Die militärischen Handlungsschemata der ... - Dr. Alois Mock

zielführende Methode der Kriegführung und können daher nur im „vorgestrigen“
Kriegsbild am Balkan, wo praktisch keine Luftangriffe durch die Kriegsparteien
geführt werden, auftreten. Ausserdem ist die Einkesselung von Städten heute
zumindest politisch pikant wenn auch kriegsrechtlich nicht gänzlich verboten. 598
Tatsaechlich hatte sogar der vorsaetzliche Beschuss von Zivilisten im II. Weltkrieg
bei Prozessen danach bisweilen mit Freisprüchen geendet 599 , wobei aber nicht
anzunehmen ist, dass Karadzic oder Mladic sich mit diesen Fällen intensiv
beschäftigen oder bereits mit ihnen vertraut sind. Aber auch wenn die Motive und
Vorstellungen der beiden serbischen „Hauptdarsteller“ 600 betreffend Sarajevo
598
„Under international humanitarian law (IHL), siege is not prohibited per se. The capture of an
enemy-controlled city is a legitimate military aim, and army commanders have often seen siege as less
costly than the alternative - fighting house to house, street by street. Historically, a key element of siege
warfare has been to reduce a town’s defenses and force its surrender by cutting off its vital supplies
and leaving the population, civilian and military alike, to starve. Cruel as this tactic is, the laws of war
permitted it at least until the end of World War II, under the rationale of military necessity. The last
revision of the U.S. Army field manual on the law of land warfare, for example, informed commanders
that civilians who are fleeing a besieged city can, as an ‘extreme measure’, be turned around and
forced back into the city for the specific purpose of ‘hastening its surrender’. (...) Prohibitions on the
deliberate starvation of civilians and the obstruction of humanitarian aid are somewhat more
ambiguous. The Fourth Geneva Convention stipulates that an army may legally block food or other
relief shipments into a besieged city if the aid would result in more goods becoming available to the
local military forces. The question for war crime judges is whether that provision is made meaningless
by Protocol I, which prohibits the use of starvation tactics as a means of forcing the local population to
leave a besieged zone. This provision may require a besieging force to allow relief supplies to enter a
besieged city, even if some of the supplies will inevitably be shared with the defenders. Protocol I also
prohibits the destruction of ‘objects indispensable for the survival of the civilian population’. A besieging
army is thus forbidden, for example, from destroying a city’s drinking water supply.” Tom Gjelten,
Siege. In: Gutman, Rieff (Hg.), Crimes of War. S. 337 - 338
599
“The charges against Field Marshal von Leeb at Nuremberg were based on an order he issued at
the outset of the siege that civilians attempting to leave Leningrad should be shelled. The purpose of
forcing them to remain in the city was to maintain the pressure created by shortages or food and other
necessities. (…) Since the surrender of the city - with its 200,000 troops and its munitions plants -
could have been hastened by maintaining the pressure, the judges concluded that von Leeb had not
committed a war crime under the laws of war in effect during World War II.” Neier, War Crimes. S. 159
- 160
600
Bei beiden kann man sich bisweilen des Eindrucks nicht erwehren, sie würden vor allem gegenüber
westlichen Medien einen gewissen Hang zur Selbstdarstellung und Inszenierung ausleben.
166