Combating revisionism, controlling the past: the ICTY and the Srebrenica massacre

In a previous post, The trial of Herceg Bosna, I pointed to the assertion by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) that its judgements have “contributed to an indisputable historical record, combating denial and helping communities come to terms with their recent history.”

In a variation of this rather grandiose claim, the ICTY’s head of outreach Nerma Jelacic wrote to the Swedish state broadcaster in November last year saying that the tribunal had “contributed to creating a historical record, combating denial” and – deploying language worthy of a Tito-era communist functionary – “preventing attempts at revisionism.”

Ms Jelacic’s letter was in protest at the broadcaster’s decision to show the documentary A Town Betrayed, which is about events in Srebrenica during the 1992-1995 Bosnian War. By my reading, the letter contains only one real factual correction. But, through a series of vaguely worded criticisms related to the “underlying theme” of the documentary, it seeks to discredit the whole film in a manner likely to lead to its suppression.

The letter begins by accusing the documentary of running “counter to rulings made by the ICTY” and of contradicting these rulings. The first specific criticism, which, to be fair, is linked to the letter's only factual correction elaborated on later in the letter, is of the documentary’s depiction of events during the fall of Srebrenica as part of a “conventional military operation." 

But she then enters much shakier ground, criticising the claim by the Bosnian journalist who appears in the documentary, Mirsad Fazlic, that the Bosnian president Alija “Izetbegovic is bearing responsibilities” for the fate of the Muslims who were massacred in Srebrenica. Her letter does not demonstrate how the latter quotation contradicts the ICTY’s ruling that the Bosnian Serb Army (VRS) committed genocide in Srebrenica. The point being made is that Izetbegovic sacrificed the town by refusing adequately to defend it, but accusing him of bearing some responsibility for what happened, does not in any way lessen the blame of the Bosnian Serbs, unless you believe that blame can only be apportioned into percentage units. It is quite worrying that the ICTY seeks to shield Alija Izetbegovic’s reputation in this way, even against criticism that is compatible with the tribunal’s judgements.

Next, the letter refers to the claim by the film’s narrator that an attack by the Bosnian Army (ARBiH) on the village of Visnjica on 26 June 1995 was a “marching order” to the Serbs for their attack against Srebrenica on 6 July. The letter goes on to say that “Proceedings before the Tribunal have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Srebrenica was a planned killing operation and not a spontaneous act of revenge”, failing to explain how the use of the term “marching order”, which can be interpreted in many ways, implies this.

It then criticises the documentary for saying that the delivery of arms to the ARBiH in Srebrenica was “connected to its ultimate fate.” This is very dangerous territory. Is it really not legitimate to suggest that the flow of arms into Srebrenica may have had a connection with what happened in the enclave? If this is the case, then Allies and Lies, a previous documentary by A Town Betrayed‘s maker David Hebditch, which was shown on the BBC in 2001 before any genocide convictions had been delivered by the ICTY in relation to Srebrenica, is now beyond the pale. Since it contains the assertion that “Defence analyst Tim Ripley believes that the US plot to train and equip the Bosnian Muslims directly led to the terrible death-toll at Srebrenica later in 1995”, it is quite possible to imagine that material such as Allies and Lies can no longer expect to be aired on mainstream television.

Ms Jelacic’s letter then takes issue with A Town Betrayed‘s implication that the male inhabitants of Srebrenica may have been spared had they agreed to lay down their arms and points out that “Evidence from the exhumations that the Trial Chamber reviewed in the Krstic case shows that most of the victims were not killed in combat but in mass executions.” But again, the evidence she cites does not refute the documentary’s claim. It is at least possible that the failure of the Bosnian Muslims to lay down their arms influenced the VRS’s actions following the capture of the town, including against unarmed male civilians.

Then we come to the only factual correction in the letter relating to claim by one of the film’s interviewees “That only c.2000 individuals were executed in the first 48 hours following the fall of Srebrenica and the implication that the remaining numbers killed afterwards were killed as military targets.” The letter then cites the first instance judgement in the case of Popovic and others that “at least 5,336 individuals were killed in the executions following the fall of Srebrenica.”

Unfortunately, this is a minor part of the letter’s criticism of the documentary. As can be seen from the rest of the letter, the ICTY does not just wish to refute explicit contradictions of its rulings but to suppress any kind of discussion that could be construed as not being wholly in accord with its rulings.

Ms Jelacic concludes the letter on a conciliatory note, reiterating that she is “not questioning any decision as to whether or not to broadcast this documentary” and asking that the ICTY be allowed to respond to any further material contradicting its rulings that the Swedish broadcaster should decide to broadcast. But it is difficult to believe that this is the real intention of the letter. A much more likely consequence is that other broadcasters who may have been considering showing the film will simply decide not to do so and that filmmakers considering exploring the Yugoslav wars will conclude that if they don’t want their production confined to a few independent cinemas and Youtube, they’d better not deviate from ICTY orthodoxies. This is what Ms Jelacic means by “preventing attempts at revisionism.”