The mothers of children killed in Sbrenica have commenced legal proceedings in an attempt to hold the Dutch government and the UN accountable for the slaughter. For those who are unfamiliar with this case, some useful background information can be found here and here.

This is an interesting and landmark case for many reasons. First, I'm not certain that the UN has ever been taken to court before. Does anyone know? Second, it was determined that Serbia itself could not be held accountable for the massacre, yet this is a legal case not against the country that performed the genocide, but the country that supplied the peacekeepers.

Questions:
1) Will the UN actually show up or claim immunity, and what would that happenstance hold for the future of the ICC?
2) Do the Sbrenica mothers have a legitimate case against the UN and Dutch?
3) If the defense loses this case, what impact would that make on the future of UN peacekeeping missions like the one in Lebanon?
4) Any other thoughts on this matter?

1) I don't think it matters if the UN shows up or not. The truth is that the UN, good intentions aside, was ill prepared and unclear about what they'd do in Sbrenica. The truth is that unless you're ready to lay to waste your enemy, especially an enemy that's committing genocide, you have no chance of affecting any change. Sbrenica is textbook case for Solving All Conflicts Through Violence.

2) No. Despite the total incompetence of the UN & the Dutch forces deployed through the UN, the UN isn't the bad guy. The UN gave it a whirl they just failed miserably.

3) The UN can't keep peace. The UN should be handing out aid and manning hospitals.

4) This is one of those cases where everyone loses. It's very sad. You can't imagine humans can act like this. With out getting off topic IT IS IMPORTANT to compare actual atrocities like with trumped up atrocities. It makes using dogs to scare a prisoner seem civilized.

I don't entirely disagree with you, but it does bare mentioning that the victims had been disarmed by UN forces as a condition to enter the Srebrenica enclave. And peacekeepers reportedly even assisted as Serb forces rounded up the victims (though they did so under extreme duress of course). The UN specifically permitted rules of engagement by the Dutch peacekeepers for self-defensive purposes only. So in a nutshell, they disarmed these people then forbid ROE that would permit their defense. I'd say there is a case to be made...perhaps not of malice but negligence.

I mean to bring this up... time is not on my side today.

This is what I am talking about when I say the UN is completely incapable of dealing with peace keeping. They have this Polly-Anna attitude that if we're good they'll be good too. Of course that's not what happens. What happens is they act worse and laugh at you. Had the UN gone in there and started a wholesale slaughter of genocidal Serbs things would have settled down quickly. Violence could have forced peace in this conflict. Disarming the weak and then not protecting them isn't much of a plan.

1) Will the UN actually show up or claim immunity, and what would that happenstance hold for the future of the ICC?
The UN will claim immunity and this is crime. As Mrs. Pigpen pointed out the Dutch did far more than merely sit on their lands, they aided and abetted war-crimes. The leadership of the UN, the Dutch military officers and the Dutch leadership itself should be in the dock for war-crimes.

2) Do the Sbrenica mothers have a legitimate case against the UN and Dutch?
Oh yes they sure do. The Dutch government and courts went so far as to indict Ariel Sharon for failing to be a mind reader. The UN and Dutch forces must be held to at that standard otherwise is not a standard but an exception.

The United Nations has railed against Israel for far less for the past 60 years. Over 25% of the UN resolutions have been against Israel and it matters not that they were victims. It matters not if they reacted in defense, it matters not if they even do anything. Now they are being held for account and they don't like it.

This needs to go way beyond merely being held accountable. This was a war-crime and the UN and the Dutch military need to be held to standard that they have raised for others.

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

3) If the defense loses this case, what impact would that make on the future of UN peacekeeping missions like the one in Lebanon?
They will continue to be on of the most worthless organizations on the planet. Of all of the UN peacekeeping missions there is exacly one success story - Angola. Otherwise they have caused far more problems than they have ever solved.

There will be no impact because the UN is worthless and their missions will continue to support terrorism and dictators around the world.

4) Any other thoughts on this matter?
I sure hope that this does trigger a war-crimes tribunal. I was so outraged that this happened in the first place and that the UN did nothing. Serbia is even more guilty and the ICJ is just as worthless as the UN.

1) Will the UN actually show up or claim immunity, and what would that happenstance hold for the future of the ICC?
I do not believe that this whole case will stand any real chance in the courts. The whole story is far too complex. Almost every party involved in this affair played a role in this affair.

1) The U.N. for falsely claiming that Srebrenica was a safe-haven and because of their unwillingness to use massive airstrikes against the Bosnian-Serbian troops in the area, making the enclave an easy target.

2 ) Dutchbat III for being sent on a mission woth a very unclear mandate, for being badly prepared for the actual situation and for being naive in believing that the U.N. would take robust action if necessary.

3) The Bosnian Army (ABiH) for deliberately following a strategy of provoking skirmishes with the Bosnian-Serbian army and then seeking cover behind the Dutchbat units. This strategy worsened the already difficult situation of the Dutch peacekeepers, placing them in between two fires.

4) The Serbian government for their role in the violent nature of the disintergration process in former Yugoslavia.

5) The Bosnian-Serbian Army (VRS) for attacking the enclave and executing the genocide.

Up to now it has been extremely difficult for the ICC to even start legal cases against the people who bear the biggest responsibilities for the genocides and war crimes. (Milosovic case showed how difficult it is to get a conviction, Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic have been accused but are still not caught, like many others.) A case against the U.N. will be much harder to make, let alone a conviction of any kind. Because lets not forget, the U.N. and Dutchbat have made mistakes during their peacekeeping activities in former Yugoslavia and should take on some of the responsibility, but in the end they were there to do something good, they were there to protect. They did not commit any warcrimes. It were the different ethnic groups within the former Yugoslavia who started this war and who are responsible for the attrocities that happened there.

2) Do the Srebrenica mothers have a legitimate case against the UN and Dutch?
Perhaps one make a case against the U.N. and the Dutch that because of their negligence the Bosnian-Serbians were able to execute their horrible deed, but I do not think it will stand any chance.

3) If the defense loses this case, what impact would that make on the future of UN peacekeeping missions like the one in Lebanon?
They will not loose. There will be no case.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please Loreng, stick to the facts. This whole statement is a fabrication and you know it. The Dutch did not accuse Ariel Sharon for the mass murder that occurred in Sabra and Shatila, it was the Belgian high court who issued a warrant against him and the former Israeli Army chief of staff Amos Yaron.