Complete, Utter, and Steaming Horseshit!!!

A Dutch court has just ruled that the UN is not liable for the
Srebrenica massacre and dismissed a lawsuit from survivors and their families. The UN invoked its immunity and the court stated that,

"immunity was important to allow it to exercise its duties without the interference of courts in member states."

This immunity stems from the Conventions on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations which were adopted in 1946. In stating its immunity the UN stresses that,

"the Organization shall enjoy in the territory of each of its Members such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the fulfilment of its purposes "

Adding a more specific focus on immunity,

"Privileges and immunities are accorded to the representatives of Members not for the personal benefit of the individuals themselves, but in order to safeguard the independent exercise of their functions in connection with the United Nations"

In this particular case their function and purpose was to enforce Security Council resolution 819 which declared Srebrenica a "safe zone" from attack and thereby pledging themselves to defend it. Or at least it would follow under normal logic, which apparently does not apply to International Humanitarian Law.

The Dutch maintain that they were not responsible since they were handed an "impossible" mission and that it is the Serbs who are to blame, which is partly true. But an analogy if I may. If a thief breaks into a house and steals a television he is indeed responsible, but it is far worse if a policeman who is in charge of protecting the house, hands the television out the window to the waiting thief. It does not exonerate the thief but it sure as hell implicates the policeman.

In this case the television was 8,000 Bosnians who were massacred in the worst atrocity of its kinds in Europe since the end of the Second World War. Even more disturbing than the usual UN ineptitude is the fact that the Dutch told some of the Bosnians to go because they were being "evacuated" by the Serbs.

Right now the court ruling has not stopped a suit against the Dutch but the reports note,

"The case against the Dutch state would continue, Hagedorn told AFP, but the court may decide to put it on hold pending the outcome of the appeal process in the UN matter so as not to split the two issues."

It should be noted that Serbia is to date the only state to be charged with violating the Genocide convention, but it was also found to be in violation of another element of the treaty, which is the prevention of genocide.

Article 3 of the Genocide convention states that complicity in genocide is a punishable act. So we must think long and hard on what constitutes complicity? The main question is though, does inaction make the UN and Dutch liable? For though I feel the Dutch telling Bosnians to leave the safe zone is deplorable I am not entirely sure they acted with willful intent though I believe they had knowledge of what would happen when the Bosnians left the safe zone.

To fully appreciate the treachery of what befell Srebrenica we must go back a bit to the town and UN declared safe zone of Bihac. As Serbs advanced towards the hospital an American civil affair's officer argued that the hospital was had "sacred" status under the 1949 Geneva conventions and that UN personnel had a duty to defend it (which is a grey area in and of itself). He forwarded this on to his superior who ordered that actions be taken to prevent the Geneva conventions from being violated. This was accomplished by the local Canadian commander who had to date been reluctant to intervene, ordering the Bangladeshi troops under his command to occupy the hospital grounds with their APCs. By placing troops directly in front of the Serbian advance the UN stopped the Serb invasion of Bihac and also upheld the Geneva conventions. Yea, the good guys win this round.

In the aftermath of this victory for decency and international law the UN Office of Legal Council ensured that the behavior which saved Bihac would not set a precedent as the OLC ruled that troops donning the blue helmet were not bound to protect the conventions but to,

"carry out the will of the international community as expressed by it in the Security Council".

So even though the Dutch troops could very likely be guilty of violating the Genocide convention by their complicity they are technically immune from prosecution due to the fact that the UN is not bound by the very same conventions it seeks to uphold and that once the Dutch troops donned the UN blue they were too. Though the fact that the Dutch troops failed to uphold the Security Council resolution 819 means that they should be held liable. The lawsuit is not about impeding the UN from functioning with independence. It is about holding it liable for its failure to to function at all, except as a witness and accomplice to genocide.