in 1993 proposed the Vance-Owen Peace Plan (VOPP), which called
for a division of Bosnia into ten provinces. Each ethnic group would receive three
provinces, while the UN would take control of the tenth in Sarajevo. Cyrus Vance, the
UN envoy, and Lord David Owen, representing the EC, appealed to leaders throughout
Yugoslavia to accept the terms of the agreement, and to establish a lasting peace. Only
the Croats voiced their acceptance for the proposal, while both Muslims and Serbs voiced
objection: Izetbegović refused the plans because it essentially granted a third of Bosnia to
the Serbian invaders, the Serbs did not accept the plan because they felt they had more
Rutgers Model United Nations 2006 12
opportunity to seize land through combat.19 The Bosnian Serbs, unwilling to give up the
territory they had acquired during the
fighting, rejected the proposal in May
1993. Almost irregardless of these
positions, by the time the VOPP was
being actively considered, the realities
on the ground had essentially made the
plan obsolete.
The next year saw the proposal
of the Owen-Stoltenberg plan, which
called for Bosnia to become divided
based on ethnicity into a confederation.
While it had the support and co-
authorship of Milošević and Tudjman,
Izetbegović maintained his convictions
for a multinational Bosnia and did not
participate in the peace talks. The
Bosnian state continued to erode, with
tensions escalating between Muslims
and a group of Bosnian Croats who
believed in Croatian ownership of
Herzeg-Bosna, in the southwest. It
should be noted that while the Serbians
and Bosnian Serbs were most known
for ethnic cleansing, that all sides of the
conflict were known to have used this strategy.20
19 The Economist, “A Map for Peace: Why the West Must Push for an Imperfect Plan for Bosnia,” 9 January 1993. Online: Lexis-Nexis, http://www.lexisnexis.com. 20 Morton, 14.
Proposed Peace Plans Red: Serb Majority Blue: Croat Majority Green: Bosniak Majority White: UN control
Vance Owen Peace Plan
Owen-Stoltenberg Plan
Rutgers Model United Nations 2006 13
In 1994, television footage of a Serb attack in a marketplace in Sarajevo drew
considerable international outcry. Before details were known, as in most shellings in
Bosnia, the Bosnian government was accused of bombing itself in an effort to bring about
international concern for its cause. When the shells were ultimately identified as
emanating from Serb foces, NATO began enforcing a 20 kilometer safe zone around the
city – not specifically to protect the people of Sarajevo, but instead to ensure the safety of
UN workers in the area. The Contact Group, the collection of states charged with
negotiating a meaningful peace in the area and consisting of France, Germany, Great
Britain, Russia, and the United States, facilitated an agreement accepted by both parties,
allowing Bosnian Croats the ability to enter into a confederation with Croatia while
simultaneously remaining part of the Bosnian federation.21 Over time, as the initial
incursions into Bosnia and Croatia were failing, Milošević realized that he needed to
distance himself from the Bosnian Serbs, and ultimately he ordered them to peace.22
In 1995, after negotiations between Tudjman and the United Nations, Croatia
launched an offensive to reclaim the territory the Serbs had taken in 1992 with the
permission of the international community. After staging successful campaigns to retake
the central and eastern areas of the state, the Croatian forces entered into battle with
Bosnian forces against the Bosnian Serbs.
Safe Area Srebrenica as a Refugee Collection Point During the war in Bosnia, instead of offering a true intervention force, the
international community sought to protect Bosnians in what were termed “safe areas.”
These cities were to be guarded by United Nations personnel, and the people who sought
refuge there would be both protected, and provided with humanitarian assistance from
UN and other relief agencies. These safe areas were located in such areas as Žepa,
Srebrenica, and Goražde, and were represented to the Bosnians as areas where Muslims
21 Ibid. 22 Rogel, 36.
Rutgers Model United Nations 2006 14
and other ethnic groups could safely reside. The implication was that United Nations
“blue helmets” would protect these individuals militarily, if necessary.
By July 1995, some 40,000 internally
displaced persons from across Bosnia had
sought refugee in Srebrenica in eastern
Bosnia. These individuals had come to the
Muslim enclave after their own homes had
been overrun by the advancing Bosnian
Serbs. According to Resolution 819,
Srebrenica was deemed a safe haven, and
“should be free from any armed attack or
any other hostile act.”23 This resolution
further called for a general demilitarization
of all sides of the conflict, and called upon
the UN to “increase the presence” of the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR)
to monitor humanitarian assistance. While the resolution seems to suggest that
UNPROFOR would defend the enclave, the language specifically stated that the role of
the UN forces would be for monitoring purposes, not specifically for the protection of the
people assumed to be under their care. UNPROFOR sent some 600 lightly armed Dutch
soldiers (DutchBat) to Srebrenica to monitor events there. As part of the agreement to
have UN soldiers in the area, both sides were required to demilitarize. DutchBat took
possession of a few artillery pieces and most of the small arms possessed by the Bosnians
that were in Srebrenica. The Bosnian-Serbs agreed to withdraw their heavy artillery and
soldiers from the region.
The agreement was short-lived. From 6-8 July 1995, Bosnian Serb forces
continuously shelled the enclave, inflicting casualties on both the IDP and existing
civilian population. The newly disarmed Bosnians asked UNPROFOR to return their
23 United Nations Security Council Resolution 819. Resolution S/RES/819, April 16, 1993.
Srebrenica
Rutgers Model United Nations 2006 15
Ratko Mladic
surrendered weapons so that they would be able to defend themselves, however the Dutch
soldiers, under orders from UNPROFOR and the Security Council refused this request.
Thousands more Bosnians fled the outlying villages and collected in Srebrenica,
assuming they would receive UN protection. On 9 July, the shelling intensified and the
Bosnian-Serbs took some thirty Dutch soldiers prisoners. In response, DutchBat issued
an ultimatum that the attackers remove their artillery
from around the region or suffer NATO air strikes.
The Bosnian-Serbs refused and the following day,
NATO dropped two bombs on artillery positions.
The Bosnian-Serbs responded with threats to kill their
Dutch prisoners if the air strikes were not called off,
and NATO, whose paramount mission was to protect
UNPROFOR forces, ended further attacks. Two
hours after the planes returned to NATO bases,
Bosnian-Serb military leader Ratko Mladic entered
Srebrenica and demanded full disarmament in
exchange for the lives of the people in the enclave.
The following day, buses arrived to remove all women and children to Muslim territory.
Mladic ordered that all males between the ages of 12 and 77 be held for interrogation as
potential enemy combatants. In the end, some 23,000 women and children were
evacuated, and it is estimated that about 15,000 Bosnian men had escaped the enclave
into the hills. On 13 July 1995, the DutchBat forces negotiated the release of 14 Dutch
soldiers from captivity in exchange for some 5,000 refugees at the base at Potocari. The
Dutch further negotiated their safe departure from the region, provided they leave behind
their weapons, food, and medical supplies. Over the course of the next three days, the
Bosnian-Serbs are believed to have killed more than 8,000 Bosnian men, most in
Rutgers Model United Nations 2006 16
summary executions. Their bodies have been found in mass graves since the
implementation of the Dayton Accords.24
Reaction to Srebrenica When the United Nations arrived in Bosnia, most people assumed that the UN
forces would be effective at bringing about peace and security. The UN offered implied
guarantees of protection and promoted their efforts at bringing all sides to the negotiating
table, while stopping the shooting on the ground. In the end, while the Bosnian refugees
held faith in the words of the UN forces, very little was actually done to ensure their
protection. UN safe areas at Srebrenica, Goražde and Žepa were overrun, and UN forces
did little to protect the innocent or persecuted. Moreover, UNPROFOR officers
continually informed the Bosnians that their true mission was to enforce the peace, not to
bring it about. The result of these events brought about significant distrust of the United
Nations and of the Western world, in general in the region. The Bosnians believe that
they were abandoned and betrayed by the guarantors of freedom.25 This distrust of
international organizations has led to hesitancy in working with the United Nations, the
UN High Commission on Refugees, and other organizations as they attempt to return to
their homes and to a sense of normalcy. These doubts about real support have caused
difficulties in the safe return and repatriation of countless thousands of refugees and
internally displaced persons. While fighting has ended throughout the region, there is
still widespread hatred and ethnic tension, and there is little faith that the organizations
that are pushing so strongly for refugees to return home will provide the necessary
protection and security should conflict resurface.26
24 “Timeline: Siege of Srebrenica,” BBC News, 9 June 2005. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/675945.stm Accessed 1 August 2005. 25 Hinchliffe, Michael. Personal interview with Blanca Milutanovic. Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina 10 July 2005. 26 Ibid.
Rutgers Model United Nations 2006 17
Kosovo Serbian leaders had, in March 1989, eliminated the autonomy of Kosovo by
bringing it under Serbian control. In 1991, separatist groups claimed independence for
the predominantly Albanian republic. Albania quickly recognized Kosovo as
independent, and in 1992 the new republic elected Ibrahim Rugova its first president.
The Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) rose in power in 1996, and began claiming
responsibility for several attacks on police targets. On 28 February 1998, the death of
two Serbian police officers provoked Milošević to retaliate, sending in Serbian military
forces that used lethal measures against those whom it considered separatists.
Fighting escalated on both sides, with
another ethnic cleansing, this time against the
Albanians living in the region. President Bill
Clinton of the United States, among other world
leaders, condemned the attacks and moved
international agencies to action to end the
conflict. After UN sanctions, a sustained NATO
bombing campaign, and the deployment of the
NATO peacekeeping force K-FOR, Milošević
pulled forces out of Kosovo, paving the way for a
cease-fire on 2 June 1999. By this time,
approximately 860,000 Kosovars had fled to
neighboring states, arguably helping achieve Milošević’s goal at a pure Serb
population.27
27 Cooper, Mary H. "Global Refugee Crisis." The CQ Researcher 9, no. 25 (July 8, 1999). http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre1999070900 (accessed April 18, 2006).
Kosovo
Rutgers Model United Nations 2006 18
Works Cited Allcock, John B. Explaining Yugoslavia (New York: Columbia University Press, 2000),
316-7. Cooper, Mary H. "Global Refugee Crisis." The CQ Researcher 9, no. 25 (July 8, 1999).
http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre1999070900 (accessed April 18, 2006).
The Economist, “A Map for Peace: Why the West Must Push for an Imperfect Plan for
Bosnia,” 9 January 1993. Online: Lexis-Nexis, http://www.lexisnexis.com. Final report of the United Nations Commission of Experts established pursuant to
Security Council resolution 780 (1992). Online: http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/comexpert/ANX/VI-01.htm#I.C (accessed 18 April 2006).
Hinchliffe, Michael. Personal interview with Blanca Milutanovic. Sarajevo, Bosnia and
Herzegovina 10 July 2005. Johnston, Sir Russel, “The Yugoslav conflict- Chronology of Events from 30th May
1991- 8th November 1993,” Defence Committee of the Western European Union. Online: http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/academic/history/marshall/military/a-weu/document/yugodefc.rus (Accessed 15 April 2006).
Morton, Jeffrey S., et al. (ed.), Reflections on the Balkan Wars: Ten Years After the Break
Up of Yugoslavia (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004), 6. Rogel, Carole. The Breakup of Yugoslavia and the War in Bosnia, (Westport, CT:
Greenwood Press, 1998), 6. “Timeline: Siege of Srebrenica,” BBC News, 9 June 2005.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/675945.stm Accessed 1 August 2005. United Nations Security Council Resolution 819. Resolution S/RES/819, April 16, 1993. United Press International, “Security Council to Approve Peace Force to Yugoslavia,”
20 February 1992. Online: Lexis-Nexis, http://www.lexis-nexis.com. Week in Review Desk, “A Whirlwind of Hatreds: How the Balkans Broke Up,” The New
York Times, 14 February 1993. Online: Lexis-Nexis, http://www.lexis-nexis.com.