The Srebenica Massacre: what is in a name?

Let us talk about this matter that kept me arguing furiously for over an hour with an old man I met at the bus station today. He had one of the daily newspapers he was reading and he turned to me to complain of President Buhari's non vote on the issue at the UN Security Council. He was very livid about the idea of someone as high as the president of a sovereign country sitting on the fence or worse still undecided about "such an important matter".
Well, I took my time to calmly explain to him why if I was in the President's shoes I would have done same. We ended up debating this for the entire time -which was nearly an hour- the bus ride lasted.
But really, what is to be gained if the Srebenica massacre was officially crowned to be 'genocide'?
In this post in particular, I am not interested in opening up the tired debate on what exactly is genocide or when can we truly really say genocide has occurred. That on its own is open for the lawyers at The Hague to keep busy with for the rest of their careers. What I am interested in establishing is how will it help the families of the victims and the rest of the world if we get to award that hideous event the title of genocide.
Whether we want to call it genocide or not, the killing of those unarmed and retreating Muslim fighters remains deeply sinful and must be punished by what the legal full measure is. Seeking to declare it to be genocide really holds no legal value. The act, if you know the story, remains an inexcusable war crime irrespective of the intent behind it. Because the line that might exist between the killings of Srebenica and a legally accepted act of genocide should be that of the intent behind it. If we can go on and establish intent, the only thing we will achieve from it is a deepened animosity.
Without doubt, separating males between the ages of 12 and 77 from any tribe for massacre looks so much like ethnic cleansing, but fighting to wear on it a certain tag twenty years later has no effect on the forward looking of all concerned. What does have effect is to punish all the perpetrators of this undeniable crime of cold blood murder and ensuring that its like is not repeated anywhere in the world. It is a different matter altogether if we need to do this in order to fully punish the perpetrators. If being able to establish it as genocide will help a court arrive at a more suitable sentence for those proven guilty, or if it is been pursued so as to aid a process of compensation for the victim's families, then by all means we must obtain the "genocide" title for that sad event in Srebrenica.
This is however not the case. I agree with Russia's UN Ambassador, Vitaly Churkin; it would lead to greater tension in the region and would be counter productive.
So far, the non recognition of the Srebrenica massacre as genocide by the UN has not stopped the UN tribunal at The Hague from convicting a lot of people in to the killing. Likewise, the recent failure to name it so will not hinder further convictions and prosecutions if any evidence is found against anyone suspected to have taken part in it.
Killing remains killing. I do not need any international body to title an act as genocide to know that a man who has conducted an extra judicial killing on an unarmed fellow has committed a severe crime that must be punished gravely.