Czeslaw Milosz |A Poem for the end of the century
Click To Frontpage

 International 

Political Newsreview

First Net Print, November 23 1999
Second Net Print, November 25 1999
Third Net Print, October 30 2001

Srebrenica Report

REPORT OF THE SECRETARY-GENERAL PURSUANT TO GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION 53/35 (1998)

II.
BACKGROUND

A.
Break-up of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) and the establishment of the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR)

¶ 10.

The break-up of the SFRY accelerated in 1991, with declarations of independence by the Republics of Croatia and Slovenia on 25 June 1991. The then Secretary-General of the United Nations, Dr. Javier Perez de Cuellar, was generally measured in his reaction to these events, as he later expressed the concern that early, selective recognition would widen the [ongoing] conflict and fuel an explosive situation, especially in Bosnia and Herzegovina. (S/1991/23280, Annex IV). The one principal cause for caution was an awareness that recognizing the independence of the Yugoslav republics would leave substantial communities of Serbs and others as vulnerable minorities in Croatia, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) and, in particular, in Bosnia and Herzegovina. This concern was initially shared by the Member States of the European Community (EC), which established a Commission to examine whether or not Yugoslav republics seeking international recognition met a number of criteria, particularly regarding the constitutional protection of minorities. Later, however, these States proceeded with recognition of all three Republics despite a concern that only Slovenia and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia had met the established criteria.

¶ 11.

Following the declaration of independence by Slovenia, fighting broke out between Slovenian forces and the predominantly Serb forces of the Yugoslav Peoples Army (JNA). The fighting, however, lasted for only ten days, with light casualties on both sides. The conflict ended with the Brioni agreement of 7 July 1991, and was followed, over the coming months, by the withdrawal of JNA forces and de facto independence for Slovenia. In Croatia, the fighting was much more serious. The declaration of independence led to an increase in the armed clashes which had been taking place for several months, pitting Croatian forces against both the JNA and Croatian Serb militias. These clashes descended into full-scale warfare in August 1991 and continued until 2 January 1992, when a cease-fire was signed in Sarajevo under the auspices of the United Nations. Shortly thereafter, the parties to the conflict in Croatia fully and unconditionally accepted the Concept for a United Nations Peacekeeping Operation in Yugoslavia presented by the Personal Envoy of the Secretary-General, Mr. Cyrus Vance (the Vance Plan). At the end of this phase of the fighting in Croatia, Serb forces remained in de facto control of approximately one third of the Republic of Croatia.

¶ 12.

On 25 September 1991, when the fighting in Croatia was at its height, the Security Council adopted resolution 713 (1992) which decided that, All States shall, for purposes of establishing peace and stability in Yugoslavia, immediately implement a general and complete embargo on all deliveries of weapons and military equipment to Yugoslavia until the Security Council decides otherwise ... The resolution was adopted unanimously, though several observers noted at the time that the major effect of the embargo would be to freeze the military holdings of each of the parties -- a move which would overwhelmingly benefit the Serbs, who were dominant both in the Yugoslav military and, to a lesser extent, in the arms industry.

¶ 13.

On 15 February 1992, the then Secretary-General, Dr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali (who served in this position from 1 January 1992 to 31 December 1996), submitted a report to the Security Council proposing the establishment of a peacekeeping force to implement the Vance Plan. He made the following observation:

If it is only now that I am proposing such a force, it is because of the complexities and dangers of the Yugoslav situation and the consequent need to be as sure as possible that a United Nations force would succeed in consolidating the cease-fire and thus facilitate the negotiation of an overall political settlement. As has been repeatedly stated, this requires not only a working cease-fire but also clear and unconditional acceptance of the plan by all concerned, with equally clear assurances of their readiness to cooperate in its implementation ... I have come to the conclusion that the danger that a United Nations peace operation will fail because of lack of cooperation of the parties is less grievous than the danger that delay in its dispatch will lead to a breakdown of the cease-fire and to a new conflagration in Yugoslavia. (S/23592, para. 28)

¶ 14.

The Security Council approved the Secretary-Generals report and, on 21 February, decided, by resolution 743 (1992), to establish a United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR), to assist in the implementation of the Vance Plan. UNPROFORs headquarters was established in Sarajevo on 13 March 1992. Sarajevo was seen, at that time, as a neutral location, and it was hoped that UNPROFORs presence in Bosnia and Herzegovina would prove a stabilizing factor amid the increasing tensions in the country. Although resolution 743 (1992) provided for United Nations military observers to patrol certain limited areas in Bosnia and Herzegovina, this was to take place after the demilitarization of the United Nations Protected Areas in Croatia, which did not occur. Until June 1992, the Force had no other mandate in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

B.
Independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the outbreak of war

¶ 15.

The independence of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina was recognized by the EC (later renamed as the European Union (EU)) on 6 April 1992 and by the United States of America the following day. At the same time, the sporadic fighting which had taken place in a number of areas began to intensify. This was exacerbated by the JNA withdrawal from Croatia under the terms of the Vance Plan, which had involved the relocation of substantial amounts of materiel, particularly heavy weapons, into Bosnia and Herzegovina. Much of this materiel later passed into the hands of the Bosnian Serbs.

¶ 16.

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) viewed the conflict which had erupted in Bosnia and Herzegovina as having elements both of an international armed conflict (i.e. the invasion of that country by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) and of an internal armed conflict. In its international aspect, the conflict represented a war between the JNA (later known as the Army of Yugoslavia, or VJ) on one side, against both the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (ARBiH) and the Croatian Defence Council (HVO) on the other. Later in the conflict, another foreign force, the Croatian Army (HV), was also involved in the fighting. In its internal aspect, the war represented a conflict between armed forces associated with the major nationalities of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

¶ 17.

Bosniacs (known until 1993 as Muslims or Bosnian Muslims), who represented 44 percent of Bosnia and Herzegovina's population of 4.4 million, were dominant in the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The ARBiH, officially established on 15 April 1992, was made up, ab initio, of a number of elements: territorial defence units, police forces, paramilitary forces and criminal elements. It enjoyed an advantage in manpower over the other forces in the conflict, but was poorly equipped and largely untrained. Prior to April 1993, when fighting later broke out between Bosniacs and Croats, the ARBiH was able to secure a limited amount of military materiel from foreign supporters via Croatia. The Croats, who constituted 17 percent of the population, were dominant in the HVO. This force also brought together territorial defence units, police forces, paramilitaries and certain prominent criminals. But unlike the ARBiH, the HVO enjoyed the backing of the Republic of Croatia which provided a broad range of support.

¶ 18.

Ranged against these forces were the rump JNA (the regular army of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia), the Army of Republika Srpska, known to the international community as the Bosnian Serb Army (BSA), and their paramilitary associates. All of these forces were dominated by Serbs, who constituted 31 percent of the population of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The JNA officially withdrew from Bosnia and Herzegovina to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia under international pressure on 10 May 1992. In fact, however, the withdrawal was largely cosmetic since the JNA left behind those units whose members were nationals of Bosnia and Herzegovina. General Mladiç, Commander of JNA forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina, was re-styled Commander of the BSA. Throughout the war that was to follow, the BSA remained closely associated with the JNA/VJ and with the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, on which the BSA relied for materiel, intelligence, funds and other forms of support. The Serb paramilitary groups, which included a substantial criminal element, often operated in close cooperation with the regular armies of Yugoslavia and the Bosnian Serbs.

¶ 19.

The conflict between these forces differed from conventional warfare in important ways. First, much of the fighting was local, involving regular and irregular fighters operating close to their homes. Second, a central objective of the conflict was the use of military means to terrorize civilian populations, often with the goal of forcing their flight in a process that came to be known as ethnic cleansing. Third, although several hundred thousand men were engaged for three-and-a-half years, and although several tens of thousands of combatants were killed, the conflict was more often one of attrition, terror, gangsterism and negotiation than it was of high-intensity warfare.

C.
Humanitarian activities

¶ 20.

The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) was the lead agency for international humanitarian activities in Bosnia and Herzegovina, establishing a significant presence in the country almost as soon as the conflict erupted. UNHCR convoys distributed food aid, shelter materials and 'winterization' supplies, seeds, clothing and other humanitarian goods to the authorities of all three communities. The local authorities then distributed these goods to the local populations (inevitably diverting a certain amount to the various military forces and to the black market).

¶ 21.

From the outset, the Serbs restricted the flow of humanitarian aid to Srebrenica and to other isolated Bosniac communities. Humanitarian convoys were subjected to onerous clearance procedures and to other forms of harassment and obstruction. The Serbs did not, apparently, intend to starve the Bosniac enclaves altogether, but rather to reduce them to conditions of extreme privation. From this regime of privation the Serbs consolidated their control over the enclaves. They (and some counterparts in the other communities) also derived economic advantage from this system by initiating black market trade with the surrounded Bosniacs.

¶ 22.

UNHCR delivered an average of approximately 750 tonnes of humanitarian aid per day to Bosnia and Herzegovina for the duration of the war, but much of this went to areas to which the Serbs did not control access. In the Bosniac enclaves, UNHCR was rarely able to meet the needs of the population. Even when basic food supplies could be delivered to these places, other items required to support the humanitarian needs of the population, including medical equipment and emergency shelter materials, were often blocked altogether. Although starvation was almost unknown in the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Bosniac enclaves did endure sustained periods of material deprivation and psychological suffering.

¶ 23.

In July 1992, UNHCR, building on the airport agreement brokered by UNPROFOR on 5 June (see para. 27), began a humanitarian airlift to Sarajevo. The Serbs, however, controlled the use of Sarajevo airport, and thus the restrictions which applied to road convoys also applied, in considerable measure, to the Sarajevo airlift. In February 1993 the relief supplies brought by UNHCR's road convoys and airlift began to be supplemented by a programme of air drops. French, German and United States transport aircraft flew 2,735 sorties, dropping humanitarian aid to Bihaç, Gorañde, Srebrenica, ðepa and other isolated areas to which convoy access was restricted. Threats to the security of the aircraft ended the programme in August 1994, by which time almost 18,000 tonnes of aid had been delivered in this way, providing a degree of relief to the most vulnerable communities.

D.
Proposals for a peacekeeping mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina

¶ 24.

24. When fighting broke out in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Security Council requested the Secretary-General to explore the feasibility of a United Nations peacekeeping operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Secretary-General accordingly dispatched to the region his then Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations, Mr. Marrack Goulding. Mr. Goulding remained in the region from 4 to 10 May 1992. Referring to the situation in Sarajevo based on Mr. Goulding's visit, the Secretary-General then reported to the Council, on 12 May 1992, as follows:

The city suffers regular heavy shelling and sniper fire nightly, and intermittent shelling at other times, often on a random basis, from Serb irregulars in the surrounding hills, who use mortars and light artillery allegedly made available to them by the JNA ... Even on a day when the shelling is light there is no public transport, few people go to work and the streets are largely deserted. The city's civilian airport is closed. Economic life is at a standstill and there are growing shortages of food and other essential supplies owing to the blockade imposed on the city by Serb forces ... Intense hostilities are taking place elsewhere in the Republic, notably in Mostar and the Neretva valley, in Bosanska Krupa, and in eastern Bosnia.

All international observers agree that what is happening is a concerted effort by the Serbs of Bosnia and Herzegovina, with the acquiescence of, and at least some support from, the JNA, to create ethnically pure regions in the context of negotiations on the cantonization of the Republic ... The techniques used are the seizure of territory by military force and the intimidation of the non-Serb population. The conclusion of a cease-fire agreement between Serb and Croat leaders on 6 May 1992 has revived suspicions of a Serb-Croat carve up of Bosnia and Herzegovina, leaving minimal territory to the Muslim community which accounts for a plurality of the population. Further concern has been caused by the decision of the Belgrade authorities to withdraw from Bosnia and Herzegovina by 18 May all JNA personnel who are not citizens of that Republic. This will leave in Bosnia and Herzegovina, without effective political control, as many as 50,000 mostly Serb troops and their weapons. They are likely to be taken over by the Serb party.

The fighting and intimidation have led to massive displacement of civilians ... The international community's efforts to bring succour to these suffering people are greatly obstructed by the warring parties whose demographic objectives they may frustrate. Freedom of movement is virtually non-existent: a recent UNHCR convoy had to negotiate its way through 90 roadblocks between Zagreb and Sarajevo, many of them manned by undisciplined and drunken soldiers of undetermined political affiliation and not responsible to any identifiable central authority. Relief supplies are stolen, vehicles hijacked and international aid workers threatened and abused. (S/23900, paras. 3-6)

¶ 25.

The Secretary-General noted that Mr. Goulding had consulted with representatives of the different communities and found that President Alija Izetbegoviç, Mr. Fikret Abdiç (both Bosnian Muslims) and Mr. Mariofil Ljubiç (a Bosnian Croat) had supported an immediate United Nations intervention. President Izetbegoviç had supported a peace-enforcement operation, to restore order. Mr. Goulding had also met with Dr. Karadñiç and other Serb leaders, who saw no role for a United Nations peacekeeping force at the time, though he and President Franjo Tudjman of Croatia had not excluded a possible role for United Nations peacekeepers in helping to implement the constitutional agreement which [was] expected to emerge from the peace process sponsored by the European Community. (Ibid., para. 17).

¶ 26.

The Secretary-General concluded as follows:

The situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina is tragic, dangerous, violent and confused. I do not think that in its present phase this conflict is susceptible to the United Nations peacekeeping treatment. Any successful peacekeeping operation has to be based on some agreement between the hostile parties. Such an agreement can range from a simple cease-fire to a comprehensive settlement of their dispute. Without an agreement of some sort, a workable mandate cannot be defined and peacekeeping is impossible ....

It also has to be observed that a successful peacekeeping operation requires the parties to respect the United Nations, its personnel and its mandate. One of the more distressing features of the current situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina is that, for all their fair words, none of the parties there can claim to satisfy that condition .... These are not the conditions which permit a United Nations peacekeeping operation to make an effective contribution. (Ibid, paras. 25-26)

¶ 27.

The Security Council then asked the Secretary-General to take on some limited functions in the Sarajevo area. In resolution 757 (1992) of 30 May 1992, which also imposed sweeping economic sanctions on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the Council requested the Secretary-General to continue to use his good offices in order to achieve the conditions for unimpeded delivery of humanitarian supplies to Sarajevo and elsewhere, including the establishment of a security zone encompassing Sarajevo and its airport. The Secretary-General reported to the Security Council on 6 June that UNPROFOR had negotiated an agreement, the previous day, on the reopening of Sarajevo airport for humanitarian purposes. Under the terms of the agreement, UNPROFOR was asked to take over full operational responsibility for the functioning and security of Sarajevo airport. The Secretary-General expressed the view that the agreement represented a significant breakthrough in the tragic conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina, although it was only a first step, and added that:

It is my view that the opportunity afforded by the willingness of the parties to conclude the present agreement should be seized ... Given that heavy weapons will remain in the hills overlooking Sarajevo and its airport, albeit supervised by UNPROFOR, the viability of the agreement will depend on the good faith of the parties, and especially the Bosnian Serb party, in scrupulously honouring their commitments ...

I accordingly recommend to the Security Council that it take the necessary decision to enlarge the mandate and strength of UNPROFOR, as proposed in the present report. It is to be hoped that this will be the first stage of a process that will restore peace to the long-suffering Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. (S/24075, paras. 11 and 13)

¶ 28.

The Secretary-General proposed the immediate deployment of United Nations military observers (UNMOs) to the airport, to be followed by an UNPROFOR infantry battalion. This was approved by the Security Council in its resolution 758 (1992) of 8 June, marking the formal beginning of UNPROFOR=s mandate in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

E.
The peace process

¶ 29.

For much of the war in the former Yugoslavia the effort to negotiate a political settlement to the conflict was conducted under the auspices of the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia (ICFY), established by the Conference on the Former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, held in London on 26-27 August 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the London Conference). The Secretary-General described ICFY as:

An enterprise combining the efforts of the United Nations and the European Community (EC), as well as other international organizations such as the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) and the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) ... ICFY combines active preventive diplomacy, peacemaking, peacekeeping, and also has a potential peace-enforcement component. (S/24795 of 11 November 1992, para. 1)

The Steering Committee of ICFY was initially co-chaired by Mr. Cyrus Vance, representing the Secretary-General of the United Nations, and David Lord Owen, representing the Presidency of the European Community.

¶ 30.

Building on the Statement of Principles adopted by the London Conference, ICFY developed the basis for a political settlement to the conflict:

The population of Bosnia and Herzegovina is inextricably intermingled. Thus there appears to be no viable way to create three territorially distinct States based on ethnic or confessional principles. Any plan to do so would involve incorporating a very large number of the members of the other ethnic/confessional groups, or consist of a number of separate enclaves of each ethnic/confessional group. Such a plan could achieve homogeneity and coherent boundaries only by a process of enforced population transfer -- which has already been condemned ... Consequently, the Co-Chairmen have deemed it necessary to reject any model based on three separate, ethnic/confederally based States. Furthermore, a confederation formed of three such States would be inherently unstable, for at least two would surely forge immediate and stronger connections with neighbouring States ...

The Co-Chairmen also recognized that a centralized state would not be accepted by at least two of the principal ethnic/confessional groups in Bosnia and Herzegovina, since it would not protect their interests in the wake of the bloody strife that now sunders the country ...

Consequently, the Co-Chairmen believe that the only viable and stable solution that does not acquiesce in already accomplished >ethnic cleansing, and in further internationally unacceptable practices, appears to be the establishment of a decentralized state. (S/24795, paras. 36-38)

¶ 31.

The Co-Chairmen unveiled their draft plan to end the conflict, which became known as the Vance-Owen Peace Plan (VOPP), on 2 January 1993. That plan consisted of three parts: a set of constitutional principles which would have established a decentralized state of Bosnia and Herzegovina; military provisions, which provided for a cease-fire and the eventual demilitarization of the whole country; and a map delineating ten provinces. The ten provinces were drawn largely to reflect the areas in which the three communities had lived before the war, thus substantially reversing the process of ethnic cleansing. Each community would have constituted a majority in three provinces, with Sarajevo, the tenth province, having no majority. None of the communities would have had a compact territory, and the Serbs would have been divided into five unconnected areas, effectively ending their hopes of seceding from Bosnia and Herzegovina. The objections of Serb leaders were reportedly focused on Province 5, which would have had a Bosniac majority. That province included not only Srebrenica and ðepa but also most of the areas of eastern Bosnia recently >ethnically cleansed by the JNA, the BSA and their paramilitary associates. When the Vance-Owen Peace Plan was presented, the BSA was in control of roughly 70 percent of the country. The land area of the provinces with Serb majorities proposed under the Peace Plan would have represented 43 percent of the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina, requiring the Serbs to withdraw from over one third of the land they then held. This plan was strongly criticized by the United States and therefore never explicitly endorsed by the Council, which gave guarded encouragement to the Vance-Owen peace process instead.

¶ 32.

Representatives of the Croat community accepted the Vance-Owen Peace Plan immediately. However, representatives of the other two communities were not satisfied, and some negotiated adjustments were made over the following months. Representatives of the three communities met at United Nations Headquarters in New York from 16 - 25 March 1993, just as the first crisis in Srebrenica was coming to a head. The Bosniac and Croat representatives signed the modified version of the plan on 25 March. The Serb representatives did not sign. Following concerted international pressure on President Miloševiç of Serbia, Dr. Karadñiç was induced to sign on behalf of the Bosnian Serbs at a meeting held in Athens on 2 May. Dr. Karadñiç's signature, however, was affixed subject to approval by the National Assembly of Republika Srpska, a session of which, held in Pale on 5-6 May 1993, rejected the Plan.

F.
Srebrenica prior to the safe area resolutions

¶ 33.

Srebrenica lies in a mountain valley in eastern Bosnia, close to the border with Serbia. At the time of the 1991 census, the municipality had a population of 37,000, of which 73 percent were Bosniacs and 25 percent were Serbs. Despite the preponderance of Bosniacs in the pre-war population, Serb paramilitaries from Srebrenica, and from other parts of eastern Bosnia, held Srebrenica for several weeks at the beginning of the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina. During this period, Bosniacs from the general area of Srebrenica were not only expelled from their homes in many areas, but were also subjected to still more serious abuses. In Bratunac, a Bosniac-majority town some 10 km north of Srebrenica, for example, several hundred Bosniacs were detained in a local school, where a large number, including a local imam, were subjected to inhumane treatment and killed. Armed Bosniacs fled to the surrounding hills during this period.

¶ 34.

By 6 May 1992 these Bosniacs had re-grouped and begun to contest Serb control of Srebrenica. Goran Zekiç, a leader of the Serb community in Srebrenica, was killed in an ambush on 8 May, and soon thereafter Serbs began to flee the town or were driven out. The town was secured by the Bosniacs on 9 May. The Bosniac forces which took control of Srebrenica comprised several groups of fighters without any definite military structure. The most powerful of these groups was that under the command of Naser Oriç of Potoari. Other groups continued to operate with a degree of independence, however, and violent rivalry between different factions within the Bosniac community became a feature of Srebrenica life until its fall in 1995.

¶ 35.

The Bosniac enclave which centered around Srebrenica was then expanded under Oriç's leadership over a period of several months into the surrounding areas. For the most part, the fighting that took place during this period was not regular warfare, but rather a series of raids and counter-raids by armed groups of one or the other community. As the Bosniacs advanced, they used techniques of ethnic cleansing similar to those used by the Serbs in other areas, burning houses and terrorizing the civilian population. Serb sources claim that over 1,300 people were killed by Bosniac fighters as they expanded out of Srebrenica, with much larger numbers being displaced from their homes. Serb sources and international human rights observers have reported incidents in which Serbs were apparently tortured and mutilated. At the same time, much larger numbers of Bosniacs were suffering similar fates in areas which remained under Serb control.

¶ 36.

Bosniac forces from Srebrenica linked up with those of ðepa, a small Bosniac-held village in the densely wooded area to the south of Srebrenica, in September 1992. The Srebrenica enclave reached its greatest extent in January 1993, when it was joined to the nearby Bosniac enclave of Cerska, to the west of Srebrenica. At its greatest extent the Srebrenica enclave covered almost 900 square kilometers of territory in eastern Bosnia. Despite this expansion, the enclave was never joined to the main body of Government-held territory further west, leaving it vulnerable to isolation and attack by Serb forces.

¶ 37.

Bosniac forces attacked out of the enclave against the Serb-inhabited village of Kravica on 7 January 1993. Serb sources claimed that over 40 Serb civilians were killed in the attack. Soon after the attack on Kravica, Serb forces began to prepare a counter-offensive. By March 1993, Serb forces were advancing rapidly, killing and burning as they did so. The villages of Konjeviç Polje and Cerska were soon over-run, and ultimately these villages population, together with the remaining pre-war inhabitants of Srebrenica, numbering 50,000 - 60,000 in total, were compressed into a mountainous area of approximately 150 km2 centered on the town of Srebrenica. During the same offensive ðepa was separated from Srebrenica, becoming an isolated enclave of its own, separated by a narrow corridor of Serb-held land.ðepa remained isolated until it was over-run by the Serbs after the fall of Srebrenica in July 1995.

¶ 38.

A number of people, Bosniacs and foreign journalists alike, carried news of the desperate situation in Srebrenica to Sarajevo and the outside world, prompting the Commander of UNPROFOR forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina to travel there with a small UNPROFOR party on 11 March 1993. By the time he arrived in Srebrenica, the town was already enduring siege conditions. There was almost no running water, the Serbs having destroyed the town's water supply as they advanced. Likewise, there was no electricity, other than that produced by a number of hand-crafted water wheels. Over-crowding was a major problem, with schools, office buildings and all other structures having been emptied to make way for successive waves of displaced persons fleeing before the Serb advance. There was no starvation, but food was in short supply and public hygiene was rapidly deteriorating. An atmosphere of panic was endemic. The UNPROFOR Commander was initially prevented by the local inhabitants from leaving, but was allowed to do so on 13 March. Prior to departing, he addressed a public gathering in Srebrenica, telling them that they were under United Nations protection and that he would not abandon them.

¶ 39.

During the weeks that followed, UNHCR succeeded in bringing a number of humanitarian aid convoys into Srebrenica and in evacuating large numbers of vulnerable people to the relative safety of the Government-held city of Tuzla. These evacuations were, in general, opposed, sometimes forcibly, by the Bosnian Government authorities in Sarajevo who felt that they contributed to the ethnic cleansing of the territory. The evacuations were supported by the Bosnian Serbs, who were willing to allow UNHCR to send empty trucks to Srebrenica to collect evacuees, but who were reluctant to allow humanitarian aid into the enclave. UNHCR's Special Envoy stated that he supported the evacuations as a measure of last resort to save lives.

¶ 40.

The first UNHCR convoy entered the town on 19 March 1993, just as Bosniac, Croat and Serb leaders were meeting in New York to discuss the Vance-Owen Peace Plan, and returned to Tuzla the next day with over 600 Bosniac civilians. A second convoy reached Srebrenica on 28 March. Six people died as an estimated 1,600 people scrambled onto the trucks as they prepared to return to Tuzla on 29 March; seven more died in the over-crowded vehicles as they made their way to Tuzla. A similar scene of mass panic and death occurred following the arrival in Srebrenica of a third UNHCR convoy on 31 March. Nearly 3,000 women and children, as well as old men, were evacuated in 14 trucks, with six deaths caused either by over-crowding or by exposure to the elements. On 2 April, the Bosniac authorities in Srebrenica announced that no more evacuations would be permitted. Despite objection and obstruction by the authorities, some further UNHCR evacuations did take place, albeit on a restricted scale. On 8 April, two days after the Serbs had cut the main fresh water supply to Srebrenica, approximately 2,100 people defied the local authorities, forcing their way onto 14 trucks. On 13 April, a further 800 people were evacuated. By the time the evacuations stopped altogether, at the end of April 1993, some 8,000 - 9,000 people had been transported to safety in Tuzla. Interviewed in connection with this report, President Izetbegoviç stated that, with the benefit of hindsight, the policy of his Government to restrict evacuations from the Srebrenica enclave had been mistaken.



Backward or Forward
Updated, zondag 26 januari 2003
Today is The Day...

...AP Online
 

(Colofon)
hosted by
Hosted by XS4ALL

Go to The Top

© Layout 

mailto:

The Amsterdam Post

The Amsterdam Post

Only Words
Only Wordy
Only Worthy
Free