Talk:Siege of Sarajevo
Needs attention and needs to be cleaned up
User: I think this page needs to be cleaned up. I spotted and fixed a few mistakes while browsing, but a more major overhaul is required —the majority of the article expresses a distinct political view, and there are more small errors to be fixed. Nihiltres 02:08, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Strongly agree with the above, this article is far below wiki standards especially for a period in history that was relatively high profile. The 'alleged ethnic cleansing' section appears to be far to POV, there aren't any citations to support the opinions expressed. I don't know enough about the topic to edit with authority, but i think its fairly clear this article needs help.82.46.144.194 18:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
numbers
User:Igor just removed some numbers on the page; I suspect that that's an incorrect change, but I would prefer if we had exact external references to all the numbers so that further such changes could be undisputable. --Shallot 18:51, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
spontaneous peace marches
When did actually those spontaneous peace marches begun? On the day of the start of the siege? A day before? A day after? Nikola 05:07, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- The shooting of Suada Dilberovic is commonly considered to be the start of the siege. It occured on April 5th. Peace marches begun on April 4th and ended with the shooting as the people dispersed (ran the hell away to be exact). Vedran 12:17, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Photo removed; date change
Sorry, I removed the photo to the right, which was formerly at the top of the article. I think it's worse than having no photo. It doesn't really illustrate the siege of Sarajevo, and it raises various questions. The scale is not apparent — is this a 6 inch crack in the sidewalk, or 5 feet? What's the pink stuff? What is the context of the photo?
I replaced it at the top of the article with the house-to-house search photo, which I think better evokes the subject.
Also I wanted to clarify my changing of the sentence:
- It lasted from April 5 1992 (technically May 2) to February 29 1996.
I got rid of the parentheses and just changed it to May 2. According to the article, April 5 is accepted as the date the war started, but the blockade — the subject of this article — started May 2. Tempshill 18:45, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Bullet holes
I was in Sarajevo in October 2004 and would disagree with the following:
By 2004 most of the damage done to buildings during the siege was fixed, and ruins and bullet holes had become a rarity
By all accounts much of the damage has been repaired, but as someone who has never visited a recent war zone before I was struck by the widespread and obvious damage. Bullet holes were by no means a "rarity".. I was shocked as most buildings appeared to have sustained considerable damage, and most were covered in bullet holes. I hope that this situation is remedied soon, but to say that bullet holes are "a rarity" is just manifestly untrue.
Markale massacre
Ok, there have been several edits about the Markale massacre, suggesting it was carried out by the Muslim side. These edits keep getting reverted. I think we need to resolve this issue here instead of going into a revert war. From what I can tell, both sides claim that the other side was responsible for the attack, and there have been studies conducted which are in contradiction. On the one hand we have the studies by a group of UN experts which was inconclusive, on the other hand we have the report by Russian colonel Andrei Demurenko, which found that the mortar was fired by the Muslim side, and then there is study by Zecevic and another one by General Rupert Smith which found that it was fired by the Serb side. Here is a BBC report about it from 2004 which claims that it has not been estalished who is responsible. [1] Can we say that both sides claim the other side is responsible and leave it at that? Any suggestions on how to resolve this are welcome, but please stop editing/reverting and resolve it here instead. Edrigu 22:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
- I'd agree, though I think it should be noted that not only both sides blame each other, but that various foreign reports also disagree. And it should also be said that Serbs are regarded as culprits despite that.
- For two overviews of various analysis you can see http://www.srpska-mreza.com/library/facts/markale1.html (heavy in commentary) or http://www.aeronautics.ru/markale8.htm (condensed version, only source material). Nikola 06:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I will rewrite that part in a NPOV way. If anyone objects please discuss it here rather than reverting. Edrigu 22:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I do object. I would ask you to take the following inofrmative article deailng with ICTY testimony into account and modify the newest version. Asim Led 22:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
nternational Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia (ICTY) Milosevic Trial - The Hague - Court Room One Day 273, 16 January 2004.
By: Judith Armatta
Related article: Bosnian Serb Gen. Stanislav Galic Guilty of Terrorizing Sarajevo, Markale Market Massacre - sentenced to 20 years in prison... THE HAGUE - Berko Zecevic, an expert in designing ammunition who investigated the mortar shell that killed 68 and wounded 144 in Sarajevo's Markale Marketplace on February 5, 1994, concluded that the shell could only have come from the Bosnian Serb Army (VRS) positions. His conclusion was presented in a report commissioned by the Office of the Prosecutor and introduced into evidence when he appeared in Court today.
The source of the 120 millimeter mortar shell that exploded in the middle of the busy market has been a matter of serious contention since it occurred. Initially, members of the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) said the shell was fired from Bosnian Government positions. From that, some concluded that the Bosnian Government was firing on its own people, to make it appear they were victims of Bosnian Serb aggression and gain international sympathy and, ultimately, international intervention on their behalf. A later, more indepth UNPROFOR report, however, noted a calculation error in the first UN report. Correcting the error led the UN to conclude that it was impossible to say which side had fired the shell.
Mr. Zecevic testified that, when he heard on television that authorities were unable to determine the source of the projectile, he offered his services as an expert to the judge investigating the incident. Working with two colleagues, their analysis revealed the direction from which the shell was fired and six possible locations from which it could have been fired (5 under VRS control and 1 under ABH (Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina) control). The site under ABH control was clearly visible to UNPROFOR personnel, who reported that no shell was fired from that position. The type of stabilizer fin (part of the projectile) found at the site was produced in one of two places, both under control of the VRS at the time. As a result of this and other technical measurements, Mr. Zecevic concluded the shell could only have come from one of the positions under VRS control.
While Mr. Zecevic's experience and expertise in ammunition design and testing was impressive, the Accused questioned his objectivity based on his having worked for the ABH until shortly before the massacre. Mr. Zecevic insisted he conducted a professional and objective analysis, which was fully supported by facts and calculations that could be checked by any expert in the field. He added that his assistance to the ABH ended in July of the previous year. Before that, he worked for 17 years in the Research and Development Section of a major munitions factory in Bosnia. The factory was part of the former federal Yugoslavia's interdependent military-industrial complex. When the JNA dissolved, the system was reorganized and Mr. Zecevic left.
An earlier witness, former UN officer David Howland, told the Court that UN investigations could not determine the source of the particular shell that exploded in the Markale Marketplace on February 5, 1994, but UN records showed that almost 100% of shells landing on the ABH side of the confrontation line were fired by the VRS. He also testified that, while the BHA sometimes provoked fire at civilian targets, it did not fire on its own people (the citizens of Sarajevo of all ethnicities).
During his cross examination, Milosevic read out a portion of the dissenting opinion in the Galic trial, where Judge Nieto-Navia concluded that the prosecution in that case had failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the Bosnian Serb forces were responsible for the shell that exploded in the Markale Marketplace on February 5, 1994. He found support for his conclusion in the Special UN Team's official findings communicated to the UN Security Council that "there is insufficient physical evidence to prove that one party fired the mortar bomb." As Judge May noted, that is one judge's view and nothing more. He might also have pointed out that the majority in the Galic case found beyond a reasonable doubt that the shell was deliberately fired from VRS-controlled territory, after extensively reviewing expert opinions, including Mr. Zecevic's and the UN's, as well as eye witness evidence.
The conclusions in the Galic trial are not binding on the judges in the Milosevic trial. Here, as there, the judges will have to make a thorough review and analysis of all evidence submitted -- by both the Prosecution and Defence -- before making up their own minds. The question remains whether the matter will ever be finally resolved.
Mr. Zecevic also provided expert testimony that the source of significant quantities and types of ammunition used by the VRS against the citizens of Sarajevo came from Serbia. His conclusion was based on an analysis of unexploded ordnance in Sarajevo. The Prosecution produced numerous documents, showing that Mr. Zecevic's former factory, military production enterprises in Serbia, the JNA/VJ and the VRS/RS took over and adapted the former federal Yugoslav military production network. Under it, as a number of the documents showed, Serbia and the JNA and its successor the VJ supplied weapons, ammunition and needed raw materials to the Bosnian Serbs. This practice violated the UN arms embargo. And, as Mr. Zecevic told the Court, "[I]t means that the country [Serbia/FRY - Federal Republic of Yugoslavia] was directly taking part in the killing of people who were unarmed," i.e. the citizens of Sarajevo where the unexploded ordnance was found. The documents, together with Mr. Zecevic's testimony, add yet more corroboration that Serbia was supporting the war by the RS against the Government of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
The Prosecution has long since succeeded in establishing that Serbia supplied the Bosnian Serbs with significant quantities of weapons and military equipment without which they could not have waged war. Milosevic faces a formidable task to discredit this evidence.
- Yes, I already mentioned the study by Zecevic above. As I said, there were several studies, sometimes attributing the attack to Serbs, other times to Muslims, and other times coming out inconclusive. I think it makes the most sense to quote the study by the UN (the one that was inconclusive) because it is the one that is being used by the ICTY (and therefore it's most likely the most reliable). Maybe we could add a sentence about how there were several other studies conducted and how they contradict each other. Edrigu 22:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- I think it should be noted the Gaic was convicted by the ICTY for, among other things, the Markale market massacre, based on Zecevic's studies. I think something should be said of the following as well: Asim Led 22:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
"An earlier witness, former UN officer David Howland, told the Court that UN investigations could not determine the source of the particular shell that exploded in the Markale Marketplace on February 5, 1994, but UN records showed that almost 100% of shells landing on the ABH side of the confrontation line were fired by the VRS. He also testified that, while the BHA sometimes provoked fire at civilian targets, it did not fire on its own people (the citizens of Sarajevo of all ethnicities)"
- It appears an ICTY judge did indeed blame Galic for Markale, based on the testimony by Zecevic. Although the ICTY has not used the same study to convict other Serbs for the same crime, relying instead on the inconclusive UN investigation. I am unconvinced that we should present the Zecevic study as the final word in this article. Edrigu 23:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Ok I have modified the section in a way that should please everyone. Edrigu 14:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)