Srebrenica - The Russian Veto

[agchristie]

Further to Mikey's recent post on the attack on the Serbian PM at the weekend, what do you think about the Russian ambassador's comments that to acknowledge the massacre as 'genocide' would be 'counter-productive' and lead to 'greater tension'? Comments from Russia indicated the draft resolution did not reflect the wider scenario.

What are the arguments against the term 'genocide' being applied in this instance?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33445772

[ichkeria]

I have no doubt that they are Gromit however so is the opposition to it
So then the question is: we know what the political motivation of the opposition is, so therefore what is the political motivation of the proposers?

[Gromit]

Ich,

I fear it might have been little more than a publicity stunt...

// Mr Churkin and China’s UN ambassador, Liu Jieyi, appealed to the council not to put the resolution to a vote, citing divisions among its 15 members.

The UK deputy ambassador, Peter Wilson, insisted it go ahead. The vote was 10 in favour, with Russia casting its veto and four abstentions, including China.

The British Foreign Secretary, Philip Hammond, said: “We had three goals:

1. to commemorate the victims of the genocide in Srebrenica and victims on all sides during the conflict in Bosnia Herzegovina;

2. to appeal for justice for all and reconciliation;

3. and to note the lessons for the UN, of these tragic events. //

The victims will be commemorated anyway, Justice has been done at the International Court of Justice in the Hague. I am sure the UN have already noted the lessons. So the British motivation for trying to do this is not clear.

[ichkeria]

No I agree with you Gromit
But just look at who vetoed it or abstained: Russia, China, Angola, Nigeria and Venezuela : I wonder if the vote lined up those thumbing two different dictionaries :-)

[sevenOP]

Or this instance

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine%E2%80%93American_War#Atrocities