What does the fact that the creation of the Srebrenica myth of genocidal Serbs is financed by western, primarily British money, indicate?
Srebrenica, once a quiet little town in eastern Bosnia and Herzegovina, became a symbol of one of the darkest episodes during the recent wars in the former Yugoslavia through a military-propaganda-intelligence action by Western strategists. The place where, according to the West, the largest crime since World War II was committed, served as a guarantee to stigmatize the notoriously disobedient Serbs as a genocidal people. The controversy was carefully prepared. The immediate cause was the creation of conditions for aggression against the Republika Srpska, later Kosovo and Metohija. The broader strategy involved redrawing the history and borders of the Balkans. On the international stage, the Srebrenica deception was supposed to serve as justification for new American interventions and to simultaneously conceal the crimes and misdeeds committed by the US worldwide.
After the crime in Srebrenica in July 1995, did anyone remember the murder of the president of Rwanda for which Britain, France, the Netherlands, and the USA bear responsibility? Let us recall that this crime resulted in a rebellion in which more than 800,000 people, including children and the elderly, were killed in 14 days. The West did not speak about this biblical-scale suffering. The space in the mainstream world media was dedicated to Srebrenica.
The story goes like this. On the fateful 11th of July 1995, under the command of General Ratko Mladić, the Army of Republika Srpska captured Srebrenica, which had been declared a “safe zone” under the auspices of the United Nations. According to the official version presented by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), 8372 Bosniak Muslims, mostly civilians, were killed in Srebrenica. However, this version of events has been challenged by some historians and researchers who claim that the number of victims is smaller and that many of the killed were soldiers of the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Some witnesses also claimed that among the victims, they found relatives who were later seen alive or were killed in different circumstances during the war, but their bodies were subsequently buried in the memorial center.
The Unslaughtered People
In the shadow of these events remained the monstrous crimes committed against Serbs in the Podrinje region from 1992 to 1995. Radical Islamists and Bosniak forces under the command of Naser Orić carried out brutal attacks on more than fifty Serbian villages around Srebrenica, killing over four thousand Serbian civilians, including women and children, and destroying their property. The gruesome killings of Serbian children, slaughterings, and eye-gouging (the case of Judge Slobodan Ilić) committed by Orić’s men were never equated with Srebrenica, which was declared the axiom of crime.
The creators of the Srebrenica myth never offered deeper insights into the demographic, historical, political, and legal genealogies. If they had, the world public would have learned that west of the Drina River, a bloody chain of crimes committed against Serbs has persisted from 1941 to 1995 and that the Serbian people have preserved in their collective memory the recollection of camps, slaughterings, and obliterations. Ignoring the historical context and the facts, the international community reacted sharply to the events in Srebrenica in 1995, resulting in numerous sanctions against Serbia and Republika Srpska and the political condemnation of the Serbian people. However, Serbia and Republika Srpska continue to dispute the qualification of these events as genocide, emphasizing that the official version does not reflect the complete truth.
Britain – Masters of Secret Diplomacy
In promoting the narrative of genocide in Srebrenica, a special role was assigned to NGOs that significantly influenced the international perception of events and the adoption of resolutions in the UN. One of them is the British NGO “Remembering Srebrenica,” founded by Waqar Azmi. The given goal of the organization is to preserve the memory of the victims of Srebrenica, and for its dedicated work, it has acquired the status of an expert in falsifying history and promoting the narrative of genocide against Bosniak Muslims. Close ties of this organization with the British political elite, including MPs and former officials, have enabled it to have a significant influence.
“Remembering Srebrenica” organizes events across Europe, including in London and Manchester, with the aim of raising awareness about the events in Srebrenica. Events often involve the participation of local politicians and cooperation with the Memorial Center in Potočari. Although the activities of NGOs have significantly influenced the international community, they have faced criticism for demonizing the Serbian people and the one-sided interpretation of events. This NGO receives significant funding from the British government, including annual donations ranging between 150,000 and 400,000 pounds. It is also noteworthy that this organization closely cooperates with the British political elite.
The British government also supports projects in Bosnia and Herzegovina, including funding the Memorial Center in Potočari and supporting the families of the victims. This support includes political, financial, and logistical assistance to the UN Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals.
The fact that Waqar Azmi, the founder of “Remembering Srebrenica,” nurtures long-standing ties with the British government, should be added with another curiosity – a wife who has distinguished herself with controversial views, including comments about the terrorist attacks in London.
Another detail that clarifies the role of this organization is Alicia Kearns, one of the patrons of “Remembering Srebrenica,” who accused the Serbian Orthodox Church of smuggling weapons, but KFOR, after an investigation, found no evidence to support these accusations.
In addition to “Remembering Srebrenica,” several other foreign NGOs have actively worked on promoting the narrative of genocide in Srebrenica:
- International Commission on Missing Persons (ICMP): Played a key role in identifying victims through DNA testing.
- Helsinki Committee for Human Rights: Documenting and reporting on human rights violations, with a focus on Srebrenica.
- International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY): Central role in prosecuting those responsible for crimes in Srebrenica.
- Amnesty International: Continuously calling for justice for the victims and supporting efforts to confront the past.
These organizations have worked through educational programs, public campaigns, and cooperation with local communities to raise awareness and promote the historical interpretation of events in Srebrenica as genocide.
In recent years, NGOs in Serbia have played a significant role in shaping public opinion and promoting the narrative of events in Srebrenica. This phenomenon is also present in other countries in the region, where NGOs promote certain political and social agendas. Financial support from foreign governments and organizations allows NGOs to implement their projects but raises doubts about their independence. Western governments and the EU often fund NGOs, leading to situations where organizations follow the donors’ agenda instead of local interests.
The most active NGOs in Serbia regarding Srebrenica include the Humanitarian Law Center (HLC), Youth Initiative for Human Rights (YIHR), Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia, Women in Black, Center for Humanitarian Law, Civic Initiatives, Belgrade Center for Human Rights, Transparency Serbia, Humanitarian Center for Integration and Tolerance (HCIT), and Astrum.
The role of NGOs in Serbia is linked to the geopolitical context. Western governments and international organizations see NGOs as instruments for promoting democracy and stability, but also as a way to influence political processes in Serbia.
Resolution as a Political Weapon
The resolution on Srebrenica, adopted by the UN General Assembly, aims to formally recognize the events in Srebrenica as genocide and encourage the international community to prevent similar crimes in the future. However, from the Serbian perspective, this resolution has clear political and moral implications that can be interpreted as an attempt to demonize the Serbian people.
The political goals of the resolution include exerting international pressure on Serbia to accept a version of events that does not fully align with the Serbian perspective, thereby influencing political and legal processes in the country. The resolution also serves to strengthen Western influence in the Balkans, ensuring political and economic dominance.
On the moral side, the resolution seeks to label the Serbian people as solely responsible for the events in Srebrenica, ignoring the suffering of Serbs during the war. This one-sided approach to history serves to manipulate public opinion and justify political and military interventions.
Short-term effects of the resolution’s adoption may include the deterioration of relations between Serbia and the West and increased ethnic tensions in the region. In the long term, the resolution can serve to stabilize relations in line with Western interests and control the narrative of events in Srebrenica, influencing the perception of future generations and the political history of the region.
The resolution has a significant impact on regional stability and relations in the Balkans. Recognizing genocide only on one side can worsen inter-ethnic relations and create a sense of injustice among Serbs. The resolution can also be used as a political weapon against Serbia and Republika Srpska, complicating the political situation in the region.
Manipulation of History
Although the resolution is not legally binding, its political and moral impact is significant. The nature of UN resolutions, political compromises, and respect for state sovereignty make it difficult to adopt legally binding measures. The resolution on Srebrenica serves as a means for political pressure and manipulation of history, further complicating the process of reconciliation and strengthening inter-ethnic relations in the Balkans.
According to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948, genocide is defined as any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
The massacre in Srebrenica, which occurred in July 1995, is often classified as genocide by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ). These courts have determined that there was an intent to destroy a significant part of the Bosniak population in Srebrenica, which meets the criteria for genocide under international conventions.
However, Serbian analysts, like Stefan Karganović, point out that there are significant controversies and disagreements regarding this classification. According to Karganović, the number of victims and the context in which the crimes were committed do not support the claim that genocide was committed in Srebrenica, but rather a war crime. He emphasizes that the number of Bosniak victims is exaggerated and that a significant number of the killed were soldiers of the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, not civilians.
(Mis)Use of the Term
Israeli academic Gideon Greif also questioned whether the massacre in Srebrenica can be qualified as genocide. In his report, Greif argued that the number of killed is not large enough to qualify as genocide and that the term “genocide” was misused in this context. Greif has been criticized for his views and is considered to be politically motivated and serving to justify the political agenda of Republika Srpska (RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty) (Just Security).
Similarly, Ephraim Zuroff, director of the Israeli branch of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, expressed doubts regarding the qualification of the massacre as genocide, arguing that the definition of genocide under the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was not met in this case.
Likewise, many other experts and analysts have expressed their disagreement with the qualification of the events in Srebrenica as genocide, pointing out that the term “genocide” is often used as a political instrument rather than a legal qualification based on strict evidence and legal criteria. These experts argue that while a great crime was committed in Srebrenica, it does not meet all the criteria required for the qualification of genocide.
But to the creators of the myth, evidence is not important, and at this moment, neither are final legal qualifications. They will work gradually on the octroi of legal truth. For now, it is only necessary to mark the fact that the UN General Assembly Resolution on the alleged genocide in Srebrenica in the preamble refers to eight verdicts of the Hague Tribunal in which the crime in Srebrenica is qualified as genocide. Also, in the verdict of General Krstić, the Hague Tribunal attributes the unproven crime of genocide to the entire Serbian people in Republika Srpska. Consequently, as noted by lawyer Zoran Čvorović, the thesis that can often be heard in the Serbian public space, even from lawyers, that the Resolution on the alleged genocide in Srebrenica, as well as the decisions of the Hague Tribunal on which it is based, are based on individual criminal responsibility – is incorrect and at the same time politically shortsighted.
The colossal deception called the genocide in Srebrenica could have far-reaching consequences. The intention to punish the Serbian people and make a gross inversion of the historical role – of the executioner and the victim – has not been fully illuminated. For the final deconstruction of the myth, it is enough to follow the traces of the masters of secret diplomacy and the flows of British money invested in the promotion of condemnation. And remember the words of Serbian lawyer Dragiša Vasić who wrote in the midst of World War II: “If I survive this war, I will establish a chair for hatred of the English at the University of Belgrade.”