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)


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.


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


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.


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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


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.


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


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.

historicalbackground

Documents

eastern bosnia

end of world war

nation of people

republic of croatia

eastern croatia slavonia

ottoman empire

domestic international

present state of bosnia