The Tribune

IT HAS been called the worst civilian atrocity in Europe since the Second World War and the darkest page of modern European history. In July 1995, in Srebrenica in the state of Bosnia – part of the former Yugoslavia – over 8,000 people, mainly Muslim men and boys, were rounded up and executed by Serbian forces.

These killings were recognised as “a genocide” by the International Court of Justice in 2007 and the leading perpetrators were subsequently convicted at the UN International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) as war criminals and were sentenced to life imprisonment.

This terrible atrocity should surely be a lesson to the world and to people in Europe in particular. So it is welcome news that now, at the time of its 26th anniversary, publicity is being given to a new film about the massacre which has received high praise and has already been nominated for an Oscar.

With a Bosnian screenwriter and director, the film is entitled “Quo Vadis, Aida?” (Where are you going, Aida). It tells the story of a schoolteacher employed by the United Nations peacekeeping force at their base in Srebrenica to help communications between UN officials and Bosnian Muslim leaders as the town is about to fall to forces from the neighbouring republic of Serbia and Montenegro.

The female interpreter is well placed to witness what happens. The UN peacekeepers are unable to stop the fighting and are largely limited to distributing humanitarian aid. They also fail to protect the thousands of Muslims sheltering in its so-called UN “safe area” which has been overrun by the Serbs. The disregard of the local UN force, which is mainly Dutch, for the thousands of civilians seeking protection was widely condemned later as scandalous and shameful.

Critics say this powerful film is a brilliant depiction of the horror of the Srebrenica atrocity through the eyes of the interpreter who is overwhelmed by shock and disbelief. It is said to be an impressively convincing production but without glorifying violence which often happens in traditional war movies.

The director claims its purpose is to shed light – for the benefit of a global audience – on what happened in order to bring home to people the suffering of war so as to ensure it will never be forgotten or allowed to be repeated. Another aim is to remind as many people as possible that this act of genocide against huge numbers of unarmed, half starving people abandoned by the UN took place in the heart of Europe (a 40-minute flight from Vienna and less than two hours from Berlin) and in front of European eyes after all the post-Second World War cries of “never again”. It is also designed to counter the denials – continuing to this day – by Serbs both in Serbia and in Bosnia itself that the atrocity really happened at all.

It is well known that historically the Balkans has been a region of political instability and turmoil. It has been dominated by nationalism and it came as no surprise that Yugoslavia split up into its constituent parts after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the end of the Cold War, to the extent that by 1992 it no longer existed as a country and war erupted.

By then, the Yugoslav republics of Slovenia and Croatia had sought greater autonomy from the Yugoslav federation and were recognised by Germany while another republic, Bosnia and Herzegovina, which was predominantly Muslim, also declared independence. This was resisted by neighbouring Serbia and led to the Bosnian war.

The EU considered the way to ensure peace in the region was to recognise the independence of these new republics while the US chose to support a stable federation. But Brussels declined to intervene diplomatically or militarily to stop the killing – apart from an arms embargo in 1993 – and historians now say the disintegration of Yugoslavia was bottom of the then European Community’s list of priorities (the EU was not created until 1993).

Nor did Britain want to become involved even though this violent crisis was happening within the borders of the European Community and NATO. Meanwhile, the UN placed troops on the ground but tried to remain neutral in a politically fraught situation. In such circumstances, those same historians suggest the path embarked upon by the rest of Europe in 1991 reached its inevitable destination on 11 July, 1995 in Srebrenica. The situation overall was not resolved until the Americans stepped in. The NATO bombing of the Serbs – including of Belgrade itself – followed, and the US-brokered Dayton Accords ended the war later that year.

The failure of the international community, and specifically the EU, to take any real action at an early stage in relation to events in Bosnia and the wider Yugoslavia was considered by many to be shocking and discreditable. Srebrenica was seen as a day of darkness when Europe betrayed its own values. With the benefit of hindsight, perhaps, it is now claimed that at the beginning European leaders could have brought together Yugoslavia’s constituent republics and told them directly that war on the continent of Europe would not be tolerated and that they must figure out how to reconfigure the territory of Yugoslavia peacefully. It was thought this might have worked since the then President of the European Commission, Jacques Delors, said at the time the European Community was already perceived as a major power – not just an economic one – which had teeth and could impose its will.

It is ironic the EU is now saying Bosnia and Herzegovina is a part of common European history and the future of the country and the whole of the western Balkans lies in the EU. It is seeking Bosnia’s agreement to follow the European idea and road to development and to promote reconciliation, dialogue and co-operation. That all sounds fine, but the sad fact is the EU failed to stand up and be counted when it mattered most – and it must, indirectly, share the blame and shame for the terrible events in Srebrenica a quarter of a century ago.

GOLDEN SUPER STARS AT OLYMPICS

After offering in last week’s column best wishes to Team Bahamas for the then upcoming Olympics track and field events, what a pleasure it is today to write about the outstanding achievements of Steven Gardiner and Shaunae Miller-Uibo in winning gold medals in their respective 400 metre events, thus giving The Bahamas a clean sweep of the men’s and women’s 400s – a truly impressive accomplishment by any standards.

As the reigning world champion since 2019, Steven Gardiner in his race pulled away from the rest of the field with 150m to go and secured a famous victory. All Bahamians will surely salute him for his magnificent effort.

Then, on Friday, came Shaunae Miller-Uibo’s success in retaining her 400m Olympic title from the 2016 Games in Rio de Janeiro. After her earlier hamstring scare, how satisfying it was for her countless admirers and supporters to see her striding to a comfortable victory ahead of a field that included the famous American athlete, Allyson Felix, who has become the most decorated female track and field star in Olympic history – and then the icing on the cake was that Shaunae also broke her own Bahamas national record.

With their superb victories, both these top-class Bahamian athletes have made their country proud!

LEADING BY EXAMPLE - I THINK NOT

According to reports, the current wildfires in Greece have created an unprecedented situation with damage and destruction happening by the minute. Following the country’s worst heatwave and drought in three decades, strong scorching winds have also contributed to the conditions for forest fires that have created a nightmare summer as the inferno rages out of control. This has forced the evacuation of thousands of people amid widespread devastation.

These fires together with others in Turkey and in countries in southern Europe like Italy which have been experiencing heatwaves and droughts – as well as California which is suffering from what is reportedly the sixth largest fire in its history – are said to be tied to climate change and global warming.

That is hardly surprising, with scientists saying July was the worst month on record for wildfires around the world – and the new report by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published yesterday contains what has been termed the starkest warning yet about the future while the world is hit by record heatwaves, wildfires and flooding.

With all this at the top of the world’s news agenda, those concerned will be looking forward with eager anticipation to the climate summit meeting called COP26 in Glasgow in Scotland during November. At that gathering world leaders will try to agree measures to slash carbon emissions and thereby delay or even halt the threat posed by climate change and global warming.

The UK will want to show itself as a world leader in the climate change fight and emphasise Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s declared commitment and drive to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050. But, against this background, it is unfortunate the minister whom he appointed to run COP26, Alok Sharma, has been widely criticised in the UK media for jetting around the world in order to prepare for the summit. Reportedly, he visited some 30 countries without quarantining or isolating on return in accordance with COVID-19 rules.

The accusation is that in this coronavirus crisis there is “one rule for us and another for the privileged few”. But the answer is, of course, that, since he has been conducting official business, he comes under the exemptions for Crown servants, without which it would become all but impossible generally to conduct government business overseas.

Nonetheless, the optics are not good. What is more, there is a certain irony in excessive air travel around the world – thereby creating an unnecessary carbon footprint – by a government minister to talk about climate change.

In response to the media outcry, Mr Sharma claims he has regular virtual meetings via Zoom but that personal relationships are important in trying to build consensus in deciding the COP26 agenda and bringing pressure on other countries to commit to reducing carbon emissions. However, apparently some people are doubtful about this ex post facto justification of such travel during the pandemic and about the usefulness of these brief visits when there are ambassadors – and high commissioners in Commonwealth countries – in the field able to fulfil such a function.

The countries concerned will be well aware that British diplomats are carrying out instructions from London so they have the authority and credibility to engage in a regular dialogue with the leaders concerned – and they can provide the necessary continuity during the run-up to the November summit in persuading and cajoling countries that are dragging their feet on carbon emissions.

So Mr Sharma is under fire on both fronts. Without knowing the details, it is hard to comment with any certainty. But jetting around the world in such a manner opens the government to unwanted criticism. Perhaps the minister’s staff could have handled this issue with greater care. As public relations people invariably say – it’s not what actually happens that is important but what people think happens. So, how things are presented makes a huge difference.