Introduction
The term “ethnic cleansing” was used in the 1990s during the war in former Yugoslavia and it is still one of the most striking terms in the contemporary International Relations vocabulary. First employed by the Bosnian Serbs in the Yugoslav wars, the term “ethnic cleansing,” provided by the perpetrators to describe the process of expulsion of undesired ethnic groups by force and terror, has played a critical role in the formation of perceptions about various incidents.
Today, this term resonates in debates regarding the current situation in Gaza and comparing the situation of Palestinians to the Bosnian War. The Serb-controlled Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s political leaders such as Slobodan Milosevic and Radovan Karadzic waged campaigns of terror and forced expulsion to ethnically cleanse areas that were homogenous ethnically, which led to many massacres and the creation of concentration camps.
Such actions, which were described as “ethnic cleansing,” hid the genocidal motives and violence behind them, which allowed the international community to waver and do nothing. Thus, in the context of Gaza, the term is used to depict the ongoing Israeli army’s actions, which include ethnically cleansing Palestinians, demolishing their homes, and eradicating their culture.
This usage creates a lot of controversy, especially among those who have experienced similar things and know the tragic consequences of such a tendency to use gentle words. The propagation of the term “ethnic cleansing” serves a plethora of purposes; it lessens the perceived seriousness of the crimes, makes the act of law more difficult, and sustains stories that may rationalize violence.
The Term “Ethnic Cleansing” and the Bosnian War
The Yugoslavian state was a complex federation comprising diverse ethnic nations and it started to disintegrate due to political, economic, and social issues. Nationalism and ethnic conflicts that were silenced under the communist ideology of Josip Broz Tito began to emerge. This time can be characterized by capitalist leaders who were seeking the capitalization of these divisions in order to gain political power.
Slobodan Milosevic was the most prominent leader in Serbia at that time. He was a banker by profession before he entered the political world. He aimed at gaining his grip over the country when the Yugoslavian federation was falling apart. He made use of Serbian nationalism as his political weapon in this regard. Milosevic’s masterplan was the formation of a new state which he could name the “Great Serbia”, composed of all of the Serbian territories in the former Yugoslavian state. For this, there was a need to re-establish the borders towards the parts of Croatia, Bosnia, and Kosovo.
Slobodan Milosevic’s Propaganda Campaigns
It would be quite relevant to discuss that Milosevic’s regime was involved in highly organized propaganda aimed at promoting fear, division, and hatred within the ethnic groups. For this purpose, various ways were used, including media, academia, cultural figures, and the militarization of society. The media started to portray the Serbs as the victims and the rest of the groups as a menace to society. They were being portrayed as victims in the context of Bosnian and Albanian aggression while quoting the examples of World War II’s Ustaše regime.
The academic institutions were filled with stories of nationalistic sentiments and the history was revised to focus mainly upon the bravery of the Serbs and the ethnical animosity. This was done to try to justify the segregation and preservation. Moreover, the propaganda also involved the mobilization of society and the preparation for war. Other than this, the cultural elements, such as books, songs, movies, etc., started to create a sense of the Serb people and their sufferings. This instilled fear amongst the Serbs that they were always surrounded by threats from diverse ethnic groups.
Ethnic Cleansing Campaigns
The propaganda paved the way for the application of the “ethnic cleansing” term to gain popularity to establish territories of ethnically pure populations. It was labeled as a process of expulsion that affected the non-Serbs and was done through violence, threats, and physical force. The civilians and their settlements were deliberately attacked, forcing them to leave their homes. Apart from displacing people, there were mass killings such as those in Srebrenica and Zvornik, which made the remaining non-Serb population flee.
Other tools of terror applied here were sexual violence, massacres, and severe brutalities to terrorize the population. The non-Serb settlements, churches, and other buildings were demolished so that no evidence remained of their existence. Concentration camps were built where the people were subjected to harsh situations and inhuman treatment and torture.
The regime referred to all these atrocities as the “liberation of the Serbs” and to free them of the “menace” of the non-Serb population. This liberation narrative was widely used to justify this tragedy. In reality, the term ethnic cleansing was used to justify the liberation narrative; however, this word is not suitable at all to describe the tragedy that took place in this era. These actions were genocidal in nature and it is crucial for the right term to be used here to guarantee that justice prevails. The International Court of Justice only acknowledged that the actions in Srebrenica indicated genocide.
Parallels with the Ongoing Atrocities in Gaza
The term ethnic cleansing has been used to describe the forced removal of Palestinians, the destruction of their homeland, and the denial of cultural practices. The buildings, hospitals, and many other settlements, including the camps for displaced Palestinians, are being demolished by the Israeli forces. These events have been labeled as ethnic cleansing when clearly these indicate the genocidal nature of the attacks.
It indicates a clear underlying plan and motive of the Israeli government to eradicate the Palestinians. In Bosnia, a similar situation was seen and ethnic cleansing was used to describe the brutalities when they all amounted to genocide; however, the use of the term in the context of Gaza can minimize the extent of the crimes in light of the international law. This is because genocide has more legal and ethical connotations to it that require international intervention and severe punishment. This is an attempt to clearly dodge the responsibilities that come along with the word “genocide.”
This indicates the West’s propaganda to dodge international law and use such terminology to carry on its agenda. US President Joe Biden himself said in a speech that what is happening in Gaza is not genocide, denying all crimes and the killings of innocent Palestinians. Moreover, it can be stated that the Western media is mostly referring to this incident as ethnic cleansing because using the term genocide would bring along legal obligations and would require stronger measures under international law.
This can be linked to exactly what the international community experienced when they were hesitant to call events in Bosnia a genocide. The kind of vocabulary used in media and political terms can be associated with lessening the impact of violence and human rights abuses in Gaza and depicting a false picture of what is happening in real life.
The killing of journalists who were onsite and documenting all these atrocities indicate that the Israelis want to conceal the truth and want the world to believe the narrative that they have portrayed. This can be compared with the situation in the Bosnian war, where ethnic cleansing was used to mask the brutalities and severity of the situation.
Ethnic Cleansing vs Genocide: An Analysis
The narrative of ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Gaza can be viewed as having the purpose of forming territories that are ethnically pure. The displacement of Palestinians and the massacre of the population indicate the initiative to take over and dominate the land of Palestinians using force and subjugation. The distinction between the use of the terminology “ethnic cleansing” instead of “genocide” in both scenarios influences the amount of action and reaction from the international realm.
To label these tragic events as “genocide” would mean that there would be more legal and moral considerations and measures to be taken to prevent the actions, along with forcing the international actors to act under the Genocide Convention. As per the convention’s Article II, genocide means:
“Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
- Killing members of the group
- Causing serious bodily or mental harm
- Deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the group’s physical destruction in whole or in part
- Imposing measures intended to prevent births
- Forcibly transferring children”
Unlike genocide, which has a proper definition in international law, “ethnic cleansing” has not been defined by the UN or in international law. Ethnic cleansing, as defined by the EU, merely refers to the expulsion of an ethnic group from an area to render it ethnically homogeneous. Hence, reducing the gravity of the situation.
The cases of Gaza and Bosnia both include severe humanitarian implications, including the destruction of land, and infrastructure, and other brutalities that have led the people to suffer from traumatic disorders. In the case of Bosnia, Milosevic’s propaganda included the portrayal of the Serbs as victims in a historical context, which he used to justify the brutalities.
In Gaza, it is the Israeli army that considers Israelis as victims and the Palestinians as a threat to their identity and existence. For this purpose, they are carrying out military attacks against unarmed innocent civilians accompanied by the formation of concentration camps where they are torturing and killing the Palestinians. All of this reveals the genocidal nature of these attacks, which the Western media is trying to conceal using the term “ethnic cleansing.”
Conclusion
It can be deduced that both cases of Gaza and Bosnia can be compared in terms of being victims of genocide. However, the only difference is that the crisis in Bosnia was recognized as a genocide by the International Court of Justice, at least in the case of Srebrenica, but, the situation in Gaza is still not considered a genocide by international organizations. This is because the crime of genocide is so brutal that it has severe penalties under international law. The term ethnic cleansing does not have any proper definition in the international realm, which is being used as an advantage by Israel and the Western media to depict the events as a form of ethnic cleansing when clearly, a genocide is taking place in front of the world.
If you want to submit your articles and/or research papers, please check the Submissions page.
The views and opinions expressed in this article/paper are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Paradigm Shift.
Minahil Khalid is a student of M.Phil International Relations at Kinnaird College for Women University, Lahore. Her research interests revolve around global political issues and security studies.