NKRBH INTL ‏#624 - CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST BOUTROS BOUTROS-GHALI, CARL BILDT ET AL

CONTENT

1. Carl Bildt to The Hague!

2. CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST BOUTROS BOUTROS-GHALI, CARL BILDT ET AL

—————————————————————————————-

“Mr. Bildt, whose country currently holds the EU presidency, told a committee of the European Parliament that the Bosnian people were
‘victims of the inability of their political leaders to agree.’” Financial Times,July 22, 2009

No, to the contrary, the truth of the matter is that Carl Bildt, inter alia, inflicted genocide against the Bosnians at Srebrenica in 1995 in order
to pave the way for the genocidal Dayton Agreement that was imposed upon them by Richard Holbrooke.

Bildt must still be prosecuted for his commission of international crimes at Srebrenica as outlined in our ICTY indictment of him below.

Professor Francis A. Boyle
Attorney for the Mothers of Srebrenica & Podrinja

Law Building
504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
Champaign, IL 61820 USA
217-333-7954 (Voice)
217-244-1478 (Fax)
fboyle@law.uiuc.edu

______________________________________________________

2. CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST BOUTROS BOUTROS-GHALI, CARL BILDT ET AL

BEFORE THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE FORMER YUGOSLAVIA (ICTY)

MOTHERS OF SREBRENICA AND PODRINJA ASSOCIATION V. UNITED NATIONS OFFICIALS AND OTHERS (FOR THE SREBRENICA MASSACRE)

CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST BOUTROS BOUTROS-GHALI, KOFI ANNAN, YASUSHI AKASHI,
BERNARD JANVIER, RUPERT SMITH, HERVÉ GOBILLIARD, JORIS VOORHOEVE, CEES NICOLAI,
THOMAS KARREMANS, ROBERT FRANKEN, THORVALD STOLTENBERG,
CARL BILDT, DAVID OWEN, MICHAEL ROSE, THEIR SUBORDINATES,
SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC, RADOVAN KARADZIC, RATKO MLADIC, AND OTHERS

NOTICE OF THE EXISTENCE OF INFORMATION CONCERNING SERIOUS VIOLATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE TRIBUNAL

REQUEST THAT THE PROSECUTOR INVESTIGATE THE ABOVE-NAMED UNITED NATIONS OFFICIALS, THEIR SUBORDINATES, AND OTHERS FOR SERIOUS VIOLATIONS
OF INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW AND PREPARE INDICTMENTS AGAINST THEM PURSUANT TO ARTICLES 18(1) AND 18(4) OF THE ICTY STATUTE

The Honorable Carla Del Ponte
Prosecutor
International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia
Churchillplein l
2517 JW The Hague
P.O. Box 13888
2501 EW The Hague
Netherlands

Dear Madame Del Ponte:

I am the Attorney of Record for the Mothers of Srebrenica and Podrinja Association, which is headquartered at Sakiba Zere 9, in Vogosca, Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Mothers of Srebrenica and Podrinja Association is a Bosnian human rights, non-governmental organization whose members consist of survivors and next-of-kin of the genocidal massacre at Srebrenica in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina during July of 1995. The genocidal massacre at Srebrenica was the single greatest human rights atrocity perpetrated in Europe since the genocidal horrors inflicted by the Nazis during the Second World War. Approximately 10,000 Bosnian Muslim men, boys, and women were systematically exterminated during just a few days by the Bosnian Serb Army (BSA) under the direct command of Slobodan Milosevic, Radovan Karadzic, Ratko Mladic, and others. During this time, the above-named United Nations Officials, their subordinates, and others deliberately and maliciously refused to do anything to stop this genocidal massacre at the U.N.-declared “safe area” of Srebrenica despite having the legal obligation, the legal and political authority, and the military power to do so. Indeed, the above-named United Nations Officials, their subordinates and others deliberately and maliciously interfered with, prevented, and impeded those individuals who wanted to do something to stop the genocidal massacre at Srebrenica and its environs during July of 1995. This was because the fall and genocidal massacre at Srebrenica during July of 1995 were part of a longstanding COMMON CRIMINAL PURPOSE AND PLAN by the United Nations Organization and the above-named United Nations Officials, their subordinates, and others to carve-up and destroy the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, a Member State of the United Nations Organization.

Pursuant to ICTY Statute article 7(1), we hereby accuse the above-named United Nations Officials, their subordinates, and others of planning, preparing, conspiring, instigating, complicity, and otherwise aiding and abetting, in the planning, preparation, conspiracy, complicity, and execution of crimes referred to in articles 2 to 5 of the ICTY Statute as follows:

Article 2–Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949
against persons and property protected thereunder, including but not limited to:

(a) willful killing;
(b) torture or inhuman treatment,…
(c) wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health;
(d) extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly;
…

(f) wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or a civilian of the rights of fair and regular trial;
(g) unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a civilian;
(h) taking civilians as hostages.

Article 3–Violations of the laws or customs of war, including but not limited to:

(a) employment of poisonous weapons or other weapons calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;
(b) wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;
(c) attack, or bombardment, by whatever means, of undefended towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings;
…
(e) plunder of public or private property.

Article 4–Genocide, defined as “(2)…any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(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;
…

The Bosnian Muslim population of Srebrenica was a national, and an ethnical, and a religious group, that was deliberately targeted for destruction “as such.” In addition to violating ICTY Statute article 4(2)(a), (b), and (c), the genocidal massacre at Srebrenica also involved the following punishable acts under article 4(3):

(a) genocide;
(b) conspiracy to commit genocide;
…
(d) attempt to commit genocide;
(e) complicity in genocide.

Article 5–Crimes against humanity, committed in armed conflict and directed against the Bosnian Muslim civilian population of Srebrenica:

(a) murder;
(b) extermination;
…
(d) deportation;
(e) imprisonment;

(f) torture;
(g) rape;
(h) persecutions on political, racial and religious grounds;
(i) other inhumane acts.

These criminal practices perpetrated against the Bosnian Muslim population of Srebrenica were both widespread and systematic throughout the Srebrenica enclave and its environs during July of 1995.

The continuation of the complaint can be found in the following link

http://www.republikabih.net/content/Srebrenica.htm

NKRBH INTL ‏#620 - INTERNACIONALIZACIJA SLUCAJA TIHIC - SADOVIC‏

ONLINE NEWSLETTER - In English and Bosnian

No. 620

July 08, 2009

http://republic-bosnia-herzegovina.com/

CONTENT (Sadrzaj)

1. OTVORENO PISMO PODRSKE MINISTRU SADOVICU

2. BOSNIAN MINISTER THWARTS SERBIAN PLOT AGAINST BOSNIA, HIS PARTY BOSS CALLS FOR HIS RESIGNATION

3. MARCH TO SREBRENICA

4. OLD ISSUES OF OUR NEWSLETTER

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This issue of the Newsletter is distributed to 37,000 addresses on both our mailing lists; one for Bosnian and one for English laguage.

If you do not want to receive this Online Newsletter just reply with "UNSUBSCRIBE" in the subject line. Then your e-mail address will be promptly deleted.
_______________________________________________________________


Editorial

Ovim Glasnikom smo na Engleskom upoznali poslanike Evropskog parlamenta i mnoge prijatelje BiH u svijetu, sa najnovijom situacijom u vezi Tihicevog zahtjeva da ministar Sadovic podnese ostavku. Prilozi 2,3 i 4 su sacinjavali nase internacionalno izdanja Glasnika (Newsletter No. 620).

U prilog pod tackom 2 je na Engleskom kazano ono o cemu smo pisali i u Glasniku br. 619 o napadu Tihica na ministra Sadovica.

Ima mnogo nasih mladjih ljudi koji lakse citaju Engleski nego Bosanski, pa i njih na ovaj nacin upoznajemo sa najnovijim vijestima.

Osjetili smo potrebu da se licno obratimo gosp. Sadovicu i da mu kao covjeku damo moralnu podrsku da izdrzi do kraja. To je sadrzano u pismu pod tackom br. 1.

_____________________________________


1. OTVORENO PISMO PODRSKE MINISTRU SADOVICU

Veoma postovani gosp. Sadovicu,

znamo da ste ovih dana izlozeni strahovitim pritiscima Tihicevih i Dodikovih posilnih i placenika. Jedino sto vam mozemo poruciti je da ne klonete, da im se ne predate.

NE SAMO ZBOG NASE DOMOVINE BOSNE I HERCEGOVINE, NEGO NE SMIJETE POKLEKNUTI NI ZBOG VAS SAMIH. Znajte da vam je jedini izlaz iz ove situacije da pobijedite, da im ne date ostavku.

Ako im se pokorite, ako se savijete pred ljudskim sljamom kakav su Tihic i Kebo osjecacete se gorim od njih. Vi znate koliko Bosnjaci preziru Tihica. Mozete zamisliti koliki ce to udarac biti vasem ugledu ako se poklonite tom sljamu.

Nije nikakav problem ako vas smjene. Onoga trenutka kada vas udruzeni cetnici i njihovi jataci iz SDA smjene, Bosna i Hercegoivina ce dobiti novog heroja.

A znajte da ce vasi neprijatelji sve uciniti da vas dokrajce, jer vi ste opasno ugrozili cetnicki projekat spasavajuci nas iz klopke koju je Srbija namjestila svim Bosnjacima. Jer ne bi se to zavrsilo na Dobrovoljackoj. Ako Srbija zadrzi mogucnost da po svom nahodjenju izdaje potjernice Interpola za Bosnjacima uvjek ce se lako nalaziti sve novi i novi razlozi za nove potjernice. Niko od Bosnjaka ne bi bio siguran vise.

Vasom ostavkom Vi bi opasno ugrozili to dostignuce za BiH koje ste postigli, sto je vjerovatno vase zivotno djelo, ono zbog cega cete uci u istoriju. Osim toga, vasom ostavkom Vi bi samo priznali da ste nesto pogrijesili cime bi ste olaksali posao vasim neprijateljima da se obracunaju sa vama do kraja. Vise ne bi ste imali nikakve odbrane, jer bi ste vasom ostavkom sami priznali neku krivicu. Procitajte knjige zrtava Staljinovog rezima. U svima njima je poruka jasna - ne smijete priznati ono za sto niste krivi. Dakle, ne smijete dati ostavku.

Najgore od svega je da cete onog trenutka kada im se poklonite i slazete na sebe, dajuci ostavku za izmisljenu krivicu, poceti mrziti samog sebe i to ce trajati do kraja zivota. A od sebe ne mozete pobjeci.

Na kraju, znajte da je narod uz vas i molimo vas da izdrzite.

Dr. Muhamed Borogovac

Nacionalni kongres Republike BiH


_______________________________________________


2. BOSNIAN MINISTER THWARTS SERBIAN PLOT AGAINST BOSNIA, HIS PARTY BOSS CALLS FOR HIS RESIGNATION

By Tarik Borogovac

A few days ago, Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) Minister of Security Tarik Sadovic secured an important victory in protecting BiH citizens and interests from an unscrupulous offensive by Serbia in the international arena. The very next day, his party boss Sulejman Tihic of the SDA party asked him to resign, without citing any concrete reason. To us it is clear that Mr. Tihic is taking issue with Minister Sadovic precisely for doing his job.

The central issue is that Serbia has been using the Belgrade office of Interpol to issue warrants against war-time BiH government and army officials, alleging war crimes against soldiers of the Yugoslav National Army fighting in Bosnia, and against Serb civilians. All the accusations represent “the Serb version of events”, i.e. they are based on interpretations of the war in Bosnia that only Serbia and Bosnian Serb officials propagate. Serbia had initially presented its allegations and its “evidence” to the UN tribunal for war crimes in former Yugoslavia at the Hague, and the tribunal had declined to issue warrants because the evidence was insufficient and not credible.

(NOTE: Other cases that were brought against the Bosnian officials, and which were thought to be more credible, did result in tribunal indictments. All indicted persons from the Bosnian side turned themselves in promptly, and in the majority of the cases completed so far, the suspects were either cleared of all charges by the tribunal, or judged guilty of offenses much less serious than the allegations brought forth by Serbia and the prosecution.)

Based on the allegations that were already rejected by the Hague tribunal, Serbia decided to issue indictments in its own courts, and in the courts of its puppet entity in Bosnia called “The Republic of the Serbs” (RS). For the RBiH government officials and higher ups in the Army Serbia issued Interpol warrants. For others, Serbia and the RS created “secret” lists. This had three major intentions:

1. For a domestic audience, Serbia preserves some credibility for previous propaganda. Slobodan Milosevic is dead, but his whitewashed regime is still in power as evidenced by the fact that his wartime propaganda still dominates. Serbs are still the victims of genocide and aggression perpetrated by militant Muslims, and fascist Croats (tacitly backed by a combination of imperialist western nations, and fundamentalist Arab regimes). That myth would fall apart if Serbia did not act accordingly by pretending to fight to bring justice for all the Serb victims, and to uncover the enormous evidence that must surely exist for such a grand conspiracy. Simply, Serbia had to either “put up or shut up”.

2. For an international audience, Serbia shows that it is not the only one that is hiding its indicted war criminals like Ratko Mladic, as evidenced by the Interpol warrants issued for many Bosnians (and Kosovars, see the case of Agim Ceku). Of course, Serbia, as a member of Interpol created those warrants.

3. Serbia also uses the secret warrants for further ethnic cleansing of the RS by prevention of return of non-Serb refugees. The secret lists have been cited during the arrests of many non-Serb returnees to the RS. For example, several days ago, the RS police arrested Midhat Salihovic, a refugee from Srebrenica residing in Sweden, when he came back to Bosnia to bury the identified remains of his father and brother, who were executed in Srebrenica by the RS police. As a result, the refugees believe that any of them can be put on these lists, and most of them are afraid to return.

In addition, the threat of such warrants can be used to keep those Bosnian officials, who were involved in Bosnia’s defense during the war, from resisting Serbia’s political meddling in Bosnia.

Minister Sadovic recently sent a complaint to Interpol because of the misuse of the Interpol warrants by Serbia for political and propaganda purposes. He asked them to review a particular set of “red” war crimes warrants issued from its Belgrade office. The warrants in question were issued based on a battle on the streets of Sarajevo in 1992, in which, as Serbia alleges, the Army of RBiH committed war crimes against an armored column of the Yugoslav National Army, which carried the BiH President Alija Izetbegovic and his daughter as hostages. Interpol reviewed that nonsense, rescinded the warrants, and changed the rules on issuing warrants for war crimes to prevent further abuse. Now, countries cannot issue war crimes arrest warrants for citizens of other countries, if their home countries do not consent. Or, as Mr. Sadovic put it: “Serbia cannot issue red warrants against Bosnian citizens, if Bosnia doesn’t agree.”

Obviously, this is a major blow to the Serbian government. Interpol’s decision gives some protection to Bosnian officials when traveling abroad to other countries. Unfortunately, it will not help others that Serbia and RS arrest themselves. More than that, it is a blow because Serbia was exposed as a regime that is willing to engage in such criminal abuse of international mechanisms of justice for simple political and propaganda objectives.

Finally, Mr. Tihic’s swift revenge against Mr. Sadovic may be a surprise to uninformed observers, given the great service Mr. Sadovic just did for his country. However, those familiar with communist Yugoslavia recognize men like Mr. Tihic as agents of Serbia. Namely, in Yugoslavia, Serb nationalists controlled the secret police (the notorious Internal State Security Agency UDBA) and the Yugoslav National Army, employing a network of agents and informants to spy and control the citizens of Yugoslavia. There were similar agencies throughout the communist east Europe, for example, the East German Stasi. The specificity of the Yugoslavian spy network was its Serb nationalist, rather than communist ideology. Of special value to UDBA as agents were those non-Serbs who managed to prove their loyalty to Serb national ideals.

The infiltrators were successful Bosnia, and they were given the opportunity to organize politically in the name of Bosniaks, with the aim of controlling Bosniak politics. The most successful of these was President Alija Izetbegovic, who, among other things, put himself in danger to protect the above mentioned YNA column, stopped the American lifting of the arms embargo for the RBiH Army, and signed that the already defeated Serb nationalist forces should control half of BiH in Dayton. One of the last things he did was to install Mr. Tihic to lead the powerful SDA party.

Tihic (together with allies Haris Silajdzic and Zlatko Lagumdzija) have done much damage to our country in order satisfy the Serbian apetite for Bosnia, and have brought the country to the brink of definite disintegration, and to a de facto realization of Milosevic’s genocidal project of an ethnically clean “Republic of the Serbs” on Bosnian territory. The people of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and especially Bosniaks, never recognized the genocidal RS, and the signatures of a few Serbian agents that established it are illegitimate and cannot stand in the long run.

Minister Sadovic’s complaint to Interpol represents one of the rare Bosnian victories, and it is precisely the reason why Tihic wants to force him out so quickly.

___________________________________________


3. MARCH TO SREBRENICA

Autor: BIRN

07. Jul 2009. 15:07:27

On Wednesday, July 8 more than 2,500 Peace March participants will leave Nezuk, near Zvornik, and walk 110 km before arriving in Potocari, near Srebrenica, on July 11.

This will be the fourth successive year that the Peace March has been organized to honour those Srebrenica residents who fled through the woods in July 1995 in an attempt to reach territory controlled by the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The march will last for three days. The march participants will arrive at the Potocari Memorial Center on July 11, where they will attend the burial of more than 500 murdered Srebrenica residents.

Some participants will start the march in Zepa, located in the vicinity of Srebrenica.

March participants who begin their journey in Nezuk will walk around 35 kilometers per day, while those starting in Zepa will walk for 25 km per day for two days.

Peace March organizers say that their goal is to pay respect to the genocide victims and remind everyone of "the massive and frightening crime committed against Bosniaks from Srebrenica by the Army and police of Republika Srpska".

Another goal is to motivate all "relevant actors to arrest and try all those who are charged with this crime, as soon as possible, with the aim of serving justice and creating preconditions for building permanent peace and tolerance among the peoples of Bosnia and Herzegovina".

Apart from participants from Bosnia and Herzegovina, people from the Netherlands, Croatia, France, Switzerland, Serbia, Italy, the USA, Australia and other countries take part in the Peace March every year.

In a resolution adopted by the UN Security Council on April 16, 1993, Srebrenica was declared a protected zone, which was supposed to be demilitarized. Members of the UN Protection Force were deployed in the town on April 18, 1993.

Forces under the command of Republika Srpska General Ratko Mladic entered the town on July 11, 1995. At that moment about 35,000 people from Srebrenica and the surrounding villages, who had sought shelter in the town, were in Srebrenica.

Following the arrival of the Serb forces, women, children and the elderly, as well as some men, converged on Potocari seeking protection from the Dutch UNPROFOR Battalion which was based there. A short time later they were surrounded by Serb forces. The men were separated and taken prisoner. Many of them, including boys, were later killed.

The women and children were deported, on buses and trucks, to territory controlled by the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Shortly after the arrival of the Serb forces, some Srebrenica residents headed through the woods and over the mountains in an attempt to reach territory contrlled by the Bosnian army. A small number survived the difficult journey after spending days moving quickly and following indirect routes.

In 2007 the International Court of Justice at The Hague ruled that the crime committed at Srebrenica constituted genocide.

Individuals accused of commmiting genocide in Srebrenica are currently on trial in four separate cases being heard before the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina in Sarajevo.

The trial of eight senior police and military officials of Republika Srpska is underway at the Hague Tribunal. Ratko Mladic, who is on the run, and Radovan Karadzic, former President of Republika Srpska, who is awaiting trial at the Hague, are charged, among other things, with the genocide committed in Srebrenica.

_________________________________________


4. OLD ISSUES OF OUR NEWSLETTER

http://rbih-free.blogspot.com/2009/06/ncrbh-612-intl-unfinished-business-in.html

************************************************************************

BABY'S GRAVE DESECRATED BY SERB VANDALS IN VISEGRAD

source: http://srebrenica-genocide.blogspot.com/2009/06/babys-grave-desecrated-by-serb-vandals.html

MURDERED BABY'S GRAVE DESECRATED BY SERB VANDALS IN VISEGRAD

PHOTO: Local Serb vandals killed a dog and place him next to the planned burial site of a 9-month old Amela Ahmetspahic. (Source: Federal TV Footage)

On Tuesday, June 11th, Bosnian Muslims held a funeral for a nine-month old baby and her family - victims of Visegrad massacre of 1992. Visegrad is a municipality bordering with Srebrenica.

Faced with frequent death threats, survivors of the massacre asked the Serb authorities to send at least one Police officer to secure the funeral from possible attacks. Local Serb authorities in Visegrad refused to offer any assistance.

When saddened relatives arrived at the Stražište cemetery in Visegrad they were shocked to find desecrated baby's grave. The Careva Mosque was stoned and windows broken. The vandals also killed a dog and placed him next to murdered baby's grave.

Bodies of Ibrisim and Smaila Memisevic, their daughter Mediha Ahmetspahic, and nine-month old baby granddaughter Amela, were killed by Serbs in 1992. They were dumped into Veljem Lug mass grave. Six years ago, their remains were excavated from the mass grave and recently DNA identified. Amela's father, Suljo, survived the massacre.

Boban Šimšić, who worked for the RS Police in Visegrad, was found guilty for murders of 3 our of 4 above named victims and sentenced to 14 years in jail.

PHOTO: Coffin of a murdered Bosniak Baby, Amela Ahmetspahic. She was 9 months old when Serbs killed her and her family. Like thousands of other Bosnian Muslims, they were dumped into one many mass graves in Podrinje (region around Srebrenica).

PHOTO: Cemetery Mosque attacked by Serb vandals before a funeral of a murdered Bosnian Muslim baby, Amela Ahmetspahic, and her family in Visegrad.

PHOTO: The Careva mosque was stoned by Serb vandals the night before funeral.

source: http://srebrenica-genocide.blogspot.com/2009/06/babys-grave-desecrated-by-serb-vandals.html

NCRBH - #612 INTL - “UNFINISHED BUSINESS IN THE BALKANS”

CONTENT

1. Washington Office for Bosnia Welcomes the Conference “UNFINISHED BUSINESS IN THE BALKANS”

2. Announcement of the Conference “UNFINISHED BUSINESS IN THE BALKANS”

3. The Latest Development in Bosnia: People Have Rejected Once Again the Dayton Constitution

—————————————————————————————-

1. Washington Office for Bosnia Welcomes the Conference “UNFINISHED BUSINESS IN THE BALKANS”

Thanks for this announcement, Peter,

I extracted a quote from your Bosnia/Kosova announcement so amazing that I am responding to a Bosnian e-mail for the first time in years and even dug up some emails of our old “Bosnian and Kosovar hands.”

The announcement reports that “Almost daily calls are coming from various think-tanks and Congressional committees in Washington for de facto liquidation of the Republika Srpska (“Dayton II”) and for an even greater pressure on Serbia to recognize Kosova’s unilateral declaration of independence.”

I am not yet sure it is true, but I certainly hope so. (Why that might make sense for a new Obama/Hillary is described later in this e-mail)

We at the BSC and Washington Office for Bosnia were almost alone in fighting for the goal of abolishing Republika Srpska in the nineties after the fights over the embargo were over. It was our own Colleen London, who, while working in Prime Minister Ganic’s office, succinctly summed up the Dayton Accords in one sentence, “they had the abuser move in with the rape victim, so the property transfer would appear legal after she dies of her wounds.”

So these new “daily calls” for the abolition of Republika Srpska (a $10 billion property reward to the genocidal perpetrators) may possibly save the victim after all.

Even the Bosnians (except for the Bosnian Congress, an e-mail network of thousands of Bosnian diasporans) have thrown in the towel for a decade, except for a recent “abolish Srpska” announcement from Siladjic. (There seems to be some rhetoric for independent Kosova, but the US-backed diplomatic machinery of betrayal, with the acquiescence of American-Albanians, still grinds forward). So the alleged widespread calls, if they are in fact occurring, may constitute a victory for our multi-year effort for Bosnia, signaling a possible change in policy, and deserve our support.

I have recently been immersed in helping the Sudanese resistance fight oppression and genocide so I might have missed this good stuff. If anyone has any verification of these calls, I would appreciate hearing about it.

A note on the speakers - they seem to be one-sided, at least the half I’m familiar with: two Serb ultranationalists, two other persistent and effective pro-Serb ultranationalist Americans (Schindler and Jatras), and one Pat Buchanan type anti-interventionist think-tanker (Bandow). So eating a free lunch at their expense would be satisfying.

The Capitol Hill Club is a Republican venue and Jatras, the most notoriously pro-ultranationalist congressional staffer in Congress during the genocide, is also a life-long Republican.

Hillary could become Bosnia’s friend. As you may recall, during the campaign, she became famous for ducking Serb ultranationalist sniper fire while deplaning in Sarajevo :-).

On a more serious point, as Bill Clinton’s spouse, she may have learned enough about the issue to fix it, and possibly understand its usefulness as part of an administration strategy to repair America’s relationships with Muslims that goes beyond rhetoric. (Did our documents exposing the evils of the Dayton Accords - once posted on dozens of websites, many of them Islamic ones - get to Hillary?) . .

Andrew Eiva

Washington Office for Bosnia

PS: BTW, I will speak on the clash of bureaucratic obstacles versus grassroots ideals on Thursday, May 28 at 121 Caldwell Hall (80 yards northeast of the Basilica) at Catholic University (parking entrance near corner of Michigan Ave. and Harewood) to a Poli-Sci graduate studies class Thursday. It will be preceded by a showing of Charlie Wilson’s War, which touches on these issues, as I was a minor character in the book the movie was based on.

The following is the announcement of the conference:
_______________________________

2. Announcement of the Conference “UNFINISHED BUSINESS IN THE BALKANS”

Please pass this information on to all potentially interested parties!

http://www.balkanstudies.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=56:conference-program-capitol-hill-Washington-dc-may-27&catid=36:forthcoming-events&Itemid=37

The Lord Byron Foundation for Balkan Studies and The American Council for Kosovo

invite you to a conference

“UNFINISHED BUSINESS IN THE BALKANS”: RHETORIC, STRATEGY, IMPLICATIONS

Wednesday, May 27, 2009, 12 NOON – 5 PM
CAPITOL HILL CLUB
300 First Street SE, Washington D.C. 20003

(The Club is directly opposite Capitol South Metro Station)

A major security issue facing Europe is the stated intention of the Obama Administration to play a more active role in the former Yugoslavia. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is committed to wrapping up what she calls “the unfinished business in the Balkans.” Almost daily calls are coming from various think-tanks and Congressional committees in Washington for de facto liquidation of the Republika Srpska (“Dayton II”) and for an even greater pressure on Serbia to recognize Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence. To discuss the motives, implications, likely course, and possible results of such U.S. policy, we have assembled a panel of foreign policy experts, several of whom have just come back from Serbia and the Republika Srpska.

No cost to attendees, lunch provided.

You are also cordially invited to the reception to mark the Conference:
CAPITOL HILL CLUB
Tuesday, May 26, 6–8 p.m.
Open Bar

For all information please contact Terri Alder (202) 626-6625 talder@ssd.com

“UNFINISHED BUSINESS IN THE BALKANS”

CONFERENCE PROGRAM
Wednesday, May 27, 2009

The Eisenhower Room, Capitol Hill Club, Washington D.C.

11:30 Registration

12:00 Welcoming remarks
Ambassador James Bissett, Chairman, The Lord Byron Foundation

12:15 Keynote address: Bosnia, America’s Unlearnt Lesson
Doug Bandow

12:45 Lunch

1:30 PANEL I: DEFINING THE PROBLEM, chaired by James George Jatras

Imperial Democracy in the Balkans
Gregory Davis

The European Union’s Imperfect Role
Ronald Hatchett

Do We Need “Dayton II”?
Steven Meyer

The Balkans and Global Jihad
William Lind

3:00 Coffee break

3:15 PANEL II: PREVENTING ANOTHER DISASTER, chaired by Ronald Hatchett

The Administration’s Balkan Gambit: Dangers, Strengths, Weaknesses
James George Jatras

A Canadian Solution to Bosnia’s Impasse?
James Bissett

Republika Srpska: Essential Part of Any Solution
Srdja Trifkovic

The Balkans and the War on Terrorism: Defending the American Interest
John Schindler

4:30 OPEN FORUM

5:00 Conference Closing

P A N E L I S T S

Ambassador James Bissett is Chairman of The Lord Byron Foundation, former head of Canada’s Immigration Service, and former Canadian Ambassador to Yugoslavia

Dr. Doug Bandow is world affairs commentator, author (most recently) of Foreign Follies: America’s New Global Empire and former special assistant to President Reagan

Dr. Gregory M. Davis is the author of Religion of Peace? (2006) and co-director/producer of the documentary Islam: What the West Needs to Know

Dr. Ronald L. Hatchett, Col. USAF (Ret.), a senior DoD official under Reagan, is Director of the Center for Global Studies and professor of international relations at Schreiner University

James George Jatras is Director of The American Council for Kosovo and Deputy Director, American Institute in Ukraine. He is former Foreign Service officer and former senior analyst with the U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee

William S. Lind is the leading authority on Fourth Generation Warfare, a prolific author, and Director of the Center for Cultural Conservatism at the Free Congress Foundation

Dr. Steven Meyer is Professor of Political Science at the Industrial College of the Armed Forces, National Defense University

Dr. John Schindler is Professor of Strategy at the Naval War College and the author of Unholy Terror: Bosnia, Al-Qaeda and the Rise of Global Jihad

Dr. Srdja Trifkovic is Executive Director of The Lord Byron Foundation, the author (most recently) of Defeating Jihad, and former foreign-affairs editor of Chronicles

(NB: The opinions expressed by Professors Meyer and Schindler are their own, and do not reflect the views of the U.S. government or the Department of Defense. )

_________________________________________________

3. THE BOSNIAN PEOPLE REJECT ONCE AGAIN THE DAYTON CONSTITUTION

By Muhamed Borogovac, Ph.D., ASA, MAAA

Boston, Massachusetts, USA

Filing the law suit for genocide in 1993 at the International Court of Justice by Bosnia and Herzegovina against Serbia and Montenegro precedes all subsequent constitutional and legal arrangements for Bosnia and Herzegovina. The final judgment of the International Court of Justice supersedes all constitutional arrangements that are today imposed on the victims of aggression and genocide, including Annex 4 to the Dayton Peace Agreement (the so-called Dayton Constitution) and the Brcko Amendment.

Bosnia-Herzegovina was a victim of aggression from Serbia, as established by the UN Security Council’s Resolutions 752 and 757 in 1992, for which Serbia was punished as the aggressor by the economic sanctions and blockade..

On February 26, 2007, The International Court of Justice in its legally binding judgment in the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro “Finds that Serbia has violated the obligation to prevent genocide, under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, in respect of the genocide that occurred in Srebrenica in July 1995.” The Court ruled that genocide in Srebrenica against the people of Srebrenica and the entire East Region of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina was committed by the government and institutions of “Republika Srpska” and specifically the Army (VRS) and Police (MUP) of “Republika Srpska” and that Serbia had an obligation to prevent the genocide.

As a reminder, the war ended in the fall of 1995 when Dayton Peace Agreement has been signed. Even though it is an international treaty signed by presidents of three countries Bosnia, Serbia and Croatia (Izetbegovic, Tudjman, and Milosevic, respectively), it contained the new constitution of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the infamous Annex 4 to the Dayton Peace Agreement. This agreement was in direct violation of the international law, which prevents countries to impose constitutional changes onto its neighbor, and especially if one of them (referring to Serbia) committed aggression and violated the court imposed obligation to prevent the genocide of that neighbor.

In addition, the so-called Dayton Constitution was imposed on B&H even though the final version signed in Paris was never ratified in the Parliament of the Republic of B&H. Even worse, the provisions of the Constitution of the Republic B&H (Article 268) and procedures for the change of the constitution were totally ignored, as proven by constitutional scholars [e.g. Sienho Yee in the article “The New Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina” published in European Journal of International Law article ( Yee Eur J Int Law.1996; 7: 176-192)]: http://ejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/7/2/176 )

These days we witnessed an attempt by enemies and traitors of people of B&H to provide some legality to the illegitimate Dayton Constitution by amending it using provisions of the Constitution of the Republic B&H (the Article 268) that requires public debate. The so-called Brcko Amendment did not have any other objective but to legalize the illegitimate Dayton Agreement, as was well summarized by Professor Boyle in his interview to BosTel: www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLugRtFoVZc

In expectation that people of B&H will be in favor of the amendment to the illegitimate Dayton Constitution, traitors and enemies of people of B&H initiated public debate as part of the procedure required for the adaptation of the amendments. However, during the Public debate, which took place in series of town hall meetings in 5 major Bosnian cities and on the internet, people of Bosnia-Herzegovina overwhelmingly rejected the constitutional change. Raffi Gregorian, an Acting High Representative (AHR) and Brcko Supervisor, was quoted expressing his regrets because of the strong opposition of the people of B&H to the amendment. Transcripts of town hall meetings are available on the website of the Parliament, which clearly show that the people of B&H rejected the amendment.

At the end of the public debate, surprisingly, the constitutional committee decided to disregard the opinion of the people of B&H and to go with the amendment to the so-called Dayton Constitution, not even mentioning the results of the public debate.

People of Bosnia-Herzegovina reject any amendments to the illegitimate Dayton Constitution, as well as the Dayton Constitution itself. Now it should be clear to the world community and all freedom loving people that people of Bosnia-Herzegovina reject the illegitimately imposed Dayton Constitution as the law of the country.

NCRBH #599 INTL - DON'T LET YOUR CONSTITUTION BE CREATED BY ENEMY'S KNIFE !!!‏

National Congress of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina

ONLINE NEWSLETTER - International

No. 599

March 19, 2009

http://republic-bosnia-herzegovina.com/

CONTENT

1. Bosnians donate Brcko to Serbs

2. PREVOD: BOSANCI DARUJU BRCKO REPUBLICI SRPSKOJ

3. This is the finalization of the Tudjman-Milosevic plan on division of Bosnia-Hercegovina

4. GOVERNMENT DID NOT GET PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR BRCKO AMENDMENT IN THE PUBLIC DEBATE

5. DON'T LET YOUR CONSTITUTION BE CREATED BY ENEMY'S KNIFE !!!

6. PROFESOR BOYLE NA NTV HAYATU

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you do not want to receive this Online Newsletter just reply with "UNSUBSCRIBE" in the subject line. Then your e-mail address will be promptly deleted.
________________________________________________________________________

Postovani citaoci, imamo dosta ljudi na ovoj mailing listi koji govore Engleski. Zato distribuiramo ovo internacionalno izdanje Glasnika, na Engleskom. Ako ne govorite Engleski, imacete priliku da sve ovo vidite na Bosanskom. Npr, sve iz clanka pod 3 se cuje na linku u pod 6 na Bosanskom, clanak broj 4 je prevod sa Bosanskog uvodnog clanka iz proslog Glasnika. Clank Br 1 ima pravod u ovom Glasniku. Ivanin govor, clanak br. 5 smo objavili na Bosanskom u proslom Glasniku.


1. Bosnians are donating Brcko to the Serbian Republic


The Brcko Amendment provides in relevant part as follows:

"Brcko District of Bosnia and Herzegovina, that exists under sovereignty of Bosnia and Herzegovina and that is under jurisdiction of the institutions of Bosnia and Herzegovina in a manner of jurisdiction emanating from this Constitution, whose territory is in mutual property (condominium) of entities....."

This Amendment recognizes that BIH has "sovereignty" and that Republika Srpska has "property." But if RS has "property" in and over itself, then what good is the "sovereignty" of BIH? What does it mean? BIH can assert its "sovereignty" all it wishes, but if RS has "property" in and over itself, then BIH's assertion of "sovereignty" over RS will mean very little if anything at all.

The recognition that RS has "property" in and over itself will be in derogation of and to the detriment of BIH's "sovereignty". Recognition that RS has "property" in and over itself is another way of saying that RS has "sovereignty" over itself since "property" and "sovereignty" pretty much mean the same thing legally.

The Drafters of this Amendment could not come out and give RS "sovereignty" over itself, which would have meant Independence, so they did the next best thing and gave RS "property" in and over itself, which is tantamount to "sovereignty."

Therefore the adoption of the Brcko Amendment will grant "property" to the Republika Srpska, which is tantamount to "sovereignty" for RS and thus just one step removed from formal Independence for Republika Srpska. Next, then the adoption of the Hays Reforms/April Package will finish off the job: De Facto Independence for Republika Srpska without the need for RS to secede from BIH.

Bosnia and Herzegovina will eventually disintegrate as a State. Republika Srpska will be absorbed by Serbia. The Federation will be absorbed by Croatia. This carve-up of BIH is precisely what was contemplated and designed by Richard Holbrook in his Washington Agreements of 18 March 1994. And before that by Tudjman and Milosevic in their 1991 meeting at Karadjordjevo.

Professor Francis A. Boyle

-------------------------------------------------------------------

2. PREVOD: BOSANCI DARUJU BRCKO REPUBLCI SRPSKOJ

Poruka profesora Boylea, 19 . mart 2009

Amandman za Brcko dozvoljava slijedece tumacenje u ovim bitnijim dijelovima:

"Brcko Distrikt Bosne i Hercegovine, koji postoji pod suverenitetom Bosne i Hercegovine i spada pod nadležnosti institucija Bosne i Hercegovine onako kako te nadležnosti proizilaze iz ovog Ustava, cija je teritorija u zajednickoj svojini (kondominijumu) entiteta . . . "

Ovaj amandman priznaje da BiH ima "suverenitet" i da republika Srpska ima "svojinu". Ali ako RS ima "svojinu" u i nad sobom, kakva je onda korist od "suvereniteta" BiH?
Sta to znaci? BiH moze potvrdjivati svoj "suverenitet" koliko god hoce, ali ako RS ima "svojinu" u i nad sobom, onda potvrdjivanje "suvereniteta" BiH nad RS nece znaciti puno ako ce uopste bilo sta znaciti.
Priznanje da RS ima "svojinu" u i nad sobom ce biti u svrhu smanjivanja i na stetu "suvereniteta" BiH.

Priznjanje da RS ima "svojinu" u i nad sobom je drugi nacin da se kaze da RS ima "suverenitet" nad sobom posto "svojina" i "suverenitet" pravno imaju gotovo isto znacenje.

Kreatori nacrta ovog amandmana nisu mogli tek tako javno istupiti i dati RS-u "suverenitet" nad sobom jer bi to znacilo nezavisnost, tako da su oni umjesto toga uradili ono sto je bilo najblize ostvarenju toga, a to je "svojinu" nad sobom sto je u sustini jednako "suverenitetu". Na taj nacin ce usvajanje Amandmana za Brcko dodijeliti "svojinu" Republici Srpskoj sto je u sustini jednako "suverenitetu" za RS sto je samo jedan korak manje od formalne nezavisnosti za republiku Srpsku.

Usvajanje Hejsovih Reformi/Aprilskog Paketa koje slijedi ce zavrsiti posao: de fakto nezavisnost Republike Srpske bez potrebe da se RS otcijepi od BiH. Bosna i Hercegovina ce se na kraju raspasti kao drzava. Republika Srpska ce biti apsorbirana od strane Srbije. Federacija ce biti apsorbirana od strane Hrvatske. Ovo komadanje BiH je tacno ono sto je smisljeno i dizajnirano od strane Richarda Holbrooka u njegovom Washingtonskom Ugovoru od 18. marta 1994., a prije toga izmedju Tudjmana i Milosevica na njihovom sastanku 1991 u Karadjordjevu.

Prof. Francis A. Boyle
________________________________________________


3. This is the finalization of the Tudjman-Milosevic plan on division of Bosnia-Hercegovina

[The Bosnian Hayat TV interviewed Francis Boyle, US lawyer who was legal counsel in Bosnia-Hercegovina's lawsuit against Serbia-Montenegro for genocide before the International Court of Justice. In the interview, broadcast on the Central News Bulletin with Senad Hadzifejzovic on 14 March 2009 at 1755 gmt, Boyle comments on the recently proposed constitutional amendments concerning the status of the Brcko District in Bosnia-Hercegovina.]

[Host Senad Hadzifejzovic] A US drama follows dear viewers. Former US lawyer of Bosnia-Hercegovina, a friend of our country, Francis Boyle, is also very, very concerned for the future of our country. We recorded the interview with Mr Boyle late last night. The interview was so dramatic that one could not sleep afterwards. If the Parliament of Bosnia-Hercegovina adopts the amendment for Brcko, it will automatically adopt the Dayton constitution, recognize the Serb Republic and division of the country. The big words used by Boyle in this interpretation are 'the end of Bosnia', 'break-up of the country', 'annexation of the Serb Republic to Serbia'. As a reminder for those who do not know, the so-called Bosnian parties, the three biggest ones, which have the partisan and stately target as a united Bosnia-Hercegovina, namely the SDA, SBIH and the SDP, have supported adoption of the [Bosnian constitution] amendment concerning Brcko, so that practically, apart from the small BOSS party, there is no opposition against this view. Sulejman Tihic supported the amendment, and publicly explained 'Dodik got Brcko'. It is paradoxical that Silajdzic has distanced himself from the amendment, but supported it nevertheless. It is a paradox that the SDP has supported the amendment without greater discussion. The Internet-based front of concerned Bosnians, individuals, intellectuals, groups, association is the only opposition, who are asking for support in panic, unity of Bosnians and warn of the defeating character of the amendment for the state.
The Bosnian Diaspora is also united in opposition against the amendment.

[Interviewer Kenan Cerimagic] Our guest lives in Champagne, Illinois in the United States of America, This is a great friend of Bosnia-Hercegovina, our lawyer and advisor to the lawyers from the Federation who had led the process during the arbitration for Brcko. Our guest is Professor Francis Boyle. Good evening, professor. Glad to see you again on our programme.

[Francis Boyle, in English with translation into vernacular superimposed] Well, thank you for having me and greetings to my friends in Bosnia.

[Interviewer] Let us start with your criticism against the amendment concerning the Brcko District. It is considered to be totally unimportant and used only for ratification of the Dayton Accord in the Parliament of Bosnia-Hercegovina.

[Boyle] Well, yes. There are many problems with the Brcko amendment. It seems to me that the US government is finishing up the final phase of the process of division of Bosnia-Hercegovina and the Brcko amendment is a part of that. What they want to do for the first time is to force the Bosnian parliament to ratify the illegal and unconstitutional Dayton constitution, which had been imposed to Bosnia by circumventing the rules of the former Bosnian constitution concerning constitutional amendments, not to speak about its changes. If the current composition of the parliament endorses this, this will be the first ratification and confirmation of the Dayton constitution. The next phase, in the view of Americans, will be the return to Hays' reforms and the so-called April package, which will be completion of the job. This package had previously failed due to shortage of two votes in the parliament. I believe they thought it would be difficult to start the process with the April package again, and that it would be better to start with this amendment, and if this amendment is endorsed, go back to the Hays' April package.

[Host] On our last week's programme, the supervisor for Brcko Raffi Gregorian said he considered the Brcko amendment his victory. What is the US role here?
What do they want to create in our country, Bosnia-Hercegovina?

[Boyle] As we had discussed before, at the time of the Washington Agreement, Pentagon had publicly declared that what was happening was in fact a slow motion of a division of Bosnia that will take 15 years. That is the agenda. The coming year of 2010 will be the 15th year after Dayton and the elections are planned for this year, if it comes to that at all. The Brcko amendment and the return to Hays' reforms and the April package is, for them, the final act of the Bosnia process. I do not know the new High Representative, but I am sure his intentions are good. Still, he will not have any other choice but to listen to the instructions of the British and US governments, which mostly support the Brcko amendment. Even the President Komsic [Croat member of Bosnian Presidency] said this week this was not the idea of Bosnians, but Britons and Americans. This was the case with the Hays' reforms and the April package. They were not designed by Bosniaks, but the so-called US Institute for Peace, which is only an extended hand of the State Department. This is the final act of Bosnia directed by the US and the British.

[Host] In his response to the question of what was Milorad Dodik [Serb Republic premier] getting with this amendment, Sulejman Tihic [SDA leader] simply said 'Brcko'. Is this correct?

[Boyle] That is correct. [Passage omitted, Boyle reads the Statute of Brcko and says the amendment brings Brcko back to the control of the Serb Republic].
This amendment was obviously created in favor of the Serb Republic and its extension to the Brcko, as well as cementing of the Serb Republic, which will lead to the start of Hays' reforms and the April package, which will finish off this job. Before official publishing of the document on Hays' reforms, the SDA had sent me a copy of the document during the preliminary talks, in order to get my opinion. It is clear from the talks and the document that the Serb Republic delegates knew perfectly well that the Serb Republic is fragile in the eyes of the world, which is why they asked for the existence of the Serb Republic to be forever cemented in the Hays' reforms and the April package. This is happening right now, first with the Brcko amendment, after which Hays' reforms and the April package, which have been supported, unfortunately, by Mr Tihic and the SDA, will follow.

[Interviewer] How do you comment the support for this amendment by the SDA, Party for Bosnia-Hercegovina and the SDP? Is this some kind of a sudden change of mind in Bosniak, Bosnian politics concerning this issue?

[Boyle] As for Mr Tihic, my sources from the SDA tell he does everything the Americans tell him to do. I had advised the SDA to reject Hays' reforms and President Tihic agreed with this. He then met the US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, who made enormous pressure on Tihic to accept Hays' reforms, which is what he eventually did. I then started to actively advocate knocking down of Hays' reforms, in which my client and an old friend, the president of the Party for Bosnia-Hercegovina Haris Silajdzic, joined me. Concerning SDP, what could you have expected for the former communist, Lagumdzija? I have continued to work with Silajdzic and the Party for Bosnia-Hercegovina, and I am convincing them that the Brcko amendment is very dangerous, as well as the Hays'
reforms and the April package. I have noticed that Silajdzic is disassociating himself from non-acceptance of Hays' reforms, claiming he want the amendment to be acceptable for the chief arbiter for Brcko Robert Owen. Media have reported that Owen said he will not accept this decision [as heard]. I would like to encourage Silajdzic to give up any support for the Brcko amendment. This amendment needs to be killed immediately.

[Interviewer] What kind of practical consequences can this amendment have on Bosnia-Hercegovina, for cases in The Hague, some new case before the International Court of Justice and functioning of the state in general, if endorsed?

[Boyle] The practical consequences will be that the Bosnian government and the central institutions will not be able to function any more. We have to understand that this was the intention of Holbrook and the State Department lawyers who had authored Dayton. The first version of the Dayton Accord, which I had analyzed for President Izetbegovic, had led de jure to a division of the Republic of Bosnia-Hercegovina. Fortunately, Izetbegovic had rejected that, while now we have de facto a government with a divided country, with a government that was intentionally created not to function. It is clear that Bosnia cannot function like this. [Passage omitted] The Brcko amendment, Hays'
reforms and the April package will only worsen the situation even more, which will lead to a final collapse of the state. I don't know how soon this will happen after ratification of the Brcko amendment and the Hays' package, but I don't know how will Bosnia survive at all as a state, if the Parliament adopts the Brcko amendment, together with Hays' reforms and the April package. I fear that Bosnia-Hercegovina will simply dissolve in all that.

[Interviewer] In your analysis of the Dayton Accord, you clearly say 'it will always be a message that genocide pays off'. Is this amendment in line with that message?

[Boyle] Well of course. The Brcko amendment provides for renewed establishment of control of the Serb Republic over Brcko and will continue to cement genocide, ethnic cleansing, rapes of Bosnian women. This amendment is horrendous [words indistinct].

[Interviewer] What would be your advice for politicians and the public of Bosnia-Hercegovina concerning changes of the constitution, step-by-step or change as a whole.

[Boyle] You have to understand that Bosnians will have only one chance at change of the constitution. You will have to give up all these amendments and organize a constitutional conference, in which all elements of the Bosnian society will be represented, including the Serb Republic, and that way reach an agreement that will satisfy all and enable you to have a functional central institutions, and not a constitution imposed by the Americans, such as Holbrook and Hays, which the British and the Americans want to impose in order to satisfy their interests. This goes for the Brcko amendments, which the British and the Americans want to impose for their own interest, in order to get rid of Bosnia as a state and a potential source of problems for them in the future.

[Interviewer] How do you comment the meeting of three leaders and support of the international community for the Prud agreement? Is this the exit strategy of the international community and the final farewell, on which Dodik and the Serb Republic have insisted?

[Boyle] Clearly, their time framework was 15 years, which is by 2010. The Brcko amendment and the April package, which Tihic supported, are parts of the same strategy to finish off the job and to leave Bosnia-Hercegovina, the state division and the break up of Bosnia, where the Serb Republic would be annexed to Serbia, and the Federation to Croatia. This was clear from the Washington Agreement, which I had analyzed for the Parliament of the Republic of Bosnia-Hercegovina, which you can find on the Internet. This is the end of the game and the finalization of the Tudjman-Milosevic plan on division of Bosnia-Hercegovina from Karadjordjevo in 1991. [Passage omitted, Boyle greets the women of Srebrenica]

Source: TV Hayat, Sarajevo, in Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian 1755 gmt 14 Mar 09

_________________________________________


4. GOVERNMENT DID NOT GET PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR BRCKO AMENDMENT IN THE PUBLIC DEBATE

This is the official complaint against the government of Bosnia-Herzegovina regarding their conduct during the Public Debate

Muhamed Borogovac, Ph.D., ASA, MAAA

-TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL-LEGA COMMITTEE OF BOTH HOUSES OF THE PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
-To all representatives in both houses of the Parliamentary Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina
-To Raffi Gregorian
-To High Representative (OHR-Office of High Representative)
-To the European Union (please forward to Council)

SUBJECT: PUBLIC DEBATE ABOUT CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT 1

REQUEST

As a citizen of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, by the power of the Constitution of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina I hereby participate in public debate about the Amendment 1 to the Constitution and I request that it is voted NO for the Amendment 1 (regarding Brcko) because the proposing side DID NOT PROVE support of the people to the Amendment 1.

EXPLANATION

In order for the Constitutional Amendment to be legitimate, it must have SUPPORT from the people according to Bosnian constitution. The sole purpose of the Public Debate, required by constitution, is to enable government to prove that the people support the amendment. The proposing party i.e. the BiH government is obliged to prove that the people are behind the amendment by means of Public Debate. Therefore, the low number of people who attended public discussion is a disqualifying problem for the government. People could not participate in the Public Debate because the authorities did not adequately inform them about the debate. Authorities were obliged to invite the people so that everybody feels encouraged to take part in the discussions regarding the amendment. It would have been necessary for the proposing party to secure a large numbers of people to rally behind the Amendment in order to fulfill the constitutional obligation of proving that the people support the change of the constitution. Only then their claim that "the people want this change of the Constitution" would be credible.

That is exactly why communists had always secured such large assemblies of support to their reforms during the Public Debates. That is why the constitutions of Yugoslav Republics were legitimate even under the strict Western criteria, which was confirmed by the decisions of Badinter committee.

Lawyers would say: "The burden is on authorities to prove that the people want the change."

However, instead of taking an effort to secure the credibility of people's assembles during public discussions, authorities were hiding from the people the information that there is a public debate scheduled. The question rises:
Why? The only logical answer is that they know that people DO NOT WANT the change of the constitution that in inconspicuous way legalizes partition of the country.

So even if all of 10-15 of debaters from people in Sarajevo expressed their support for the Amendment it is too small sample in order for the hypothesis that people want the constitutional change to be confirmed. On the other hand, the fact that those 10-15 debaters said NO to the amendments topples the hypothesis of the authorities i.e. it is statistically clear that the authorities did not prove that people support the Amendment. (Credibility theory and testing of statistical hypothesis are familiar topics to the author of this complain, who is an actuary in Boston, USA.)

It is of crucial importance that the opinions of large enough number of people are captured, because one cannot state that people support some change if one doesn't have convincing numbers.

Even a blind person can now see that our politicians intentionally circumvented the constitutional obligation, by putting into action their pre-meditated plan to hide this Public Debate from the people. In a normal country that would disqualify the proposed constitutional change because for which a large numbers of participants of the debate is necessary to prove that the people want the constitutional change.

The Internet was the only place were one could read correct information about the Public Debates while authorities were making countless obstructions during the debate. For example, they turned off the only e-mail address where one could send an opinion, they organized public debate during working hours instead of the weekend etc. etc. We all know that Internet use is only in its infancy in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the only important media in Bosnia and Herzegovina is television. If the authorities wanted to accumulate legitimacy to this constitutional change they should have circulated correct announcements about the debate, on daily basis on the TV and invite people to come and give them credible support.

The debate itself was also controlled so that only they (the politicians) set the tone for the discussion. They had unlimited time (i.e. Gregorian spoke for 40 minutes). But it did not help them. All speakers after Gregorian refused to support the amendment.

Conclusion:

There are no statistics where authorities can show that they accumulated enough popular support for this constitutional change. The largest number of debaters was in Sarajevo, but even there it was no more than 15 and all of the citizens unanimously rejected the amendment.

Discussions by the representatives of the authorities are irrelevant because the proposing party (i.e. authorities) should have secured the support from the people, not again the support of the proposing party itself.

As for the discussions that were sent to the Parliament directly, the amendment was rejected by an overwhelming proportion of the people. We know that because many of them sent their copies to the e-mail address Bosnian Congress USA, bosanski_kongres@hdmagazine.com

These numbers are much more credible because only people who use the Internet were informed. However, the most credible result was secured by the telephone survey of the NTV Hayat, where viewers massively and convincingly voted AGAINST the amendments 3,073 to 113. This would have been credible even under the strict U.S. standards.

If even after this obvious fact that Amendment did not get support of the people Parliament adopts the amendment it will be a grave rape of the nation. Each representative who votes for this amendment is by definition PARTICIPANT IN THE GENOCIDE, because attempt to get victims of genocide accustomed to the results of genocide is participation in genocide as well, according to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. There is no one reasonable who would justify those who vote for this amendment. And don't forget: the crime of genocide never expires.

We can see from following Gregorian's statement given to FENA (translated from Bosnian, below), given right after the Sarajevo Debate that it is clear that the Amendment did not get the required support from the people.

"High Representative and supervisor for Brcko District Raffi Gregorian told journalists, after he listened to the debate, that he is sorry for the fact that the majority of people who expressed their negative opinions today, did not speak about Brcko or about the content of the amendment itself, regardless of the fact that all of the citizens of Brcko including representatives of the parties, including the Party for Bosnia and Herzegovina (Stranka za BiH) in Brcko, all supported this amendment and want its adoption. "

According to his words, people who speak against amendments really speak about problems that they have with Dayton in general and what they want is the new Constitution and not the new amendment that considers Brcko specifically.

"People who organized this quite loud reply of their disagreement with this amendment did not at the same time offer any other alternative, a new proposal or a new constitution ", said Gregorian.

According to his words, what we should talk about here now is Brcko.

"This amendment is good for Brcko and that is why the citizens of Brcko support it too. The amendment is completely neutral in regards to the rest of the Constitution and these amendments do not give prejudice for the future constitutional reform in any way", said Gregorian." (FENA)

Comment on Gregorian's statement:

It is not true that people in Brcko supported the amendment, only the corrupt puppet politicians who listen to the "big shots from the world". It is not true that people did not offer an alternative; Participants in the debate offered that all constitutional changes should go in one package. Have in mind that authorities are promising the people the change of the constitution, and according to them this is only the first step. People do not believe that because, if adopted that would also be the final step.

_______________________________________


Unchallenged speech of Ms. Ivana Mostarac at the Public Debate in Sarajevo, on March 17th 2009. The government official presiding over the meeting forbade the public from applauding the speakers after this speech.

5. DON’T LET YOUR CONSTITUTION BE CREATED BY ENEMY'S KNIFE !!!

March 17th 2009. G.

Nation of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina!

Stand up tomorrow and say NO and NO TO THE DESTRUCTION OF OUR REPUBLIC OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA!!!

1. PROUD PEOPLE, DON'T LET YOUR CONSTITUTION BE CREATED BY KNIFE!

2. FIRST YOU HAVE TO ASK CITIZENS OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA IF THEY AGREE TO THE ANNIHILATION OF THE REPUBLIC OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA AND CREATION OF SO-CALLED "rs"!

3. Articles 154 and 155 of the Constitution of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina empower us to never accept the Dayton (agreement) betrayal!

4. Dr. Gregorian, "our", as you say, representatives, don't have nor did they get a mandate to destroy the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina and people who live there. You too, have no such right regardless of your “Bohn authorities”! PROPOSITION: Dr. Gregorian, you sign, in the name of OHR, that you accept those amendments and then take full responsibility before the International community, because in the future (a dangerous one), only you will be able to correct the mistakes!

5. By you internet-based registration you intentionally turn people off in attending the public debate.

6. The debate was set during work time – intentionally so less citizens would appear.

7. It is the sole and irrevocable right and responsibility of citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina to and other ethnic groups living within, to protect and defend freedom, independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and order established by the Constitution of the Republic!

8. WE DO NOT RECOGNIZE CAPITULATION NOR THE OCCUPATION OF THE REPUBLIC OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA!

9. Legalizing "RS" means a prize for the genocide!

10. Proposition to approach to the change of the Constitution of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina can be submitted by: each council of the Assembly of the Republic, Presidency of the Republic, Government of the Republic and at least 30 representatives of the Assembly!

11. It is perfectly clear then that not one point from the Article 268. Of the Constitution of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina was not fulfilled so that according to that fact, the initiative and public debate about the change of Dayton-Constitution of BiH, by submitting amendments that deals with Brcko District – is completely illegitimate and unlawful!

12. Because of embedded mechanisms for human right abuse in current Constitution , Bosnia and Herzegovina can only became a candidate for the EC member but it will never become a member of European union. So the adoption of the Amendment I on the Constitution because of the inclusion of status of Brcko, will become an obstacle for Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s entry in European Union!!

13. DR. GREGORIAN, show by this example that you are indeed the friend of all of the citizens of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and that you are on the side of the protectors of the Human rights,and then those who are for peace can put you as a candidate for NOBEL PEACE PRIZE!

14. Free people and people with dignity can never agree that their freedom and sovereignty be taken away by a knife and aggression.

NEVER, NO, NO AND NO!

Ivana Mostarac, coordinator
NGO "Children Movement for Peace, Love and Friendship– Children of Sarajevo”
Malik Garibija, president of ¨Youth Council¨, Sarajevo

_______________________________________

6. PROFESOR BOYLE NA NTV HAYATU

Obezbjedjen je sinhronizovani Bosanski prevod.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6461203853370859131

**********************************************

Great-Serb myths block Serbia’s European future

source: http://www.bosnia.org.uk/news/news_body.cfm?newsid=2532

Author: Sonja Biserko - interviewed by Bojan Toncic

Following her participation in a European parliament debate, the president of Serbia's Helsinki Committee discusses divisions within the Serbian political elite over European integration, Kosovo, Croatia, Bosnia, international justice and human rights

Sonja Biserko, president of the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia, has found herself once again at the centre of Serbian public attention, following a debate in the European parliament on inter-cultural and regional dialogue in the western Balkans, during which she stated that the Serbian political elite ‘remains a prisoner to Great Serb ethnocentric myths, and to the theory that Serbia is the victim of an international conspiracy’, and that ‘some of its ministers are inclined to blame Serbia’s slow integration into the European Union on the latter’s indecision’. In this interview with E-novine, she stresses that the Serbian political elite is not united on the issue of European integration, as a result of which the process has come to a halt. This, she argues, is due to the political elite’s continuing belief that its state project, especially in regard to the Serb entity in Bosnia-Herzegovina, will succeed.

What do you mean by their ‘state project’?

It is an idea that ignores the new realities. For they believe that international conditions will be created which will permit the annexation by Serbia of Republika Srpska (RS). They consequently do all they can to prove that the state created by the [Dayton] international agreement cannot work. And they are using Kosovo as a means of getting RS. They do not want all of Kosovo, in fact, but only twelve per cent of its territory. The Serbian government has created parallel institutions in this part of Kosovo, as President Tadić inadvertently admitted recently. This is the whole idea behind the Serb project that has been in operation for the past thirty years: to seize part of Kosovo and parts of Bosnia-Herzegovina, as a result of which Serbia would undergo a shift to the west. This is the truth that should be constantly repeated. This is why the history of the recent war is being brushed under the carpet, while at the same time the history of the Second World War - and even the First World War - is being pushed to the fore. All this in order to argue that Serbia lost a great deal by entering Yugoslavia - as illustrated by the recent interview given by Dobrica Ćosić, in which he presented Nikola Pašić as the greatest of criminals. Yet it was not long ago that Ćosić was glorifying both Pašić and Slobodan Milošević!

Does this mean the parties are wrong to put Kosovo at the top of their agenda?

It is a form of manipulation. The whole approach is full of contradictions. We have had demonstrations against the recognition of Kosovo, strong diplomatic reactions, threats to those of our neighbours who have recognised Kosovo. Yet 130,000 Serbians spent their holidays in Dalmatia this year. No one will be able to stop them. The fixation with the great state idea no longer interests ordinary people. The [nationalist] fervour present in the 1980s and 1990s has evaporated. Society has in the meantime become criminalised, however; state institutions and public servants pursue only their own private interests.

It is an anti-Dayton project, in your view?

Very much so. It is a policy directed against all agreements regarding established borders and relations in the region: those of Kumanovo, Ohrid, Resolution 1244.

Do you see any solution, any logical political idea in the present situation?

It is entry into the European Union. The states of the Union hardest hit by the crisis have won support from the International Monetary Fund and from European institutions to consolidate their banking systems. There is thus a solidarity in the Union. Serbia with its position, which the government calls neutral, cannot get any help, not even visas. Because of Kosovo, Serbia has been merely an instrument against the West for Russia, but all that has become irrelevant. The resolution concerning EULEX was presented temporarily as a presidential report rather than a resolution, which is not so binding, and it is evident that the Serbs and the Albanians will have to negotiate on every point. It is an ongoing process, and the deployment of EULEX has not been met with much obstruction. That card too is spent.

Does insistence on the six points help the position of Serbs in Kosovo, or is it a matter of sheer bloody-mindedness?

The six points are nothing but a game. Belgrade has shown that it is not interested in the Serbs living in the enclaves, but still keeps the question open for some reason. They wish to reach an agreement, but we don’t know what about. The European Union has been offering Serbia candidate membership, with the prospect of being taken in faster than anyone else after delivering Ratko Mladić. But they don’t want it.

You keep referring to ‘them’. One gets the impression that this refers not just to high state officials. Who are ‘they’?

I am referring to a bloc that includes also parts of the Serbian Academy of Arts and Science, and of the retired military establishment - the circles who created the atmosphere of war and initiated the hostilities, and who would like to pursue the same policy today as well. It is clear that they don’t wish to join Europe, for several reasons. For example, there would be competition, and certain standards and rules of the game would come into being, ones that no one here now respects, since everything is conducted behind closed doors. The delay in getting into the European Union is destroying the remaining potential in Serbia that is genuinely pro-European. This was my message to the European parliament: that they should talk not just with the government, but also with the people who really do want to join the EU. I have in mind the trade unions, small- and medium-size firms, civil society in some of its segments. There are points in society that could be mobilised for such an option.

Do you see some differences - some opposing positions - within governmental circles, or does what you said in Brussels apply equally to all parties?

Some, like G17 Plus, see Serbia within the EU for purely economic reasons. This is true also of part of the Democratic Party. It is evident, however, that those against are stronger, and that they are using Ratko Mladić to hamper the process of Serbia’s integration.

This much is clear, but why? As you have said, a substantial part of the Democratic Party remains a prisoner to ‘ethnocentric myths’.

Yes. [Foreign minister] Vuk Jeremić advocates Serbian neutrality. He is more of a Koštunica than a Tadić man .

Jeremić personifies the policy based on the incantation that Kosovo is Serbia. What does this waste of time and money mean for Serbia?

They are not bothered by it. They believe that the international context is such that it will permit them to realise their aspirations in Bosnia, and return Montenegro to the ‘maternal womb’. According to their analyses, the EU will break up or they will enter it on their own terms. They think that they can continue to take funds from the EU, funds that have been indispensable to Serbia’s survival. Roads, schools and hospitals have all been rebuilt since 2000 with EU funds. The government is barely surviving, and that is all it cares for.

Their state concept is centralist and as such is blocking Serbia’s development. This is highlighted by the situation linked to the Vojvodina statute, which gives the province a degree of autonomy that is minimal even in relation to the constitution of 2006. Yet the academicians are signing petitions against it. They resist any innovation that leads to democracy, and have brought the whole country to a standstill. Belgrade has become a problem for all of Serbia - a generator of anomie.

Is Doris Pack right then to speak about you being ‘negative’?

I insisted on the fact that the wars in the former Yugoslavia were prepared by way of culture, the essence of which remains the same as in Milošević’s time, in that culture and politics continue to be linked at the symbolic level. The model based on the ethnos remains dominant, which works against minorities and the region as a whole. EU’s help in creating an alternative cultural infrastructure is needed in order to re-activate a different culture elite.

Alternative communications do exist in the region, especially among young people, creating the potential for a normalisation of relations across the region as a whole. Confrontation with the past should be shifted to the cultural sphere, because this is the only way that young people find acceptable. But our problems are essentially far deeper in nature, since a structure exists that is not ready to open up. They know they are in trouble. The government knows where Ratko Mladić is, but is discouraging anyone from seeking him there. The genocide in Srebrenica is now being denied, with the government saying that history alone will tell what actually happened there. And they place the recent war events in Croatia and Bosnia in the context of 1945-95. They are far more ready to deny the genocide in Srebrenica today than a few years ago. They keep saying history, but what history? Others too, surely, have something to do with the past.

This explains why Jasenovac is constantly evoked in the context of Croatian-Serbian relations?

This is a reference used to mobilise Croatian and Bosnian Serbs: the number of victims, the digging up of graves. Instead of moving on, we return to the past. Vučić’s recent visit [to Croatia] proved, however, that the Croatian Serbs displayed political maturity, in that they resisted this manipulation.

Are Croatian-Serbian relations as bad as the politicians are saying?

They have moved on at the cultural and economic levels, but not at the political. Thus, for example, no one met with the Croatian ambassador on his departure from Serbia. There is a refusal to accept the new reality, including the new borders, combined with a desire to redraw the map of the Balkans.

What about the people in Kosovo? The latest events there confirm us in the view that Serbia is paying corrupt state security officials and sleepers of various sorts there, while stories about ordinary folk are presented against a background of dilapidated houses and children walking to school under military protection. The Helsinki Committee itself researched the situation. Has anything changed since?

They are not interested in the Serbs or anyone else, but only and above all in territory. This is particularly discouraging. Despite all the defeats, Dobrica Ćosić argues that we have not been defeated, because we have won Republika Srpska, thanks mainly to Radovan Karadžić. Eighty per cent of Kosovo Serbs live in the enclaves and are against Kosovo’s partition. Their average age is over fifty, and they have been left completely exposed. The Serbian government expects that they will either leave or die out in due course. They no longer complain about ethnic violence, but - in the conversations we had with them - about Kosovska Mitrovica and Belgrade. They insist that they have got practically nothing from the manipulation with Serbian state funds, other then some humanitarian aid.

You are talking about Kosovo south of the river Ibar. What did your Committee learn from talking with the Serbs who live there?

Ten years have passed since the departure of the Serbian state administration, since the Kumanovo Agreement, and it is obvious that they will not leave. But there are also some who might do so, provided they can sell their land more or less well, depending on its location. It is evident, however, that they have found a way of living with Albanians: they have economic and at times even family ties with them. But no one talks about that or concentrates on it, in order to make it appear that Serbs and Albanians cannot live together, just as Serbs cannot live with Bosniaks or Croats. A stereotype is being maintained that does not correspond to the truth.

But there have been many incidents that have made the Serbs feel insecure.

Not all that many in the last few years, since the March 2004 violence. And it is by no means certain who were the true instigators of some of those incidents. There has never in fact been any proper investigation of such events. This only encourages fear. We heard in our conversations with Kosovo Serbs that the fear did not last, long, especially in the towns, where they communicate with Albanians. They all know that they must live together. Both the Albanians and the Serbs are keen to do something. There is a lot of work to be done, of course, in creating a society based on stable institutions, and it would be good if Belgrade were to participate in this. So that the Serbs can remain in Kosovo and be a link to the Albanian community there.

How justified was your insistence in Brussels that Serbia rejects the concept of human rights? On the other hand, there is Ćosić’s assertion that ‘human rights will destroy the Serb identity’.

Campaigns against the advocates of human rights are an attack on the very concept itself, as being neo-liberal and Anglo-Saxon, hence by definition injurious to Serbdom. The financial crisis is now taken as a mighty proof that the advocates of this thesis are right: that the West will fall apart, that America, capitalism and the European Union will disappear. With such views and analyses, they see a chance to wait for Bosnia to be partitioned, when they will be able to take what they see as their part.

Maybe you yourself are now falling into the trap of stereotyping? Some of those close to the government have a different view.

We are talking about actual practice. Thus for example, in the case of minorities - ethnic, religious and politically vulnerable groups - who are everywhere seen as a test of democracy, we see that they are constantly under attack. This shows the government’s attitude to the other, the different. Over the past two decades, Serbia with its radical nationalism has excluded the minorities from politics.

But this government has for a long time had a law on national minorities that conforms to the highest European standards.

Yes, but is it implemented? What has happened to the minorities in Vojvodina, the Sandžak, southern Serbia? They have divided the Muslim community, invented Wahabites, kept them in the centre of media attention. Not being able to prove anything against those people, they have talked about what they were intending to do. This is used as proof that the Serbs were fighting in Bosnia against terrorists, in line with 9/11.

You think that the secret police is behind that notion?

Yes. In the case of Vojvodina, the stress continues to be placed upon its becoming ethnically Serb. Since the Hungarians alone have the capacity of being a partner, Vojvodina has been reduced to Serb-Hungarian relations. Here too one can see the attitude towards a minority that has segregated itself under the pressure of nationalism, as the other minorities have done. The Croats have fallen silent, having disappeared from some areas (Hrtkovci, Srijem, the border with Croatia). Such small minorities are under pressure to assimilate, and do not have the strength to resist. There is much talk about the Roma Decade, despite the racism directed against them.

With regard to minorities, the most important question is that of atmosphere. The state is the one to create an atmosphere in which citizens can feel free and secure. But there exist various right-wing groups which have links with political parties and the media, and which are greatly tolerated. They are linked also to certain state structures. It is said that they are few in number. We too are few in number, yet we do not have such a presence in the media. Except when they attack us.

In Serbia it is widely believed that Serbs cannot be racists, antisemitic, genocidal.

Most important is the treatment. Thus, for example, the tourist map of Serbia shows not a single location with a Catholic church. The street lamps do not work in the part of Zemun where the Catholic church is located. You may say that your house too lies in darkness, but the minority feels this differently. A cultural model that is strongly ethnocentric was promoted under Koštunica. We do not have any representation of minorities in the schools - it is as if they did not exist. They are not included in Serbia’s identity, which under Košrunica was reduced to Serbdom and Orthodoxy.

What other forms of human-rights violation have ben detected by the Helsinki Committee?

This whole anomie affects citizens. It is difficult to reach the courts, and trials are not fair. Then there is the behaviour of the police and of officials. All citizens of Serbia are under threat, especially in regard to social rights, about which they complain most when they come to our office. Political and civic freedoms are less important to them.

Do you see any change for the better in the future?

Yes, in the cultural sphere, where young people are showing interest in one another, in travel, in cinematography, the theatre, literature. This should be utilised. But the great problem is how to break through the blockade, because the ethno-elite controls all the institutions. How to deal with this? I think the whole of the Western Balkans should already have been taken into the European Union, and been treated in a special way. This is because the blockade is further destroying society’s liberal potential. One cannot compare an old EU state with one that is now entering the EU with all its patriarchal and authoritarian baggage. There should be differentiation - but the Balkans should promptly go into the European Union.

On the other hand, you criticise the European Union for its leniency?

The EU has proved unable to deal with this area. I am talking about the decomposition of a state. What it needs is a management that would bring it out of anomie. I am not sure that Serbia is capable of doing this on its own, despite the fact of EU involvement over the past nine years. What is worrying here is that Serbia is purposefully keeping itself back - it does not want to surrender Mladić, it does not want to proceed with integration.

In other words, the old great-state project is still active, albeit in increasingly comical forms?

It sounds strange, but that is true. Why is Serbia refusing to surrender Mladić and Goran Hadžić? Are they so important that the whole country must be blocked? We have seen that people did not react when other national heroes were arrested. Nationalism has not disappeared, but public opinion has changed, because what matters to people is what to eat, not whether Radovan Karadžić is in The Hague.

Croatia and Serbia are suing each other before the International Court of Justice in The Hague. Years have passed since the end of the Balkans wars, yet there is no accepted truth about them.

The aggression against Croatia is never discussed. It is unlikely that Croatia will be able to prove genocide, but it should be possible to say what happened. Serbia’s behaviour over the past few years has aroused additional suspicion in the region, which is why the cases are being filed. So that the evidence can once again be aired, so that one can say what happened. The fact that in 1991 an international conference took place in The Hague, under the auspices of the European Community, at which maximal guarantees were offered to the Serb people throughout the former Yugoslavia, is not often mentioned in Serbia. Nor the fact that a formula was offered for a modus vivendi among the Yugoslav nations, with the aim of preserving a Yugoslav framework. This was a maximal solution that everyone accepted except for Slobodan Milošević, who believed he had the JNA on his side. While the conference was taking place, he was waging war in Vukovar, Dubrovnik, at all key points in Croatia. After he had occupied thirty per cent of that country, he brought in the UN.

The Serbian government behaves as if it has not read the verdict of the International Court of Justice, which found it guilty for not preventing genocide. Though shameful for that international body, and a warning for the country to which it referred, the verdict was met here with celebrations.

Indeed, from the moment they got the verdict, everything has been moving in the opposite direction. They celebrate, while repeating that ‘history will show’ what really happened. And the framework is 1945-95, because if they were to win Republika Srpska, then it would turn out that they had waged a war for re-composition of the Balkans, as Dobrica Ćosić insists.

Translated from the Belgrade-based E-novine.com website, 15 December 2008

source: http://www.bosnia.org.uk/news/news_body.cfm?newsid=2532