Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution and urge my colleague to vote for its passage.

Article 2 of Genocide Convention, quoted in the text of this resolution, defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, such as: (a) killing members of the group; (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group". Genocide is defined as the commission of acts with that intention whether or not the acts succeed or are completed. The word "prevention" is also in the title of the Genocide Convention. While not specifying what could be done or obligating countries to do any specific thing, clearly genocide must be defined as something taking place and not as something necessarily accomplished. If accomplished, it's too late to prevent it.

When I look at this definition and then hear what happened in Srebrenica ten years ago, I can only agree with the Appeals Chamber at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, which confirmed in April 2004 that the crime of summarily executing almost 8,000 men and boys at Srebrenica alone meets the legal definition of genocide. The Appeals Chamber, in which an American is the presiding judge, concluded in a decision appealing a conviction that "the law must not shy away from referring to the crime committed by its proper name…The Appeals Chamber states unequivocally that the law condemns, in appropriate terms, the deep and lasting injury inflicted, and calls the massacre at Srebrenica by its proper name: genocide. Those responsible will bear this stigma, and it will serve as a warning to those who may in the future contemplate the commission of such a heinous act."

Twenty-three people have been indicted for genocide by The Hague. Regardless of individual guilt or innocence, the acceptance of the legitimacy of the charges is a recognition that genocide occurred. Indeed, if it is accepted that Srebrenica itself was genocide, then we must consider the 20-30,000 non-Serbs killed in the Prijedor region, which gets less attention mostly because it took place over a 6-month period rather than a week, especially given that the crime was committed perhaps by some of the same people and certainly under the same command. Similarly, we must consider the more than 10,000 killed and 50,000 wounded by the sniper fire and an average of over 300 shells per day fired into the city Sarajevo in the more than 3-year siege of that city -- a crime again committed by perhaps some of the same people and certainly under the same command. We must consider what happened in Foca and Brcko. When we add all these and other places together, we must conclude that genocide occurred.

This, of course, does not mean that Serbs were not also victimized, nor does it mean that all Serbs are somehow guilty for what has been done in their name. But today, it is entirely appropriate that we focus on what happened in Srebrenica, and to put Srebrenica in the context of the larger Bosnian conflict. It is also an important time to urge the authorities in Belgrade, who have made considerable progress this year, to finally complete their cooperation with the Tribunal. Serbia must transfer Ratko Mladic and other at-large indictees to The Hague immediately, so that this issue no longer holds Serbia back from taking on a more prominent role in Europe.

I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this important resolution.