(OK, start thinking of similar-sounding titles.) https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...7-un-court-ruling-clearing-serbia-of-genocide Fears of a new political crisis in the Balkans are growing after Bosnia-Herzegovina said it would appeal against a UN court ruling clearing Serbia of genocide during Bosnia’s civil war. Ivica Dačić, Serbia’s foreign minister, has become the latest voice to express concern. He told Serbian state TV that the move, announced by Bakir Izetbegović, the Muslim member of Bosnia’s tripartite presidency, was “very dangerous”. Sarajevo’s decision could jeopardise both regional stability and bilateral ties between Serbia and Bosnia, a country that remains deeply divided along ethnic lines since the 1992-1995 war. “This decision could cause destabilisation of not only Bosnia-Herzegovina but the entire region,” Dačić said. Izetbegović said on Friday that Bosnia would ask the international court of justice to reconsider its 2007 ruling next week, just a few days before the 10-year deadline expires. (...) The problem with bodies like the special tribunal for ex-Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Court is that they deal with past events and keep alive their memory, and maybe thus endanger settlement and normalization. So is the search for justice more important than upsetting the political apple cart? We all know that Serbia under Milosevic was big into genocide. But is achieving justice worth the risk of rreawakening the conflict? Is it better to let sleeping dogs lie? Personally, on the whole I think it is worth setting the historical record straight. Yes, it's worth pissing the Turks off to set the record straight about the Armenians (cue for Ancalagon to call me a racist). But that's easy for me to say since I don't have to suffer the potential consequences.
