Some of my readers are surprised I am dismissing allegations against Serbia’s President Aleksandar Vučić that he was involved in the monstrous complex of war crimes known as Sarajevo Safari. The main reason: Professional integrity.

So far, no evidence has been shown that Aleksandar Vučić was in any way involved in the complex of war crimes known as Sarajevo Safari between 1992 and 1995.

During the siege of Sarajevo, wealthy foreign tourists paid members of Serb militia and the Army of Republika Srpska lots of money so they could snipe at and kill civilians in the besieged city. Infants fetched the highest premiums, for all we know.

There is solid evidence that this is more than an urban legend. The prosecutor’s office in Milan in Italy took what there is as evidence serious enough so it launched investigations last year.

(Read more about what we know about the Sarajevo Safari and why this hasn’t been properly investigated so far here.)

Shortly after the Milan prosecutors announced their probe in this 30 year old war crime, Croatian journalist Domagoj Margetić filed a formal criminal complaint against Serbia’s President Aleksandar Vučić from the clericonationalist party SNS. He alleged Vučić had been part of the secret organisation within the armed forces of ethnic Serbs in Bosnia that ran Sarajevo Safari, and had himself sniped at civilians.

These are serious accusations.

So far, Margetić has shown no evidence.

The So Called Evidence

What he tried to pass off as exclusive evidence is highly problematic, to say the least.

In an interview with an alleged eye witness he published on Monday we never learn how that man could possibly have seen Vučić lead killer tourists into Serb sniper positions in the Jewish Cemetery in Sarajevo – which was then the front line – or fire a sniper a rifle himself.

Rather, Margetić effectively puts words in the witness‘ mouth.

What Margetić tries to pass off as historical documents from a Serb militia group which he claims implicate Vučić can not be ruled out to be crude forgeries. That is putting it charitably.

(I have dissected the so called evidence more thoroughly here.)

I am not saying Margetić has knowingly published forged documents on his social media accounts. He may well believe they are genuine and prove what he alleges. If so, he has done an extremely poor job at it, and has done a disservice to our profession.

And again, I am being polite here.

A journalist friend from Croatia had less flattering things to say about him in a brief e-mail exchange yesterday. I can not fact check the relevant part of these statements and thus do not write about it publicly, I do believe those claims to be true. But that is another matter.

The main thing is: Publicly accusing someone of a war crime without even the slightest evidence is wrong. And it is dangerous.

Most Outlets Uncritically Reproduced The Allegations

These allegations have been picked up and repeated by a large number of media in Bosnia, Croatia, Germany and Austria. Very few outlets who wrote about the allegations against Vučić ever bothered to check or at least contextualize any of the supposed evidence or lack thereof.

On the top of my mind, I can only think of the BBC and the Bosnian outlet Istraga.ba that have done any evidence checking.

Predictably, a surprising number of people think the allegations are at least plausible. It’s not just Bosnians, who are understandably more emotionally involved than other people. For one reason or another, parts of conversations during my latest trip to Beograd turned to this topic. And I’ve had some of my German and Austrian readers ask me about it.

As very few people in my profession seem to bother with it, and as I was among the first who said that I found the evidence for Sarajevo Safari convincing, I feel that is part of my professional integrity to say that based on everything we can honestly say we know: The allegations against Vučić are bonkers.

What Vučić Really Did In The War. It Ain’t Pretty.

Aleksandar Vučić may have played a very controversial role in the war in Bosnia in the 1990’s. Then an activist of Serbia’s ultrationalist Radical Party SRS, he worked as what was called a journalist in the territories of Bosnia that were occupied by Bosnian ethnic Serbs. Propagandist would be a more fitting term for his role then.

He worked for a media machinery that kept the morale of ethnic Serb soldiers high, that portrayed their war to destroy Bosnia and to create an ethnically „clean“ Serb statelet on Bosnian soil as just, as righteous, as an act of self defense. This media machinery spread fear and hatred primarily against Bosnian Muslims. This media machinery lead to the genocide of Srebrenica. Aleksandar Vučić was a part of it.

This is bad enough and what part he played in that machinery has not been researched by anyone so far.

There is no evidence Aleksandar Vučić ever served as a volunteer with the Army of Republika Srpska, or any Serb militia. There is no evidence he ever carried a weapon during his time in Bosnia. There is no evidence he ever participated in a war crime.

Like everyone else, Aleksandar Vučić is entitled to this being spelled out clearly amidst such serious allegations.

As so few people seem to be willing to do that, that falls on me.

No matter what I think of Aleksandar Vučić, his party SNS, and their politics. Suffice it to say: You won’t find a lot of fandom on this blog.

But still: Unless someone can show some compelling evidence for these allegations I will consider them reckless and say so.

How False Accusations Aid War Crime Denial In Serbia

There are other reasons as well. They are not very flattering for Serbian or Serb society at large.

Denying or downplaying the war crimes in the 1990’s in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo is the default position. Aleksandar Vučić and his SNS are very much to blame for normalizing genocide and war crime denial.

(See here for one of these examples.)

In Serbia, many people are thoroughly convinced Serbia had nothing to do with the war in Bosnia and Croatia.

The weapons, the ammunition, the money that kept the formally independent armies of the ethnic Serb statelets there going, the many officers from Yugoslavia’s national army that led them in the new uniforms of these new armies, they apparently appeared out of nowhere.

As did thousands of Serbian rank and file soldiers who bolstered the manpower of these militaries.

Not to talk about the hate mongering propaganda of these years, of which Vučić was part of, not to talk about the political and diplomatic backing from Beograd, not to talk about organized crime militia such as Arkan’s Tigers who committed some of the very first war crimes that escalated the conflict. Not to talk about the fact that they were controlled by Rump-Yugoslavia’s intelligence services.

It was all just a coincidence. An unfortunate misunderstanding. Serbia had nothing to do with it.

Falsely accusing Vučić of war crimes isn’t going to change that. It makes it easier for him.

It allows Vučić to portray himself as the victim of a Croat nationalist plot that aims to destabilize Serbia and to divert attention from Croat war crimes in WW II and in Bosnia in the 1990’s.

And if that accusation proves to be false – as it practically certainly will – in the mind of Vučić and just about every Serb nationalist this must mean that all other statements about Serbia’s involvement in the war, and perhaps even about Serb war crimes and genocide, must be false.

Furthermore, even protesting the obvious denial of crimes proved by international courts time and again, must be part of a scheme to destabilize or discredit Serbia, or an attack on Serbdom itself.

Vučić and others have played out this script numerous times in the past 30 years.

As have nationalists and right wingers in different settings in many other countries. It’s a very common and very effective strategy.

Every false allegation floating out there that is being disproven reinforces this mindset, and lends creditibility to this strategy. In other words: It makes it more effective.

This is why one should only make claims that can not be easily disputed, when challenging this strategy.

It Won’t Help The Survivors Of The Siege

Also, I think that accusing Vučić of being a part of Sarajevo Safari without any evidence doesn’t help a single survivor of the siege of Sarajevo.

I think it much more likely harms them.

A lot of wounds have opened up over the media reporting about Sarajevo Safari. Traumas are resurfacing.

Now, the terror inflicted upon them, the starvation, the deprivation, the fear of being shot dead when fetching water, all of it that has been haunting them again for months, finally has a face and a name. A name and a face, no less, that many Bosnians aren’t too fond of to begin with, and for good reason from their perspective.

Many may hope hat now, finally, at least a semblance of justice for the 1.425 days under siege is at hand.

If you’ve ever spent more time in Sarajevo you know how much this siege still looms over the city. How deep the pain still is. How much those 1.425 days still define it. How they have almost destroyed its soul.

The accusations against Vučić play right into that.

Imagine what will happen to the siege’s survivors if the accusations are shown to have been false from the start. They very likely will be.

Imagine what that disappointment will evoke in these people. What anger, what despair, what fear, what resentment, what cynicism. And sadly, for some, what revanchism and hatred and nationalism.

This is also why making such accusations without evidence is irresponsible.

How to Support My Work

If you like this post, please share it on your social media or leave a comment. You can also subscribe to this blog and you can also support me on BuyMeACoffee.