This week we mark the 10th anniversary of the massacre at Srebrenica, and I wonder what we have learned about evil and how we should respond to it. We’ve learned a lot of details about what happened, from testimony before the war-crimes tribunal in The Hague. We know that some of the monsters responsible for it, such as General Ratko Mladic himself, are still at large.
But then, he’s not the only one responsible, is he? How about all the nations that stood by and let it happen, even though Srebrenica had been declared a safe haven by the United Nations, supposedly under the protection of UN (specifically, Dutch) troops. I don’t really get a say in what monsters 
choose to do. But all of us who live in liberal democracies have a say in whether our nations act when they have the power to do so.
The awful thing is, Western democracies have tended to wait until the worst has already happened before acting. Consider the last part of The Economist‘s reflection on the subject last week:
Visiting the cemetery in September 2003, Bill Clinton also gave a remarkably blunt, and politically astute, analysis of the political effects of the massacre. "Srebrenica", he said, "was the beginning of the end of genocide in Europe. It enabled me to secure NATO support for the bombing that led to…peace." In other words, without Srebrenica, America could not have won the support of its European allies for a sharp switch to a war-fighting (and thus war-ending) strategy in Bosnia.
On this reading, at least, Srebrenica was a sort of genocide to end all genocides (in one part of the world, anyway). It was also a necessary prerequisite to the dropping of the "bombs for peace" — which, by triggering a final, vast wave of forced population movement, left Bosnia’s military balance, and above all its ethnic balance, in a state acceptable to the region’s power-brokers.
For the bereaved mothers and widows gathering at the cemetery this week, that surely raises a hard question: was the shock of a massacre the only thing that could make the western powers change policy, and settle their own differences? Was there no other way?
Was it really necessary for 8,000 men and boys to be murdered in cold blood right under the noses of the troops of advanced Western nations for civilization to rouse itself from its torpor and confront evil? And if so, how long does that inoculation against fecklessness and indifference last? Must we keep on getting booster shots — in Rwanda, in the Sudan, and yes, in New York and Washington on 
9/11 for us to be willing to confront the menace. And how long does each of those updates last? Seldom long enough.
Related Posts
International politics is a game of power that most folks ignore and few world leaders are quite good at. “Srebrenica” means as much to most folks in Richland or Lexington counties as “Rwanda” does, and the true evil-doers, big and small — the likes of Ratko Mladic, Pol Pot, the aspiring Robert Mugabe, the petty thugs Jean-Bertrand Aristide and Charles Taylor — will probably join Che in T-shirt art. Meanwhile any national leader who steps out and does take effective action against a tyrant is likened to this cartoon character.
At least the Dutch government made an honorable gesture regarding their failure in Srebrenica this 4/21/2002 article
At least they took some meaningful action rather than just issuing an apology. Read the article and you’ll find that the FT’s reporting overlooks the revisionism that Clinton was engaging in. (Bush 41 left a mess for his successor, in part by agreeing to the arms embargo that effectively disarmed the Muslims in the area.)
We, the civilized of North America and Europe like it when our leaders are polite and ostensibly make every effort to solve crises through diplomacy and negotiation. Everybody agrees that we should bring the miscreants to justice, but the effectiveness of the international community in doing so is clearly shown in the ongoing trial of Slobodan Milošević, now in its fourth year! Meanwhile, the perpetrator of Srebrenica, Ratko Mladić, is still on the loose, but his trial should be a real hoot because it too will be fair.
Sometimes you really do need to reach out and kill the evil-doers or arm the innocents so that they can hold their ground until the cavalry arrives. Ooops! Sorry about that undiplomatic slip into pragmatism.