Y

Ian Wilson

For Sarajevo

Why the image came into my head, I cannot be so sure. It was of an old man, his noble face, stood proud, contrasted against the black night sky. A sea of candle- like flashlights stretched beyond and there were many tears. It was Lillehammer 1994 and the face belonged to that of Juan Antonio Samaranch at the closing of the winter Olympics - an emotional scene as peoples thoughts turned to the citizens of Sarajevo. A city where, just ten years before, a beautiful Olympics had taken place had now been turned into a place of war and genocide. The Zetra figure-skating centre where Torvill and Dean had performed their beautifully romantic Bolero had now been reduced to rubble by shelling and mortar-fire. Sarajevo, where people from all nations had gathered together to bring joy and entertainment, was now being ripped apart as people died, Innocents killed by snipers, as they searched for bread or went to fetch water, victims of a policy of ethnic cleansing, genocide, declared by Serbians against Bosnian Muslims, their Yugoslavian brothers, their human brothers - all part of a wider brutal conflict in the former Yugoslavia as that nation exploded with Serbs, Bosnians, and Croats taking up arms against each other. And as all nations came together again in Lillehammer, I recall the overriding message was that this should never be permitted to happen again. Never again would the worlds powers stand-by and watch as they had in Serbia, Kosovo, Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, of which Sarajevo was the capital. Now some 18 years later, in a so-called more developed world, sat in the comfort of my living room, I am watching scenes of destruction in Syria the shelling of more Innocents in Homs as the world, once again, stands-by and watches. Why should this be? How can this be? A few weeks before, the United Nations tried to vote on a resolution to call on Syria to cease such hostilities, only for the resolution to be vetoed by China and Russia. It is easy to blame the actions of these two countries on either commercial reasons, or on grounds of self-interest should they fear they may also need to conduct similar action within their own borders in the future. However, this is perhaps too easy against a background coming just a few months after the Libyan conflict, where these same nations still felt tricked into agreeing to the UN no-fly zone over Libya. A resolution intended for the protection of civilians on both sides - the Chinese and the Russians (along with others) saw the consequent actions by NATO as an abuse of the resolution, primarily focused on an aim to overthrow the regime of Muammar al-Gaddafi. Would the world have been better served if the rhetoric and actions in the Libyan conflict had been less about arming the rebels and more about the protection of civilians; if it had been more about first establishing a peace and, thereafter, negotiating a lasting, peaceful, diplomatic settlement is that not the very purpose for which the UN was established? Perhaps, the citizens of Homs (and indeed, citizens of other future areas of oppression and conflict that will occur in the world) would have been better served by more restraint and a less self-congratulatory approach from the western politicians a problem now with

the increasing prevalence in western nations of power-hungry, career-politicians seeking a quick soundbite and voter-pleasing action. For, whatever the reasons, the failure of the UN to act has been seen by some as a green light to the Bashar al-Assad regime to now act as it wants with no adequate threat of action against them. So what does this mean for the future? For the UNs ability to take action to prevent further scenes of genocide and mass killing around the world? To carry out the main purpose for why it was established to stop wars, to find world peace!? For, just as in Cormac McCarthys novel The Road we know that amongst all the good of which mankind is capable, man is always also able to perpetrate increasingly alarming barbaric acts against his fellow man. Of course, the failure of action by the UN is as a result of a process that is political and from issues that are political. In any true democracy there is a fundamental separation of powers the government should be separate and not interfere with the judiciary, the judges and the courts, which should be independent of the politicians. And that is the fundamental flaw with the UN. Established so many years ago after the Second World War to stop wars between countries and to promote dialogue, it is an organization unfortunately operated under the will of the political considerations of its member states, particularly those on the Security Council, where self-interest will always come to the fore. So, often on the important issues for which its very existence was created, where its assistance is urgently needed, the UN is deadlocked and incapable to act. There is the International Criminal Court, which during the Libyan conflict issued warrants for the arrest of Gaddafi and others in his regime for crimes against humanity. Why has this court not issued warrants against the Syrian regime (as at the date of the penning this column)? And it is interesting to note, that even in the case of Libya, the warrants for Gaddafis arrest were only issued after the UN resolution had been passed. Could it be that the International Criminal Court is not independent and will only act where political masters at the UN direct it to do so? So should the UN be independent to take action without restrictions of deadlock? Should the world not have some form of international judiciary, independent of any political masters, which can order its police force, an international army with its Pale-Blue helmets perhaps, into areas where it determines it is needed as a peace-keeping force to protect the citizens of the world, to protect the Innocents? No political resolutions, no vetoes such peacekeepers could be in Homs already! But what chance, the global leaders voting such a derogation of power to prevent us having to witness, another terrible disaster in another part of the world? As the people of Homs ask why we do not help them, as millions around the world watch with horror at the atrocities being committed there, we will all ask, Why have our international institutions become so powerless and so toothless? And so, eighteen years later, the world does stand-by and watch Sarajevo happen again..and we will also have to endure to watch, helpless, as it happens again elsewhere in the future if changes are not made, if our leaders do not take action. With the so-called Arab Spring now over a year old, a time that started full of such hope and dreams for the future, the nave populist callings of western leaders for change have now been replaced by the reality of a Libya and post-

Mubarak Egypt with an increased prevalence of al-Qaeda and fractured leadership. And with the war drums frighteningly now beating and increasing in volume for action against Iran lest it develop a nuclear capability, it is little wonder that tensions in the region are escalating and that Israel, in particular, should now be feeling increasingly vulnerable. So, the incapability of the UN to act and resolve such issues of conflict around the globe is real cause for increasing alarm. You cannot help but feel that the scenes in Syria are just the tip of the iceberg; that somehow worse is yet to come; and, more than ever, we need one of the worlds leaders to make a stand, a stand really worthy of a Nobel peace prize, to stand up for the future of the citizens of the world and make a change, to give us an international organization that really works to prevent future conflicts, to ensure peace. They should do it for Sarajevo, they should do it for Homs, they should do it for all the Innocents.
The views expressed herein are entirely the authors opinion and should not be treated as fact.