!ßÈÀ face="Verdana" size="2">Since the beginning, Turkey saw that what we were faced with was genocide, not a war. Although Turkey was not even a member of the U.N. Human Rights Commission, with U.S. support, Turkey managed to call the commission into a special session in December 1992.

 
  When, after Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina declared their independence on March 3, 1992, and the European Union recognized that to be the case with the United States quickly following suit, the war that had begun some time before in Yugoslavia -- a country caught in a process of disintegration – gathered momentum.

  Serbia aimed to gain those areas outside the borders of Serbia proper where fellow Serbs were living. So, it launched an ethnic cleansing campaign to expel from these areas non-Serbian groups. The arms embargo imposed (under the Resolution No. 713 adopted by the U.N. Security Council in September 1991) rendered these other groups defenseless in the face of the Serbian army.

  On the grounds that it was a European problem, the United States remained uninvolved for quite a long time. The EU was against potential U.S. intervention anyway. Meanwhile, the issue caused a rift among EU countries, as had been the case during World War I. On one side stood Britain, France and Russia who reacted to Serbia with understanding, to say the least, while on the other Germany and Austria, who, like Turkey, defended the victims of the Serbian attacks.

  In February 1992 the EU created, via UNPROFOR, consisting mainly of British and French troops, relief corridors for supplies destined for settlements. Also, it declared “safe areas” in an effort to protect those towns that were attacked by Serbian forces. However, since it could not use force against the Serbians it sought a diplomatic solution to the problem through a series of international conferences.

  Then, the office of a United Nations special rapporteur was created to determine the crimes committed during the war. Obviously thinking that a former communist would easily obey them, Western powers made Tadeusz Mazowiecki of Poland the special rapporteur -- only to regret the choice afterwards. A man of honor and integrity, the rapporteur started revealing the facts: Ethnic cleansing did not appear to be the consequence of the war, but rather its goal. Muslim Bosnians were being exterminated.

  The organization UNPROFOR could not protect the civilian population. On top of that, the arms embargo was not lifted and thus the Bosnians and Croatians were denied the chance to defend themselves. It was as if certain circles were waiting for these two groups to surrender, accepting the conditions put forth by the Serbians.

  Some 2.5 million people, mostly Muslims, were forced to emigrate, 250,000 innocent civilians were massacred and 50,000 women were raped. Serbian forces set towns on fire, destroyed mosques and left people without food or drink in concentration camps. The dead were buried in mass graves.

  Since the beginning, Turkey saw that what we were faced with was genocide, not a war. Although Turkey was not even a member of the U.N. Human Rights Commission, with U.S. support, Turkey managed to call the commission into a special session in December 1992. In all the decisions taken until then references had been made to “all the groups concerned” having committed war crimes. This time, the commission stressed that the Serbians committed “crimes against humanity” and that the Muslim Bosnians were the victims. Also inserted in the text was the following expression: “The commission calls upon all states to consider the extent to which the acts committed in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia constitute genocide.” Immediately after that the U.N. General Assembly declared in its Resolution No. 121 that ethnic cleansing was a form of genocide, using the expression, ”ethnic cleansing that is a form of genocide.”

  The World Conference on Human Rights (Vienna, June 1993) passed a resolution that urged the U.N. Security Council to take measures to end the genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina. When the secretary of the conference lost (?) that resolution the conference was suspended -- at the instigation of the Turkish delegation -- until the document was found.

  Some Western countries had worried that if the occurrence of any genocide were to be acknowledged, then it would create an obligation to “prevent and punish genocide” immediately according to Article I of the convention. However, the outcome did not change. The Serbians massacred 8,000 Bosnians in Srebnitsa on July 11, 1995, before the eyes of UNPROFOR. After that, the Serbian forces were rendered ineffective with a NATO operation led by the United States. The international court formed to look into this matter in April 2004 found Gen. Krstic guilty of the genocide committed in Srebnitsa.

  Due to the Bosnia and Herzegovina incidents we, as Turkish diplomats, could not help but remember all the ethnic cleansing to which the Balkan Turks had been subjected to over the past 100 years. As they attacked the Bosnians, the Serbians kept addressing them as “the Turks” and there was no mistaking the racial hatred they felt towards us. The court decision showed that all the other cases of ethnic cleansing in the Balkans had been genocide as well.

  Mr. Chirac should remember the genocide to which the Muslim Bosnians were subjected to in full view of Europe as recently as 10 years ago, and, if possible, he should try to remember earlier such incidents also.

  We, in turn, should not forget that genocide, and, nor indeed, the accomplices to it.