Zuroff: UN General Assembly not qualified to define genocide, resolution on Srebrenica ridiculous

One of the world's leading experts on the Holocaust, Dr. Efraim Zuroff, director of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, stated in an interview with Kosovo Online that the potential passing of a resolution on Srebrenica in the UN General Assembly would be purely a political decision not based on facts, and he warned that such a document could quickly lead to a series of new decisions, causing the term genocide to lose its meaning.

"This is a very bad decision that will lead to a series of other similar decisions. And that is very bad. Believe me, if this resolution passes, it's a matter of weeks or months, and other countries will do the same. This unnecessarily creates new crises for describing events that are not genocide. If the UN General Assembly passes a resolution on Srebrenica, that term will lose its meaning and become meaningless, and that is bad," Zuroff emphasized.

He stresses that the matter of genocide is clearly defined and that it is ridiculous to claim that genocide occurred in Srebrenica.

"This is a matter for historians to address. Raphael Lemkin first gave an accurate definition of genocide, and accusations that genocide occurred in Srebrenica are absolutely ridiculous," Zuroff highlights.

Asked about his expectations for the upcoming debate and vote in the UN General Assembly on the resolution on Srebrenica, Dr. Zuroff emphasizes that it will be a political decision, not one based on historical facts.

"I do not think the United Nations General Assembly is qualified to pass a resolution about historical issues. The General Assembly is not a gathering of historians, it is a gathering of politicians representing countries and their political interests. Therefore, any resolution they adopt is essentially meaningless," Zuroff asserts.

According to him, the adoption of this document would open Pandora's box for similar events worldwide. He cites Israel as a prime example, stating that it could be the next country accused of genocide.

"There are no grounds to accuse us of genocide, just as there are no grounds for other countries, but the political reasons of enemies will decide, and such accusations will be taken to the UN General Assembly. In the General Assembly, there is a bloc of 50 Muslim countries, and they will vote for Muslims. They will not vote for truth or history but for Muslims. And what do we gain when we are behind by 50 votes? You find yourself in an impossible situation. So, this whole story is absolutely absurd," Zuroff emphasizes.

When asked how likely it is for Serbs to be declared a genocidal nation in this manner, Zuroff points out that no matter how absurd such a conclusion may seem, the danger is real.

"The problem is that the resolution on Srebrenica is not based on serious analyses by those qualified to do so. This is a question for historians, not politicians," Zuroff emphasizes.

Commenting on Rwanda being one of the main co-sponsors alongside Germany, Zuroff says he understands the reasons behind this decision, primarily related to the current situation in Rwanda and neighboring Congo.

"I suggested talking to the President of Rwanda, Paul Kagame, because I know him, both from Rwanda and Israel, and I hoped I could change their decision. But it turned out that political reasons prevailed in their decision. Firstly, many who committed genocide in 1994 are in neighboring Congo and still dream of finishing that job and exterminating all Tutsis. Secondly, in Rwanda, a large memorial museum is being built dedicated to this genocide, involving some outsiders connected to organizations and people from Srebrenica. They are the ones who pushed Rwanda to become a co-sponsor of the resolution. If we had found out in time that Rwanda was involved in this process, maybe we could have convinced them not to do it," Zuroff says.

He assesses that Rwanda's case is just one of many in which small states are forced to follow the policies of major powers.

"Let's be clear. This is not how history should be judged. It is a political decision about history. And all political decisions are made because of political interests. Great powers can threaten and influence small countries, and they do so regardless of whether those countries have any idea where Srebrenica is. They can think it's in the Arctic. In the end, the most powerful countries can use their influence on these issues regardless of historical facts, whether it is even a case of genocide. And we all know that it was not a case of genocide. How can you declare it genocide when Serbian troops allowed 25,000 people to go home? They did not touch them," Zuroff emphasizes.

Asked if this resolution could contribute to the abolition of Republika Srpska, Zuroff says the key problem is that its proposal is entirely contrary to the Dayton Agreement.

"Republika Srpska is a legal entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the fact is that Bosnian Muslims and Croats from the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina don't like it very much. The Dayton Agreement brought relative peace to the region, which is why it is crucial for everyone to adhere to it. The proposed resolution on Srebrenica is completely contrary to that agreement because all three sides did not agree on it. This is a violation of the Dayton Agreement itself, which can lead to serious problems," Zuroff concludes.