Toutes les études de cas sur les prises de parole publiques > MSF et Srebrenica 1993-2003

L’étude de cas 'MSF et Srebrenica 1993-2003' s’intéresse aux contraintes, questionnements et dilemmes posés par les prises de parole publiques de MSF concernant l’enclave musulmane de Srebrenica, qui fut assiégée à partir de 1993 puis conquise en juillet 1995 par les forces bosno-serbes. 8000 hommes et adolescents de plus de 16 ans y furent massacrés malgré la présence des forces de maintien de la paix des Nations-Unies, censées protéger la population de cette enclave déclarée « zone de sécurité ». MSF, dont les équipes ont été présentes dans l’enclave pendant toute cette période, témoigna des évènements et demanda ensuite publiquement que des enquêtes soient menées par les différents Etats impliqués afin de déterminer les responsabilités politiques et militaires dans la chute de l’enclave et l’abandon de sa population.

Dilemmes et questionnements:

• En acceptant d’apporter des secours a minima à une population assiégée, est-ce que MSF a contribué à la stratégie des assiégeants ?
• Fallait-il demander l’évacuation de la population civile qui le souhaitait au risque de cautionner la politique d’épuration ethnique menée par les assiégeants ?
• Ayant fait confiance à l’engagement de protection de l’enclave et de sa population par les Forces des Nations unies, est-ce que MSF doit assumer une part de culpabilité ou de complicité dans l’abandon de l’enclave par l’ONU et le massacre de la population qui s'en est suivi ?
• Est-ce que MSF a donné à la population, la fausse impression que rien ne pouvait lui arriver tant que ses équipes étaient présentes ?
• Est-ce le rôle d’une organisation médicale humanitaire de lancer un appel à une commission d’enquête parlementaire puis, celle-ci mise en place, d’en assurer un suivi actif critique ?
• A l’inverse, est-ce que MSF pouvait ne pas chercher à comprendre les circonstances et les responsabilités qui, au niveau international, ont mené à l’abandon et au massacre d’une population à laquelle ses équipes portaient secours ?
• Est-ce que MSF pouvait se contenter de lancer un appel à une enquête parlementaire sans s’assurer que celle-ci se pose des questions susceptibles d’apporter des réponses éclairantes sur les événements ?
• Le cas de Srebrenica doit-il être conçu comme un accident de l’histoire ou comme un modèle irréductible de l’impossibilité des mandats internationaux de protection des populations développé par l’ONU ?

All Speaking Out Case Studies > MSF and Srebrenica 1993-2003 

The case study ‘MSF and Srebrenica 1993-2003’ explores the constraints, questions and dilemmas raised when MSF spoke out about the events that occurred in Srebrenica’s Muslim enclave. The enclave was besieged in 1993 and then seized by Bosnian Serb forces in July 1995. 8,000 men and young men over the age of 16 were massacred, despite the presence of the United Nations Peacekeeping forces supposedly providing protection in what had been declared a "security zone". With teams present in the enclave throughout, MSF testified to what happened and called on the various countries involved to hold inquiries and establish where military and political responsibility lay for the fall of the enclave and abandon of the people of Srebrenica.

Questions and dilemmas:

• By agreeing to provide a minimally acceptable level of relief to a besieged population, wasn’t MSF contributing to the strategy of the besieging troops while concurrently softening their image?
• Could MSF call for the evacuation of civilians who wished to leave thereby risking abetting the ethnic cleansing policy of the besieging army?
• Having trusted the UN Protection Force’s commitment to protect the enclave and its population, must MSF accept partial culpability for or complicity in the UN’s abandonment of the enclave and the ensuing massacre of the population?
• Didn’t MSF give the population the false impression that it would be safe as long as the team was present?
• Is it the role of a humanitarian medical organisation to issue an appeal for an investigative parliamentary commission then, once it is established, to actively monitor it with a critical eye?
• Contrarily, how could MSF not try to understand the circumstances and responsibilities, which, at the global level, led to the abandonment and massacre of a population to which its teams had provided relief?
• Could MSF be content with calling for a parliamentary investigation without ensuring that it asks the types of questions likely to elicit answers that shed light on the events?
• Should Srebrenica be viewed as an accident of history or as a clear-cut example of the impossibility of protecting populations under international mandates established by the UN?

All Speaking Out Case Studies > MSF and Srebrenica 1993-2003 

The case study ‘MSF and Srebrenica 1993-2003’ explores the constraints, questions and dilemmas raised when MSF spoke out about the events that occurred in Srebrenica’s Muslim enclave. The enclave was besieged in 1993 and then seized by Bosnian Serb forces in July 1995. 8,000 men and young men over the age of 16 were massacred, despite the presence of the United Nations Peacekeeping forces supposedly providing protection in what had been declared a "security zone". With teams present in the enclave throughout, MSF testified to what happened and called on the various countries involved to hold inquiries and establish where military and political responsibility lay for the fall of the enclave and abandon of the people of Srebrenica.

Questions and dilemmas:

• By agreeing to provide a minimally acceptable level of relief to a besieged population, wasn’t MSF contributing to the strategy of the besieging troops while concurrently softening their image?
• Could MSF call for the evacuation of civilians who wished to leave thereby risking abetting the ethnic cleansing policy of the besieging army?
• Having trusted the UN Protection Force’s commitment to protect the enclave and its population, must MSF accept partial culpability for or complicity in the UN’s abandonment of the enclave and the ensuing massacre of the population?
• Didn’t MSF give the population the false impression that it would be safe as long as the team was present?
• Is it the role of a humanitarian medical organisation to issue an appeal for an investigative parliamentary commission then, once it is established, to actively monitor it with a critical eye?
• Contrarily, how could MSF not try to understand the circumstances and responsibilities, which, at the global level, led to the abandonment and massacre of a population to which its teams had provided relief?
• Could MSF be content with calling for a parliamentary investigation without ensuring that it asks the types of questions likely to elicit answers that shed light on the events?
• Should Srebrenica be viewed as an accident of history or as a clear-cut example of the impossibility of protecting populations under international mandates established by the UN?