Srebrenitsa Massacre: Genocide of Muslims of Serbs?

Front page / World / Europe

01.04.2010 Source: Pravda.Ru

 

 

 

Serbian Skupshtina criticized massacre of Muslims by Bosnian Serbs in Srebrenitsa in 1995. 127 out of 173 members voted for the document. The events that took place in this Bosnian town are considered one of the most horrifying episodes of Bosnia and Herzegovina war. In the beginning of July, soldiers of the army of Bosnian Serbs broke into the city populated by Muslims and protected by the UN peacemaking forces. Nearly the entire male population of the town was eliminated. The Hague tribunal blames the ex-leader of Bosnian Serbs Radovan Karadzic for the crimes against the humanity and believes the massacre in Srebrenitsa to be one of the most significant episodes. Yet, the supporters of this position often ignore the affairs that preceded those tragic events. In 1992, by the beginning of the war, Serbs accounted for more than a quarter of the town population. Yet, Muslim troops occupied the town killing Serbs and forcing the rest of them flee. In 1993, military initiative changed hands. Bosnian Serbs won back the villages next to Srebrenitsa and surrounded the town. The town, populated by then primarily by Muslims, was taken under the UN shelter. Muslim troops took advantage of it and kept attacking Serbian positions. This made Serbian leaders Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic make a decision to attack the town. In the West, the events in Srebrenitsa have been called the genocide of the Muslims for a long time. However, Serbia, remembering the event before the tragedy of 1995, did not think so. The local community demanded that the world aknowledges the crimes committed by Muslims against the Serbs. Pro-western President Boris Tadic who took office in 2004 came to Bosnia five years ago and criticized the actions of his compatriots. Muslim leaders of Bosnia and Herzegovina took advantage of the situation and demanded that Serbia compensates them for the genocide in Srebrenitsa. In 2007 the Hague tribunal accepted the fact but denied compensation. At the same time, Serbia did not accept any official document assessing those events. President Tadic spent several years trying to talk Skupshtina members into accepting a resolution criticizing genocide of Muslims in Srebrenitsa. A few days ago, the resolution was drafted. Yet, there was no unanimous vote, and the parliament was turmoiled. The draft resolution was introduced by Tadic's supporters from the coalition "For a European Serbia" who represented the majority. The document did mention genocide. The authors indicated that the EU has been trying to get this condemnation for a long time. It is one of the stipulations if Serbia wants to join the EU and make peace with its Balkan neighbors The partners of pro-presidential forces from the Socialist party once chaired by Slobodan Milosevic, who died in the Hague prison, were ready to support the document. The only significant condition was that the document could not contain the word "genocide."They justified it with the fact that the biggest losses in the wars accompanying the collapse of Yugoslavia were incurred by the Serbs. The leaders of pro-western Liberal-Democratic party, on the contrary, called for even sterner wording to brand the crimes, end with the shameful past and satisfy the demands of the EU. Nationalistic forces refused to vote for the resolution. Serbian radical party believes that all facts concerning Srebrenitsa were still not revealed. The party representatives believe that the international community has to recognize genocide of Serbs, Jews and gypsies committed during World War II by the Nazi accomplices, Croats and Muslims. As a result, there was a compromise. Parliamentarians acknowledged the crimes committed by their compatriots against Muslims. Yet, there was no mentioning of "genocide" in the document. Additionally, Skupshtina called the world community to acknowledge the crimes committed by Muslims and others against Serbs. Now it is up to the world community. As of now, the Hague Tribunal has not criticized any high ranking Muslim, Croat or Kosovo Albanian who gave orders to wipe out the Serbs. Before, the judges could say that Serbia does not officially recognize its crimes. Now this excuse is absolutely ungrounded. Vadim Trukhachev Pravda.Ru

http://english.pravda.ru/world/europe/01-04-2010/112805-srebrenitsa-0

ABOUT SAHAKASHVILI , THE GEORGIAN OPPOSITION AND FEMALE LOYALTY

ABOUT SAHAKASHVILI, THE GEORGIAN OPPOSITION AND FEMALE LOYALTY

 

The transmission of Imedi Georgian TV, showing a staged Russian attack against Georgia, allegedly launched on 13 March, is still one of the top stories discussed in mass media.
I suppose there is no need considering the reasons for broadcasting this programme that took away the lives of several old people from the Georgian nation, enriching the lamentably impressive list of the victims of the "policy" conducted by Mikhail Sahakashvili. There is another point calling for special attention. On 16 March, the press published the telephone conversation of Georgi Arveladze, Director General of Imedi TV, with Eko Tsamalashvili, the host of the Special Report Programme, that had taken place the day before the aforementioned TV broadcast. During their emotional talk, G. Arveladze refers to the direct instructions given by "Misha" (i.e. Sahakashvili), forcing his employee into airing the programme without notification of its being staged.
In his comments on this material, the Director General of Imedi declared that his conversation had been simulated and made public by the Special Services of Russia. This version, however, is highly doubtful. Firstly, it implies that prior to its publication, the CIA, FIS or FSB organised the airing of the report on a TV channel controlled by the Georgian authorities, which is impossible. Secondly, it is incredible that the broadcast was shown on the initiative of the journalists themselves. Were they dreaming of reaching the glory of Orson  Welles, who frightened half of America in 1938 with his radio version of the War of Worlds? Even Kshishtof Dombrovski, Head of the Polish portal kaukaz.pl who is known for his loyalty to the Georgian powers, stated the following in his interview to Talk FM Radio Station: "This channel used to represent the Opposition, but today... it is controlled by a person from the ruling camp. It is hard to think that such a powerful video could have been released without permission from the supreme powers." Thirdly, the broadcast of the staged chronicle of events following the alleged Russian invasion inflicted such heavy damage on the image of Sahakashvili and his camp outside Georgia that Russia no longer needs to do anything to that end (the statements by the French and British ambassadors, Eric Fournier and Denis Keefe, who severely condemned the broadcast of Imedi, speak for themselves).
The source of the "leakout" of information on the conversation between G. Arveladze and the programme host  should rather be searched for inside Georgia, or among its former citizens who abandoned it for fear of sharing the fate of many Georgian political figures and businessmen who once got in Sahakashvili's way. So let us enumerate the versions that seem more verisimilar:
First ("conflict due to business"): the printed conversation "leaked out" into the press with the efforts of the relatives of the former head of Imedi, Badra Patarkatsishvili, who is trying, by applying to international courts, to restitute the TV company Sahakashvili took from him.
Second ("vendetta in a Georgian way"): in its publication might be involved the former companions-in-arms of the Georgian President, who remain deadly insulted by him—ex-Minister of Defence Irakli Okruashvili, or the ex-representative of Georgia in the UN, Irakli Alasaniya. It might also be of benefit to certain forces in the USA and the West which counted on these political figures.
Third ("oppositional"): the "leakout" of the conversation of G. Arveladze is the response of the Opposition leaders—first of all, ex-Speaker Nino Burjanadze and ex-Premier Zurab Nogaideli—accused by Sahakashvili of treason and ties with Moscow. It might also be viewed as part of the ongoing struggle towards the mayoral elections of Tbilisi, scheduled for the end of May.
Fourth ("clannish"): this story might involve people from the camps of ex-President Edward Shevardnadze, or former "master"of Ajaria Aslan Abashidze (the latter was banished by Sahakashvili), who have lost money and power, but not influence. This is further substantiated by the recent press publications about the February meeting in Batumi between Sahakashvili and Berezovsky. At that time, the runaway oligarch allegedly gave the Georgian President the idea of a TV broadcast on a staged attack. It is beyond doubt that these (and many other) people find it advantageous for themselves to harm Sahakashvili, doing for this everything within their power. However, it remains uncertain how they were technically able to intercept the conversation by satellite. It is at this very point that the fifth ("treachery") version arises. According to it, the transmission showing the Russians' attack against Georgia and the subsequent press expose of G. Arveladze were the consequences of an inner conflict in Sahakashvili's team. As reported by Regnum Agency, Georgian Minister of Interior Affairs Vano Merabishvili violently objected to the broadcast of the staged transmission. For this reason, it was aired when the Head of the Ministry of Interior Affairs had gone abroad. This has given rise to the presumption that the intercepted telephone conversation of the Director General of Imedi was made public by the very Ministry headed by V. Merabishvili.
By the way, until very lately the Minister of Interior Affairs was considered one of Sahakashvili's best companions-in-arms. To him is ascribed the organisation of the majority of the "dark" episodes of the recent history of Georgia connected with the disappearance, or mysterious deaths of many of the opponents of the President, the activity of the so-called "squadrons of death" in the regions of the country inhabited by ethnic minorities, and the establishment of "blocking detachments" (or anti-retreat forces) during the war of August 2008.
Apparently, even this companion-in-arms of Sahakashvili's realises that the collapse of his regime is near and is attempting to dissociate himself from his half-sane boss as soon as possible.

It is evident that not only V. Merabishvili, but also others from the presidential team avoid commenting on the scandal connected with Imedi TV. It is only the female members of Sahakashvili's camp that manifest unswerving faithfulness to him. His Press Secretary Manana Manjgaladze held a pompous meeting with journalists during which she did her utmost to defend "the leader of all Georgians." In her turn, in her attempts to save her boss's image, Secretary of the Security Council of Georgia Eka Tkeshelashvili hysterically called on the Western PR companies to help them (in this field, the authorities of Georgia work in close partnership with David Cracknell's British Firm Project Associates, Public Strategies American Company, as well as prominent PR specialists Daniel Kunin, Gregory Maniatis and others).
However, after the scandal connected with Imedi, even their efforts will hardly be enough for anybody in the West to take Sahakashvili for a political figure of at least partly sound mind.

 

 

Alexei MUKHIN

                                                     Director General of the Centre of Political Information

 

http://www.standard.rs/