Reflection by Tori Safner

The ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia is prime example that although the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was created especially to bring about change and to reassign human rights as a priority that must be protected under all circumstances, it did exactly the opposite. The Declaration was established to restore peace and ensure that every individual possessed his own natural rights at all times, and to prevent another castastrophe like the Holocaust, and yet, in the decades since it was sanctioned, tragedies concerning the human rights of people have occurred all over the world. Sure, it was a very noble gesture, but again and again the UN has proved futile in going out and implementing these changes and when it decides to step in to dissolve conflicts, it is always too late.

In the case of Yugoslavia, the ethnic groups chose violence as an outlet to their pent-up hatred and desire for liberty from the federation; the Serbs would hunt the Bosniaks out of their territories, the Croats would drive the Serbs out of their nation, the Serbs would fight the Albanians in Kosovo, the Bosniaks would continually kill Serbs in their country. Yes, the UN and NATO stepped in in order to try and get the groups to a negotiated peace, but even their "secured safe areas" were not completely safe from enemy sniper attack, and they had only entered after the major brute of the warring was over, and already thousands of people and civilians on both sides had been killed or forced to leave their homes.

This ethnic cleansing was similar to Holocaust, though clearly not in statistics. The killings were carried out deliberately, based solely on personal identity- being a Serb to the Bosnians, Croatians, Slovenians, and Albanians, and being Muslim to the Serbs. In the case of the Srebrenica Massacre, Muslim males were singled out for the sole reason that they were, in fact, of a different religion, and methodically murdered by the thousands, in comparison to the mass murder of Jews and other minorities by the Nazis in the Holocaust. In a case like Srebrenica, it was, in fact, a genocide of sorts, as the Serbs had systematically planned to eliminate all the Bosniaks from Srebrenica. In other areas, though not as extreme, civilians were murdered individually during their daily routines: at soccer games, walking down the street, in stores, singled out and sniped for no other reason but because they were ethnically different. People were forced out of their homes, raped, beaten, and starved. Many similarities can be drawn between the Yugoslav conflicts and the Holocaust, except for one outstanding factor: in Yugoslavia, hits were being continually taken on both sides, whereas in the Holocaust, the Nazis were nearly invincible and few dared to attempt to stop their reign.

Humanism and the ethical philosophies that accompany it in relation to this case were clearly denied during the Yugoslav wars. The concept of humanism is that of the idea that all individuals matter; their dignity and worth should be protected, and based partly on rationalism. For instance, though the Croatians believed it was in the best interest of their race to banish the Serbs from their state, in doing so, they lost the capacity to realize that their actions were not morally or ethically right for the sake of all people. If any of these people based their principles solely on humanism, there would have been no sniping, no burning, no smuggling of illegal arms; any plotted terrorism of sorts. The Yugoslavian people as a whole lost the idea of the individual, and decided to single out ethnicities to eliminate from their territories. Your identity as an individual didn't matter, if you were a Bosniak, you were simply a Bosniak to any Serb on any given day; not a person with a valuable life; but an enemy, and nothing more. People were automatically and stereotypically identified by their ethnic background, and all other individual self worth or rights were lost in the matter.

This event made me realize how insecure governments can take a tragic turn for the worse. After the dissolution of the USSR, communism became questionable, and the peoples of Yugoslavia could not agree on a rotational presidency. Some nations strived for autonomy from the federation, but the Serbs wanted Yugoslavia to remain unified; it would be more powerful that way. I do not blame the Croats or the Slovenians for wanting to break away, tension and discordance had existed between the neighboring nations for centuries, and they felt justified in wanting freedom. Unfortunately, because of the extent of the terms the nations were on with each other, I don't even know if the whole warring incident could have been prevented. However, I do not believe what the leaders did on either side, Milošević especially, was justified. By no means do I think that "ethnically cleansing" certain ethnicities from certain areas for the sole purpose of a "purer nation" was morally justified. The people killed were a majority of unarmed civilians singled out for their religion and/or ethnic background, and had done nothing to deserve the punishments thrust upon them.

Yugoslavia had been held together under the rule of Josip Broz Tito, so the antics by the people after his death were inexcusable, as they had before at least proved they could live alongside one other for the most part. I feel this only proved that power-hungry leaders can be elected at any point in time, and genocide is still a current issue- the Yugoslav issues occured just a little over a decade ago, and the conflict in Darfur is still ongoing! I feel no sympathy for those who participated in these travesties of justice, only contempt for disgracing the human race with their despicable actions.

Though I have always believed the actions taken by the United Nations were questionable, researching for this project only confirmed my doubts. Time and time again, they have set noble goals for themselves, such as enforcing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but then failing to take immediate action when said policies are violated. Thier own policies prevented them from going out and fixing the violations in former Yugoslavia; the UN Protective Force was strictly a peace-keeping force, and was prohibited from engaging in fighting under any circumstances, even to defend the UN-designated "safe areas." Thus, UNPROFOR members were forced to stand and watch, helpless, as Serbs rounded up hundreds of Muslims and massacred them in places like Srebrenica.

The UN should have included circumstances such as that as exceptions to the policy; they made themselves appear almost hypocrital, making all this hype about protecting human rights when they can't even go out and enforce it themselves! And then, the UN placed an arms embargo on all of Yugoslavia, with good intentions, but it only ended up hindering the poorly armed Muslims more, and giving the JNA-supported Serbs the advantage against the Muslims, causing even more violence. In cases such as this, I think the UN's current policies are unacceptable, they should be allowed to step in and make a change. Forget sovereignty for the moment, the people in Yugoslavia had too many issues and no universal leader to make a fuss about sovereignty at the time, anyways; but the violation of anyone's human rights anywhere at anytime is absolutely unacceptable, and the UN should have possessed power to intervene for the sake of the human race! Sovereignty issues can be put on hold in such dire crises, but the killings of innocent humans absolutely cannot.

However, if the UN wanted to step into the sovereignty of the U.S., I should hope that it would only be under the exception of a crisis violating such a crucial thing as human rights. If we were seriously violating them, then by all means, yes, I would not have a problem with the UN intervening. I believe the sovereignty of nations should always be respected, but that exceptions should be made in circumstances when the nation involved is in a conflict dealing with the violation of human rights.