Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
A warm welcome to you all this evening.
Apparently the war in Bosnia started 20 years ago.
It's a bit of a strange pretext but we need a pretext.
We're going to discuss the Bosnian war but we will focus primarily...
on the most important event from the Dutch perspective...
which is the genocide in Srebrenica in July 1995.
I suddenly realize that some of you were maybe six years old then.
So for some of us it's like yesterday and for others it's last century.
We will try to bridge that gap tonight.
So, Srebrenica. Seven to eight thousand Muslim men lost their lives in Europe...
where it was agreed this kind of thing would never happen again.
A quick apology for a mistake in the announcement.
The description of the parties involved in the conflict is unfortunate.
We should have said that differently. We didn't mean it that way.
As this is Cineblend we'll be looking back using excerpts...
from documentaries and reports that dealt with the events down the years.
Some of them produced by our guests here tonight.
It's Cineblend so we will be viewing films.
I'd like to introduce them a little more thoroughly.
Carolien Brugsma is currently editor of Andere Tijden.
During the Bosnian war she was editor of Nova, specialized in Srebrenica.
She was involved in Srebrenica 24-7. As were many other journalists.
Jos de Putter on the right is editor-in-chief of Tegenlicht.
He made a three-part documentary about the Slobodan Milosevic trial.
Milosevic was president of Yugoslavia and his trial in the Hague ended...
when Milosevic died.
On the left is Christ Klep who is a military historian.
Four years ago he wrote his PhD thesis on three different peace missions...
in three different countries, one of which was Srebrenica.
In addition we should add that Christ used to work at the MOD...
and was involved in... he doesn't like being reminded of it...
in the initial debriefing of Dutchbat troops returning from Srebrenica.
He's not allowed to speak about that but he's going to anyway.
As you heard, with a bit of luck...
we will also be able to contact Bosnia.
Apparently there's a peculiar meeting going on there.
Willem ***, who reported intensively from there for a long time for RTL...
has organized a kind of reunion...
of journalists who covered the war in Bosnia.
Apparently they've come from all over the world to Sarajevo.
They were in Srebrenica too. So later on, technology permitting...
we will hear from him what the mood is among people looking back...
on covering such a terrible event.
To begin with I'd like to show you an excerpt from a film...
that tries to answer the main question which motivates this kind of gathering.
What is genocide and why are people capable of committing it?
It's an excerpt from The Anatomy of Evil...
from Danish director Ove Nyholm.
A word of warning: It's not for the faint-hearted.
But it makes clear from the get-go what we're talking about tonight.
Could you start the film, please?
July 1995. Europe. Christ Klep you were working at the MOD.
Do you recall first hearing what had happened, out of sight, in Srebrenica?
Yes, I remember it vividly. Even though it was last century.
I was monitoring peace missions for the science department at the MOD.
I was close to the source. I remember very clearly...
arriving in the morning and being told something was going very wrong.
That was on July 10, when the attack on the enclave was almost over.
A few days later I was sent to Zagreb with two colleagues to investigate.
But until then we heard very little.
In fact, Dutchbat III was already about to be relieved.
An irony of history. If it had happened a few weeks later...
maybe a different unit would have been there. From another country.
Ukraine was the next in line. So it's an irony of history that it happened.
But to answer your question, it was above all very unexpected.
I don't think anyone saw it coming. I certainly didn't.
You have investigated other failed peace missions...
all of which ended in dramatic bloodbaths.
But that this could happen in Europe.
As a mere journalist I was astonished. Were people at the MOD too?
Absolutely, yes. I think that I and many of my colleagues at the time...
even when we heard the first accounts in Zagreb...
didn't fully comprehend that this was truly war.
'The banality of war' is a term coined by Barbara Tuckman in a famous study.
From our position at the MOD it took us a long time...
days, weeks, to comprehend and to digest what it means...
for an enclave to be emptied, deported. And as quickly became clear...
for 7,000 Muslims to be killed.
What was most striking and it happened to me too...
was the sense that this was impossible.
The older people here will remember the initial euphoria...
about the troops returning home safely.
I remember flying home with Dutchbat and arriving at Soesterberg.
The MOD in its infinite wisdom had prepared a ceremony.
But there were also 5,000 parents, children and spouses waiting there.
And they stormed the planes. They charged right over the runway.
So you get out of their way in a situation like that.
One of the mothers asked me: 'Are you also part of Dutchbat?'
'Then you're not important,' she said and she walked on.
So the mood was one of euphoria about the returning troops.
And it took a few days before that changed.
We didn't know yet what had happened.
It was during the following 10-15 days that the mass murders took place.
Let me share one of my own memories. The images that became infamous...
of Karremans receiving a lampshade from Mladic when they left the enclave.
We know that at the same time the murders were starting.
For me those were the most humiliating and shameful images of that period.
Was it the same at the MOD?
Let me illustrate it with a brief anecdote.
We interviewed numerous Dutchbat staff including Karremans.
It was a formal atmosphere and the fate of the Muslim men wasn't discussed.
But in Zagreb there were people from Human Rights Watch...
and the Red Cross who were distributing questionnaires...
asking people what they had seen.
And all these questionnaires were returned more or less empty.
Perhaps ten out of 400 people had filled in something.
Most Dutchbat troops said they'd seen nothing significant.
However if you spoke to interviewees afterwards, informally over coffee...
and asked what they had seen regarding the Muslim men...
Their reaction was: 'You don't want to know. Awful.'
I think that triggered me the same way as it did many others later on.
The ambivalence of dealing with events.
On the one hand the euphoria of Dutchbat returning safely...
even though one soldier was killed, Raviv van Renssen.
As opposed to the general awareness, I know this has been held against me...
when I say many Dutchbat troops must have been aware of what had happened.
For example, two young Muslim guys approach a Dutchbat soldier...
and say they've participated in raids outside the enclave.
They were Oric's men who were inside the enclave.
They say: The Serbs know who we are. If you hand us over...
we'd rather kill ourselves because they will slaughter us.
If you add it all up how can you reconcile that....
with the general sense that they didn't know?
So I said on TV that Dutchbat knew what would happen to the Muslims...
but didn't comprehend. Sadly I was only partially quoted.
They didn't comprehend. Maybe we can discuss that later.
In retrospect you were one of the first to speak to Karremans...
the Dutchbat Commander, after he had left the enclave.
I don't want to encourage you to breach your non-disclosure agreement...
but can you tell us what kind of man was he then?
We know a bit about him. We'll see images of him soon...
but do you recall what he was like then?
Let me explain. It was a so-called operational debriefing.
It's routine army procedure after any serious incident involving fatalities.
Partly to draw lessons.
Naturally Karremans was high on the list of people to interview.
He was clearly suffering from sleep deprivation.
Some of you may have tried studying for three nights in a row.
Multiply that by ten. It's that state.
It was also striking that when we asked questions using a map...
we asked for example: Your request for air support...
what time was that and what day? He said, 'I don't remember exactly...
but it was dark so it must have been at night.'
So he couldn't recollect much. But as a historian I noticed...
that if you read his memoires, which I highly recommend...
everything is accurate. To the minute. It's all documented.
It's all in the right order. Everything is a justification.
For a historian it's fascinating to witness the beginning...
the birth of the testimony, and how it's interpreted later in official documents.
So Karremans is like a historian? Trying to explain things in retrospect.
There's an interesting term for that: 'fossilized testimony. '
Are there any historians here this evening?
It's something that often happens in inquiries, committees, and so on.
There were 14 inquiries into Srebrenica. Independent, military and political.
Fossilized testimony is the first publicly announced testimony.
It's written down in a statement, an official report, or whatever.
My assertion is, it's called fossilized because you can no longer change it.
There's a famous example of a Belgian major...
who was involved in the Rwandan genocide in 1994.
He was accused of having abandoned his comrades.
After giving the same testimony four times: I didn't know, I didn't see...
his conscience somehow forced him to admit what he had seen.
He had seen Belgian colleagues being lynched by Hutu soldiers.
He was destroyed. He was portrayed in the media...
He was interrogated by Verhofstadt.
We all know Verhofstadt now, but then he was still just an ambitious senator.
He declared at the inquiry: Major, you're a liar, a shame on the country.
That's what happens if you change your fossilized testimony.
That's why it's so hard for inquiries to find the truth in the long run.
Interesting. Karremans. Bart Nijpels was going to join us.
He produced a well-known portrait of Karremans.
He was going to present a clip but we'll view it without him...
so that we can focus on Karremans.
Conscience
After the enclave falls, the refugees in and around the Dutch compound...
are taken away in coaches.
On orders from Mladic, the men are separated from the women and children.
Get away from there.
Dutchbat commander Karremans has always said...
he had no idea what was going to happen to those men.
But you knew ethnic cleansing was going on all over Yugoslavia?
Sure. Even before our mission began we saw images of that.
So surely you must have realized something was wrong?
No. Not at that time.
We have to be honest. It's simply impossible that he didn't realize.
It's just not credible.
In the entire history of the civil war it would have to have been...
the only time the Serbs didn't take revenge on Muslim fighters.
Everyone knew how Mladic treated the able-bodied male population...
between the ages of 17 and 65. Plenty of examples. It was routine.
At that time I didn't know what he was planning.
You trusted Mladic with them? -No. Not at all.
So what did you think? -Nothing. Nothing.
Initial signs were already visible around the camp. Shots. Corpses.
Men being forcefully separated from women and children.
Christ Klep was working for the MOD.
After Srebrenica fell he spoke to dozens of Dutchbat troops.
Everyone else in Dutchbat, whether later on or directly afterwards...
all say they knew what was going to happen to those men. Simple.
So you don't believe Karremans? -In this respect, no.
Of course the question is, do you stand by your earlier statements?
Yes. -At that time you had no idea...
what was going to happen to those men?
Looking at it from the perspective of 2011, it's completely different.
But we're talking about 1995. I won't comment on what Christ Klep says.
He wasn't there. -He quotes Dutchbat...
I don't like quotes. You have to have seen it yourself.
And no one witnessed summary executions.
Corpses were found with bullet holes in the neck and the back of the head.
People who were shot dead from behind. -Yes. That's war.
Did you see the men being separated? -No.
Colonel Dr. Ger Kremer on the right of the picture...
is a surgeon in Dutchbat in July 1995.
During the deportation of refugees he is surprised by a Serbian TV crew.
Kremer witnesses the Bosnian men being led away separately by the Serbs.
Then he bumps into his commander Thom Karremans.
When I saw him we were both watching how most of the refugees...
they were women, got into coaches heading to Tuzla.
But some men were picked out by the Serbs...
and they had to turn left into the house and were taken away in a different bus.
So I said to Thom: What do you think is going on with those men?
He said: You don't want to know. It's probably going to end badly.
What did you make of what he said?
I assumed he understood that the men would be murdered.
Do you recall that conversation with Kremer?
Yes. Like I said, I think that must have been outside the compound gate.
Where his first-aid tent was positioned and where he often was.
I can't remember the details of his story.
You asked me if I saw it. I didn't. -He implies otherwise.
He also suggests that I am supposed to have said...
'I don't want to discuss it. Don't think about it.'
Those are his words, not mine. I stand by what I've said.
You don't remember your precise words in the conversation he describes?
I recall the conversation but not those last words.
In 2002 Karremans says the following about it to the parliamentary inquiry:
It's not nice to express it this way...
but you could say the evacuation was going quite well.
But without knowing at the time because I didn't witness it...
without knowing at the time that men were being picked out...
interrogated and taken away separately. It transpired in the course of the day.
He states that under oath.
It's not true. I mean, it's very simple.
It's hard to understand. One moment you realize things are going wrong...
and later at the parliamentary inquiry you deny you realized it.
Is Kremer lying? -No. I'm not saying he's lying.
All I'm saying is, those are his words. It's out of order to use his words...
against the person you're interviewing. I'm telling you my view of the story.
So we're talking about perjury? -At least a modified version of reality.
Everyone in Dutchbat knew about it.
Did you commit perjury? -No.
Klep says everyone in Dutchbat knew what was going to happen.
I wish Christ Klep had been with us. He would have seen for himself...
and would probably have drawn a different conclusion.
And concerning perjury, I don't think I committed perjury.
You maintain that you didn't see the men being separated.
Yes.
What did you think when he said that at the inquiry?
What I thought? It was cowardly that he didn't dare to confirm it.
I imagine Karremans would have trouble living with that knowledge.
I wouldn't be able to. 20,000 women, children, old people... deported.
1500 men who were in and around the compound disappeared.
Nine corpses which were photographed and filmed.
Reports of corpses. Reports of people in houses.
I wouldn't be able to live with that.
How do you do it? How do you live with the memories of 1995?
I have very vivid memories of what took place then.
Images may have been adjusted. I have regularly stated...
that some things were not in order. Especially my own actions.
But most of the images I've seen, of the circumstances at the time...
I still see those images in my mind's eye.
It's usually not allowed but I like it: the What if? question.
What would have happened if...?
If Dutchbat had had a strong, competent commander...
do you think that would have affected events in Srebrenica?
Historians always love 'what if?' questions.
I think it would have. And I speak from my experience at the MOD.
Every first-year cadet at the Royal Military Academy learns leadership.
Being in command. Motivating.
I would argue that under a different kind of commander than Karremans...
a more motivating commander, a more forceful presence...
Dutchbat would have been a different unit.
Maybe not better, or with a different outcome, but a different unit.
Why I say that is because I really think Karremans is lying...
about the separation of men and women. For an officer, lying is out of order.
For everyone of course. But it won't do. Covering for your comrades is tolerable.
Being loyal to the organization. Fine. But if you consider Potocari...
where the men were separated. He says he was at a specific location...
and we researched this in detail later, you can see dozens of men there.
Maybe you noticed. There are dozens of men near the gate and the coaches.
How can he say he was at that location, within 200 metres of the base...
and still claim he didn't see it? It doesn't make sense to me.
Alright. But if you observe, as you do, that Karremans was incompetent...
and that someone else might have made a difference...
aren't his superiors ultimately culpable for putting someone in charge...
who was clearly not up to the task or the situation he was heading for?
Shouldn't you... Was Charley Brandts higher up?
I need to explain this.
The chain of command went from Dutchbat to regional command.
Charley Brandt was acting commander there as his commander was absent.
By the way, all the commanders above Karremans happened to be Dutch.
Nicolai, the generals in Zagreb and in the Hague of course.
Conspiracy theories sprang up later on. But I don't believe them.
Charley Brandts is the man in the film who says...
I don't get how Karremans can live with it.
Brandt and Karremans used to be good friends and colleagues in the army.
In recent years he's become a fierce critic of Karremans.
I'm sure he has his own reasons.
But if I talk to colleagues abroad about Karremans' exploits...
American colleagues almost always say: So, he was thrown out, right?
And I tell them: No, he was later promoted to Colonel.
British and French colleagues say the same.
The French emphatically, partially blamed Dutchbat in their own reports.
What is the cause? Is it the lack of martial tradition in our culture? Maybe.
Who do you hold responsible for appointing the wrong person?
In general, the organization. Specifically in this case that means...
the Commander-in-chief, General Couzy. In another section of that film...
Couzy denies any knowledge of problems with Karremans.
There were problems with Karremans during training for the mission.
You may have heard of 'The Dutchbat tapes.'
It's a scene of Karremans practicing in Germany before going to Srebrenica.
He was explicitly forbidden to fraternize with Serbs during talks.
Don't chum up with them. And on the videos we see...
a laughing, slightly shy Karremans who immediately accepts a drink...
and starts joking about the Red Light district and so on.
His commander advised against sending him. But he was sent anyway.
It's a very colourful story. It's almost as if we're there.
But the question remains: Was that intentional?
Did they want a submissive individual there?
Or did the MOD completely misjudge it?
I mean, you're not appointing a janitor. You're appointing the man in charge.
True. The procedure in the army was and partly still is...
that the person whose turn it is, is appointed.
At the time Karremans was commander of the Air Manoeuvre Brigade...
from which Dutchbat III was formed.
Plus he had already held positions relevant to the job of commander.
And he was a so-called 'Sun.' He had completed advanced military training...
for which you get a sun-shaped emblem. So these guys are called 'Suns.'
If he had been rejected just before the end of the training...
it would probably have been the end of his army career.
He would never have risen any further.
It would have been a huge embarrassment for the army too.
Because how can someone who is apparently incompetent...
reach the relatively high rank of battalion commander?
So they couldn't resolve it.
I need to let that sink in. If you compare the interests...
it's astonishing. Maybe we should switch to Dutchbat.
That is, to the soldiers themselves. I'm getting a sign from the back.
What did you say?
We have contact with them? It sounds like mission control here.
Let's give it a try.
It's Ad van Liempt here. Willem ***, can you hear me?
Can you hear me? -Yes, I hear you Willem.
We have an group of interested people here...
discussing events in Srebrenica in 1995.
We're surprised that as RTL reporter from that period, you're now there...
to attend a kind of reunion of Bosnia journalists...
which you organized yourself. What kind of meeting is it?
It's a reunion of people who were there. Cameramen, photographers...
journalists, guides, interpreters, drivers, technicians, satellite people.
People who were here during the Bosnia war who are meeting again now.
The standard radio question: What's the atmosphere like?
Willem, what's the atmosphere like?
It's quite cheerful. People who haven't seen each other for years...
are delighted to meet up again. So it's great.
Let's cut to the chase. Do you ever discuss events in Srebrenica?
As a Dutchman in Bosnia it's hard to avoid the topic.
Because it's still held against us.
With people you know well it's no longer a topic of discussion...
but if other people hear you are Dutch it usually comes up pretty quickly.
In an accusatory sense?
I would say, mildly resentful.
What about among fellow journalists, people who covered the war?
What do they think?
Do you mean what Bosnians think of people who were here?
No, I mean what journalists think about Dutchbat's position back then.
I can't speak for all of them but the general sense is...
that the international community had already given up on Srebrenica...
and other areas in the region like Žepa and Goražde . Abandoned them.
And if anyone was to blame, besides the Serbs of course...
it was the UN, who couldn't really be bothered anymore.
A kind of vicarious responsibility. A staggered responsibility.
Yes. -You reported extensively for RTL then.
Not from Srebrenica but from the region. What's it like for you to be back there?
Srebrenica is what you could call a guilty place.
It's hard not to be overwhelmed if you know what happened there.
It's in the air, the atmosphere there. You can never get rid of it.
So it's a desolate place.
Is it partly because entire generations of men are missing from the streets?
By now there are plenty of men. They're mostly Serbs, of course.
No, it's more a kind of awareness, or a chill that you feel...
not literally, of course, but being in that place always troubles me.
Do you personally feel guilty there?
Not personally, no. But in my opinion...
the Netherlands didn't do a very good job there. That does bother me.
We'll discuss this in a moment...
but do you think the press accomplished anything in July 1995?
Well, it's funny. Now there are so many of us back in Sarajevo...
the Serbian press says: There they are again, the dogs of war.
The propagandists of the bombings. The initiators of the NATO bombings...
which led to us losing the war. So the Serbs resent our influence.
Most western journalists here, French, German, British, Dutch, American...
thought intervention was necessary. They said so in their reporting.
Ultimately, it was press reporting that finally convinced the Americans...
that it was time to act. After Srebrenica.
You know the story of a photo taken near Tuzla by a Croatian photographer...
of a woman from Srebrenica who had hung herself. She had lost her husband.
She hung herself on a tree. It made the front page of the Washington Post.
Al Gore, who was then vice president, went to Bill Clinton and said:
My daughter is talking about this. When are we going to act?
The story goes that Bill Clinton said: It's time to finish this.
Then NATO intervened and soon after it was finished.
We've gathered here to discuss perceptions of the war...
I think you've just given us an excellent example.
Thank you. I won't wish you a fun time there, but have a good stay.
Thank you for Skyping with us.
My compliments to the technicians. I'm really impressed.
It's amazing, at my age. And it brings us straight to...
the moment of frustration, Carolien.
What I meant just now but didn't say clearly is...
weren't we, the press, frustrated because we weren't in Srebrenica?
Do you remember how journalists tried to gain access?
Sure. Not that I tried to get there. I was an editor.
But I remember reporter Twan Huys moved heaven and earth to get in...
although, like Christ, we didn't know how bad things were.
A week before the fall we ran a report about our new professional army.
The item included General van Baal, who lauded the professional army...
and when asked about Srebrenica he said things were going fine.
That was a week before the fall. We didn't really know how bad it was.
We knew oil and food were short, that they could no longer get in or out.
But we didn't know it would deteriorate so quickly.
In retrospect that looks like a huge tactical error by the MOD.
Had they created a different perception there would have been more urgency...
with respect to the seriousness of the situation.
If there had been more journalists near the enclave...
and if cameras had filmed the observation posts being shot...
I wonder what Mladic would have done. Whether Karremans or anyone else...
could have stopped it, I think perhaps cameras could have stopped it.
Another what if question for Christ. Is it true?
Did the fact that the press was kept away using concrete road blocks...
have a detrimental effect?
I agree with Carolien. If one or two camera crews had been there...
and had filmed in the enclave especially around the Potocari camp...
regardless of how far it would have gone I think live images on, say, CNN...
because Mladic was very conscious of how the press portrayed events.
And in the meantime we've seen how influential the media can be...
in determining the course of various wars.
Jos, let me bring you in here. Your focus is how events are portrayed.
This is a what if situation, but do you agree that the presence....
of communications and cameras would have made a difference in Bosnia?
I can't answer that question. Because it's what if.
Also because I've never been there.
It's a matter in which I want to be very meticulous.
Just as I've always done I will strictly limit myself tonight...
to things I can see clearly enough to be able to demonstrate them.
I can't answer a what if question about a place I've never visited.
Thank you for subtly putting me in my place.
I just like these questions. We're smart enough to distinguish things.
Carolien, your focus has been, and I'm keen to hear your views...
on developments in Dutchbat's processing of these events.
Give us an idea of what happened. The denouncement, rehabilitation.
Can you tell us a bit about that? After that a more personal perspective.
Personal?
It's already been mentioned, but when the enclave fell...
the first so-called images arrived. Very sporadic.
The entire country was worried about the fate of 'our boys.'
We had all heard about Raviv van Renssen being killed a week earlier.
The entire country was concerned. So were we.
Although we had already heard stories about Dutchbat II...
concerning less than heroic behaviour on the part of the soldiers.
The major turning point...
was before the troops returned when Pronk said there had been a genocide.
And then Twan arrived in Tuzla for Nova and heard the women's stories.
We began to realize we'd been there all the time. How did it happen?
I think the return to Zagreb was the final blow to public perception...
where firstly an exhausted and poorly informed Karremans...
held a disastrous press conference. About bad guys and good guys.
Followed by images of celebrating, beer-drinking Dutchbat troops.
It all contributed, I'm sure Jos agrees, to a public perception...
that couldn't have been worse.
Then they return home and the wound starts to fester.
For the past ten years I've focused on the MOD's actions.
Some call it a cover-up others talk of concealing information.
We'll see in the clip how that affected Dutchbat.
The constant secrecy and revelations. Whether it was rolls of film...
or corpses they saw but denied seeing. It all added up.
What I experienced in my conversations with these guys.
Almost all of them suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder.
Something we're increasingly coming to understand.
It depended on where someone had been and what they did.
Some guys did a lot. Especially those on the observation posts.
They tried to help the refugees. Resistance? That's overstating it.
They certainly tried to help refugees.
They accompanied refugees back from the hills.
Some even tried to take up a... what do you call it?
A blocking position. Some guys tried to some extent.
It wasn't easy, of course.
But many others stayed in the bunker throughout the fall of the enclave.
They played cards the whole time. That happened too.
I particularly remember that book by David Rhode about...
how events were exposed. He relates an incident at a road block.
He sees a Serbian patrol approaching while the Dutchbat guys...
take off their flack jackets and helmets to hand them over to the Serbs...
in order for the Serbs to carry out their work disguised as UN blue helmets.
Do you think that really happened? Was it really that bad?
I've heard these stories too. I also heard of one YPR the Serbs took.
A Dutch UN armoured vehicle in which the Serbs drove around.
Whether that happened voluntarily I don't know.
But the Serbs certainly snatched uniforms and equipment from the Dutch...
and I don't think the Dutch used their weapons to try and stop them.
You're going to show us something. You went back with someone.
Tell us the details then we'll view the excerpt.
As you may know the NIOD published a comprehensive study in 2002.
Just before that Alletta Oosten and I returned there with one Dutchbat guy.
He was one of the guys who served on the observation posts.
Not in the compound. These were guys who were shot at for weeks on end.
There were five or six of them. They were about 17 to 19 years old.
All around them... not everyone was inside the compound.
People were still living in the hills. When the attacks become so intense...
the local Muslim commander says: 'Take my two little kids...
I'm going to the hills to fight.' He had a rifle with five bullets.
'Take care of my family.' Martijn Mulder and the entire village...
some 2,500 people, descended under heavy gunfire.
It seems that some refugees were crushed by the armoured vehicle.
He reported it afterwards. He was tried for that later on.
The public prosecutor tried to get him for that.
That's not the story in the clip. This is after he returns.
Men and women are already separated. He arrived after that at the compound.
He and a few colleagues are ordered to accompany the coaches...
carrying the women and children to Tuzla.
Martijn Mulder was 24 at the time.
Let's see the clip. Thank you.
Dutchbat is in chaos. According to Mulder, no one is in charge.
Everyone is improvising.
Mulder is unaware Muslim men were separated from their wives and children.
He is asked to drive a car accompanying the coaches...
taking the refugees to Muslim areas.
Did you realize at the time that you were helping to deport people?
No. Not really. Not then.
We were just keeping an eye on the coaches.
You only realize later it's really a deportation or a forced migration.
But as Dutchbat we didn't actually participate in that.
The Serbs took over. All we did was observe as well as we could...
what was going on.
You couldn't do anything for them? -Absolutely not. We just followed...
and observed so that if anything untoward happened we could report it.
The convoy of coaches passes the Serbian village of Nova Kasaba.
About 15 km outside of Srebrenica.
When we came out of that bend we saw, beyond those trees on the right...
it started there, all the way to here, it was chock-full of men.
On their knees. Hands on their heads.
Really close together. A huge number of them were put here.
Some 4x4 vehicles were parked along the road.
Serbian troops wandered around. Special units.
We drove past quite slowly. The men reached all the way to the edge.
It was completely full.
The guy next to me immediately reported the situation to the compound.
That all these men were in a field and so on.
And we continued on our way.
That this could happen nowadays on that scale.
And we were right here. It's incomprehensible.
I saw that football field and I saw the people too.
Very briefly. When the coach drove past.
I saw men walking along the road with their hands on their head.
One line, two-by-two.
I could look down from the forest onto the football field.
Were you in a meadow near the field? -No, I was in the forest.
They called to us: Surrender or we'll skin you like goats.
Many surrendered and were never seen again.
It was packed. Like in the old days for a village festival.
I still can't grasp that when we drove past here...
my colleague reports the situation to the compound.
It's obvious the men are being separated and being held here.
On their knees, hands on their heads. So they've been separated.
And in the end nothing was done. And in the end it's denied too.
Just after we returned home. I just don't understand it, really.
That the army brass says there was no genocide.
Sure we didn't know at the time. But they were preparing for it.
The suspicion was there. -You reported that.
It was reported. Yes.
It was the actions of the army top that caused such problems for Dutchbat.
We saw it, we reported it. You can't do anything more, just four men.
They screwed up here, and they continued when we got back too.
That doesn't help those men, though. It was already too late.
Carolien, the NIOD report which was published a few days after this...
you could say it led to a kind of rehabilitation for Dutchbat, right?
The general opinion is much less negative than it previously was.
Or do you see it differently?
It depends which part. The summary, which most people have read...
and which appeared in the press, in fairly positive.
But there are a few appendices which mention...
that people knew what was happening that corpses were found...
that soldiers stayed in the bunker.
But the general impression you get from the NIOD report...
is that it was an international failure. Dutchbat was abandoned.
By the Netherlands but more importantly, by the UN too.
And that individual Dutchbat troops are not culpable.
That's the most important perception.
You put it much more eloquently. But you both hinted earlier...
Let me put it provocatively. There a good and a bad Dutchbat.
Yes, what I'm trying to indicate is that there were two Dutchbats.
Broadly speaking you could say there were regular Dutchbat guys.
Ordinary soldiers. And then there were officers and NCOs.
Speaking from my background at the MOD I can say emphatically...
that's the distinction. An officer is... -Mulder says so too.
Mulder says in more general terms: The army leadership abandoned us.
That's a different issue. But officers have a special responsibility.
There's no other profession which involves so much responsibility...
because his are ultimately life and death decisions.
It's like, a surgeon who says 90% of my operations end pretty well...
is a surgeon you avoid. A pilot who says 90% of my landings are okay...
is not a pilot you want. An ideal officer also has to have a 100% record.
Just like the pilot and the surgeon his decisions have to be 100%.
A bad decision can result in very serious damage.
He is deciding the fate of tens or hundreds of people.
In retrospect, if he can justify a decision that ended badly...
that's completely different from what happened here.
Here, officers have to make decisions. In my opinion they had options.
NIOD has a more nuanced view. In my view the officers had to decide...
about matters involving fundamental human rights.
The question was: What do we do with these men? With these women?
The officers involved, mainly Karremans and his deputy Franken, who we'll see...
chose to rescue the women and children first, thereby abandoning the men.
It sounds crude but that's what happened.
In my view, for a high-ranking officer like a Major or Lieutenant Colonel...
it's an impossible choice. That may sound harsh...
Sure, I wasn't there. So let's dissolve parliament. I wasn't there either.
The "you weren't there" argument negates all research and history.
You'd better retire too. -He doesn't like quotes.
Absolutely. So I think you are entitled to call Karremans to account...
as an officer with a royal commission, to put it grandly.
I'm struck by the fact that foreign colleagues...
British, French, American officers...
they all say, it's a choice... and it's easy for them to say,
a choice I wouldn't have made as an officer. On principle.
Interesting. Last year I attended a kind of Dutchbat reunion at an exhibition.
I spoke to many people and I was struck by their intense resentment.
Not so much about the outcome, although they did feel abandoned...
more about during the mission itself. The lack of food, mail and so on.
At least, that's what they say. It is true? Is the resentment justified?
Yes and no. If you compare it to 7,000 deaths...
then living on biscuits for a few days isn't such a big deal.
But it's a fact that they were isolated and like Mulder...
were bombarded by mortars for weeks even though air support was promised.
Earlier, before the enclave fell, Karremans had requested air support.
Partly because Mike was being shot at. It never materialized.
They were abandoned. Regardless of what I think of Karremans...
or that some guys stayed in the bunker when things deteriorated...
they were trapped in a kind of geographical bath tub.
No one could enter or leave. Skype didn't exist yet.
There was a faulty satellite phone. If you tried to contact Karremans...
it was almost impossible. A fax now and then.
So they felt terribly alone. The reason I chose this excerpt...
and why I like it, is that Mulder says they kept abandoning us. Afterwards too.
The good things we did, like reporting events and things we could have done...
are denied in retrospect. I think that's the main resentment.
Officers and soldiers differ in that regard.
You have another excerpt. Let's see that and then take a break.
Because it's been a tough hour, right? So, what's the excerpt about?
It's a shorter clip about Major Franken. Christ mentioned it earlier.
He was Karremans' right-hand man. Partly the man who carried out...
Karremans was often away negotiating with Mladic in Hotel Fontana.
No, only afterwards when Mladic came to the compound.
Franken is the person who ultimately gave Mladic permission...
to take the able-bodied men in return for safe passage for 25,000 others.
That's essentially what happened.
I won't give too much introduction. I'm curious to see people's responses.
One more thing. I once heard tell, you probably know this...
that Karremans spent most of July 11 on the toilet.
That story is often told. He has always denied it.
He has never used it as a way of justifying himself.
Okay, we'll forget that.
Serbian general Mladic initially asked Dutchbat to evacuate the refugees.
Commander Karremans puts in a request at the UN in Sarajevo...
and reports this to Mladic.
The UN in Sarajevo sends a brief message to Dutchbat:
We can't help you with the coaches. So Mladic takes the refugees himself.
Women and children to safety, the men to execution sites.
I would characterize such a decision as...
incomprehensible. Absolutely incomprehensible.
The consequence was that Mladic decided to do it himself.
We know what happened next.
Yes. The women and children managed to get out relatively unscathed.
The men whom we were guarding are either still missing or murdered.
Two weeks ago Rob Franken first hears of the cabinet's decision...
on July 11 1995 to act in 'solidarity.'
Dutchbat will only leave once the refugees are out of danger.
Did the cabinet agree to give Commander Karremans instructions...
that led to this arrangement? -Yes. Of course this happened.
The formula: Don't leave until...
solidarity with all those people in the compound has been realized...
was certainly communicated. By the Minister of Defence.
When I heard that last week I used a word I won't repeat here.
If I stop to think about it I'm completely astonished.
Astonished that our highest authority, the government, takes a decision...
and the lowest level, in this case the battalion...
for whom the decision is extremely significant...
doesn't know, isn't informed.
Would you have accepted the order from the government...
and would you have adopted a more aggressive stance towards Mladic?
Clearly, if I'm ordered to show solidarity and that means...
ultimately that the Serbs can only get to the refugees over my dead body...
then that obviously implies a more aggressive position, yes.
You say that with no hesitation. -Obviously. An order like that...
leaves you no alternative. It's completely unequivocal.
Two weeks after the fall of Srebrenica. The whole of Dutchbat...
except Raviv van Renssen have arrived in Zagreb. The Dutch celebrate.
As prime minister Kok said: The heroes have returned safely.
Give a bunch of guys free beer and music and this is what you'll see.
Were you ashamed? -Not for my lads.
I was angered by the stupidity of doing it this way.
Whose stupidity? -Whoever made that choice...
against the advice of the commander in the field.
Your boss, the MOD, arranged it. Minister Voorhoeve...
Commander-in-Chief Couzy. -It made me very angry, yes.
I find it absolutely unacceptable.
You've certainly given us our fair share of shame tonight.
Are you still in contact with the Dutchbat guys?
Do you have any idea how any of them are doing?
Not a lot. Those I do hear from aren't doing too well.
Many of their relationships have failed. Some still suffer.
Some have continued in the army. They are doing reasonably well.
But many of them have lost their way. Whether in the army or not.
Those I still speak to... When Mladic was arrested last spring...
I phoned a number of Dutchbat guys and they told me their stories.
One guy even moved to Srebrenica. He's doing voluntary work there.
Almost all of them are still preoccupied by it.
Good idea for Tegenlicht, Jos. Can you tell us anything more?
Dutchbat has a higher percentage of PTSD sufferers. Three times higher.
You still meet them. Those who stayed in the organization...
were generally the ones who managed to process it better.
Franken also stayed. He's been promoted from Major to Commander.
Incidentally, he's a perfect illustration of a phenomenon...
that characterized the aftermath. He's the civil servant fighting back.
Fifty years ago everyone would have followed orders and not protested.
But this officer spoke out in public...
It's time for a break.
Ladies and gentlemen, please return to your seats for part two.
As announced, we're going to broaden the discussion a bit.
We'll talk to Jos de Putter about his triptych on the Miloševic trial.
Which could be construed as an attempt to bring closure to the Bosnian war.
He'll show us some clips. After that there will be time for questions.
I see some people can hardly wait. That's why these people are here.
We'll get to you soon. But first Jos de Putter, editor of Tegenlicht...
and producer of a three-part film on the Milosevic trial.
What motivated you, Jos... How long had it been?
To focus on the Milosevic trial ten years after the end of the war?
The trial itself.
Like I said earlier, I had never been there myself, so all I had were...
the images and probably the opinions that everyone had.
In a nutshell it was a story, for the interested layperson...
featuring good guys and bad guys.
But then a moment occurred when someone said to me...
someone who was following the trial on a daily basis.
He said, the only decent person in the courtroom is Slobodan Milosevic.
I wondered if I had misunderstood him.
Normally I would have left it at that but the person who said that to me...
was a former tutor of mine in literature studies at Leiden.
A man I had great respect for and who I knew had complete moral integrity.
If I had to back up that opinion, one of the reasons is that...
he came here as a political refugee from Bulgaria, under Van der Stoel...
so he was no friend of the communists or anything like that.
First he covered the war in Yugoslavia for WDR. He speaks Serbo-Croat.
Subsequently he went every day, he lives in the Hague...
to the Milosevic trial. He said: History is being rewritten there.
Not just the history of Yugoslavia, but our own European history too.
So there was that. Plus this notion...
that Milosevic was the defender of decency there.
He said, it's not much work because everything is available online.
The Yugoslavia tribunal put all its sessions with English subtitles...
on the internet, so it was all accessible to everyone.
So I started... Sure. Okay otherwise...
Decency.
We're all victims of public perceptions So when you say...
I heard from someone I trust, that he distinguished himself by his decency...
you need to flesh that out because it's hard to understand.
So you encounter... there's no such thing as absolute decency.
It's a graded scale. You might say this is a political trial going on.
If you looked carefully, Judge May had a very peculiar influence.
And the... if you...
The more I immersed myself in it the more peculiar the examples seemed.
Because I wasn't reading about them or hearing them on the news.
All the things I expected to happen, with Milosevic defending himself...
and I came to understand why he did that...
it was because he knew more than anyone else. For example...
Sorry, I'm going on for too long. But an example of an eye-opener.
Because you need that. Otherwise you wouldn't believe it.
There's a witness who knows... who relates...
that he was present when Milosevic gave orders to deport...
I think they were Albanians, from Kosovo.
If you had a defence council they would attack that assertion.
They would ask: What exactly did you hear?
When precisely? What were his words? What was striking was...
that Milosevic asks the man: Where did you hear that?
Not a question a defence council would think of asking.
The man says: In your office. And Milosevic says...
Can you tell me where my office is? And the man didn't know.
So you undermine someone with something only you can think of.
So I thought... What was so striking was...
that there were so many...
similar moments and testimonies.
That I was... I was so incredibly flabbergasted.
And I thought: Why aren't I reading about this or seeing it on the news?
I didn't really know what to do. I'm not really a good journalist.
That's a complicating factor. I'm more of a filmmaker.
So I decided what I could do was let the material that surprised me...
almost speak for itself. At least we will have seen it then.
Then maybe it will cause something to happen. In any case it's out there.
Also for people who aren't aware it's available online.
Let me introduce the first clip. I have four but I can't show them all.
I'll show the second one.
The first one is worth showing.
It's not about the trial itself, but it's about...
the process of forming a perception like in the case of the woman who...
And the impact that had on Gore and Clinton.
This is a short story about a picture that had similar consequences.
That's clip one on DVD one.
I have to add I was visiting an American man...
the man you're about to hear was hired for public relations...
every war involves public relations, by the Bosnian Serbs.
Sorry, by the Bosnians.
This is the famous picture. Penny Marshall...
shakes Fikret Alic's hand through the barbed wire.
These are the three sequences. She enters the barbed wire enclosed area.
She reaches the end of the yard where the wheelbarrows are.
And this is the famous image that spread all over the world.
It looks like men imprisoned behind barbed wire.
And of course evoked associations with Nazi concentration camps.
It was a truly decisive situation.
There were rumours that the Serbs had concentration camps.
Genuine death camps modelled on the Nazi camps.
There were speculations about this in the printed press.
A few weeks later these images were released by a British camera crew.
Worldwide this was seen as proof by politicians, the military, the media...
that the Serbs were committing genocide in death camps.
My doubt was triggered by a coincidence.
It was a detail that made me sceptical.
My wife pointed it out when we first viewed the images together.
If you look carefully you see the barbed wire on the tall metal pole...
is fixed on the side where the Bosnian Muslims are standing.
I'm a construction engineer I used to work in construction.
So I know when you build a fence you always fix the wire on the outside.
Never on the inside. My wife pointed this out to me.
So when I saw the barbed wire was on the side of the Bosnian Muslims...
I was really shocked and I was sure something wasn't right.
I immediately decided to drive to Bosnia. To Trnopolje.
And the fences were still there.
So it was relatively easy to see who had stood where behind the barbed wire.
I managed to get hold of the ITN rushes. The unedited video footage.
I began to study it thoroughly.
You can clearly see what kind of camp Trnopolje was.
You can clearly see...
it's a camp where refugees came to find shelter.
And in particular you can see the camp is not enclosed by a fence.
In the background you see a car driving. There's no fence there either.
Here's where they get out of the car in the farmyard.
Here you see the cameraman discovers the fence motif and plays with it a bit.
He zooms right across the farmyard until he has the barbed wire in frame.
Here you see in the background Fikret Alic coming forward.
Now you hear the cameraman say: The thin one on the left.
He has to come forward which is why he's smiling.
I didn't understand that when I first saw it on TV.
They're pushing him forward a bit of course.
They were completely cognisant that this image would shock the world.
You need to help me with this because you believe it or you don't believe it.
I think there's every reason to believe it wasn't a concentration camp.
But what led you to embrace the idea of Milosevic as the only decent man there?
Look, it's more nuanced than that.
The only thing I can rely on in such an astonishing process, is my surprise.
I allow myself to be led by my surprise. What do I see?
The first thing I use to communicate this to viewers, is this kind of thing.
It helps to use an image we know. But then, what is an image?
An image is a product. Well-intentioned or otherwise.
It's important to be aware of this. Because based on this image...
and other images, and it's nice that Harv says so himself...
based on evidence such as this image Milosevic was brought to the Hague.
So I start examining the trial... -May I interrupt you?
You need to explain this. You simply state there was no concentration camp.
I'm sorry, but this is unacceptable. There are judicial decisions...
declaring that these images were correct.
At the very least you need to explain Thomas Deichmann's story.
You can't just skim over that. -And the judge's statements.
I was involved in researching this issue, so I speaking from...
You have a point there. Please explain.
I'm also curious about Christ's view. I'm sure he studied this too.
Let me address the judicial decision because that's important.
An English court issued a judgement, and there it was the case that...
Thomas Deichmann's research was not contested.
The point is Thomas Deichmann had to prove to the court...
that ITN deliberately manipulated the footage.
So the burden of proof was reversed. That's English law.
You can say there's a judicial decision but it's not that simple.
It goes beyond that. The Yugoslavia war tribunal established many things too.
Thank you. Like you, I also can't wait.
If I may. I wanted to tell you a lot about Srebrenica, but...
I understand, but after having seen this I need to speak out.
About the images and the case. I'm sure some people are confused now.
I'm Satko Mujagic. I was in the camps. Fikret Alic is a good friend of mine.
I interviewed him a year ago about his life. I'm also not a journalist.
I asked him about this. What happened before and afterwards.
38 people were convicted by various courts for genocide in Prijedor.
In the municipality where these camps were.
There is so much evidence that these were concentration camps.
Death camps. Where I counted corpses every morning.
People were dumped there and like in Srebrenica, later exhumed.
So you understand I'm emotional now.
All I'm saying is, I respect your right to do research and to make films.
Fine. That's why we're here tonight. But what you're doing here...
on the one hand talking about the only decent man in court. Whatever.
It has no bearing on his guilt. Whether he's decent or not. Firstly.
Secondly, it has no bearing at all on these camps.
I'll finish up. Maybe I'll add something later.
There was indeed a trial. Mr. Deichmann was challenged...
to speak with Alic like I'm speaking to you now. He didn't dare.
Leaving aside the trial in the UK. Because quite simply, by then...
there was so much evidence. Mass graves in and around Trnopolje.
Twelve-year old girls were *** in the camp.
A mixed-race Serbian boy was killed together with his Croatian father...
by pushing barbed wire, maybe this barbed wire, through his tongue.
He hasn't been found yet. His Serbian mother is still searching.
If you had done some research you could have shown that in your film.
Instead of some American guy talking about an image. Thank you.
Jos, you have to defend yourself.
As I said, I encountered things that surprised me. And I show them.
I think... regarding the judicial decision...
I maintain the burden of proof was reversed.
It's very hard to prove deliberate manipulation...
except that you can see how the cameraman discovers a motif.
We have to make clear distinctions.
I'm not sitting here trying to deny that terrible things happen.
In a war. And in camps.
I mean... I'm not there. -I'll grant you this.
Journalists tried to make it look as bad as possible. As a wake-up call.
I'm aware of that. It saved my life. Not just mine. I'll grant you that.
The rest is what you, Deichmann and others have made of it.
Namely, that it didn't exist. That's the mistake.
In the film Deichmann says it wasn't a concentration camp because...
There is lots of jurisprudence on this. Numerous trials were held.
I think it's been amply proven that Omarska was a concentration camp.
But that's unrelated to the question of whether and to what extent...
Yes, the same applies there. You're right.
But that's unconnected to the question of whether ITN...
manipulated or woke up the world. -Either way it could be a good thing.
I'd like to return to the trial. And especially...
to what motivated you...
to look at the Milosevic trial differently than most people did.
I'm not sure I looked differently.
I just took material that was and is available to the public online...
and showed it because I found the conduct of the trial so strange.
Protected witnesses. People who...
who were granted amnesty and given new identities.
In return for pre-arranged testimonies.
And how Milosevic managed to expose these mechanisms.
And how May in particular kept on silencing him...
by saying they weren't there to listen to his propaganda.
While I thought, what he's saying is: Who are these witnesses exactly?
Is that propaganda? I didn't actually add or detract anything.
I showed it. I felt it was important to show how justice was being served.
Aren't you saying it was a political trial and a kind of victor's justice?
That is... look...
You could say of all history that the victors write history.
And then there are traces of...
I was searching for the traces of how this type of history is written.
And that includes some very peculiar moments.
It was originally in two parts but then I was heavily criticized...
because people say... there are Serbs speaking.
Although these were all prosecution witnesses.
Not one witness for Milosevic was included.
The third film, from which we saw a clip is a compilation of the other two...
but augmented with David Owen, because he had been heard by then.
I thought, David Owen isn't a Bosnian or a Serb or a Croat.
I thought he had a striking... we could show that too...
that's clip number one on...
perhaps it's better than this about the photo, because it's in the courtroom.
It's excerpt one on DVD two.
Alright, let's watch.
Lord David Owen appears before the tribunal at the end of 2003.
As EU negotiator he was co-author of the 1993 Vance-Owen peace plan.
That plan was supported by Milosevic...
but rejected at the last moment by the Bosnian Serbs...
after which the war broke out.
The issue here is whether Milosevic controlled the Bosnian Serbs...
and can thus be held responsible for the failure of the peace plan.
And so for resulting events including the fall of Srebrenica.
Jos, explain to me what's wrong with this part of the trial?
Nothing. Except that it surprised me.
Because it contradicts the idea of why Milosevic is there, namely...
The problem with the charge of genocide which many people advised against...
is that you have to prove so much.
Criminal organization. A plan. The chain of command.
And what Nice, the prosecutor, is looking for are those connections.
I think what Owen says is that these things are so much more complex.
Owen was one of the people who said you won't get a conviction for genocide.
When I started watching, my perception of Milosevic...
was coloured by terms like ethnic cleansing and so on.
And then someone like Owen says, and many others with him...
that it's incorrect. Of course you could say everyone is partisan.
Like I said, it's in the film because I followed my surprise.
Because I don't have much else with such complex material.
And I can't edit much so the excerpts are long.
As soon as you start editing you're accused of manipulation.
That's why it's a bit long. But I chose to show it as it actually happened.
Do you want to talk about the responses to your film? A lot of criticism.
Absolutely. And I acquired the wrong friends. So be it.
Of course people respond emotionally which is entirely understandable...
because I'm on the wrong side.
And I've made the wrong friends. I was praised by Serbian nationalists.
Which isn't... It's just something I live with.
Are you planning to make a similar film about the Mladic trial?
No. -Why not?
I think it's too complex. I'm not distancing myself from this film.
I think it was important that I made it.
But I'm not going to repeat... It's very complicated.
What is important about the fact that you made a film about Milosevic?
You said it was important. Why?
The importance is... -That Lord Owen guy is a ***.
There's the importance. -Unbelievable.
It seems to me you know very little about what was going on in Bosnia.
You just observe and think. Go and do research in the field.
You can't accuse him of having no ideas.
He went along with the apartheid... -He knows nothing. He's so complacent.
Jos, your response. Let me rephrase the question.
Do you have to be an expert on all the ins and outs to make a film...
about such a complex issue?
You certainly have to consider it.
Because a dabbler is no good to anyone in this kind of situation.
I would never have done it if this material hadn't been available.
So, like anyone else, I can watch the material and ask myself: What do I see?
If they had done that on the news or in the serious press...
I wouldn't have made the film.
But because there was no reflection on this very peculiar...
really very strange conduct in the courtroom.
I could show you... I thought it's really a kind of...
call it a journalistic duty to show it because it's happening.
However unpleasant it is. However many wounds it may open.
Of course. That's why it's so complex. But it is something that happens.
No. But what I can't...
What I am obligated to do when something happens...
when something happens but everyone finds the story inconvenient...
in my view it's still a story. It is going on.
No, I didn't even cut it. I didn't edit it.
Still on the subject of the camp photo. It's always shown as an example...
of how we are manipulated. You say you hardly did any research.
I remember reading... -I didn't say that.
in Groene Amsterdammer the article by Thomas Deichmann.
I was sympathetic. -Give her a microphone.
We can all hear her, right? -I will speak loud and clear.
Otherwise it'll take too long.
I was an avid reader of Groene Amsterdammer.
I was sympathetic because the article was by an independent journalist...
who was standing up to that big commercial broadcaster ITN.
I expected something from it. So I recognize the feeling very well.
Until you really start looking into the whole issue, what's going on.
And you discover that journalists like Deichmann are part of a network...
who not only deny there were concentration camps in Bosnia...
but also deny that Srebrenica happened and that Anacak happened.
So it was and still is, a systematic... including Mr. Chomsky.
It's an active network that believes, and they reason as follows...
if we can throw suspicion on these kinds of camps and images...
then we remove the pretext for liberal, capitalist societies to intervene.
That's the underlying political agenda.
So, if you want to make a documentary about public perceptions...
then you need to understand this happens for a reason.
You're giving voice to the very people who create these perceptions.
I'm not saying the Americans or others don't manipulate.
But this is such a delicate subject. It's about such serious issues...
You can't say, I found some interesting stuff on the internet, here it is...
Thank you. A response please and then we'll get more reactions.
A few distinctions need to be made. I'm not just dabbling.
When I decide to... There are two elements.
There is the footage of the tribunal.
The trial. Where things happen that surprise me...
and I think are worth showing because it's truly surprising.
The other thing is the backstory. How the tribunal came to exist.
So Milosevic who is brought there as the bad guy. For me too.
Part of that process was the photo.
It's not Deichmann who says this but Margaret Tutwiler's speech writer...
who was responsible for everything the State Department said on Yugoslavia.
So it's not a man who is determined to bring down...
what did you call it? The capitalist conspiracy or something.
It's not what is going on. What is happening is a...
and this always happens because of the role of the media.
You asked me if it would have made a difference if the media...
Yes. It always makes a difference when the media acts.
Like you said, it can have a beneficial effect. It saved your life.
Even if the barbed wire was on the wrong side.
The guy in America makes a different connection.
Not just that it saved your life. But also, like you said...
because of the photo America intervened.
Only much later. -I don't mean the bombing of Kosovo.
But they became actively involved. You're right, I should pick my words.
Let's leave the photo and manipulation, because it could take all night.
I've had a request from filmmaker Ingeborg Beugel at the back...
who has also presented Cineblend. She wants to ask a question. Now?
It's not an occasion for statements. Just a question for the panel.
Introduce it briefly if you like. -It's more involved than that.
Is three minutes okay, Ad? Well it will take three minutes anyway.
This evening has been overshadowed by the question: Did we know?
Or didn't we? Karremans and Franken...
even the historian here says he realized but didn't comprehend.
I'm much more emphatic. He did know.
I was a war correspondent in Yugoslavia from 1990...
until 1995, I left after Srebrenica. For print media, radio and TV.
I also made a 52-minute documentary about the parliamentary inquiry...
into Srebrenica, and I heard that the gentlemen in the comfort of the Hague...
had decided not to invite any widows or victims of Srebrenica...
to the comfort of the Hague.
I was working for the IKON show Factor which has since been scrapped...
because who needs critical thinking?
I went to Tuzla with VHS tapes of Karremans and Franken...
and asked the women to respond. Naturally they were very emotional...
so it was hard for me as a documentary filmmaker to use the material.
Eventually, the protagonist in that documentary was Hasan Nuhanovic.
No one has mentioned him but he is the Dutchbat interpreter...
who today still has nightmares about Karremans and Franken...
because his 17-year old brother, his mother and his father...
despite the fact that he was a paid interpreter for Dutchbat...
all three weren't protected by Dutchbat but rather Franken and Karremans...
personally sent them out of the compound straight to their deaths.
When Hasan Nuhanovic... in all the clips I've seen tonight...
I worked as editor with Bart Nijpels. Ger Kremer, the Dutchbat doctor...
was Bart Nijpels' big discovery. Excuse me.
It's unsurprising he made a documentary about him, which I'll come back to.
These were all issues at Netwerk where I was working, but...
the widows of Srebrenica and the orphans of Srebrenica...
were not heard at the parliamentary inquiry.
Hasan Nuhanovic, the Dutchbat interpreter, acted as ambassador...
for all those victims and responded in my documentary...
to the statements by Franken and Karremans.
Picture it: We're in a weird hotel in Tuzla, I've spoken to the women.
Hasan is there, and when Karremans and Franken speak...
he draws on a blackboard the precise order of events.
Among other things how the troops had to separate men and women.
That's been mentioned several times tonight, too.
I happen to know, I also spoke to the women...
that the Dutchbat soldiers initially wore Bermuda shorts and t-shirts...
when they were in the camp to protect people.
But when the women had to be separated from the men...
they suddenly had to put on their uniforms.
Hasan Nuhanovic and others have explained in detail, using diagrams...
how refugees were separated from each other at gunpoint. Dutch gunpoint.
That Karremans and Franken say they didn't know, is bull.
I've spoke to so many Dutchbat soldiers who confirm this.
But they were not given a platform. They couldn't speak out.
My documentary after the inquiry... Just to clarify...
why is the question in The Netherlands still: What are we to blame for?
I made the film because at two in the morning after a few drinks...
I phoned Bert Bakker, the chairman of the Srebrenica parliamentary inquiry.
I recommend that journalists, in the middle of the night, tipsy...
phone a politician, or a chairman of a committee, because groggy as he is...
he makes a mistake. I asked him in the middle of the night...
he was in bed I was at Nieuwspoort: Why were no victims of Srebrenica...
invited to the Hague? And because he was so sleepy, he said:
The VVD party, Joris Voorhoeve, doesn't want emo-TV.
All the parties in the committee, PvdA, D66, SP...
let themselves be led by the VVD because the VVD reasoned...
Joris Voorhoeve, who had to defend them, said: We don't want widows.
We don't want orphans. Because that will evoke emotions in The Netherlands.
And emotion is precisely what's missing in the Netherlands.
There are lots of great researchers and filmmakers. Them, you...
Bart Nijpels, others, me. The Cry of the Grave at IDFA.
We really have spoken out.
I'm nearly done. Of course, these films are broadcast late at night.
It's kind of preaching to the converted. VPRO viewers watch VPRO films.
But I'm talking about tabloid readers. After everything I've experienced...
in the Balkans, the Bosnian war, the average Dutch person...
still always says: Dutchbat couldn't help it.
It's all the fault of the UN and the French. We're not to blame.
And that simply isn't true. Okay, I've had my say.
I would like to ask a question. Do you blame individual soldiers...
No. And I advocate more help for those who are now suicidal...
who can't forget what happened. No. That's not what I said.
I blame the commanders. Not the foot soldiers.
May I? -Okay, that's resolved.
Christ, would you like to respond to Ingeborg?
It's quite simple. I agree with almost everything you said.
The problem of what happened after Srebrenica has two aspects.
Firstly, that we didn't speak about it right away.
Literally. When people returned from Srebrenica at Soesterberg...
they were given leave. Even General Couzy went away for a month.
He was unreachable for a month, while the entire country was in turmoil.
He was entitled to a month's leave. We tried to reach him to question him.
His deputy and the deputy's deputy were also on vacation.
Yes, or like Sesame Street if you want to call it that.
Secondly, the focus was primarily... it became an internal Dutch affair.
We weren't interested in what other countries did about Srebrenica.
It became a very introspective affair. We had to deal with it as a nation.
We still haven't succeeded, really.
We focused primarily on the processes. Committees, evaluations.
I remember when the NIOD report was published, it was a kind of contest.
Who passed? Who failed? Who has been rehabilitated?
I remember Minister of Defence Kamp saying in a speech...
'I have huge respect for Dutchbat. You're officially rehabilitated.'
Which raised the question: Did they need rehabilitating?
That's a logical follow-up question. So apparently the general sense was...
that the MOD had to appease Dutchbat. But Dutchbat didn't play ball.
Their feeling was: You should have done this seven years ago.
My thesis is on sale for a ridiculously low price if you're interested.
Yes, in second-hand stores too.
At a certain point prime minister Kok's cabinet steps down.
In 2003. Sorry, in 2002.
Seven years afterwards. For the same reasons that applied in 1995.
Nothing else was added. I think it's indicative...
that Kok says: I'm not to blame. The Netherlands is not to blame.
It mustn't become a judicial issue.
But as Kok and as a Dutchman I accept some degree of responsibility.
That's the problem, in my view. -Two months later there were elections.
Who's next? -Can I say something about...
I prefer questions. -I have a question.
Come on, Ad.
We just heard a lengthy statement so now a question, please.
No more statements. The other one was because of the images...
for younger people who are suddenly seeing "so-called" concentration camps.
For the record: Unfortunately they were real camps.
But enough about that. I want to say something about Srebrenica...
and the Milosevic trial, and then I have a specific question.
Firstly I'm a naturalized Dutch citizen. I'm proud of that. I love this country.
Compared to many other countries we have a good society here...
despite everything that goes on. I'm not naming names. Or hot lines.
No, I'm serious. One of the things that makes me proud tonight, is that...
The Netherlands... we are a small but quality sample here tonight...
The Netherlands is trying to deal with Srebrenica, to face up to it.
In the past 15, 17 years I have rarely seen what you have shown tonight.
It's not on TV, but the quality of the evening, the panel, speaks volumes...
in that, as you said Madame, it's a very open discussion about blame and so on.
Until a couple of years ago I always felt a lot was glossed over.
The media only showed snippets. No one wanted to tackle the topic.
Or maybe only very briefly. I say this because...
in my life, also during my experiences in Bosnia, I learned...
a Polish philosopher put it this way:
Patriotism is measured by the amount of shame for your own people's crimes.
I can't remember his name, but it's right on the mark.
I'm ashamed of crimes committed by Bosnians.
Because I'm a Bosnian. So I'm glad to see Dutch people...
feeling shame for Srebrenica. Never mind if they were "crimes" or not.
That people feel uncomfortable about the drama of Srebrenica.
That they talk about it. I respect that.
You condemn the misery. Never mind who did precisely what.
Instead of denying it and covering it up.
So I just want to compliment you for this evening.
The panel and everything that was said. I'm glad I came. Even just for that.
I'll leave Srebrenica for now and get back to the Milosevic trial.
Partly connected to the story about the camps, partly not.
I confess I haven't seen your film. I'd like to.
Although some excerpts did seem familiar.
The whole manipulative story about the camps has been around since 1996...
which I know inside-out from stories on the internet, from books...
from speaking to people who were actively involved in one way or another.
And Ed Vulliamy who discovered the camp.
But what I miss in this story, and this is a question for you Mr. de Putter.
You used the word dabbler. I won't call you that because I don't know you.
I haven't seen the film so I can't call it that either.
But what I miss in the clips and the whole film if I hear you correctly...
is the story from the other side.
I think Tegenlicht is a programme in which both sides should be heard.
I doubt you spoke to any camp inmates like me or Alic or anyone else.
Or even tried to speak to anyone. Alic lives nearby. He's available.
You said, and I'm glad you did, that you couldn't find anything.
Alic has been on Dutch TV at least twice, as far as I know.
On Netwerk and BNN. I was on Netwerk three times. On this subject.
I said clearly: In Omarska there was no fence. It wasn't necessary.
They didn't need one. There was nowhere for us to go.
They could shoot us dead at will. Fence or not, it's a concentration camp.
So what I really miss in the story, and again, I don't know you...
is that you didn't do that. And secondly, if I may finish.
One more minute. Alright, here goes.
About Milosevic. Not about the film. The camps were in 1992. That's it.
Milosevic's responsibility goes back from 1987 all the way to 1995...
in Bosnia and Croatia as I'm sure you know.
I wonder, and please respond, have you read even one biography of Milosevic?
By Adam LeBor. By Florence Hartmann.
Do you know what happened in March 1991 in Karadordevo, near Belgrade?
I'm curious whether you know. -If you want an answer...
Okay. Have you ever heard of a plan called RAM in Serbian or Bosnian?
It means frame, the framing of areas. And despite what this lady said...
I agree with David Owen that Milosevic is not real racist.
He was a pragmatist. He wanted to create a greater Serbia...
over which he would rule. That was his vision.
Karadzic and Mladic were to implement the plan.
This man was in charge. Maybe he was a gentleman. Maybe he was decent.
But if look at what he did, that's why I ask if you know the 1991 agreement...
with Tudman to split up the country, you can see he's responsible...
for everything that followed including the camps and Srebrenica. Thank you.
You're very knowledgeable and I appreciate that.
If I seem impatient it's because I want to give others a chance.
You have two questions to answer.
As I've already said, I let myself be led in the film by the surprise...
I experienced when I saw the conduct of the trial.
So the film is the trial.
It's what happens in a period of about a year and a half...
featuring only prosecution witnesses.
Because this was all in the context of a self-imposed charge of genocide...
and so leading a criminal organization, a chain of command...
all of which were linked and had to be proven...
it was an incredibly complex operation requiring witness protection...
anonymous testimonies, witnesses who had been promised things.
That surprised me. You haven't seen my film, so I can only answer you...
Precisely because... I doubt those biographies had even been written then.
However strange it may seem to you, I specifically attempted...
to be as meticulous as possible.
That's why I based myself on what I could see in the courtroom.
The film doesn't make any other claim, and this is important...
than to show what was happening there because it's surprising...
and because no one mentioned it. One of the most important things is...
and it's a strange thing to say, the ease with which...
Milosevic is able to undermine so many testimonies.
Now that lady is angry again. But that's what happened.
And then the questions arises: Is this a political trial?
Regardless of what you... Maybe it should be a political trial.
But simply, that issue.
And are we holding a political trial because it's convenient?
If we have one bad guy we'll be shot of it. Perhaps.
So it's from those questions. It's annoying to see it in a clip.
The subtitle was Notes on a Tribunal Because of course...
I can't reenact the entire tribunal or improve it, or check everything.
So I made a note on screen of what precisely I was hearing.
The things that triggered me. And that's all I did.
I think we're touching on the essence of filmmaking.
It's something you do as an individual and there are many ways of doing it.
I'm glad you explain your approach now but it's better to do that...
before viewing the clips because it might create different expectations.
Do you want to speak? Please pass him a microphone.
I have quite a loud voice. It should be fine.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
I like to get to the point. So here's a concrete question:
It's about two things. Does the end justify the means?
So the media may have manipulated the international community to intervene...
in Srebrenica, for the best. So we're told. So firstly, manipulation.
I'd like to hear your views on that.
As opposed to the idea that the press always has to tell the truth.
That's my first question. Second question.
Let me emphasize I think it's good to be critical of any process.
So it's the same question. The end justifies the means.
You implied it already: Maybe we wanted to use Milosevic as a scapegoat.
I'm aware that's a crude simplification. So does the end justify the means here?
There is manipulation. And the trial was...
for the benefit of... to put it crudely: We wanted him to hang. End of story.
The end justifies the means. How do you relate this to journalism...
in connection with intervention, the tribunal, and one more question.
in the form of a statement I'd like you to discuss:
The Dutch media is partly responsible for the situation...
in which Dutchbat ended up. I would love hear your opinion on this.
One question at a time. Let's see if I remember. First, for all three, briefly.
Is media manipulation ultimately justified if it serves the greater good?
Or put differently, is activist journalism legitimate?
The process following intervention was longer than...
you say intervention in Srebrenica but it wasn't intervention.
UN troops were sent there to protect people forced into safe havens.
Just to be clear. I'm convinced that once the civil war began...
and my colleague Willem ***, Twan Huys and others...
saw first-hand what was happening, people in the West really did...
Before then it was a holiday destination for people like your parents.
That things were happening there that made us uncomfortable...
is certainly true. Journalists called for intervention.
One weekly current affairs programme always ended with...
731 days and still no intervention. Absolutely.
I worked on another programme. It went too far for me.
But when it became clear that thousands were dying in Srebrenica...
I also stopped being objective. I saw the bodies in the morgues.
Once you've seen... you can no longer weigh things up objectively.
Once you've seen the victims and the corpses, it's tougher.
That one issue is a crucial question. Did the media affect...
how events were processed and the guilt feelings in Dutchbat?
Usually people say... you hear it from Dutchbat guys too, and in the army...
The press is to blame. The media misrepresented us. And so on.
I researched that... I already mentioned my bargain book...
There are two things to say about that. Firstly, you can objectively disprove...
that the media were always negative about Dutchbat. It's simply not true.
75% of articles are objective. They're about committees and such.
They're often even positive about Dutchbat.
What determined the perception was investigative journalism.
Like Nova, Netwerk and VPRO's Argos, which dedicated many episodes to it.
Understandably, because it's an amazing arena for investigative journalism.
It's manageable. It's a huge topic but you can make it small.
Using a roll of film, a document. It often just comes to you...
as an investigative journalist. Other times you have to search.
A roll of film. Even me just saying that makes everyone smile.
Oh, I remember. The roll of film.
It's so easy... I have called it the battle of the documents.
Frank Westerman of the NRC says: I have documents for years more work.
I got them from my sources at the MOD.
It's investigative journalism that has kept the topic alive.
Without any results. -Really?
We're discussing perceptions which mostly came from...
investigative journalism as well as a number of important, let's say...
activist journalists like Raymond van den Boogard at NRC.
He writes: Dutchbat were cowards.
He also writes: What do you call failing to protect people? Cowardice.
So I think the statement should be...
sure the media created an image of Dutchbat, but it wasn't only the media.
In short, investigative journalism kept the topic alive.
I take the mention of investigative journalism and rolls of film personally.
What did we keep alive? Two things.
Concerning perception, calling Dutchbat cowards isn't investigative journalism.
That's opinion. It's a column. Exactly. Concerning what we kept alive...
I think it's journalism's job, in such traumatic situations...
to try and expose the course of events and how in retrospect...
people tried to cover some things up. And let's be honest...
Many in Dutchbat wanted to actively participate in our broadcasts.
They wanted the truth out. They were frustrated.
We didn't think it up ourselves. The battalion gave us stories.
I think it was necessary for the processing of events.
Of course we in the media tried to keep it alive.
But not without reason. I hope.
It resulted, Ingeborg, in research being initiated.
The NIOD report was a direct result of media activity. What was done with it...
obviously the media don't decide. They're just set-designers.
But briefly and to the point please. It's almost time to finish.
I want to call on Ad and Jos de Putter.
Ad, you're in a position of influence and Jos is still... okay.
As a kid I loved the alliterated titles of comic books I read.
So I've come up with one for you guys: The Naughty NIOD.
I don't care about people having sex with each other or whatever...
unless it compromises such an important report.
The most important NIOD report since the second world war.
Before I became menopausal, I knew the names of all the NIOD researchers.
But I remember two women: Nevena Bajalica, who also babysat my daughter.
She translated many reports for me from Serbian.
And Titia Frankfurt, who during... No this is really important.
Because you're going to make a film about this. Yes. Titia Frankfurt...
None of the statements made by Ger Kremer, the Dutchbat doctor...
were included in the NIOD report. Let me explain why.
Ger Kremer had an affair with Titia Frankfurt...
one of the two women researchers working on the NIOD report.
When it was discovered, it was tucked away on the back pages of the NRC...
with a statement from professor Blom saying he was aware of this...
and had taken her off the project. But here's the problem...
the NOID report consisted of two parts. One part was left-wing.
They wanted to expose everything. On the right was Joris Voorhoeve...
together with a Marine officer as historian.
The exposure of Titia Frankfurt's affair with her research subject, Ger Kremer...
the Dutchbat doctor with so much to say about what wasn't in the report...
got her removed from the research. The other one too.
They were replaced by right-wingers to put it in black-and-white terms.
As a result the NIOD report is missing essential statements about...
whether we knew or not. They're not included.
So I'm calling on Tegenlicht and Andere Tijden to make a film about that.
It's really important. These are things that can only be done years later.
While it's ongoing you can't get to it. But you can now.
So that's my challenge. The Naughty NIOD.
I'll pass it on to the relevant parties who are also here, by the way.
And I'll leave it up to them. One final question, please.
If there isn't one, then Inegborg has had the last word. Thanks to her.
I would first and foremost like to thank our eminent panellists.
I agree with the gentleman that you were excellent.
Carolien, Christ. Jos, it was brave of you...
to defend your rather...
unpopular work this way.
It's more enlightening than agreeing with each other.
I would like to thank the excellent technicians.
Who would have thought I would ever Skype?
It's a young boy's dream come true. I'd like to ask Eddy...
when the next and last Cineblend is planned. May 8? What's it about?
You will be updated. Thank you very much and see you next time.
subtitling: www.einionmedia.com