ChatterBank2 mins ago
Srebrenica - The Russian Veto
44 Answers
Further to Mikey's recent post on the attack on the Serbian PM at the weekend, what do you think about the Russian ambassador's comments that to acknowledge the massacre as 'genocide' would be 'counter-productive' and lead to 'greater tension'? Comments from Russia indicated the draft resolution did not reflect the wider scenario.
What are the arguments against the term 'genocide' being applied in this instance?
http://
What are the arguments against the term 'genocide' being applied in this instance?
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by agchristie. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Apologies Agchristie,
Serbia and Coatia were indeed taken to the international Court in the Hague for Genocide - but they were cleared.
http://
Slobodan Miloševic was charge with Crimes against humanity.
That confirms my opinion that it was a massacre and not genocide.
Serbia and Coatia were indeed taken to the international Court in the Hague for Genocide - but they were cleared.
http://
Slobodan Miloševic was charge with Crimes against humanity.
That confirms my opinion that it was a massacre and not genocide.
ag, you asked for Legal definition of Genocide
http://
http://
http://
https:/
... add the factors, compensation, politics, finger-pointing, time scale, and justification to pre-emptive action and you may see how selective use is practiced.
http://
http://
http://
https:/
... add the factors, compensation, politics, finger-pointing, time scale, and justification to pre-emptive action and you may see how selective use is practiced.
The point really is why have the Russians not called it genocide, not what we think: obviously Srebrenica on its own does not constitute the entire wiping out of a people, but there was an avowed policy of ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and it is hard to see how Srebrenica did not constitute a part of that.
Why have the Russians not called it genocide? The reasons plainly have nothing to do with the actual meaning of the word. They simply don't want to fall out with the Serbs who have never faced up to what happened in Bosnia in terms of their desire to wipe out not only Bosniaks of course but Croats also.
The scale of the numbers is irelevant: they did not succeed in wiping out the other races but neither did Hitler succeed in wiping out the Jews nor Turkey the Armenians. Even some Circassians survived genocide at the hands of the er Russians.
Intention is the key. And the political expediency of wishing to deny that intention
Why have the Russians not called it genocide? The reasons plainly have nothing to do with the actual meaning of the word. They simply don't want to fall out with the Serbs who have never faced up to what happened in Bosnia in terms of their desire to wipe out not only Bosniaks of course but Croats also.
The scale of the numbers is irelevant: they did not succeed in wiping out the other races but neither did Hitler succeed in wiping out the Jews nor Turkey the Armenians. Even some Circassians survived genocide at the hands of the er Russians.
Intention is the key. And the political expediency of wishing to deny that intention
Strange that our left wingers are on the side of fascists, again. Or is it?
http://
http://
The Russians vetoed it because they were asked to by the Serbian Government.
Serbia does not have a vote at the United Nations, so it asked its ally, Russia to vote against it.
What is the reason they want to ungrade it from a massacre to genocide after 20 years? The reasongiven, that reconsiliation cannot happen until the upgrade is obviously NOT the reason.
Serbia does not have a vote at the United Nations, so it asked its ally, Russia to vote against it.
What is the reason they want to ungrade it from a massacre to genocide after 20 years? The reasongiven, that reconsiliation cannot happen until the upgrade is obviously NOT the reason.
I think you mean UN Security Council
As I say, you can debate the merits or otherwise of calling this massacre genocide, but often a country's stance on something says more about it than the issue itself
Perhaps the Russians feel that they are particular experts in the field and don't wish to see anyone else muscling in on their territory :-)
As I say, you can debate the merits or otherwise of calling this massacre genocide, but often a country's stance on something says more about it than the issue itself
Perhaps the Russians feel that they are particular experts in the field and don't wish to see anyone else muscling in on their territory :-)
I apologise Svejk.
Of course the Bosniaks were busy donning nazi uniforms and slaughtering their neighbours when the Bosnian Serb army arrived
I think you can do better than that
If we start dredging up the as you say complicated and bloody history of the past to justify more recent crimes then we become complicit in them I'm afraid
And that sums up Serbia and Russia for me. The Russians do it because they have nothing else to cling onto: the fact that their sorry and brutal empire defeated the 'fascists' and the Serbs continually bang on about the Croats siding with the nazis, justifying that for the most unspeakable crimes of their own
Of course the Bosniaks were busy donning nazi uniforms and slaughtering their neighbours when the Bosnian Serb army arrived
I think you can do better than that
If we start dredging up the as you say complicated and bloody history of the past to justify more recent crimes then we become complicit in them I'm afraid
And that sums up Serbia and Russia for me. The Russians do it because they have nothing else to cling onto: the fact that their sorry and brutal empire defeated the 'fascists' and the Serbs continually bang on about the Croats siding with the nazis, justifying that for the most unspeakable crimes of their own
This was already Judged at the International Court of Justice in the Hague in February and the ruling was that it wasn't genocide.
// The highest court of the United Nations ruled on Tuesday that neither Croatia nor Serbia committed genocide against each other’s peoples when they waged war during the breakup of Yugoslavia in the early 1990s.
The two separate rulings were the result of civil lawsuits that both countries had filed at the court, the International Court of Justice at The Hague. Each claimed the other had violated the Genocide Convention. Croatia, moreover, demanded extensive reparations for war damages.
Peter Tomka, the presiding judge from Slovakia who read out the verdicts, spoke of the killings of civilians and the widespread destruction committed by the forces from both sides. But he said the large-scale operations to displace people in the two countries did not meet the criteria for genocide. //
The attempts to ignore this ruling are politically motivated.
// The highest court of the United Nations ruled on Tuesday that neither Croatia nor Serbia committed genocide against each other’s peoples when they waged war during the breakup of Yugoslavia in the early 1990s.
The two separate rulings were the result of civil lawsuits that both countries had filed at the court, the International Court of Justice at The Hague. Each claimed the other had violated the Genocide Convention. Croatia, moreover, demanded extensive reparations for war damages.
Peter Tomka, the presiding judge from Slovakia who read out the verdicts, spoke of the killings of civilians and the widespread destruction committed by the forces from both sides. But he said the large-scale operations to displace people in the two countries did not meet the criteria for genocide. //
The attempts to ignore this ruling are politically motivated.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank3 mins ago
ChatterBank10 mins ago
Is There Any Good Reason Why This...
News13 mins ago
Isn't It Good To Hear That Another...
ChatterBank28 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.