Why should one read articles refuting the charge
that Serbs committed mass murder in Srebrenica? by Jared Israel,
Emperor's Clothes / Comments by Petar
UN document detailing crimes *against*
Serbs in and around Srebrenica, 1992-1993 (PDF files)
* Overview *
July 11 is the tenth anniversary of the recapture
of the East Bosnian town of Srebrenica by Bosnian Serb troops. In
coming weeks we will be sending you a number of pieces challenging
the official story about Srebrenica. According to the official account,
after the Serbs re-took Srebrenica, they slaughtered 8000 Muslim men.
Why should people read articles challenging this massacre
story? After all, it's consistent with what one has been told: that
Srebrenica was a safe haven where the UN was supposed to protect Muslims
from supposedly murderous Serbs; that the Muslims, portrayed in the
media as an oppressed group, were moderate and tolerant while the
Serbs were supposedly fanatical Muslim-haters with a Hitlerian vision
of a mono-ethnic state; that therefore it was no surprise that when
the Serbs took Srebrenica, they supposedly killed thousands of Muslims
as fast as they could.
Why should you read material challenging the Srebrenica
massacre story when you, dear reader, have limited time and you may
have read nothing in the media that would cast doubt on any of the
My answer is, that is precisely why you should be
skeptical about the massacre story.
Permit me to explain.
The credibility of the official massacre story depends
on the credibility of media coverage of Yugoslavia in general and
of what happened in Eastern Bosnia, including Srebrenica, in particular.
If that coverage has been objective, why should one entertain the
possibility that the entire media has manufactured or gone along with
lies about a supposed giant massacre?
How might the media objectively cover a bitter conflict
like the one in Bosnia? First, it would endeavor to fairly report
what each side said, giving them equal time. Then it would investigate
claims. For example, if each side accused the other of spreading hate
propaganda, the media might publish each side's claims and then compare
those claims to samples of each side's propaganda, both written material
and what was said at rallies and in mass meetings. If each accused
the other of atrocities, the media could publish the accounts of both
sides, and then do hard investigative work to see who - if anyone
- was telling the truth. It would hunt for lies, because what people
lie about is most revealing.
If you are like most, you have no idea what the Serbs
said about what happened in and around Srebrenica from the time the
Bosnian war started in the spring of 1992 until the so-called fall
of Srebrenica in 1995. No idea at all. And therein lies the evidence
that the media cannot be trusted about Srebrenica: because in fact,
the Serbs said, and published, a great deal about Muslim extremist
atrocities against them, but the Western media published virtually
none of it. What was published by the Western media stands out for
the same reason that gold stands out, because it is rare.
For the Western media to have lied for the past ten
years about Srebrenica assumes that the media has been organized,
by whatever means, to distort information. It is hard - and rather
awful - to believe that such a level of organization for lying could
exist. But exactly the same level of organization is required in order
for the entire media not to have sought out Serbian eye-witness accounts
and human interest stories, to have suppressed almost all evidence
of funerals of Serb victims, news reports in the Serbian media, documents
and photographs distributed by the government of Serbia and by the
Bosnian Serb government and army, and so on. The public is unaware
of the existence of such data because the media has suppressed almost
all of it. You, by the very fact that you have not seen this material,
are living proof.
Let me give you an example.
In June 1993 the United Nations published a 132-page
report entitled "Memorandum on War Crimes and Crimes of Genocide
in Eastern Bosnia (communes of Bratunac, Skelani and Srebrenica) committed
against the Serbian population from April 1992 to April 1993."
Note the dates: April 1992 was the very beginning of the war in Bosnia.
The Serbs charged that from the outset of the war the so-called Bosnian
government (they say it was a government run by a faction of Muslims,
the extremist faction) had a policy of genocide against Serbs.
You never heard of this document? I am not surprised.
I checked with the Lexis-Nexis media search engine. I could not find
a single English-language newspaper or TV news program that reported
that it existed.
Well, one might say, the UN document might be entirely
false. And that is correct, it might be false. But you know, it also
might be 100% true. And it might be something in between. Or then
again, it might be understated. The Serbs might have been afraid that
if they told the whole truth, nobody would believe them.
The point is, in order for the public to come to any
judgment about the accuracy of this UN document, it had to know the
document existed and what was in it. To that end, the media of course
should have reported the existence of said document and what it charged,
with extensive quotations in newspapers of record such as the New
York Times, and it should have seriously investigated the horrific
The undeniable fact that most people, at least (but
not only) in the NATO countries, are completely ignorant of what the
Serbs wrote and said about Muslim extremist crimes against Serbs in
Eastern Bosnia, including Srebrenica, is sufficient to make a prima
facie case that media reporting concerning Eastern Bosnia, including
Srebrenica, has been anti-Serb propaganda, not news. Thus there is
every reason for you to be skeptical concerning media claims about
a supposed huge massacre by Serbs in Srebrenica. By suppressing virtually
everything said and written by the Serbian side in the bitter Bosnian
conflict, the media has perjured itself. Would you accept, on faith,
the word of a perjured witness?
Below are links to the pdf files of the UN report
so that you may read it, only 12 years late.
Editor, Emperor's Clothes
Memorandum on War Crimes and Crimes of Genocide
in Eastern Bosnia (communes of Bratunac, Skelani and Srebrenica) committed
against the Serbian population from April 1992 to April 1993.
A/46/171 and S/25635
Item 115 (c) of the preliminary list
Human Rights Questions: Human Rights Situations and Reports of Special
Rapporteurs and Representatives
2 June 1993
Note: Four sections of the UN document repeat the
same three introductory pages, followed by the appropriate texts.
Comments by Petar Makara
Consulting Editor, Emperor's Clothes
The horror that Bosnian Serbs suffered at the hands
of Muslims in the vicinity of Srebrenica is no secret. The Yugoslav
State Commission for War Crimes submitted a 132 page study presenting
this Serbian suffering as early as May 24, 1993 to the United Nations
Security Council. Representatives of Republika Srpska (the Bosnian
Serb Republic) were not allowed to submit similar documents because
Republika Srpska was not recognized by the United Nations. Yugoslavia,
as a UN member state (since 1945) and one of its founding nations,
was allowed to submit this document.
The Security Council admitted the study as an official
United Nations document. The document was given UN id numbers A/46/171
and S/25635 and dated 2 June 1995.
Many UN documents, crucial for understanding the civil
wars in Bosnia in 1990's, were, on American insistence, declared classified.
But this document was not. Its distribution was marked "General."
Any Western journalist could have stopped by room GA57 in the basement
of the U.N. Building at the corner of 46th Street and 1st Ave. in
New York and gotten a copy. Or they could just called the U.N. Public
Inquiry Office at (212) 963-4475 and ordered it.
If the contents of this document are false, why didn't
the Western media report it and refute it? Its suppression eloquently
proclaims its validity and the dishonesty of the media that suppressed
the very news of its existence.
We present it in its entirety. More. It is scanned
in original form. You can print the PDF files and you will have a
photo-copy of the original.
-- Petar Makara
Pages 1 - 21 of the document. Historical background. Serbian suffering
in the region. Repeated acts of hostility toward the Serbian population
in and around Srebrenica, this time in the 1990s. A list of recent
Serbian victims of Muslim crime.
The list of Serbian victims
Pages 22 - 40 of the document. Bosnian Serbs from in and around Srebrenica
murdered by Bosnian Muslims from April 20, 1992 to April 5, 1993,
organized by date, victim's first name, father's name (in parenthesis),
last name, year of birth, place of birth, county.
Pages 41 - 51 of the document. General description of the crimes committed:
Types of torture and murder, plunder of Serbian property, cleansing
of the Serbian population.
Pages 52 - 80 of the document. Bosnian Muslim perpetrators. Their
full names, types of crime committed. Places and dates of their crimes.
Victims' statements - part 1
Pages 81 - 104 of the document. Some surviving Serbian victims tell,
in their own words, what they went through and how they survived.
Victims' statements - part 2
Pages 105 - 132 of the document. Continuation: surviving Serbian victims
tell what they went through.
Many (but not all) Emperor's Clothes articles on Yugoslavia
can be found at http://www.tenc.net/yugo.htm
Some media accounts did challenge (to varying degrees)
the mostly awful news reporting on Bosnia:
1) A September 1992 Associated Press account of terror
against Serbs in and around Gorazde: "A Rare Glimpse at the Reality
of the Bosnian War," with comments by Jared Israel
2) From the Toronto Star, July 1995: "A Reporter's
Account of Evening Spent with the Commander of Bosnian Muslim Forces
in Srebrenica, "
3) Two photos, one in the London Times and one in
the Independent, both on 11 December 1995, showed the Muslim extremist
character of the 'Bosnian government' army. Note that these photos
appeared after the key fighting in the Bosnian war, and still they
appeared so infrequently that they could have little impact on the
established (false) impression, that the people fighting the Serbs
were moderate, tolerant Muslims.
4) An article in the Daily Telegraph, December 1993,
discusses the influx of Muslim extremists from other areas into Bosnia:
"Albanians and Afghans fight for the heirs to Bosnia's SS past,"