On the news that the United Nations, at the suggestion of Germany and Rwanda, should declare on July 11 International Day of Remembrance of the Genocide Committed in Srebrenica 1995., the highest representatives of the Serbian regime made a series of statements that do not correspond to what can be found in the said proposal. One gets the impression that the President of the Republic and the Minister of Foreign Affairs did not have before them Draft resolution that appeared in public (or they had a document in front of them that is not known to the public), because there is no disputed item for Serbia in that text.
Condemnation of genocide denial
Unreserved condemnation of any denial of the genocide in Srebrenica is sought in that draft. Is there anything objectionable there? No, of course. Whoever knows what suffering, pain, violent death, war, shame, compassion, responsibility, mass crime are - and it is impossible to imagine that the President of a European country and the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the same European country do not know what suffering, pain, violent death are. , war, shame, compassion, responsibility, mass crime (it's disturbing to even think about such a thing) - whoever knows what these words mean and who deals with them in everyday life, will without hesitation stand behind the request in which they condemn genocide and denial of genocide. Is it even conceivable that anyone would support genocide?
Of course, that proposal can be disputed by those who organized and carried out the genocide, or participated in the genocide as helpers, but they are outside the currents of civilization anyway. To recall, civilization is a set of prohibitions necessary for human communities to survive within themselves and in relation to other communities.
Condemnation of the glorification of war crimes
Also, in the Draft proposed by Germany and Rwanda, actions that glorify those convicted of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, including those responsible for the genocide in Srebrenica, are unreservedly condemned, in which there is also nothing controversial.
Is it even conceivable that someone could support mass murderers? Of course he can't. Is there anyone in their right mind who would glorify the organizers and perpetrators of genocide? Of course not.
The draft resolution emphasizes the importance of completing the process of finding and identifying the remaining victims of the genocide in Srebrenica and their dignified burial, and calls for the continuation of the criminal prosecution of the perpetrators of the genocide in Srebrenica.
Is there anything controversial here? Again - no. Is there any sane human being who would oppose efforts to find the remains of murdered people? No, of course.
Declaration of the National Assembly on Srebrenica
Despite all this, the Serbian Parliament adopted it in 2010 Declaration on the condemnation of the crime in Srebrenica in 1995, which is slightly different in content from the proposal that will now be voted on in the UN. That Serbian declaration states: "The National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia strongly condemns the crime committed against the Bosniak population in Srebrenica in July 1995, in the manner determined by the judgment of the International Court of Justice, as well as all social and political processes and phenomena that led to the formation of consciousness that the achievement of one's own national goals can be achieved through the use of armed force and physical violence against members of other nations and religions, while expressing condolences and apologies to the families of the victims for the fact that everything was not done to prevent this tragedy".
So what's the problem? Why, in general, the resolution if no one sane has an understanding of the genocide in Srebrenica?
What is the problem
The problem is that the representatives of the authorities in Serbia seem confused, and the reason for the confusion probably lies in the fact that otherwise unimaginable things in Serbia are not only imaginable, but also real. After all, wasn't Aida Ćorović convicted because she stood up to those who glorify convicted war criminals and mass murderers, and deny the genocide in Srebrenica, while genocide deniers and fans of mass murderers enjoyed the protection of state authorities? Do we not find the causes of nervousness among the highest representatives of the government in the fact that they missed the opportunity to react to the public manifestations of those who do not know what suffering, pain, violent death, war, shame, compassion, responsibility, mass crime are?
The President of the Republic, responding to the proposal, spoke about punishing the Serbian people, about abolishing the Republika Srpska, about paying war reparations, about putting pressure on Serbia because of its position on Kosovo and Metohija and many other things, but in the available text of the Draft there is no mention of such a thing. the verdict of the International Court of Justice is not even mentioned, in which the verdict explicitly says that Serbia is not responsible for the genocide, but it is that it did not do everything it could to prevent the genocide from happening. This judgment - explained on hundreds of pages - could possibly be disputed by the surviving victims of genocide, but not by the representatives of (any) Serbian government, because the judgment clearly individualizes both responsibility and guilt, which means that it does not deal with the notions of the people, the collective guilt, or even collective responsibility.
To that extent, the current Serbian government would have to be the first to welcome the proposal to declare a day of remembrance for the genocide in Srebrenica, because it would show a clear discontinuity with the regime of Slobodan Milosevic, which did nothing to prevent the genocide in Srebrenica, and clarify to its citizens how they are acting. mechanisms of the United Nations that do not deal with categories of collective guilt (guilt of the people), but advocate the principle of individualizing guilt and, therefore, punishing responsible individuals.
