World justice always bears dark stains on its face: Will the UN Resolution on Srebrenica clear its conscience?

Written for NAP: Sifet Kukuruz, legal expert

The announced adoption of the Resolution on the genocide in Srebrenica at the UN General Assembly session has sparked much debate at the local and regional, as well as broader international levels. These debates have been marked by sharply opposing views, those pointing to the need for such a resolution and those who see its adoption as a threat to reconciliation in BiH, as well as regional stability.

Such opposing views have also led to a significant postponement of the Resolution's adoption, and the time elapsed has been used, with considerable media fanfare, for lobbying "for" and "against" the Resolution, indicating significant dilemmas and ambiguities regarding the necessity and potential consequences of adopting such a resolution.

Although the Resolution on the genocide in Srebrenica is not legally binding, some have interpreted the mere announcement of its adoption as a verdict against the entire Serb people or a verdict against the entity of Republika Srpska.

The unsustainability of such claims is perhaps best illustrated by the fact that neither the International Court of Justice's 2007 judgment for genocide, nor the numerous judgments of the so-called Hague Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, which proved genocide, as legally binding acts, were verdicts against the Serb people, nor did they call into question the existence of the Republika Srpska entity.

Untruths or half-truths

Parallel to these fears, a drama is unfolding on the international stage, staged in a way that countries voting "for" or "against" the Resolution are categorized as being on the right or wrong side of history.

Much indicates that in this whole affair, the victim, who remains crucified between the interests of those who committed genocide and their sponsors, and those who were obliged but failed to prevent the commission of that crime, is given little or no consideration. In this context, it is entirely clear that neither party has a real interest in the adoption of the Resolution.

The former do not want the Resolution because they fear that the results of the genocide could be called into question, or even annulled, and the latter because they fear being put in an awkward position, given that they were obliged to prevent the crime and did not do so, even though they could have. The Resolution remains crucified between these two sides and can hardly be seen as an expression of deep moral and political catharsis on the international level.

The UN General Assembly Resolution, as an act of a political nature based on insincere intentions, merely confirms the nature of the policy that this world organization has pursued and continues to pursue. And the survivors of genocide in BiH know best what kind of policy this is.

"And Avdo says"

On this occasion, it is worth mentioning the interpretation of the Resolution's significance by journalist Avdo Avdić, who very vividly explained the order of magnitude when it comes to UN Security Council and General Assembly resolutions. Thus, "Avdo says" that it is very naive to place great hopes in a UN General Assembly Resolution that is not legally binding, after witnessing the unpunished violation of numerous UN Security Council resolutions that were binding. But, as "Avdo says," it is better to have a Resolution, whatever it may be, than none at all.

It is even more naive to believe that the adoption of the Resolution by the UN General Assembly is an expression of the international community's respect and sincerity towards the survivors of genocide. The Resolution on the genocide in Srebrenica is an expression of sincerity to the same extent that the resolutions declaring UN safe areas in 1993 were an expression of the UN's sincere commitment to protect the population of these areas from genocide.

At the same time, it can rightly be argued that the Resolution represents justice for the survivors of genocide to the same extent that the resolutions declaring UN safe areas in 1993 represented a guarantee for the survival of the inhabitants of the safe areas who were later, before the eyes of the UN and the entire world public, brutally murdered.

It should be recalled that on April 16, 1993, by Security Council Resolution 819, the Srebrenica enclave was declared a "safe area," while on May 6, 1993, by Security Council Resolution 824, this status was extended to Sarajevo, Žepa, Goražde, Tuzla, and Bihać. All these cities were placed under the protection of UNPROFOR peacekeeping units and only by a miracle avoided the fate of Srebrenica.

Therefore, neither the legally binding resolutions of the UN Security Council brought security to the victims of genocide, nor will the adoption of the legally non-binding Resolution on the genocide in Srebrenica by the UN General Assembly bring justice to the survivors of genocide. The trading with the Resolution on the genocide in Srebrenica, which is becoming increasingly visible every day, actually represents an expression of disrespect for the survivors of genocide.

The attitude that the international community is showing today towards the survivors of genocide crimes increasingly resembles the attitude the international community showed towards the victims who did not survive that terrible crime.

Unanimous UN Support

The intrigues surrounding the work of the UN General Assembly regarding the announced adoption of the Resolution show that, in the world as it is today, only a Resolution sponsored by those who committed genocide, and co-sponsored by those who consciously enabled that crime to be committed and did nothing concrete to adequately punish it, would have unanimous support in the UN General Assembly. The adoption of such a Resolution would certainly not be postponed, nor would amendments be made to the text of the Resolution.

The problems with determining the date of the UN General Assembly session at which the Resolution on the genocide in Srebrenica would be adopted show that the international community is hypocritical and uncompromising in its stance towards the crime of genocide. The peripeteias regarding the postponement of the adoption of this Resolution clearly show that the Resolution has become a tool for political bargaining, rather than a way of paying tribute to the survivors of genocide. And this is not a path to a happier and safer future for humanity, but a path of wandering from past to future genocides.

This attitude of the international community towards the Resolution is the best proof that new genocide is always possible, even against victims who have miraculously survived that crime. The fact that the international community is not sincere in its fight against this terrible crime that undermines the very foundations of the human race is also shown by the fact that the text of the Resolution is being intensely negotiated on the world stage, and behind the scenes, deals are being struck and bargains are being made. A world that is ready to negotiate with evil is actually agreeing to new evil. The only question is when and where and to what extent evil will be repeated and who will be its sponsor and who its co-sponsor.

International Court's Approach

Given the numerous controversies surrounding the harmonization of the Resolution's text, even those who are blind can see that the text of the Resolution is being adapted to the interests of those who committed genocide and the interests of those who enabled that crime and did nothing to prevent its commission. Much indicates that a Resolution with parts of its text blacked out would be unanimously supported in the UN General Assembly.

To show that this thesis is not a baseless claim, it is enough to recall that the International Court of Justice, also a UN body, agreed to dispense justice based on blacked-out and redacted documents. In this way, the UN has once before agreed to a pact with evil, so it is naive to believe that this cannot happen again.

Thus, in its supposed search for justice, using blacked-out documents, the UN has strayed deep into a darkness from which it has not yet managed to extricate itself. And the genocide in Palestine proves that the UN is still deep in a darkness that is slowly but surely threatening to become a permanent and essential dimension of world politics, manifested through the Security Council and the UN General Assembly.

Moral Hypocrisy

For the world to be a better and safer place to live, resolutions and declarations are not enough; a resolute attitude towards evil is needed, and today precisely such an attitude is lacking, despite the fact that the exact number of resolutions and declarations can hardly be determined.

Instead of uncompromising condemnation and a resolute attitude towards evil, the international community has opted for compromise with evil. Therefore, it is impossible not to ask the question - if the Resolution does not reflect the fullness of justice that it could draw from final judgments for genocide - then who and why needs such a Resolution?

One can certainly defend the position that the Resolution on the genocide in Srebrenica is most needed by the UN, and especially by the Security Council, which in practice very often proves to be a factor of instability, as well as a major threat to international peace and stability, and often the main cause of suffering and hardship for thousands, hundreds of thousands, and even millions of people worldwide.

Today, this is best seen in the example of the genocide in Palestine. The UN Security Council, and especially the great powers with veto power, do not want to stop this genocide either. For them, genocide has been and remains, however frightening or unrealistic it may seem, merely a tool of world politics. And this tool is being used more and more frequently and brutally in international relations.

Genocide in Palestine

Therefore, it is more than justified to ask the question - what is the meaning of condemning genocide by adopting a Resolution on the genocide in Srebrenica, when those who vote for this Resolution today allow, and even support, genocide in Palestine? To whom and why is the condemnation of genocide crimes important from those who, while condemning one, simultaneously enable another genocide?

This attitude towards the crime of genocide proves that the world is essentially not against this crime. A world that condemns genocide in Srebrenica, while at the same time observing, allowing, and supporting genocide in Palestine, has no right to expect its resolutions to be taken seriously. Much supports the view that the condemnation of genocide in Srebrenica is becoming a cover for another genocide, the one being committed today in Palestine, which the UN Security Council and the International Court do not want to prevent.

In a world that allows and supports genocide, the adoption of a Resolution condemning genocide is not much of a consolation. In this way, the Resolution condemning genocide in Srebrenica appears exclusively as an interest of the great powers, with genocide victims receiving only words as satisfaction, while the results of that crime, with the consent and agreement of the same international community, continue to determine their lives and the lives of future generations in BiH.

Nevertheless, although the Resolution is not being adopted to ensure justice for the victim, but primarily in the interest of the great powers, its positive effects cannot be entirely denied, appearing more as a side effect than as a result of a sincere commitment to condemn genocide and prevent its recurrence.

"Pyrrhic Victory"

Regardless of the fact that the Resolution appears as a "Pyrrhic victory" and will change little or nothing regarding the status of the victim who will continue to be denied justice, introducing the genocide in Srebrenica into educational systems worldwide and regular annual remembrance of this terrible crime can still help future generations not only to be properly informed about this crime but also to better understand the world they live in, to understand that they are part of a world that enabled and allowed such a crime.

Future generations will be able to more easily understand the nature of international politics and the functioning of the most important world institutions.

The adoption of the Resolution on the genocide in Srebrenica also appears useful in light of the fact that there are forces that deny the crime of genocide and that wished for the Resolution not to exist. The fact that the Resolution will be adopted does not mean that there are no longer forces that wish to make the results of genocide the basis of future life. And what is particularly worrying is the fact that such wishes often have significant support from the international community.

In the context of these positive effects, however, one should not forget that there is a danger of adopting a Resolution on the genocide in Srebrenica which lies in the possible development of a narrative that genocide will never be allowed to happen again. In the world as it is today, this simply cannot be claimed, or rather, one should not believe such claims.
A Mirror for the SC and GA

If the international community had had a proper attitude towards the genocide in Srebrenica, humanity would certainly not be witnessing a new genocide today, nor would the survivors of genocide in BiH be living in conditions created by the ideologues, strategists, and perpetrators of genocide. While condemning genocide in Srebrenica on one hand, the international community does nothing on the other hand to nullify the effects and consequences of genocide.

Sincere condemnation of genocide in Srebrenica would imply preventing the results of this crime from forming the framework for life in BiH, and also condemning those who denied the victim of genocide the right to defend herself, who tied her hands and threw her at the mercy of a tooth-armed criminal.

Regardless of all the negative and positive aspects, the Resolution on the genocide in Srebrenica will remain a permanent warning about the nature of the policy that the international community pursued in BiH. Perhaps this is the most important aspect of this Resolution. Based on this Resolution, future generations will know what kind of policy was and still is being pursued within the bodies of this world organization.

Ultimately, the Resolution will be a mirror in which the UN General Assembly and Security Council can look at least once a year and have an opportunity for self-criticism and re-examination of their own policies. The only question is how much time will pass before this mirror is accused of presenting a distorted picture of reality.