Court Rules Dutch State Responisble For Srebrenica Deaths

[crazy canuck]

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

[Berkut]

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.

[crazy canuck]

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.

[grumbler]

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

[Berkut]

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?

[derspiess]

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.

[crazy canuck]

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.

[viper37]

Anyway, I thought Billy Crystal said gays were responsible.

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

[Admiral Yi]

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.

[mongers]

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.

[grumbler]

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.

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?

Not sure what peacekeeping has to do with sovereignty in this case, either.

[grumbler]

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.