Today marks 20th anniversary of a massacre when Bosnian Serb forces slaughtered 8,000 Muslim men and boys and buried them in mass graves

Two of the most violent conflicts of the 20th century can trace their origins in the Balkans; perhaps there is no other region in the world where the horrors of modern conflict can better be observed.

Marshal Tito’s Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia sought to avoid such conflicts by uniting different factions and ethnicities within one federalist structure. His Yugoslavia was based on the idea of ‘brotherhood and unity.’

Brotherhood was enforced through authoritarian means by suppressing any sentiments of nationalism or group identity; unity depended on a benevolent dictatorship and a strong personality cult. Less than ten years after his death, his vision came to a tragic conclusion.

The cause of all troubles can be traced to a resurgent lethal mix of nationalist identity politics interspersed with ethnic and religious tensions. The establishment of ‘ethnically pure regions’ and ‘ethnic cleansing’ became policy objectives.

In the entire conflict, there is no doubt that Bosnia-Herzegovina was the worst hit. The most atrocious of incidents took place 20 years ago, in the Bosnian town of Srebrenica; a Muslim enclave in the eastern part of Bosnia which bordered with Serbia.

Srebrenica and its surrounding environs were declared to be a ‘safe area’ by the United Nations. A UN Protection Force of 400 Dutch soldiers was installed in the region to guarantee the safety of the population. The leader of the Bosnian Serbs, Radovan Karadzic, ordered his army, under the leadership of Ratko Mladic, to ‘ethnically cleanse’ Srebrenica of all Bosnians.

As the Bosnian Serb forces advanced, the Dutch peacekeepers under the aegis of the UN did nothing to prevent the impending massacre. In the first few weeks of July, approximately 30,000 citizens were forcibly removed from their homes and displaced. Mladic’s forces murdered some 8,000 Bos-nian men and children in Srebrenica alone. The discovery of mass graves revealed evidence of torture and mutilation. The fact that such events occurred within living memory is a shocking reminder of how fragile peace may be.

Several thousand people on Wednesday started an 85-kilometre march from Nezuk to Srebrenica called the March of Peace, to retrace in reverse the route taken by Bosnian Muslims fleeing Serb forces in 1995. Photo: Antonio Bronic/Reuters

These acts constitute genocide on two grounds. Raphael Lemkin, who coined the legal definition, argued that this does not necessarily refer to the decimation of an oppressed group; “criminal intent to destroy or cripple permanently a human group” and the “destruction of the national pattern of the oppressed group” are enough to constitute genocide.

The events which unfolded in July 1995 show that intent was followed by action. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) did not hesitate to define the mass killings at Srebrenica and the expulsion of Bosnians from the area as genocide.

Both Karadzic and Mladic were directly accused of instigating such events. Serbia and Montenegro were found in breach of the Genocide Convention for failing to prevent genocide.

Ethnic tensions still exist in Bosnia and the delicate power-sharing structure is under increasing pressure

The actions of various leaders in the Balkans undoubtedly exacerbated the conflict. The Serb President, Slobodan Milosevic, was long committed to the idea of a Greater Serbia. His time in office was characterised by inflammatory rhetoric, open support for violent conflict in Serb areas in Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo, a tacit backing of paramilitaries and the assassin-ation of opponents. He died while being tried for war crimes by the ICTY.

Franjo Tudjman, the President of Croatia, would have been found equally culpable had his record been examined. Tudjman was an autocratic leader with a controversial record; an intellectual with an eye for revisionist history. While first allying himself with Bosnian Muslims, Tudjman rescinded on his support in 1993 and for 11 consecutive months waged war on his former allies. His attacks on Serb minorities within Croatia were yet another dreadful example of ethnic cleansing.

Both Tudjman and Milosevic embarked on talks which would lead to a partitioning of Bosnia-Herzegovina. This would have undoubtedly been unacceptable to the majority of Bosnians.

Alija Izetbegovic, the President of Bosnia, was widely hailed to be a hero for his resilience and resistance during the three-year siege of Sarajevo. However, at his death in 2003 the Hague tribunal revealed that Izetbegovic was also being investigated for war crimes.

The international community showed great ineptitude when handling this crisis. This was the first post-Cold War crisis which the EU faced.

Unfortunately, it was unable to reach a solution without the intervention of the US, Nato and Russia. Recent reports suggest that the UK and the US – key players in the conflict – were aware of the events which were about to unfold in Srebrenica and research suggests that realpolitik prevailed in an attempt to reach a peaceful settlement. The role played by the UN and the failures of the international community demonstrate sheer ineptitude which cost the lives of thousands of innocent civilians.

In 2002 the entire Dutch cabinet resigned in response to an investigation which revealed the partial responsibility of the Dutch peacekeeping force at Srebrenica. In Greece, the role of a few hundred volunteers who were present in Srebrenica still remains a source of shame. The open support of the Greek Orthodox Church and the unstated support of other institutions and individuals have, so far, escaped major press scrutiny.

Twenty years removed from these terrible events, a new political order is established in the region. Slovenia and Croatia are members of the EU, Serbia is now a democracy and Montenegro is an independent sovereign republic.

Ethnic tensions still exist in Bosnia and the delicate power-sharing structure is under increasing pressure. The international community has the responsibility to avoid yet another descent into chaos.

Peace is always a balancing act. It is never achieved through the absence of conflict or tension; rather it is secured through the presence of a balance of power which secures strategic interests.

With tensions still rife, the role of the international community is to maintain an open dialogue among all parties. A return to past conflicts is too horrific to contemplate.

andre.deb@gmail.com