Good, the Dutch should be ashamed of what happened on their watch.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/05/dutch-state-responsible-srebrenica-deaths
QuoteDutch state responsible for three Srebrenica deaths, says court
Dutch court rules troops should not have allowed men to leave safe area or fall into the hands of Bosnian Serb forces
* Ian Traynor, Europe editor
* guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 5 July 2011 21.09 BST
* Article history
Relatives of the victims of Europe's biggest massacre in decades won a landmark case, immense satisfaction, and the likelihood of substantial damages when a Dutch appeals court ruled for the first time that the Netherlands had to answer for the deaths of Muslim men at Srebrenica 16 years ago.
The verdict stunned the Dutch government as well as the plaintiffs who have campaigned on the issue for more than a decade and had almost given up.
If the ruling is upheld by the supreme court, there could be hundreds of claims for damages from relatives from some of the estimated 8,000 Bosnian Muslim males butchered by the Bosnian Serb forces under General Ratko Mladic, on trial at the war crimes tribunal in The Hague on charges of genocide.
The verdict also found for the first time that countries contributing to a UN peacekeeping mandate must answer for their actions and cannot enjoy immunity behind a UN cloak. The court rejected the Dutch government's argument that it was not responsible for its troops stationed in Srebrenica as they were under UN authority.
"It has been established that states who take part in UN peacekeeping operations cannot not be responsible for their actions. It's all about effective control," Liesbeth Zegveld, the lawyer for the two Bosnian plaintiffs, told the Guardian.
Hasan Nuhanovic, whose parents and brother were killed at Srebrenica, and the relatives of Rizo Mustafic, who worked as an electrician for the Dutch and was killed, have campaigned for years to get the UN and the Netherlands to bear partial blame for the atrocities on the grounds that at the time Srebrenica, in eastern Bosnia, was a UN-declared "safe haven" manned by Dutch troops serving with the UN. The court ruled that the Dutch state was responsible for those three deaths.
A Dutch court rejected the plaintiffs' arguments in 2008, ruling that the Netherlands could not be held responsible as the Dutch troops were under UN authority. A parallel case ruled that the UN was immune to prosecution.
The appeal court verdict stunned the Dutch government and even blindsided the litigants.
"This comes as a surprise. We will have to study the ruling and then decide on our next steps," said a Dutch defence ministry spokesman.
Nuhanovic, the Bosnian Muslim who was the prime mover in the eight-year case, was taken aback.
"I wouldn't say I'm happy," he told the Guardian. "But I wasn't prepared for this. I've had so many difficulties. The Dutch state completely denied responsibility for this."
Nuhanovic was a translator for the Dutch troops in Srebrenica in July 1995 when the besieged Muslim enclave was overrun by Serbian forces under Mladic. Mustafic was working at the Dutch base at Potocari as an electrician.
Potocari is now a memorial centre and cemetery for the dead. More than 600 corpses recently exhumed from mass graves scattered across the region are to be buried there. They include the remains of Mustafic's father.
Some 5,000 people including 239 adult males had crowded into the Dutch Potocari compound seeking shelter from the Serbs.
Nuhanovic was allowed to stay on the base when the Dutch commanders ordered most to leave. He pleaded with Colonel Robert Franken to let his father, mother, and younger brother stay. The outcome was a heartrending "Sophie's Choice" moment.
Nuhanovic's father had been a member of a trio of Srebrenica Muslims negotiating with Mladic days earlier. Because of that, at the last minute as the buses were leaving, Franken told the father he could stay. "Can my younger son also stay?" the father asked. "No," he was told.
The father went with his wife and son. None of them were seen alive again.
Nuhanovic is also considering pressing criminal charges against Franken and his superior officer in Srebrenica at the time, Tom Karremans.
The judges yesterday dismissed the argument that the UN alone was responsible and that the Dutch authorities had no liability.
"The Dutch state is responsible for the death of these men because [UN peacekeepers] Dutchbat should not have handed them over," the judges found.
The relatives of the two plaintiffs were expelled from the Dutch military compound following days of Serbian marauding during which people were beaten and murdered.
"The Dutchbat had been witness to multiple incidents in which the Bosnian Serbs mistreated or killed male refugees outside the compound. The Dutch therefore knew that ... the men were at great risk if they were to leave the compound," the court said.
While the Dutch government may go to the supreme court to appeal the verdict, lawyers do not expect it to win since the supreme court would only consider legal aspects of the case while not contesting the facts established.
The court heard, for example, of the frequent contacts, orders, and discussions held between the Dutch government and its commanders in Srebrenica during the emergency.
While lawyers do not expect the families of the thousands of victims to claim compensation from the Dutch, there may be demands from the families of the 239 men expelled from the compound to their deaths.
"It won't be about American-style sums of money," said Zegveld. "This has always been about accountability rather than compensation."
She said the Dutch government should forestall further legal cases by setting up a compensation fund for the families.
Just 24 hours earlier, the alleged mastermind of the massacre, Ratko Mladic, taunted the international war crimes tribunal in the same city, The Hague, and had to be removed from the court months after he was arrested north of Belgrade following a decade as a fugitive.
"Justice is winning finally," said Nuhanovic. "This verdict today and yesterday I was at the Mladic hearing. It's incredible."
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 05, 2011, 07:18:12 PM
While lawyers do not expect the families of the thousands of victims to claim compensation from the Dutch, there may be demands from the families of the 239 men expelled from the compound to their deaths.
Yeah, because third world types never try and get all the money they can.
Good luck getting any nations to agree sending their soldiers to observe genocides after this decision.
It's funny how jingoistic retards like Tim hail that decision as good, but whenever an issue comes up, strongly opposes bringing any US soldiers to justice for what they do abroad.
What's so inconsistent? One case has to do with the Dutch, while other cases have to do with Americans. I fail to see a commonality here.
Quote from: Martinus on July 06, 2011, 01:20:10 AM
It's funny how jingoistic retards like Tim hail that decision as good, but whenever an issue comes up, strongly opposes bringing any US soldiers to justice for what they do abroad.
I've never seen Timmy say a word against any court martial charges brought against US troops.
Yeah. This is a great blow against injustice. :rolleyes:
I hear the Dutch actually engineered the whole thing, and laughed as they threw babies into the air and bayonetted them.
What was that? I am mistaking these lies for lies from an entirely different war? Well ok. Sometimes I get confused.
BY THE RAMPANT IDIOCY. :mad:
[And yes, your response is predictable, jacombler.]
Anyway, I thought Billy Crystal said gays were responsible. :unsure:
I'm going to go out on a limb, and say Europeans were responsible.
Quote from: Martinus on July 06, 2011, 04:17:24 AM
Anyway, I thought Billy Crystal said gays were responsible. :unsure:
Billy Crystal is an actor and comedian.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 06, 2011, 02:28:00 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 06, 2011, 01:20:10 AM
It's funny how jingoistic retards like Tim hail that decision as good, but whenever an issue comes up, strongly opposes bringing any US soldiers to justice for what they do abroad.
I've never seen Timmy say a word against any court martial charges brought against US troops.
Bah! All you have are facts. Marti has shrillness, and shrillness trumps mere facts.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 06, 2011, 07:03:10 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 06, 2011, 04:17:24 AM
Anyway, I thought Billy Crystal said gays were responsible. :unsure:
Billy Crystal is an actor and comedian.
Way to ruin Marti's childhood! :mad:
Next you are going to tell him Santa is a myth, aren't you? Just to complete the disillusionment?
Quote from: Martinus on July 06, 2011, 01:20:10 AM
It's funny how jingoistic retards like Tim hail that decision as good, but whenever an issue comes up, strongly opposes bringing any US soldiers to justice for what they do abroad.
Tim is reliably in favor of the US military, anime, the search for alien life, and the plaintiff's bar. Tim may give a preference to the US military over jackpot justice legal awards, but he is almost always in favor of the latter.
That is idiotic. The Dutch were not even serving under the authority of the Dutch state.
I always figured the Serbs were responsible.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 06, 2011, 08:46:39 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 06, 2011, 01:20:10 AM
It's funny how jingoistic retards like Tim hail that decision as good, but whenever an issue comes up, strongly opposes bringing any US soldiers to justice for what they do abroad.
Tim is reliably in favor of the US military, anime, the search for alien life, and the plaintiff's bar. Tim may give a preference to the US military over jackpot justice legal awards, but he is almost always in favor of the latter.
I love that Tim being a card-carrying member of ATLA is suddenly becoming common knowledge. :thumbsup:
Quote from: Valmy on July 06, 2011, 09:04:29 AM
That is idiotic. The Dutch were not even serving under the authority of the Dutch state.
As the case demonstrated, this is not entirely true.
QuoteI always figured the Serbs were responsible.
In a liability case, there actually can be more than one party at fault. In fact, responsibility can be split any number of different ways, and in different proportions.
I haven't read the verdict, but my instincts are to be skeptical of these kinds of findings. It seems to me that the Dutch acted under duress, and that the circumstances of the Gutless-Gutless Gali's (may he roast in hell forever) decision-making didn't leave them a chance to defend themselves and avoid the duress.
Quote from: Slargos on July 06, 2011, 03:46:34 AM
Yeah. This is a great blow against injustice. :rolleyes:
I hear the Dutch actually engineered the whole thing, and laughed as they threw babies into the air and bayonetted them.
What was that? I am mistaking these lies for lies from an entirely different war? Well ok. Sometimes I get confused.
BY THE RAMPANT IDIOCY. :mad:
[And yes, your response is predictable, jacombler.]
This post is a great blow against basic comprehension. If you'd bothered to read the article you'd have seen it is only about three people and it only states that the Dutch can't claim immunity as part of the UN peacekeeping force.
Quote from: DGuller on July 06, 2011, 01:16:40 AM
Good luck getting any nations to agree sending their soldiers to observe genocides after this decision.
Well, that's a potential problem--it
could make states unwilling to have their forces serve under the UN banner if they are liable for the actions of those troops while the actions were taken at the direction of the UN rather than the state. But from a legal standpoint, why wouldn't the state be liable? They voluntarily put their forces under UN command. If the state wasn't comfortable with the rules of engagement the UN put in place, they could have withheld or withdrawn their forces. Were there was a legal mechanism by which the UN could compell a state to provide forces to the UN, it would be different.
Decisions of a dutch court are not likely to be very persuasive anywhere outside of the Netherlands.
Now this decision may discourage the dutch from participating in UN peacekeeping missions, but I am hard pressed to see it have wider repercussions than that.
Quote from: dps on July 06, 2011, 09:49:22 AM
Well, that's a potential problem--it could make states unwilling to have their forces serve under the UN banner if they are liable for the actions of those troops while the actions were taken at the direction of the UN rather than the state. But from a legal standpoint, why wouldn't the state be liable? They voluntarily put their forces under UN command. If the state wasn't comfortable with the rules of engagement the UN put in place, they could have withheld or withdrawn their forces. Were there was a legal mechanism by which the UN could compell a state to provide forces to the UN, it would be different.
I'm not sure what argument you are making here. If you are arguing that, because the Netherlands "voluntarily put their forces under UN command," that they are negligent if the UN is negligent, you are wrong. The only way the Dutch are negligent in that case is if they knew, or should have known, that the UN would be negligent.
And Gutless-Gutless Gali (MHRiH) didn't use the UN rules of engagement in this case, he made up his own as the crisis developed.
I don't know why the Dutch government was unable to assert duress as the justification for turning over the civilians to the Serbs. I'd have to see more of the case to find that out. But I think there is no question but what the civilians were turned over because the Dutch government told its soldiers to do so, after the Serbs had over-run the town and were threatening the base.
Quote from: grumbler on July 06, 2011, 10:29:33 AM
I don't know why the Dutch government was unable to assert duress as the justification for turning over the civilians to the Serbs. I'd have to see more of the case to find that out. But I think there is no question but what the civilians were turned over because the Dutch government told its soldiers to do so, after the Serbs had over-run the town and were threatening the base.
If I have time I am going to look at the decision today. One thing that struck me about the case from news reports was the reliance issue. The Dutch troops told the locals that the area they held was a safe zone and that people who felt threatened by the Serbs should come to that area. Many took the Dutch up on their promise that the zone was safe and then the Dutch handed them over.
On the face of it those are hard facts to overcome. The Dutch forces knew the circumstances they were in before they represented their zone was safe and the locals relied on the representation. The Dutch essentially reneged on their promise. On the face of it the duress defence would be hard to make out. The promise of a safe zone was made with the knowledge that the Serbs had an army in the in area and that the Serb army was threatening the very people to whom safety was being promised.
It might be that the rules of engagement changed between the time the promise of a safe zone was made and the time the Serbs threatened to attack. I could see that as the basis of an arguable case. As I said, I will have to look at the facts found by the Court.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 06, 2011, 11:45:35 AM
If I have time I am going to look at the decision today. One thing that struck me about the case from news reports was the reliance issue. The Dutch troops told the locals that the area they held was a safe zone and that people who felt threatened by the Serbs should come to that area. Many took the Dutch up on their promise that the zone was safe and then the Dutch handed them over.
Actually, the Dutch government had nothing to do with declaring any safe zones. That was the UN. the Dutch battalion just happened to be the one that was sent to guard the safe zone. The Dutch didn't hand over very many Bosnians. Most of the people that were killed were killed when the Dutch soldiers were told by Gutless-Gutless Gali (MHRiH) to stand down and not resist the Serbs. The victims being addressed in the lawsuit, as far as I know, were all actually in the Dutch Army camp, not in the town. By the time the Dutch government was involved in the discussions over whether or not to turn over those people, the Dutch battalion's military situation had already been hopelessly compromised by G-G Gali's (MHRiH) decision to betray the Bosnians.
QuoteOn the face of it those are hard facts to overcome. The Dutch forces knew the circumstances they were in before they represented their zone was safe and the locals relied on the representation. The Dutch essentially reneged on their promise. On the face of it the duress defence would be hard to make out. The promise of a safe zone was made with the knowledge that the Serbs had an army in the in area and that the Serb army was threatening the very people to whom safety was being promised.
Are you sure of all your facts? How did the Dutch government know G-G Gali (MHRiH) would betray the mission, for instance?
Quote from: grumbler on July 06, 2011, 12:03:29 PM
Actually, the Dutch government had nothing to do with declaring any safe zones. That was the UN. the Dutch battalion just happened to be the one that was sent to guard the safe zone. The Dutch didn't hand over very many Bosnians. Most of the people that were killed were killed when the Dutch soldiers were told by Gutless-Gutless Gali (MHRiH) to stand down and not resist the Serbs. The victims being addressed in the lawsuit, as far as I know, were all actually in the Dutch Army camp, not in the town. By the time the Dutch government was involved in the discussions over whether or not to turn over those people, the Dutch battalion's military situation had already been hopelessly compromised by G-G Gali's (MHRiH) decision to betray the Bosnians.
You are correct about the initial safe zones being declared by the UN. The representation I am talking about occured after that. When the Dutch were already in their zone and the Serb army was advancing in the area the Dutch promised safety to people who entered their compound. Approximately 5000 people took them up on that promise. Those 5000 we handed over to the Serbs apparently in exchange for 20 or so Dutch troops who were being held hostage by the Serb forces.
It is that reliance I am talking about and in those circumstances I find duress argument difficult to understand. If the Dutch were not willing to fight to keep their promise of the safety of their own compound they should not have made the promise at all. Those 5000 would have then had an opporunity to continue to flee. The essence of a reliance case is that a person acts on a representation of another to their detriment. That seems to be exactly what happened here.
Quote from: grumbler on July 06, 2011, 12:03:29 PM
How did the Dutch government know G-G Gali (MHRiH) would betray the mission, for instance?
Well, the fact that he was a UN official should've been a clue.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 06, 2011, 11:45:35 AM
On the face of it those are hard facts to overcome.
I have no legal knowledge regarding this, but from a practical point of view I don't see why it is hard to overcome. There aren't truly "safe zones" in a war zone. That is basic common sense. There are just some places safer than others. If you are going to create legal responsibilities to protect a population because you advised them that certain areas are safer, you are going to deter the practice of giving advice to populations under danger.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 06, 2011, 12:17:16 PM
[You are correct about the initial safe zones being declared by the UN. The representation I am talking about occured after that. When the Dutch were already in their zone and the Serb army was advancing in the area the Dutch promised safety to people who entered their compound.
Got a source for this?
QuoteIt is that reliance I am talking about and in those circumstances I find duress argument difficult to understand. If the Dutch were not willing to fight to keep their promise of the safety of their own compound they should not have made the promise at all.
If the Dutch made an independent promise (it must have been on the 10th of July, because by the 11th the camp was already full) it would certainly have been their responsibility to keep it. I have never heard of any such promise.
QuoteThose 5000 would have then had an opporunity to continue to flee. The essence of a reliance case is that a person acts on a representation of another to their detriment. That seems to be exactly what happened here.
The overwhelming majority of the 5,000 were evacuated safely by the Serbs, being mostly women and children. There was nowhere for them to fell anyway. The men and boys were, of course, killed, and the young women raped.
However, would you concede that there is no such reliance case if the Dutch did not, in fact, independently promise safety to those who entered their compound on July 10th and 11th?
Quote from: grumbler on July 06, 2011, 01:14:37 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 06, 2011, 12:17:16 PM
[You are correct about the initial safe zones being declared by the UN. The representation I am talking about occured after that. When the Dutch were already in their zone and the Serb army was advancing in the area the Dutch promised safety to people who entered their compound.
Got a source for this?
*runs screaming for the hills*
Quote from: alfred russel on July 06, 2011, 12:54:52 PM
If you are going to create legal responsibilities to protect a population because you advised them that certain areas are safer, you are going to deter the practice of giving advice to populations under danger.
That is good. Just about the worst advice to give is that which makes the recipient decide to do something that gets him or her self killed. Giving that kind of advice should be punished.
Quote from: grumbler on July 06, 2011, 01:29:07 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 06, 2011, 12:54:52 PM
If you are going to create legal responsibilities to protect a population because you advised them that certain areas are safer, you are going to deter the practice of giving advice to populations under danger.
That is good. Just about the worst advice to give is that which makes the recipient decide to do something that gets him or her self killed. Giving that kind of advice should be punished.
Italy had the right idea with the earthquake murderers.
Quote from: grumbler on July 06, 2011, 01:14:37 PM
Got a source for this?
No. As I said before, I am repeating what has been reported in our local media. If I get time today I will look at the facts found by the Court.
QuoteIf the Dutch made an independent promise (it must have been on the 10th of July, because by the 11th the camp was already full) it would certainly have been their responsibility to keep it. I have never heard of any such promise.
That is what is being reported here in an interview with one of the family members of someone who took up the promise. We need to find out whether the accusation is accurate.
QuoteHowever, would you concede that there is no such reliance case if the Dutch did not, in fact, independently promise safety to those who entered their compound on July 10th and 11th?
Yes, if there was no independant promise by the Dutch and the only thing the locals were relying on was the UN promise of a safe zone then that would change my view.
Assuming there is no explicit promise made of any kind, is it reasonable to hold a party responsible for the death of civilians if they fail to protect those civilians from a clearly hostile force in a situation such as this?
For example, if those were US troops, I would want them to refuse to hand over civilians regardless of whether or not they made any express promise to protect them or not. What is more, I would even want them to fight rather than hand them over.
Now, what I want hardly rises to the level of actionable legal imperative, of course, but if in fact US troops were to do something like this, I would hope that at the least it would have severe non-legal repercussions for the officers in charge - ie career ending performance evaluations. I think it would reflect extremely poorly on those in charge, even if there was no legal culpability.
The thing that I think we can all agree on is the UN, having declared safe zones, should have done whatever was necessary to actually make those zones safe.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 06, 2011, 01:48:12 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 06, 2011, 01:14:37 PM
Got a source for this?
No. As I said before, I am repeating what has been reported in our local media. If I get time today I will look at the facts found by the Court.
QuoteIf the Dutch made an independent promise (it must have been on the 10th of July, because by the 11th the camp was already full) it would certainly have been their responsibility to keep it. I have never heard of any such promise.
That is what is being reported here in an interview with one of the family members of someone who took up the promise. We need to find out whether the accusation is accurate.
QuoteHowever, would you concede that there is no such reliance case if the Dutch did not, in fact, independently promise safety to those who entered their compound on July 10th and 11th?
Yes, if there was no independant promise by the Dutch and the only thing the locals were relying on was the UN promise of a safe zone then that would change my view.
:thumbsup:
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 06, 2011, 02:39:37 PM
The thing that I think we can all agree on is the UN, having declared safe zones, should have done whatever was necessary to actually make those zones safe.
The problem is that we cannot agree to define "the UN" in such a way that it is even reasonable to hold them to such a standard. It is a weak institution that largely does not enjoy enough pseudo-sovereign power that it can in fact do "whatever is necessary" even if it wanted to.
Nobody wants the to actually give any of their sovereignty up to the UN, least of all the US. So how can we ever expect them to actually have any real power, even to do things we all agree ought to be done, such as protecting civilians from those who clearly wish to kill them?
Quote from: Valmy on July 06, 2011, 09:04:29 AM
That is idiotic. The Dutch were not even serving under the authority of the Dutch state.
I always figured the Serbs were responsible.
Agree. As cowardly as those Dutch troops were, it's absurd to rule that the Dutch state was somehow responsible for anything that occurred in Srebrenica.
Quote from: Berkut on July 06, 2011, 03:13:06 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 06, 2011, 02:39:37 PM
The thing that I think we can all agree on is the UN, having declared safe zones, should have done whatever was necessary to actually make those zones safe.
The problem is that we cannot agree to define "the UN" in such a way that it is even reasonable to hold them to such a standard. It is a weak institution that largely does not enjoy enough pseudo-sovereign power that it can in fact do "whatever is necessary" even if it wanted to.
Nobody wants the to actually give any of their sovereignty up to the UN, least of all the US. So how can we ever expect them to actually have any real power, even to do things we all agree ought to be done, such as protecting civilians from those who clearly wish to kill them?
Good point. Let me rephrase. The UN should not have made the promise of safe zones without first obtaining the guarrantees from the forces who would be intervening in those zones that they would in fact be safe.
Quote from: Martinus on July 06, 2011, 04:17:24 AM
Anyway, I thought Billy Crystal said gays were responsible. :unsure:
Gen Sheehan said this.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7478738/Gay-Dutch-soldiers-responsible-for-Srebrenica-massacre-says-US-general.html
I think the Dutch fucked up at Sbrenica about as badly as anyone can fuck up, but I also abhor this commericialization of foreign policy.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 06, 2011, 12:54:52 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 06, 2011, 11:45:35 AM
On the face of it those are hard facts to overcome.
I have no legal knowledge regarding this, but from a practical point of view I don't see why it is hard to overcome. There aren't truly "safe zones" in a war zone. That is basic common sense. There are just some places safer than others. If you are going to create legal responsibilities to protect a population because you advised them that certain areas are safer, you are going to deter the practice of giving advice to populations under danger.
But the Geneva conventions allow for civilian/safey zones to be declared in war zones.
Quote from: Berkut on July 06, 2011, 03:13:06 PM
The problem is that we cannot agree to define "the UN" in such a way that it is even reasonable to hold them to such a standard. It is a weak institution that largely does not enjoy enough pseudo-sovereign power that it can in fact do "whatever is necessary" even if it wanted to.
I am not sure what argument you are making here. If the argument is that the security council isn't "the UN" and so we should hold the members of the SC to the task rather than the UN, I can go along with that.
If the Security Council passes a resolution requiring that military forces stay out of safe havens upon danger of military attack, deploy forces to enforce their decision, require Muslim fighters entering the area to turn their weapons over to the peacekeepers, and have UN officials repeatedly reassure the people that they shouldn't flee because they were safe, then the UN and in particular the SC are, indeed, liable.
QuoteNobody wants the to actually give any of their sovereignty up to the UN, least of all the US. So how can we ever expect them to actually have any real power, even to do things we all agree ought to be done, such as protecting civilians from those who clearly wish to kill them?
Not sure what peacekeeping has to do with sovereignty in this case, either.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 06, 2011, 05:41:01 PM
I think the Dutch fucked up at Sbrenica about as badly as anyone can fuck up, but I also abhor this commericialization of foreign policy.
They fucked up by accepting an RoE from G-G Gali that was not only illogical, but was publicly released (the soldiers could only fire in self-defense, which allowed the Serbs to walk all over them). Once they neglected to bug out because of their inability to serve as anything but hostages, they were fucked no matter what they did. Berkut's idea of a heroic suicide stand may sound great from the comfort of a sofa, but probably had little appeal for the grunts.
There needed to be a line in the sand and the mechanisms for killing every Serb who crossed it needed to be in place and clear to everyone, including the Serbs. As director of peacekeeping operations, that was G-G Gali's job, and he failed at it so spectacularly that the only fitting punishment was to make him Secretary-General.