The United Nations General Assembly vote on the Germany-led draft resolution on the Srebrenica genocide three decades after the fact was adopted on Thursday morning in New York City with a glaring lack of consensus among member states. The slim majority of mere eighty-four votes stood in stark contrast to the sixty-eight countries that, in a display of profound skepticism, chose to abstain, and the sixteen who outright rejected it.
The lack of transparency in drafting the resolution and the exclusion of the Serbian people, the largest constituency in Bosnia and Herzegovina, left the majority of the UN member states in no doubt that the very process of brining this resolution to a vote was deeply flawed and without consensus both within Bosnia and Herzegovina’s entities and the broader United Nations.
Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic paced through the aisles of the UN General Assembly chamber, accompanied by the newly appointed Foreign Minister Marko Djuric. The weight of the moment hung heavy in the air as the world diplomats were getting ready to cast the vote on the initiative orchestrated by Germany, crafted behind closed doors. Serbia’s Permanent Mission to the UN, in a bid for dialogue, found itself rebuffed. Germany exhibited a blatant lack of political will to engage with the major stakeholder in Bosnia, the Serbian people. This disregard flew in the face of the Dayton Agreement of 1995, which mandates the inclusion of all ethnic groups in a dialog.
The weight of history was palpable as the Serbian victims of the war in Bosnia who testified at the UN on Wednesday about their harrowing experiences entered the gallery, some of them carrying Serbian flags, symbol of identity and remembrance in their newly found American way of life. An unspoken question reverberated through the air: Whose war trauma is deemed paramount, and whose suffering is relegated to insignificance?
Vucic strode into the UN chamber almost an hour ahead of the vote dressed in one of his signature dark navy suits accompanied by a matching tie. Ever since the news broke that the resolution on the Srebrenica genocide was forthcoming, the Serbian president embarked on a diplomatic blitz at the heart of New York. It was a rare sight witnessing a head of state engaged directly with UN ambassadors. Yet, Vucic was willing to use the power of diplomacy brining on him team even a political opponent, a former President of the United Nations General Assembly, Vuk Jeremic.
An unspoken question reverberated through the air: Whose war trauma is deemed paramount, and whose suffering is relegated to insignificance?
Going through rounds of meetings for weeks on end appeared to be paying off as more countries after hearing the argument of Serbia were ready to now consider abstention.
The complexity of the geopolitical moment at the UN was not lost on anyone, with the ICC wanting to prosecute Netanyahu and the leader of Hamas for war crimes. It only takes one precedent to shape the course of international justice.
It didn’t take long for Osama Abdel Khalek, Permanent Representative of Egypt to the UN to observe that “lip service to international law” was front and center during the UNGA vote on the draft resolution concerning the Srebrenica genocide. Throughout a debate lasting more than three hours, countries voiced genuine concerns over the lack of transparency and inclusivity in drafting the resolution. The term “double standard” swiftly became the catchphrase of the day in the United Nations General Assembly.
Ambassador Antje Leendertse, Permanent Representative of Germany to the United Nations in New York, delivered the introductory remarks, running through her speech. She declared that they “mourn all victims, equally,” irrespective of their ethnic background. Yet, in a glaring act of omission, there was no acknowledgment of any Serbian victims—many of whom sat somberly in the gallery—of the Bosnian war. It was a moment of supreme irony, lip service at its best, played out on the grand stage of the United Nations.
Antje Leendertse, Permanent Representative of Germany to the United Nations, introduces the draft resolution on International Day of Reflection and Commemoration of the 1995 Genocide in Srebrenica (July 11th) during the General Assembly meeting on the culture of peace. The Resolution, sponsored by Germany and Rwanda, was adopted by a recorded vote of 84 nations in favour, 19 against and 68 abstentions. [ Photo credit; UN]
Serbian President Vucic was announced to speak next when the applause from the gallery broke out. He said that speaking after Germany “was not easy” since the omnipotent could accuse him of denying the crimes of Srebrenica, committed thirty years ago.
Before making his case against the resolution, he called on all member states to vote against. “Why is this resolution being passed?” Vucic demanded.
He pointed out that if Germany’s claim—that this resolution is about individual, not collective responsibility—were true, then no such resolution was needed as it was already reflected in the delivered indictments, verdicts and convictions of those who committed the crimes in Srebrenica in 1995.
“There are no individual names in this Resolution.” Vuic pointed out. “Is this resolution going to bring any reconciliation to Bosnia and Herzegovina? No, not at all.”
He challenged the German Mission to the UN, “Why did they exclude Serbia from it?” He noted that the process of drafting a resolution for the Rwandan genocide was transparent, unlike this one. Vucic questioned why similar resolutions for genocides, including those honoring the Serbian victims during the First and Second World Wars, were not created. According to data from the Paris Peace Conference, Serbia lost 28% of its overall population in the First World War, making it the most devastated country. He reminded the assembly that in WWII, Serbs were staunchly anti-Nazi, and millions of Serbs, including schoolchildren in Kragujevac, were killed.
Aleksandar Vučić, President of the Republic of Serbia, addresses the General Assembly meeting on a Resolution, sponsored by Germany and Rwanda, designating July 11 the International Day of Reflection and Commemoration of the 1995 Genocide in Srebrenica. [ Photo:UN]
“Why did they not start with this resolution?” asked Vucic. “I will not even begin to discuss Gaza and other issues.”
He refuted Germany’s claim of equal mourning for all victims, noting the conspicuous absence of such terminology in the resolution. “Why? Because they did not mean it and did not want to consult anyone else.”
Vucic revelaed that Member States were pressured not to oppose the resolution with a threat of not receiving economic support.
“Is that European values, democratic values? Or were you hoping that I wouldn’t be able to discuss this?” he asked.
“This resolution will open Pandora’s box,” Vucic warned, asserting that it would reopen old wounds and create political turmoil. “This is not about reconciliation. This is not about memories,” said Vucic, pointing that the resolution will only exacerbate divisions and provoke further conflict.
What ensued next was a long exposition of countries expressing deep concern over the lack of transparency and inclusivity leading up to this draft resolution. China gave a resolute no calling the resolution “deplorable”, and Namibia said that only “inclusivity” leads to harmony and “exclusivity” as it was the case in this resolution to conflict. UN Ambassador of Namibia said that selective amnesia is swiftly becoming the norm on the world stage, a double standard where “what our designated foes do, is genocide. But when we or our allies do the same, it’s not genocide.”
Azerbaijan noted that careful planning and consideration are essential and that UN resolutions of such impact should enjoy the widest support and consensus. Since this was not the case here, they were unable to vote in favor. The UN Ambassador of Cuba expressed a desire to promote peaceful multiethnic coexistence, emphasizing that Cuba supports constructive dialogue and does “not favor initiatives that lead to escalation.” Venezuela stated that the victims of Srebrenica deserve commemoration based on consensus which in this example was not a case.
Nicaragua announced they would vote no, criticizing Germany for leading the charge on this resolution, arguing it does not lead to peace and dialogue. The UAE expressed being “deeply troubled” that discussions around this resolution had been politicized. The UAE Ambassador to the UN noted rising intra-ethnic tensions and decided to abstain to encourage de-escalation and inclusive dialogue.
The Resolution, sponsored by Germany and Rwanda, was adopted by a recorded vote of 84 nations in favour, 19 against and 68 abstentions. [Photo: The Pavlovic Today]
As the vote was called, the results appeared on the big screens of the UN General Assembly. The 84 votes in favor, contrasted with 68 abstentions and 16 votes against, highlighted a deep division on the issue. Germany managed to sway 84 nations, but without achieving consensus among member states.
President Vucic wrapped himself in the Serbian flag, defying the request of the UNGA President to remove it. Throughout the remainder of the session, he remained seated, the Serbian flag draped across his shoulders.
He took the floor a second time to exercise his right of reply, emphasizing that today’s events marked the first instance in which a vote on a genocide resolution was not unanimously adopted by the General Assembly. He noted that any motion with a flurry of eighty-seven constituents not voting in favor of the text motion would have failed in any national parliament. Addressing the resolution’s purpose, given that those responsible for the massacre had already been convicted and sentenced he said, “Its only purpose was to impose moral guilt on one nation: the people of Serbia and Republika Srpska. They wanted to mark us with a stigma, and they failed.” He concluded by thanking those who voted against as well as to those who voted in favor for “opening his eyes.”
President of Serbia Aleksandar Vucic addresses the General Assembly meeting on a Resolution, sponsored by Germany and Rwanda, designating July 11 the International Day of Reflection and Commemoration of the 1995 Genocide in Srebrenica, the Serbian flag draped across his shoulders. [ Photo: buducnostsrbije/instagram]]
In the serene ambiance of the United Nations Rose Garden, the Serbian delegation convened following the vote. Vucic was on the phone talking to someone while the press was awaiting him to give a statement. As the cameras started to roll, while evidently exhausted, a flicker of pride kindled in his eyes. “107 nations withheld their support,” Vuic said pointing that some were against, some abstained, and some, like Azerbaijan, staged a dramatic walk out.
Some countries were “pressured and threatened,” he claimed. Details of their machinations “will come to light,” he pledged.
“I’ve ended my career here tonight,” Vucic declared in a brief moment of reflection. “They will never forgive me for this act,” he shared. He said “This was the final nail in the coffin” for his career. “They did everything to humiliate us, but we rose to great heights. The result is clear to everyone. You can’t buy that kind of satisfaction. You saw the families of Serbian victims raising the Serbian flag, which they wanted to take away from them,” said Vucic.
Commenting on the vote, Foreign Minister Djuric revealed that “Many world leaders, swayed by personal rapport with Vucic, opted not to succumb to the pressure.”
A senior diplomatic source told The Pavlovic Today that the PM of Greece, Kyriakos Mitsotakis changed the vote from yes to abstain due to his personal relationship with Serbian President.
As Vucic was heading out of the Rose Garden to embark on the plane bound for Serbia, Serbian survivors of the Bosnian war posed for a poignant photograph with him, clutching a Serbian flag as a symbol of solidarity.
The United Nations serves as a forum for a multitude of diverse views, many of which were starkly revealed during the UNGA vote. Unlike the often single-minded opinions presented in headlines, the debates reflected the complexities and nuances of international perspectives.
The ongoing war in Ukraine and the recent events in Gaza have made countries more cautious in their voting, recognizing that one resolution on genocide cannot hold more value than another. Every life lost is one too many, and if all victims are equal, they must be equally acknowledged.
In the pursuit of genuine reconciliation and understanding, the lack of consensus within the UN laid bare an imperative to recognize the inherent value of every individual’s suffering, irrespective of ethnicity or background. Serbia, for its part, left everything on the proverbial field.
