Why the International Community Did Not Intervene to Prevent Srebrenica Massacre?

3452 Words14 Pages
The goal of this paper is to explain why the international community did not intervene to prevent Srebrenica's massacre. In the following lines it will be reasoned that the intervention was not possible because the countries that sponsored the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) were reluctant to the use of force. This lack of determination to use "all means" in the so called "safe areas" like the Bosnian Muslim enclave of Srebrenica during the summer of 1995 explains ultimately the killing of around 8000 male that were supposed to be protected by the Dutch soldiers participating in the UN strategy in the former Yugoslavia. When the United Nations was created in 1945, the use of force in the case of a threat for the international peace was already provided in the Chapter VII of UN Charter. Although it was included and passed by the members of the organization, the UN was conceived as a tool for peace, and most of the countries expected from the UN peacekeeping and not peacemaking. The experience of the Second World War (an experience traumatic enough as to end in the creation of the UN itself, is the consequence why countries had "a moralistic reluctance" to the use of force. A fear to intervention that was learn in the hard way by the international community after experiences like Srebrenica, "one of the darkest pages in the history of humanity" according the former UN Secretary General, Kofi Anan. The reluctance of the use of force ended officially with the UN Millennium Summit when the world recognized the responsibility to protect as a central duty of the international community. It was then when the west realized that it had, through the UN resolutions legitimate force and good reputation, the monopoly of violence. After Rwanda and Bosnia, the UN accepted it had to do a step to the front and intervene. A new way of conducting the international
Open Document