War Crimes

[janelh]

Following the recent charges against members of the Yugoslav military for shelling Dubrovnik, can the destruction of buildings really be called a war crime?

[catman]

The artillery bombardment of Dubrovnik falls under the categories acceptable as charges at the Hague War Crimes Tribunal. Of course, the charge does not say that destroying buildings is a 'crime against humanity' or 'genocide'. The charges relate to the fact that Dubrovinik at that time was not a military installation or at war with or in armed rebellion against the Yugoslav government or the elements within it who ordered this attack. Therefore, the Bosnian Serb commanders held at the Hague are accused of firing on their own civilian population in time of peace. They will argue that they were following Yugoslav Army orders and that they were trying to restore order to a community that had tried to separate from the Yugoslav Republic etc... The confusion arises because after the attacks on Dubrovnik, the UN designated the city at a site of world heritage, to be restored and protected etc.

[allen ives]

War crimes, like history, are controlled by the winners.

So, while we quite rightly tried the Nazis for their crimes against humanity, no-one put us in the dock for the destruction of Dresden (80,000 dead), the fire-bombing of Tokyo (90,000 dead), or the less spectacular acts of butchery meted out by the British and Americans for the last half century.