Replies

Why would anybody who was a war criminal actually return to a place where they might be arrested? It defies reason.

My feeling is that they are all innocent or just tried to defend themselves, but Croats term them "war criminals" as a short cut to take away their rights and throw them in prison. This is effective in preventing returns of the Serb population.

Many of these returnees/returnee lists were given to the Croats for approval just prior to Serb returns, and even though the Croats gave a clearance over these lists to the UN, they decide to arrest some of those people anyways.

Thanks for posting this, joan.

Actually, the UN is no longer in Croatia. Hasn't been since the UNTAES Mission shut down at the beginning of 1998 (and even then, was only in what had been known as "Sector East" and only had any jurisdiction in that small area). OSCE took over from there. The UN can't do anything about this (or anything else anywhere else) unless so mandated by the Security Council, etc.

UNHCR is still involved in returns, making lists of returnees, etc. Like ICRC, UNHCR carries a lot of moral weight, but they can't really "do" anything about injustice or problems with returning refugees unless there's a mandate from the SC authorising the UN go in and create conditions for safe returns.

So, the UN "doing anything" is all up to the SC. If the US doesn't consider it important to put before the SC, it doesn't get done. Because most Americans don't understand this, then it's easy to blame the UN for not doing anything. The UN is an easy scapegoat for US policy (or lack thereof) because most Americans just don't understand this. Not that the UN doesn't have it's own shorcomings and problems...

Actually, I, myself returned some ethnic Serb "refugees" (actually, IDPs) who were in the UNTAES Region to former Sector North in 1997. There was a particular village there I knew of that was safe enough for these returnees. It worked out okay for them. That was a very rare case, though. I was unable to return any others (often, whole villages were burned down, etc.).

As for the "war crimes" business. Well, some of that has to do with "stuff". (When you get to the bottom of most things of this nature, you often find it involves "stuff", ie. material possessions or assets.) When I was in Croatia, if you wanted a Serb's stuff (house, land, apartment, whatever), all you had to do was claim that Serb did something to you or your property and have a lien put against that Serb's house or apartment or farm machinery or whatever (and maybe give some nice gifts to the right folks in the relevant government bureaucracy). Then you got "legal" rights to use and maybe even keep the Serb's stuff.

Some of it has to do with intimidation, of course.

When I was there, all sorts of "lists" were being ciruculated and there were lots of rumours about who was on the "lists". We had access to some lists, and I know that many of the people named on those lists had nothing to do with war crimes or any crimes at all. Some did. That was the scary thing about those "lists" to the people. There was no way to know for sure whether you were on "the list". You didn't have to be guilty of anything to be on a "list". You might just have a house or something someone wanted, or someone had a personal grudge against you ... who knows?

Of course, in BiH, the Serbs and the Croats and the Bosnian Muslims had "lists" of their own. All sides did it. It's a classic terror and intimidation tactic. One of the reasons the Hague's sealed indictments (which seem like these "lists" to the peoples of the Balkans) are not such a good thing.