Speech by former Dutch minister Jan Pronk at the 25th yearly Srebrenica commemoration in The Hague, July 11, 2020
Srebrenica: truth, justice, recognition
Twenty-five years ago the genocide that we commemorate every year took place around Srebrenica, as we do today. Ten years ago you invited me to speak here on the theme: Srebrenica: the book isn’t closed. Indeed: the book wasn’t closed, because new chapters were added again and again. While many in our country tried to forget Srebrenica, Srebrenica was not history, but everyday reality. This applies to the relatives who could not bury their loved ones until years later, to all those who still haven’t found their loved ones, to anyone who fears the genocide being repeated, in Bosnia or elsewhere in the world, and for all those people who are confronted with repeated denials of Dutch co-responsibility.
Today the theme of the commemoration is truth, justice and recognition. Recognition begins with no denial, but denial still takes place. Last year, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands wrote a new chapter in the book. We were just home a few days after the commemoration, here on the Square in The Hague. We had listened to the names of the victims who had been reburied. Those names still echoed in our heads, yet the Supreme Court thought it was a good time to state that Dutchbat’s supervision of the evacuation of refugees who had sought protection was not unlawful. The choice of the Supreme Court for that time and day alone marked the indifference of Dutch authorities for the fate of the victims of the genocide. According to the Supreme Court, it would have meant nothing to the fate of the refugees if Dutchbat had ended its cooperation in the evacuation. How did those judges know that with so much certainty?
A few years ago, things turned out very differently in South Sudan. There the gates of the compounds of the UN peacekeepers in Juba and Bor were opened when refugees took refuge there, during a mutual genocide between Dinka and Nuer. Everyone was admitted, nobody was left out for fear that the camp would become too full. The murders continued outside the enclosure. The situation within the compound was dire and cholera was on the verge of breaking out. The situation was appalling, but it was no reason for the UN military to lift their physical protection. No war situation is completely equal to another, but how did the Supreme Court judges know for sure that the situation in Potocari was unsustainable and that it would have been just as bad for the refugees outside the gate if they had been allowed in the compound and protected there?
The Supreme Court has stated that, on the other hand, the Dutch State acted wrongfully in the evacuation of 5,000 refugees who were admitted to the compound. This applies in particular to 350 men and boys who were not allowed to stay, although the Court states that this could have been done. Yet the Supreme Court estimates the chance that the latter group would have survived at no more than 10 percent, because the Serbs led by Mladic would have done everything in their power to locate them within the compound. Moreover, the chances of effective outside help would not have been high. How did the judges, lawyers and calculators of the Supreme Court know this so exactly? Why 10%, and not 30%, as a previous Dutch judge had determined, or 50% or, as it turned out in Juba, more than 90%?
It wouldn’t be appropriate for politicians in the Netherlands to contest a judicial judgment. I am a former politician. In 1993 I was a member of the Dutch cabinet that decided to send out peacekeepers to protect the inhabitants of Srebrenica. I was still a politician in 1995 when Srebrenica fell. I still was a politician when the NIOD report came out in 2002, arguing with reasonings similar to those of the Supreme Court that the fate of the refugees in Srebrenica was inevitable and that the Dutch State should not be held responsible for it. At the time I contested those arguments because I felt responsible. I wasn’t concerned with determining to what extent Dutchbat was responsible – that is not the point here – but to what extent the State was responsible, the body politics, we politicians, including me.
The NIOD report contained everything that could be written down, the whole history far back. Writing everything down leads to explaining, accounting for and interpreting everything, concealing and justifying, shifting responsibility and denying liability.
I had hoped that the Supreme Court sages would have come to a different judgment, but that hasn’t happened. I’m uncomfortable with the Supreme Court’s judgment. Again, judgments of the judicial power must be respected, but I am ashamed of this way of estimating risks, all this calculating, quantifying and accounting.
Eight thousand Bosnian men and boys have been killed by Serb militias. That is the truth. But we also have to face another truth: the Dutch State and Dutch politicians, myself included, are responsible for not protecting the refugees, for failing to keep the promise of protection. We did our best yet didn’t do enough. We fell short. That failure must be recognized. We were politically responsible for not protecting people who were killed by others, not for 10%, but fully, for 100%. We were responsible not just for not protecting 350 men and boys, but also for not protecting everyone else who had taken refuge at the UN, just like Sudanese refugees in Juba did so later. Protection: It should have been and it could have been.
Twenty-five years after the genocide, we not only look back, but also look forward. Seeking truthful, legal steps and recognition of responsibility can be the early steps to prevent a recurrence. This is desperately needed, because since the fall of Srebenica, the world community has failed countless times to protect victims of mass violence and genocide. We were absent, arrived too late or did too little. Sometimes we even kindled the fire, instead of putting out the flames.
We owe it to all people who fear anywhere in this world to fall victim to mass violence just because they are perceived as different – different in religion, ethnicity, culture or orientation – to recognize co-responsibility for protecting them. We should not limit ourselves to people in our vicinity or people with whom we feel especially close. The responsibility to protect potential victims starts with not looking sideways, closing eyes or ears, or washing one’s hands in innocence. This responsibility begins with listening to the voices of people who are fearing for their lives, anyone and anywhere.
In Serbia, Bosnia and even in Srebenica itself, the voices of those who deny the genocide are getting louder. Truth, justice and recognition require that the denial of the genocide be vigorously opposed and exposed. Denial is the beginning of a new threat. Listen to people who feel threatened and stand up to those who threaten them.
Jan Pronk, a retired Dutch politician, diplomat and leading member of the Dutch Labour Party (PvdA), was the Dutch minister for Development Cooperation (1989-1998) during the time of the Bosnian War (1992-1995). During this war, the UN declared the mainly Bosnian-Muslim enclave Srebrenica in Bosnia a UN ‘safe area’, and had a Dutch blue-helmet presence called ‘Dutchbat’ during its last few years up to and during the takeover of the enclave on July 11, 1995 by Serb and Bosnian-Serb forces. Pronk was the first Dutch politician and senior member of the Dutch government who stated in the early days immediately after the fall of the enclave that a genocide had been occurring against the enclave’s civilian population. He has stated repeatedly ever since that neither Dutchbat, nor the Dutch government and the international community at large did much if anything to prevent and stop this from happening. During and immediately after the fall of Srebrenica, Serb and Bosnian-Serb forces massacred at least 8.372 Bosnian-Muslim men and boys, practically all of them unarmed and defenseless at the time.
English translation of Pronk’s speech and explanatory text on Pronk’s background and reaction to the Srebrenica genocide by Caspar ten Dam, chair ICHI and former chair Political Committee ‘Stari Most’ (see www.starimost.nl)