Global Insight Perspective | |
Significance | Bosnia-Herzegovina had accused neighbouring Serbia of instigating a genocide through widespread "ethnic cleansing" during the 1992-95 war that left more than 200,000 people dead. The ICJ, the UN's top court, was entrusted to rule on the issue. |
Implications | The ICJ found only one act of genocide, the Srebrenica massacre of nearly 8,000 Muslims by Bosnian Serb troops. However, it ruled that the genocide was perpetrated by individuals rather than the Serbian state. |
Outlook | The Bosnian government is disappointed with the ruling, which is binding and cannot be appealed. Serbia will be breathing a sigh of relief at being spared a "collective punishment". Relations between Serbia and Bosnia however could sour because of it, but with both countries hoping to conclude negotiations to become EU candidates, the fallout from the ruling is likely to be limited. |
A landmark court ruling by the UN’s top court, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), yesterday cleared Serbia of instigating genocide against Bosnian Muslims during the bloody civil war between 1992 and 1995. However, the court did declare that Serbia took inadequate measures to prevent the massacre in Srebrenica in which 8,000 Bosniaks were murdered by Bosnian Serbs. In this instance, the ICJ ruled that this was the only case that constituted genocide but there was inadequate evidence to implicate the Serb government of the time directly in it. The judgement in favour of Serbia was passed with 13 votes against two.
Background to the Case at the ICJ—Bosnia-Herzegovina versus Serbia and Montenegro |
The case began a year ago, after Bosnia referred Serbia to the UN’s highest court on genocide charges. Bosnia argued that the Serb leadership at the time incited ethnic hatred, armed Bosnian Serbs and was an active participant in the killings. Serbia has always maintained that the devastating 1992-95 civil war was an internal conflict between Bosnia's ethnic groups, and denied any state role in genocide. In acquitting Serbia for direct involvement in genocide yesterday, the court did rule that Serb leaders had violated international law in failing to prevent the killings and punish those responsible. The court has also rejected Bosnia's claim for reparations. The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague (Netherlands) has already found individual perpetrators guilty of genocide in Bosnia and has already established the Srebrenica massacre as genocide. |
Disappointed Bosnia
The ICJ ruling has been received with disappointment in Bosnia, not least because it fails to oblige Serbia to offer compensation to the families of victims of the war. The Serb member of the Bosnian tripartite presidency, Nebojsa Radmanovic, had always maintained that the genocide lawsuit against Serbia was illegal, but conceded that the ruling would cause dismay to many in the country, especially those who had raised tensions in the days leading up to the court’s decision. Emotions were understandably high across the country, which was divided into two separate entities, based on ethnicity, in the wake of the damaging war. The other two members of the presidency also expressed regret at the ruling, but called on the country to respect the ICJ’s decision. "It's clear that the judgement is incomplete," were the words of Haris Silajdzic, the Bosniak president, who stressed that Bosnia should now make every effort to ensure "every form of compensation - political, moral and financial - for the damage done." In similar fashion, the Croat member of the presidency, Zeljko Komsic, added, “I wish to say privately that the worst act of genocide was committed in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1992”. The court ruling however is binding, and cannot be appealed.
Relieved Serbia
The ICJ ruling is a great relief to Serbia and its Europe-oriented political forces. The loss of possible financial compensation is of secondary importance to the politically significant break from the past. The ruling will allow Serbia to partially shed the nationalistic and bigoted image it had acquired in the West under Milosevic's leadership and move on towards joining Europe. The decision comes at a particularly crucial time for Serbia as democratic parties are waging tough and protracted negotiations over government formation. The pro-European Democratic party, headed by the president Boris Tadic, is seeking an agreement with the a more conservative and nationalistic Democratic Party of Serbia of Vojislav Kostunica, and any moves distancing Serbia from Europe would significantly strengthen the nationalists' position.
Furthermore, should Serbia have been found guilty of genocide, this would have made talks over European Union (EU) membership much more difficult. It would have certainly undermined the positions of Europe-oriented politicians in the country and made them take a stauncher position on the Kosovo settlement plan currently under discussion in Vienna. Yet, the ruling does leave a job for Serbian democrats to do. President Tadic has already called the parliament to urgently adopt a declaration condemning the Srebrenica atrocities, as a proof that the country has broken with its past. Now that the ICJ has put the blame of genocide on particular individuals, rather than Serbia as a state, its democratic elites will find it easier to harness support for the extradition of six suspected war criminals wanted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in the Hague. This, in turn, is a condition for the resumption of the EU accession talks. The decision of the ICJ thus both increased the room for manoeuvre for Serbian democrats and strengthened their capacities. From the political angle, this was the wisest line to take to boost Europe-oriented Serbian development.
Outlook and Implications
Both Bosnia and Serbia are on the cusp of a new dawn of deeper integration with the European Union (EU). Whether the EU carrot is enough to ensure political and ethnic stability is a matter of concern however.
From the EU perspective, the ICJ ruling yesterday has been welcomed, and it is hoped will allow the region to move on from its past and encourage the reconciliation effort, which is hampering the western Balkan nations from progressing towards further integration with the west. The EU thus urged both sides to accept the ruling, with Germany—currently presiding over the 27-nation bloc—calling upon the Serbian government to "to use the judgement as a further opportunity to distance itself from the crimes by the regime of the then Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic," as quoted in several media reports.
However, it would be folly for the EU to project the ICJ ruling as a just basis for Bosnians and Serbs to forget the past and reconcile. Inter-ethnic reconciliation remains far from an achievable target for the moment, and this was demonstrated most recently by elections in Bosnia in October 2006, which despite the more important economic, and political reform issues, were still fought along ethnic lines, and indeed, focused on ethnic concerns. In the run-up to election, the “moderate” leader of the Serb-dominated Republika Srpska, Milorad Dodik, even flaunted the possibility of an independence referendum in the entity should the larger Muslim-Croat Federation attempt any centralising or unifying effort. In the long run, a united and centrally strong Bosnia is perhaps the only real guarantee for stability in the country, and the EU’s role in such a scenario, though important, should not be overstated to the point of arrogance. The division brought about between the ethnically diverse entities during the course of the ICJ case are likely to be perpetuated by the verdict; indeed, the country’s media predictably took an ethno-centric stance on the result, with the Muslim-Croat press bemoaning the international community’s politically motivated intentions towards the region and the Bosnian Serb press hailing the victory of “truth”.
A meeting today in Brussels (Belgium) on Bosnia should conclude that the Office of the International High Representative should remain in place for a further year to allow the newly formed government time to establish itself, but that European forces in the country can be reduced. In the absence of intra-ethnic reconciliation within Bosnia itself, the spectre of inter-ethnic reconciliation still remains as elusive as ever. Whether economic cooperation, and prospects of EU integration, will be enough to spur communities and nations to finally move on from their decade of war and towards rehabilitation, is yet to be seen.