Siege of Dubrovnik - Aftermath

Aftermath

Regardless of its military outcome, the Siege of Dubrovnik is primarily remembered for large-scale looting by JNA troops and the artillery bombardment of Dubrovnik, especially its Old Town. The reaction of the international media and media coverage of the siege reinforced an opinion, already taking shape since the fall of Vukovar, that the conduct of the JNA and the Serbs was barbaric and intent on dominating Croatia, regardless of the destruction of priceless cultural heritage in the process. Besides the protests made by Mayor Zaragoza, Vance and the ECMM, 104 Nobel Prize laureates published a full-page advertisement in the The New York Times of 14 January 1992, at the incentive of Linus Pauling, urging governments throughout the world to stop the unrestrained destruction by the JNA. As it shaped the international opinion on the Croatian War of Independence, the siege became a major contributor to a shift in international diplomatic and economic isolation of Serbia and rump Yugoslavia, and their public relations disaster, as an image of an aggressor-state was created. On the other hand, on 17 December 1991, the European Economic Community agreed to recognise the independence of Croatia on 15 January 1992.

In October–December 1991, the JNA captured approximately 1,200 square kilometres (460 square miles) of territory around Dubrovnik. The HV recaptured all of it in the counterattack in May as the JNA pulled back east of Dubrovnik, and in subsequent HV offensives - Operation Tiger and the Battle of Konavle in July–October 1992. The number of Croatian civilian deaths caused by the JNA advance and siege was 82–88. Croatian military losses in October–December 1991 reached 94 killed, and a total of 417 were killed in all the military operations around Dubrovnik by the end of October 1992. The JNA suffered 165 killed troops. Approximately 15,000 refugees from Konavle and other areas around Dubrovnik fled to the city, and about 16,000 refugees were evacuated by sea from Dubrovnik to other parts of Croatia. The JNA set up two prisoner-of-war camps to detain those captured—the Bileća and Morinj camps. During and after the offensive, 432 people, largely civilians from Konavle, were imprisoned there—292 in Morinj and 140 in Bileća—and subjected to physical and psychological abuse. The abuse was perpetrated by the JNA personnel, paramilitaries as well as civilians, and included beatings, mock executions and other types of abuse. A large portion of the prisoners was exchanged for prisoners of war held by Croatia on 12 December 1991, but the camps operated until August 1992.

A total of 11,425 buildings in the region sustained damage, including 886 totally and 1675 partially destroyed. The damage was estimated at 480 million German Marks. Damage to the Old Town of Dubrovnik was observed by a UNESCO team which stayed in the city from 27 November until 20 December 1991. It was estimated that 55.9% of buildings were damaged, including 11.1% heavily damaged and 1% burned down. Seven burned Baroque palaces were the greatest losses. Additional damage was caused by the JNA troops looting museums, businesses and private homes. All exhibits held by Vlaho Bukovac Memorial Museum in Cavtat were taken away by the JNA, as were contents of hotels in Kupari. The Franciscan monastery of St. Jerome in Slano was also targeted. The JNA admitted the lootings took place, but Jokić claimed the property would be distributed to Serbian refugees by a special JNA administration set up on 15 December 1991. It is probable, however, that the looted property ended up in private homes or was sold on the black market. Dubrovnik Airport in Čilipi was also targeted. Its equipment was taken to Podgorica and Tivat Airports.

Following attempts to justify the JNA offensive, authorities in Serbia and Montenegro tried to deny damage to the Old Town. Radio Television of Serbia explained that smoke rising from the Old Town was the result of automobile tires set on fire by the population of Dubrovnik, echoing Kadijević. Officials and media in Montenegro referred to the offensive as the "War for peace", or a blockade—applying the term to land operations in addition to the naval blockade. A 2010 survey of public opinion in Serbia revealed that 40% of those polled had no idea who bombarded Dubrovnik, while 14% believed that the shelling never took place. In a June 2000 meeting with Croatian President Mesić, Milo Đukanović, then President of Montenegro, apologized to Croatia for the attack. The gesture was welcomed in Croatia, but it was condemned by Đukanović's political opponents in Montenegro and by authorities in Serbia.

In 2007, Montenegrin filmmaker Koča Pavlović released a documentary entitled Rat za mir (War for peace), covering the role of propaganda in the siege, testimonies of Morinj camp prisoners and interviews with JNA soldiers. In 2011, Radio Television of Montenegro aired a documentary series entitled Rat za Dubrovnik (War for Dubrovnik), making use of archived footage, even though an attempt was made to destroy records of warmongering television and Pobjeda newspaper reports. In 2012, Aleksandar Črček and Marin Marušić produced a feature documentary entitled Konvoj Libertas (Libertas Convoy), which covered the delivery of humanitarian aid to Dubrovnik through the naval blockade.

"All armies in the past did their best and refused to wage war or to target and to bomb the city of Dubrovnik. It was simply impossible for anyone to attack and demolish Dubrovnik. In the 1800s, Dubrovnik was captured by Napoleon, but without a fight. The Russian fleet of Admiral Senyavin came to attack Dubrovnik but they lowered their guns and gave up on the attack. There was not a single shell or bullet fired at Dubrovnik. That's Dubrovnik's history, and that indicates the level of the human civilisation, the level of respect afforded to Dubrovnik. What we did is the greatest shame that was done in 1991."

Nikola Samardžić, former Montenegrin foreign minister, during Strugar's trial at the ICTY.