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. 

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.

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/

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

“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.

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.

"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.

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. 

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.