(Haviv, R. (1992), ‘Bosnia’)
“It can take time for even the most shocking images to have an effect, The war in Bosnia had not yet begun when American Ron Haviv took this picture of a Serb kicking a Muslim woman who had been shot by Serb forces… [by the end of the conflict] almost 100,000 people lost their lives. Before his assassination in 2000, Arkan was indicted for crimes against humanity. Haviv’s image was used as evidence against him and other perpetrators of what became known as ethnic cleansing” (Haviv R., 1992 ‘Bosnia’)
The image of a shot Muslim woman being kicked in the head is abrasive and horrifying. It shows a very small but important part of the Bosnian conflict and in essence, demonstrates the violation of Human Rights that occurred throughout the dismantlement of Yugoslavia. Not only were the Bosnian Serbs and the war itself in direct violation of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR, 1949), it also disregarded all aspects of the 4 Geneva Conventions (1949). By the time the Dayton Accords (1995) had been implemented, an estimated 100,000 people lost their lives, most being civilians, peacekeepers, and medical staff. The Accords themselves were only holding action to the catalyst that sparked the initial conflict and to this day, tensions with Kosovo still remain. The purpose of the image was not to provide a solution but force the international community to listen and take action to prevent the 3-year war that was to follow. This image didn’t stop the Srebrenica Genocide but it did force people in the post-conflict world to charge those responsible for their heinous crimes. It is iconic because it represents what media can do; it can raise awareness and force action from those who would prefer to remain uninvolved, even in the face of direct human rights violations. This photograph was chosen because it instigated action. It forced the global community to listen, and even though it took three years of mass murder and genocide to take effect, it forced the international community to at least begin to understand what was happening in Bosnia from 1992 to 1995.
There are many catalysts that went into the dismantling of Yugoslavia and in turn the Bosnian War. The first being the death of the ‘benevolent yet ruthless dictator’ President Josip Broz Tito in 1980 (UEG, Accessed 2019). The second, the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the collapse of the Iron Curtain that promptly followed. Thirdly, the underlying tension between ethnic and religious groups within Yugoslavia’s six states and the downfall of the ‘Presidential Role’ post-Tito’s death. Much of this conflict stems from Serbian and Croatian relations. Specifically, the Serbs want the states’ leadership, and the perpetuated discrimination and turmoil towards the Bosniaks. “Yugoslavia was a country built on brotherhood and unity but fell apart from internal struggle and civil war. The country may not exist anymore but its legacy lives on…” (WonderWhy, 2016) through the Srebrenica Genocide (1995), the largest massacre in Europe after the Holocaust, and the repeated disrespect of the Geneva Conventions by the Serbian Military. The United Nations and NATO adapted their policies to ensure never again can 8,000 people be slaughtered in front of peacekeeping forces, in a designated ‘safe area’. It also brought attention to various global issues: How can another genocide occur barely half a century after the Holocaust? How can the international community prevent recurrences of this morbid action in the future? Why are many inter-ethnic tensions remain unchecked in the face of international conflict? The answer is complex however by looking to past violations and crimes the world can adapt future management of these issues to prevent unnecessary loss of human life in the future. By understanding the catalysts of conflict, we can understand how to prevent it.
The international reaction to the mass loss of human life and rights was significant. After the massacre in Srebrenica, “in August 1995, after the Serbs refused to comply with a UN ultimatum, NATO forces in conjunction with Bosnian and Croatian forces began an aerial bombing campaign [finally] after three years of warfare, Milosevic agreed to enter negotiations that led to a ceasefire.” (UEG, Accessed 2019) This international response forced change among the UN and NATO, they could not simply stand neutral in the face of the undeniable loss of human life. In 1993, before the end of the conflict, the United Nations Security Council created an “international tribunal for prosecuting persons responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia” through the UN Security Council Resolution 827. It showed an immediate response to the outbreak of conflict in Sarajevo (1992) where only specific Muslim neighborhoods were targeted. However, it was only in 2012 that some war trials took place in The Hague in Amsterdam. Ethnic cleansing is a global issue that is still faced in modern society. The Balkan tension and conflict, enlightened ignorant diplomats, who wished to turn a blind eye to the human rights violations occurring on the African continent. Extensive media coverage of the conflict manipulated and embarrassed those, like the USA, who remained passive to maintain their reputation in a post-Vietnam War world. This image is iconic because of its significance in drawing attention to the issues of global bias and the inherent discrimination of aid throughout the world. The international reaction to the Bosnian War was directly influenced by the horrific, grotesque photographs taken by people like Ron Haviv and therefore it should be acknowledged in the media’s role in the ending of the massacre of the Bosianaks.
In the wake of the Bosnian conflict, the UN was “ no longer seen as just ‘do-gooders’, but as entities whose actions could adversely impact individuals’ enjoyment of human rights…” (Ryngaert, C. & Schrijver N., 2015) this meant that when discussing their failure to prevent the Srebrenica genocide their “re-characterization gave rise to a questioning of their immunities before domestic courts and to the need for accessible dispute-resolution mechanisms to provide justice to victims” (Ryngaert, C. & Schrijver N., 2015). This proved on the global stage that no one, not even the UN, is exempt from the “consequence of inaction” (Vlasic, M. 2015). Instead “we [must] become more thoughtful on how we choose to act… [so that] we may just avoid another commemoration.” (Vlasic, M. 2015) It is essential for future generations that this lesson is heard by the global community and that it the entrenched in every action put forward in war. In a conflict where there is a directive to “create an unbearable situation of total insecurity… for the inhabitants of Srebrenica” (Vlasic, M. 2015), there must be reparations made and immediate action taken.
“Denialist rhetoric trivializes the experiences of victims and survivors, and minimizes the true weight of what occurred during the 1990s. “Reconciliation cannot be possible without recognition of the crimes committed… by acknowledging these events as what they are, the survivors can begin the healing process and find closure for what they experienced” (Ambassador Samantha Power, UEG Accessed 2019)
In a post-Bosnian War world, the international community must learn from their mistakes and an image like Ron Haviv’s can be a catalyst for this change. The global issues of genocide and ethnic divide should be faced head-on and not be left to fester into conflict. The solution to ethnic discrimination is complex and there is no specific approached deemed to be successful. However, if every country, every leader was held responsible for their role in conflict and are forced to relearn the treatment of their community, then perhaps the mass violation of human rights as seen in the Bosnian War, can be prevented for future generations. This must be done, and this is why iconic images like the ones taken by Ron Haviv, play a significant role in the reform of international trends and policy for the betterment of society.
Comments
Post a Comment