One of the abiding mysteries of the Srebrenica controversy is the seemingly colossal failure of the institutions investigating it, most notably the Hague Tribunal (ICTY), to make good use of about 300 Dutch peace-keepers who were stationed in the enclave at the time of its fall on July 11, 1995. They were the closest thing to neutral observers between the time when Serbian forces took over Srebrenica and Dutchbat’s departure from the zone 10 days later. ICTY’s failure to hear evidence from a broad cross section of Dutch military personnel seriously detracts from the legitimacy of its proceedings and conclusions ultimately drawn. Curiously, the Dutch Defense Ministry did two things almost immediately after Srebrenica. First, in October 1995 they required all Dutchbat members to fill out a detailed questionnaire about what they saw and experienced. Neither the questionnaire nor the responses were ever made public, but the Ministry published a report containing its own synthesis of their statements and observations. The full text of that report, also known as the Debriefing, is at the end of this posting and may be downloaded. Although this carefully crafted synthesis is plainly edited to conform to the then emerging Srebrenica narrative, it contains many useful affirmations that would fall in the rubric of “admissions against interest.” Secondly, the Ministry forbade Dutch military personnel to give interviews and/or make any public statements on the subject of Srebrenica. That meant in practice that they would be risking their pensions and benefits if they violated the ban. The Ministry granted exemptions to only a handful Dutch military personnel to testify at the Hague, after they were meticulously prepared by the prosecution. One of them was the deputy Dutchbat commander, Maj. Franken, who apparently had agreed to testify as expected. (Significantly, his superior and Dutchbat commander, Col. Thom Karremans, was never called to give comprehensive evidence of his observations and testified briefly only once, in the Blagojević and Jokić trial on a matter unrelated to the central issues.)This group of four Dutch soldiers, out of a cohort of 300, were constantly recurring witnesses in all Srebrenica trials. No one else but they was ever called or allowed to testify. That is a remarkably small sample out of a potential pool of about 300 Dutch witnesses positioned all over the Srebrenica enclave, who undoubtedly would have had extremely pertinent things to say.
That is why George Pumphrey’s cogent analysis of the observations, in the immediate aftermath of the event, before the lid was clamped, made by some of the other Dutch witnesses is of such remarkable historical interest.
QUOTE 1: Private Yonah was one of 310 Dutch troops evacuated ignominiously from Srebrenica last week after the town’s Muslim defenders left, and the Dutch contingent had neither the guns, the numbers, the will nor the orders to keep the “safe haven” safe. (…)
Most of the Bosnian Muslim men of fighting age left town before the Serbs arrived, he said. As the Muslims left, they were crying, and the children were crying and the wives and mothers were crying, he said, adding, “How do you feel when your father goes away?” Even the peacekeepers watching had tears in their eyes, he said.
After Srebrenica’s fall, he said as if recounting a barroom tale, he came across a small house with 20 or so Muslim men huddled together. There was shooting in other houses, and looting, and the Serbs were rounding up men of military age.
“I said, ‘You must get out and go to the other people or you’ll be shot if you stay. So some of them moved. And one man, he must have been 80, he just died. Right there.’ “
COMMENT: Had there been mass murder been taking place, Private Yonah would have told of other episodes.
SOURCE: Alan Cowell, “A Dutch Soldier Looks Back In Sadness and Frustration,” NY Times: July 25, 1995, http://www.nytimes.com/1995/07/25/world/conflict-balkans-peacekeepers-dutch-soldier-looks-back-sadness-frustration.html
QUOTE 2: Dutch peacekeeping troops evacuated from Srebrenica (…) say that Bosnian Serbian invaders executed at least 10 Muslim defenders and abducted from 150 ‑ 300 men aged 16 ‑ 60.
(…) Lieutenant Gen. Hans Couzy, the commander‑in chief of Dutch ground forces, said Dutch troops had witnessed no incidents of rape and were aware of only limited incidents that could be labeled war crimes.
But the Dutch officers acknowledged that, with the Bosnian Serbs restricting their movements and stealing their vehicles, they may have gleaned only a limited picture of what really happened.
The commanders of Dutch forces who were permitted to leave the town last week depicted its Muslim defenders as leaderless soldiers who fled their posts in droves, abandoning their families, and fought among themselves.
The accounts of the Dutch, who arrived over the weekend, given during a series of interviews and news conferences, suggested that the killing they had seen had been more limited than refugees had described.
(…) The Dutch accounts, by soldiers, officers and the defense minister, were unanimous in asserting that the Bosnian Muslim soldiers who had been under siege in Srebrenica for 3 years abandoned the town about 2 days before it fell.
COMMENTS: Summary executions are a war crime. But 10 executions do not look like the genocide that the Muslims and Americans are trying to pin on the Serbs.
And the “abduction” of the 150 ‑ 300 would have been called the “capture of prisoners of war,” had the prisoners been Serbs rather than Muslims. “Abduction” simply sounds more sinister.
Even though the Dutch soldiers were “limited” in what they could see, they would certainly have known the difference between the execution of 10 and that of 7,000 – 8,000 as the Muslims and Americans claim. Alone the powder smoke from that much gunfire would have blacked out the sun for a good distance, and the stench of gunpowder would have been discernable. Their picture may have been “limited” as one (the Dutch) would admit out of sheer honesty but what they had seen had been much more than what the American “human rights” ass. sec. of state claims to find as evidence ‑ months later, without even turning a rock.
Completely overlooked is the fact that the largest portion of the Muslim ‘Handzar’ troops had fled the enclave before the Serb forces even entered. (These are the bulk of the presumed “executed of Srebrenica.” In other words, the Serbs had not even encountered them in Srebrenica.) Numerous bona fide western journals (NY Times, Times, Washington Post) covered their safe reentry behind Muslim lines – albeit, before the order was given to run the “massacre” line.
“Attention!,” one reads at French railroad crossings, “one train may hide another.” The first step toward genocide is the dehumanization of a people in the public minds, in order to make the violation of that people’s human rights appear “justifiable“. The first of these rights is the right to life! The bogus claims of “genocide” against the Serbs could be the prelude to genocide on the Serbs. All this talk of “genocide” also helps to make genocide an option, even if “only” as retribution for “other genocides” real or imagined. (In any case the logical conclusion to a conflict defined as an “ethnic conflict” is either ethnic cleansing – the banishment of a people from the coveted territory –or genocide.)
SOURCE: Alan Cowell, “Dutch Cite Limited Abuse,” NYT / IHT, July 25, 1995, http://www.nytimes.com/1995/07/24/world/conflict-balkans-refugees-peacekeepers-fallen-enclave-confirm-some-atrocities.html
QUOTE 3: Public anger over the failure of Dutch soldiers to protect civilians in Srebrenica was increased by a series of statements from Dutch commanders in the days after the Bosnian Serb takeover.
On July 17, as Dutch peacekeepers were preparing to leave Srebrenica, one of their senior officers, Maj. Robert Franken, signed an agreement with Bosnian Serbs certifying that “the evacuation was carried out by the Serb side correctly.”
Later that week, as the peacekeepers were arriving in Zagreb, Croatia, the commander of Dutch ground forces, Lieut. Gen. Hans Couzy, who had flown from Amsterdam to meet them, said he knew of no evidence suggesting that Bosnian Serbs in Srebrenica had committed crimes akin to genocide.
At a news conference the following next day in Zagreb, Lieut. Col. Ton Karremans, who had commanded the Dutch battalion in Srebrenica, asserted that the Bosnian Serbs’ “militarily correct operation” had been carried out “in the right way.” Before leaving Srebrenica, Colonel Karremans was photographed, glass in hand, with General Mladic.
These statements sparked heated debate in the Dutch Parliament, [in The Hague, where they know what is politically correct and opportune] and in August the Defense Ministry opened an official inquiry into events surrounding the fall of Srebrenica. A report is expected later this month, and senior Defense Ministry officials as well as officers who served in Srebrenica are refusing to comment publicly until then.
COMMENT: The Dutchbat soldiers knew nothing of either a “bottom propaganda line” nor had they witnessed a massacre of Muslims. They had witnessed isolated summary executions – according to press accounts 10 in all. (But that they probabaly had also witnessed among the Muslims themselves.) In their statements, they did not speculate, like politicians, they simply stuck to what they concretely saw. And their observations were credible.
However, given the fact that a “massacre” in Srebrenica had been planned already 1½ years earlier – by the US and their Muslim vassals – these actual on-site Dutchbat EYEwitness accounts would have to be discredited.
A “bottom line” had been drawn separating the truth from “the declared truth” long before Gen. Mladic and his forces sauntered into Srebrenica. The latter had to be established as the sole narrative on the subject.
Were there a doubt about the Dutch allegence to the USA, the Dutch handling of the downing of the MH 17 should clear clarify it.
Thd fundamental purpose of this article in the NY Times / International Herald Tribune was to discredit the EYEwitness reports of the Dutchbat soldiers, so that the “Massacre” hoax can seem more credible.
I read the last paragraph as saying “before any more damage is done by the truth told by these eye witnesses, they must be given a gag order. Now let us see what line comes out of the inquiry that the ministry is making.
SOURCE: Stephen Kinzer, Dutch Conscience Stung By Troops’ Bosnia Failure, NY Times: October 8, 1995, http://www.nytimes.com/1995/10/08/world/dutch-conscience-stung-by-troops-bosnia-failure.html
* * *
TOPIC: “Spin Doctors” discredit Dutchbat Eyewitness testimonies
COMMENT: When he goes to accompany his troops home, the Dutch Defense Minister is already making public statements in support of the refugees’ rumors and discrediting – and even nullifying – his troops’ eyewitness observations.
QUOTE 1: “We don’t know what happened where we didn’t have eyes and ears,” said the Dutch Defense Minister, Joris Voorhoeve. (…)
But the Dutch Defense Minister, who came to Zagreb to accompany the 310 Dutch soldiers home, insisted that the officers’ version did not minimize the possibility that atrocities had been committed.
“If only two-thirds of the refugee accounts are true, this adds up to horrible events,” Mr. Voorhoeve told reporters.
“What we do know is that several thousand men and boys are missing” since the city fell, he said.
“What we do know is that several thousand men and boys are missing” since the city fell, he said.
COMMENT: It goes without saying that one does not know “what happened where we didn’t have eyes and ears.” This is a first hint – “maybe they did not see what REALLY happened.” To then – in Zagreb – declare that the fact that the eyewitnesses did not witness it, does not mean that it did not happen on their watch. (So they were all sleeping on the job?)
Then he goes on to say that “if only two-thirds of the refugee accounts are true,” Who are the refugees? They were transported out to the Muslim lines – safely, without incident – BEFORE the alleged executions were supposed to have BEGUN. So how are they to know in Tuzla, what had not happened in Srebrenica?
He then rounds it off saying that “several thousand men and boys are missing.” This strongly indicates a conspiracy, especially when one considers that Voorhoeve makes this statement on July 20. On July 18, just two days prior, the NY Times jubilantly announced that “Some 3,000 to 4,000 Bosnian Muslims who were considered by UN officials to be missing after the fall of Srebrenica have made their way through enemy lines to Bosnian government territory. The group, which included wounded refugees, sneaked past Serb lines under fire and crossed some 30 miles through forests to safety.”9)
NATO circles saw the Dutchbats’ credibility as the primary stumbling block to putting over such a major hoax. The continued existance of NATO – under US leadership – and for “out of area” exploits, as a “peacekeeping” or “peace enforcing” military power, “humanitarian” ventures in the name of “human rights” with a “judicial” fig leaf legitimacy. The US/NATO had been preparing this hoax for more than two years. Dutch officials had to be onboard, and they were even before Serbs took over the enclave.
SOURCE: Alan Cowell, Peacekeepers at Fallen Enclave Confirm Some Atrocities but Say They Saw No Rapes, NY Times: July 24, 1995, http://www.nytimes.com/1995/07/24/world/conflict-balkans-refugees-peacekeepers-fallen-enclave-confirm-some-atrocities.html
QUOTE 2: There were numerous reports from Dutch soldiers in the United Nations force and from refugees saying that the Bosnian Serbs who captured Srebrenica two weeks ago executed unarmed civilians and raped women. About 7,000 people believed to be in Srebrenica when it fell on July 11 are unaccounted for.
COMMENT: This is what the NY Times published in Chris Hedges’ article two days after the Dutchbat left Bosnia. The Dutchbat denied witnessing or knowledge of large-scale killings in Srebrenica. The article uses the the old trick of attributing an affirmation to 2 subjects, without saying which subject is meant. The “refugees” COULD NOT have seen killings because even if they had taken place, they allegedly had not yet begun, and the Dutch DID NOT see any. This propaganda peddles refugees’ rumors, insinuating the Dutchbat had given confirmation for credibility. This is but 4 days after the same journal – the NY Times – had reported on the thousands of Muslim soldiers who crossed Muslim lines to safety.
SOURCE: Chris Hedges, ‘Safe’ Town In Bosnia Falls To Serbs, The New York Times, Wednesday Jul 26, 1995, http://www.nytimes.com/1995/07/26/world/conflict-in-the-balkans-the-fighting-safe-town-in-bosnia-falls-to-serbs.html
QUOTE 3: Many people in the Netherlands, however, say they believe that the peacekeepers could have done more to prevent the expulsions, rapes and killings that witnesses[?] and human rights workers say followed the takeover. Their failure to do so has stung the national conscience. (…)
Dutch politicians [sitting in The Hague!] are wondering aloud if a tougher Dutch line might have saved civilian lives in Srebrenica. They have suggested that Dutch officers, anxious to avoid casualties in their ranks, allowed honor to give way to expedience by minimizing or overlooking the atrocities being committed around them. [They should talk. They show a greater allegiance to the USA/NATO than to their own soldiers on the battlefield.]
“There is a widespread sense of national shame over the Srebrenica episode,” said Fred van Staden, director of the Netherlands Institute of International Relations and a senior adviser to the Defense and Foreign Affairs Ministries. (…)
Public anger over the failure of Dutch soldiers to protect civilians[? the Handzar are supposed to be ‘civilians’?] in Srebrenica was increased by a series of statements from Dutch commanders in the days after the Bosnian Serb takeover. (…) [see the above eyewitness declarations ]
These statements sparked heated debate in the Dutch Parliament, [Of course the politians in The Hague would know what is politically correct and opportune better than the eyewitnesses on the ground] and in August the Defense Ministry opened an official inquiry into events surrounding the fall of Srebrenica. A report is expected later this month, and senior Defense Ministry officials as well as officers who served in Srebrenica are refusing to comment publicly until then.
Few others are so reluctant. Dutch newspapers have been filled with commentaries and letters about the Srebrenica debacle, many conveying anger. or outrage. Some critics are questioning not only the conduct of the Dutch battalion in Srebrenica, but also the relevance of Holland’s the Netherlands’ traditionally peaceful, consensus-oriented approach to world affairs. (…) [In other words, “hippie Holland” is now going to “rethink” its non-militaristic approach to international politics.]
[COMMENT: This “spin doctor” pushes the cheap ‘follow the crowd’ reasoning – because an untold number of people in far away Netherlands are condemning the Dutchbat, on the basis of speculation, everyone else should follow suit. A friend of mine calls this the “‘fly proof’ method” which reasons: “100 billion flies can’t be all wrong, eat shit!” It could also be called by its more recent name, the “google method.”]
Quote cont.: Mr. Kreemers, the Defense Ministry spokesman, defended the performance of Dutch peacekeepers. He said that the United Nations had not given them orders to prevent Bosnian Serbs from taking Srebrenica, and that in any case the Dutch did not have enough arms or troops to do so. (…)
“Did the Dutch stand by and do nothing?” Mr. Kreemers asked. “No, they didn’t. There was no way they could do anything against the overwhelming superiority of the Bosnian Serbs.”
“We should keep in mind that this was a U.N. mission,” he added. “The responsibility for the failure rests with the U.N. and its member states. The Netherlands is one of those member states, so we don’t flee from the responsibility we have. But we are not the sole or only one responsible.”
“We are very, very sorry that we couldn’t do anything for the thousands of men who were killed or are in detention camps,” he said. “But we have to conclude that the troops were given a task that could not be performed with the means they had.” (…) [He acquiests to speculation, but at least he puts up a defense based on facts.]
Mr. Kreemers confirmed that some Dutch peacekeepers were uncomfortable with the Bosnian Muslim authorities in Srebrenica, but attributed their ill feelings to the structure of the leadership there.
“Imagine an 18- or 19-year-old Dutch soldier going to what he thinks is a very poor group of Muslims,” Mr. Kreemers said. “When you get there, you see two groups. One group has all the power and money, with a leader who lives in a fancy villa and drives a Mercedes. They are freed from any duty to work, and they do nothing for the poor majority. This picture entered the minds of the Dutch soldiers, and they started to dislike the upper elite in the enclave. But I don’t believe there was an anti-Muslim attitude.” [Srebrenica had deliberately NEVER been demilitarized. See “Fearsome Muslim warlord eludes Bosnian Serb forces,” http://gatesofvienna.net/2011/06/from-our-archives-the-forgotten-story-of-nasir-orics-greatest-hits/]
COMMENT: It seems that Mr. Kreemers is the only person in the Defense ministry showing a modicum of allegiance to the Dutch soldiers sent out on the mission. He makes allusion to the fact that the Dutchbat – in fact all of the peace-keeping units were undermanned and under equipped. [One soldier explained: “We couldn’t do anything. Each one of us had just 10 rounds of ammunition,” (http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refdaily?pass=52fc6fbd5&id=559cbcab5)] This was a deliberate Sec. Council decision of the NATO members, with the objective of showing up UN peacekeeping missions as toothless “in face of brutal tyrrants.” NATO wanted the job for itself. This is one of the reasons why a (media-) “massacre” had been programmed for Srebrenica already two years earlier – without the Serbs being “in on the deal.”
SOURCE: Stephen Kinzer, Dutch Conscience Stung By Troops’ Bosnia Failure, NY Times: October 8, 1995, http://www.nytimes.com/1995/10/08/world/dutch-conscience-stung-by-troops-bosnia-failure.html
QUOTE 4: Dutch Report Clears Troops In Fiasco At Bosnian Town
THE HAGUE, Oct. 30 — After conducting an exhaustive review of the United Nations mission that failed to protect the Bosnian town of Srebrenica in July, the Dutch Defense Minister said today that the small band of Dutch peacekeepers entrusted with policing the town could not have prevented the slaughter of civilians that took place there.
COMMENT: That a “slaughter of civilians” had taken place is already a foregone conclusion. In spite of the fact that the Dutch eyewitnesses to what took place in Srebrenica, say they never witnessed the kind of slaughter being implied here
QUOTE 4 (cont.): While the Dutch contingent made some mistakes, the investigation found, the larger blame belonged to the United Nations and NATO, which created an ostensible sanctuary and then abandoned it.
As a result, Defense Minister Joris Voorhoeve said, about 5,000 Muslim civilians are missing, most of them probably executed by Bosnian Serb fighters in what may have been the largest mass killing in Europe since the Nazi era.
COMMENT: Note that Voorhoeve is still quoting Clinton’s 1993 “5,000” figure from his original plan. The NY Times’ “8,000” number was only conjured up two weeks later – on September 15, 1995 – becoming the new “bottom line” figure for NATO propaganda.
QUOTE 4 (cont.): ‘Responsibility must be shared by all member states,’ Mr. Voorhoeve said in a 22-page letter to Parliament. ‘They did not provide the 34,000 military personnel originally envisaged for the safe areas. Even the 7,600 men for the light option chosen later out of sheer necessity were not forthcoming.’ (…)
‘An organization like NATO is much more capable of carrying out a difficult mission like this than an organization like the United Nations,’ he added. (…)
Mr. Voorhoeve said that if NATO sends troops to Bosnia to enforce a possible peace accord, it should not expect to complete its operation within a year. He also advised NATO commanders to be ready to use force, particularly against the Bosnian Serbs.
‘They do not respect agreements for legal or moral reasons,’ he said. ‘They respect them if they see a convincing amount of military power that will punish them if they don’t.’
COMMENT: Voorhoeve makes an oblique criticism of the way in which the Blue Helmet mission had be sabotaged in the UN by the US and its NATO allies, who had refused to allow any more than a token force, so that they could not effectively carry out the job of a buffer force. (If I remember correctly, Boutros Ghali had also criticized this in his report – which put him on Clinton’s “hit list”.
He was reading from his script when he said: ‘An organization like NATO is much more capable of carrying out a difficult mission like this than an organization like the United Nations.’ This is what the whole hoax is about. NATO is supposed to replace the United Nations peacekeeping missions with NATO-defined policies – with or without UN agreement. This is evident by the post-Srebrenica developments in world politics.
To eliminate all suspicions of the “Hippies from Holland” troops, Voorhoeve takes a very bellicose stand toward Serbs. He is well aware that if/when one excludes the possibility to reason with the adversary he must be vanquished on the battlefield. This is a hint of full Dutch military support for the new NATO engagement against THE Serbs.
QUOTE 4 (cont.): Mr. Voorhoeve criticized senior Dutch officers for saying soon after the Srebrenica operation that they had seen no evidence of genocide and that the Bosnian Serbs’ conduct had been ‘militarily correct.’
He also disassociated himself from an agreement signed by a senior Dutch officer certifying that ‘the evacuation was carried out by the Serb side correctly.’ Legal experts have expressed fear that this document could be used in defense of Bosnian Serbs who might someday be charged with war crimes in connection with the Srebrenica killings.
‘The document is null and void and incorrect, so it cannot play a propaganda role or a legal role,’ Mr. Voorhoeve asserted.
Today’s report also outlined the Dutch evidence that Bosnian Serbs killed thousands of Muslim civilians around Srebrenica between July 11 and 15.
Peacekeepers reported seeing evidence of scores of rapes and killings in Srebrenica and in nearby Potocari, where the Dutch battalion had its headquarters. Several also witnessed executions, or saw groups of Muslims marched into buildings and then heard gunshots.
Most of the victims, however, appear to have been killed later, after being driven away in trucks and buses. Peacekeepers said that during this period, roads leading away from Srebrenica were littered with bodies. They reported seeing hundreds, together with pyres on which the remains were being burned.
COMMENT: After the gag-order was imposed on the Dutchbat, the Dutch Defense Ministry could fully toe NATO’s “massacre” hoax line without being contradicted. The Dutch ministry’s version becomes the first “official” document from the “Blue Helmet UNPROFOR troops – “eyewitnesses” – to what happened in Srebrenica when Serbs took the enclave. Now media and Scholars will now have something “official” to quote from, who gives a damn about TRUTH. Neither journalists nor scholars are going to go back upstream to first-source originals.
The first-source declaration that ‘the evacuation was carried out by the Serb side correctly’ signed by the eyewitness and senior officer of the military unit on-site, has been declared “null and void and incorrect” by a politician, who, at the time, was nearly 1,800km away. One should question the politician’s motivation. There has been much speculation about the officer’s behavior at the time, particularly by those who have little to show in terms of integrity and courage. But no one raises the question why that politician would publicly accuse the officer of “lying.”
One answer could be that the minister felt more obliged to NATO perogatives than to his troops, whose eyewitness statements testifying to an absence of “genocide,” had to cede to a higher calling. All of the – on-site – statements had to cede to NATO perogative.
Of course. The minister – clinging to his stool in The Hague or reaching for one even higher in Brussels or even New York – had to confirm a massive slaughter, “5,000,” had to become the official Dutch political position – regardless of the truth.
The article claims that the report “outlined Dutch evidence (sic) that Bosnian Serbs killed thousands of Muslim civilians around Srebrenica.” It also claims that “Peacekeepers reported seeing evidence of scores of rapes and killings in Srebrenica and in nearby Potocari, where the Dutch battalion had its headquarters.”
Which “peacekeepers” are they referring to? The Dutchbat saw no evidence of rapes Relying on previous NATO propaganda, there is no mention of rapes of whom by whom, nor when – before the Serbs entered or after the Serbs entered Srebrenica. The full title of the Cowell article (Quote 2) is “Peacekeepers at Fallen Enclave Confirm Some Atrocities but Say They Saw No Rapes.” So the rapes being referred to here must be those previous to the entry of Serb troops. (See the case of Vehida Dedic, to have an idea of the social conditions reigning in Nasir Oric’s Srebrenica http://www.balkanpeace.org/index.php?index=/content/balkans/bosnia/oric/oric03.incl)
Since NATO propaganda’s hype over rape, it is precluded that any mention of rape, will be taken to mean by “Serb rapists.”
They “admit” that “most of the victims, however, appear to have been killed later, after being driven away in trucks and buses.” This is in fact confirmation of Dutchbat eyewitness accounts. The Dutchbat – as Voorhoeve said “We don’t know what happened where we didn’t have eyes and ears.” If this is the case, why was it necessary to conspicuously call the Dutchbat liars? The only conceivable answer is to be able to lend credibility to the propaganda/rumors of the evacuated refugees, who, again, by all accounts, had been evacuated before any executions could have taken place. If the Dutchbat cannot know what happened where they were not present, why should the refugees – under possible government pressure and out of fear – be more credible in their massacre claims. At least the Dutchbat were longer on the scene than the refugees evacuated to Tuzla on July 12had been.
do that meaning out of sight of the eyewitnesses – which also means out of sight of the refugees, since they were “correctly” evacuated BEFORE the Dutchbat had left for home. Who, then, are the “peacekeepers” they made refererence to.
Given the total reversal of facts in this report, it should be no surprise that the NIOD final document would simply be a documentation of truths, half-truths, speculation and falsifications duded up in a “scolarly” fashion to become the leading document to be quoted by the “lerned,” ignorant of facts and those too disinterested to dig deeper.
SOURCE: Stephen Kinzer, Dutch Report Clears Troops In Fiasco At Bosnian Town, The New York Times, Tuesday Oct 31, 1995 Sec: A Foreign Desk p: 8, http://www.nytimes.com/1995/10/31/world/dutch-report-clears-troops-in-fiasco-at-bosnian-town.html
* * *
NIOD Institute for War, Holocaust and Genocide Studies Report:
“Srebrenica – Reconstruction, background, consequences and analyses of the fall of a ‘safe’ area”
PRELIMINARY COMMENT: Following the Defense Department’s inquiry into the events around Srebrenica and the Dutchbat’s role, the NIOD Institute for War, Holocaust and Genocide Studies published the report “Srebrenica. A ‘safe’ Area – Reconstruction, Background, Consequences and Analyses of the Fall of a Safe Area” on 10 April 2002. Relying on the disavowal of the Dutchbat’s eyewitness observations in the Defense Ministry’s earlier “inquiry” and report, the NIOD relies almost entirely on propaganca, speculations and “i-witness” (hearsay) “evidence” to engage in its own speculations.
The instute’s study is a classic example of “trying to drown a fish.” This document of 3875 pages dedicates 39 pages to “mass execution,” the original reason for the study. “The executions” begins in Chapter 2 of Part IV (pages 1952 – 1991).
Throughout the other preceding 1951 pages, it is considered a foregone conclusion that mass executions had taken place, so all that has to be done in these few pages is speculate about how many victims there were. They must speculate, because they rely on ICTY testimony, which has no concrete proof to confirm what was told, the ICTY has still not produced the bodies with the forensic evidence of executions showing that the indictments are based on actual crimes, rather than political calculation.
NIOD’s main sources are of particular importance because it has been demonstrated that they are primarily pro-Muslim/pro-NATO propaganda sources. See comments below.
QUOTE 5: The criminal investigation served a purpose quite different to that of this historical survey. Nevertheless, the reconstruction made for the Tribunal is of great value given the paucity of other sources of information. In particular, the NIOD has been able to make good use of the information which emerged during the trial of VRS General Radislav Krstic, Chief of Staff and, after 13 July 1995, Commander of the Drina Corps. (…) Much of what follows here is derived from the Krstic trial report. (…) (pg. 1953)
COMMENT: The ICTY was set up as an instrument to justify NATO’s war on THE Serbs (Bosnian, Croat, and Yugoslav.) The ICTY has never made any attempt to hide its lack of fairness in its proceedings. (It should come as no surprise that a judge who had served in conditions of South African apartheid would be called upon to be one of its primary founding fathers. It – and the other instruments of the “international tribunal movement” (including the special tribunals for Rwanda, and Lebanon, Special Court for Sierra Leone, the International Criminal Court, etc) – all have the function to serve as PR advance troops to prepare public opinion for aggression in one form or another against particular countries.
The Krstic trial and verdict is particularly indicative of the non-judicial standards of this organism pretending to be a court of law.
General Radislav Krstic entered Srebrenica July 11, 1995 with the Serb contingent, but he was in command of troops who had left Srebrenica and continued on to take Zepa, another nearby Muslim enclave, at the time the mass executions were allegedly taking place in Srebrenica. So he was physically not even at the scene of the alleged crime. Within days Serb troops also had Zepa under their control.
The New York Times recounts how the takeover took place:
“The wounded troops were left behind, and when the Bosnian Serbs overran the town on Tuesday, the wounded were taken to Sarajevo for treatment at Kosevo Hospital. Many of them had begun their journey in Srebrenica, and fled into the hills when that ‘safe area’ fell to the Bosnian Serbs on July 11. These men did not make it to Tuzla, where most of the refugees ended up, but became the defenders of Zepa instead. ‘Some 350 of us managed to fight our way out of Srebrenica and make it into Zepa,’ said Sadik Ahmetovic, one of 151 people evacuated to Sarajevo for treatment today. (…) They said they had not been mistreated by their Serb captors.15)“
It might seem strange that the Muslim soldiers of Zepa would abandon their wounded comrades and that 5,000 Srebrenica soldiers would abandon their women and children to an enemy with a reputation – at least in the media – of being sadists, and rapists seeking to commit “genocide“. Could it be that these Muslim soldiers knew that they need not be particularly worried about their women, children and wounded comrades falling into the hands of their Serb countrymen? The Serb forces had the wounded Muslim soldiers evacuated behind Muslim lines to their Muslim hospital in Sarajevo. Is this how one goes about committing genocide? Is this the military force compared to Nazis? What a trivialization of Nazi barbarism! Even the fact that the Serbs provided safe passage to women and children is interpreted as sinister, when it is proof that “genocide” was not happening.
The NY Times (August 3, 2001) explains that Gen. Krstic was convicted “of genocide (…) for his role in the massacre of more than 7,000 Muslims by Bosnian Serbs at the town of Srebrenica in July 1995. It was the first ruling of genocide in Europe handed down by an international tribunal.” The Times article also indicates “Tribunal investigators have exhumed 2,028 bodies from mass graves in the region. An additional 2,500 bodies have been located.”1 In other words, the ICTY did not even have evidence that the crime he was being charged with – the massacre of more than 7,000 Muslims – had ever taken place. In spite of this fact, and in spite of the fact that Gen. Krstic was not even at the scene of the alleged crime, Gen. Krstic was sentenced to 46 years in prison, 4.6 times the sentence of Admiral Karl Doenitz, Adolf Hitler’s successor (10 yrs.), and 2.3 times the sentence of Albert Speer (20 yrs.), head architect of the Nazi’s.
Gen. Krstic was explicitly found guilty of “genocide” not on the basis of the “UN Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide” but on the basis of the ICTY’s own statutes – whose “Article 4” is the verbatim text of the UN Convention, but unlike the Convention, can be interpreted at whim because it is not bound to the negotiated and internationally accepted definitions of the Convention’s terminology.
QUOTE 5 cont.: In some cases, the NIOD was also able to speak directly to survivors of the mass executions or could rely on the work conducted in 1995 by the organization Human Rights Watch. (…) (pg. 1953)
COMMENT: HRW (originally “Helsinki Watch Committee”) became a semi-official instrument of the West’s in opposition to application of the Helsinki Final Act. To have the CIA continue to foment sedition in the socialist block countries could be embarrassing, so a “civi society” sounding organization was needed to do what the CIA had been doing. The task was the same foment sedition in socialist countries.
Unlike Amnesty International, which campaigned for pressure to be applied to the governments of the targeted countries to change their policies, HRW became the first “N”GO network openly calling for “humanitarian foreign intervention” in the name of “human rights.”
HRW funneled finances and provided guidance to national “Helsinki Watch Committees” indicating which themes propaganda campaigns should be launched. These would then be picked up by western media and foreign “human rights” networks denouncing “human rights” violations in those targeted countries. HRW also – like Amnesty International – took the side of the aggressor, furnishing unverified, embellished, or bogus stories of atrocities as PR support justifying western military “humanitarian” intervention. Tales surrounding Srebrenica are no exception.
Journalists are often sent to report on (bogus) HRW allegations. This exposure helps prejudice the public against the targeted group, even when proven to be falsely accused.
QUOTE 5 cont.: The most striking examples are Alexandra Stiglmayer (for Time and The Boston Globe) and (…) (pg. 1953)
Stiglmayer played a very important role in mobilizing women with false reporting of brutality against women. This is a spin-off effect of the “international tribunal movement.” Since Bosnia, the Nuremberg ruling that crimes against peace – or wars of aggression – are the primary crimes, setting the stage for the other crimes that follow in the course of combat has been replaced with local crimes (real and alleged) justify wars of aggression to halt these crimes.
“The German public became most alarmed by the accounts of reporter Alexandra Stiglmayer in ‘Die Weltwoche’ and ‘Stern’, which were re-printed in countless other papers. Basing herself on an anonymous Bosnian source, ‘Besima’, Stiglmayer wrote that 2,000 women were held captive and raped in a school in the village of Doboj. German TV-reporter Martin Lettmayer and his Bosnian interpreter immediately went to Doboj for an investigation, but found nothing of the kind in the village. Even the local Muslims were shocked and rejected Stiglmayers claims. Lettmayer checked other rape stories and came to the conclusion that those, too, had been made up. His report appeared in the March 10,1994, issue of ‘Weltwoche’, but nobody would buy his TV reports. ‘They definitely need to be broadcast,” said one editor, “but I am not going to risk my job.'” (Aart Brouwer, The Serb Femicide (Engl. Transl.) De Groene Amsterdammer, Sept 3 1997, https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/sorabia/conversations/topics/12689)
Stiglmayer was one of the many “feminists” calling for “humanitarian intervention” to stop the (presumed) “genocide through rape” and forced insemination. These “feminists” never pondered the oxymoronic nature of this claim. This would be first “genocide” that ends up with a larger population than it had when it began.
QUOTE 5 cont.: David Rohde (for Christian Science Monitor). (pg. 1953)
COMMENT: NIOD explicitly refers to Rohde’s first Srebrenica article in the CSM. This article is reputed to be “the first by a Western journalist to the sites of the alleged atrocities” (“Evidence Indicates Bosnia Massacre – report supports charges by US of killings” appeared in the “Christian Science Monitor,” August 18, 1995, http://www.csmonitor.com/1995/0818/18012.html) in and around Srebrenica since Madeline Albright hijacked a UN Security Council session with a spy satellite photo peep show, to accuse Serbs of “wide-scale atrocities against Muslim civilians.”2 Rohde claims to have confirmed that a mass execution had been carried out.
Two aspects of this article are readily apparent: 1) there are no concrete indications that the author was in or even near Srebrenica at the time of his reporting – no pictures of the town, no descriptions of the town’s characteristics. The photos accompanying the article are labled archive photos. There are no photos of the things he claims to have seen; and 2) from the title and his descriptions, one gets the impression that his article was simply to provide confirmation for Albright’s dubious Security Council “peep show.” NIOD refers to this article as one of its main sources.
In October 1995, Rohde went to Srebrenica, acted so provocatively that he was arrested. It was assumed at the time that he was arrested on suspicions of working for the CIA – the Serbs may have had a point. However his arrest then became grounds for accusing Serbs of seeking to hide evidence from the “journalist.” (The ruse of getting arrested by the “enemy” is one he would repeat later in Afghanistan. This lends a certain credibility to the author’s war propaganda.)
In a subsequent Newsweek interview (April 23, 1996), Rohde inadvertently admitted that he had not taken a camera along on, what he claims was, his first trip to Srebrenica. In the interview he answers that his “biggest disappointment” about his October trip to Srebrenica was the fact that he was captured. “I was very frustrated because the Serbs ended up getting the film I had of these graves, which were the first on‑the‑ground pictures, pictures of the bones, pictures of the canes taken from old men.” He takes a camera to Srebrenica in October and, from what he reports in the interview, acted in a way that would get him arrested. This allowed him to claim that they took his film “evidence”.
This not only explains why the CSM published no visual proof of what their “journalist” was claiming to see on site, it also permits the conclusion that this ambitious journalist, after his big scoop, went all the way from Zagreb to Srebrenica to gather proof of mass executions, without a camera. Believe it or not.
When over the years it became clear that subsequent exhumations were not going to produce the “8,000” bodies as evidence of the NY Times fabrication, David Rohde – the “I-witness” began also to change his “observations.” Rohde had supplied confirmation of summary executions– the original charge of the indictments – in his first article. However, Rohde too began to cover his tracks by using imprecise references to “ambushes,” “massacres” and “series of ambushes”. In his NY Times article (Jul. 25, 1998) he began referring to “ambushes and massacres” and 2 years later (NY Times July 9, 2000) he wrote of “a series of ambushes and mass executions.” He gives no indication of how many were supposedly killed in warfare – “ambushes” – which is no war crime. Using the emotionally charged term “massacre” gives no indication of the circumstances of death – whether defenseless or simply massively overwhelmed.
Whereas David Rohde claimed to have found mass graves, other journalists, who set out on similar expeditions had different results. Mira Beham, a media analyst mentioned in her book, “Kriegstrommeln” (War Drums) that,
“During the months following the fall of Srebrenica, 24 international journalists, among them Mike Wallace of CBS, a BBC team and several CNN journalists attempted to follow the indications derived from the known US satellite photos and all on-the-spot information about known mass graves – to no avail. The results of their fruitless search were not made public.”3
David Rohde received the Pulitzer Prize for his “Srebrenica reporting.” For those who have not taken the time and made the effort to search out primary source information and draw their own opinions, this prize gives his war propaganda credibility. NIOD’s use of the propaganda produced by the ICTY, HRW, Alexandra Stiglmayer, and David Rohde demonstrates that either the NIOD had no idea of the facts on the ground, or that they had a mandate to create an added piece of “officialized” propaganda that can be taken as “credible” for any discussion on Srebrenica.
SOURCE: NIOD Institute for War, Holocaust and Genocide Studies Report: “Srebrenica – Reconstruction, background, consequences and analyses of the fall of a ‘safe’ area” http://publications.niod.knaw.nl/publications/srebrenicareportniod_en.pdf (pg. 1953)
Endnotes:
9) Chris Hedges; Conflict in the Balkans: In Bosnia; Muslim Refugees Slip Across Serb Lines; New York Times; July 18, 1995, p. 7. http://www.nytimes.com/1995/07/18/world/conflict-in-the-balkans-in-bosnia-muslim-refugees-slip-across-serb-lines.html The same day, the Washington Post reported the number closer to the upper estimate: “About 4,000 Bosnian army soldiers trudged for five days through Serb-held territory to escape from Srebrenica and reach a safe haven in Medjedja” (Pomfret, John; Bosnian Soldiers Evade Serbs in Trudge to Safety; Washington Post, Jul 18, 1995 http://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1995/07/18/bosnian-soldiers-evade-serbs-in-trudge-to-safety/4c0d6c5f-5fc8-45d2-ba4e-aeb34546e02e/ )
15) Hedges, Chris; Bosnia Troops Cite Gassings At Zepa; New York Times, Jul 27, 1995
1 Simons, Marlise, Genocide Verdict for Ex-General, International Herald Tribune (N.Y. Times), August 3, 2001
2 Crossette, Barbara, “U.S. Seeks to Prove Mass Killings,” NY Times: August 11, 1995, http://www.nytimes.com/1995/08/11/world/us-seeks-to-prove-mass-killings.html
3 Beham, Mira, Kriegstrommeln, Medien, Krieg und Politik; Deutsche Taschenbuch Verlag, Munich (1996) pg. 228