OPINION:
A newly proposed United Nations resolution championed by Germany, Rwanda, and Bosnia and Herzegovina aims to designate July 11 as the International Day of Reflection and Remembrance of the 1995 Srebrenica Genocide. The draft resolution, notwithstanding its proclaimed intentions, misunderstands the word “genocide,” which has a very specific meaning and threatens the fragile stability of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The Balkans, especially Bosnia and Herzegovina, have made major strides toward peace and reconciliation. Any U.N. resolution should support these efforts rather than risk their unraveling. The unilateral way Germany and others introduced their resolution, which shunned established U.N. protocols, raises concerns about the transparency and validity of the process slated for a vote in the General Assembly next month.
The resolution’s focus on labeling the Srebrenica massacre as genocide highlights the complexities of historical narratives in the region. And experts on the topic are taking note.
Efraim Zuroff, a scholar of genocide studies, Holocaust historian and chief Nazi-hunter of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, has warned against the potential repercussions of hastily calling the Srebrenica incident a genocide. In a recent opinion piece, Zuroff said: “The upcoming United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) resolution to officially recognize the Srebrenica massacre as a genocide is […] plagued by potential pitfalls that could exacerbate tensions rather than foster reconciliation.”
Yehuda Bauer, a leading authority on Holocaust and genocide issues at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, echoes this sentiment, stating, “Srebrenica cannot be considered a typical case of genocide.”
The resolution’s focus on Srebrenica fails to comprehend the full history of the Bosnian War. By overlooking the broader context and complexities of the conflict, it risks diminishing the suffering of all communities involved.
The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) has traditionally acknowledged genocide only when nations have reached a consensus, which has not been reached in this case. The designation of genocide holds immense gravity, necessitating thorough deliberation and near-unanimous agreement. “To declare Srebrenica a genocide,” as Zuroff puts it, “not only breaks from tradition but may also dilute the term’s significance.”
In fact, the official definitions of genocide do not match the facts of this case. The deaths in Srebrenica were tragic, but they did not rise to the level of genocide.
Moreover, it appears that the draft resolution risks failing to pay tribute to all the victims of the Bosnian war. By exclusively highlighting the events in Srebrenica, the resolution undermines the core principles of the Dayton Agreement, which concluded the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina and upheld the equal status and rights of the three constituent peoples — Bosniaks, Serbs, and Croats.
The Dayton Agreement is a foundational element of peace in the Balkans. The proposed U.N. resolution, as Efraim Zurrof says, would “unravel the delicate threads of peace and cooperation painstakingly woven over decades.”
To compound these issues, the process leading to the draft resolution was flawed. It lacked sufficient dialogue with all stakeholders in the region, particularly in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Permanent Representative to the U.N. took unilateral action by advancing the resolution without obtaining authorization from the three-member Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina as required by the nation’s constitution. This breach of protocol sidestepped the established procedures meant to ensure consensus among the members of the Presidency, which represents the Bosniak, Serb, and Croat people.
In addition, advancing the resolution in the General Assembly rather than the Security Council violates the U.N. Charter, which explicitly grants the Security Council exclusive jurisdiction over matters of peace and security in Bosnia and Herzegovina. This deviation from the established process undermines the U.N.’s own framework and principles.
The resolution will not serve the interests of anyone, including Srebrenica’s victims. Instead, it would misuse the word genocide and, reopen old wounds and sow the seeds of new conflicts.
• Gregory Tosi, a former congressional aide, is an attorney practicing international trade law in developing countries.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.