REMEMBERING THE BOSNIAN GENOCIDE...Remembering the Bosnian Genocide In commemoration of the genocide...

REMEMBERING THEBOSNIAN GENOCIDE

PSHE / History / Politics / Law Lesson Plans Student Activity Pack KS3 / KS4 / KS5

2

First published in Great Britain in 2017by Islamic Human Rights Commission

PO Box 598, Wembley, HA9 7XH© 2017 Islamic Human Rights Commission

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilisedin any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known

or hereinafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any informationstorage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.

ISBN: 978-1-903718-50-6

www.ihrc.org.uk

Remembering the Bosnian Genocide

3

Table of Contents

LESSON ONE .................................................................................................................... 5Introduction ................................................................................................................... 5Chapter 1 ................................................................................................................... 7Chapter 2 ................................................................................................................... 9Suggested questions........................................................................................................ 15

LESSON TWO ................................................................................................................. 16Suggested questions........................................................................................................ 16

Appendix 1 ........................................................................................................................ 17Appendix 2 ........................................................................................................................ 17Endnotes ........................................................................................................................ 25


4


In commemoration of the genocide thattook place in Bosnia where countlessinnocent lives were lost, IHRC havecompiled a set of two activities for

students to participate in.

Read the following essay by Demir Mahmutcehajic:

Politics or Justice Differentiatingbetween the Nuremberg Trialsand the International CriminalTribunal for the FormerYugoslavia

INTRODUCTION

Winston Churchill said in 1944 thatNazi leaders should be “hunteddown and shot”. (Courtroom

Television Network LLC) The French and Sovietsalso supported summary executions. TheAmericans, however, pushed for trial after thefaction within the U.S. government led byHenry Morgenthau, who supported a harshplan designed to prevent Germany from everrising as an industrial power, lost a domesticbattle over the U.S. position on punishment forthe Nazis.In August 1945, the British, French,

Americans and Soviets, met in London. Theysigned the agreement that created theNuremberg court, officially the InternationalMilitary Tribunal, and set up ground rules forthe trial.In early October 1945, the four prosecuting

nations — the United States, Great Britain,France and Russia — issued an indictmentagainst 24 men and six organizations. Theindividual defendants were charged not only

with the systematic murder of millions ofpeople, but also for planning and carrying outwar in Europe.Lt. Col. Murray Bernays, an attorney in the

U.S. War Department who collected evidenceon crimes committed against GIs, had deviseda scheme to try the Nazis as conspirators forwaging an aggressive war and to try Naziorganizations as a means of reaching hundredsof thousands of members. His ideas werepromoted by Secretary of War Henry Stimsonand it eventually was incorporated into theindictment.The indictment of Nazi organizations was

designed to deal with the problem of what todo about the hundreds of thousands of peoplewho had been members of organizations suchas the SS and the Gestapo. The idea was to labelthem as criminal organizations, and holdhearings to determine the extent to which amember is considered guilty.The Nuremberg trials became a model after

which subsequent international enforcement ofjustice might be patterned. Indeed, to many, thetrials indicated that the internationalcommunity would no longer toleratetransgressions against basic, universal humanvalues, and that a mechanism was now in placeby which to hold people accountable for“crimes against humanity.”Judge Charles E. Wyzanski Jr. explained in

“Nuremberg in Retrospect” (Atlantic,December, 1946), that the exemplary manner inwhich the trial had been conducted haddispelled his scepticism about the feasibility offorging an international legal system: “Judged

5


LESSON ONE:Comparing the Nuremberg Trials

and the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

as a court trial,” he wrote, “the Nurembergproceedings were a model of forensic fairness....But the outstanding accomplishment of thetrial...is that it has crystallized the concept thatthere already is inherent in the internationalcommunity a machinery both for theexpression of international criminal law and forits enforcement.”The International Criminal Tribunal for the

Former Yugoslavia (‘Tribunal’) was establishedby the United Nations Security Council in 1993in order to put an end to the widespread andflagrant violations of internationalhumanitarian law occurring in the formerYugoslavia. Set up under the umbrella of theUnited Nations and established with the viewto bring to justice individuals who organisedand perpetrated war crimes in formerYugoslavia, its mandate is very much differentfrom that of the Nuremberg InternationalMilitary Tribunal. Even though crimescommitted by the Nazis cannot mathematicallybe compared with the crimes committed informer Yugoslavia it is a cause for concern thatthe “Tribunal” is only concerned withindividual quilt and not collectiveresponsibility.” I believe it is essential to make a distinction

between what might be collective responsibilityand individual responsibility. The Tribunal hasnot been established to deal with the possibilityof collective responsibility. What is of interest tome in each of the trials in which I have sat inthis court is to verify whether the evidencepresented before it makes it possible to find anaccused guilty. I seek to judge an accused. I donot judge a people. Yes, in the formerYugoslavia there were attacks against civilianpopulations. Yes, there were massacres andthere was persecution. Yes, some of thesecrimes were committed by Serbian forces.However, to paraphrase a great humanist, Iconsider that to associate this evil with Serbianidentity would be an insult to the Serbianpeople and would betray the concept of civilsociety. But it would be just as monstrous not to

attach any name to this evil because that couldbe an offence to the Serbs.” (Judge Rodrigues(Presiding) over Trial Chamber I, case Krstic IT-98-33 “Srebrenica”)In the words of Judge Rodrigues we can see

an almost apologetic approach to thesentencing of Krstic and especially interesting isthe fact that the Judge goes into depth to showthat the Serbian people are not to be blamed forcrimes committed in their name.While fatal creation of the state of ‘Israel’ and

capitulation under blackmail from the UnitedStates has brought UN to become the onlymediator between the two superpowers it isobvious that general indictment of the Germanpeople gave a moral ground to the Zionistlobby to demand for an establishment of aJewish entity. Turning a blind eye to thesupport that the illegal state of ‘Israel’ wasreceiving from the United States; in its quest todepopulate Palestine and to create a Jewishstate; was the first major betrayal of UN’sfounding ideals. Silent acceptance of massdeportation of Palestinians was contrary to everlouder cries of condemnation of Nazi policies.On the contrary, defining the crimes

committed against Muslims in the formerYugoslavia as being an individualresponsibility is the way to prevent Muslimsfrom achieving the same moral ground towardstheir killers as achieved by the Jews towards thewhole of Germany.In this paper I question the wisdom of

making a distinction between justice atNuremberg Trials and justice at the “Tribunal”.I will try to prove that even though the scale ofthe crimes committed is different, the crimesitself are the same, both committed by Nazisand by Serbian forces, and that both Nazis andSerbian forces were supported by majority ofGerman and Serbian people. To ignore the factthat overwhelming majority of Serbs supportedethnic cleansing, mass murder, rape andgenocide and not to find them accountable forbeing supporters of such crimes is defiantly abetrayal of international justice.

6


CHAPTER 1

The rise to power by the Nazi party inearly 1930s have brought new phase ofracial conflict in Europe. Jews as a

nation, not as a religious group, have beenpersecuted in Europe for centuries. The ideaof a justifiable extermination of Jews was notnew when the Nazi party revealed itsmanifesto. Did Hitler hate the Jews becauseof their religion or did he use the issue ofJews for the power struggle in which hebecame the ultimate manifestation of evil,backed by the German masses?In order to consolidate his idolising

position, Hitler needed to present to theGerman people a single issue which wouldbe blamed as a reason for all misfortunes andills of German society. So, he created the ideathat World War I was lost because of Jewishconspiracy and that the German nation wasbetrayed by Jews who at that time hadconsiderable influence over the GermanArmy. He created the belief that communistconspiracies and economic collapse inGermany after World War I were created bythe same Jewish conspiracy. He gave theGerman people a unifying factor by creatinghatred against Jews and furthermore alignedGerman patriotism with hatred towards theJews.Did the German people know about

“Jewish Solution”? Did the German peopleknow about concentration camps? Did theGerman people know of policies of“purifying the Germanic race”? I believe thatthe German people knew about all thecrimes committed by the Nazi regime andthat they were supporting that Nazi regimein its drive towards exterminating all Jewsliving under Nazi occupation.Nazi party was a mass membership

organisation. Those who were accepted asmembers were required to know itsmanifesto, aims, ideals and objectives. As

early as 1933 the German people would havebeen able to see what the real objectives ofthe Nazi party was. An article written byGuy Stern (The Burning of the Books in NaziGermany, 1933: The American Response)studied the consequences and response toburning of titles of Jewish and foreignauthors and quotes the poet Heinrich Heine,who had said a century earlier: “When oneburns books, one will soon burn people.”Hitler announced the Nuremberg Laws in

1935 in which it stripped the Jews of theircivil rights as German citizens and separatedthem from Germany legally, socially, andpolitically. Jews were also defined as aseparate race under “The Law for theProtection of German Blood and Honour.”Being Jewish was now determined byancestry; thus the Germans used race, notreligious beliefs or practices, to define theJewish people. This law forbade marriages orsexual relations between Jews and Germans.Hitler warned darkly that if this law did notresolve the problem, he would turn to theNazi Party for a final solution.More than 120 laws, decrees, and

ordinances were enacted after theNuremberg Laws and before the outbreak ofWorld War II, further eroding the rights ofthe German Jews. Many thousands ofGermans who had not previously consideredthemselves Jews found themselves definedas “non-Aryans.”Even before we study events after

Nuremberg Laws one must ask himself howcould the German nation accept suchobvious racist law which openlydiscriminates against German nationals.Scenes of humiliation of Jewish children infront of their school peers, mass boycott ofJewish businesses and public insults of Jewswere just prelude to burning of synagogues,mass imprisonment, concentration camps,slave labour, and finally death camps wheremillions perished. How could one pleadignorance when such events were happening

76


daily, overt and with public support? We cansay that few perpetrated such acts but it isundeniable that the German people knewabout everything and that the majoritysupported such acts.When allied soldiers liberated death

camps in 1945 they were aghast by thehorrible scenes that they found there. Firstthere was disbelief, and then frustration,followed by cry for justice. On individualcommand responsibility, allied officersrallied local German residents and broughtthem to death camps to see what has beendone in their name. Those German peoplepleaded ignorance. They pleaded ignorancethat they saw trains going into death campsfull of people and coming out empty. Theypleaded ignorance that they heard cries andsmelt stink of burning flesh. They pleadedignorance that death camp guards talk tothem about what was happening in thosecamps. In any court of law suchcircumstantial evidence would be enough tofind the accused guilty, even if they did notactively take part in killings, of beingaccessory in crime.“Notice will also be given under Article 9

of the Charter that the Prosecution intends toask the Tribunal to declare that the followingorganizations or groups of which thedefendants or some of them were membersof criminal organizations, and any memberof any such group or organization will beentitled to apply to the Tribunal for leave tobe heard by the Tribunal upon the questionof the criminal character of such group ororganization. These organizations referred toare the following:

Die Reichsregierung (Reich Cabinet); DasKorps der Politischen Leiter derNationalsozialistischen Deutschen Arbeiterpartei(Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party); DieSchutzstaffeln der NationalsozialistischenDeutschen Arbeiterpartei (commonly known asthe “SS”) and including Der Sicherheitsdienst

(commonly known as the “SD”); Die GeheimeStaatspolizei (Secret State Police, commonlyknown as the “Gestapo”); Die Sturmabteilungender NSDAP (commonly known as the “SA”);and the General Staff and High Command of theGerman Armed Forces.

(Minutes of the Opening Session of the Trialof the Major War Criminals, at Berlin byGeneral NIKITCHENKO, President)

The Nuremberg Military Tribunaldeclared criminal the followingorganisations:

The Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party1,SS (Protection or guard detachment)2,Gestapo (Secret State Police, abbreviated toGestapo), and SD (The security service of theSS, established in 1932).In the zone of occupation of the United

States the three länder passed adenazification law which required theregistration of 13 million persons. Those thatwere subjected to prosecution were classifiedas either major offenders, offenders, lesseroffenders, or followers. The major objectiveof the law was to remove those who hadmost closely followed and aided the Nazisfrom positions of leadership, or to preventsuch persons from holding future publicoffice. Those found to have been majoroffenders “were subject to immediateremoval or permanent exclusion from publicoffice, confiscation of property, and to amaximum of ten years in prison.” More than930,000 defendants were brought before thede-nazification courts.Of them 1549 were classified as major

offenders, 21,000 as offenders, 104,000 aslesser offenders, and 475,000 as followers.Over 500,000 people were fined for variouscriminal offenses, 122,000 sufferedrestrictions on employment, 25,000 weresubject to confiscation of property, 22,000were declared ineligible to hold public office,

8


30,000 were required to perform speciallabour, and 9000 were given prisonsentences.3No doubt that all these laws were brought

in after WWII and subsequent trials hadpublicised greatly crimes committed by NaziGermany. The German people were not ableto say that they did not know. Evidence wascontrary to that statement. By de-nazificingGermany, Allied powers have createdgeneral guilt in German peoples’consciousness. Such feeling of guilt is veryimportant to prevent the repetition of anti-Semitism and racism in Germany.

CHAPTER 2

If we turn to wars in the former Yugoslaviafrom 1991 to 2000 (wars in Slovenia,Croatia, Bosnia Herzegovina and Kosova)

we could study the pattern of racism,Islamophobia, religious hatred and readinessto ‘purify land’ (term also used as ‘ethniccleansing’). This pattern has been carefullyorganised, planned and up to a certain levelfulfilled. In the heart of such ideology is SANU(Serbian Academy of Science and Arts) with itsMemorandum of 19864. This is whatUniversity of Kansas Libraries SlavicDepartment on its web page says about thisMemorandum:

“This memorandum is a critique of the Yugoslavsystem from a Serbian nationalist point of view,which assumes that Serbia was exploited by otherYugoslav republics and must correct the situationwithout hesitation”

The Memorandum of the Serbian Academyof Arts and Sciences (SANU), released in 1986,is a well-organized list of complaints andcriticisms against the Yugoslav system, as itexisted at the time. The main theme of theargument in the Memorandum is that Serbiawas wrongfully taken advantage of andweakened under the 1974 constitution ofYugoslavia, and that as a result, Serbians arethe victims of genocide (in Kosovo), amongother things. The Memorandum is written insuch a way that it acts as a call to arms for theSerbian people, and justifies any actions takenthat will ensure the security of a ‘threatened’Serbia.With the publication of SANU’s

Memorandum in 1986 Serbian nationalismgain moral justification to embark on a courseof creating a state for all Serbs. Cries like‘Where ever there is Serbian grave that isSerbia’ were rallying the Serbian masses intofrenzied state of madness. When in a speech in

9


8

1989 at Gazimestan (Kosova) SlobodanMilosevic said ‘Serbs may not know how towork but they know how to fight’ a millionstrong crowd cheered him and called for arms.They called for war against Albanians,Muslims, and all those who they considered asinvaders going back 600 years by saying thatthey have to take revenge for the defeat Serbssuffered in the hands of the Ottoman Empire inthe Fields of Kosova.This one million Serbs was at that time 15%

of all Serbs living in the former Yugoslavia. Ifwe calculate what 15% of nation means it iseasy to deduct that on the field of Gazimestanthere was almost every able-bodied Serbsupporting calls for ethnic cleansing, rape, andestablishment of a Serbian state. This was areflection of how the majority of Serbs felt.Those who were not present on the filed ofGazimestan could be categorised as children,old people, women and those who could notcome because they worked in emergencyservices.Serbian Orthodox Church gave blessings to

‘freedom fighters’ and embraced forthcomingwar as a war of liberation from the infidels.Patriarch Pavle defined Serbian Nation asHeavenly Nation and Chosen People to suchextent that Serbs started saying that ‘today ifGod is Serb’It is common for Serbs to use thisphraseology to mean God will support them.This was mass indoctrination on a Nazi scale.When war started in Slovenia in 1991 it was

just a prelude for things to come. It wasorganised in such a way that it was impossiblefor the Serbs to succeed as Slovenia was inactual reality not to be included in GreaterSerbia. It was an ex-Yugoslav republic whichwas 95% Slovins (of Catholic faith) and it liedto the far west. SANU could not find historicaljustification for including Slovenia into theGreater Serbia. So, it was decided by SANUand by Slobodan Milosevic and his rulingapparatus to let Slovenia win its Independence.When JNA (Yugoslav People’s Army) was

evicted from Slovenia it moved all its forces

from Slovenia and stationed them in Bosniaand Herzegovina. Indoctrination of JNA waswell on the way. It was already at that timemainly officered by Serbs who embraced theidea of creating a Greater Serbia on the ruins ofYugoslavia. Those non-Serb officers who didnot show loyalty to this idea of Greater Serbiawere expelled or when the war started inBosnia and Herzegovina all these non-Serbofficers were either removed, killed or weredeserted. This Army was controlled bySlobodan Milosevic and it played a major partin the aggression on Croatia and Bosnia andHerzegovina.The war in Croatia started soon after the

JNA left Slovenia. Serbian nationalist roseagainst what they perceived as anti-Serbianstate of Croatia (inhabited mainly by Croats –Catholics but with considerable Serbianminority) and in coordination with JNA laidsiege to many Croatian cities. Other cities were‘cleansed’ of non-Serbian population andRepublic of Srpska Krajina was proclaimed.Many atrocities were committed such as in thecity of Vukovar, which was razed to theground and the sick, wounded andundefended population was massacred. Dailyshelling of Dubrovnik, Zadar, Zagreb, Osjekand other Croatian towns were just drills forthings to come.While the war was still going on in Croatia,

the Serbian military machine turned towardsBosnia and Herzegovina. In April 1992 an openlarge scale aggression against the independentcountry was put in motion by the command ofSlobodan Milosevic, with the support ofSANU, Serbian Orthodox Church and majorityof Serbs.Immediately it became obvious that

previous threats for example if Muslims do notsurrender they would all be killed and thatMuslims as a people would disappear inBosnia and Herzegovina were not just emptywords. These threats were made in public andRadovan Karadic made the most blatant one inBosnia and Herzegovina National Assembly

1 0


just before the aggression started. Hiscomments can be summarized as saying that ifMuslims insist on calling for a referendum forthe independence of Bosnia and Herzegovinasuch things may happen that results of whichmay be the complete extinction of Muslims. Anumber of towns were occupied and reports ofmass killings, rape, torture, looting, burning,and expulsion were flooding from all cornersof Bosnia and Herzegovina.The state of Bosnia and Herzegovina was a

unique blend of different religious groups.Muslims were 44%, Serbs (OrthodoxChristians) 31%, Croats 17% (CatholicChristians) with the remaining 8% consistingof atheists, Jews, and others. The Serbiannationalists in their ‘crusade’ for a SerbianHoly Land decided to either enslave Muslimpopulation or destroy all Muslims. In theirattempt to achieve this they agreed to maintainpeace with the Croatian nationalists and evento unite until all Muslims were defeated. In1993, a joint attack by the Serbian and Croatianforces was launched against Muslims and itlasted for more than a year. When Croatiannationalists realised that they could not trusttheir Serbian allies they pursued peace withthe Muslims. For the next two years Croatianforces were mainly concentrated onmaintaining their grip on land that they hadoccupied while fighting was mainly going onbetween the Serbian aggressors andGovernment forces. With the Dayton Peaceagreement in 1995 the war stopped and theInternational community in particular theU.S.A. rewarded Serbian aggression with 49%of the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina. TheU.N. and the major powers sanctioned thepartition of Bosnia and Herzegovina.At first glance the ‘Tribunal’ served the

same purpose of international justice, as theNuremberg Trial. However, a closer look at itsbackground and in particular its mandateshows how it was vastly below the standardsof the precedents set at Nuremberg. Once morepressure from the U.S.A. was instrumental in

setting it up not the least to satisfy the growinginternal pressure from public for some form ofaccountability. As the BBC outlines below themandate was significantly less thanNuremberg:

“Mandate

The tribunal is the first international bodyfor the prosecution of war crimes since theNuremberg and Tokyo trials held in theaftermath of World War II.

The ICTY was established byresolution 827 of the UN SecurityCouncil in May 1993 and all UNmembers are obliged to co-operatewith it fully.

It has jurisdiction over individualsresponsible for war crimes committed inthe territory of the former Yugoslaviasince 1991.

The offences are defined as:

Grave breaches of the 1949 GenevaConventionsViolations of the laws or customs of war

Genocide

Crimes against humanity

The tribunal may not try suspects inabsentia, nor impose the death penalty.

The maximum sentence it can hand downis life imprisonment.

Chief Prosecutor Carla Del Ponte and herteam collect and sift the evidence to issueindictments and mount cases.

Mrs Del Ponte, a Swiss lawyer, is the

1 1


1 0

third to head the tribunal. Ourcorrespondent Elizabeth Blunt, says thather determination, and that of herpredecessors, the Canadian Louise Arborand the South African Richard Goldstone,has played a large part in its success.

In its seven years of existence the tribunalhas been gradually working up to themoment when it has in front of itSlobodan Milosevic - the man it regardsas ultimately responsible for Yugoslavia’ssuffering.

Indictments can be public or sealed.

The Tribunal has large teams ofinvestigators working across the formerYugoslavia but it does not have its ownpolice force and instead relies on theformer Yugoslav republics or theinternational peace forces, S-For and K-For in Bosnia and Kosovo, to makearrests.

The tribunal’s staff as of April 2001numbers 1,103 people from 74 countriesand the budget for 2001 is $96,443,900.

Tribunal’s record

Indictments:

Thirty-eight indicted war criminals are inthe tribunal’s detention unit

Thirty-eight accused suspects are still atlarge

Of these, 26 are publicly indicted and 12are under sealed indictments

International arrest warrants have beenissued for seven of those sought, includingRadovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic.

Trials and appeals

To date, 19 guilty verdicts have beenpassed

There have been two acquittals

Six cases have been completed, includingappeals

Twelve cases are pending before theappeals chamber

Longest sentence passed: 45 years forformer Bosnian Croat general TihomirBlaskic

The shortest trial took 10 days, the longest239

One verdict made history by establishingthat the systematic use of rape could beprosecuted as a war crime.

Thousands of soldiers and civilians wereinvolved in the violence as the formerYugoslavia disintegrated - but oneconsistent thread running throughout theproceedings has been the attempt to bringto trial those ultimately responsible for thecrimes.

Paul Risley who was the prosecutor’sspokesman during another key trial said:“What’s most important aboutprosecuting war crimes is not to get theindividuals who may have committedthose crimes - the lowly soldiers, thugs,paramilitary types of police officers - butto get the most senior political andmilitary leadership responsible for havingordered those crimes.”

1 2


Tribunal’s structure

President: Claude Jorda (France)

Vice-president: Florence NdepeleMwachande Mumna (Zambia)

Three presiding judges: David AnthonyHunt (Australia), Richard May (UnitedKingdom), Almiro Simoes Rodrigues(Portugal)

They are supported by nine other judgesfrom various countries. Twenty-sevennew temporary judges are due to arrive inSeptember to assist with the workload

Chief Prosecutor: Carla Del Ponte(Switzerland)Deputy Chief Prosecutor Graham Blewitt(Australia).

Since the tribunal began its work, nineknown suspects have died.

One, Slavko Dokmanovic, committedsuicide in the detention centre in 1998.

Two were shot dead by S-For troopsduring attempts to arrest them. Anotherblew himself up with a hand grenade asGerman troops tried to seize him.

The rest have died of natural causes,including one in custody.”

There is, however, no process similar to de-nazification. The idea of the ‘Tribunal’ is not totry Serbian people nor to educate them, butsolely to find individuals responsible for thecrimes committed. Why is this so? The de-nazification of Germany after WWII havecreated a sense of guilt in Germanconsciousness. The ‘Tribunal’ is creating asense of victim in Serbian consciousness, andSerbs feel that the whole World is against them.

There is still no major process where the Serbswould face up to the crimes that theysupported and were done in their name. Nowonder that nothing much is changing informer Yugoslavia. If the victim is deniedjustice and compensation than the victorybelongs to their oppressor.The effect of the Nuremberg trials was a

moral high ground was granted to the victimsi.e. the Jews. But in the case of genocideagainst the Muslims in Bosnia andHerzegovina, the international communitywas not even allowing the victim to nameproperly the people who carried the worstwar crimes in Europe since WWII. To denythat the Serbian nation was an accomplice ingenocide against the Muslims is to deny thevictim any compensation either morally orfinancially for the suffering that they hadendured.The argument against is that all the parties

involved committed crimes, but that is thesame as saying that the Jews who rose in theWarsaw ghetto committed crimes against theGermans and therefore they are the same asthe Germans! The scale and intention of thecrimes committed by Muslims against theSerbs cannot even be compared. It would beimmoral to even to try to compare them.Muslims did not systematically and in anorganised manner rape, torture, massacre andexpel the Serbs as the way they did to theMuslims.Numerous concentration camps where up

to 300 000 people were imprisoned at the timewere as well organised as were the Nazi deathcamps. Systematic program of mass rapes leftover 50 000 Muslim women raped and markedfor the whole of their life. Mass executions tookat least 200 000 Muslim civilians.Indiscriminate shelling of civilian targets lefthundreds of thousands maimed, disabled andwar scared. All of this was done under theclear instruction to destroy Muslims as acommunity and to make those who remainalive suffer for the rest of their life.

1 3


1 2

Until the ‘Tribunal’ or any otherInternational body bring sense of collectiveguilt into the Serbian consciousness till then allthe work will be half done and Justice will notbe served.Collective guilt of Serbian people goes from

those who were members of SDS (SerbianDemocratic Party), SPS (Socialist Party ofSerbia), SRS (Serbian Radical Party) and manyother organisations, those who were theirsupporters and those who did not speak upagainst their programs. Paramilitaryorganisations like ‘White Eagles’, ‘Tigers’,‘Volunteers’, ‘White Guards’ and others can becompared to Nazi SS troops and there shouldbe the same indictment against them as metedout to those Nazi organisations.Slobodan Milosevic is not the cause. He is

the product of an evil that was supported bythe majority of Serbs. How long will it be untilthe next ‘Slobodan Milosevic’ takes power andlead the Serbs again into a ‘Crusade’ againstMuslims? This is what Internationalcommunity is failing to prevent and see.To come back to the words of Judge

Rodrigues:“Yes, there were massacres and there was

persecution. Yes, some of these crimes werecommitted by Serbian forces. However, toparaphrase a great humanist, I consider that toassociate this evil with Serbian identity wouldbe an insult to the Serbian people and wouldbetray the concept of civil society. But it wouldbe just as monstrous not to attach any name tothis evil because that could be an offence to theSerbs.”The Nuremberg Trials were supposed set up

the parameters of a civil society. It isunbelievable that this man after all theevidence presented to him worries more abouthurting the Serbs than to prevent future crimescommitted by them. After ruling guilty aSerbian general of genocide, he goes into depthto say that some mad individual has done allthat had happened. It would be the same as tosay that Hitler himself killed all those people in

WWII and the German people had nothing todo with it. The whole concept of Justice hasfailed when Judge Rodrigues failed to ignite adebate of guilt on the Serbian nation. He hasdone both, injustice to the victim and to thosewho committed the crimes by saying that themajority of Serb were good and fought for ajust cause unfortunately some elements of theSerbian forces committed crimes.What is needed for future peace in the

Balkans is a mass re-education of the Serbs. It isnecessary to bring home to each member ofthese criminal activities the fact that they weresupporting evil and that they are guiltybecause of that. It is necessary to ban allpolitical parties and organisations that wereinvolved in the genocide even if it was in themost minimum way. It is necessary to destroythe myth of Serbian infallibility and to showthat the majority of Serbs have behaved likebloodthirsty animals. It is necessary tocompensate the victims and to show them thatthe International community acknowledgesthe crimes committed against them. Only thenwill justice be served.

The original document can be read here:http://www.ihrc.org.uk/attachments/7770_01DurbanPoliticsorJustice.pdf

1 4


1 5


1 4

Suggested QuestionsQ1: In what way was the “Tribunal” different from theNuremberg Trials?

Q2: How was the Serbian nation an accomplice in theBosnian genocide?

Q3: How were the rights of German Jews eroded beforeWorld War Two?

Q4: Did the “Tribunal” serve international justice?

Q5: What acts are considered ‘crimes against humanity’?Discuss other ‘crimes against humanity’ that have takenplace in the past/are taking place currently

Q6: Can you see patterns that would lead to genocide?

1 6


LESSON TWO:Visiting the Genocide

Watch this 5-minute clip and discuss the way the Bosnian-genocide is still affecting the Bosnian people today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXActM7sbSM&feature=youtu.be

Suggested QuestionsQ1. Discuss how Frano felt when he went to thecemetery. Do you think visiting places like this makes adifference in how we understand the events of the past?

Q2. Why do you think it is important to remembergenocides and genocidal acts?

Appendix 1:

“The Leadership Corps of the Nazi Partyconsisted, in effect, of the official organisationof the Nazi Party, with Hitler as Fuehrer as itshead. The actual work of running theLeadership Corps was carried out by the Chiefof the Party Chancellery (Hess, succeeded byBormann) assisted by the Party ReichDirectorate, or Reichsleitung, which wascomposed of the Reichsleiters, the heads of thefunctional organisations of the Party, as well asof heads of the various main departments andoffices which were attached to the Party ReichDirectorate.Under the Chief of the Party Chancellery

were the Gauleiters, with territorial jurisdictionover the main administrative regions of theParty, the Gaus. The Gauleiters were assistedby a Party Gau Directorate or Gauleitung,similar in composition and function to the PartReich Directorate. Under the Gauleiters in theParty hierarchy were the Kreisleiters withterritorial jurisdiction over a Kreis, usuallyconsisting of a single country, and assisted by aParty of (sic) Kreis Directorate, or Kreisleitung.The Kreisleiters were the lowest members of

the Party hierarchy who were full time paidemployees.Directly under the Kreisleiters were the

Ortsgruppenleiters, then the Zellenleiters andthen the Blockleiters. Directives andinstructions were received from the PartyReich Directorate.”5

Appendix 2:

(Text of Memorandum) “There is deep concernin Yugoslavia because of stagnating socialdevelopment, economic difficulties, growingsocial tensions, and open inter-ethnic clashes. Aserious crisis has engulfed not only the politicaland economic arenas, but Yugoslavia’s entiresystem of law and order as well. Idleness andirresponsibility at work, corruption andnepotism, a lack of confidence in and disregardfor the law, bureaucratic obstinacy, growingmistrust among individuals, and increasinglyarrogant individual and group egoism havebecome daily phenomena. The resulting blowto moral values and to the reputation ofleading public institutions and a lack of faith inthe competence of decision-makers havespread apathy and bitterness among the publicand produced alienation from all the mainstaysand symbols of law and order. An objectiveexamination of Yugoslav reality suggests thatthe present crisis may end in social shocks withunforeseeable consequences, including such acatastrophic eventuality as the fragmentationof the Yugoslav state.No one can close his eyes to what is

happening and to what may happen. Certainly,our nation’s oldest institute of scientific andcultural creativity cannot do so.In these fateful times, the Serbian Academy

of Arts and Sciences feels obliged to express itsviews on society’s condition in the convictionthat this will help us find a way out of ourpresent troubles. The nature of this document,however, obliges us to limit ourselves to thekey issues of Yugoslav reality.Regretfully, these issues include the

undefined and difficult position of the Serbiannation, a position brought to the fore by recentevents.In order to understand the primacy of

ethnicity in the present practice of the League

1 7


1 6

of Communists of Yugoslavia it is necessary toconsider the influence of the Comintern on theCommunist Party of Yugoslavia between thetwo world wars. The Comintern’s strategyduring that period derived from the conclusionthat following the failure of the proletarianrevolution in Western Europe, theCommunist parties of Eastern, Central, and

Southern Europe had to depend on nationalmovements, even though they were expresslyanti-socialist and based on the idea of nationalrather than class unity. Stalin engaged incrushing all opposition to such a strategy (as,for example, in the case of Sima Markovic, oneof the founders of the Yugoslav CommunistParty). In this spirit, the solution to the nationalquestion was formulated and developedtheoretically by Sperans (Kardelj) in his book“Razvoj slovenskoga narodnoga vprsanja”(The Development of the Slovene NationalQuestion), which generally served as the

ideological model for Yugoslav developmentin the direction of a confederation of sovereignrepublics and autonomous regions, which wasfinally achieved by the Constitution of 1974.The two most developed republics, which

achieved their national programs with thisConstitution, are now the most ardentdefenders of the existing system. Thanks to thepolitical position of their leaders at the centersof political power, they have held (both beforeand after the decisive years of the 1960s) theinitiative in all matters affecting the politicaland economic system. They modelled thesocial and economic structure of Yugoslavia tosuit their own desires and needs. Nothingwould seem more normal that they nowdefend the structure that they stubbornly tookso long to build, a structure that represents theattainment of most of their national programs.No one needs convincing that separatism

and nationalism are active on the social scene,but there is insufficient understanding of thefact that such trends have been madeideologically possible by the Constitution of1974. The constant reinforcement of and the

competition engendered by separatism andnationalism have driven the (ethnic) nationsfurther from one another to a critical degree.The manipulation of language and theconfinement of scientific and culturalprofessionals within the ranks of the republicsand regions are sorry signs of the growingpower of particularism. All new ethnogenesesare unfortunate products of locally closed,regional ideologies and shackled logic, andthey are also symptomatic of a retreat from acommon past, a common present, and acommon future. It is as if everyone wished toflee as fast and as far as possible from acollapsing house.Mental attitudes warn us that the political

crisis has reached the critical point, threateningthe complete destabilization of Yugoslavia.Kosovo is the clearest expression of this.No form of political oppression and

discrimination on the basis of nationality isproperly acceptable in modern society. TheYugoslav solution to the nationalities questioncould be considered at its inception anexemplary model of a multinational federationin which the principle of the unity of the stateand state policy was successfully joined withthe principle of the political and culturalautonomy of nationalities and nationalminorities. During the past two decades theprinciple of unity has become progressivelyweaker and the principle of national autonomyis stressed, which has in practice changed intoa sovereignty of the parts (republics, which arenot ethnically homogenous as a rule). Theweaknesses that were present in the modelfrom the beginning became more and morevisible. All nations are not equal: the Serbiannation, for example, did not obtain the right toits own state. Unlike national minorities,portions of the Serbian people, who live inother republics in large numbers, do not havethe right to use their own language andalphabet, to organize politically and culturally,and to develop the unique culture of theirnation. The unstoppable persecution of Serbs

1 8


in Kosovo in a drastic manner shows that thoseprinciples that protect the autonomy of aminority (Albanians) and not applied when itcomes to a minority within a minority (Serbs,Montenegrins, Turks and Gypsies in Kosovo).Considering the existing forms of nationaldiscrimination, presentday Yugoslavia cannotbe considered a democratic state.Yugoslavia is seen less as a community of

citizens, nations and nationalities all equalbefore the law, and more as a community ofeight equal territories. But even this variety ofequality does not apply to Serbia because of itsspecial legal and political position whichreflects the tendency to keep the Serbian nationunder constant supervision. The guidingprinciple behind this policy has been “a weakSerbia, a strong Yugoslavia” and this hasevolved into an influential mind-set: if rapideconomic growth were permitted by the Serbs,who are the largest nation, it would pose adanger to the other nations of Yugoslavia. Andso all possibilities are grasped to placeincreasing obstacles in the way of theireconomic development and politicalconsolidation. One of the most serious of suchobstacles is Serbia’s present undefinedconstitutional position, so full of internalconflicts.The Constitution of 1974, in fact, divided

Serbia into three parts. The autonomousprovinces within Serbia were made equal tothe republics, save that they were not definedas such and that they do not have the samenumber of representatives in the variousbodies of the federation. They make up for thisshortcoming by being able to interfere in theinternal relations of Serbia proper through therepublic’s common assembly (while theirassemblies remain completely autonomous).The political and legal position of Serbiaproper is quite vague-Serbia proper is neither arepublic nor a province.Relationships in the republic of Serbia are

quite confused. The Executive Council, whichis a body of the republic’s assembly, is in fact

the Executive Council for Serbia proper. This isnot the only absurdity in the limitation ofauthority. The excessively broad andinstitutionally well-established autonomy ofthe provinces has created two new fissureswithin the Serbian nation. The truth is that thepro-autonomy and separatist forces insisted onincreasing autonomy, but this would have beendifficult to achieve had they not received moraland political support from those republics inwhich separatist tendencies have never diedout.Relations between Serbia and the provinces

cannot be reduced solely or even primarily to aformal legal interpretation of two constitutions.It is primarily a matter of the Serbian nationand their state.A nation that has regained statehood after a

long and bloody struggle, that has achievedcivil democracy, and that lost two and halfmillion kinsmen in two world wars underwentthe experience of having a bureaucraticallyconstructed party commission determine thatafter four decades in the new Yugoslavia italone was condemned to be without its ownstate. A more bitter historic defeat in peacetimecannot be imagined.The expulsion of the Serbian nation from

Kosovo bears spectacular witness to its historicdefeat. In the spring of 1981 a very special, butnevertheless open and total war, prepared byadministrative, political, and legal changesmade at various periods, was declared againstthe Serbian people. Waged through the skilfulapplication of various methods and tactics,with a division of functions, and with theactive, not merely passive, and little concealedsupport of certain political centers withinYugoslavia (more pernicious than the

support coming from outside), this open war,which has yet to be looked in the face andcalled by its proper name, has been continuingfor almost five years. It has thus lasted longerthan the entire Yugoslav war of liberation(from April 6, 1941 to May 9, 1945).The Balli (anti-communist nationalist)

1 9


1 8

uprising in Kosovo and Metohija that brokeout just before the end of the war with theparticipation of fascist units was brokenmilitarily in 1944-45, but it appears not to havebeen broken politically. Its present form,disguised with a new content, is proceedingmore successfully and is moving towards avictorious outcome. A final showdown withneo-fascism did not materialize; all of themeasures so far taken have only removed theexpression of this aggression from the streetsand in fact, its racially motivated andunrestricted goals, which are being soughtafter by all means and at all costs, have onlybeen reinforced. Deliberately drastic sentencesare even pronounced on young offenders inorder to incite and inflame inter-ethnic hatreds.The physical, political, legal and cultural

genocide perpetrated against the Serbianpopulation of Kosovo and Metohija is thegreatest defeat suffered by Serbia in the wars ofliberation she waged between Orasac in 1804and the uprising of 1941. Responsibility for thisdefeat falls primarily on the still livingComintern heritage in the nationalities policyof the Communist Party of Yugoslavia and onthe acquiescence of Serbian communists in thispolicy and on the exorbitant ideological andpolitical delusion, ignorance, immaturity, andchronic opportunism of an entire generation ofpostwar Serbian politicians, always on thedefensive and always more concerned with theopinions others have of them and of theirhesitant explanations of Serbia’s position thanwith the true facts affecting the future of thenation that they lead.Kosovo is not the only region in which the

Serbian nation is being pressured bydiscrimination. The absolute (and not merelyrelative) fall in the number of Serbs in Croatiais sufficient proof of this assertion. Accordingto the 1948 census there were 543,795 Serbs inCroatia (14.48% of the total).According to the 1981 census their number

has been reduced to 531,502 or only 11.5% ofthe total number of inhabitants in Croatia.

Over 33 peacetime years the number of Serbsin Croatia has declined, even in relation to theimmediate post-war period when the firstcensus was taken and when the effects of thewar on the number of Serbian inhabitants inCroatia was well known.Lika, Kordun, and Banija have remained the

most underdeveloped regions of Croatia andthis has greatly encouraged the emigration ofSerbs to Serbia and migrations to other parts ofCroatia where the Serbs, being newcomers, area minority and socially inferior group, greatlyexposed to assimilation. In any case, the Serbsin Croatia are otherwise exposed to asophisticated and quite effective policy ofassimilation. One component of this policy isthe prohibition of all Serbian associations andcultural institutions in Croatia, which had hada rich tradition dating from the Austro-Hungarian and pre-war Yugoslav periods, andthe imposition of an official language thatbears the name of another nation (Croatia),thus giving concrete shape to nationalinequality. A constitutional provision has madethis language obligatory for the Serbs inCroatia, and nationalistically inclined Croatianlinguists are distancing it systematically and bywell-organized actions from the language usedin the other republics of the Serbo-Croatianlanguage area, and this is helping to weakenthe ties binding the Serbs in Croatia to otherSerbs. Such action is gladly undertaken at thecost of interrupting language continuityamong the Croats themselves and ofeliminating international terms that areinvaluable for communicating with othercultures, particularly in the field of science andtechnology. But the Serbian community inCroatia is not just cut off from their homelandculturally; that homeland cannot keep itselfinformed of their circumstances or of theireconomic or cultural situation anywhere nearthe extent to which it is possible for somenations in Yugoslavia to maintain contact withtheir compatriots in other countries. Theintegrity of the Serbian nation and its culture in

2 0


Yugoslavia as a whole is an issue vital to itssurvival and progress.With the exception of the Independent State

of Croatia from 1941- 45, Serbs in Croatia havenever been as persecuted in the past as they arenow. The solution to their national positionmust be considered an urgent politicalquestion. In so much as a solution cannot befound, the results could be disastrous, not justin relation to Croatia, but to all of Yugoslavia.The question of the Serbian people’s

position is given considerable weight by thefact that a large number of Serbians liveoutside of Serbia, especially Serbia proper, andthat their number is larger than the totalnumber of people of some other nations.According to the census of 1981, 24% of theSerbian people (1,958,000) live outside of theSocialist Republic of Serbia, which isconsiderably more than the number ofSlovenians, Albanians, Macedonians and takenindividually, almost the same as the Muslims.Outside of Serbia proper there are 3,285,000Serbs or 40.3% of their total population. In thegeneral disintegration process which has takenover Yugoslavia, the Serbs are hit with the mostintense disintegration. The present coursewhich our society in Yugoslavia has taken istotally opposite from the one that has movedfor decades and centuries until the formationof a unified state. This process is aimed at thetotal destruction of the national unity of theSerbian people.Having borne for over half a century the

stigma and handicap of being the jailer of theother Yugoslav nations, the Serbian nation wasincapable of deriving support from its ownhistory. Many aspects of this history itself wereeven brought into question. The democraticbourgeoisie tradition for which Serbia hadstruggled successfully in the 19th century hasremained in the shadow cast by the Serbiansocialist and labor movement until quiterecently because of narrow-mindedness andlack of objectivity on the part of officialhistoriography. This so impoverished and

restricted the true picture of the contributionmade by Serbian bourgeoisie society to law,culture, and statesmanship that, deformed inthis manner, it could not provide mental ormoral support to anyone nor could it serve as afoothold for preserving or reviving historicalself-confidence. The brave and honourableefforts at liberation exerted by the Serbs ofBosnia-Herzegovina and by all Yugoslavyouth, which included Young Bosnia,experienced a similar fate and were pushedinto the historical background by thecontributions of a class ideology whoseproponents and creators were AustrianMarxists, confirmed opponents of movementsof national liberation.Influenced by the ruling ideology, the

cultural achievements of the Serbian people areundergoing alienation, being usurped byothers or denigrated, or they are ignored andretrogress; the language is being displaced andthe Cyrillic script is gradually being lost. In thisconnection, the realm of literature is serving asthe main arena for caprice and anarchy. Thecultural and spiritual integrity of no otherYugoslav nation is so roughly challenged asthat of the Serbian nation. No other literaryand artistic heritage is so disordered, ravaged,and confused as the Serbian heritage. Thepolitical criteria of the ruling ideology areimposed on Serbian culture as being morevaluable and stronger than scientific orhistorical criteria.After the dramatic interethnic conflicts of

the world war, it had appeared thatchauvinism has lost momentum was even onthe road to oblivion. This appearance hasproven deceptive. It was not long beforenationalism began rising up once more, andevery change in the constitution served topromote its growth. Nationalism has beenpromoted from above; its chief proponentshave been politicians. The fundamental causeof this multi- dimensional crisis is to be foundin the ideological defeat of socialism at thehands of nationalism, which has produced the

2 1


2 0

centrifugal processes that have brought theYugoslav community to the brink of ruin andwhich has destroyed the old system of values.Its roots lie in the ideology of the Comintern

and in the nationalities policy of the pre-warCPY. The revanchism directed at the Serbiannation as an “exploiting” nation that was builtinto this policy has had far-reachingconsequences for inter- ethnic relations, thesocial organization, the economic system, andthe fate of moral and cultural values since theSecond World War. The Serbian nation hasbeen encumbered with a feeling of historicalguilt and has remained the only nation not tosolve its national problem and not to receive itsown state like the other nations. Therefore, thefirst and foremost action must be to removethis burden of historical guilt from the Serbiannation, to categorically deny the contentionthat it enjoyed a privileged economic positionbetween the two world wars, and to refrainfrom denigrating Serbia’s liberation-orientedhistory and contribution in creatingYugoslavia.Complete national and cultural integrity of

the Serbian people is their historic anddemocratic right, no matter in which republicor province they might find themselves living.The attainment of equality and an independentdevelopment have profound historicalmeaning for the Serbian people.In less than fifty years, over two successive

generations, the Serbian nation has beenexposed to such severe trials-twice exposed tophysical extermination, to forced assimilation,to religious conversion, to cultural genocide, toideological indoctrination, and to thedenigration and renunciation of their owntraditions beneath an imposed guilt complex,and thereby disarmed intellectually andpolitically, that they could not but leave deepspiritual wounds that cannot be ignored as thiscentury of the great technological takeoffdraws to a close. In order to have a future inthe international family of cultured andcivilized nations, the Serbian nation must have

an opportunity to find itself again and becomea historical agent, must re-acquire anawareness of its historical and spiritual being,must look its economic and cultural interestssquare in the eyes, and must find a modernsocial and national program that will inspirethis generation and generations to come.The present depressing condition of the

Serbian nation, with chauvinism andSerbophobia being ever more violentlyexpressed in certain circles, favour of a revivalof Serbian nationalism, an increasingly drasticexpression of Serbian national sensitivity, andreactions that can be volatile and evendangerous. We must not overlook orunderestimate these dangers for a momentunder any circumstances. But a principledstruggle against Serbian chauvinism cannot bebased on the reigning ideological and politicalsymmetry in historical guilt. The rejection ofthis symmetry, fatal to the spirit and morale,with its trite falsehoods and injustices, is aprecondition for mobility and effectiveness onthe part of democratic, Yugoslav, humanisticawareness in contemporary Serbian culture.The fact that ordinary citizens and the

working class are not represented in theappropriate councils in the Federal Assemblycannot simply be ascribed to favouritism forethnic nationalisms; it is also the result of anattempt to place Serbia in a position ofinequality and thereby weaken her politicalinfluence. But the greatest calamity is the factthat the Serbian nation does not possess a statelike all of the other nations. True, the firstarticle of the Constitution of the SocialistRepublic of Serbia contains a provision to theeffect that Serbia is a state, but the questionimmediately arises: What kind of a state is onethat lacks authority within its own territoryand lacks the means to protect the personalproperty of its citizens, to prevent genocide inKosovo, and to prevent the emigration ofSerbs from their ancient homeland? This

position underlines the political discriminationagainst

2 2


Serbia, especially when one remembers thatthe Constitution of the Socialist FederalRepublic of Yugoslavia has imposed internalfederalism on Serbia, creating a permanentsource of conflicts between Serbia Proper andthe provinces. The aggressive Albanianchauvinism in Kosovo cannot be containeduntil Serbia ceases to be the sole republicwhose internal relations are ordered by others.The Federal Constitution has formally

established the equality of all the republics butthis has been rendered worthless in practice byforcing the Republic of Serbia to renouncemany of its rights and powers in favor of theautonomous provinces, the status of which isregulated by the Federal Constitution to aconsiderable extent. Serbia must openly statethat this is an imposed arrangement. This isespecially true in regard to the position of theprovinces, which in reality have beenpromoted to republics and which regardthemselves far more as constituent elements ofthe Federation rather than as parts of therepublic of Serbia. Besides failing to consider astate for the Serbian nation, the YugoslavConstitution also created insurmountabledifficulties to the establishment of such a state.In order to satisfy Serbia’s legitimate

interests, a revision of that constitution isunavoidable. The autonomous provinces mustbecome true integral parts of the Republic ofSerbia by granting them a degree of autonomythat would not destroy the integrity of theRepublic and would make it possible to act inthe common interests of the wider community.The unhappy matter of Serbian statehood is

not the only deficiency that must be correctedby constitutional amendments. The 1974constitution turned Yugoslavia into a veryunstable state community, prone to consideralternatives other than the Yugoslavalternative, as has been made clear in recentstatements by public figures in Slovenia andthe earlier positions taken by Macedonianpoliticians. Such considerations andfragmentation lead to the notion that

Yugoslavia is in danger of further corrosion.The Serbian nation cannot meekly await thefuture in such a state of uncertainty.Therefore, all of the nations within

Yugoslavia must be given the opportunity toexpress their wants and intentions. Serbiawould then be able to declare and define herown national interests. Discussions andagreements in this vein must precede anexamination of the Constitution. Naturally,Serbia must not take a passive stand in all this,waiting to hear what others will say, as she hasdone so often in the past.The position of equality that Serbia must

strive for presupposes the same initiative indeciding on key political and economic issuesas enjoyed by others. Four decades of Serbianpassivity have been bad for Yugoslavia as awhole by failing to contribute ideas and criticalappraisals based on her longer state tradition,enhanced feeling for national independence,and rich experience in struggling againsthome-grown usurpers of political freedom.Unless the Serbian nation within Serbiaparticipate on an equal footing in the entireprocess of decision making andimplementation, Yugoslavia cannot bestrong—and Yugoslavia’s very existence as ademocratic, socialist community will be calledinto question.An entire period in the development of the

Yugoslav community and of Serbia has clearlyended in a historically worn-out ideology,overall stagnation, and ever more obviousregression in the economic, political, moral,and cultural spheres. Such a situationimperatively requires a profound andwellthought out, rationally grounded, anddecisively implemented reform of the entiregovernmental structure and social organizationof the Yugoslav community of nations, andspeedy and beneficial integration into themodern world through social democracy. Thehuman resources of the entire country must beinvolved to the utmost extent in social reformin order that we may become a productive,

2 3


2 2

enlightened, and democratic society capable ofexisting on the fruits of our own labour andcreativity and able to make our faircontribution to the human race.The Serbian Academy of Arts and Sciences

is taking this occasion to express once again itswillingness to promote this portentousundertaking and the historical aspirations ofour generation with all the resources at itsdisposal.” (Source:http://www.ukans.edu/~slavlib/memo.htm)

Dobrica Cosic (b.1921) was the president ofthe Serbian Academy of Arts and Sciences(SANU) at the time this Memorandum waswritten and had a leading influence on itscontent and direction. Cosic is a writer whohas held numerous cultural and political postssince the end of World War II, among themrepresentative in the Federal parliament,president of the Serbian literary community,and editor of several newspapers and literaryjournals. He was also the president of the newYugoslav Federation.

2 4


Endnotes:

1 See Appendix 12 Formed in 1925 as Hitler’s praetorian guard.Heinrich Himmler became itsleader,(Reichsführer-SS) in 19293 Tutorow, op.cit, p.84 See Appendix 25 Judgment of the International Military Tribunalfor the Trial of German Major War Criminals.Nuremberg, 30th September and 1st October,1946. London: HMSO, 1966, pp.67-68

2 5


2 4

2 6


PUBLISHED BYISLAMIC HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION2017www.ihrc.org.uk9 781903 718506

REMEMBERING THE BOSNIAN GENOCIDE...Remembering the Bosnian Genocide In commemoration of the genocide...

Documents

Transcript of REMEMBERING THE BOSNIAN GENOCIDE...Remembering the Bosnian Genocide In commemoration of the genocide...