# data[].attributes.body
Pick a topic, and conduct research centered around the theme to evaluate the US's intervention into Bosnia.

Your response is:

1. Paragraphs directly copied from your sources. One paragraph per source, and total of two sources are required. Make sure your copied paragraphs are relevant to the topic you chose.

2. Upload a link to a Youtube video you found to your post - make sure the video answers the topic you chose.

3. Write a 100-200 word reflection on how both paragraphs and the video elaborate on the topic you chose.

At the bottom of your response, cite your sources in the form of Title, Author, and URL address. Make sure to use reliable sources.

Topics:

1. UN (United Nothing) - focus on the shortcomings and failures of UN Peacekeeping forces in Bosnia. Why was the UN so useless in Bosnia?

Keywords: Srebrenica, UN, failure

2. American Leadership - focus on how the transition from President Bush Sr. to President Clinton shaped US policy in Bosnia. Why did Clinton become more active in intervening into Bosnia?

Key phrases: Clinton interventionism, Clinton foreign policy Bosnia, Bush foreign policy Bosnia

3. Questionable Allies - focus on how US allies in Europe approached the question of peace in Bosnia, and how their different approach collided with American approach.

Key phrases: French British foreign policy Bosnia, NATO slow decision Bosnia...

4. Choose your own angle, consult with me before pursuing your own angle on Bosnian War.

# data[].attributes.body
Student Name: Jaemin Hyun

Period: 3

Theme Number: 1

"DutchBat III, so called because it was the third of several Dutch Army contingents to serve as UN peacekeepers in the Srebrenica enclave, arrived in January 1995. The battalion was under-supplied, under-equipped and its superiors at the UN command in Sarajevo were unwilling to given it extensive support.

Its mandate was not clearly defined, and Dutch military officials had made no efforts to procure detailed information about what was going on in the Srebrenica area. All this created an impossible situation for the Dutch troops who were tasked with implementing their orders to watch over the UN-declared ‘safe zone’, which had been encircled by Bosnian Serb forces, without using force except for in self-defence."

‘It Was Hell’: Dutch Troops Recall Failure to Stop Srebrenica Deaths, Balkan Insight, Tom Brown, https://balkaninsight.com/2019/08/08/it-was-hell-dutch-troops-recall-failure-to-stop-srebrenica-deaths/

"''Through error, misjudgment and the inability to recognize the scope of evil confronting us we failed to do our part to save the people of Srebrenica from the Serb campaign of mass murder,'' a senior United Nations official said today, introducing the report. ''These failings were in part rooted in a philosophy of neutrality and nonviolence wholly unsuited to the conflict in Bosnia.''

''In particular,'' this official said, ''the report makes clear the inadequacy of the entire approach of the United Nations to the Serb campaign of ethnic cleansing and mass murder, culminating at Srebrenica.''"

U.N. Details Its Failure to Stop '95 Bosnia Massacre, The New York Times, Barbara Corsette, https://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/16/world/un-details-its-failure-to-stop-95-bosnia-massacre.html.

Reflection:

In the early 1990s, the United Nations' attempts to prevent violence in Bosnia, especially in Srebrenica, were marred by profound incompetence and ineffectiveness. DutchBat III, the Dutch Army contingent serving as UN peacekeepers in Srebrenica, was critically under-supplied and under-equipped, reflecting the UN command's reluctance in Sarajevo to provide necessary support. This battalion, arriving in January 1995, faced an undefined mandate and a lack of effort from Dutch military officials to understand the situation in Srebrenica, creating a dire scenario for the troops. Tasked with overseeing a UN-declared 'safe zone' surrounded by Bosnian Serb forces, they were instructed not to use force except in self-defense, effectively setting them up for failure. The UN's acknowledgment of its failure, as highlighted by a senior official, stems from a misguided adherence to neutrality and nonviolence, a stance ill-suited to the conflict's realities. This approach failed to address the Serb campaign of ethnic cleansing and mass murder, culminating disastrously at Srebrenica, underscoring a comprehensive failure in the UN's strategy and execution.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Srebrenica: The Trauma Of The Blue Berets

# data[].attributes.headline
"Clinton didn’t try to intervene and stop the Rwandan genocide in 1994, and said later that sitting on the sidelines was a mistake that he regretted. He didn’t want to repeat that mistake with the “ethnic cleansing” in Bosnia."-  

# data[].attributes.subject
"Clinton didn’t try to intervene and stop the Rwandan genocide in 1994, and said later that sitting on the sidelines was a mistake that he regretted. He didn’t want to repeat that mistake with the “ethnic cleansing” in Bosnia."-  

# data[].attributes.body
"The NATO intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina was a series of actions undertaken by NATO whose stated aim was to establish long-term peace during and after the Bosnian War." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_intervention_in_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina#:~:text=The%20NATO%20intervention%20in%20Bosnia,and%20after%20the%20Bosnian%20War.

The war was something that was very important and our intervention in the war was required. The things they were doing inside of bosnia were war crimes. So its was kinda required for someone to step in. The U.S late intervention might not have been the best thing but you have to really think about things before going in and having war with another country, it might seem easy for people to say "just go help them" but people fail to realize that its real americans that die because of this decision so you have to take account the lives that is going to be lost my intervening. Is it worth it? https://www.facebook.com/camanpour/videos/bill-clinton-interview-1994/140377777783/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why did Bill Clinton get the United States involved in Bosnian war?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Answer (1 of 5): The misconception some hold is that President Clinton rushed into this war, and the more conspiracy-minded think it was done to distract from the Whitewater investigation. In fact, the conflict had been going on for a year before NATO began Operation Deny Flight to enforce a no-f...

# data[].attributes.body
Findlay Moses

Period 3

Theme 1

In hindsight, a lack of peace- keepers from UN Security Council members, incompetence by the UN, Bosnian, and Dutch commanders led to the fall of the town. A poorly armed, poorly equipped, and poorly run peacekeeping mission monstrously failed Srebrenica’s people. - https://srebrenica.org.uk/what-happened/history/introduction-srebrenica#:~:text=In%20hindsight%2C%20a%20lack%20of,the%20fall%20of%20the%20town.

United Nations peacekeeping officials were unwilling to heed requests for support from their own forces stationed within the enclave, thus allowing Bosnian Serb forces to easily overrun it and—without interference from U.N. soldiers—to carry out systematic, mass executions of hundreds, possibly thousands, of civilian men and boys and to terrorize, rape, beat, execute, rob and otherwise abuse civilians being deported from the area. - https://www.hrw.org/legacy/summaries/s.bosnia9510.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkkRTXKLcaM&ab_channel=euronews

Reflection:

In the video listed above, it talks about how people are trying to sue the United Nations for allowing the mass genocide of the Bosniak people. Something that could of changed the crimes, was if the UN simply just tried harder. According to HRW.org, they say "officials were unwilling to heed requests for support from their own forces stationed within the enclave." With this, it allowed the UN troops to be overrun which then was the direct cause of thousands of deaths. If the UN simply had just taken the issue much more seriously and stepped in much harder they could have prevented thousands of lost lives. They were "poorly armed, poorly equipped." Clearly if they were "poorly" equipped better equipment could of been supplied... so why wasnt it? The UN failed to fix the situation and needs to answer for what they did, because it is there fault that thousands of lives were lost.

Source #4 extra credit:

Presenting one sides crimes much more than another side makes them look much worse. If you completely hate America, and for example only show things that America is doing bad, the people are going to believe that America is some awful place because its all they see. Similarly in war, if you want to manipulate people to fight against your opponent, you spread false news and propaganda about how awful they are. for example - Even though we kill 1000 of them for no reason, they killed 2000 of us so they are worse. Super simple example, and could always be a lie, but it makes the other side look much worse. It can make one side look much better to someone who doesn't actually know whats going on and only gets there information from unconfirmed sources.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
UN faces legal action over Srebrenica massacre - europeans

# data[].attributes.body
Julia Wang

Period 3

Theme 3

"In July 1995, for instance, the French chose to turn the other way when Serbian troops stormed the U.N.-protected safe haven of Srebrenica. According to U.N. documents -- including a fax message from field chief Yasushi Akashi to Kofi Annan -- cited in the British newspaper Daily Telegraph, French President Jacques Chirac allegedly brokered a deal with Serb war criminal Slobodan Milosevic. France promised to hold back NATO airpower against advancing Serb forces in return for the release of up to 400 U.N. imprisoned soldiers."

French Peacekeepers, Soner Cagaptay, https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/french-peacekeepers

On 16 July 1995, with a final onslaught thought to be imminent, plans, which were codenamed Operation Screwdriver, to evacuate 350 British soldiers from the town were finalised at the Ministry of Defence in London... The disclosure of the British evacuation plans has come as little surprise to men who served in the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina during the civil war. Ferid Buljubasic, who had served as a lieutenant colonel in the Yugoslav National Army before commanding Bosnian forces in Gorazde from mid-1992 to the end of 1994, recalls the UN Protection Force (Unprofor) as being led largely by officers who did not understand the nature of the war.

'Screwdriver': The secret British plan to abandon Bosnia as Srebrenica fell, Ian Cobain and Elvira Jukic-Mujkic, https://www.middleeasteye.net/big-story/operation-screwdriver-secret-british-plan-abandon-bosnia-srebrenica-fell

Reflection: During 1995, France and Britain's response to the Bosnian War was often not aligned with the US' response, and at times even opposed the efforts of both the US and NATO. For instance, despite the US' efforts to take stronger action in order to defend safe zones in Bosnia, the UK planned to do the opposite through plans like Operation Screwdriver. This operation would evacuate British soldiers from Gorazde - an enclave under seige at the time - and would reduce British military support in the war. In addition, France was also lacking support for the US perspective of taking stronger action. According to UN documents, French President Jacques Chirac had made a deal to release 400 UN imprisoned soldiers, and in return, he would hold back NATO airpower. Both these instances show that many European countries believed in taking different courses of action than the US, and as a result, some of the effort that could have been put in to stop the Bosnian War earlier was not present.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As Washington gets ready to approach the United Nations for international support in Iraq, France is poised to ask for a significant role in running the country, including the stationing of peacekeepers there. Although U.N. assistance would be a valuable contribution to U.S. efforts to create a new Iraq, it remains to be seen whether French peacekeepers would actually be beneficial.

Paris' recent record of its wartime performance and subsequent peacekeeping in Bosnia suggests that once deployed, French troops tend to ignore their primary mission of fighting warmongers.

In July 1995, for instance, the French chose to turn the other way when Serbian troops stormed the U.N.-protected safe haven of Srebrenica. According to U.N. documents -- including a fax message from field chief Yasushi Akashi to Kofi Annan -- cited in the British newspaper Daily Telegraph, French President Jacques Chirac allegedly brokered a deal with Serb war criminal Slobodan Milosevic. France promised to hold back NATO airpower against advancing Serb forces in return for the release of up to 400 U.N. imprisoned soldiers.

Srebrenica was sacrificed: When Serbs took the town, they killed its entire male population of 7,000 men and boys and expelled the women on a long mountainous trek across Serb defense lines.

Mr. Chirac vehemently denied French complicity in the Srebrenica incident. Paris attempted to take this issue off the radar screen. In early 2002, when the French parliament started an investigation into the Srebrenica massacre, the French government refused to allow Gen. Bernard Janvier, the commander of French forces and U.N. Protection Force in Bosnia, to testify at the hearing.

But, the word eventually came out at the International War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague. When brought in front of the court as an indicted war criminal, and asked about the Srebrenica massacre, in September 2002, Milosevic replied: "Ask Jacques Chirac about Srebrenica. I want the truth to be revealed for this insane crime."

Mr. Chirac purportedly continued to make deals with war criminals even after the Srebrenica massacre, as the United States -- mobilized to prevent further atrocities -- started to bomb Serb targets.

Transcripts of taped telephone conversations between Yugoslav officials submitted as evidence to The Hague Tribunal and cited in the Canadian daily National Post, document that at the end of hostilities in December 1995, Mr. Chirac told Gen. Ratko Mladic (the Serbian butcher of Srebrenica) that he would not be extradited to The Hague. In return, Mladic released the two French pilots who had been in Serb custody since August that year when their planes had been downed outside Sarajevo. France denied the allegations of a deal with Mladic as "hearsay."

After the Bosnian war, as international troops arrived to help stabilize the country, Serb war criminals, among them Gen. Mladic and Radovan Karadzic, the leader of the Serbian campaign against Bosnian Muslims, took refuge in the French-patrolled zone of Eastern Bosnia in towns such as Pale, Zepa and Foca. While the British and the Americans were busy plucking war criminals in their Bosnia zones, the French allowed Karadzic and Mladic freedom of movement, even protecting them against the British and the Americans.

According to The Washington Post, in the summer of 1997, American troops had to drop a clandestine plan to arrest Karadzic when a French officer, Commandant Herve Gourmelon, tipped off Karadzic about the American plans to grab him.

In April 1998, the French Defense Ministry issued a communique refusing to admit fault. An investigation ordered by Mr. Chirac concluded "carelessness," but no grave error. In the end, Commandant Herve Gourmelon received a new assignment in France, and Karadzic remained free.

As international outcry against the French mounted, Paris felt obliged to take symbolique action. According to the British daily Guardian, in July 2002, for instance, French soldiers raided a "long-deserted family residence" of Karadzic in Pale, "blowing open doors and seizing a computer hard drive." Karadzic's wife reacted to the French raid saying "they could have just asked for the keys."

To this day, the French zone of Bosnia remains a bastion of war criminals, a far cry from the rest of Bosnia-Herzegovina. French policies in Bosnia, guided by self-serving calculations, and a seeming lack of compassion for the suffering of the Muslim population, have botched up the efforts to move things ahead there.

The case of Bosnia should be a warning for Iraq: Getting the French involved may help alleviate some of the burden, but if we are to have France in Iraq, we need to be prepared for any complications this could create.

# data[].attributes.body
Ronin Scott

Period 3

Theme number 3

"What a nation refuses to ignore becomes an interest, like it or not, and in the case of Bosnia the inability of the Bush and Clinton administrations to remain aloof, though each might have preferred to, meant that eventually the United States would have to try to bring about a solution. The American interest in a Bosnian settlement, however, was not just the product of its "humanitarian" angst, nor of some Wilsonian dream to rid the world of aggression. From the first the issue of Bosnia was intimately bound up with the larger question of America's role in Europe and its relationship with its key European allies and NATO. Finally, that is what pushed Bosnia across the threshold from merely an interest to a "vital" interest."

"CLINTON DEFENDS SENDING TROOPS TO BOSNIA"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1995/12/02/clinton-defends-sending-troops-to-bosnia/efd3dd2f-2a0c-43e5-9070-8762ad103dea/

"As the war in Bosnia marks its first anniversary, the real costs in human terms are well known: almost two million refugees, who face a precarious future in an unwelcoming Europe. Approximately 140,000 dead and a further 750,000 ''missing,'' according to figures released by the Institute for Public Health in Sarajevo, the Bosnian capital. Nearly 30,000 women systematically raped by Serb insurgents, according to the findings of a Commission of Inquiry headed by the UK's Dame Anne Warburton. It is a war that brought obscure Balkan villages into the international spotlight and revealed cruelties not witnessed in Europe since World War II. In spite of all this, the 12 countries of the European Community continued to insist that negotiations were the only path."

"Why Europe Failed to Halt The Genocide in Bosnia"

https://www.wrmea.org/1993-april-may/why-europe-failed-to-halt-the-genocide-in-bosnia.html

Throughout the war in Bosnia, the US had much stronger efforts to help Bosnia than Europe did. Clinton, the US president at the time was very certain to end the war. He ended up sending troops to Bosnia to aid them. Most importantly, he ended the war with a treaty that was signed in Dayton, Ohio. While the US was putting in lots of effort and making great progress, Europe was holding back their help for Bosnia. Europe did not support their military going into Bosnia and they denied many cease fires that would have helped Bosnia. Overall the US made much more helpful and beneficial decisions compared to Europe which even caused the war to end.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
President Bill Clinton - Address on Bosnia

# data[].attributes.body
Student Name: Vasilisa Seneko

Period: 3

Theme number: 1

1. "During the conflict in Bosnia, the Serbs were unopposed and free to carry out genocide against the Muslims. The UN did not follow up on their warnings, and this permitted the conflict to persist."

- Iman Zekri, 2016, Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing: An Analysis on the Role of the United Nations during the Bosnian War

https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1054&context=ureca#:~:text=During%20the%20conflict%20in%20Bosnia,permitted%20the%20conflict%20to%20persist.

2. "Amidst chaos and violence, thousands of people fled to nearby areas where UN peacekeepers were stationed. Unfortunately, the peacekeepers had no vigor to fight the Serbs and to give protection to the displaced Bosnians. The peacekeepers eventually surrendered, and this further intensified the aggression of the Serbs."

- Najeeb, M. (2023, September 26). The Bosnian Genocide: The UN's Ultimate Failure. Paradigm Shift. https://www.paradigmshift.com.pk/bosnian-genocide/#:~:text=Amidst%20chaos%20and%20violence%2C%20thousands,the%20aggression%20of%20the%20Serbs.

Reflection: The topic that I chose and the articles that support the theme of my question which is how the UN was useless in Bosnia. The peacekeepers did nothing to keep the peace, and failed to protect the people who were being slaughtered.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Background

Bosnia, which is an independent state was once part of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was a former country in Southern Europe that consisted of 6 nations: Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, Macedonia, and Slovenia. The history of Yugoslavia is marked by bloody and outrageous events of integration and disintegration.

In 1918, the Kingdom of Yugoslavia was created with a merger of the Kingdom of Serbia, the Kingdom of Montenegro, and territories of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire. However, the Kingdom of Yugoslavia ended in 1941 when the Axis powers (Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy) took control of these nations and imposed puppet governments. However, in 1945, when the Axis powers lost in World War II, the kingdom was re-established as a "socialist state" comprised of 6 republics.

This marked the start of the socialist state of Yugoslavia which was ruled by Josip Broz Tito until his death in the 1980s. Tito's death facilitated the fall of Yugoslavia. Issues were already boiling up under Tito's rule, but nationalist movements and economic decline gained momentum after his death. In the 80s and 90s, Yugoslavia began to fall apart due to economic instability, oppressive communist policies, and ethnic conflict.

States began declaring their independence from Yugoslavia and in 1992 Bosnia declared independence. Civil strife had already erupted between Croatia and Serbia and now Bosnia was also engulfed in one of the bloodiest conflicts the world had ever witnessed, culminating in the Bosnian genocide.

UN Peacekeepers

Peacekeeping forces were originally established to maintain peace after a ceasefire or resolution was established in an international conflict. They are a neutral force to resolve conflicts at the behest of the warring parties. The peacekeepers are not recruited or trained by the UN, rather the member countries of the UN contribute troops, police, and military experts. The prime purpose of these peacekeepers is to ensure peace, provide humanitarian aid, and rebuild and restore nations and governments. They are also responsible for political and social rehabilitation.

United Nations has launched multiple peacekeeping missions in various war-torn nations and to the misfortune of those nations and their people, UN missions have failed miserably to ensure peace and protect the people. Some evident examples of its failures include the unsuccessful peacekeeping mission of the UN in Congo in 1999, Somalia in 1993, Rwanda in 1994, and Bosnia during the 1990s.

UN Peacekeeping Mission in Bosnia

As soon as the war broke out in Bosnia in 1992, the leadership of Bosnia appealed to the United Nations to help but they refused, and Serbs went from town to town to execute boys and men. Hundreds of women were raped and placed in concentration camps. Resolutions after resolutions were passed in the UN, condemning the onslaught by the Serb forces, but the most powerful member states of the UN did nothing.

A ray of hope emerged for Bosnians when on March 12 th, 1993, General Philippe Morillon, the UN peacekeeping commander in Bosnia, brought long-awaited medical aid, food, and protection. With a plethora of refugees, General Morillon instantly realized that it would be harder to leave Srebenica the same night as they had planned.

In order to stabilize the situation in Bosnia, he proclaimed that the people were now "under the protection of UN forces." While this statement calmed down the Bosnians, it created panic in the headquarters of the United Nations because the statement was made without any official commands and clearance.

United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) was also formed as a peacekeeping mission in Bosnia. Although, the peacekeepers succeeded in the provision of humanitarian aid but awfully failed to end the conflict and restore peace between the warring parties. It was not only a failure of the UN peacekeeping mission but also a devastating humanitarian loss.

Approximately, 25,000 UN peacekeepers were involved in the Bosnian conflict and during this time, 110 of them were killed, 831 were wounded, and hundreds of them were taken as hostages. Moreover, by April 16th, 1993, Srebrenica was declared a "safe zone" under Resolution 819. Following this, 5 more areas were declared as "safe zones" as Resolution 824 was passed. The zones included the areas of Gorazde, Bihar, Sarajevo, Tuzla, and Zepa. It meant that people in these areas shall be protected even if it involved the use of force.

"Safe Zones" under Threat

The peacekeepers of the UN were placed in safe zones primarily to protect the people in these regions, and it is where they failed miserably. Not a single "safe zone" was left where the Serb forces did not launch any bombs and do heavy shelling. By 1995, the Serb forces had launched attacks in all the "safe zones," carrying out genocide and displacing hundreds and thousands of Bosnian men, women, and children.

Bihac

Bihac was one of the safe zones declared through United Nations Security Council Resolution 824. This safe zone was constantly under attack through mortar fire, air strikes, and tank incursions. Even though UN peacekeepers were placed in this region, they failed to stop the Serbian forces. These mass murders and attacks-part of the Bosnian genocide-only came to an end when the Bosnians and Croats joined hands and launched Operation Storm in early August which relieved this enclave.

Tuzla

Tuzla was declared a safe zone along with Bihac and unfortunately, Tuzla experienced the same misfortune as that experienced by Bihac. In the May of 1995, several shells were fired by the Serb forces, often known as the Army of Republika Spraska (VRS). 71 civilians were killed and 240 wounded as a result of this heavy bombing.

Srebenica

The area of Srebenica underwent the worst episode of bloodshed within Europe since World War II. In March 1995 Radovan Karadžić, the president of the self-declared autonomous Republika Srpska (Bosnian Serb Republic), directed his military forces to "create an unbearable situation of total insecurity with no hope of further survival or life for the inhabitants of Srebrenica."

A food embargo was also imposed by the Serbs that compelled a lot of Bosnian fighters to flee from the area. In June, after a few skirmishes, Serb forces launched an operation, code-named Krivaja 95, which manifested into a massacre that can only be described as a Bosnian genocide. By July 1995 a full-scale series of bombing, shelling, and mortar attacks had begun by the Serbs. The killings in Srebenica were nothing but a massacre.

Approximately 7,000 Bosnian boys and men were killed and more than 20,000 people were expelled and displaced. Amidst chaos and violence, thousands of people fled to nearby areas where UN peacekeepers were stationed. Unfortunately, the peacekeepers had no vigor to fight the Serbs and to give protection to the displaced Bosnians. The peacekeepers eventually surrendered, and this further intensified the aggression of the Serbs.

Zepa, Gorazde and Sarajevo

One after the other, all of the safe zones fell into the hands of the Serbs and out of the control of the UN peacekeepers. The area of Zepa was taken by the Serbs by July 1995, leading to the death of 116 Bosnians, and the rest of the population was expelled from the town. Similarly, the town of Sarajevo experienced heavy casualties. The attacks by artillery and machine guns led to the destruction of gas, water, and electricity supplies.

As a result, the UN requested NATO forces to launch airstrikes on Serb artillery positions surrounding the city. Gorazde stayed protected because of counter-offensive attacks by NATO against the Serbs. However, in 1995, Gorazde was the site of the capture of 350 UN peacekeepers held by VRS. The peacekeepers were placed at strategic locations by the VRS to protect Serbs from NATO airstrikes.

Dayton Peace Accords

The immense humanitarian loss and bloodshed finally compelled the West to get involved in the peace process and put an end to years of violence and injustice happening in Bosnia. With all the safe zones fallen into the hands of the Serb forces, NATO started its airstrikes on Serbian areas. All the warring parts were already drained, and these airstrikes weakened Serbian forces too.

This coercion mechanism adopted by the West facilitated the peace process and by September 1995, Richard Holbrooke succeeded in getting an agreement signed by Radovan Karadžić and Ratko Mladić, leaders of the Bosnian Serbs to end the conflict and lay the framework for peace talks in Dayton, Ohio.

On November 1 st, 1995, the conference began. Bosnian President Alija Izetbegović, Serbian President Milošević, Croatian President Franjo Tudjman, and representatives from the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, and the European Union (EU) met at the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base on the outskirts of Dayton, Ohio. The peace talks were led and headed by Richard Holbrooke, Assistant Secretary of the State.

After 17 days of negotiation and re-drawing of plans, a final agreement was reached to ensure peace in the territory of Bosnia. It was decided to keep Bosnia-Herzegovina as one country but divided into 2 districts: Bosniak-Croats Federation and the Republika Srpska. In addition to defined territories, the agreement also made all the parties agree to respect human rights and that of refugees and displaced people. The agreement also paved way for the arrival of 66,000 strong NATO peacekeeping implementation forces (IFOR).

Conclusion

The Dayton Peace Accords proved successful to end the bloodiest conflict in Europe after World War II. The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia was established before the Bosnian genocide to investigate the military conflict in the state. It concluded the Bosnian ethnic cleansing and widespread mass killings as a "genocide" and declared the Serb leaders as the main perpetrators of the conflict.

However, the United Nations and other Western nations also accepted their share of the blame for having failed awfully to protect the masses of Bosnia. This conflict was a clear reflection of the failure of the United Nations as an international organization for peace, security, and development.

In a critical interview in 1999, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan wrote, "Through error, misjudgment and an inability to recognize the scope of the evil confronting us, we failed to do our part to help save the people of Srebrenica from the [Bosnian] Serb campaign of mass murder."
If you want to submit your articles/research papers/book reviews, please check the Submissions page.
The views and opinions expressed in this article/paper are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Paradigm Shift.

(Visited 3,818 times, 1 visits today)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Bosnian Genocide: The UN's Ultimate Failure - Paradigm Shift

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The United Nations' incompetence in preventing the genocide of the Bosnian Muslims, and the great powers' hesitance to intervene...

# data[].attributes.headline
Shortcomings and Failures of UN Peacekeeping forces in Bosnia. Why was the UN so useless in Bosnia?

# data[].attributes.subject
Shortcomings and Failures of UN Peacekeeping forces in Bosnia. Why was the UN so useless in Bosnia?

# data[].attributes.body
Joanna Martinez

Period: 3

Theme Number: 1

"United Nations peacekeeping officials were unwilling to heed requests for support from their own forces stationed within the enclave, thus allowing Bosnian Serb forces to easily overrun it and—without interference from U.N. soldiers—to carry out systematic, mass executions of hundreds, possibly thousands, of civilian men and boys and to terrorize, rape, beat, execute, rob and otherwise abuse civilians being deported from the area."

https://www.hrw.org/legacy/summaries/s.bosnia9510.html#:~:text=United%20Nations%20peacekeeping%20officials%20were,and%E2%80%94without%20interference%20from%20U.N.

"the UN was ineffective in the conflict in Bosnia since it failed to end the bloodshed; the UN was most limited by domestic factors in Bosnia (the situation on the ground) rather than factors within the UN structure; the UNHCR was the only effective UN agency during the conflict; and the tragic losses during the Bosnian War could have been prevented or greatly reduced if the UN had effectively enforced its strategies."

https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1054&context=ureca#:~:text=The%20primary%20arguments%20in%20this,effective%20UN%20agency%20during%20the

Reflection: The United Nations tries to protect Bosnia from preventing violence. There wasn't any peace to keep between the UN and Bosnia. Which caused many people's death. The lack of communication and poor army ended with the peacekeeping mission to fail Srebrenica's people.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
USA/UN - UN Peacekeeping Efforts In Bosnia Failed

# data[].attributes.body
Student Name: Amanda

Period: 3

Theme Number: 1

"Abuses attending the occupation of the “safe area” included the terrorization of women, children and the elderly and the premeditated mass executions of men and boys. The trek through Bosnian Serb-controlled territory that men fleeing the enclave hoped would lead them to safety instead led to ambushes and executions of hundreds and possibly thousands of men in numerous locations."

Bosnia - Hercegovina: The Fall of Srebrenica and the Failure of U.N. Peacekeeping, hrw.org, https://www.hrw.org/legacy/summaries/s.bosnia9510.html

"As soon as the war broke out in Bosnia in 1992, the leadership of Bosnia appealed to the United Nations to help but they refused, and Serbs went from town to town to execute boys and men. Hundreds of women were raped and placed in concentration camps. Resolutions after resolutions were passed in the UN, condemning the onslaught by the Serb forces, but the most powerful member states of the UN did nothing."

The Bosnian Genocide: The UN's Ultimate Failure, Paradigm Shift, Mahnoor Najeeb, https://www.paradigmshift.com.pk/bosnian-genocide/

Reflection:

Source 1: The United Nations soldiers not only failed to help and protect the citizens of Bosnia, they caused hundreds and thousands of people to caught and slaughtered. They misled the people into believe in their "safe area", that actually led them to more danger suffering.

Source 2: When the leadership of Bosnia seeked help from the United Nations, they refused and continued to do nothing. This resulted in "hundreds of women [being] raped and placed in concentration camps" and execu[tions] of boys and men". The people who had the power ,such as the United Nations, to do something and help the people being hurt and tortured stood by, watched, and did nothing.

# data[].attributes.body
Natalie Hester

Period 3

Theme number 1

"By the spring of 1993, Srebrenica was one of a half-dozen surrounded towns across Bosnia where besieged Muslims struggled to hold off attacking Serb forces."

https://srebrenica.org.uk/what-happened/history/introduction-srebrenica

"United Nations peacekeeping officials were unwilling to heed requests for support from their own forces stationed within the enclave, thus allowing Bosnian Serb forces to easily overrun it and—without interference from U.N."

https://www.hrw.org/legacy/summaries/s.bosnia9510.html#:~:text=United%20Nations%20peacekeeping%20officials%20were,and%E2%80%94without%20interference%20from%20U.N.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQ5xCqbS6ZE

Reflection-

The United Nations attempts to help stop the violence in Bosnia failed because they did not want to be involved in the conflict they just wanted the conflict to stop. They said that Srebrenica was a safe place but shortly after the Serbs took control of the city and killed thousands of people. The UN did not do the one job they had and that was to protect people. The UN soldiers needed more help and the United Nations leaders would not give them the help until it was too late and the Serbs had already over took the base and city. The united nations also talked about not wanting to force peace but to bring real peace, this idea let to more death then there could have been if the United Nations just stopped the massacre.

Reflection for source 4-

The serbs were trying to campaign the violence between committed by muslims and they were trying to make them seem like the bad guys and that what the Serbs were doing was actually not as bad. This bias towards one side makes people talk about that one side more than the other and it makes the blame on the muslims in this case. This will create a people to think that one side of the war was much worse than the others while learning about it.

# data[].attributes.body
Nico Pisapia

Period: 3

Theme 3

"IFOR aimed to oversee implementation of the military aspects of the Dayton Peace Agreement, the accord ending the Bosnian War. Its main task was to guarantee the end of hostilities and separate the armed forces of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, on the one hand, and Republika Srpska, on the other."

Peace Support Operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina (1995-2004), NATO

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_52122.html

"As the Bosnian Serb strategy unfolded through the spring and into summer, the 20,000-strong U.N. Protection Force in Bosnia confronted a fateful dilemma. UNPROFOR could actively oppose the Bosnian Serb effort and side with the Muslim victims of the war. But this would entail sacrificing the evenhandedness that is the hallmark of U.N. peacekeeping. Alternatively, UNPROFOR could preserve its much-vaunted neutrality and limit its role to protecting humanitarian relief supplies and agencies. But this would effectively leave the Muslims to face the Bosnian Serb assault virtually unprotected."

Decision to Intervene: How the War in Bosnia Ended, Brookings, Ivo H. Daalder

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/decision-to-intervene-how-the-war-in-bosnia-ended/#:~:text=Protection%20Force%20in%20Bosnia%20confronted,peacekeeping.

Reflection:

The Bosnian war posed a complicated situation for the United States, it's European allies, and the UN. NATO and the UN felt that if they were going to intervene and bring peace to this conflict, that they would be picking a side therefore resulting in them not keeping peace, but causing further death and war. NATO knew as well that if one country were to get involved, then all of the countries were to get involved, and convincing all of them caused for the late intervention in the war. The EUFOR was the name of the forces they deployed, and they helped to eventually bring an end to the war of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Source 4 Reflection (Extra Credit):

After the Bosnian War, there was an attempt to convince people that the crimes committed by the Muslims in Bosnia and Herzegovina were equivalent to the genocide the Muslims were the victim of. The Serbian nationalist Radical party was the group responsible for trying to diminish the significance of their actions, and in Serbia this is still the common belief today - that the muslims are the ones who are in the wrong, and the Serbs were the true victims. This blasphemous claim is backed by tales and accounts of muslims mistreating Serbian civilians and prisoners of war, but regardless is invalid as muslims experienced everything the Serbs did, along with a genocide responsible for the killing of 60,000 people.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Background

Bosnia, which is an independent state was once part of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was a former country in Southern Europe that consisted of 6 nations: Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, Macedonia, and Slovenia. The history of Yugoslavia is marked by bloody and outrageous events of integration and disintegration.

In 1918, the Kingdom of Yugoslavia was created with a merger of the Kingdom of Serbia, the Kingdom of Montenegro, and territories of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire. However, the Kingdom of Yugoslavia ended in 1941 when the Axis powers (Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy) took control of these nations and imposed puppet governments. However, in 1945, when the Axis powers lost in World War II, the kingdom was re-established as a "socialist state" comprised of 6 republics.

This marked the start of the socialist state of Yugoslavia which was ruled by Josip Broz Tito until his death in the 1980s. Tito's death facilitated the fall of Yugoslavia. Issues were already boiling up under Tito's rule, but nationalist movements and economic decline gained momentum after his death. In the 80s and 90s, Yugoslavia began to fall apart due to economic instability, oppressive communist policies, and ethnic conflict.

States began declaring their independence from Yugoslavia and in 1992 Bosnia declared independence. Civil strife had already erupted between Croatia and Serbia and now Bosnia was also engulfed in one of the bloodiest conflicts the world had ever witnessed, culminating in the Bosnian genocide.

UN Peacekeepers

Peacekeeping forces were originally established to maintain peace after a ceasefire or resolution was established in an international conflict. They are a neutral force to resolve conflicts at the behest of the warring parties. The peacekeepers are not recruited or trained by the UN, rather the member countries of the UN contribute troops, police, and military experts. The prime purpose of these peacekeepers is to ensure peace, provide humanitarian aid, and rebuild and restore nations and governments. They are also responsible for political and social rehabilitation.

United Nations has launched multiple peacekeeping missions in various war-torn nations and to the misfortune of those nations and their people, UN missions have failed miserably to ensure peace and protect the people. Some evident examples of its failures include the unsuccessful peacekeeping mission of the UN in Congo in 1999, Somalia in 1993, Rwanda in 1994, and Bosnia during the 1990s.

UN Peacekeeping Mission in Bosnia

As soon as the war broke out in Bosnia in 1992, the leadership of Bosnia appealed to the United Nations to help but they refused, and Serbs went from town to town to execute boys and men. Hundreds of women were raped and placed in concentration camps. Resolutions after resolutions were passed in the UN, condemning the onslaught by the Serb forces, but the most powerful member states of the UN did nothing.

A ray of hope emerged for Bosnians when on March 12 th, 1993, General Philippe Morillon, the UN peacekeeping commander in Bosnia, brought long-awaited medical aid, food, and protection. With a plethora of refugees, General Morillon instantly realized that it would be harder to leave Srebenica the same night as they had planned.

In order to stabilize the situation in Bosnia, he proclaimed that the people were now "under the protection of UN forces." While this statement calmed down the Bosnians, it created panic in the headquarters of the United Nations because the statement was made without any official commands and clearance.

United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) was also formed as a peacekeeping mission in Bosnia. Although, the peacekeepers succeeded in the provision of humanitarian aid but awfully failed to end the conflict and restore peace between the warring parties. It was not only a failure of the UN peacekeeping mission but also a devastating humanitarian loss.

Approximately, 25,000 UN peacekeepers were involved in the Bosnian conflict and during this time, 110 of them were killed, 831 were wounded, and hundreds of them were taken as hostages. Moreover, by April 16th, 1993, Srebrenica was declared a "safe zone" under Resolution 819. Following this, 5 more areas were declared as "safe zones" as Resolution 824 was passed. The zones included the areas of Gorazde, Bihar, Sarajevo, Tuzla, and Zepa. It meant that people in these areas shall be protected even if it involved the use of force.

"Safe Zones" under Threat

The peacekeepers of the UN were placed in safe zones primarily to protect the people in these regions, and it is where they failed miserably. Not a single "safe zone" was left where the Serb forces did not launch any bombs and do heavy shelling. By 1995, the Serb forces had launched attacks in all the "safe zones," carrying out genocide and displacing hundreds and thousands of Bosnian men, women, and children.

Bihac

Bihac was one of the safe zones declared through United Nations Security Council Resolution 824. This safe zone was constantly under attack through mortar fire, air strikes, and tank incursions. Even though UN peacekeepers were placed in this region, they failed to stop the Serbian forces. These mass murders and attacks-part of the Bosnian genocide-only came to an end when the Bosnians and Croats joined hands and launched Operation Storm in early August which relieved this enclave.

Tuzla

Tuzla was declared a safe zone along with Bihac and unfortunately, Tuzla experienced the same misfortune as that experienced by Bihac. In the May of 1995, several shells were fired by the Serb forces, often known as the Army of Republika Spraska (VRS). 71 civilians were killed and 240 wounded as a result of this heavy bombing.

Srebenica

The area of Srebenica underwent the worst episode of bloodshed within Europe since World War II. In March 1995 Radovan Karadžić, the president of the self-declared autonomous Republika Srpska (Bosnian Serb Republic), directed his military forces to "create an unbearable situation of total insecurity with no hope of further survival or life for the inhabitants of Srebrenica."

A food embargo was also imposed by the Serbs that compelled a lot of Bosnian fighters to flee from the area. In June, after a few skirmishes, Serb forces launched an operation, code-named Krivaja 95, which manifested into a massacre that can only be described as a Bosnian genocide. By July 1995 a full-scale series of bombing, shelling, and mortar attacks had begun by the Serbs. The killings in Srebenica were nothing but a massacre.

Approximately 7,000 Bosnian boys and men were killed and more than 20,000 people were expelled and displaced. Amidst chaos and violence, thousands of people fled to nearby areas where UN peacekeepers were stationed. Unfortunately, the peacekeepers had no vigor to fight the Serbs and to give protection to the displaced Bosnians. The peacekeepers eventually surrendered, and this further intensified the aggression of the Serbs.

Zepa, Gorazde and Sarajevo

One after the other, all of the safe zones fell into the hands of the Serbs and out of the control of the UN peacekeepers. The area of Zepa was taken by the Serbs by July 1995, leading to the death of 116 Bosnians, and the rest of the population was expelled from the town. Similarly, the town of Sarajevo experienced heavy casualties. The attacks by artillery and machine guns led to the destruction of gas, water, and electricity supplies.

As a result, the UN requested NATO forces to launch airstrikes on Serb artillery positions surrounding the city. Gorazde stayed protected because of counter-offensive attacks by NATO against the Serbs. However, in 1995, Gorazde was the site of the capture of 350 UN peacekeepers held by VRS. The peacekeepers were placed at strategic locations by the VRS to protect Serbs from NATO airstrikes.

Dayton Peace Accords

The immense humanitarian loss and bloodshed finally compelled the West to get involved in the peace process and put an end to years of violence and injustice happening in Bosnia. With all the safe zones fallen into the hands of the Serb forces, NATO started its airstrikes on Serbian areas. All the warring parts were already drained, and these airstrikes weakened Serbian forces too.

This coercion mechanism adopted by the West facilitated the peace process and by September 1995, Richard Holbrooke succeeded in getting an agreement signed by Radovan Karadžić and Ratko Mladić, leaders of the Bosnian Serbs to end the conflict and lay the framework for peace talks in Dayton, Ohio.

On November 1 st, 1995, the conference began. Bosnian President Alija Izetbegović, Serbian President Milošević, Croatian President Franjo Tudjman, and representatives from the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, and the European Union (EU) met at the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base on the outskirts of Dayton, Ohio. The peace talks were led and headed by Richard Holbrooke, Assistant Secretary of the State.

After 17 days of negotiation and re-drawing of plans, a final agreement was reached to ensure peace in the territory of Bosnia. It was decided to keep Bosnia-Herzegovina as one country but divided into 2 districts: Bosniak-Croats Federation and the Republika Srpska. In addition to defined territories, the agreement also made all the parties agree to respect human rights and that of refugees and displaced people. The agreement also paved way for the arrival of 66,000 strong NATO peacekeeping implementation forces (IFOR).

Conclusion

The Dayton Peace Accords proved successful to end the bloodiest conflict in Europe after World War II. The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia was established before the Bosnian genocide to investigate the military conflict in the state. It concluded the Bosnian ethnic cleansing and widespread mass killings as a "genocide" and declared the Serb leaders as the main perpetrators of the conflict.

However, the United Nations and other Western nations also accepted their share of the blame for having failed awfully to protect the masses of Bosnia. This conflict was a clear reflection of the failure of the United Nations as an international organization for peace, security, and development.

In a critical interview in 1999, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan wrote, "Through error, misjudgment and an inability to recognize the scope of the evil confronting us, we failed to do our part to help save the people of Srebrenica from the [Bosnian] Serb campaign of mass murder."
If you want to submit your articles/research papers/book reviews, please check the Submissions page.
The views and opinions expressed in this article/paper are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Paradigm Shift.

(Visited 3,841 times, 1 visits today)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Bosnian Genocide: The UN's Ultimate Failure - Paradigm Shift

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The United Nations' incompetence in preventing the genocide of the Bosnian Muslims, and the great powers' hesitance to intervene...

# data[].attributes.body
Ivan Marinov

period 3

Theme 1

United Nations peacekeeping officials were unwilling to heed requests for support from their own forces stationed within the enclave, thus allowing Bosnian Serb forces to easily overrun it and—without interference from U.N. soldiers—to carry out systematic, mass executions of hundreds, possibly thousands, of civilian men and boys and to terrorize, rape, beat, execute, rob and otherwise abuse civilians being deported from the area.

HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH

Publications

BOSNIA-HERCEGOVINAThe Fall of Srebrenica and the Failure of U.N. Peacekeeping

Vol. 7, No. 13, October 1995

SUMMARY   |   RECOMMENDATIONS   |   TABLE OF CONTENTS

The case of the UN peacekeeping operation during the Bosnian War is regarded in this paper as a failure because there was poor leadership, the situation was not deescalated, and the afflicted individuals' needs were not satisfied.

University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln UReCA: The NCHC Journal of Undergraduate Research & Creative Activity National Collegiate Honors Council 2016 Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing: An Analysis on the Role of the United Nations during the Bosnian War

Reflection

The UN failed to aid Bosnia which led to many deaths. Without the support of the UN, Bosnian Serbs forces took over the town of Srebrenica. This caused soldiers to carry out systematic, mass executions of hundreds of civilian men and boys and to terrorize, rape, beat, execute, rob and otherwise abuse civilians being deported from the area.

# data[].attributes.body
Derek Zhang
Period: 3
Theme Number: 2

“The United States also made a key shift in policy to conduct air strikes against the Serbs if they continued to threaten the Bosnian safe areas or refused to negotiate a settlement.”

“U.S. Pres. Bill Clinton (this author) had authorized a private company to use retired U.S. military personnel to improve and train the Croatian army. Croatian forces took Krajina with little resistance. It was the first defeat for the Serbs in four years, and it changed both the balance of power on the ground and the psychology of all the parties.”

Dayton-Accords, Britannica

https://www.britannica.com/event/Dayton-Accords

“Declassified documents from the period and interviews with some of the protagonists reflect the determination of Bill Clinton and his foreign policy team to find a solution to the three-year conflict at all costs before his re-election campaign began in earnest in 1996 – even if that meant rewarding the Bosnian Serb leaders for their policy of ethnic cleansing by granting them their objective: secession.”

Bill Clinton pushed ‘appeasement’ of Serbs after Srebrenica massacre, The Guardian, Julian Borger

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/26/srebrenica-bill-clinton-bosnia-appeasement-documents

Reflection:

The US did not hesitate to intervene in the Bosnia and Herzegovina conflict. Bill Clinton was determined to find a solution for each group to live in peace. He also aided the Croats to defeat the Serbs to even out the balance of the war. In addition to creating peace, Clinton also wanted to spread democracy to the country after it was previously ran by the ideas of communism. By being the mediator in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Clinton made his image as president much stronger before his re-election campaign.

# data[].attributes.body
Theme- 3

Period- 3

1. United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) was also formed as a peacekeeping mission in Bosnia. Although, the peacekeepers succeeded in the provision of humanitarian aid but awfully failed to end the conflict and restore peace between the warring parties. It was not only a failure of the UN peacekeeping mission but also a devastating humanitarian loss."

https://www.paradigmshift.com.pk/bosnian-genocide/#:~:text=Even%20though%20UN%20peacekeepers%20were,August%20which%20relieved%20this%20enclave.

2. "We report on the mishandling of the crisis by the U.N.’s Bosnia peacekeeping force UNPROFOR/UNPF — from the craven decisions of its field commanders prior to the fall of Srebrenica, to its apparent suppression and destruction of evidence of massive human rights abuses immediately after the fall of the “safe area.”[3] We also report on the Dutch Defense Ministry’s “mislaying” of a crucial list of missing Bosnian men and boys and its destruction of a videotape showing Bosnian Serb soldiers engaged in extrajudicial executions as Dutch U.N. troops looked on." https://www.hrw.org/report/1995/10/15/fall-srebrenica-and-failure-un-peacekeeping/bosnia-and-herzegovina

Video Link- https://www.facebook.com/JohnnyHarrisVox/videos/how-the-un-failed-to-stop-a-genocide-in-bosnia/1650416158731243/

Reflection: In the early 1990s the UN more formally the United Nations' attempts to prevent violence in Bosnia, Especially in Srebrenica, were stopped by profound incompetence and ineffectiveness. Political hesitance among member states, and heavy-hitting powers, delayed decisive action. The UN's peacekeeping mandate lacked the necessary enforcement mechanisms, rendering its efforts ineffective in the face of escalating violence. Additionally, internal divisions within the Security Council froze decision-making. Moreover, the UN's commitment often led to a lack of action in the face of genocide and evil, prioritizing diplomacy over humanitarian urgency.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Background

Bosnia, which is an independent state was once part of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was a former country in Southern Europe that consisted of 6 nations: Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, Macedonia, and Slovenia. The history of Yugoslavia is marked by bloody and outrageous events of integration and disintegration.

In 1918, the Kingdom of Yugoslavia was created with a merger of the Kingdom of Serbia, the Kingdom of Montenegro, and territories of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire. However, the Kingdom of Yugoslavia ended in 1941 when the Axis powers (Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy) took control of these nations and imposed puppet governments. However, in 1945, when the Axis powers lost in World War II, the kingdom was re-established as a "socialist state" comprised of 6 republics.

This marked the start of the socialist state of Yugoslavia which was ruled by Josip Broz Tito until his death in the 1980s. Tito's death facilitated the fall of Yugoslavia. Issues were already boiling up under Tito's rule, but nationalist movements and economic decline gained momentum after his death. In the 80s and 90s, Yugoslavia began to fall apart due to economic instability, oppressive communist policies, and ethnic conflict.

States began declaring their independence from Yugoslavia and in 1992 Bosnia declared independence. Civil strife had already erupted between Croatia and Serbia and now Bosnia was also engulfed in one of the bloodiest conflicts the world had ever witnessed, culminating in the Bosnian genocide.

UN Peacekeepers

Peacekeeping forces were originally established to maintain peace after a ceasefire or resolution was established in an international conflict. They are a neutral force to resolve conflicts at the behest of the warring parties. The peacekeepers are not recruited or trained by the UN, rather the member countries of the UN contribute troops, police, and military experts. The prime purpose of these peacekeepers is to ensure peace, provide humanitarian aid, and rebuild and restore nations and governments. They are also responsible for political and social rehabilitation.

United Nations has launched multiple peacekeeping missions in various war-torn nations and to the misfortune of those nations and their people, UN missions have failed miserably to ensure peace and protect the people. Some evident examples of its failures include the unsuccessful peacekeeping mission of the UN in Congo in 1999, Somalia in 1993, Rwanda in 1994, and Bosnia during the 1990s.

UN Peacekeeping Mission in Bosnia

As soon as the war broke out in Bosnia in 1992, the leadership of Bosnia appealed to the United Nations to help but they refused, and Serbs went from town to town to execute boys and men. Hundreds of women were raped and placed in concentration camps. Resolutions after resolutions were passed in the UN, condemning the onslaught by the Serb forces, but the most powerful member states of the UN did nothing.

A ray of hope emerged for Bosnians when on March 12 th, 1993, General Philippe Morillon, the UN peacekeeping commander in Bosnia, brought long-awaited medical aid, food, and protection. With a plethora of refugees, General Morillon instantly realized that it would be harder to leave Srebenica the same night as they had planned.

In order to stabilize the situation in Bosnia, he proclaimed that the people were now "under the protection of UN forces." While this statement calmed down the Bosnians, it created panic in the headquarters of the United Nations because the statement was made without any official commands and clearance.

United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) was also formed as a peacekeeping mission in Bosnia. Although, the peacekeepers succeeded in the provision of humanitarian aid but awfully failed to end the conflict and restore peace between the warring parties. It was not only a failure of the UN peacekeeping mission but also a devastating humanitarian loss.

Approximately, 25,000 UN peacekeepers were involved in the Bosnian conflict and during this time, 110 of them were killed, 831 were wounded, and hundreds of them were taken as hostages. Moreover, by April 16th, 1993, Srebrenica was declared a "safe zone" under Resolution 819. Following this, 5 more areas were declared as "safe zones" as Resolution 824 was passed. The zones included the areas of Gorazde, Bihar, Sarajevo, Tuzla, and Zepa. It meant that people in these areas shall be protected even if it involved the use of force.

"Safe Zones" under Threat

The peacekeepers of the UN were placed in safe zones primarily to protect the people in these regions, and it is where they failed miserably. Not a single "safe zone" was left where the Serb forces did not launch any bombs and do heavy shelling. By 1995, the Serb forces had launched attacks in all the "safe zones," carrying out genocide and displacing hundreds and thousands of Bosnian men, women, and children.

Bihac

Bihac was one of the safe zones declared through United Nations Security Council Resolution 824. This safe zone was constantly under attack through mortar fire, air strikes, and tank incursions. Even though UN peacekeepers were placed in this region, they failed to stop the Serbian forces. These mass murders and attacks-part of the Bosnian genocide-only came to an end when the Bosnians and Croats joined hands and launched Operation Storm in early August which relieved this enclave.

Tuzla

Tuzla was declared a safe zone along with Bihac and unfortunately, Tuzla experienced the same misfortune as that experienced by Bihac. In the May of 1995, several shells were fired by the Serb forces, often known as the Army of Republika Spraska (VRS). 71 civilians were killed and 240 wounded as a result of this heavy bombing.

Srebenica

The area of Srebenica underwent the worst episode of bloodshed within Europe since World War II. In March 1995 Radovan Karadžić, the president of the self-declared autonomous Republika Srpska (Bosnian Serb Republic), directed his military forces to "create an unbearable situation of total insecurity with no hope of further survival or life for the inhabitants of Srebrenica."

A food embargo was also imposed by the Serbs that compelled a lot of Bosnian fighters to flee from the area. In June, after a few skirmishes, Serb forces launched an operation, code-named Krivaja 95, which manifested into a massacre that can only be described as a Bosnian genocide. By July 1995 a full-scale series of bombing, shelling, and mortar attacks had begun by the Serbs. The killings in Srebenica were nothing but a massacre.

Approximately 7,000 Bosnian boys and men were killed and more than 20,000 people were expelled and displaced. Amidst chaos and violence, thousands of people fled to nearby areas where UN peacekeepers were stationed. Unfortunately, the peacekeepers had no vigor to fight the Serbs and to give protection to the displaced Bosnians. The peacekeepers eventually surrendered, and this further intensified the aggression of the Serbs.

Zepa, Gorazde and Sarajevo

One after the other, all of the safe zones fell into the hands of the Serbs and out of the control of the UN peacekeepers. The area of Zepa was taken by the Serbs by July 1995, leading to the death of 116 Bosnians, and the rest of the population was expelled from the town. Similarly, the town of Sarajevo experienced heavy casualties. The attacks by artillery and machine guns led to the destruction of gas, water, and electricity supplies.

As a result, the UN requested NATO forces to launch airstrikes on Serb artillery positions surrounding the city. Gorazde stayed protected because of counter-offensive attacks by NATO against the Serbs. However, in 1995, Gorazde was the site of the capture of 350 UN peacekeepers held by VRS. The peacekeepers were placed at strategic locations by the VRS to protect Serbs from NATO airstrikes.

Dayton Peace Accords

The immense humanitarian loss and bloodshed finally compelled the West to get involved in the peace process and put an end to years of violence and injustice happening in Bosnia. With all the safe zones fallen into the hands of the Serb forces, NATO started its airstrikes on Serbian areas. All the warring parts were already drained, and these airstrikes weakened Serbian forces too.

This coercion mechanism adopted by the West facilitated the peace process and by September 1995, Richard Holbrooke succeeded in getting an agreement signed by Radovan Karadžić and Ratko Mladić, leaders of the Bosnian Serbs to end the conflict and lay the framework for peace talks in Dayton, Ohio.

On November 1 st, 1995, the conference began. Bosnian President Alija Izetbegović, Serbian President Milošević, Croatian President Franjo Tudjman, and representatives from the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, and the European Union (EU) met at the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base on the outskirts of Dayton, Ohio. The peace talks were led and headed by Richard Holbrooke, Assistant Secretary of the State.

After 17 days of negotiation and re-drawing of plans, a final agreement was reached to ensure peace in the territory of Bosnia. It was decided to keep Bosnia-Herzegovina as one country but divided into 2 districts: Bosniak-Croats Federation and the Republika Srpska. In addition to defined territories, the agreement also made all the parties agree to respect human rights and that of refugees and displaced people. The agreement also paved way for the arrival of 66,000 strong NATO peacekeeping implementation forces (IFOR).

Conclusion

The Dayton Peace Accords proved successful to end the bloodiest conflict in Europe after World War II. The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia was established before the Bosnian genocide to investigate the military conflict in the state. It concluded the Bosnian ethnic cleansing and widespread mass killings as a "genocide" and declared the Serb leaders as the main perpetrators of the conflict.

However, the United Nations and other Western nations also accepted their share of the blame for having failed awfully to protect the masses of Bosnia. This conflict was a clear reflection of the failure of the United Nations as an international organization for peace, security, and development.

In a critical interview in 1999, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan wrote, "Through error, misjudgment and an inability to recognize the scope of the evil confronting us, we failed to do our part to help save the people of Srebrenica from the [Bosnian] Serb campaign of mass murder."
If you want to submit your articles/research papers/book reviews, please check the Submissions page.
The views and opinions expressed in this article/paper are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Paradigm Shift.

(Visited 3,841 times, 1 visits today)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Bosnian Genocide: The UN's Ultimate Failure - Paradigm Shift

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The United Nations' incompetence in preventing the genocide of the Bosnian Muslims, and the great powers' hesitance to intervene...

# data[].attributes.body
"The UN had made a grave error in deploying only a few thousand troops around the country. The Dutch peacekeepers meant to guard Srebrenica were lightly armed, few in number, and thus unable to put up an adequate defence front. They were ill-equipped to take on the might of the Serb forces, backed by Belgrade."

"The primary arguments in this analysis include: the UN was ineffective in the conflict in Bosnia since it failed to end the bloodshed; the UN was most limited by domestic factors in Bosnia (the situation on the ground) rather than factors within the UN structure; the UNHCR was the only effective UN agency during the conflict; and the tragic losses during the Bosnian War could have been prevented or greatly reduced if the UN had effectively enforced its strategies."

"It can be argued that the UN failed primarily because of domestic limitations within Bosnia rather than limitations within the UN structure. This argument indicates that the UN's ineffectiveness was not due to lack of preparation or inaction, but that the Serbs defiance and the UN's self-imposed obligation to act responsibly hindered its success. The UN is obligated to maintain some degree of neutrality and it cannot blatantly put peacekeepers in a situation of guaranteed harm or the international organization would suffer from a complete breakdown."

https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1054&context=ureca

YOUTUBE: How the UN Failed to Stop a Genocide in Bosnia: https://www.facebook.com/JohnnyHarrisVox/videos/how-the-un-failed-to-stop-a-genocide-in-bosnia/1650416158731243/

REFLECTION: After reading the articles and analyzing the video, it became apparent that the UN was not useful during this time. Due to many factors one being the domestic limitations occurring when trying to be involved in Bosnia. The UN also was conflicted as they were trying to be peacekeepers in a place where war and violence was already developed making it extremely difficult to do anything to help. Therefore, the UN also had a lot of resources although with such force it was difficult for the UN to stop the genocide in Bosnia.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
According to the UN charter, this organization aims to "save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom."[1] These were the tenets that laid the foundation of the longest-serving international organization, established in 1945. As its aim indicates, the UN was deemed by the international community to lead the charge on matters of international peace and security. However, as Bosnia and Herzegovina was being ingulfed in nationalist and ethnic strife, the UN failed to uphold its primary duty.
Keywords: Bosnia and Herzegovina; UN; peacekeeping failure

The UN's failure in Bosnia and Herzegovina

At least two million people had lost their lives (both civilians and armed forces) and another two million were forcefully displaced from their homes as result of the Bosnian war.[2] The sheer act of violence showed the world how fragile peace is and that when identity becomes the basis of a conflict, the integrity of the state and security of individuals is threatened. The international community to date is haunted by the brutality and barbarity that was witnessed during the course of this war.

As early as 1992, the UN had recognized Bosnia and Herzegovina as a sovereign nation-state.[3] However, when the Croatian and Serb proxies were ambushing the Bosniaks from all corners, it failed to condemn both Serbia and Croatia as aggressors in the war. A parallel between the Bosnian war and Kuwait's invasion could be drawn. Unlike the latter case, wherein the UN invoked Chapter VII and condemned Iraq as the aggressor state under resolution 678, the former perhaps was not even a blip on its radar.[4] As the Bosniak (Bosnian Muslim) community was being shelled and raped, and the fundamental values of its inception were being violated, the UN failed to immediately deploy an Emergency Peacekeeping Force to the country to halt the ongoing carnage. It found itself unable to secure a lasting ceasefire between the two major warring parties, i.e., the Bosnian Serbs and Bosniaks.

The notion of collective security was torn apart by the aggressors as the victims and survivors fell prey to ethnic violence, violation of human rights, and subsequent genocide, with the UN unwilling to come to their aid. As a humanitarian crisis was unfolding in the country, the UN refrained from taking the requisite measures to prevent the horror which was yet to come.

Although by the end of 1992, then UN Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali agreed to send 41 military observers to the Mostar and three other municipalities, it largely stayed away from directly intervening in the ongoing war.[5] This refusal to intervene gave the Serbs free rein in continuing with one of the worst acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing in Europe, second only to the Holocaust once unleashed by the Nazi regime.

To an extent, with the aid of UNPROFOR (United Nations Protection Force) and resolution 770, humanitarian aid was being delivered to certain parts of the country, nevertheless leaving behind several of them. President Izetbegovic (Bosniak President) had repeatedly called for direct UN intervention, albeit without any success. His request was constantly denied on account of such a step being a problematic and an impractical proposal. After the European Commission had imposed sanctions on Serbia, the UN decided to follow suit. However, these sanctions proved to be ineffective in their implementation. Romania and Greece were complicit in supplying resources to Belgrade, and Serbia itself was largely a self-sufficient economy. Moreover, there was an absence of a concrete proposal in place regarding the steps that would need to be undertaken in the event that Serbia, or any other country for that matter, blatantly disregarded the sanctions.[6]

Large-scale and systematic rapes, primarily against Bosniak and Croat women, had become the norm during the course of the war. According to various estimates, 20,000-60,000 women (young girls, adults, and elderly women) became the victims of wartime sexual violence.[7]

As the war progressed, the UN sent in additional troops to combine their forces with the existing troops supervising the ongoing relief operations. However, there was an absence of blueprints according to which the UN peacekeepers could carry out a clear mandate. The mandate was marred by those who contributed troops but wanted to put forth a limited mandate and those who wanted a bold mandate but refused to contribute troops to aid the matter.[8] Moreover, to maintain their neutrality, the peacekeepers left the Bosniaks to be dealt a devastating blow at the hands of the formidable Serbs.[9] There were numerous peace plans which were proposed before the Dayton Accords (1995) came into being, including Carrington-Cutileiro, Vance-Owen, Owen-Stoltenburg, and Contact Group.[10] Nevertheless, the UN failed to rally around any one of them and take decisive actions to ensure its implementation.

There would be many who would justify the UN's actions. However, its response to the Serb military and paramilitary would now be considered deplorable, thereby making it an accomplice in the genocide that was ensuing. As massacres, mass graves, and detention camps became the norm of the day, the UN, besides condemning such heinous crimes, did nothing but stand idly as the entire country was being ravaged. Diego Arria (former Venezuelan Ambassador to the UN and member of the UNSC) claimed that walking down the halls of the UN a decade after the war came to an end made him feel like a witness to a crime. Members of the UNSC, including him, had looked the other way as the Bosniaks made repeated calls for the international community to come to their assistance. Prince Zeid Ra'ad Zeid Al-Hussein of Jordan (a UN official in Zagreb with responsibilities tied to Srebrenica) has explained that the response of the UN, including NATO, soon began to resemble that of a toothless tiger.[11]

One of the most documented events during the war was the Srebrenica massacre in July 1995. Eight thousand young boys and men were massacred by the Serb forces and the women and young girls were subjected to rape. This example became one of the focal points of the war since this area was designated by the UN in resolution 819 as one of the safe havens to be disarmed and guarded by Dutch peacekeepers. Due to its demarcation as such, 60,000 Muslims were believed to have sought refuge there. Forty-eight hours is all that was required by the Serb forces to carry out their orders.[12] This massacre happened because of the prior unwillingness of those who were obligated to directly intervene in the matter. The Serb onslaught was met with no counter-attacks, either on the ground or in the air, in a manner that is similar to what the Nazis witnessed as they began to take back the annexed territories in the post-World War I era. As the town fell prey to the invasion by the Serbs, many attempted to flee by trekking through the Serb-controlled areas, with fatal results.

The Eastern towns of Zepa and Gorazde, similarly designated as safe havens by the UN, were not left unscathed either.[13] The Bosnian capital of Sarajevo was besieged by the Serb forces for 46 months and suffered through bombings of crowded markets and inevitable destruction of the architecture and social fabric of the city. Ethnic cleansing was also witnessed in, although not limited to, the Bosniak majority towns of Foca, Visegrad, and Zvornik.[14] It was only when the Serbs failed to comply with the UN's ultimatum in August 1995, that the international community, spearheaded by the NATO, intervened in the ongoing war.

Conclusion

As the above analysis indicates, the UN had regressed into a largely obsolete organization. The humanitarian aid it had provided did nothing to ensure the safety of the lives and property of those who were affected by the violent conflict. It allowed the Serbs to perpetuate conflict and incite hatred without taking any decisive steps to halt their advance. The mission of UNPROFOR in the safe areas was to "to protect the civilian populations of the designated safe areas against armed attacks and other hostile acts, through the presence of its troops and, if necessary, through the application of airpower, in accordance with agreed procedure."[15] The events as they unfolded in the designated areas spoke volumes to the contrary. The premeditated onslaught caused the survivors psychological trauma besides the visible physical scars on their bodies.

The UN had made a grave error in deploying only a few thousand troops around the country. The Dutch peacekeepers meant to guard Srebrenica were lightly armed, few in number, and thus unable to put up an adequate defence front. They were ill-equipped to take on the might of the Serb forces, backed by Belgrade.

Any effort to establish peace suffered an eventual defeat until the Accords were implemented in December 1995. However, the implementation of one of the most comprehensive peace agreements in world history does not negate the fact that the UN had failed the ideals which previously had led to its inception. Moreover, it had failed humanity. It took three years of savage ethnic warfare and genocidal violence for the UN to wake up to the realization of, and put a stop to, the unspeakable horror unfolding with every passing moment.

In 1999, then UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan acknowledged the previous blunders made by the UN. He explained that any attempt in the future deemed as a systematic and deliberate attempt to purge, annihilate, or brutalize a population must be dealt with in a decisive manner using all the necessary means.[16] While those are noble words, one has to wonder if they hold any meaning for the UN and its member states.

In July 2015, marking the 20th anniversary of the Srebrenica massacre, the United Nations Security Council put forward a draft resolution to officially condemn the massacre of the 8,000 Bosniak men and boys as a genocide. However, Russia, on behalf of Serbia, vetoed the resolution. After all, Russia firmly believes that what happened in Srebrenica was anything but a genocide.[17] Thus, the UN failed to provide the survivors any hope of a formal global acknowledgment of their suffering and all they had lost.

In the coming years, it will remain a frightening possibility that the Serbs getting 'rewarded' for the genocide will lead to a domino effect. It will inevitably set an example that the international community and organizations will never be able to successfully nip conflict in its bud and rebuild peace. Rather, they will 'reward' those who commit these acts of genocide by handing over a territory, largely ethnically cleansed, to be governed according to their own will. The Republika Srpska (Serb-dominated territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina) gained international recognition as a territory which had been hacked out through the violation of every tenet of the international law and basic human rights.
Saman Ayesha Kidwai has completed her MA in Conflict Analysis and Peacebuilding from Jamia Millia Islamia. Current main interests: International affairs, Middle Eastern and Balkan politics, as well as Gender-based issues.
References

A Guide to the United States' History of Recognition, Diplomatic, and Consular Relations, by Country, since 1776: Bosnia and Herzegovina. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://history.state.gov/countries/bosnia-herzegovina

Bosnian Genocide. (2009, October 14). Retrieved from https://www.history.com/topics/1990s/bosnian-genocide

Chollet, D. (2015, July 9). The Shame of Srebrenica. Retrieved from https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/07/09/the-shame-of-srebrenica-bosnia-iraq-war-libya-syria/

Daalder, I. H. (1998, December 1). Decision to Intervene: How the War in Bosnia Ended. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/articles/decision-to-intervene-how-the-war-in-bosnia-ended/

Fernald, B. (2017, October 23). Top 10 Facts about the Bosnian Genocide. Retrieved from https://borgenproject.org/10-facts-about-the-bosnian-genocide/

Hirsch , M. L. (2012, February 8). Bosnia. Retrieved from https://www.womensmediacenter.com/women-under-siege/conflicts/bosnia

Nguyen, J. T. (1990, November 29). U.N. authorizes war if needed but major powers hope for peace. Retrieved from https://www.upi.com/Archives/1990/11/29/UN-authorizes-war-if-needed-but-major-powers-hope-for-peace/2252659854800/

Rigby, V. (1994, January). BOSNIA-HERCEGOVINA: THE INTERNATIONAL RESPONSE. Retrieved from http://publications.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/bp374-e.htm

The Bosnian War and Srebrenica Genocide. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://endgenocide.org/learn/past-genocides/the-bosnian-war-and-srebrenica-genocide/

The Fall of Srebrenica and the Failure of UN Peacekeeping: Bosnia and Herzegovina. (1995, October 15). Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/report/1995/10/15/fall-srebrenica-and-failure-un-peacekeeping/bosnia-and-herzegovina

UN Charter (full text). (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/un-charter-full-text/

Williams, C. J. (1994, December 11). The Foiled Peace Efforts. Retrieved from https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-12-11-mn-7783-story.html

[1] See UN's Charter for a comprehensive understanding of the UN as an international organization.

[2] See Fernald (2017) to examine some of the major facts about the Bosnian genocide.

[3] See OFFICE OF THE HISTORIAN to look at the US's history of recognition, diplomatic and consular relations, by country since 1776.

[4] See Nguyen (1990) for a detailed examination of the international response to the UN resolution 678.

[5] See Rigby (1994) for an analysis of the international response to the Bosnian war.

[6] See Rigby (1994) for an analysis of the international response to the Bosnian war.

[7] See Hirsch (2012) to comprehend the country profile of Bosnia and Herzegovina during the 1992-95 war.

[8] See Rigby (1994) for an analysis of the international response to the Bosnian war.

[9] See Daalder (1998) to examine how the Bosnian war came to an end.

[10] See Williams (1995) for an understanding of the various peace agreements that were proposed to bring the Bosnian war to an end.

[11] See Krastev (2005) to analyze how the UN failed the citizens of Srebrenica.

[12] See Daalder (1998) to examine how the Bosnian war came to an end.

[13] See Daalder (1998) to examine how the Bosnian war came to an end.

[14] See HISTORY (2009) to examine the Bosnian genocide.

[15] See The Fall of Srebrenica and the Failure of UN Peacekeeping (1995) to see how a safe area under UN protection was overrun by the Serb forces and the events that culminated into the Srebrenica massacre.

[16] See Chollet (2015) to see how the Srebrenica massacre still casts a dark shadow of shame on generations of US policy makers.

[17] See UNITED TO END GENOCIDE to trace the onset of the war until its aftermath in the post-Dayton era.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
An avoidable fallout: A case study of the UN's failure in Bosnia and Herzegovina - International Affairs Forum

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Abstract According to the UN charter, this organization aims to "save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, to reaf

# data[].attributes.body
Morgan Evans

Period 3

Topic: 1

Source 1:

https://www.paradigmshift.com.pk/bosnian-genocide/

“United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) was also formed as a peacekeeping mission in Bosnia. Although, the peacekeepers succeeded in the provision of humanitarian aid but awfully failed to end the conflict and restore peace between the warring parties. It was not only a failure of the UN peacekeeping mission but also a devastating humanitarian loss.”

Source 2:

https://www.ia-forum.org/Content/ViewInternal_Document.cfm?contenttype_id=0&ContentID=8934

“Although by the end of 1992, then UN Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali agreed to send 41 military observers to the Mostar and three other municipalities, it largely stayed away from directly intervening in the ongoing war. This refusal to intervene gave the Serbs free rein in continuing with one of the worst acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing in Europe, second only to the Holocaust once unleashed by the Nazi regime.”

Reflection:

The United Nations’ was useless in the Bosnian War due to opposing views of the Bosnian War. During the time of the Bosnian War, the United Nations faced political differences that caused divisions in the countries, therefore resulting in unclear mandates and difficult coordination between the peacekeepers. The United Nations have a commitment to neutrality and to non-interference, which prevented the United Nations from taking action to protect both peacekeepers and civilians. Although the United Nations were not fully present in efforts to end the Bosnian War, there were efforts made by The United Nations Protection Force that aimed to help the people affected by the war. Because of the lack of a United Nations presence in the Bosnian War, there were fatalities that could have been prevented.

# data[].attributes.body
Alexi Meyers, P3 topic 2

"While the Cold War had ended, the U.S. remained in geo-strategic competition with Russia for international influence. Thus policymakers perceived the increase in Russian influence to equate with a diminishing U.S. influence in the Balkans, which in turn pressured the Clinton administration to act. The result was the formation of the Contact Group in which the U.S. finally took a leadership role in an effort to impose a settlement in Bosnia."

"On the other hand, constructivist theory is also consistent with U.S. foreign policy in Bosnia prior to August 1995 if one believes that the shifts in U.S. policy resulted from the breach of internationally accepted norms and values. Throughout the war, after media broadcasts of humanitarian violations were aired, U.S. policymakers took steps to shift U.S. foreign policy toward a more aggressive stance. For example, the Bush administration pushed for the Security Council Resolution after the disclosure of the 117 concentration camps and the Clinton administration introduced the “Life and Strike” policy in response to the siege on Sarajevo...In short, a state’s violation of international norms internally was now considered a potential sign of its willingness to behave aggressively externally. Thus, to protect international security, U.S. policymakers were prompted seek a political settlement in Bosnia."

THIRD PARTY INTERVENTION IN HUMANITARIAN CONFLICT: WHY THE U.S. INTERVENED IN THE BOSNIAN WAR, by Caitlin Moore

https://ida.mtholyoke.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/f76ba788-a027-412d-8065-4e29cfbe897e/content

"Scholars have asserted that there are two main factors that fueled U.S. motivation for intervention in the 1990s included: (1) the CNN effect, and (2) the moral indignation of the presidential administration, as both of these factors impact public support for foreign interventions."

"The moral indignation of the presidential administration related to the feelings of moral responsibility of the American administration to stop international human rights violations against the Bosnian Muslims and Croats. The constant depiction of news footage that streamed into the average American’s home helped to exaggerate the scheme of the events in Bosnia, and “contributed to a public consensus for action” (Carey, 2001, 74)."

Taking the Temperature of Public Opinion: U.S. Intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina, by Ciara Watson

https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1011&context=ese

Both of these sources assert that there were two main factors which led to US intervention in Bosnia. The first of these was the public perception of the events happening there. Media reports on the atrocities taking place in Bosnia had not been widely available before 1993, largely due to these crimes occurring in rural areas without cameras to capture the events. When in 1994 and 1995 the full extent of the massacres taking place in Bosnia became known to the American public, and catalyzed by the Srebrenica massacre, there as a large public outcry to intervene in the war, stemming from a sense of "moral indignation" felt by American viewers. This public opinion shift drastically dropped president Clinton's approval, and led him to perform join US-NATO bombing operations, in line with public favour. Additionally, once more information about the atrocities in Bosnia had come to light, many lawmakers took the events in Bosnia as a potential warning sign of future aggression towards other countries, and to protect joint EU-US interests the US became involved in the war. Another factor under consideration was the relative power of the (now former) Soviet state. The US's urgency to intervene in Bosnia only increased as the conflict progressed, given that if Russia intervened first, the most likely outcome would have been the formation of several Communist states, counter to US interests. For the reasons of public opinion, future threat to other nations, and to prevent the expansion of Communism, the US intervened in the Bosnian war.

# data[].attributes.body
student name: Jasmine Taylor

Theme number: 1

"As the Bosniak (Bosnian Muslim) community was being shelled and raped, and the fundamental values of its inception were being violated, the UN failed to immediately deploy an Emergency Peacekeeping Force to the country to halt the ongoing carnage. It found itself unable to secure a lasting ceasefire between the two major warring parties, i.e., the Bosnian Serbs and Bosniaks." international affairs forum

"United Nations peacekeeping officials were unwilling to heed requests for support from their own forces stationed within the enclave, thus allowing Bosnian Serb forces to easily overrun it and—without interference from U.N. soldiers" - humans rights watch

The UN didn't give their best effort into stopping genocide. Its almost as if the UN wanted to brag about "stopping a genocide" but actually neglected their duties. The UN’s “safe spaces” were not very safe at all. They denied support from their own forces and therefore let Serbs overrun the enclave without the UN stepping in. The peacekeepers surrendered which indirectly encouraged the Serbs homicidal behavior. But even before the fall of the UN's  “safe space” there were extreme violations where the “safe spaces” were occupied. This includes mass execution of boys and men. And the rape of women and girls. Men and boys hoped to find protection in the enclaves but were killed in mass instead.  All while the UN stayed inactive. Thousands of lives could have been saved if the UN stepped up. The peacekeepers were very passive in protecting Bosnians and let the abuse of Bosniak community continue. The UN general-secretary put 41 military observers but they didn't confront the war face to face. They didn't use their resources to help others. They weren't protectors and some would argue they were active participants.

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1650416158731243- youtube video on facebook

Sources 4 extra credit:

The serbian radical party is an example of undermining a genocide to further an agenda. By highlighting the crimes of only one group, the other group is presented as guiltless. This grotesquely rewrites history by discrediting the victims of the war crimes committed by serbians. It is also very manipulative to only present one side of a story and simplify the complexities of the situation. Even if what they are saying is true, they are extremely bias. Instead of objectively stating facts, they instead want to present a narrative.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How the UN Failed to Stop a Genocide in Bosnia | The War in Bosnia, Explained in 16 Minutes
The breakup of Yugoslavia was bloody and violent - so violent that it spawned a war within a war. The war in... | By Johnny HarrisFacebook

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The War in Bosnia, Explained in 16 Minutes
The breakup of Yugoslavia was bloody and violent - so violent that it spawned a war within a war. The war in...

# data[].attributes.headline
Research Post- Andre Mueller Topic: United Nations Non-Interventionism.

# data[].attributes.subject
Research Post- Andre Mueller Topic: United Nations Non-Interventionism.

# data[].attributes.body
Student Name:Andre Mueller.

Period: 3.

Theme Number: 1.

"The fall of the town of Srebrenica and its environs to Bosnian Serb forces in early July 1995 made a mockery of the international community’s professed commitment to safeguard regions it declared to be “safe areas” and placed under United Nations protection in 1993. United Nations peacekeeping officials were unwilling to heed requests for support from their own forces stationed within the enclave, thus allowing Bosnian Serb forces to easily overrun it and—without interference from U.N. soldiers—to carry out systematic, mass executions of hundreds, possibly thousands, of civilian men and boys and to terrorize, rape, beat, execute, rob and otherwise abuse civilians being deported from the area."

https://www.hrw.org/legacy/summaries/s.bosnia9510.html

Some 8,000 boys and men were killed by Bosnian Serb forces when they overran the town of Srebrenica during a regional war in the Balkans in July 1995, the largest atrocity on European soil since the Second World War.

https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/07/1096092

Tens of thousands of Bosnian Muslims from the surrounding areas, fleeing the attacks of Bosnian Serb forces on their towns and villages, sought shelter in Srebrenica. For three years, Bosnian Serb forces besieged the enclave and frequently shelled it. They controlled the access roads and impeded international humanitarian aid such as food and medicine. Srebrenica town was saturated with refugees. People camped in the stairwells and corridors of apartment buildings, in cars, and in public buildings such as the school and sports centre, while others had no shelter at all and huddled outside in temperatures that dropped to -25ºC at night during winter. Most who had fled to Srebrenica had little food since leaving their villages, and the only water source, the river, was heavily polluted with offal, excrement, and oil.

In response to the rapidly deteriorating humanitarian situation, in April 1993 the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 819 declaring Srebrenica a 'safe area'. A few days later an agreement was signed calling for a total cease-fire in Srebrenica, the demilitarisation of the enclave, the deployment of an UNPROFOR (United Nations Protection Forces) company into Srebrenica, and the opening of a corridor between Tuzla and Srebrenica for the evacuation of the seriously wounded and ill. UNPROFOR established a small command centre in Srebrenica itself, and a larger main compound about five kilometres north of the town in Potočari (“UN Compound”). From these bases, UNPROFOR sought to oversee the demilitarisation of the town. After the arrival of the initial group of UNPROFOR forces in April 1993, fresh troops rotated into the enclave approximately every six months. They were lightly armed and at any one time numbered no more than 600 men. In January 1995, a Dutch Battalion (the “DutchBat”) arrived.

https://www.irmct.org/specials/srebrenica/timeline/en/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nGhtwqY5Ik

The Failure of the United Nations Peacekeeping mission has been called the greatest atrocity since World War 2 by many sources signifying its importance within modern European history. What was surprising to me was that Western leaders were unaware of the situation with the Leader of NATO meeting with Slobodan Milosevic during the massacre.This is not only unjustifiable but a failure of international diplomacy because the purpose of the United Nations peacekeeping force was to protect and defend the Bosnians in Srebrenica. Furthermore what was interesting to me was that the United Nations peacekeeping force wouldn’t defend itself against the unorganized and guerilla-like Serbian army.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'Lessons have been learned' 25 years after Srebrenica massacre, former UN judge says

# data[].attributes.body
Eliza Greenlees

Topic 1

Period 3

Source 1: The Fall of Srebrenica and the Failure of U.N. Peacekeeping

“The fall of the town of Srebrenica and its environs to Bosnian Serb forces in early July 1995 made a mockery of the international community’s professed commitment to safeguard regions it declared to be “safe areas” and placed under United Nations protection in 1993. United Nations peacekeeping officials were unwilling to heed requests for support from their own forces stationed within the enclave, thus allowing Bosnian Serb forces to easily overrun it and—without interference from U.N. soldiers—to carry out systematic, mass executions of hundreds, possibly thousands, of civilian men and boys and to terrorize, rape, beat, execute, rob and otherwise abuse civilians being deported from the area.”

Source 2: An avoidable fallout: A case study of the UN’s failure in Bosnia and Herzegovina

“As the war progressed, the UN sent in additional troops to combine their forces with the existing troops supervising the ongoing relief operations. However, there was an absence of blueprints according to which the UN peacekeepers could carry out a clear mandate. The mandate was marred by those who contributed troops but wanted to put forth a limited mandate and those who wanted a bold mandate but refused to contribute troops to aid the matter.[8] Moreover, to maintain their neutrality, the peacekeepers left the Bosniaks to be dealt a devastating blow at the hands of the formidable Serbs.[9] There were numerous peace plans which were proposed before the Dayton Accords (1995) came into being, including Carrington-Cutileiro, Vance-Owen, Owen-Stoltenburg, and Contact Group.[10] Nevertheless, the UN failed to rally around any one of them and take decisive actions to ensure its implementation.”

Video: https://youtu.be/634jFtRHXlI?feature=shared

The UN’s peacekeeping forces largely failed in protecting civilians in Srebrenica, who were being executed and terrorized. They turned down requests for support, despite its claimed dedication to keeping “safe areas” protected. Their failure to protect Srebrenica allowed over 7,000 Bosniak men to be systematically executed, and 20,000 others to be removed from their home. Additionally, it has been said that the UN played a part in the destruction of evidence (such as photographs, videos, and documents) that shows proof of human rights violations and killings. Overall, the UN not only failed in their few contributions to help, they also blatantly denied requests for support where innocent citizens were being killed.

In addition to doing nothing to prevent the citizens in Srebrenica to be killed and subjected to sexual violence, they failed at the few attempts they did make to bring peace, failing to live up to their name. They sent very few, lightly armed troops that could not put up enough defense, when they could have sent many more. It took them years to finally do something impactful, after allowing thousands to die. Additionally, the UN has still not given any formal acknowledgement of the suffering of the survivors. Whether they were not sending enough troops, taking enough action, or just not doing anything at all, the UN failed at peacekeeping.

# data[].attributes.body
Valeria Trujillo

Period: 3

Theme 1

"United Nations peacekeeping officials were unwilling to heed requests for support from their own forces stationed within the enclave, thus allowing Bosnian Serb forces to easily overrun it and—without interference from U.N. soldiers—to carry out systematic, mass executions of hundreds, possibly thousands, of civilian men and boys and to terrorize, rape, beat, execute, rob and otherwise abuse civilians being deported from the area."

Bosnia-Hercegovina: the fall of Srebrenica and the failure of U.N. peacekeeping. (n.d.). https://www.hrw.org/legacy/summaries/s.bosnia9510.html#:~:text=United%20Nations%20peacekeeping%20officials%20were,and%E2%80%94without%20interference%20from%20U.N.

"At least two million people had lost their lives (both civilians and armed forces) and another two million were forcefully displaced from their homes as result of the Bosnian war.[2] The sheer act of violence showed the world how fragile peace is and that when identity becomes the basis of a conflict, the integrity of the state and security of individuals is threatened. The international community to date is haunted by the brutality and barbarity that was witnessed during the course of this war."

An avoidable fallout: A case study of the UN’s failure in Bosnia and Herzegovina - International Affairs Forum. Copyright 2002 Center for International Relations. https://www.ia-forum.org/Content/ViewInternal_Document.cfm?contenttype_id=0&ContentID=8934

(2015, July 21). USA/UN - UN peacekeeping efforts in Bosnia failed [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQ5xCqbS6ZE

Reflection: All my sources support that the United Nations that it was useless in Bosnia. The UN underestimated the conflict in Bosnia and this led to them being unprepared and being ineffective. The Un peacekeeping mission in Bosnia had had many contraints, such as limited troops, and equipment that held back their ability to protect civilians and enforce peace.The UN had many challenges that they were not ready for which contributed to their ability to resolve the conflict in the right way.