Peace Implementation


Plans for Bosnia's first Pride parade prompt backlash

An announcement by activists in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BH) that the first official LGBT parade will take place in the capital Sarajevo on 8 September has attracted mixed response on social media but very little official comment.

Vladana Vasic, one of the organisers, announced the Coming Out Now parade at a midday news conference on 1 April because "it is High Noon in this country when it comes to LGBTIQ people's rights".

Another organiser, Lejla Huremovic, said Pride parades were a powerful political tool to achieve quick changes in the fight for "freedom of all individuals and groups which face discrimination and violence and which are excluded from society in any way", Radio Sarajevo news portal reported.

Sarajevo authorities have denied permission for similar marches and protests on several occasions.

The government of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, one of the two entities which make up the country, in October 2018 endorsed the legalisation of same-sex marriages. According to Bosnian Federation Prime Minister Fadil Novalic, the decision was part of BH's EU accession process.

Local media have noted that politicians for the most part failed to comment on the parade announcement.

Samra Cosovic-Hajdarevic, a deputy of the Party of Democratic Action (SDA) in Sarajevo Canton, drew criticism when she described the march as a "terrible" idea aimed at "destroying the state and its people" on her Facebook page.

In a post which was subsequently removed, she said she wanted "such people to be isolated and moved as far as possible from our children and society".

The SDA branch of Sarajevo Canton issued a statement urging organisers and Sarajevo Canton authorities to abandon plans for the parade.

Sarajevo Canton Assembly Chairman Elmedin Konakovic commented that he personally did not support the parade as he "was brought up in a traditional way, in the spirit of faith", but that he was "against violence or calls for a lynch".

Calls for violence

Reaction on social media has ranged from Facebook posts attracting hundreds of responses to polls in the local media.

One of the first to tweet his support for the parade was UK Ambassador to BH, Matt Field, who promised "we shall proudly march with you". Similar support came from other embassies in BH as well as LGBT organisations in the region.

Several social media posts by those opposed to the parade attracted hundreds of comments. The Facebook page of Crna Hronika-Info news portal had over 650 comments within a day, with the most popular urging football supporters to "drive this trash out of the city". On Bosanski Patriota Facebook page, most of nearly 200 comments also called for violence - such as using tear gas - against participants.

The BH Police Academy - a Facebook page not linked to the Interior Ministry but describing itself as providing information to "cadets, policemen and uniformed personnel in Bosnia and Herzegovina" - created a poll asking if the police should provide security at the parade or detain its participants. As of 3 April, 42 per cent of respondents voted for providing security and 58 per cent for detention.

A considerable number of comments under the poll condemned it as a "morbid" idea and said the police should protect everyone's constitutional rights.

A poll on the regional N1 TV website asks: "Do you support the pride parade in Sarajevo", and so far 61.8 per cent voted "no", 29.9 per cent voted "yes", and 8.3 per cent said "it is all the same to me".

Source: BBC


Dodik condemns 'nocturnal assault' on RS flag

The removal of the flag of Republika Srpska (RS), Bosnia’s Serb majority region, from Bosnia’s Presidency is “unacceptable” and “scandalous,” the Bosnian Serb member of the tripartite Presidency said on Saturday, adding that he perceives the act as a message that there is no place for Serbs in the Presidency.

“That move only confirms the intention of the hegemonistic circles in Sarajevo to, contrary to the Dayton (Peace Agreement), eliminate Republika Srpska, as the hysterical overnight assault on the flag of the RS demonstrated,” Bosnian Serb leader Milorad Dodik told the Srna news agency.

Dodik, the hardline Serb member of Bosnia's Presidency and the first of the three to take the rotating chairmanship in this term, met on Friday with the newly appointed Ambassador of Serbia in Sarajevo’s Presidency office. He displayed the RS flag next to the flag of Bosnia and Herzegovina in front of the office of the Presidency Chairman.

The other two Presidency members, Bosniak Sefik Dzaferovic and Bosnian Croat Zeljko Komsic, declared in a joint press statement that the move was illegal.

"Presidency members Komsic and Dzaferovic will not tolerate irresponsibility, arrogance and violation of the law which the Presidency Chairman Milorad Dodik demonstrated today," their statement said, urging law enforcement agencies to take measures against the breach of the law.

There was no RS flag in fron of the office on Saturday anymore.

Dodik said that displaying the RS flag was the “symbolic representation of my identity and the identity of the people I belong to and whom I represent,” adding that the symbol of the RS is not offensive to anybody. “Who can be bothered by it? Nobody who has good intentions,” he said.

Only if someone would remove the flag of the Federation (FBiH), the other semi-autonomous entity, shared by Bosniaks and Croats, then the two other Presidency members would have the right to react, he said.

However, a flag of the FBiH has never been put up at that particular place where Dodik ordered the RS flag to be displayed.

The Serb Presidency member said that it is “worrying that the flag was brutally removed after working hours when nobody was in the cabinet,” which he said shows that “Bosnia’s Presidency building is not a secure place for its normal functioning.”

“One can assume that in the building, in my cabinet, when nobody is around, there are members of various intelligence agencies sneaking around which the political circles in Sarajevo control,” he said.

He called the move a “nocturnal assault” on the RS flag and said it will not prevent him from having the flag displayed in front of his cabinet again and that it will be displayed wherever he is in the building, “whether they like it or not.”

A Senior official in Dodik’s party and member of the House of Representatives, Stasa Kosarac, condemned the removal of the flag as well.

“It seems that the Bosniak member of the Presidency, Sefik Dzaferovic, is flexing his muscles and showing his strength only when Dodik is not in Sarajevo,” he said, adding that the RS flag will be put up again in front of Dodik’s office.

Putting up the flag in the first place, according to Kosarac, represented a message that Serb representatives in joint institutions will respect the Constitution and not laws which he said were imposed by the Office of the High Representative (OHR).

The High Representative is Bosnia’s top international official, appointed by the international community to oversee the civilian implementation of the 1995 Dayton Peace Agreement, which includes Bosnia’s Constitution. Dodik has been at odds with the office for years, accusing the foreign officials of breaching the Agreement and working against the RS.

“According to the Constitution, Bosnia and Herzegovina is composed of two entities and three constitutional peoples. President Dodik is a representative of the RS and of the Serb people in Bosnia’s joint institutions and the RS flag symbolizes that,” Kosarac said.

The law on flags was imposed by High Representative Carlos Westendorp in 1998, he said.

“Under the pressure of the international community, that law was adopted in Parliament only in 2001,” he said, adding that his party, the Alliance of Independent Social Democrats (SNSD), will ask for the law to be changed.

Source: N 1


Bosnia: SNSD, HDZ BiH leaders agree on future cooperation

The coalition agreement with the Croat Democratic Union (HDZ BiH) does not mean an agreement against a third party, said Milorad Dodik, Bosnian Serb leader and the newly elected member of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s tripartite Presidency.

Following a meeting with HDZ BiH leader Dragan Covic, whom he met in Istocno Sarajevo on Monday to discuss future cooperation, primarily a partnership in the post-election formation of authorities, Dodik said they would invite “the third one to join them in solving the accumulated problems together.”

“We believe that sovereignty of Bosnia and Herzegovina might be strengthened if the local institutions and political representatives took responsibility,” said Dodik, who is leader of the Alliance of Independent Social Democrats (SNSD).

“We agreed with HDZ (BiH) to go together towards the formation of authorities at all levels in Bosnia and Herzegovina, from the cantonal to the level of Bosnia and Herzegovina,” Dodik told reporters after the meeting.

Dodik was elected in the October 7 general election to represent the Serb people in the Bosnia’s state Presidency. On the other hand, Dragan Covic lost to his main opponent, social-democrat Zeljko Komsic in the race for the Croat member of the Presidency.

Despite the defeat in the Presidency, Covic’s HDZ BiH won a considerate number of seats in the parliaments at all levels of authority, which provided the party with a significant role in the post-election talks on the formation of the government.

Bosnia’s state Presidency consists of three members, each representing three major groups in the country – the Bosniaks, the Serbs and the Croats. The Bosniak and Croat members are elected in the Federation entity, while voters in RS entity elect the Serb member.

Addressing the media after the meeting, Covic said he would meet representatives of the Bosniak political parties in the following days. He named the electoral legislation reform a top priority in the post-election period.

“The Bosniak partner will have to think in a similar way”, stressed Covic.

“We will seek the partners with whom we need to reach agreements on solving the crucial issues,” he added.

The HDZ BiH leader has been strongly advocating Bosnia’s Election Law changes in a way which, as he said, would secure that one people does not elect representatives in authority to another people. Current legislation, according to him, enabled the Bosniaks to give their vote to his opponent Zeljko Komsic, the new Croat member of the Presidency.

For this reason, Covic emphasised on several occasions in the post-election period that formation of authorities will not be possible before the Election Law is amended.

"As for our talks, they head towards the direction where the Election Law is a necessity. We refuse to make bids regarding the Election Law changes. Our partner among Bosniaks will have to think in a similar way," he underlined.

Source: N 1


Komšić is not legitimate and without rights to represent Croats

Academician Muhamed Filipović, one of the leading Bosniak intellectuals, said on Tuesday that Zeljko Komsic had no legitimacy to represent the Croats because he was chosen by Bosniaks for the Croat member of the presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina and that if Komsic has some moral he would not take candidature.

"If Zeljko Komsic had political morality and culture, first of all, he would not be running", Filipovic told TV Alfa in a broadcast on Tuesday.

Komsic as a newly elected member of the BiH Presidency has no legitimacy to represent the Croats because he was elected by Bosniaks, Filipovic said.

"You can not claim that you have the support of the Croat political will, if you got votes from primarily Bosniaks. Komsic should first consider whether there is political potential and legitimacy to speak for the Croats at all", said Filipovic.

A Bosnian academician is one of the founders of the Party of Democratic Action, Filipovic explained that Komsic had the right to stand in the elections under the existing law, but he did not have political legitimacy among Croats.

"If he is legally nominated, it does not mean that his victory has political legitimacy. That would mean that he is the one who really represents the will of the people that he is supposed to represent", Filipovic explained.

He believes that Komsic should refrain from the threats he invokes to neighboring countries.

According to Filipovic, the new Presidency of BiH, in which Milorad Dodik and Sefik Dzaferovic will be, an athmospher for ideal creation for obstruction.

"Such presidency is a heaven for obstructions. It will not be able to function normally. The political result of any achievement will go in favor of Dodik. It is absurd that a person who is not supporter of Bosnia and Herzegovina but Republic of Serbs is at the head of the country, but it is not uncommon case that at the top of state is the one who will ruin it", said Filipovic.

Dragan Čović, who is a departing Croatian member of the BiH Presidency, he said that he is legitimate leader of Croats, as well "defined in Zagreb" through the politics of HDZ BiH.

Filipovic thinks that Čović "will probably be suggested from the neighborhood to conduct a policy of total opposition".

Source: N 1


What Are Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina Complaining About Now? A Rebuttal to Jasmin Mujanović

By Luka Misetic

“Why should I be a minority in your country when you can be a minority in mine?” This one sentence uttered by the son of former Macedonian president Kiro Gligorov famously captured one of the root causes of the wars in former Yugoslavia in the 1990s. No nation wished to remain an ethnic minority in the republic of the other. In Bosnia and Herzegovina (“BiH”), the Dayton Agreement brought a fragile peace by addressing this fundamental conundrum. Dayton established a structure that would ensure equal power sharing among BiH’s three nations (Serbs, Croats andBosniaks). It defined each of the three nations as a “constituent nation,” as opposed to an ethnic majority or minority, thus ensuring that no group need fear “becoming a minority in the country of the other,” to paraphrase Gligorov the younger.

However, the recent election of Željko Komšićas the Croat representative in the BiH Presidency, by ethnic Bosniaks crossing over into the election for Croat representative, has once again triggered political crisis. The majority Bosniak population has elected the so-called Croat member of the BiH Presidency, thus effectively reducing Croats to an ethnic minority and stripping them of their constitutional status as a “constituent nation” of BiH. In the old Yugoslav system, the difference between a “constituent nation” and an ethnic minority was significant: “constituent nation” status guaranteed each nation a right to self-determination through the guaranteed distribution of offices and decision-making rights, thus distinguishing a “constituent nation” from an ethnic minority that could be outvoted by the majority. By effectively stripping the Croats of their status as a constituent nation and reducing them to an ethnic minority whose leaders are being elected by the ethnic majority, the unraveling of the foundational principles of the delicate power-sharing balance achieved at Dayton is now well underway.

The Ljubić Decision and Bosniak Obstruction Particularly troubling is that this recent set of events is the result of failures to honor rulings of the BiH courts. The Constitutional Court of BiH has already ruled that Croats are entitled as a constituent nation to elect their own representatives at all levels of government, without interference from Bosniak (or other non-Croat) voters. In the so-called “Ljubić case,” Bozo Ljubić, a BiH Croat politician, filed a challenge in 2014 before the Constitutional Court, alleging that the election law discriminates against Croats as a constituent nation because it does not allow Croats to elect their own representatives to the upper house of the legislature of the Federation of BiH.

On December 1, 2016, the Constitutional Court of BiH ruled (in case number U-23/14, the so-called “Ljubić decision”) that certain provisions of the Election Law of BiH (part of Subchapter B, Article 10.12 (2), and Article 20.16A paragraph 2 items a-j) are not in conformity with the Article I(2) of BiH’s Constitution. The Court stated that these provisions do not allow constituent peoples in BiH (Bosniaks, Croats and Serbs) “to participate in democratic decision-making exercised through legitimate political representation.” According to the Court, the framers of the Dayton Constitution “provided for the proportional representation of Bosniaks, Serbs and Croats, as constituent nations, in all institutions of BiH.”

The Court said that the principle of equality of all constituent peoples is the cornerstone and the overarching principle of the Dayton Agreement and BiH’s Constitution as ruled by the court in year 2000 (in case number U-5/98). It further stated that constituent peoples must be able independently and freely to elect their own legitimate political representatives, without interference from other constituent peoples.

The Constitutional Court gave the Parliamentary Assembly (PA) of BiH six months to implement the Court’s ruling. During this six-month period, only Croat parties led by the HDZ BiH introduced a proposal into parliamentary procedure that would implement the Court’s decision. Other political parties did not introduce any other proposal, which is not surprising given that the Court’s ruling was a direct result of a Croat complaint and Croat attempts to reach true equality with the two other peoples of BiH.

The Croat proposal passed the Constitutional-Legal Committee of the House of Peoples of BiH, which is made up of Bosniak, Croat and Serb members. Bosniak delegates in the House of Peoples invoked the “vital national interest clause” in May of 2017, attempting to veto the legislation. The Croat proposal was therefore brought up before the Constitutional Court in order to determine whether the HDZ BiH proposal violated Bosniak national interests.

The Court ruled in case U-3-17 (the so-called “Čolak Case”) on July 6, 2017 that the HDZ BiH proposal did not harm vital Bosniak national interests. The Court ruled that the proposal is constitutional and could be brought up for vote. The proposal then passed the House of Peoples, but was ultimately voted down by the delegates from Bosniak parties in the House of Representatives (lower house) of BiH.

Given that the Parliamentary Assembly of BiH failed to implement the ruling within the given legal period of six months, the Constitutional Court on July 6, 2017 annulled the unconstitutional provisions of the electoral law, leaving the Federation of BiH and the national level of BiH without a legal basis to fill upper houses of their parliaments. This legal vacuum exists to this day.

Elections were nevertheless held a few weeks ago, despite the no electoral law exists which would allow for the formation of the House of Peoples in the Federation and at the national level. For reasons that I will explain in a subsequent blog post, this situation has created a constitutional crisis in BiH, and calls into question the legitimacy of the elections, including the election of Željko Komšić.

The election of Željko Komšić violates the Constitution of BiH because he was not elected by the Croat constituent nation he is supposed to represent, which is a foundational principle of the BiH Constitution as per the Constitutional Court of BiH.

Who is responsible for this situation, which puts BiH in an unprecedented constitutional crisis?

This brings me to an article by Jasmin Mujanović, titled “Croatian Ruling Party’s Dangerous Meddlingin Bosnia,” and published on Balkan Insight on October 24, 2018. Mr. Mujanović makes a series of false or unsubstantiated claims in an effort to deflect blame from Bosniak elites for the current situation, and onto the HDZ BiH, the leading Croat party in BiH. A closer analysis of Mujanović’s claims shows that his analysis has no foundation and does not withstand scrutiny.

My point-by-point rebuttal follows:

No evidence that Croats engaged in “absentee voter fraud”

Mr. Mujanović first makes sensationalist claims that the ruling party in the Republic of Croatia, the HDZ, coordinated with Russian intelligence operatives to engage in systematic absentee voter fraud in BiH. These allegations are based on three articles written by Bosniak journalist Avdo Avdić that were published on Avdić’s internet portal. In these articles, Avdić alleges a link between HDZ in Croatia (a NATO member) and Russian intelligence operatives. However, Mr. Avdić attributes these claims to the “reports of foreign secret services,” but does not disclose the identity of any such “foreign secret service,” his source for the assertion, or any other evidence that would tend to support the claim.

Because these claims are unsubstantiated, Mr. Mujanović’s reference to them –without disclosing to the reader that there is no known evidence to support the claim – is surprising. Moreover, the substance of the allegation –absentee voter fraud – is demonstrably false. The HDZ’s candidate for the Presidency, Dragan Čović, received only 11.486 absentee ballots. Given that the 2013 census records more than 200,000 Croats as having left BiH because of the war, 11,486 absentee ballots indicates a low absentee turnout of Croats outside of BiH in general elections. For the record, there were 48,276 absentee ballots for the Presidency election in total. Mr. Mujanović’s claims of voter fraud and stolen elections do not withstand the most basic scrutiny.

The entire Croatian political spectrum has criticized Komšić’s election Mr. Mujanović claims that “representatives of Croatia’s assorted liberal and social democratic parties have widely welcomed Komšić’s victory” is also patently false. The entire Croatian political spectrum, from left to right, has objected to the election of Željko Komšić as the Croat Member of the Presidency. The leader of the opposition Centre-right party “Most” (Bridge) Božo Petrov was even more vocal than HDZ representatives, calling for Komšić to be declared persona non gratain Croatia.

Most importantly, the leaders of the biggest left-wing party in Croatia, the Social Democratic Party (“SDP”), have also objected to Komšić’s election. The SDP’s leader, Davor Bernardić, has stated that the Constitution in BiH should be changed in order to find a solution to the “Komšić issue.” Another member of SDP’s presidency, Ivo Jelušić, has stated that because Bosniaks (and not Croats) elected Komšić, he cannot represent Croats and his election is bad for BiH. His party colleague and member of the European Parliament, Tonino Picula, stated that Komšić’s election is a manifestation of the will of those who want a unitary BiH, which runs contrary to the values promoted by the European Parliament in its resolutions calling for the respect of federal principles in BiH and the equality of three constituent peoples.

Vesna Pusić, a member of the minor Civic Liberal Alliance party, did say that Komšić was elected according to the same rules that Čović was elected last time, and therefore he should be accepted. Still this does not constitute celebration or welcome of his victory. No MP in Croatian Parliament celebrated Komšić’s victory, contrary to Mr. Mujanović’s claims.

Finally, on 26 October 2018, every member of the European Parliament from Croatia across the entire political spectrum (from left wing MEPs like Ivan Jakovčić and Tonino Picula to right wing MEPs like Ruža Tomašić), signed a letter to the leaders of the European Union requesting action from the European Union in light of the anti-Dayton election of Komšić. This letter puts to bed Mr. Mujanović’s claims that “Croatia’s assorted liberal and social democratic parties have widely welcomed Komšić’s victory.”

Ljubuški and Livno are no more “ethnically homogenous” than Tuzla and Sarajevo, and Croats have never argued that only Croats from Croat-majority areas can elect Croat representatives Mr. Mujanović next falsely claims that Livno and Ljubuški (predominantly Croat towns) are ethnically homogenous, while Tuzla and Sarajevo (predominantly Bosniak cities are multiethnic. He uses this claim to support his thesis that BiH Croat leaders want to prevent Croats from “multiethnic” cities from voting, while allowing only Croats from ethnically homogenous areas to vote for Croat leadership posts.

According to the 2013 census data, Bosniaks (the largest national group) make up around 81% of population in the four municipalities which make up the city of Sarajevo (by comparison, Bosniaks in 1991 made up just over 50% of population of the city). In Tuzla, Bosniaks make up 76.4% of the population (in 1991, they were 52.6% of city’s population). In comparison, in Ljubuški, Croats (the largest national group) make up 83% of town’s population, just 2% more than the majority Bosniak population does in “multiethnic Sarajevo.”

In Livno, which Mr. Mujanović calls an “ethnically homogenous town,” Croats make up only 62% of the population, almost 20% less than the 81% of Bosniaks in “multiethnic” Sarajevo and 15% less than the 76% of Bosniaks in “multiethnic” Tuzla.

What criteria is Mr. Mujanović applying in order to justify his labeling of Livno and Ljubuški as “ethnically homogenous,” while Sarajevo and Tuzla are “multiethnic?” It is clear that Sarajevo and Tuzla were once multiethnic, but they are not multiethnic any more. Mostar, while multiethnic in aggregate, is also a divided city with a clear majority of one group in each half of the city. The town is far from a multiethnic paragon.

Just as importantly, contrary to Mr. Mujanović’s claims, Croat representatives have never claimed that the Croat member of the Presidency should be elected exclusively by voters from Livno and Ljubuški, or other Croat-majority areas. Instead, they consistently stated that the Croat member of the Presidency should be elected by Croats residing throughout the Federation, without interference from Bosniak voters.

Croats are not “gerrymandering” in order to elect “nationalist conservatives” at the expense of “more progressive and moderate Croats from Bosnia proper”

Mr. Mujanović next alleges that “this gerrymandering is meant to institutionalize an electoral monopoly for the HDZ’s nationalist-conservative, western Herzegovinian electorate and disenfranchise more progressive and moderate Croats from Bosnia proper.” This claim has no basis in fact and is simply not correct.

First , Dragan Čović, the HDZ candidate, won a majority of votes in virtually every single municipality in which Croats make up more than 45% of the population, receiving more than 80% of votes in many of these municipalities. Out of all Croats living in the Federation of BiH, around 80% of Croats live in municipalities in which Čović won the most votes. This includes all 12 municipalities in Bosnia with Croat majority or near majority, as well as 10 municipalities in Western Herzegovina and 4 municipalities in Northern Herzegovina and Završje regions adjacent to Western Herzegovina.

Of his overall vote total, only 67,443 of Čović’s votes came from ten Western Herzegovina municipalities. In total, Čović won 82,658 votes in the three cantons which make up the wider Herzegovina region.. In the seven cantons which make up the Bosnia region, plus the Brčko District, Čović won 58,693 votes.

In other words, Čović won roughly 48% of his vote in Western Herzegovina and 52% outside of it (i.e., the areas of Bosnia plus municipalities that are adjacent to Western Herzegovina). When we add other Herzegovinian municipalities that are adjacent to Western Herzegovina , the ratio between all of Herzegovina and all of Bosnia region is roughly 58:42. For comparison, in the Federation of BiH and District Brčko, roughly 54% of Croats live in the greater Herzegovina region (including Northern Herzegovina and Završje), and 46% in the Bosnia region.

Contrary to Mr. Mujanović’s assertions, the analysis of voting patterns demonstrates that Čović on average received almost exactly the same level of support in both Western Herzegovina and Bosnia. On what basis can Mujanović claim that Herzegovinian Croats are more “nationalistic” than their “progressive” fellow Croats in Bosnia proper, if Čović’s votes in these two regions almost mirror the ratio between the numbers of Croats present in these two regions?

The dominance of the HDZ among Croats in Bosnia proper becomes even clearer when one looks at the preferences of Croat voters for political parties. In Mujanović’s so-called “hardline nationalist” Western Herzegovina, HDZ and its coalition won 65% of all votes given to Croat parties in the Western Herzegovina Cantonal assembly, meaning that the ratio of votes between HDZ and other Croat parties was 65:35. In Canton 10 (Livno), which is adjacent to Western Herzegovina, this ratio was 46:54, meaning that other Croat parties all together won more votes than the HDZ coalition. In Herzegovina-Neretva Canton, this ratio was 79:21.

In Mujanović’s “progressive and moderate” Bosnia, Čović and HDZ enjoyed much greater support among Croats than they did in Western Herzegovina. In Central Bosnia, for example, Croats voted for HDZ by a ratio of 88:12. In Posavina Canton, the ratio between HDZ votes and other Croat parties was 71:29. In Zenica-Doboj, this ratio was 92:8. Even when we add some 16,000 Croat voters in Bosnia that could theoretically (but not likely) have voted for multiethnic political parties, the HDZ still won support of at least 70% of Croats in this region. In comparison, HDZ won support of 69% of Croats in Herzegovina.

In total, HDZ received 68,027 votes in Herzegovina and 58, 246 votes in Bosnia. The ratio, 54:46, mirrors the ratio of Croat population in these two regions. All told, HDZ did, on average, about the same in Bosnia as it did in Herzegovina.

The logical questions for Mr. Mujanović are, “why are Croats in Bosnia more ‘progressive’ if, on average, they support HDZ the same as their kin in Herzegovina?” “Why would HDZ and Čović hope to ‘disenfranchise’ Croats from Bosnia who so strongly support him and the HDZ party?”

Croats do not claim that the “Croat member of the Presidency should be elected exclusively by the segment of Bosnia’s Croat community residing in majority Croat areas.”

Mr. Mujanović next claims, “Both the Bosnian and Croatian HDZ argue, however, that it is not enough for the Croat member of the presidency to simply identify as a Croat, as Željko Komšić does. Instead, the Croat member should be elected exclusively by the segment of Bosnia’s Croat community residing in majority Croat areas.” This too is false, and Mr. Mujanović offers no citation to any HDZ claim to this effect.

First, HDZ does not argue that the Croat member of the Presidency has to be elected from majority Croat areas. The HDZ instead argues that the majority of Croats across the Federation must elect the Croat president. This position is rooted in the Constitution of BiH and in the rulings of the Constitutional Court of BiH, which made clear in the Ljubić case as follows:

“[A]ccording to the general principle of democracy, the right to participate in democratic decision-making is exercised through legitimate political representation, which has to be based on the democratic choice by those represented and whose interests are represented. In this regard, the connection between those who are represented and their political representatives at all administrative-political levels is actually the one that gives the legitimacy to community representatives. Therefore, only the legitimacy of representation creates a basis for actual participation and decision-making.”

Because the Croat Member of the Presidency represents not only citizens of the Federation, but also Croats as a constituent people, it is clear that he has to have their support in order to be their legitimate political representatives. The same is valid for representatives to the House of Peoples of the Federation, the House of Peoples of BiH and the Council of Peoples of Republika Srpska. These three bodies are intended for exclusive representation of Constituent Peoples (and Others, at the entity levels), while the Presidency is intended for both general citizens representation and the representation of Constituent Peoples.

The Court was also specific in its ruling that it is unconstitutional for members of one constituent peoples to elect representatives of other constituent people. This goes against the overarching Dayton principles of equality of three constituent peoples.

The principles of power-sharing, parity, and equality, no matter how imperfectly implemented in their current state in BiH, are part of European legal practice and part of other complex and multi-ethnic federalist states in Europe, such as Belgium, Switzerland and the UK. They are not akin to the horrible practices of Bantustan, as implied by Mujanović.

Finally, Mujanović claims that “reactionary politics” of HDZ are opposed by “virtually the entire Bosnian political establishment.” This too is not true. The vast majority of political parties in BiH recognized the need to reform the electoral law. Virtually all Croat and Serb political parties and some of Bosniak parties acknowledge this priority. After all, the “Bosnian (and Herzegovinian) political establishment” includes all parties in Bosnia and Herzegovina, including Croat and Serb parties, and not only the Bosniak (and non-ethnic in name but majority Bosniak) parties preferred by Mr. Mujanović.

Moreover, the leaders of the seven largest parties in BiH, including the two largest Bosniak, Croat and Serb parties and multiethnic SDP, agreed on October 1, 2013 in Brussels that “the method of election of the two Presidency Members from the Federation of BiH through constitutional amendments should, in addition to the Strasbourg Court ruling, prevent imposing the outcome of election results on any Constituent Peoples or “Others”.” This means that Bosniaks should not impose upon Croats a “Croat” president (like Komšić) in the tripartite Presidency.

Electoral law reform ordered by the Constitutional Court of BiH would not amount to a contemporary “Three-Fifths Compromise” Mr. Mujanović cites Serwer in his claim that election law reform ordered by the Constitutional Court “would be equivalent to a contemporary ‘Three-Fifths Compromise’” under the HDZ proposal, and that it would discriminate against “more progressive” Croats in Bosnia.

First, concerning the House of Peoples of the Federation of BiH, it is the Constitutional Court and not HDZ that confirmed the constitutional principle enshrined in Dayton that only Croats could vote to elect Croat representatives. Only Bosniaks can vote to elect Bosniak representatives. Only Serbs can vote to elect Serb representatives. Only Others can vote to elect Others representatives. Otherwise, the representatives do not have legitimacy and cannot legitimately represent the interests of the group they are representing. This parity exits to protect the less numerous constituent peoples from being outvoted by the more numerous peoples, to prevent “us from becoming a minority in your country when you could become a minority in ours.”

If one wishes to maintain national parity (as insisted by Serbs and Croats) but objects to representation and voting along ethnic lines, then a model based on Swiss cantons or the Belgian model or US states would combine both objectives. A third, majority Croat entity should be created to protect Croat rights as a “constituent nation,” which would result in the removal of ethnic quotas and allow all people in each entity to run for office and vote for their candidate of preference, regardless of ethnicity. For Bosniak parties, this is a non-starter due to the ever-present fear that a third, Croat entity will lead to the inevitable partition of BiH. But objections to collective rights of ethnic groups ultimately leads to only two options: (1) the creation of a third, Croat entity followed by removal of an ethnic model for offices and voters, or (2) the removal of all entities and imposition of the “1 person, 1 vote” model across all of BiH as one electoral unit. The second option is a non-starter Croats and Serbs because it threatens to convert them to national minorities.

When one carefully analyzes the options, the current Dayton model (as interpreted in the Ljubić decision) remains the most viable option.

The HDZ proposal, although less than perfect, passed the Constitutional-Legal Committee of the House of Peoples of BiH. The Constitutional Court deemed it constitutional. While the vote value of a Croat voter for the House of Peoples was slightly different, that ratio was much closer to equal than the previous system which vastly overrepresented Croats in some regions (especially in Bosnia), and underrepresented them in others, including West Herzegovina.

Bosniak parties have never offered a proposal that would implement the Constitutional Court’s ruling in the Ljubić case and that would pass constitutional muster Mr. Mujanović claims that “when a coalition of Bosniak and multiethnic parties proposed a solution to the Ljubić case, one which was broadly supported by the international community, it was the HDZ that sank the deal.” This is simply false.

The Bosniak proposal included literally the same provisions that the Constitutional Court of BiH found to be unconstitutional and annulled earlier. The Bosniak parties also introduced their bill in the wrong chamber of government in BiH, a chamber of government that had no legal authority to implement the Constitutional Court’s ruling.

The Constitutional Court ordered the Parliamentary Assembly of BiH to implement the decision and reform the Election Law of BiH, which is a state-level law (i.e., a law that applies across all of BiH, as opposed to a law at the entity level, or Federation of BiH level). The Bosniak and multiethnic parties introduced their proposal in the Parliament of the Federation of BiH, at the entity level. Obviously, the Parliament of one entity (the Federation) does not have the authority to amend the state-level Election Law across all of BiH. The Constitutional Court of BiH was clear that only the Parliamentary Assembly of BiH has both the authority and the obligation to implement the ruling. The move by the Bosniak and multiethnic parties to amend the law at the entity level was unconstitutional.

Furthermore, the Bosniak proposal did not have the support of the international community. On the contrary, US Ambassador Cormack and EU Special Representative Wigemark, in a joint statement on March 29, 2018, said that political leaders must resolve the election law reform “taking into account the decision of the BiH Constitutional Court in the Ljubić case and the existing legal framework.” Concerning the Presidency, they stated, “Parties must focus first on urgent priorities, including the Federation House of Peoples and Mostar, and wait until after the election to address other questions, including the Presidency, in line with relevant ECtHR and Constitutional Court rulings.” They refused to impose a solution and clearly stated that the solution for reform must come from local actors. They also refused to endorse any proposal but chose simply to facilitate dialogue.

As these two representatives of the international community stated, the implementation of the Ljubić decision for the Presidency should also include relevant ECHR rulings. However, HDZ is not obstructing these changes, contrary to Mr. Mujanović’s claim. The members of the international community themselves have stated that the Federation House of Peoples should be a priority, and after the election law is reformed and the government is formed, ECHR rulings should also be implemented.

Finally, no one doubts that ECHR rulings must be implemented, but ECHR rulings should not be manipulated by those that wish to deny the equality of the constituent peoples guaranteed in the Constitution, with the ultimate objective of reducing Croats to an ethnic minority. As noted above, the Constitutional Court of BiH ruled in 2000 that the mutual equality of constituent peoples is “the overarching principle” of the whole Constitution to which all other principles, laws, and legal acts, including entity constitutions, must adhere.

This mutual equality of constituent peoples is both the overarching principle of the BiH’s Constitution, as well as the “spirit of Dayton,” i.e., the guiding principle of the Dayton Agreement. Concerning Komšić, the framers of Dayton never imagined that one constituent people would elect representatives of other constituent peoples. Such practice is outside of the scope of good political behavior in complex state. It is hard to imagine one of the three Communities in Belgium electing representatives of other Community. This is because through several cycles of federalization, checks and balances were put in place to prevent this and ensure legitimate representation.

Croatia is a guarantor of the Dayton Peace Agreement and a Member of the European Union, and its Government has a Constitutional Obligation to Defend the Interests of Croats in BiH The Government of Croatia has taken an active role in calling attention to plight of the BiH Croats and the breach of the Dayton Constitution created by Komšić’s election. Mr. Mujanović now claims that Croatia is not a “guarantor of the Dayton Agreement,” Croatia’s statements to the contrary notwithstanding. He also complains that Croatia is “interfering in the internal affairs of a sovereign country.”

First, Croatia is indeed a guarantor of the Dayton Agreement. One need only look to the statements of the Office of the High Representative and the Peace Implementation Council (“PIC”), which have repeatedly referred to Croatia as a “guarantor of the Dayton Peace Agreement. For example:

Second, there is no doubt that the European Union is a guarantor of Dayton, inter alia through the EU’s role on the Steering Board of the PIC (where both the European Commission and the Presidency of the European Union are members). As a member state of the EU, Croatia is entirely within its rights to express its views to the internal institutions of the EU, including the Presidency, the Commission, and the European Parliament.

Third, Article 10 of the Constitution of Croatia obligates the Croatian state (including its Government) to “guarantee particular care and protection to those portions of the Croatian nation in other countries.” Accordingly, the Croatian government has a constitutional obligation to protect the rights of Croats in BiH.

Croatian Prime Minister Andrej Plenković was absolutely correct when he noted that Komšić’s election violates the “spirit of Dayton.” The “spirit of Dayton” is based on the principle that all three nations are guaranteed both equal collective and individual rights. No group need fear that it will become “a minority in your state when you could have been a minority in ours.” The election of Komšić amounts to a repudiation of the promises of Dayton and invites a return to an atmosphere of collective fear that led to tragic consequences in the 1990s.



Former High Representative expresses concern after election of Milorad Dodik to Bosnian presidency

The former High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina Miroslav Lajčák has expressed concern at the election on October 7 of Bosnian Serb nationalist Milorad Dodik to the three-member rotating presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Mr Lajčák, currently the president of the United Nations General Assembly, stated that he is worried by the outcome of the Bosnian elections and that Europe should not lose interest in the Western Balkans.

Speaking at an event in Dublin, Mr Lajčák told Emerging Europe that Bosnia definitely has a European perspective, but unfortunately it has not come close enough to the European Union to feel the full effect of European integration.

“This is has worried the countries of Central Europe,” he said. “This is what has worried Montenegro and Serbia. The moment you feel that the perspective gets tangible, it really affects the way you operate. Bosnia and Herzegovina is not there yet and, to be honest, I’m really worried about the outcome of these elections. Milorad Dodik, who makes no secret of the fact that he does not believe in the future of the country, is now a member of the presidency and I have my doubts that he will use this role to strengthen Bosnia and Herzegovina.”

Neither is Mr Lajčák optimistic about the outcome of the election for the Croat seat on the tripartite presidency.

“The Croats feel that they are not represented,” he said. “The Croat member of the presidency [Željko Komšić] was elected by Bosniaks and, for them [the Croats] they have always felt marginalised, and now they will feel even more so. For them, it is two Bosniaks and one Serbian, but no Croat, in the presidency.”

On the recent referendum in Macedonia and the EU’s role in the world, Mr Lajčák called for more engagement.

“I believe the European Union should be the main actor in the Balkans, but we are not,” he said. “I believe that it is a shame that, after the Republic of Macedonia was able to reach a pain-staking deal with Greece on the name issue (which shows us that identity is an extremely important issue in the Balkans), we, the European Union, were unable to say the very simple sentence: ‘You are invited to start the negotiations.’ We have a global responsibility. You see actors emerging: the world is moving from a uni-polar to a multi-polar system and it makes all the sense for the EU to be one of the centres, but it is not happening! So, that’s why I’m calling for the EU to be aware of its global responsibility. We have no right to keep ourselves busy with our internal agendas only. The rest of the world and our neighbours are waiting for us to play our role.”



Mostar protests against Komsic's election in Presidency

A number of Mostar citizens (southern Bosnia) took to the streets protesting the election of Zeljko Komsic for the member of Bosnia’s Presidency from among the Croat people. The protesters are dissatisfied that the leader from the main Croat party in Bosnia, the Croat Democratic Union (HDZ BiH), Dragan Covic, lost to Komsic.

The protest organizers are the "Croat Youth" organisation who called on all citizens to gather around the Mostar University and walk to the Office of the Bosnian Presidency member from among the Croat people in Mostar, where they said they would "light candles and express their dissatisfaction with the general election result.

The protest organizers who announced the protest gathering for Thursday at 6 pm said that Komsic is not their legitimate representative and that they are dissatisfied with the fact that Bosnia’s Election Law was not amended. According to them, it is wrong that the dominant people in the country (Bosniaks) can elect the presidency member from among the Croat people.

On the other hand, the newly elected Presidency member, Zeljko Komsic, said he is the new Presidency member from among the Croat people, but that he is the representative of all Bosnian citizens, not just Bosnian Croats.

The protest gathering will focus around the Office building of the Presidency member from among the Croat people which was, in fact, opened by Dragan Covic. Komsic said he would close the Presidency office after he wins the election and that he would make the building available to Mostar students to use for their studying needs.

"The protest organizers who announced the protest gathering for Thursday at 6 pm said that Komsic is not their legitimate representative and that they are dissatisfied with the fact that Bosnia’s Election Law was not amended. According to them, it is wrong that the dominant people in the country (Bosniaks) can elect the presidency member from among the Croat people.

On the other hand, the newly elected Presidency member, Zeljko Komsic, said he is the new Presidency member from among the Croat people, but that he is the representative of all Bosnian citizens, not just Bosnian Croats.

The protest gathering will focus around the Office building of the Presidency member from among the Croat people which was, in fact, opened by Dragan Covic. Komsic said he would close the Presidency office after he wins the election and that he would make the building available to Mostar students to use for their studying needs.

Bosnia’s Presidency consists of three members, each coming from three constituent peoples in the country: Bosniaks, Serbs and Croats. After the recent general election in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the new members are Zeljko Komsic, Sefik Dzaferovic from among the Bosniak people and Milorad Dodik, from among the Serb people.

However, Komsic's legitimacy is contested by all the major Croat parties in the country saying that his election was not legitimate because he was not elected by Croats, but by Bosniaks.

Regardless of these claims, Komsic’s election is, indeed, legal, Constitutional and legitimate, because the state Constitution stipulates that Presidency consists of one Bosniak, one Croat and one Serb member. There is no mention of what ethnic group must vote for what candidate.

he protest organizers who announced the protest gathering for Thursday at 6 pm said that Komsic is not their legitimate representative and that they are dissatisfied with the fact that Bosnia’s Election Law was not amended. According to them, it is wrong that the dominant people in the country (Bosniaks) can elect the presidency member from among the Croat people.

On the other hand, the newly elected Presidency member, Zeljko Komsic, said he is the new Presidency member from among the Croat people, but that he is the representative of all Bosnian citizens, not just Bosnian Croats.

The protest gathering will focus around the Office building of the Presidency member from among the Croat people which was, in fact, opened by Dragan Covic. Komsic said he would close the Presidency office after he wins the election and that he would make the building available to Mostar students to use for their studying needs.

Source: N1



SARAJEVO, October 10 /SRNA/ - The president of the Main Council of the Croatian People’s Assembly, Bozo Ljubic, has said that the election of Zeljko Komsic /DF/ as the Croatian member of the BiH Presidency is neither constitutional nor legitimate and can be characterized only as “as a hostile act against Croats and political violence.”

“Komsic was elected as a member of the BiH Presidency for the third time regardless of the fact that the candidate of the Croatian People’s Assembly, Dragan Covic, won more than 80% of the votes of Croats,” Ljubic said in the Croatian Parliament.

He has said that the BiH Constitutional Court confirmed the right of every people to elect their legitimate representatives, and stressed that this “election is neither legitimate nor constitutional.”

Ljubic has said that it is obvious that it was Bosniaks who elected him, that is, that they “were instructed to vote both for the Bosniak and Croatian member of the BiH Presidency.”

“In order to prove this we don’t need any big analytics, a more subtle analyses of elections will show that Kosmic won the most votes in strongholds of the Bosniak SDA,” said Ljubic, who is a member of Parliament from the HDZ.

He has stressed that the election of Komsic for the third time must not be treated as personal issue, but as the issue of the Constitution, character and sustainability of BiH.

According to him, Komsic made use of that which political constellations in BiH and formal-legal regulations allowed him, and everything else was done as part of a well-thought-out Bosniak, or, more precisely, SDA project.

“Even though some would like to present this election as the election out of spite, if we take Bosniak mainstream politics since the Constitution and the Election Law were changed by imposed measures of high representatives, we can characterize this only as a hostile act against Croats and political violence, that is, an attempt to turn the Federation of BiH, which in Washington was founded as the Croatian-Bosniak Entity, into an entity dominated by Bosniaks,” Ljubic has said.

Ljubic has stressed that having in mind that the Constitutional Court voided certain regulations of the Election Law pertaining to the FBiH House of Representatives, it is questionable how it will be possible to form a government in the FBiH and at the level of BiH in a legitimate manner.




Director of the Center for Cultural Dialogue (CKD) from Sarajevo and wife of university professor Ugo Vlaisavljevic, Sanja Vlaisavljevic again became the victim of aggressive hate speech on social networks. She had experienced a whole set of insults into her account because of some harmless comment. Namely, Vlaisavljevic compared the official biography of two candidates for the Presidency of BiH: Dragana Covic and Željko Komšic on her Facebook profile.

After the conclusion, draw by itself - whose biography is "strengthen", Vlaisavljevic has become the target of insult, hate speech, death threats ...

From the social media, the whole story went down to the mainstream Sarajevo audience after the pro-bosniaks media gave her the epithet of "fascists". In addition to the Bosniak media who tried to justify the attacks on Mrs. Vlaisavljevic, explicit Bosniak hate speech was directed by certain Bosniak politicians on social networks. We talked about everything about Sanja Vlaisavljevic:

After reading your status, it is unclear why such outbreaks of hate being cited after someone's biography. How to explain it?

SANJA VLAISAVLJEVIĆ - First of all, there were only four glossy words in the controversial status: "know-nothing vs. the scientist" and "the militant vs. the nonmilitant". The remaining biographies of two politicians, two candidates for the Presidency member, Komšic and Covic, were taken over. However, those are just commentators, most people who are not my FB friends, attributed the term to one as fascist and to another one war hero. At one point I was told by a certain lady, saying that Covic took people out of the camp to forced labor, which I answered, although I do not know anything about it, that it is better than to take them to the camps, since today among us live and work high-ranking people who have directly participated in taking people into camps and forced labor. My comment was solely on Covic, who, long ago and especially these days, getting nothing but blames, just to get him discredited. After that, scary insults broke out: That I can go to my side with Nazis, that I am a fascist, a chauvinist, that I have to get caught in the camp, that I should be driven away, that I am a bitch, that I hate, being a mercenary, and so on to the open threat that I got it in the inbox.

The insults continued in some of Sarajevo's media outlets for political persecution, as well as on social networks, including Emir Suljagic and Muhamed Fazlagic, GS candidates in these elections. That frightening hatred of hate is, I would say, nothing else to the expression of an attitude or a dark emotion that is from long ago in the air, sometimes less and sometimes more pronounced, to all those who do not think in a only one single permissible way. Everything else is "fascism"! Fascism is a word regularly used as a "good afternoon", the civic greeting that has almost disappeared from the antifascist society. The hatred that had touched on the status of the two candidates for the Presidency had only clearly shown that the war was not over in the heads of many "citizens." It was also the smallest reason, because someone was deprived of the 'unitarianism view' (politics decided by individuals, not by congregations or the denomination). You will agree that Komšic's biography does not really have anything but two or three years of working experience in the profession, followed by political employment and publicity, from the mayor of the municipality through the ambassador to the president of the state. Btw "the militant", was even more controversial, which is in fact the strongest "argument" by which this candidate wins the heart of unitarians. Unfortunately, even today twenty three years after the war! Just look at the Komsic electoral rhetoric motivated with so called necessities for territory defense. From whom? We could discuss this topic for a long time.


What is the cause of this behavioral behavior of individuals from public space in BiH who have obviously accepted such a normal deviation?

SANJA VLAISAVLJEVIĆ - Unfortunately, hate speech is widely adopted. Hate speech is a means of public communication that has replaced the weapon. I would say there are two views on BiH. One is the view of the majority people, and the other is the view of the two remaining peoples. We may talk about some other views, but they are so invisible and undefined that they are neglected. The view of the majority people is quite distinctly identified with, call it, civil, because in the political sense the line between them is almost invisible. However, neither civic political option has its strength based on a true civic concept, rather than on an idea incorporated in the will of the majority people, which is clearly defined in the Bosniak parliaments since the war years through the firm commitment of the main ideologists attitude made up of identifying nationality and statehood. Every insistence on the constituency of the people with them entails the denunciation of the type of "fascism". This is particularly evident in Sarajevo with those political and ideological subjects who have an inexhaustible need to impose their will on others. You will notice that the comments on my FB profile were merely comments by members of the most numerous people,from whom you can hear notes like: "You wont make it in our country..."

It is precisely this lack of understanding that some other people have different views also in their own and not some other country, that their rights are guaranteed by the Constitution, leading to such outbursts of intolerance. There is no doubt that this exclusivity has the greatest damage to its own people. I emphasize that what is happening to me, not for the first time, is no personal matter or mere excess, but rather a reflection of the widespread and very dangerous intolerance towards neighbors and fellow citizens.


There are 'sacred cows' in Bosnia and Herzegovina and narratives that obviously should not be questioned. How to end it?

SANJA VLAISAVLJEVIĆ - Yes, there are narratives that turn out to be unquestionable, but the question is for whom it is unquestionable. The dominant narrative of the most numerous people imposes an iron pattern in which there is room for others only if it is subordinate to their will. The social being of Bosnia and Herzegovina is not an amorphous being in which parts are not recognized as a special community. On the contrary, it is very important to see this social views in the richness of its configurations, through Sarajevo but also through Grude or Gacko. We live in the country of three politically self-conscious nations whose highest law is guaranteed equality, and endorsed by the centuries-old culture of coexistence. Our country differs essentially from the neighboring mono-national states, the states of a single majority and national minorities. However, pointless comments that I had received are: there is only one victim, only one truly truth, only one politic is sustainable, only one morality is unquestionable and only one narrative is truly a narrative of the honest man. There is only one pro-european view. But this is in fact a dangerous way of waging war and incurable hatred. The idea of inauthentic citizenship has become like that bull in which Zeus has turned, and if he goes after him, we will never reach Europe.


How do you and your family feel after everything that has been going on for the last few years, from 'insults' to your husband at college, to these latest threats?

SANJA VLAISAVLJEVIĆ - These are not the first attacks. But these seem to be the most brutal and most indulgent. I have not seen so much hatred and cruel threats for a long time. I would say that this is not an attack on me alone but a clear message to many: either you are with us or you are null! The fact that those who think and speak publicly differently from the majority speak in a brutal manner is actually talking about political immaturity and incompetence of public opinion for an open and critical debate on the burning issues of coexistence. If Sanja Vlaisavljevic is a great evil that needs to be eliminated at all costs because she thinks freely, she writes for the media from all over BiH, she advocates the dignity of all constituent peoples, not just some, if the rights of minorities and vulnerable people are placed in front of cheap populism, if she publicly stands for respect, and not discrimination and elimination, if she criticizes the language of bullying and hate speech, then it is only an indication that our society is in a big problem. But this problem is not Sanja Vlaisavljevic but hatred towards others and different. Has my hometown become obstructive for others and otherwise? If there are more of them at all?


Would BiH ever get to see such things to be dominantly condemned within the corps they originated from?

SANJA VLAISAVLJEVIĆ - I am affraid that it will take a long period of time. Today, the generations are raised in the matrix, according to which only one truth is valid, and just one correct view on BiH. This is the matrix in which the RS is made on a genocide, the Serbs are a genocidal people, Croats are the Ustashas, their policies are part of the UZP, their intellectuals and public figures are in the service of fascism, and everyone else will either assimilate or should leave the country. Those are unfortunately usual the cruel words addressed.


Are you afraid for your own safety?

SANJA VLAISAVLJEVIĆ - It is not pleasant to be exposed to the worst canonade threats. Open threats to my family and children. It is a typical method of intimidation and political banishment's. I would like to see at least one public condemnation of such methods of bullying, especially the condemnation of the media at the service of such threats, hatred, the worst disqualifications, and the condemnation of those politicians who, through hatred towards me developing their own reputation. It's not pleasant to live in the environment where you are fascist because you do not hate it. It's not pleasant to live in the environment where you are a labeled as target on the forehead just because you do not consent to the logic of the herd. Silence over these last threats and insults is much louder than intimidation. Unfortunately.




Stariji postovi

<< 04/2019 >>

Bosnia and Herzegovina Territorial Arrangement
According Dayton Peace Agreement from 1995:
Two Entities: Federation of BiH and Republic of Serbs
Implementation Needed or Dayton 2:
Federation BiH: Bosnian and Croatian Federal Units, Entities or Cantons
Republic of Serbs
District Sarajevo
District Brcko

Bosniak Republic Bosnia
Republic of Serbs
Croatian Republic Herceg-Bosnia
District Sarajevo
District Brcko

relevant and transparent news in short about situation in bih


Powered by