Although not explicitly mentioned, Srebrenica is firmly embedded in the background of this article. Srebrenica has become inseparable from the humanitarian intervention doctrine (R2P) elaborated over the last two decades. The latter could hardly have acquired such seemingly irresistible forcefulness but for the impetus given to it by the Srebrenica narrative. That narrative has thus served as the cornerstone of an important new doctrine in international relations. It has been variously articulated, but “R2P” or “Responsibility to Protect,” seems to summarize it well. Its beneficiaries are the Western interventionist powers. The underlying rationale and its practical consequences were described somewhat simplistically (but on the whole accurately) by Bruno Waterfield, The Daily Telegraph‘s EU and European Affairs correspondent in Brussels:
“Nearly 8,000 Muslim men and boys died. The International Community‘s failure to prevent an act of genocide traumatised European and Western powers and set the world on course for a new doctrine of ‘liberal interventionism.’
“By 1999, as the Serbs threatened to do in Kosovo what had been done in Srebrenica, then British Prime Minister Tony Blair vowed that this time the West would not stand by in a crisis he regarded as his ‘first real moral test.’ As Bill Clinton, the U.S. President who had stood by in Bosnia, wavered again, Mr Blair warned that Kosovo was a test of whether civilised nations acted before it was too late. ‘This is not a battle for territory; this is a battle for humanity. It is a just cause, it is a rightful cause,’ he argued. Britain’s involvement in the successful military action in Kosovo marked a turning point in Mr Blair‘s ‘ethically based’’ foreign policy. In 2003, he used the example of Srebrenica to illustrate the consequences of Western inaction while battling to convince reluctant European allies that the use of military force against the Iraqi regime was necessary. Although the Iraq occupation discredited Mr Blair, in 2011 another British Prime Minister used the spectre of the West standing by in the face of genocide to rally Barack Obama, another reluctant American president. David Cameron made a passionate plea that as Colonel Muammar Gaddafi killed civilians in Libya ‘words are not enough; what we will be judged on is our actions. We cannot stand by.’” [The Age, May 28, 2011]
This panoramic view of R2P’s application is useful not only because of its essential correctness but also because, perhaps in a way not intended by the commentator, it demonstrates the new, Srebrenica-inspired doctrine’s wide reach, as well as its enormous potential for mischief.
This is something that Prof. David Gibbs has alluded to circumspectly stating that “[f]acts aside, a mythology has emerged from the Srebrenica affair, which emphasizes the supposedly benign character of US intervention. In general, US policy was held to be the savior of the Bosnian people and the defender of oppressed peoples more generally. NATO interventions following Srebrenica established a post-Cold War relevance for both the Atlantic Alliance and US hegemony; while the new language of human rights and genocide prevention – closely associated with Srebrenica – helped legitimate later interventions, including the on-going Western strikes against ISIS.” He concludes significantly that “Srebrenica has truly redefined the character of US hegemony for the post-Cold War era.”
Milojevich and Beattie present an original thesis about how media generated frames used to transmit information to the public combine with people’s values and deep-seated cultural narratives to influence endorsement of foreign policy choices, in this case by impressing upon the public the alleged necessity of engaging in global humanitarian interventionism.
The authors conclude that “[t]he future looks bleak for those seeking peaceful solutions to conflict”. If that is so, in part at least it is because of the skillful framing and manipulation of the Srebrenica narrative.
Download scholarly article:
The Pull of Humanitarian Interventionism: Examining the Effects of Media Frames and Political Values on People’s Choice of Resolution