Peace picks July 11 – July 15
1) HEARING: Human rights under siege worldwide | Tuesday, July 12th | 10:00 AM | 2172 Rayburn House Office Building | Chairman Royce on the hearing: “Human rights violations are on the rise around the world. In Iran, the courts carry out public amputations and floggings. In Putin’s Russia, journalists are jailed for exposing government corruption and reporting the facts. In failed states like Syria, we’ve seen abhorrent treatment of civilians, including genocide. We’ve even seen backsliding in respect for human rights among established democracies. These are disturbing trends, and this hearing will seek answers on how the U.S. should respond.” Witnesses include: The Honorable Mark P. Lagon, President of Freedom House. Thomas Farr, Ph.D., President of the Religious Freedom Institute. Ms. Amanda Schnetzer, Director of the Human Freedom Initiativeat the George W. Bush Institute. Mr. Mark Bromley, Chair at the Council for Global Equality
2) Economic and Labor Reform in Bahrain | Wednesday, July 13th | 12:00 PM | Brookings | Click HERE to register | No country in the Gulf region and perhaps in the broader Arab world has thought about and experimented with reform more than the Kingdom of Bahrain. Indeed, Manama was setting up economic visions of the future long before the trend became popular. However, the country’s reform process faces various challenges, posed by an ongoing political crisis at home and an increasingly turbulent regional environment. Ausamah Abdulla Al Absi, Chief Executive Officer of the Kingdom of Bahrain’s Labour Market Regulatory Authority (LMRA), will join the Atlantic Council to discuss Bahrain’s reform accomplishments and shortcomings and lay out the country’s path toward sustainable development. In his capacity as head of the LMRA, Mr. Al Absi is responsible for realizing Bahrain’s economic reform plan. Since its inception in 2006, the LMRA has played a crucial role in HRH Crown Prince Salman bin Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa’s economic reform program. Additionally, the large and vastly important institution oversees the implementation of Bahrain Vision 2030. Speakers include:
Ausamah Abdulla Al Absi, CEO of the Labour Market Regulatory Authority, Kingdom of Bahrain Introduced by: Barry Pavel, Vice President, Arnold Kanter Chair, and Director of the Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security at the Atlantic Council. Moderated by: Bilal Y. Saab, Director, Middle East Peace and Security Initiative, Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security Atlantic Council.
3) Blasphemy Laws and Censorship by States and Non-State Actors: Examining Global Threats to Freedom of Expression | Thursday, July 14th | 2:00 PM | 2322 Rayburn House Office Building, click HERE for event details | The Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission | The Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission will hold a hearing that will examine blasphemy laws, state censorship, actions by non-state actors, and other threats to freedom of expression around the world. This hearing will examine these issues, while seeking to provide concrete recommendations for how U.S. policy makers can most effectively encourage the protection of freedom of expression around the globe. This hearing will be open to members of Congress, congressional staff, the interested public and the media. The event will be hosted by Joseph R. Pitts, M.C. and Co-Chairman, TLHRC. James P. McGovern, M.C. and Co-Chairman, TLHRC.
Panel I:
David N. Saperstein, Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom, U.S. Department of State
Panel II:
Rev. Thomas J. Reese, S.J., Chairman, U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom
Panel III:
Ms. Vanessa Tucker, Vice President for Analysis, Freedom House
Ms. Nina Shae, Director, Hudson Institute Center for Religious Freedom
Dr. Karin Karlekar, Director of Free Expression Programs, PEN America
Dr. Courtney C. Radsch, Advocacy Director, Committee to Protect Journalists
Mr. Wael Aleji, Spokesperson, Syrian Network for Human Rights
4) After Fallujah: Security, Governance, and the Next Battle Against ISIS | Friday, July 15th | 12:00 PM – 1:30 PM | Middle East Institute hosted at the Johns Hopkins Kennedy Auditorium | Click here to register | Iraqi forces have expelled the Islamic State (ISIS) from Fallujah, but difficult work lies ahead to retake the territory still under ISIS control, provide security, and rebuild. Restoring government and the rule of law, returning the displaced, and rebuilding homes and infrastructure will be crucial for sustaining the victory. Who will have the power and legitimacy to manage local resources and services? What will it take for civilians to return? Can the Popular Mobilization Forces that played an important role in the liberation of Fallujah be demobilized or absorbed into the army, or will they remain independent power centers? The Middle East Institute (MEI) and the Conflict Management Program at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) are pleased to host Robert S. Ford (MEI), Charles Lister (MEI), Jessica Lewis McFate (Institute for the Study of War), and Douglas Ollivant (New America) for a discussion of these and other questions regarding the aftermath of Fallujah, how ISIS may react in defeat, and the challenges ahead facing the liberation of Mosul.
5) How to Defeat Terrorism in Iraq | Wednesday, July 20th | 10:30-12:00| The Institute for World Politics | Click here to RSVP | Sheikh Jamal al-Dhari will share his vision for his country: a political re-crafting of the existing government structure away from sectarianism and towards a new constitution based on Iraqi national citizenship and inclusive of participation from all sectarian communities. HE Sheikh Jamal al-Dhari is the Chairman of the Iraq National Project and President of Peace Ambassadors for Iraq (PAFI). One of the leaders of the al-Zoba tribe in Iraq, he is the nephew of the late Islamic scholar and religious leader. Sheikh Harith al-Dhari Jamal was born in the Abu Ghraib district of Iraq on July 16, 1965. He grew up within the al-Zoba tribe and in the 1970s he attended the Hafsa School. In the 1980s, Jamal was conscripted into the Iraqi Army to fight in the Iran- Iraq War. During his time on the frontline, he fought alongside both Sunni and Shia officers and friends, in the Iraqi Republican Guard. Following the 2003 invasion of Iraq by coalition forces, Jamal was a strong proponent of Iraqi nationalism and self-rule. In 2005, he and his family fought against al-Qaeda’s occupation of Iraqi territory and, as a consequence, Jamal lost 70 members of his family in the struggle. In 2014, Jamal helped to establish the nonprofit think tank Peace Ambassadors for Iraq, whose purpose is to advocate for a renewed system of government in Iraq, to determine the best policies to fully eliminate ISIS/Daesh and other terrorist forces from Iraq, and to build international support for an all-inclusive Iraq. Presently, Jamal is working for a renewal in Iraq by forging a non-sectarian and inclusive settlement for all Iraqis.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Shape up, anything else is coddling
I disagree with much of what two of my dearest SAIS colleagues and their associate say in a recent Foreign Affairs article advocating greater EU and US backing for the Balkans. They argue that in the wake of Brexit,
European leaders, and perhaps those in Washington too, need to roll out a bold new plan for Europe. Enlarging the union by finally extending a hand to the Balkans would be a good place to start.
That’s wrong on two counts.
First, the Union has been extending a hand to the Balkans for more than twenty years, with some positive results: Slovenian and Croatian membership above all, as well as progress in Albania, Montenegro and Serbia. Even Macedonia, Kosovo and Bosnia, which are stymied by their own internal problems, have gained important access to EU markets and have begun adopting the acquis communautaire. None of the non-members will be ready before 2020, but some could hope for accession shortly after that.
Second, EU accession has in fact become more difficult due to Brexit, no matter what Chancellor Merkel (or my colleagues) say. The Brexit campaign unabashedly used immigration from the Balkans as one of its talking points. No one should imagine that ratification of an accession treaty with Albania, Montenegro or Serbia would be easier today than it was a couple of weeks ago. Brexit has consequences. The EU club has become harder to get into.
The only concrete advantage the Foreign Affairs article offers as an example of the advantages of additional Balkans membership in the EU is this:
For example, if the Balkans were incorporated into the EU, Brussels could help fund temporary shelters for Syrian refugees that land in the Balkans and facilitate better registration and processing.
But the EU could do what they suggest without adding any Balkan members, just as it has already done with Turkey. And the article suggests many good reasons why the EU should hesitate on accession: ethnic strife, corrosive politics, corruption, and organized crime.
The right lesson to be drawn from Brexit is not that the EU should open its arms wider. That isn’t going to happen, because EU members are all democracies that have to reckon with domestic political reactions. The right lesson is that non-EU Balkan countries need to shape up and meet the increasingly stringent requirements the EU has imposed since the arguably premature accession of Bulgaria and Romania.
The long pole in the EU membership tent throughout the Balkans is rule of law, which is weak and inconsistent. When a Serb can get a fair trial in a Kosovo court without international judges or prosecutors, when crooked politicians and their organized crime enablers are routinely prosecuted in Albania and Bosnia, when Serb politicians and generals answer for their 1990s war crimes in Serbian courts, then the Balkans will be ready for EU membership. If I were a citizen in one of the potential EU members, I would be doing everything I could to hasten the day, not pleading for special dispensation that is unlikely to come.
None of the non-EU Balkan countries is so big or problematic as Turkey. The largest is Serbia, at a bit over 7 million and declining (less than 10% of the population of Turkey). They will all be minor burdens on the EU budget and suppliers of needed cheap labor and taxpayers. Three are majority Muslim (Bosnia by a hair, Albania and Kosovo by more), but their Islam is fundamentally moderate. The Islamic State had a spurt of success recruiting in the Balkans, but that appears to have subsided in the wake of its military defeats and Balkan government crackdowns.
The best backing friends of the Balkans can give is to help them shape up for EU membership as soon as possible. Anything else is coddling.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Accountability should finish at home
I signed this open letter concerning Serbian lack of prosecution of war criminals, in particular the murderers of the Bytyqi brothers, but let me add that I feel no less strongly about Kosovar, Bosnian and Croatian failures in this domain. All their now more or less democratic governments need to take a hard look in the mirror and get busy with the difficult business of holding people accountable for horrendous crimes in the 1990s. Accountability may not start at home, but it should finish there.
OPEN LETTER TO
JOSEPH BIDEN, THE U.S. VICE PRESIDENT,
JOHN KERRY, THE U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE,
FEDERICA MOGHERINI, HIGH REPRESENTATIVE OF THE E.U. FOR
FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND SECURITY POLICY,
JOHANNES HAHN, E.U. COMMISSIONER FOR EUROPEAN NEIGHBOURHOOD POLICY & ENLARGEMENT NEGOTIATIONS,
THE EUROPEAN UNION FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL,
THE U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, AND
THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
As former representatives of the United States government, authors, human rights activists, and academics who have closely followed the breakup of the former Yugoslavia and Serbia’s subsequent efforts to resolve the many war crimes committed during that period, we are deeply concerned by the slow pace of Serbia’s domestic war crimes prosecutions, including its failure to resolve the murders of Ylli, Agron, and Mehmet Bytyqi, three brothers who were executed and dumped on top of a mass grave seventeen years ago today.
Since the position’s inception in 2003, the Serbian war crimes prosecutor has indicted no senior Serbian military or police officials, no government officials, and no persons of any rank involved in the removal from Kosovo and reburial in Serbia of more than 900 Albanian bodies – a deliberate “cover-up operation”.[i] Prosecutors filed only seven indictments in 2014, the majority of which were the result of complete investigatory files transferred from prosecutors in Bosnia and Herzegovina.[ii] In 2015, they only issued two, neither of which was confirmed.[iii] This is not a record to be proud of.
In the Bytyqi case, a Serbian President[iv] and the two most recent Prime Ministers[v] have repeatedly promised resolution since 2006, but have failed to take adequate steps to secure this result. Instead, reports indicate that a primary suspect has intimidated witnesses and remains close to senior members of the current government.[vi]
International and domestic NGOs, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and the European Commission, have diagnosed numerous problems with Serbia’s war crimes record. Uniformly, each cites a lack of political will and political interference as impeding accountability.[vii]
Similarly, witnesses will never come forward and cases will not be resolved when government Ministers host “welcome home” parties[viii] for returning convicts of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and suggest there be a political loyalty test when selecting the chief war crimes prosecutor.[ix]
Though the ICTY is winding down, the hard work for its countries of focus is nowhere near complete. Across the Balkans, tens of thousands of victims and their families deserve closure. Henceforth, only domestic prosecutions will have the ability to deliver them justice.
To date, Serbia’s record has been a dismal one that is ultimately unacceptable. Therefore, we urge you and the entities you represent to take constructive steps to ensure better commitment and effort by Serbia’s leaders and institutions to resolve war crimes cases, including the Bytyqi Brothers case. This issue should be raised as part of your continuing dialogue with the Serbian government, parliament and civil society leaders.
Sincerely, Read more
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
America is already great
On Wednesday, June 29, the Atlantic Council hosted the first public presentation of Pew Research Center’s 2016 annual report on America’s global image, followed by a discussion on international views of America’s role in the world. The discussion was facilitated by Molly O’Toole, Senior Reporter at the Foreign Policy Magazine, and featured David Rennie, Washington Bureau Chief and Lexington Columnist at The Economist, and Richard Wike, Director of Global Attitudes Research at the Pew Research Center.
Wike presented the key findings, which aim to gauge America’s international image. Contrary to claims of increased anti-American sentiment, America’s image remains strong and largely favorable in the countries surveyed, which however exclude Latin America, Africa and the Middle East. More than 50% in every country surveyed (10 European, 4 Asia-Pacific countries, and Canada) expressed a favorable opinion of the US. The exception was Greece, where only 38% embrace this sentiment. Other recent Pew studies suggest the US enjoys a positive image around the globe, including 56% of Indians and 50% of Chinese, with young people much more likely to have a positive opinion, though Wike noted that “young people around the world are more positive towards the US, more positive towards China, more positive towards the UN — they are just more positive, more internationalist.”
In 15 out of 16 countries (Greece again being the exception), the majority expressed support for US-led military intervention against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. This support is remarkably high in most Western European countries, including France (84%), Sweden (81%), the UK (71%), and Germany (71%). This response is different from reactions to all previous US-led interventions in the Middle East. According to Rennie, the refugee crisis, coupled with the increase in the number and magnitude of terrorist attacks, have rendered ISIS the highest security threat in Europe. The fight against ISIS is not seen in Europe as a quarrel in a far away country, but rather as an issue that directly affects European citizens.
The Pew survey also indicates that while America was able to regain perceived primacy as the global economic power — which for the past few years most people attributed to China — perception of US respect for personal freedoms at home remains relatively weak. Only 53% of Western Europeans think the US respects the human rights of its inhabitants. This is lower than 2008, the final year of the Bush presidency. Edward Snowden’s revelations about the NSA’s surveillance programs, increased awareness of unauthorized interrogation techniques used in the post-9/11 era, as well as the controversies regarding police treatment of African-Americans and other minorities likely contributed to the decline. Rennie observed that America’s reputation for upholding individual liberty constitutes an important source of soft power and gives a degree of credibility to US interventions. Government officials should work on improving America’s international perception regarding respect for human rights and liberties.
The panelists all agreed that America’s global image is highly personified in the President: who is in the White House has a tremendous impact on how people around the world see the US. After the start of the Iraq War in 2003, President Bush suffered negative ratings in most parts of the world and Pew observed a significant rise in anti-Americanism in most regions. The image of the United States has improved immensely in most regions after Obama was elected as a President in 2008, a shift that was particularly pronounced in Western Europe.
O’Toole suggested that the 2016 Presidential elections will have a tremendous effect on how people globally view the US. Wike substantiated this claim with hard data. The newest Pew study finds a remarkably negative assessment of Trump, with 85% of Europeans lacking confidence in him, and a median of only 9% confident in his ability to handle international affairs. While not as enthusiastic as for Obama, most Europeans still look at Hillary Clinton favorably. A median of 59% express confidence in her. As Rennie observed,
the caricature of Bush is fairly close to what Trump tells his supporters he will be….Everything that Europe thought they disliked about George W. Bush, Donald Trump is currently telling his supporters is what he will deliver.
As O’Toole noted, both Pew surveys and other evidence invalidate the almost trite claim that today the US is neither respected by its allies nor feared by its adversaries. However, this might in fact change with the 2016 elections. If America’s global image really is personified in the President — as the panelists contended — then we need to envisage Donald Trump, with his 9% favorability rate in Western Europe, personifying America. Recognizing the complexity of the current state of international affairs, and the serious challenges that plague the world, more fear everywhere is nearly guaranteed, while allies’ respect practically inconceivable.
For now, however, America’s global image remains strong and largely favorable.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Careless but not prosecutable
FBI Director Comey seems to me to have it right: Secretary of State Clinton was “extremely careless” in handling classified material, but for prosecution the law requires that she mishandled it intentionally or with gross negligence. That standard, he thought, could not be met by any reasonable prosecutor.
I’ll get in trouble for this: the system, as Donald Trump says, is rigged. It is rigged in favor of the accused. It is rigged the same way with respect to criminal fraud charges against his Trump “University,” not to mention his importation of foreign workers to serve as waiters in a state with a high unemployment rate.
Comey got the analysis correct, but he did not quite capture my personal feelings on the subject. All material of an official character going to or coming from the Secretary of State in my experience is classified. When I was a director in the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research more than 20 years ago, I would occasionally write pieces for the Secretary based entirely on publicly available material. They went up to the Secretary classified “confidential.” When I asked why, the answer was unequivocal: you wrote it and it is being read by the Secretary. That’s enough reason, I was told.
I objected at the time, but in retrospect I was wrong. It is one thing for me as a private person to speculate on the virtues of partitioning Cyprus. It is quite another for me as a State Department official to suggest that US policy be changed to support the idea. Words have consequences. They can be stabilizing half a world away. There are a lot of ideas floating around the bureaucracy, some of them bad. Government would be impossible if all of them were made public.
That doesn’t mean classification of information isn’t overdone. It often is. I wondered when I was in government whether we were protecting national security information, or just how little we knew. President Bush blundered to war in Iraq on the basis of inadequate and false information. Tony Blair blithely followed his lead. Journalists I knew at the time were convinced that the Iraqi “weapons of mass destruction” were non-existent, but the Administration managed to squelch any serious discussion of that possibility. No doubt both Bush and Blair would have benefited from a more open flow of ideas and analysis.
But that is not what Hillary Clinton did. She arranged her email to her personal convenience, as if the rules did not apply to her. That is the real issue underlying this and many other criticisms of Hillary, whom I support for President. But she betrays an arrogance about whether the rules apply to her. Permitting Huma Abedin, a government official, to be employed also outside the government is another glaring example.
This contrasts sharply with one of Barack Obama’s unsung virtues: he usually avoids skirting the rules. And when he does, it is not for his personal gain (examples: his effort to loosen immigration rules by presidential decree, or if you like Solyndra). We haven’t had a White House involved in less personal scandal than his for many years.
I like to think Hillary Clinton can reform. She needs to own up fully to her mistake in handling emails while Secretary of State and pledge to run an Administration strictly within the letter and spirit of the law. Careless but not prosecutable is not an adequate standard for the Presidency.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Turning the clock back
I received this long letter (only slightly edited for spelling and other minor errors) from a group of people listed at the end. I was amused by its accusation that I favor Republika Srpska, since the authorities in that part of Bosnia and Herzegovina regard me as one of its sworn enemies. That said, the letter raises interesting questions about the validity of the Dayton constitution, without however offering any practical alternative in my view.
We are writing to you following the interview you gave to Aljazeera Balkans of June this year where you made a number of claims and statements in relation to Bosnia and Herzegovina that we find unacceptable, and some of them also untrue and incorrect.
As you also used a pronoun ‘we’ in the same interview, we would like to ask you to confirm to us if you were speaking on behalf of the US State Department or if it was just a ‘slip of the tongue’? The way you presented your views and analysis to the critical judgement of the public in the interview left us under the impression that you were trying to impose them on the public as the only possible solutions. One would have expected you to act as an independent and well-meaning analyst. However, given the way you made your claims we felt that you were favoring Serbia and its interests of safeguarding the genocidal creation called Republika Srpska (further referred to as RS).
We would like to reflect on some of the claims you made during the interview:
– You claimed that the genocidal entity called RS was in the state of ‘transitional democracy’. We have never known a language where ‘transitional democracy’ is synonymous to Fascism and Neonazism, neither of which bear even a slightest resemblance to even the most primitive form of democracy. Therefore, apart from that claim of yours being untrue and incorrect, we find it also to be a very damaging and unacceptable promotional stunt favoring RS.
– You claimed that the Dayton Constitution has to be amended (or ‘reformed’). As someone who worked closely with Richard Holbrooke on creating Dayton Peace Accords one would expect you to reflect on it over the time, and to admit to yourself, at least from this time distance, what we all already know. And we have known for long that Dayton Peace Accords are a criminal agreement in that it rewarded genocide, war crimes, and aggression, and suspended the only legal Constitution – the Constitution of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina that had already extsted. It was a move that nobody had either a moral or legal right to make. We believe that you are familiar with the fact that the Constitution of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina was confirmed by the majority vote of the Bosnian citizens at the referendum of 29 February and 1 March 1992 as an expression of the highest level of democracy.
On the other hand, Annex IV of Dayton Peace Accords, which is considered to be the Bosnian Constitution at present, is illegal as it has ever been endorsed by the Bosnian Parliament, and as it is being breached by everybody, and in particular by Dodik on a regular basis.
We believe that you are well aware that Dayton Peace Accords, and Dayton ‘Constitution’ alike, are completely dysfunctional. Therefore, we are struggling to understand why you still continue to persist on it? The only reason we can see behind it could be that it is the only way to preserve the genocidal creation called RS as Serbia’s criminal war gain. So, we would like to ask you to put forward the arguments in your response to us that would prove us wrong with respect to those intents.
One cannot talk of any changes or ‘reforms’ to the Dayton ‘Constitution’ as the ‘Constitution’ itself is contrary to the basic international laws, Conventions, and the UN Charter. Such a ‘Constitution’ is contrary to the human rights and freedoms which explains why it has been defeated, and in effect, terminated several times at the European Human Rights Court in Strasbourg.
It may be that due to the way you feel about Dayton Peace Accords as its co-author you don’t seem to want to concede that Dayton Peace Accords, and ultimately Dayton ‘Constitution’, are the main and only obstacles to any progress of Bosnia and Herzegovina including the progress towards the Euro-Atlantic integrations which, at the same time you yourself (sic!) seem to be favoring.
– It is an unbeatable fact that Dayton ‘Constitution’ has to be terminated, and not changed or ‘reformed’ as you say, as it is morally and legally unacceptable, and as much as the whole of Dayton Peace Accords, it is the main obstacle to any progress of our country. Besides, the International Community have meant [the] Dayton Peace Accords to be only a temporary solution that was to stop the war. Please don’t try to affirm it as a permanent solution.
– In the same interview of June you were staunchly defending the April Package of the constitutional changes that you also co-authored. That was a ‘package’ of requests made by Milorad Dodik which the US State Department tried to push through via McElhaney and some of our politicians led by Sulejman Tihic. Its one and only aim was to preserve the genocidal RS, and to give it a right to veto as well as the decision-making powers that would be based on ethnicity which would have copper-fastened the genocidal entity, and made Bosnia and Herzegovina dissolve.
Although the Bosnian Parliament rejected the April Package, given your criticism of Haris Silajdzic in your interview of June this year, it appears that you still intend on continuing to pursue the April Package. And, we believe that you are well aware of the facts that the April Package would have copper-fastened the genocidal apartheid called RS. Therefore, all of us who took part in preventing an attempt to copper-fasten the genocidal creation called RS, strongly condemn and fully reject any such criticism of yours.
We would like to invite you to work hard on terminating the genocidal creation called RS, being led and guided by the international laws and Convention on Genocide Prevention and Punishment. Although we believe that you are well familiar with the International Court of Justice Judgement of 27 February 2007 which declared RS guilty of act of genocide, we would still like to remind you of it. Anything that has been created on genocide cannot continue to exist as it is legally invalid and void. Article 297. of the Judgement reads as follows:
297. The Court concludes that acts committed in Srebrenica, which fall within Article II(a) and (b) of the Convention, had been carried out with a specific intention to destroy in part a group of Bosnian Muslims as such; and accordingly, those represent acts of genocide which were committed by the Bosnian Serb Army (VRS) in Srebrenica and the surrounding area starting on 13 Juy 1995.
Based on that Judgement the genocidal entity RS is legally untenable – bearing in mind the ius cogens principle, the UN Charter, and the Convention on Genocide Prevention and Punishment, and with genocide having been committed in all of the country, and not just in Srebrenica. The fact that Annex VII of Dayton Peace Accords has been breached due to the Fascism and apartheid that is being carried out by the genocidal creation RS, only means that genocide continues. The fact that one of the key conditions of Dayton Peace Accords continues to be breached makes Dayton Peace Accords legally void and voidable as per Contract law.
According to both the country’s and international laws, the citizens have every right to revert to the previous Constitution which is the Constitution of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. There is no need to reform that Constitution as it is a civilian and European one, and as it is based on civil rights and freedoms.
– At 13:57 minute of your interview of June, speaking of the ‘constitutional reforms’ you contradicted yourself by saying:
‘We need to strengthen the government in Sarajevo’, and ‘That also means devolution of powers to entitites, cantons, and municipalities’.
Do not those two statements exclude each other?
Your statement on ‘devolution of powers’ led us to conclude that you support not only the preservation of the genocidal RS, but that you are also very much in favor of further decentralization of the Federation, which is unacceptable, and leads to the total destruction of the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and gettoization of its Bosniak-Muslim majority population which would be squeezed to live on 24% of its territory till they finally disappear. At the same time RS would remain unitarian, monoethnic creation built on genocide of Bosniaks and Bosnian Catholics.
– In the same interview you also stated that you would ask Serbia for help with devolution of powers in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It is both unacceptable and illegitimate for anyone to ask or encourage a foreign country to interfere or intervene in our internal affairs. And, to make it sound even worse than it already is such an ‘invite’ is being made to the country that committed an act of aggression on us, and occupied half of our territory having also committed genocide in the process. Is not inviting Serbia to interfere in our country in any way, including ‘help with devolution of powers’ an act of aggression on Bosnia and Herzegovina? Having signed Dayton Peace Accords, both Serbia and Croatia in effect admitted to committing an act of aggression on our country. By signing Dayton Peace Accords they both agreed to respect the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of our country, and not to continue the aggression on our country. Or, perhaps you are inclined to interpret their signatures as their right to intervene and interfere in our country any way they want- be it as they please or with the help and encouragement of the international community? Does that not constitute an act of aggression in international law?
Never in its 1,000 years old history has any part of our country been part of Serbia. But Sandzak which is now part of Serbia historically has been part of our country. Applying the same logic of ‘asking for help with devolution of powers’ would mean that we have even a much greater (and historically well founded) right to interfere in the internal affairs of Serbia and the way it should be organised as a state. Finally, given that for us Serbia is an aggressor, and still a Fascist country (judging by who sits in its government and Parliament), we would like to ask if you would find it acceptable for Nazi Germany (if it, hypothetically, still existed) to be a ‘tutor’ to one of the countries with the majority Jewish population, that it had occupied, and where it had committed Holocaust and war crimes?
– We would like to remind you of the historic fact that no Serbs or Croats ever lived in our country until the second half of the 19th century. There was only one people- Bosniaks of three different confessions that also welcomed Sephardic Jews from Spain who settled in our country, and have been living with us since. And our country was never part of either Croatian or Serbian territory. Unlike Serbia, we do not base our history on myths and lies, but on the actual historical facts and documents that nobody has any right to either deny or disregard. Read more
RSS - Posts
