The Srebrenica Massacre - Nova Srpska Politicka Misao

UN Report on Srebrenica—A Distorted Picture of Events
Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina,” with this operation merely “triggering
a new wave of ‘ethnic cleansing’ in western Bosnia, where Bosniacs
and Croats were evicted to make way for the influx of displaced
Serbs” (para. 183). Here, in the very same paragraph of the UN report,
we find what was essentially the same kind of military operations described
very differently, with word usage adjusted to meet the UN’s and
NATO’s political agenda, depending on whether the Serbs carried out
the operation (“ethnic cleansing”) or were the victims of the operation
(“expulsion and flight”). Similarly, the report makes the forced expulsion
of Croatians and Muslims “genocide,” while the forced expulsion of
Serbs is taken as “retribution.” Words like “abhorrent,” horrifying,” “savage,”
“implacable,” “horror,” and “mass murder” are used only in reference
to Serb conduct, never to Croats or Bosnian Muslims (or their
imported Mujahadeen fighters). Such word-usage and double standards
is compelling evidence of the report’s deep biases and NATO-warsupportive
role.
The Fall of Srebrenica was championed by Secretary-General Kofi
Annan, who, according to Richard Holbrooke, 14 owed his elevation to
the post of Secretary-General to the United States, and specifically for
his service in advancing the U.S. agenda is Bosnia several years back.
The threat of a U.S. veto prevented Annan’s predecessor, UN Secretary-
General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, from being reappointed to another
term, despite near unanimous support from other member nations of
the UN. Boutros-Ghali’s attempt to keep UN policies consistent with
their non-interventionist official mandates during the Bosnian war had
created domestic problems for U.S. President Bill Clinton, whose opponent
in the upcoming U.S. Presidential election, Senator Robert
Dole, had championed military support for Bosnian Muslims at the expense
of a negotiated settlement.
Equally important, the UN’s policies prior to Annan’s elevation
clashed with NATO’s effort to justify its continued existence following
the collapse of the Soviet Union. “Out of area, or out of business,” 15
became the slogan of those who sought a reason to preserve an alliance
which had lost its basic mission with the end of the Cold War. Talk of
Europeans taking over their own defense, through a new alliance as
NATO’s founders, was anathema to U.S. policy-makers who saw
NATO as a means of keeping a dominant U.S. presence in Europe.
228