Srebrenica - The Russian Veto

[agchristie]

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://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33445772

[Gromit]

The Court in the Hague has already prosecuted people for Genocide related to this massacre.

But Sebia is not yet ready to fess up.

Meanwhile Serbia is well on the way to becoming a full member of the EU, so I expect they will have to admit it soon.

There is a similarsdituation with Turkey still denying the Armenian genocide in 1923.

[agchristie]

Indeed Gromit but I am interested to find out what are the arguments against the term 'genocide' being applied. I have heard of a few Swedish 'experts' who do not believe it should be classed as such and I'm struggling to comprehend the Russian response....

[ToraToraTora]

according to the dictionary definition:
"the murder of a whole group of people, especially a whole nation, race, or religious group "
This appears to be neither.

[ichkeria]

Collins:
GENOCIDE: the policy of killing a nationality or ethnic group
Chambers:
GENOCIDE: The deliberate extermination of a racial, national, religious or ethnic group
Webster:
GENOCIDE:
The use of deliberate systematic measures (....including killing ...) calculated to bring about the extermination of a racial, political or cultural group or to destroy the language, religion or culture of a group

etc

So I think that clears one up. Plainly the Russian justification is a load of rubbish, as it has been pretty well demonstrated that in fact NOT calling it genocide has had the exact opposite effect. as we have seen with the reaction of some to the appearance of the Serbian PM in Srebrenica.
Trying to find other reasons, it seems to me, is simply playing the Russian game. More interesting are the real reasons why they don't call it such:
one would be that the Serbs themselves have not done so, and they don't want to upset them (perhaps that is what is meant by "greater tension")
Another would be that they would fall over backwards not to support any resolution proposed by Britain or the US about just about anything.

[ichkeria]

I think, divebuddy, that the attempted ethnic cleansing of Bosnia's Bosniaks by the Bosnian Serbs counts as genocide. It was not the same as the nazi genocide of the Jews in that they could probably have lived with them being carted off somewhere else had it been possible, but the term, as we have seen, is generally used in a wider sense now than that for which it was originally intended,

[Svejk]

If it was genocide they'd hardly separate the women and children from the men.
Don't want to be seen defending what happened but we only ever hear one side of what went on.
It was an agreed demilitarised zone which the Muslims/Bosnians used as a base from which to commit appalling war-crimes against local Serbians. (the Muslim commander of those operations was convicted but released to the Bosnians, so he's still walking about free)
I think the problems in the Balkans are very complex, go back hundreds of years and can't really be understood by outsiders.(me, anyway)

[Gromit]

It was probably a massacre rather than genocide, simply going on the numders killed.

[mikey4444]

I couldn't give a monkeys toss what any smart-*** dictionary has to say !

I have no doubt at all that what happened at Srebrenica was an attempt at genocide, even if it wasn't 100% successful.

The Russians are playing silly beggars, just like they always do. They just can't over the fact that they not the world power that the USSR was, and never will be again.

This was a horrible massacre in Europe, not seen since 1945, and lets not forget that, for one moment.

The Russians should be condemning it, just like everyone else.

And Putin can stick that up his pipe and smoke it !

[agchristie]

An interesting discussion which I thought would be more one-sided!

Seems that there is doubt as to what definition should be applied except for Mikey who is not mincing his words!! Have you had a few vodkas Mikey? ;)

[Gromit]

Armenia - 1,500,000 kiled - Genocide.

Srebrenica - 8,000 killed - Massacre.

[ToraToraTora]

ichkeria, this satisfies none of your definitions, how have you reached your conclusion. They massacred the men it was not genocide.

[mikey4444]

No I haven't agchristie, and I stand by every word that I have said on this subject.

It was, at the very least, an attempt at genocide, and no amount of weasel words from Putin, or anybody else is going to change that.

[ToraToraTora]

if it was genocide, how come they spared the women?

[agchristie]

Fair enough Mikey but was it genocide or an attempt as you put it twice?

[mikey4444]

TTT...don't be pedantic ! They killed as many of the sperm donors as they could get hold of. I have already said that it was, at least, an attempt at genocide. Why are you not condemning the Russians ?

[ToraToraTora]

All I'm saying that this does not fit any definition of "genocide" - even ichkeria's above. This is a massacre pure and simple. To call it genocide tries to categorise it with the activities of Hitler/pol Pol/Stalin etc, which is is not.