PDA

View Full Version : Dutch Must Pay Srebrenica Compensation


ORAC
7th Sep 2013, 13:51
Would this be considered a precedent by the ECHR and make the UK liable for compensation for Basra, Helmand and everywhere we we have had troops?

Netherlands to pay compensation over Srebrenica massacre (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/06/netherlands-compensation-srebrenica-massacre)

Historic' ruling sets precedent that countries providing troops as UN peacekeepers can be held legally responsible for crimes

The Netherlands has been ordered to pay compensation for the deaths of Bosnian Muslims in the 1995 Srebrenica massacre in a ruling that opens up the Dutch state to compensation claims from relatives of the rest of the 8,000 men and youths who died.

The judgment by Holland's supreme court is the final decision in a protracted claim brought by relatives of three Muslim men who were expelled by Dutch soldiers from a United Nations compound during the Balkans conflict then killed by Bosnian Serb forces. Although the case related only to the murder of three victims, it confirms the precedent that countries that provide troops to UN missions can be held responsible for their conduct.........

The Dutch court ruling held that in the chaos of the Serb takeover of Srebrenica, UN commanders no longer had control of the troops on the ground and "effective control" therefore reverted to Dutch authorities in the Hague.

The human rights lawyer Liesbeth Zegveld, who represented the Bosnian families, called the ruling historic because it established that countries involved in UN missions can be found legally responsible for crimes, despite the UN's far-reaching immunity from prosecution. "People participating in UN missions are not always covered by the UN flag," she said..............

NutLoose
7th Sep 2013, 14:11
It's about time they gave these damn lawyers a gun and told them you try it.... The world is becoming a total farce and its all the fault of lawyers and do gooders..

What will this result in?. Countries refusing to send troops for fear of being sued? One can only wonder who is paying these people's court costs as well.

SASless
7th Sep 2013, 14:45
But Nutty.....can you not see the rightness of this decision? I mean after all....everything is so neat and easy during Civil Wars, Ethnic Cleansing Actions, and other Wars and Misdemeanors that take place around the World.

Why every Soldier, Sailor, Airman, and Marine has a Law Book and Crystal Ball stashed away in their Bergen for use when things happen that are not nicely tied up in Blue Ribbon and handed to them with pomp and ceremony.

I guess we just need to start referring to them more often.

Steep slope....Tea Cart....and we know where this is headed.

Just This Once...
7th Sep 2013, 14:51
It's hard enough to get countries to provide troops to the UN as it is. Indeed, many cash-starved armies of the world supply troops to the UN just to receive an income. If it now comes with a cash liability I guess these minor nations may think again!

Ah well, the UN death march continues.

Broadsword***
7th Sep 2013, 15:05
"It confirms the precedent that countries that provide troops to UN missions can be held responsible for their conduct."

Hardly a radical concept.

SASless
7th Sep 2013, 15:16
I can how effective filing a civil suit against a Moroccan Army Private can be if they somehow did something that gave cause to a civil action. Which Court would have jurisdiction say if said Moroccan was doing UN Duty in Somalia and an Ethiopian merchant got injured or killed due to some failure of the Soldier to perform a duty in some way?

The Old Fat One
7th Sep 2013, 15:46
Whilst I completely agree with the sentiments expressed above, could I point out that (unless I have misread) this is a Dutch court ordering the Dutch government to pay compensation...not an outside agency. Thus it is peculiarly Dutch foot-shooting exercise and not a great deal to do with anybody else.

ORAC
7th Sep 2013, 16:36
Unfortunately, within Europe, once a precedent has been set in one country appellants in others appeal their cases up to the ECHR which favours the idea of extending their remit and enforce it as a common human right to all under their jurisdiction.

The briefing by a Dutch judge stressing the limited nature of the case is a forlorn attempt to prevent the inevitable international application

West Coast
7th Sep 2013, 16:49
Well, shouldn't the Dutch have some responsibility?

Broadsword***
7th Sep 2013, 16:54
Unfortunately, within Europe, once a precedent has been set in one country appellants in others appeal their cases up to the ECHR which favours the idea of extending their remit and enforce it as a common human right to all under their jurisdiction.

Assuming you are right, then the worst that can happen is that any European government that provides forces for UN peacekeeping operations may be held liable in law for the wrongful conduct of their forces, but only in circumstances where that government had effective control of its own forces at the material time (i.e. they were no longer under effective UN control).

Tankertrashnav
7th Sep 2013, 17:00
Well, shouldn't the Dutch have some responsibility?

Ok, explain what you would have done?

West Coast
7th Sep 2013, 17:11
What I would have done or not done isn't your concern. What the Dutch did and didn't do makes them party to this suit and a witness to genocide.

ShotOne
7th Sep 2013, 17:48
Appalling memory. Certainly not their finest hour but here's hoping none of us are ever placed in their position.

4ROCK
7th Sep 2013, 18:21
I spent some time in Sreb and can assure you that the small Dutch contingent had no chance of protecting this 'safe' haven. The UN's generally limp wristed policies with regard to their involvement (or not!) in the course and conduct of the war essentially cleared the way for the Serbs unfortunately.

Hindsight's a great thing but I suspect if someone had made a robust (and possibly suicidal) stand against the Serbs once their intentions were clear then we might have saved a few thousand lives...........

Laarbruch72
7th Sep 2013, 21:12
The actions of the Dutch at Srebrenica were nothing short of negligent in allowing genocide to happen under their own noses, there was no hint of actually defending the place, numbers of troops notwithstanding. At least they've recognised this in recent years.

4ROCK
7th Sep 2013, 21:31
The Dutch might have been stationed In Sreb but they certainly weren't the only UN nationality aware of what was happening....if we are 'blaming' the Dutch for not having the temerity to take out a few Serbs and make a stand then we need to take a close look at the whole UNPROFOR command...!

Tankertrashnav
7th Sep 2013, 23:07
What I would have done or not done isn't your concern. What the Dutch did and didn't do makes them party to this suit and a witness to genocide.

You asked the question - shouldn't the Dutch have some responsibility? I will rephrase my question as you are unwilling to state what you would have done. Let me put it this way - what do you suggest the Dutch forces should have done to avoid the accusation of being "witness" to genocide? Define witness by the way - in my simple mind I understand the word in its basic meaning - not implying complicity or approval of the events that occurred. I await some realistic suggestions from you as to what 400 lightly armed troops could have done to oppose a heavily armed force of much greater size fighting virtually on its own ground, constrained as the Dutch were by the rigorous restrictions placed on UN forces by their rules of engagement?

parabellum
7th Sep 2013, 23:28
The actions of the Dutch at Srebrenica were nothing short of negligent in allowing genocide to happen under their own noses, there was no hint of actually defending the place, numbers of troops notwithstanding. At least they've recognised this in recent years.

That is total tosh Laarbruch72, had the Dutch resisted then they would have been wiped out, to a man. Their OC took the correct action to save his men, unaware that a massacre, rather than loss of control of an area, was about to take place. One might also ask why the commanders on the ground didn't order a considerable reinforcement of the UN troops already there when they became aware the Dutch were no longer in control.

Tankertrashnav has it right here:

I await some realistic suggestions from you as to what 400 lightly armed troops could have done to oppose a heavily armed force of much greater size fighting virtually on its own ground, constrained as the Dutch were by the rigorous restrictions placed on UN forces by their rules of engagement?

TBM-Legend
8th Sep 2013, 00:53
I love the 20:20 hindsight of some...

The on-site commander did what he thought was correct at the time and like all tense or combat situations did not have the benefit of a multi-person and multi-year review period to critique the situation and call the shots.

West Coast
8th Sep 2013, 05:07
I don't think it's hindsight to say it was negligent to place a lightly armed battalion in place and marginally support them knowing the absolute brutality of the enemy.

Tanker
Find someone else to play with. This isn't about what I would have done.

Wensleydale
8th Sep 2013, 07:48
there was no hint of actually defending the place, numbers of troops
notwithstanding.


Not strictly true. They were under hostile fire yet were unable to gain approval from the UN for air strikes to defend themselves despite very frequent requests. Surrounded, deserted by the UN commanders, and vastly outnumbered, what were they supposed to do? I believe that it was largely this event, by putting NATO troops in jeopardy and not giving them the means to achieve their tasks, that was a major contribution in causing NATO to bring the war to an end by an air campaign.

Lima Juliet
8th Sep 2013, 07:58
I can remember sitting over the top of Srebrenica watching the Serbs hammer the crap out of the town with artillery pieces - I ended up taking my NVGs off as I didn't want to watch it anymore. There were mud-movers of all nations screaming at the CAOC for permission to drop - no such permission came.

So does that make us all liable? Should we have ignored CAOC direction and intervened with the Serbs against our ROE? The rumour was that one nation's pilot did drop and was whisked away for Court Martial.

I really feel for these Dutch guys, they were put in a very difficult situation and probably did the most they could do. If I were the Dutch I would put in a counter claim against the UN/NATO asking what happened to the air support that they so desperately needed.

LJ

Tankertrashnav
8th Sep 2013, 08:27
Tanker
Find someone else to play with. This isn't about what I would have done.


Fair enough - my question can equally be asked of others on this thread and I therefore invite constructive and realistic suggestions from others on this thread who wish to contribute to the debate on what they thought the Dutch should have done in the circumstances they found themselves in. Comments on what the UN authorities should have done prior to this event are not in any way relevant to the decision taken by the Dutch commander - he was acting in the situation he found himself in - not the situation he would have liked to have been in.

Momoe
8th Sep 2013, 09:28
There are two issues here, the actions of the Dutch OC and the UNPROFOR command.

Dutch OC is not getting any positive support from command, overwhelming odds and the likelihood of a successful outcome negligible. Professional soldiers yes, however committing to defend would have resulted in heavy Dutch casualties and the massacre would occurred anyway.

UNPROFOR command, a peacekeeping force is almost an oxymoron in itself, however if command cannot make the necessary decisions and control reverted to the Dutch Government who aren't on the ground and do not have the intel available to UNPROFOR; then the UN should be liable not the Dutch.

Agree totally with other posters that a more robust stance earlier against clearly defined aggressors would have resulted in a different outcome.

Basil
8th Sep 2013, 10:28
Dutch Gov: "Thank you for your ruling, your Honour; very interesting. We will file it away most carefully." :rolleyes:

neilmac
8th Sep 2013, 21:18
Having been on the inside: arriving the day of the massacre to my post in Sarajevo. I know the score and what went on, in my opinion General Janvier and UN Council are at fault. Don't forget we had Brit SF in that neck of the woods as well. In the next few months we had to fight tooth and nail asking for airstrikes with people not in theatre (politicians or military hierarchy who wouldn't make a decision) They are the guilty ones, but no doubt enjoying their pensions.

NM

racedo
8th Sep 2013, 21:29
Is not an attack on one NATO nations forces an attack on all ?
or does this not apply when nation is acting on UN's behalf ?

Seem to remember France acting unilaterally when some of its personnel dies in bombing a Serb arms dump and making them aware more could be on way.

ORAC
8th Sep 2013, 21:39
As a gut summary, this is the good guys being made to pay because they can't make the bad guys pay.

Which will inevitably mean less good guys will offer their services in future...

Easy Street
8th Sep 2013, 22:52
Should we have ignored CAOC direction and intervened with the Serbs against our ROE? The rumour was that one nation's pilot did drop and was whisked away for Court Martial.At 20 years' distance it's easy to say "national rights of self-defence cannot be overruled by ROE".... but was this something that was discussed amongst aircrew at the time? I know that not all nations have the "defence of others" aspect to their self-defence law and it would be interesting to see if anyone knows how Dutch law would have viewed it.

Is not an attack on one NATO nations forces an attack on all ?
or does this not apply when nation is acting on UN's behalf ?
Firstly, Article V only applies to attacks taking place in Europe or North America (which doesn't help in this case, but explains why Al Qaeda's early campaign against the US was all "exempt"). Secondly, there is a distinction in international law between "the State" and its forces - subject to all of international law's usual grey areas. An attack against a fighter squadron defending its homeland would be an attack on "the State", whereas an attack on the same squadron taking part in UN peacekeeping might not be. Or, to be mildly topical, shooting down a Turkish F-4 straying into Syrian airspace doesn't consitute an attack on Turkey because the aircraft was (allegedly) in the wrong place. Thirdly, Article V is not applied automatically when forces come under attack; the State under attack must invoke the Article. The US famously did so against Al Qaeda after 9/11.

Tankertrashnav
9th Sep 2013, 09:52
Which will inevitably mean less good guys will offer their services in future...


ORAC - I respectfully draw your attention to post #7 on this thread ;)

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/523180-their-there.html

Wander00
9th Sep 2013, 11:24
"Less good guys", ie worse people, or fewer (as in Waitrose quick check-out). I'll get my coat...................

Courtney Mil
9th Sep 2013, 11:42
Well done, Tanker. :ok:

neilmac
10th Sep 2013, 16:38
Well said LJ, at AOCC CAS requests were sent days previous but no joy.
Felt so sorry for the Dutch troops left to deal with a situation most of us wouldnt know how to react. Left out to hang due to politicians and a French General. I often wonder if the French troops in charge of Sector Sarajevo were put in same situation would airstrikes have been forthcoming?

NM

Lonewolf_50
10th Sep 2013, 16:56
The actions of the Dutch at Srebrenica were nothing short of negligent in allowing genocide to happen under their own noses, there was no hint of actually defending the place, numbers of troops notwithstanding. At least they've recognised this in recent years.
How familiar are you with the RoE and the UN Dual Key protocol for UNPROFOR?
There were mud-movers of all nations screaming at the CAOC for permission to drop - no such permission came.
One might also ask why the commanders on the ground didn't order a considerable reinforcement of the UN troops already there when they became aware the Dutch were no longer in control.
The root cause of that is dual key RoE and the UN C2-abortion.

The dumbacity of this ruling is reason enough for any nation to refuse a blue helmet mission unless explicit pre-emptive nullification of any charges like the above case are in the terms of reference for the force.

Tinman74
11th Sep 2013, 19:43
My time there was truly awful, the UN undecided on anything they wanted apart from the ROE, the Bosnians what ever the creed understanding that took the pi$$.

If only we had been undisciplined, maybe things wouldnt have happened.

Trim Stab
11th Sep 2013, 20:37
Dutch OC is not getting any positive support from command, overwhelming odds and the likelihood of a successful outcome negligible. Professional soldiers yes, however committing to defend would have resulted in heavy Dutch casualties and the massacre would occurred anyway.

I disagree. I was an UKMO (not UNMO) there at the time. The Dutch could have defended the UN compound and the Bosniaks sheltering therein. If they had at least defended the compound, the UN would have been forced to concede to the calls for air-strikes. It would not have prevented all the casualties, but the situation would have remained under control. If BritBat had been in control of Srebrenica the massacre would not have happened.

Lonewolf_50
11th Sep 2013, 20:55
If BritBat had been in control of Srebrenica the massacre would not have happened.
Indeed. I seem to recall a certain LTC Riley of the Royal Welsh Fusiliers going outside of the UN command chain ... and the Fusiliers making the difference ... in Gorazde. :ok:

Wensleydale
12th Sep 2013, 07:39
The Dutch could have defended the UN compound and the Bosniaks sheltering
therein. If they had at least defended the compound, the UN would have been
forced to concede to the calls for air-strikes. It would not have prevented all
the casualties, but the situation would have remained under control. If BritBat
had been in control of Srebrenica the massacre would not have happened.


Speaking as someone who was on board the AWACS that was providing the link to CAOC that night..... I completely disagree with your assessment of the situation. My understanding was that the CAOC went through all means possible to secure the air strikes but the ROE were just too restrictive without the UN approval which was not forthcoming, regardless of the perils faced by the Dutch troops. I also understand that it was this failure to gain approval of air support for the Dutch that led to NATO nations taking over the air campaign and bringing the conflict to a conclusion.

TwoDeadDogs
12th Sep 2013, 09:20
hi all
If I may, the Dutch also restricted themselves. A friend who was out there with the UN was at a Dutch unit one day and they operated self-propelled guns. They came under fire from the Serbians and the Dutch replied with their heavy guns, without ringing home first. they fired 12 rounds per gun and stopped. When my friend asked why they stopped after just 12 rounds, he was told that that was all they were allowed, by order of Rotterdam or wherever, to have on hand. When somebody from home rang, enquiring loudly as to why they had fired on the Serbs, the situation was explained in short sentences and the phone put down...

regards
TDD

4ROCK
12th Sep 2013, 12:09
As Two Dead Dogs has already alluded to - the Dutch certainly didn't lack courage......they simply lacked the backing of the UN.

Sreb was always a powder keg and one which was far to tempting for the Serbs who were well aware that the 'safe' haven was not what it said on the tin. I was there a few months before the slaughter but even then the writing was plainly on the wall and UNPROFOR were powerless under their remit to put up a Custer's Last Stand. I don't blame or condone the actions of the Dutch in the pocket - they were in a no-win situation although once any fire fight broke out I suspect the cavalry (of whatever nation) wouldn't have been too far away - even if it wasn't delivered from the skies. The prospect of actually engaging (looking into the white's of their eyes) one of the main antagonists after witnessing some terrible outrages (as bad as Syria) would have been manna to heaven for a lot of the troops over there.

We can debate on here all day as to whether or not if it was in the BritBat AOR then would they have fought to the last Warrior left standing to protect the population? I like to think they would regardless of the consequences - what exactly would the UN have done if WW111 had broken out on their watch....?!

Lonewolf_50
12th Sep 2013, 13:13
As Two Dead Dogs has already alluded to - the Dutch certainly didn't lack courage......they simply lacked the backing of the UN.
I hadn't realized that this lack of support may also have included the Dutch homefront. Some interesting posts in this thread from folks who saw how it all went down. Thanks to all for the insights. :ok:

ShotOne
12th Sep 2013, 18:31
Do all the other nations who watched the awful situation unfold but refused to send a single peacekeeper have to pay compensation too?

500N
12th Sep 2013, 18:34
"- what exactly would the UN have done if WW111
had broken out on their watch....?!"

Been moved aside as a useless hindrance so the
real people could get on with it ?

Lonewolf_50
12th Sep 2013, 21:15
"- what exactly would the UN have done if WW111 had broken out on their watch....?!"

Sent a strongly worded memo to various parties to stop, of course. :p

reynoldsno1
12th Sep 2013, 23:43
a single peacekeeper

Maybe therein lies the problem - the UN no longer conduct peaceMAKING operations ...

Wensleydale
13th Sep 2013, 08:56
"- what exactly would the UN have done if WW111
had broken out on their watch....?!"



Perhaps the UN should change its name to "League of Nations"?

Lonewolf_50
14th Sep 2013, 16:34
Perhaps the UN should change its name to "League of Nations"?
Herd of Cats, more like. :mad:

Trim Stab
14th Sep 2013, 19:06
Speaking as someone who was on board the AWACS that was providing the link to CAOC that night..... I completely disagree with your assessment of the situation. My understanding was that the CAOC went through all means possible to secure the air strikes but the ROE were just too restrictive without the UN approval which was not forthcoming, regardless of the perils faced by the Dutch troops. I also understand that it was this failure to gain approval of air support for the Dutch that led to NATO nations taking over the air campaign and bringing the conflict to a conclusion.

I don't disagree with your argument that they repeatedly requested air support - our OC was one of the voices you may have heard.

However, my point is that the Dutch could have unilaterally stepped outside of their own ROEs instead of expecting others to take that decision. They could have robustly defended their compound (and those Bosniaks who were sheltering within) instead of expelling them. They could have also put out some defended positions around their compound to extend a protected zone to some of the others who were seeking protection. With some agile PR they could have widely publicised the situation and the UN bureaucracy would have been obliged very quickly to relax their ROEs and allowed air support. The situation should never have been allowed to escalate.

Instead, the Serb thugs (they cannot be described as belonging to an army) realised that they were unopposed so went on a rampage.

As I wrote in my previous post, if BritBat had been in control the massacre would never have happened as there would have been an immediate and robust response which - if it did not immediately deter further aggression - would have lead to a rapid escalation in international publicity which would have lead to a change in ROEs. I would also say without hesitation that the same would have been the case if the French had been in control of the sector - they were just as robust as BritBat in dealing with situations while they had control of Sarajevo.

Unfortunately, it was the Dutch in control of Srebrenica who - though very professional and brave soldiers - were too politically cowardly.

Wensleydale
14th Sep 2013, 19:14
However, my point is that the Dutch could have unilaterally stepped outside of their own ROEs instead of expecting others to take that decision.


Another Bloody Sunday then....... Unfortunately the law does not distinguish between good intentions and a deliberate breach.

Easy Street
14th Sep 2013, 19:33
However, my point is that the Dutch could have unilaterally stepped outside of their own ROEs instead of expecting others to take that decision.

Putting that a bit more delicately, they could have applied their national laws of self defence. There would have been absolutely no legal come-back as national rights to self-defence trump ROEs. The only question would be whether Dutch self-defence laws extended to protecting others.

The way round that problem would have been for the Dutch to have planted themselves firmly amongst the Bosniaks so that it would have been impossible for the Serbs to attack (e.g. by shelling) without provoking a self-defence response from the Dutch. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Lookleft
15th Sep 2013, 08:21
I think the reason the Dutch were operationally hamstrung was possibly due to a lack of recent operational experience. Their last war was in Indonesia in the late 40's. I have no doubt that a British or French or even an American force would have faced an impossible position with a different mindset because they had a history of facing overwhelming odds and prevailing. I read an article about the Aussies taking over from the Dutch in Helmand Province. The Dutch were more interested in getting to know the locals to keep the peace, the Aussies backed up hearts and minds with patrolling. Not suggesting the Dutch are timid, they just have a different way of approaching a problem.

parabellum
15th Sep 2013, 22:49
However, my point is that the Dutch could have unilaterally stepped outside of their own ROEs instead of expecting others to take that decision.

1. and been annihilated for their trouble..

they could have applied their national laws of self defence

2. see 1. above

I don't think the Dutch, (or several other units), ever envisaged that they would not get vital support when it was needed. As mentioned by others above, ROE changes came about as a result of this event.

kintyred
16th Sep 2013, 21:20
I was experiencing the Dutch culture first hand at the time of the Srebrenica massacre and there's no doubt that the Dutch military was embarrassed by events there. The points already about the difference between the Britsh and Dutch approach is well made. As I said to my Dutch colleagues at the time I couldn't imagine that happening had the Paras been in charge. The price we pay though are atrocities such as Bloody Sunday and Amritsar. The Dutch are a very democratic society and far more trusting than us cynical Brits. In many ways they have a more advanced and balanced society than ours and probably credited the Serbs with the same values that they themselves held. Every nationality has it's own way of dealing with situations (Italians paying the Taliban not to attack them). Long may these differences continue, the world would be the poorer if every nation responded identically to a crisis. Who has the right answer to the Syrian issue for example?

JFZ90
16th Sep 2013, 21:32
I just read up about some of the detail on the Srebrenica massacre. Its incredible to think such things could happen so recently in what appeared to be a civil society so close to home.

Is it just me, or does it seem more shocking now, in hindsight, than it did at the time?

melmothtw
17th Sep 2013, 07:11
Perhaps if the Dutch had followed the Swedish model....

Business | Assertive Swedes Play Tough Guy In Bosnia -- Most U.N. Troops Use Other Tactics | Seattle Times Newspaper (http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19931106&slug=1730265)

U.N. troops routinely spend days negotiating with Bosnian factions for rights of passage for aid convoys.
[Colonel Ulf Hendricsson, commander of the U.N. Nordic battalion in central Bosnia] has a different approach.
"I have come to checkpoints where the soldiers refuse to remove the mines blocking our way," he said. "I've told the soldiers if they don't move the mines we'll blow their heads off. We've always gotten through."

melmothtw
17th Sep 2013, 07:27
Every nationality has it's own way of dealing with situations (Italians paying the Taliban not to attack them). Long may these differences continue, the world would be the poorer if every nation responded identically to a crisis

What a load of absolute tosh! It was as a direct result of the Italians paying the Taliban that the French who took over their area of operations were massacred.

AFP: French killed after Italy bribed Taliban: report (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gxhDyrOYmjtxZuOcq0EecpV_nd-A)

kintyred
17th Sep 2013, 13:29
So the Italians got it wrong in your opinion. No more wrong than the US and the Brits deciding to invade Iraq in mine. Nobody's perfect.

melmothtw
17th Sep 2013, 13:43
So the Italians got it wrong in your opinion. No more wrong than the US and the Brits deciding to invade Iraq in mine. Nobody's perfect.

That wasn't the point I was making kintyred. You had said that it was a good thing that different nations have different standards when it comes to conducting peace-keeping/making operations. I wasn't having a dig at the Italians, per se, but was simply pointing out where this can lead.

Can't argue with you about Iraq (though I have to admit I supported the invasion at the time), but that's a whole different kettle of fish...

ORAC
27th Jun 2017, 12:53
Court rules Dutch troops partly responsible for Srebrenica deaths (http://www.politico.eu/article/court-rules-dutch-troops-partly-responsible-for-srebrenica-deaths/)

Peacekeepers’ actions deprived victims of ‘chance of survival,’ judge rules.

A Dutch appeals court (“The state is therefore liable for 30 percent of the losses suffered by the relatives,” the court said in a statement.

The case was filed by relatives of the victims, a group known as the Mothers of Srebrenica.

More than 7,000 men and boys were killed in the massacre, which the U.N.’s International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia ruled was genocide.) ruled on Tuesday that the Netherlands is partly responsible for the deaths of around 350 Muslim men and boys in the 1995 Srebrenica massacre.

In its ruling, the court in The Hague upheld a decision from 2014 that found Dutch peacekeepers stationed in Bosnia-Herzegovina at fault for expelling Muslim men from a Dutch U.N. base, many of whom were eventually killed by Bosnian Serb forces. The presiding judge said (https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2017-06-27/dutch-government-partially-liable-in-300-srebrenica-deaths) that Dutch actions meant the Muslim men “were deprived of the chance of survival.”

The court estimated that the men would have had a 30 percent chance of survival if they had been allowed to stay in the Dutch base. “The state is therefore liable for 30 percent of the losses suffered by the relatives,” the court said in a statement.

The case was filed by relatives of the victims, a group known as the Mothers of Srebrenica.

More than 7,000 men and boys were killed in the massacre, which the U.N.’s International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia ruled (http://www.icty.org/specials/srebrenica20/?q=srebrenica20/) was genocide.

melmothtw
27th Jun 2017, 13:49
...and there I was thinking I'd had the last word on this in September 2013.

Lonewolf_50
27th Jun 2017, 18:06
What will this result in?. Countries refusing to send troops for fear of being sued? Hopefully, yes. I'd say write off the peacekeeping and "let 'em play" and see how that goes. Nobody to sue after the fact is one advantage. :p




"Should have known." What a load of rubbish for the basis of the ruling. Dutch own goal repeated.

FOGII
27th Jun 2017, 19:38
So does that make us all liable? Should we have ignored CAOC direction and intervened with the Serbs against our ROE? The rumour was that one nation's pilot did drop and was whisked away for Court Martial.
LJ

LJ,

If it's the same incident the individuals ended up with non-punitive letters of reprimand.

People forget that 6th Fleet units, including the super MEU, were not under NATO or UN command but were in support of NATO. The counter factual rabbit hole is what would have happened if the Dutch Co had known this command relationship and the implications.

S/F, FOG

ORAC
28th Jun 2017, 07:11
Dutch veterans sue over trauma of Bosnia genocide (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/world/dutch-veterans-sue-over-trauma-of-bosnia-genocide-jnpgv8p2k)

More than 200 Dutch army veterans are suing for the trauma and emotional damage they claim they suffered after failing to prevent the genocide of Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica while serving as United Nations peacekeepers.

The litigation was announced as the Hague Court of Appeal upheld a 2014 civil court judgment, which found that the Dutch government was liable for the murders of 350 men, among the 8,000 Muslims killed in Europe’s worst atrocity since the Second World War. The soldiers who served in the Dutchbat III battalion were UN peacekeepers supposed to be protecting Muslim refugees from Ratko Mladic, the Bosnian Serb commander who is on trial for the genocide.......

.....206 of the Dutchbat soldiers, including one commander, are claiming €22,000 each, €4.5 million in total, for the trauma they suffered by being given an “impossible mission” to protect the Bosnian Muslims. “They are still experiencing damages in all aspects of their lives and believe that the defence ministry should be held responsible,” said Michael Ruperti, their lawyer, on Monday night.

Lonewolf_50
28th Jun 2017, 17:04
Heh: politicians send soldiers off to polish a turd, and provide as a tool an old tooth brush. Time to push back at the pols, good for them.
But this is treating the symptom, not the cause. It avoids the culpability of the entirety of the UN security council membership who put together the conops they had to try and make happen. (I hope they win, though.)

Slow Biker
29th Jun 2017, 18:29
For an interesting account of UN peacekeeping read Heroes of Jadotville by Rose Doyle. A company of the Irish Army was sent to the breakaway province of Katanga during the Congo crisis of the early '60s supposedly to protect the Belgian expats. It didn't quite work out like that. A story of betrayal, courage and leadership.

racedo
29th Jun 2017, 20:15
For an interesting account of UN peacekeeping read Heroes of Jadotville by Rose Doyle. A company of the Irish Army was sent to the breakaway province of Katanga during the Congo crisis of the early '60s supposedly to protect the Belgian expats. It didn't quite work out like that. A story of betrayal, courage and leadership.


In a pub in Dublin in 1990's an Irish friend introduced me to someone who told me the story of this, he had been there and is referenced in various books.
Initially disbelieving because I have met too many vets who want to tell you how they won the war single handed, I got confirmation from mate that yup he was the real McCoy.
In terms of leadership it is probably one of the greatest UN actions where an officer and his men stood up and did the job asked of them.
Looking at actions of the Dutch it is a world away from this.
There were SAS operating close to Srebenica but they were there as observers only to report on what was occurring, they reported and no Govt could claim they were unaware of what was going to occur.