There are many news stories on the memorials that were held today. But almost none of them even mention that the UN was involved in anyway. This Reuters' article is typical. Bosnia buries, mourns Srebrenica massacre victims | International | Reuters It only mentions war-crimes trails... after the fact.
The Voice of America article,VOA News - Srebrenica Massacre Victims Travel to Final Resting Place, mentioned that Srebrenica was supposed to have been a "United Nations-protected enclave." But they don't elaborate on how it was protected, or why that protection failed.
None of the articles I scanned mentioned the fact that UN Peacekeepers, backed up by another worthless UN Security Council resolution were authorized to use deadly force to protect Srebrenica. They never fired a shot.
Not one of the articles I scanned mentioned the fact that UN Peacekeeping force was supplying the Serbian military with diesel fuel to run the heavy equipment (for digging mass graves) and buses (for transporting soon-to-be-dead-people to those graves).
I guess they don't want to tarnish the reputation of their beloved United Nations (or Useless Nitwits... take your pick).
8000 men and boys were killed in that "UN protected enclave."
In 1995, my cynical nature said that the reason no one cared was because it was a case of the Christians exterminating the Muslims. I guess I am still cynical.
++++ My Post from the 10th Anniversary follows. ++++
10 years ago, on the afternoon of 11 July 1995, Bosnian Serb troops began the final extermination of the Muslim population of Srebrenica.
London Telegraph: Grief and Guilt at Graveside. The diplomats bemoan the occurrence. Even Kofi Annan *spit* accepts some responsibility on behalf of the UN, but it is not enough.
The Useless Nitwits at the United Nations don't want the people of the world to have access to small arms (things like AK-47's or FN/FAL rifles). Yet Srebrenica demonstrates to the world that the UN will not protect those people when they need protection.
Srebrenica was to have been a UN enforced "safe area." It became a death trap.
When the Serbian onslaught rolled through Srebrenica, it made a mockery of United Nations Security Council Resolution 819, passed in April 1993, establishing it as a "safe area' after an earlier brutal offensive. Resolution 836 "guaranteed" protection for Srebrenica by "all necessary means, including the use of force", stipulating that "all military or paramilitary units would either withdraw from the demilitarized zone or surrender all their arms." The battered conclave was put into the care of the UN's Dutch battalion in February 1995.The safe areas became UN-run concentration camps.
Instead of a safe area, Srebrenica under relentless shelling became a nightmare zone. The town was teeming with refugees, many living on the streets. As the Serbs prepared their final solution to the siege, they blocked most UN aid convoys into Srebrenica, cutting off food shipments, medical supplies and even the supply of shoes. The Serbs confiscated cooking salt from UN aid convoys, replacing it with industrial salt to poison the townspeople.
Some accounts hold that even though the use of force was authorized in advance, UN troops offered NO Resistance to the Serbs.
After the city was overrun, mass executions began. Did the UN try to stop them? No.
The UN Dutch battalion was even giving the Bosnian Serbs the fuel to drive the buses that brought the victims to the execution sites and the bulldozers which ploughed the corpses of their victims into the ground. [Ref.]But the UN (and Amnesty International and many others) believe that citizens should be disarmed - as they were in Srebrenica, as they were in the Warsaw Ghetto, and in many other places genocide has been carried out. They say that the UN or the "International Community" will come to your aid. To the people who say this, I would ask them to name 3 places in which this international community came to anyone's aid in time to prevent most of the atrocities from occurring.
Earlier in the year, we observed the anniversary of the Liberation of Auschwitz. The speeches were about "learning the lessons of history," to ensure the horrors would not be repeated. But they have been repeated, over and over again. And over and over again, a disarmed populace is left at the mercy of those bent on genocide. Srebrenica is only the one we are talking about today. Someday our attention will return to Darfur, or we will remember the Hutu/Tutsi conflict. But I doubt seriously that the international community will ever come to the aid of those being exterminated by their own governments.