The Srebrenica Genocide 30 Years On--Remembrance and Prevention in Bosnia and Beyond

In a picturesque valley in the mountains of eastern Bosnia, thousands of white gravestones bear witness to a mass atrocity that still struggles for a place in Europe’s conscience. Nearly 8,400 names are etched into a stone memorial, a stark reminder of the Srebrenica Genocide committed by Bosnian Serb forces against Bosnian Muslims in July 1995 – 30 years ago this year. And yet, too many political leaders and others continue denying the scale and scope of the travesty that unfolded there.

What has the world learned about genocide denial since Srebrenica? How has that denial echoed persistent efforts to negate or diminish the Holocaust? And how does denial and the politics around it tie into efforts to prevent a repeat elsewhere in the world?

Viola Gienger, Washington Senior Editor at Just Security is joined by Sead Turcalo, Professor of Security Studies at the University of Sarajevo and author of Thirty Years After the Srebrenica Genocide: Remembrance and the Global Fight Against Denial, published in Just Security; Velma Saric, founder and president of the Post-Conflict Research Center in Sarajevo; and Jacqueline Geis, Senior Director at the consulting firm Strategy for Humanity and a Research Fellow at the Human Rights Center at the University of California Berkeley School of Law

Show Notes:  

• Sead Turcalo’s “Thirty Years After the Srebrenica Genocide: Remembrance and the Global Fight Against Denial,” published in Just Security
• Jackie Geis’ “From Open-Source to All-Source: Leveraging Local Knowledge for Atrocity Prevention,” published in Just Security
• Velma Saric’s Post-Conflict Research Center and the associated blog Balkan Diskurs.
• Michael Schiffer and Pratima T. Narayan’s “Trump Administration’s Proposed Cuts to Accountability for Mass Atrocities Undermine Its Own Strategic Goal,” published in Just Security 
• Menachem Z. Rosensaft’s “Refuting Srebrenica Genocide Denial Yet Again, as UN Debates Draft Resolution,” published in Just Security
• Just Security’s Bosnia-Herzegovina archives 
• Just Security’s genocide archive 

Transcript

Viola Gienger: 

In a picturesque valley in the mountains of eastern Bosnia, 1000s of white gravestones bear witness to a mass atrocity that still struggles for a place in Europe's conscience. Nearly 8,400 names are etched into a stone memorial--a stark reminder of the Srebrenica genocide committed by Bosnia Serb forces against Bosnian Muslims, or Bosniaks, in July 1995, 30 years ago this year. And yet, too many political leaders and others continue denying the scale and scope of the travesty that have unfolded there. 

 What has the world learned about genocide denial since Srebrenica? How has that denial echoed persistent efforts to negate or diminish the Holocaust, and how does denial and the politics around it tie into efforts to prevent a repeat, whether in Europe or anywhere in the world, Sudan, Myanmar, Ethiopia and elsewhere.  

This is the Just Security Podcast. I'm your host for this episode, Viola Gienger, Washington Senior Editor at Just Security. Joining me to discuss the Srebrenica Genocide and what we've learned about denial and early warning to prevent atrocities anywhere is Sead Turčalo, Professor of Security Studies at the University of Sarajevo, and author of “30 Years After the Srebrenica Genocide: Remembrance and the Global Fight Against Denial,” published in just security on July 10; and Velma Saric, Founder and President of the Post-Conflict Research Center in Sarajevo. Also joining us today is Jacqueline Geis, Senior Director at the consulting firm Strategy for Humanity and a Research Fellow at the Human Rights Center at the University of California Berkeley School of Law.  

Sead, Velma Jackie, thank you so much for joining us today. 

Sead, you were just at Srebrenica on July 9th for the annual commemoration of the Genocide that unfolded there just over a couple of weeks in July 1995 and you've been there many times. Tell us what it was like there this time: what did you see and what was the general tenor of the speaker's remarks, the atmosphere? 

Sead Turčalo: 

The central commemoration will, as always, take place on July 11th, so when the newly identified victims of the Srebrenica Genocide will be laid to rest at the Potačari Memorial Cemetery. This year, as most previous years, the anniversary of the Genocide and the commemorative process extended beyond a single day. We already had the conferences at the University of Sarajevo. Also a conference a few days ago and on July, 9th and 10th, yesterday and today. The memorial centers of Srebrenica hosted an international conference that brought together scholars, educators and practitioners, and activists from across the world. And the focus was not simply on remembrance, but on responsibility: how we educate about genocide, how we confront denial, and how we translate memory into resilience. We spoke there about education, not as information transfer, but as moral formation. And facts matter, really.  But, without human context, without the voices of survivors, without confronting the emotional and ethical dimensions, those facts risk being threatened. And the most powerful learning often begins not in the in the lecture hall like here at the University, but in the presence of personal stories that we hear in Srebrenica Memorial and elsewhere, rather, from the survivors. And the testimony of someone who walked through the woods of Eastern Bosnia in July 1995, or someone who watched their community erased, that’s what actually sticks with us. 

Teaching genocide must make students, I would say, uncomfortable. And being in such a conference, listening to those people, must actually make us uncomfortable, because genocide itself is the consequence of what happens when we prioritize comfort over truth.  

And we also discussed denial, how it functions, not only as a distortion of the past, as a threat to the present, and we witness it in the Bosnia, in everyday life. And denial is not passive. It's not misunderstanding. It's strategic, as we see it in the policies of Bosnia, or the state policies of Serbia, where this denial is really a strategy of two to, actually, entities. And in Bosnia-Herzegovina, it's also institutionalized in the very political structures that emerged after the war. This refusal to name what happened or what has been committed in Srebrenica for what it was—genocide-- is not just an insult to the victims, it's an obstacle to building a future. And denial freezes societies in unresolved conflict; it erodes trust, it paralyzes institutions, and deepens already existing divisions. 

When the international community tolerates the denial in the name of stability, it sends a dangerous signal that truth is negotiable. And throughout the conference and commemoration process, what moved me most was the underlying result. Despite the weight of the subject, there was no fatalism. The tone was urgent, but not hopeless. And, more or less, all of the participants from different continents, shared tools, examples, pedagogies, ways in which genocide education is being used, not only to preserve memory, but to cultivate empathy; to foster resilience and to build this kind of civic courage. There was quite insistence: we are not here simply to mourn, but to act.

Viola: 

That's really important in a very good way of setting the table for the rest of our conversation. I especially appreciated what you mentioned about the tone being urgent, but not hopeless, which is pretty, pretty amazing considering the times that we're living in right now. 

So, I want to continue in this vein. Velma, you're about to head back to Srebrenica as we speak, and your organization, the Post-Conflict Research Center in Sarajevo, has done a set of events this year for the 30th commemoration, including a regional youth school, two art exhibits, and an international conference, as Sead has mentioned, with several other organizations, including the prominent movement of Mothers of Srebrenica and Žepa Enclaves. What are you finding in terms of the degree of international interest in the issues of Srebrenica and atrocity risks generally? And what was the most significant result of that conference that your center was involved in do you think?

Velma Saric: 

So, this year, because it’s [the] 30th anniversary of the Genocide, we see more interest from the international community. People see Srebrenica still as an important reminder of why we need to prevent genocide and mass violence everywhere. 

And at the conference on July 8th, I think the most important results was first bringing together survivors and civil society activists, young people, experts, [and] journalists to talk openly about the process dealing with the past. We did so [by emphasizing] how important it is to fight denial and keep the memory alive. 

Sead was just talking about the level of denial and glorification of war criminals and all these issues we are dealing with [when] educating young people. But it's also [that] the conference was created to use some of these licenses to stop future atrocities. 

You mentioned that we are working closely with the Mothers of Srebrenica, and we made our message stronger than ever, that voices must stay at the center of everything we do. And we do include the Victims Association, and we do document and archive the narratives of survivors, especially of women of Srebrenica, because we do consider them an extremely important part of the transitional justice processes. Without Mothers of Srebrenica, we would never have the Srebrenica Genocide Memorial Center, which is the only State memorial in the country; Bosnia doesn't have a state law about memorialization. 

And then we did speak a lot about judiciary legacy. One of our partners was the Residual Mechanism of the Hague Tribunal. And we did speak a lot about the court legacy and how the court legacy can be a tool for the education. Also, we were looking how we can move forward. The conference was also regional, and we did bring a lot of activists and educators from the region, speaking about the context of denial, also in Serbia, the challenges which Kosovo is facing with the prosecuting war criminals in absentia. And I do believe that these are good steps. Our main conclusion was that we are missing more regional collaboration; that dealing with the past and transitional justice cannot be sorted out only buy a country approach, considering the roles which neighboring countries were playing in the war. And it does bring us a lot of hope, because we had a strong presence of international community with the clear messages that any kind of issues we are dealing lately with, with the threats from Republika Srpska and Milorad Dodik damaging our European path. The pressures, for example, on activists and civil society by, you know, trying to proclaim this law about foreign agents and Republika Srpska is also damaging this process. So, I think international community really understands strong messages that, you know, we need to stay focused on our European path. 

Viola: 

That's very interesting and very, very important. I particularly appreciate what you said about the legacy of the legal cases surrounding this for education purposes, too. So, that that's very helpful. Thank you. 

Sead, you wrote an article that Just Security published on July 10th focusing on the disturbing trend of genocide denial, specifically in reference to Srebrenica, but of course, often with echoes of Holocaust denial. Explain your theory about how that comes about.

Sead:

In that piece, I wanted to unpack why and how people tend to deny something as thoroughly documented as the Srebrenica Genocide. And my theory is that genocide denial doesn't emerge in a wake. It's a deliberate, politically motivated campaign.  

In the case of Srebrenica, you have the leaders in the entity of Republika Srpska and in Serbia who have, over the years, nurtured narratives to actually deny what happened. And they will say “it wasn’t genocide, it was just a tragic war crime or a tragedy of war,” or they will dispute the number of victims, or blame it all on some provocation. And these are eerily similar to the tactics of Holocaust denial we have seen over decades. I explained that much like Holocaust deniers, Srebrenica deniers use scholarship and transparency theories to try to cast doubt on established facts. Any they exploit the passage of time and the fading of direct, eyewitness voices. How does this come about? Often to a mix of nationalism and their refusal to accept guilt or responsibility. And, in post-war Bosnia, admitting that genocide was committed under one’s is seen by those leaders as a threat to their national narrative, so they find it expedient to reject the label despite all evidence. And, over time, this stance hardens into collective denial. 

In my view, this denial is actually the final stage, and not really the final stage, but it's 10 stages of genocide, and we what we actually witnessed in Boston-Herzegovina is also the 11th stage, which is the glorification of war criminals. The Student Dormitories were named after, after, for example [war criminals]. And it's actually the attempt to erase the crime and victimize truth. 

And what I did, I tried even to draw parallels with Holocaust denial. Just as some extremists still claim the Holocaust was…a hoax, despite mountains of evidence, we now see similar false claims that Srebrenica is a myth made to vilify one group. And it often, or almost always, starts at the top. Politicians or idealogues sew the seeds of doubt for their own ends, and then that trickles down. Media outlets sympathetic to those ideal ideologies amplify these falsehoods, and when those lies are repeated often enough, they start to take root among people who either don't know the history or find it comforting to believe an alternate version. 

 We have seen that it doesn't actually stop only in Bosnia-Herzegovina, but goes beyond the Bosnia-Herzegovina. For example: Brenton Tarrant, who killed dozens of people in New Zealand—if you, for example, listen to a very infamous song, that actually praised the war criminals and war crimes in Bosnia- Herzegovina. 

 Anders Breivik, who killed the innocent people in Norway, he actually, in his manifest, he used the quotes from Ratko Mladic, Radovan Karadzic, and he braised them as honorable crusaders against Islam. And, always, there’s this kind of denial of Srebrenica Genocide: there is always in an undertone, there is always some Islamophobic narrative that's also connected to it. And I find it so disturbing, because denial isn't just about the past. It can lay the groundwork for future conflicts by inflaming grievances and blocking reconciliation for decades.

Viola: 

Yeah, that's such a crucial point, both about denial being deliberate and about how it spills over and spreads globally these days in our very interconnected world to--in this case--New Zealand and to Norway. Thank you very much for talking about that. 

Jackie, what connections do you see between denial of mass atrocities, including genocide, and the growing field of early warning to prevent violations like this? Maybe start by telling us a little bit about what “early warning” means and what experts have learned in the 30 years since Srebrenica about atrocity prevention. What does the world need to do better right now and going forward to prevent atrocities?

Jacqueline Geis:

Well, in its essence, early warning means getting critical information to policymakers and others able to affect change in time for them to take effective, preventative action to stop atrocities from taking place. 

 Similarly to Sead, denial of previously affirmed atrocities can be seen in and of itself as an early warning signal, as we just heard, that should be acted upon and taken seriously. And the flip side of this is that confronting denial of previously for affirmed atrocities is, in itself, an act of prevention. 

What experts have learned over the past 30 years is that sounding the early warning alarm is no guarantee for action. There has to be the political will to act by those who can, and early enough for the prevention to be possible. In other words, before the atrocities even start. And even when the political will is present, governments and organizations can often fail to recognize, aggregate, and integrate the early warning information that they do have into their policy making effectively. 

So, moving forward and going forward, to spur preventative action and to really take advantage of the information ecosystem, in a very robust information ecosystem that we live in now, we should really look to amplify and prioritize the local knowledge and context in our information ecosystems. Analyzing gathered information, particularly for early warning signs, isn't a simple feat. And while information—that is often sifting through the data that is gathered—requires deep, contextual knowledge, including of local languages, subtext and jargon, and cultural shorthand. And it's often really difficult to be able to do that.  To understand which small signals are important or insignificant requires a robust grasp of local context and situational dynamics. 

Additionally, we need to understand how to move information into the hands of policymakers and other stakeholders in timely ways and in ways where they can easily digest and intake the information. And we need to help train policymakers to be able to decipher the signals and recognize the patterns of worrying behavior that may come across in the information that they're given. 

 Lastly, I think we need to meet policymakers where they are. This may mean that we have to build out different arguments or rationale as to why the early warning signals that we are hearing should be heeded, including developing national security and economic arguments along with moral and legal rationale.

Viola:

That's really interesting about meeting policymakers where they are to get at that conundrum about political wills. That's something really interesting, to think about how that might be done.  

Velma, you previously worked on an annual event in Sarajevo focused on contemporary conflicts that brought together more than 1,500 attendees from the Middle East, Europe, and the Americas and your organization is joining this year, as we mentioned, with the Mothers of Srebrenica and with Pro-Peace on a transnational initiative called Mother’s Scarf. And that asks people in multiple countries, from Bosnia, Herzegovina to Kosovo, North Macedonia, Serbia, Germany, Jordan, Iraq and elsewhere, to raise scarves simultaneously on July 11th, as a gesture of remembrance, and empathy, and solidarity and hope. What's your impression of how much solidarity there really is these days, as we see so many violent conflicts just going on and on around the world? Major government donors seem to be turning away from supporting efforts to remember and prevent mass atrocities.

Velma:

Yeah, that is such a great question. Thank you for asking that that kind of question. Because for us, working in the field of dealing with the past and prevention, it's very difficult sometimes to explain to our donors and partners, and, you know, even the international community why the process of dealing with the past takes so long, and that it's actually also about prevention. 

And it's true, we do see many conflict, violent conflicts happening now, and big donors are often stepping back from supporting memory and prevention work. And that can feel discouraging. But, at the same time, you mentioned--and thank you so much mentioning-- our Mother’s Scarves installation and solidarity we are getting through the world and also regionally. I'm very proud that our partners, Pro Peace, especially partners from Serbia, they will be exhibiting, and they will be doing this artivistic installation in Belgrade on 11 July, because it does give us a lot of hope that region will take part in commemorative activities. 

After the adoption of  UN resolution regarding the remembrance of Srebrenica Genocide, there is a great possibility for many civil society organizations globally to come together and commemorate genocide from Bosnia and the region in places like, as you mentioned, Germany, Jordan and Iraq. These gestures do show how much people care, still, deeply. Even ordinary people. And it does give us more courage to continue what we do. 

What is also giving me hope is the growing cooperation among civil society organizations here in the Western Balkans. Jackie just mentioned how much it is also important to create alliances and networks. And I would like to mention that we did, in a previous years, work together with the United Nations Office of Genocide Prevention and Mass Atrocities on early warning signs, and teaching the civil society about the mechanisms of genocide prevention and trying to connect the Office of Genocide Prevention closer to civil society. And this is also something that can help to increase visibility, increase solidarity and help the reconciliation and peace-building work.  

So, in my case, it is a mix of worry, but also hope. I want to keep hope. I do worry because of raising violence globally, but I also hope, because these human connections and shared efforts to remember, heal, and prevent future violence is, you know, something that we need to work on, and it's something that can provide us possibility for, you know, dealing with the past and avoiding future, future genocides

Viola:

That's really helpful and hopeful, and really appreciate that kind of note at this moment. 

 Sead, let's talk a little bit about the conference at the University of Sarajevo’s Institute for Research of Crimes Against Humanity and International Law, put on on July first through third entitled “Srebrenica 30 Years After Genocide: Memory, Responsibility, and the Challenges of Denial.” What did you hear there from other contexts of mass atrocities that maybe surprised you, or that stick with you?

Sead: 

I would actually focus on presenting what really, actually was, from my point of view, one of the most powerful arguments presented by a keynote speaker, Henry Theriault who issued kind of a strong warning against treating the 1995 Srebrenica Massacre as an isolated event, rather than the culmination of a wider genocide or process that began in 1995. And, many speakers, including the Norman Naimark argued forcefully that this narrow focus obscures other horrific elements, like rape camps, forced impregnation, the war crimes and mass killings that were committed in Visegrad, in Theodore, and across Bosnia-Herzegovina. And that the process is really visible. And this led to a truly chilling perspective about the nature of peace and justice.  

The Dayton Peace Agreement was described not as a resolution that ended the genocide, but as a deal that merely suspended further acts of genocide, effectively freezing the war process mid-motion. And this concept was further developed into a framework of isolating genocides, atrocities that cycle between active and suspended phases, and this suspension of violence does not transform the perpetrator society. Instead, it leaves intact these genocidal attitudes and psychological structures.  

Then, we also discussed and compared the genocide in Bosnia-Herzegovina, with some other atrocities and genocides, like the genocide in East Timor, that was raised as another example where Western powers had armed the perpetrator regime for years, then genocide in Rwanda and Myanmar, etc. 

And beyond these direct warnings, the conference placed the Bosnian Genocide also within a broader historical context. For example, one presentation identified four common ideological futures of most genocides, including those in Cambodia and Rwanda. They were all present in the Bosnian case: racial or religious prejudice, territorial expansionism, an urge to recover lost national grandeur, and the idealization of the rural life. 

And, finally, there was a sobering discussion about the international community's role. It was asked whether any lessons have actually been learned from Srebrenica, given the persistent failure to prevent atrocities in places like Myanmar, Sudan, even Ukraine, etc. And the legal precedent set by the Srebrenica case in international courts continues to shape house state responsibilities [are] debated today.  

What sticks with me most is the idea of genocide as a mutating process. It doesn't end when the mass killing stops, but can morph into denial and political manipulations, as well as consolidation of genocidal-produced land acquisition. And this really reframes the challenges we face, not as a matter of historical memory, but as a confrontation with an ongoing threat that evolves and persists long after the guns fall silent, as we have seen it in Bosnia, but also elsewhere.

Viola:

That's very helpful to think about this in that, sort of, holistic way, in terms of how genocide is defined: whether it's legally, or politically, or otherwise, and the long-range effects of that around the world, no matter how close or far people may be from these contexts. 

Jackie, Just Security published an article recently outlining funding cuts that the current U.S. administration is considering for programs that aim to hold perpetrators of war crimes and other atrocities accountable. Many of these programs are in or for countries affected by atrocities such as Colombia, Ukraine, Sudan, Syria, Afghanistan, [and] Myanmar. They pay for monitoring, evidence collection, investigations, prosecutions, [and] research. The administration is also planning to eliminate State Department's Office of Global Criminal Justice, which presses for war crimes investigations and prosecutions and the Office of Conflict Stabilization and Operations, which aims to anticipate and prevent and respond to conflict more quickly. What impact do you think these kinds of funding and program cuts will have on the field of atrocity prevention? 

Jackie: 

Cuts that the U.S. government has already made over the past couple of months have had a devastating impact on the field of atrocity prevention, and the cuts being considered now will even further decimate a very under resourced field. 

In the past couple of months, we've seen organizations fold; some finding out, even via social media, that large percentages of their funding had been cut. Unfortunately, this is only the latest in a series of funding shifts for this sector, which has seen several years of philanthropic actors retreating from the space. And it means this sector that was already under resourced will be even more so. And it means the actors in the sector have to be more savvy in cobbling together different pots of funding, where perhaps one larger pot of funding would do,  and take the work to build together coalitions that enable them to focus on their core work while thinking about more systemic and systematic approaches to early warning and information gathering and atrocity prevention, more globally and also in terms of timeline in a more longevity-focused way. 

We need to think about how we escape from the idea of doing more things to secure funding, as opposed to kind of doubling down on what we know, and really building up the ecosystems that we live in, and taking a more systematic and collaborative approach of moving forward, hopefully to withstand some of the impact of building out this information and these documents of truth-telling that we've seen so far to date.

Viola

That's really helpful for thinking about how we move forward. And I'd like to flip it back now to Sead and Velma to wrap up here. What do you see in terms of where we go from here? Velma, let's start with you.

Velma:

I mean, I want to really, I would like to stay optimistic, especially because I'm doing the peace educational work with the young people, and they sometimes need hope.  

Bosnia is a country with the biggest youth unemployment rate. Bosnia is a country with the biggest, you know, brain drain. And majority of young people would like to mostly leave the country. So, I would like to send the message that maybe the 30th anniversary of the Srebrenica Genocide does offer a chance to take a meaningful action. Maybe there is a good opportunity, at least, for the BIH to revisit the discussion on a transitional justice framework, which we don't have. Those discussions ended in 2013, and since Bosnia today has EU candidate status, transitional justice should be a center of this discussion. 

And this process definitely needs to involve more deeply the participation of victims and survivors. 

I would like to quote one of my partners, Munira Subash, Mother of Srebrenica, who does say that “without truth, there is no justice. Without justice, there is no trust. Without trust, there is no reconciliation.”

Which means that, I would like to mention again, the need for prosecuting war criminals. For, you know, continuing with the processes of regional collaboration. [The] majority of war criminals, or those accused for war crimes, through the fact that they have a dual citizenship with the neighboring countries,  they did run away, and, you know, they are still not facing the justice. So, I would, I would, kind of, you know, like to keep the hope that we will continue with transitional justice processes, and that we will invest more in a peace education, in young people, and that this region will leave the politics of nationalism from [the 19]90s and turn around to our European future. 

Viola:

Thank you very much, Velma. Sead-- take us home.

Sead:

I would say that where do we go from here has to be forward, armed with truth and lessons learned. 

 And for me, as someone from Bosnia, it means we continue the hard work of remembrance and education at home, and also solidarity abroad. In practical terms, in Bosnia-Herzegovina, we need really to double down on teaching the new generations what really happened, not only in Srebrenica, as I mentioned, also throughout the eastern Bosnia and the northern Bosnia, and throughout the world as such. 

And it's not actually, like, to perpetuate the divisions, but to inoculate them--the young people--against the lies and the manipulations that actually are offered by those who deny the genocide, who pursue this revisionist politics. I often speak with students and with young people, and I find that many of them want to know. They want to understand why their countries still feel structured, and when they hear the truth from survivors or see the evidence with their own eyes at places like the Memorial Center, I think that it, at one level, it really resonates. So, going forward, I think investing in that kind of education and memory work is crucial.  

On a broader note, I think we go from here by linking arms globally. What happened in Bosnia-Herzegovina, what happened in Srebrenica, is a part of a universal story of “never again,” and sadly, as we see various places, that promise is yet to be fulfilled. 

And, I believe Bosnia can contribute lessons to the world on how to rebuild after something that's shattering, the genocide. But, likewise, we have things to learn from others.  

So, I see where do we go as strengthening those international partnerships, whether it's through conferences, exchanges, international days of remembrance, like the UN justice established last year, or Srebrenica. And, finally, on a personal level, we keep writing, speaking, [and] testifying. Memories are [a] form of justice, too. Every time a truth is installed, it's a small defeat for denial.

Viola: 

That's such a great note for us to end on. Sead, Velma, Jackie: thank you all so much for your invaluable insights today and for the work that you do every day. 

This episode was hosted by me, Viola Gienger, and produced by Maya Nir with help from Isaac Rubenstein. Special thanks to Sead Turčalo, Velma Saric, and Jackie Geis. 

You can read all of Just Security’s coverage, including their pieces related to genocide, on our website. If you appreciate this episode, please give us a five-star rating on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen.