Sarajevo, 18.11.2024.

Predmet: Hitan poziv za etičku reviziju nedavne donacije hrvatske vlade u iznosu od €100,000 ESLJP

Poštovani gospodine/ gospođo,

Mi, predstavnici Kruga 99, želimo se službeno pozabaviti etičkim problemima oko nedavne donacije hrvatske vlade od 100.000 eura Evropskom sudu za ljudska prava (ECHR). Ovaj doprinos, navodno usmjeren na rješavanje zaostalih predmeta pred Sudom, dolazi u ključnom trenutku kada Hrvatska ima svoje interese u predmetima koji se trenutno vode pred Sudom, posebno u predmetu Kovačević protiv Bosne i Hercegovine. Vrijeme, kontekst i implikacije ove donacije zahtijevaju pomno ispitivanje u skladu sa etičkim standardima koji su predložili EU za institucionalno ponašanje.

Kao što je potpredsjednica Věra Jourová naglasila, uspostavljanje zajedničkih etičkih standarda za sve institucije EU ključno je za održavanje povjerenja javnosti i osiguravanje da svi akteri djeluju pod jedinstvenim kodeksom transparentnosti, nepristrasnosti i integriteta. Ovaj slučaj predstavlja jedinstvenu priliku da se ti standardi implementiraju u stvarnosti, posebno imajući u vidu dalekosežne implikacije na nezavisnost pravosuđa i kredibilitet evropskih institucija. Naša organizacija vjeruje da bi prihvatanje ove donacije od strane ECHR-a moglo izazvati zabrinutost koja prevazilazi proceduralna pitanja, dotičući se pitanja transparentnosti, sukoba interesa i potencijalnog okruženja „plati za igru“, što bi moglo narušiti povjerenje javnosti u institucije

1. Implikacije uočenog uticaja na predmete ECHR-a

Ova donacija izaziva razumnu zabrinutost zbog neprimjerenog utjecaja država članica na sudske procese, posebno s obzirom na aktivne interese Hrvatske u nekoliko slučajeva visokog profila. U svakom sudskom okruženju, sama percepcija mogućeg uticaja kroz finansijske doprinose stranaka sa aktivnim predmetima ugrožava izgled pravičnosti i nepristrasnosti. Ova situacija zahtijeva rigoroznu kontrolu, jer je integritet Suda od suštinskog značaja za očuvanje prava i interesa svih građana EU, bez uticaja državnih aktera.

2. Presedan Pay-to-Play i dugoročni etički rizici

Omogućavanje državama da doniraju Evropskom sudu za ljudska prava bez rigoroznog nadzora otvara vrata potencijalnim praksama „plati za igru“ koje bi mogle fundamentalno promijeniti izgled evropskog pravosuđa. Države članice s većim finansijskim sredstvima mogu se osjećati ohrabrenim da finansijski doprinesu pravosudnim institucijama pod izgovorom olakšavana obrade zaostalih predmeta, dok istovremeno dobijaju neformalnu mogućnost uticaja na sudske ishode. Takve radnje rizikuju stvaranje nepravednog sistema u kojem bogatije države mogu efikasno zaobići etičke barijere i dati prioritet svojim interesima nad nepristrasnom pravdom, što bi potkopalo same temelje posvećenosti EU jednakosti i demokratskim vrijednostima.

3. Transparentnost i potreba za javnim objavljivanjem

Transparentnost je neophodna za održavanje povjerenja u javne institucije, posebno u slučajevima kada se finansijski doprinosi mogu smatrati mehanizmima uticaja. Stoga, s poštovanjem tražimo da se potpuni detalji o uvjetima ove donacije, uključujući sve prethodne ili istodobne komunikacije između hrvatske Vlade i ECHR-a ili drugih europskih tijela, otkriju javnosti. Nedavno predloženi etički standardi EU posebno naglašavaju važnost transparentnosti u pogledu prihvatanja poklona, ​​finansiranja i donacija trećih strana kako bi se spriječili sukobi interesa.

Javno objavljivanje uslova ove donacije pružilo bi sigurnost građanima Evrope da su Sud i druge institucije EU u potpunosti posvećeni transparentnosti i vođene vladavinom etike.

4. Usklađenost sa etičkim standardima EU

Prihvatanje ove donacije također može biti u suprotnosti s predloženim zajedničkim etičkim standardima EU, koji naglašavaju ograničavanja poklona, ​​usluga gostoprimstva i finansiranja od strane trećih strana. Namjera institucija EU da implementiraju ove standarde je da spriječi čak i pojavu neprimjerenog uticaja. Ova donacija služi kao vitalni test za EU da dokaže svoju posvećenost očuvanju nezavisnosti i transparentnosti svojih institucija. Propust da se ova situacija detaljno ispita može ugroziti kredibilitet ovih novih etičkih standarda, šaljući poruku da se o predanosti EU-a integritetu i odgovornosti može pregovarati pod određenim okolnostima.

5. Reperkusije po javno povjerenje i institucionalni integritet EU

Ako se ne riješi, ova situacija može izazvati skepticizam među građanima EU u pogledu nezavisnosti institucija EU, posebno pravosuđa. Ne djelovanje u ovom slučaju može dovesti do trajnih sumnji u nepristrasnost ESLJP i pravosudnih mehanizama EU, što bi umanjilo ulogu EU kao modela demokratskog integriteta na globalnoj sceni. Proaktivnim rješavanjem ovog pitanja, institucije EU mogu ojačati svoju posvećenost odgovornosti i pokazati svoju predanost vrijednostima sadržanim u temeljnim principima EU.

Zaključak i zahtjev za djelovanje

U svjetlu ove zabrinutosti, pozivamo Europsko vijeće kao i Komisiju EU da preduzme zvaničnu reviziju ove donacije kako bi se utvrdilo da li je u skladu s etičkim standardima EU i opredijeljenosti za nepristrasnost. Nadalje, preporučujemo uspostavljanje snažnog nadzornog mehanizma kako bi se osiguralo da svi budući doprinosi ESLJP i sličnim institucijama budu potpuno transparentni, bez sukoba interesa i usklađeni s etičkim okvirom EU. Tražimo pojašnjenje o tome kako Vijeće, kao i druge relevantne institucije EU planiraju rješavati ovo pitanje i spriječiti pojavu sličnih situacija u budućnosti.

Vjerujemo da i Europsko vijeće i Evropska komisija dijele našu posvećenost očuvanju integriteta i transparentnosti pravosudnih tijela EU. Poduzimanjem brzih i odlučnih mjera u ovom slučaju, institucije EU mogu ojačati povjerenje javnosti i pokazati da je EU nepokolebljiva u svojoj posvećenosti etičkom upravljanju.

Hvala vam na pažnji po ovom pitanju. Radujemo se vašem odgovoru.

S poštovanjem,

Adil Kulenović, predsjednik Kruga 99

The post Hitan poziv za etičku reviziju donacije hrvatske vlade u iznosu od €100,000 ESLJP appeared first on Krug99.

Aufruf der Intellektuellen und Persönlichkeiten des öffentlichen Lebens im Fall Schmidt gegen die Zukunft Bosnien und Herzegowinas (BiH)

1. Intellektuelle, Persönlichkeiten des öffentlichen Lebens, die akademische Gemeinschaft, die Mehrheit der Bürgerinnen und Bürger, Nichtregierungsorganisationen, darunter auch die Vereinigung unabhängiger Intellektueller – Kreis 99 (Asocijacija nezavisnih intelektualaca Krug 99), sind nicht gegen die Institution des Amtes des Hohen Repräsentanten (OHR), sondern gegen dessen Politik, die die demokratische Zukunft von Bosnien und Herzegowina (BiH) verhindert. Der derzeitige Hohe Repräsentant in BiH, Christian Schmidt, handelt nicht im Einklang mit seinem Mandat und den demokratischen Gepflogenheiten der modernen Welt. Mit seiner Gesamtpolitik zur Umsetzung des zivilen Teils des Daytoner Friedensabkommens in BiH und insbesondere durch seine nachfolgenden Eingriffe – (a) die Änderung des Wahlgesetzes in BiH in der Wahlnacht (Oktober 2022) zugunsten einer ethnozentrischen und zum Nachteil einer bürgerlich-verfassungspolitischen Organisation des Staates, (b) die Aussetzung der Verfassung der Föderation Bosnien und Herzegowina für 24 Stunden (2023), (c) den Widerstand gegen das Urteil des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte (EGMR) im Fall Slaven Kovačević gegen BiH – fügt er langfristig allen Bürgerinnen und Bürgern, dem Staat Bosnien und Herzegowina, der EU und der internationalen Gemeinschaft großen Schaden zu.

• Als Hoher Repräsentant der internationalen Gemeinschaft in BiH unterstützt und vertritt Christian Schmidt eine rückwärtsgewandte, konservative und ethnozentrische Politik, sowohl in außen- als auch in innenpolitischen Beziehungen, in Zusammenarbeit mit ethnozentrischen Regierungen. Deshalb muss er durch eine geeignetere Person abgelöst werden.

• Christian Schmidt führt durch seine Politik des Ethnozentrismus in BiH die Bürgerinnen und Bürger und die Bevölkerung von Bosnien und Herzegowina einerseits in gegenseitige politische Isolation, Diskriminierung, Segregation, politische und verfassungsrechtliche Ungleichheit sowie andererseits in gegenseitiges Misstrauen und eine Skepsis gegenüber Bosnien und Herzegowina. Damit schwächt er das Vertrauen (a) in eine verfassungsrechtlich bessere Zukunft für BiH und  (b) in jegliche demokratische Zukunft des Staates und ein besseres Leben für die Bürgerinnen und Bürger.

• Da das Urteil des EGMR im Fall S. Kovačević gegen BiH die verfassungsmäßige und politische Diskriminierung in der aktuellen Verfassung von BiH aufhebt, handelt Christian Schmidt, indem er sich diesem Urteil widersetzt, gegen europäische Prinzipien und stoppt die Annäherung von BiH und seiner Bürgerinnen und Bürger an moderne demokratische Standards sowie an die rechtliche und politische Gleichheit der Bürgerinnen und Bürger der Europäischen Union.

• Christian Schmidt fördert den Euroskeptizismus unter den Bürgerinnen und Bürgern und der Bevölkerung von BiH bezüglich der Notwendigkeit, westliche Werte im Land zu stärken und verbindlich zu machen: (a) er schafft Perspektivlosigkeit unter den Bürgern und Bürgerinnen BiHs, (b) er nimmt ihnen die Hoffnung, jemals Teil der EU-Bürgerschaft zu werden, (c) er relativiert die Bemühungen der Behörden von BiH, die Bedingungen für den EU-Beitritt des Landes zu erfüllen.

• Indem Christian Schmidt sich in die Entscheidungen des EGMR im Fall S. Kovačević einmischt, übt er (a) politischen Druck auf den Gerichtshof aus, erzeugt (b) Skepsis gegenüber dem Gerichtshof, erweckt (c) den Eindruck, dass dieser Gerichtshof Urteile unter politischem Druck fällt – insbesondere seinem eigenen Einfluss als hohe internationale politische Autorität sowie unter dem politischen Druck Kroatiens als EU-Mitglied.

• Es ist kein Geheimnis mehr, dass Christian Schmidt in BiH großstaatliche, hegemonistische und neokolonialistische politische Agenden Kroatiens und Serbiens verfolgt und mehr als deren heimlicher Hoher Repräsentant, denn als Hoher Repräsentant der internationalen Gemeinschaft agiert.

• Als wäre er Hoher Repräsentant Kroatiens hat Christian Schmidt im Interesse dieses Landes mit den von ihm vorgenommenen Änderungen am Wahlgesetz in Bosnien und Herzegowina das Folgende bewirkt: (a) die ethnische Territorialisierung der Föderation von BiH – und damit die Grundlage für die Wiederherstellung einer dritten, kroatischen Entität in Bosnien und Herzegowina – sowie (b) ethnische Diskriminierung und Ungleichbehandlung der Wählerstimmen  bosnischer Kroaten gegenüber Bosniaken und anderen.

• Als wäre er Hoher Repräsentant Serbiens in Bosnien und Herzegowina unternimmt Christian Schmidt: (a) keine Maßnahmen im Einklang mit seinen Befugnissen gegen das irrendentistische und sezessionistische Handeln der verantwortlichen Vertreter der Regierungsorgane der Republika Srpska und reagiert (b) nicht auf die Erklärung des sogenannten Svesrpski Sabors (Allserbische Versammlung; „Erklärung zum Schutz der nationalen und politischen Rechte und der gemeinsamen Zukunft des serbischen Volkes“), einem anti-bosnischen Rechtsdokument, das gegen die Daytoner Verfassung verstößt.

1. Schmidt wendet sich nicht gegen das Kovačević-Urteil und die fünf früheren Urteile gegen Bosnien und Herzegowina, da er sie aus rechtlicher und menschenrechtlicher Sicht für unbegründet hielte. Er bestreitet nicht, dass die Verfassung von Bosnien und Herzegowina im Hinblick auf die im Urteil aufgeworfenen Fragen diskriminierend ist. Er warnt jedoch den Europäischen Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte vor den Gefahren, die sich aus ihrer Umsetzung ergeben könnten, was mit der Rolle des Gerichthofs unvereinbar sei.

1. Indem Christian Schmidt das Urteil des EGMR im Fall Slaven Kovačević gegen Bosnien und Herzegowina anficht, wendet er sich indirekt gegen alle seine Urteile gegen die verfassungsrechtliche Diskriminierung der Bürger und Bürgerinnen von Bosnien und Herzegowina. Er lehnt es ab, dass die Urteile konkrete Folgen haben müssen, und erklärt sie sogar für schädlich für Bosnien und Herzegowina. Damit stellt er (a) alle bereits rechtskräftigen Urteile des EGMR gegen die ethnische, politische und verfassungsrechtliche Diskriminierung der Menschen in Bosnien und Herzegowina infrage, erhält (b) die in der aktuellen Verfassung von Bosnien und Herzegowina enthaltenen politischen und verfassungsrechtlichen Ungleichheiten der Bürgerinnen und Bürger aufrecht, schützt und zementiert (c) alle Errungenschaften der beiden gemeinsamen kriminellen Unternehmungen (joint criminal enterprises) gegen Bosnien und Herzegowina, setzt (d)  die Verteidiger Bosnien und Herzegowinas und die Angreifer gleich, friert (e) die bosnische Kriegs- und politische Ordnung auf unbestimmte Zeit ein und (f) toleriert, fördert und ruft er politische Erpressung und Gewalt in den innenpolitischen Beziehungen bei bosnienfeindlichen politischen Kräften hervor.

1. Die Mitgliedstaaten des Friedensimplementierungsrats (PIC) haben keinen Konsens über die Teilnahme von Christian Schmidt am EGMR-Verfahren gegen das erstinstanzliche Urteil von Slaven Kovačević gegen Bosnien und Herzegowina.

SCHLIESSEN SIE SICH UNS AN!

Sarajevo, 25. Oktober 2024

The post Aufruf der Intellektuellen und Persönlichkeiten des öffentlichen Lebens im Fall Schmidt gegen die Zukunft BiH appeared first on Krug99.

des intellectuels et personnalités publiques dans l’affaire Schmidt contre l’avenir de la Bosnie-Herzégovine (BiH).

1. Les intellectuels, personnalités publiques, la communauté universitaire, les organisations non gouvernementales, y compris l'Association des Intellectuels Indépendants – Le Cercle 99 – ainsi que la majorité des citoyens ne sont pas contre l'institution du Haut Représentant, mais bien contre la politique qu’elle mène et son impact sur l'avenir démocratique de la Bosnie-Herzégovine.

L'actuel Haut Représentant pour la Bosnie-Herzégovine, Christian Schmidt, n'agit pas conformément au mandat qui lui a été conféré. Avec sa politique globale de mise en œuvre du volet civil de l'Accord de Paix de Dayton en Bosnie-Herzégovine, et notamment lors des interventions suivantes, M. Schmidt a dérogé aux pratiques démocratiques du monde moderne:

1. sur la loi électorale en Bosnie-Herzégovine le soir des élections (en octobre 2022) en la modifiant en faveur des velléités ethnocenttriques, et au détriment du système constitutionnel et politique civil de l'État,
   1. en suspendant la Constitution de la Fédération de Bosnie-Herzégovine pendant 24 heures (en 2023),
   1. en s'opposant à l'arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme Slaven Kovačević contre la BiH.

Christian Schmidt provoque à terme d'énormes dommages à tous les citoyens, à l'État de Bosnie-Herzégovine, aux acquis de l'Union européenne (UE) ainsi qu’à la communauté internationale.

• En tant que Haut Représentant de la communauté internationale en Bosnie-Herzégovine, Christian Schmidt soutient et défend une politique ethnocentrique rétrograde et destructrice, tant dans ses rapports à la politique intérieure/extérieure de la BiH qu'en collaborant avec les autorités ethnocentriques. Il doit donc être remplacé.

• Christian Schmidt, en menant une politique ethnocentrique en Bosnie-Herzégovine, conduit les citoyens de Bosnie-Herzégovine à un isolationnisme politique mutuel, à la discrimination systémique, à la ségrégation, aux inégalités constitutionnelles et juridiques, à la méfiance mutuelle d'une part, et pousse les citoyens, d’autre part, à pratiquer un scepticisme rampant :

1. quant à la possibilité d’élaborer une nouvelle Constitution,
2. quant à l’avenir démocratique de l'État,
3. quant à la poursuite d’une vie meilleure et prospère pour tous les citoyens.

• Puisque l'arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme Kovačević contre la Bosnie-Herzégovine abolit la discrimination constitutionnelle, juridique et politique dans la Constitution actuelle de la Bosnie-Herzégovine, Christian Schmidt, en s'opposant à ce jugement agit de manière anti-européenne, empêchant la Bosnie-Herzégovine et ses citoyens d’avancer vers des normes démocratiques modernes, vers l’égalité juridique et politique dont tous citoyens des pays de l’Union européenne devraient jouir.
• Christian Schmidt produit de l'euroscepticisme parmi les citoyens selon la nécessité de renforcer les valeurs prônées par l’UE avec les conséquences suivantes :

1. cela alimente le désespoir chez les citoyens de BiH,
2. cela écarte l’option citoyenne prônée par l’Union européenne,
3. cela relativise les efforts déployés par les autorités de Bosnie-Herzégovine pour remplir les conditions d'entrée de la Bosnie-Herzégovine dans l’UE.

• En intervenant dans les décisions prises par la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme dans l'arrêt Kovačević contre la Bosnie-Herzégovine, Christian Schmidt :

1. exerce une pression politique sur la Cour Européenne des droits de l’homme,
2. provoque le scepticisme à l’égard de la Cour Européenne des droits de l’homme,
3. donne l’impression que cette Cour rend ses arrêts sous la pression du monde politique, en l’occurrence, sous la pression du Haut Représentant, et sous la pression politique de la Croatie en tant que membre de l’UE.

• Ce n'est pas un mystère que Christian Schmidt, en Bosnie-Herzégovine, met en œuvre les programmes politiques hégémoniques et néocoloniaux de la Croatie et de la Serbie, et agit davantage comme leur Haut Représentant secret que comme le Haut Représentant de la Bosnie-Herzégovine.

• En tant que « Haut Représentant » de la Croatie en BiH, Christian Schmidt, suite aux modifications qu’il a apportées à la loi électorale en Bosnie-Herzégovine instaure :

1. la territorialisation ethnique de la Fédération de BiH, créant ainsi la base électorale pour l’établissement d’une troisième entité croate en Bosnie-Herzégovine,
2. une discrimination ethnique en raison des inégalités dues au poids du vote des Croates de BiH par rapport à celui des Bosniaques, des Serbes de BiH, etc.

• En tant que « Haut Représentant » de la Serbie en BiH, Christian Schmidt :

1. ne prend pas de mesures conformes à son autorité contre les représentants des autorités de l’entité Republika Srpska responsables d'irrédentisme et de séparatisme,
2. ne considère pas la Déclaration du Parlement panserbe comme un document juridique anti-bosnien et anti-Daytonien.

1. Cristian Schmidt ne conteste pas que la Constitution de la Bosnie-Herzégovine soit discriminatoire suite au verdict rendu par la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme. Mais il effraie la Cour européenne des Droits de l’Homme afin d’entraver la mise en œuvre concrète dudit verdict en BiH.

1. En s'opposant à l'arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme Kovačević contre la Bosnie-Herzégovine, Christian Schmidt annule indirectement tous ses jugements rendus contre la discrimination constitutionnelle des citoyens en Bosnie-Herzégovine, rejette l’autorité des jugements dans leur application concrète sur le terrain et les déclare préjudiciables aux intérêts de la Bosnie-Herzégovine. Ainsi :
2. il remet en question tous les arrêts déjà valides de la Cour européenne contre les discriminations ethnique, politique et constitutionnelle des citoyens en Bosnie-Herzégovine,
3. il maintient les inégalités politiques, constitutionnelles et juridiques des citoyens contenues dans la Constitution actuelle de la Bosnie-Herzégovine,
4. il protège et gèle tous les avoirs d’ECA (Eentreprises Criminelles Associées / Associated Criminal Enterprises, déjà jugées par le tribunal de La Haye) contre la Bosnie-Herzégovine,
5. il met sur un même pied d'égalité ceux qui défendent les intérêts de la Bosnie-Herzégovine avec ceux qui les agressent,
6. il entretient indéfiniment le statut quo de guerre,
7. il tolère, promeut et incite au chantage politique et à la violence dans les relations politiques internes en collaborant avec les forces politiques qui souhaitent nuire aux intérêts de la BiH.

1. Les États membres du PIC (Conseil de mise en œuvre de la paix /Peace Implementation Council) pour BiH, ne parviennent pas à un consensus sur une participation de Christian Schmidt à la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme contre le verdict de première instance dans l’affaire Slaven Kovačević contre la Bosnie-Herzégovine.

REJOIGNEZ-NOUS !

Sarajevo, le 25 octobre 2024.

The post Déclaration des intellectuels et personnalités publiques dans l’affaire Schmidt contre l’avenir de la BiH appeared first on Krug99.

intelektualaca i javnih ličnosti iz Bosne i Hercegovine i inostranstva

1. Abdel Alibegović dr. sci.
2. Adem Kulauzović, privrednik, Cazin
3. Adem Salihagić, prof. dr. Univerziteta u Bihaću
4. Ademir Jerković, dr. nauka
5. Adi Rifatbegović, prof. dr, Univerziteta u Tuzli
6. Adib Đozić, prof. dr.  Srebrenica
7. Adil Kulenović, predsjednik Kruga 99
8. Adnan Ibrahimović, prof.dr, Tuzla
9. Adnan Mašić, prof. dr.
10. Adnan Tufekčić, prof. dr, Tuzla
11. Ahmed Kico, prof. dr. Bugojno
12. Ahmet Alibasić, prof. dr.
13. Aiša Telalović, mr. sci.
14. Aladin Husić, dr, naučni savjetnik i direktor Orijentalnog instituta
15. Aleksandar Knežević, prof. dr.
16. Alija Behram, Mostar
17. Alija Hamzić, mr. publicist, Tuzla
18. Alija Karić, prof. dr Tuzla
19. Alija Muminović, Mr. političkih nauka
20. Alija Pirić prof. dr.
21. Alma Avdić, dr sc. pedagog
22. Almir Zalihić, prof. književnik, Brčko-Sarajevo
23. Aljo Mujčić, prof.dr. Tuzla, Profesor na ETF
24. Amer Osmić, prof.dr
25. Amina Čorbo- Zećo, novinar
26. Amira Turbić, prof. dr, Tuzla
27. Asim Fazlagić, mr. sci. Vice President, Eversource Energy, Boston
28. Asim Peštalić, mr. ec., Gradačac
29. Azra Suljić mr.ph.
30. Azra Zornić, apelant pred ESLJP
31. Bahrija Umihanić, prof. dr Univerzitet u Tuzli
32. Bakir Alispahić prof. dr.
33.  Boris Krešić dr. sci. profesor na Pravnom fakultetu, Tuzla
34. Bosiljka Bakrač, Montenegrin Helsinki Committee
35. Burkhard Gauly, Njemačka, Društvo za ugrožene narode
36. Carole Hodge, dr. sci.pol. University of Glasgow  
37. Ćamila Đono , ing., Belgija
38. Darko Čurčić, prof.
39. David Pettigrew, Prof. PhD. Southern Connecticut State University, New Haven, USA
40. Džeko Hodžić, akademski slikar
41. Džemail Ferhatović, prof. dr Tuzla
42. Džemal Najetović, prof. dr Univerzitet u Zenici
43. Džemal Ramić, dipl.ecc, privrednik, Ilidža

• Džemal Sokolović prof. dr.
• Dženana Delić, mr.sci. Velika Britanija
• Dženita Karić dr. Nizozemska,
• Edib Kravić dip. ec., Tuzla
• Edin Batlak, Mostar
• Eldin Mujkić, student
• Elma Agić, student
• Elvedin Nezirović, književnik, Mostar
• Elvir Švrakić, direktor TV Hayat
• Elvir Zlomušica, prof. dr. Mostar, ex rektor Univerziteta
• Emin Hatunić, prof. dr, Tuzla
• Emina Ibrić, novinar ,Tuzla
• Emir Hajdarović, aktivista, Mostar
• Emir Nuhanović, kompozitor i dirigent
• Emir Ramić, prof. dr. Institut za genocid Kanada
• Emir Turkušić, prof. dr.
• Emira Kahrović, akademkinja dr.
• Enes Pelidija, prof. dr.
• Enver Halilović, prof. dr. ex rektor UNTZ
• Enver Išerić, prof. dr.
• Ermin Sinanovic, dr. USA,
• Ervin Jahić, književnik
• Esad Duraković, akademik prof. dr.
• Esmir Ganić, mr. sci, Katar
• Fadila Hajrović, dip. pra. Tuzla
• Fatih Destović, prof. dr.
• Fatmir Baći, akademik
• Feđa Klikovac, Montenegrin Helsinki Committee
• Florance Hartmann, novinar, Francuska
• Fuad Đidić, diplomata
• Halid Dedić, prof Bihać
• Halid Merdanić, prof dr Bihać
• Hamid Čustović, akademik prof.dr.
• Haris Kulenović, novinar
• Haris Šehić, dip. ec. Tuzla
• Hariz Redžić, mr ecc. Živinice
• Harun Kamerić, student
• Hazim Bašić, prof. dr.
• Himzo Đukić prof. dr.
• Husein Muratović, prof. dr., Bihać
• Husein Topčagić, dip.ecc, Gradačac
• Isak Karabegović, akademik
• Ismail Ražanica, student
• Ismet Dedeić, dip.ec., Brčko
• Ismet Kurtagić, prof. dr.
• Ivan Ejub Kostic, dr. Srbija, 
• Izet Hadžić, prof. dr Univerziteta u Tuzli
• Izet Horman, prof. dr.
• Jahja Muhasilović prof. dr.
• Jasna Čaušević, Društvo za ugrožene narode
• John H. Weiss, prof. PhD, SAD
• Jusuf Pušina dr.
• Lamija Keso, student
• Larisa Velić, prof. dr.Zenica
• Luigj Shkreli, Montenegrin Helsinki Committee
• Maida Avdagić, aktivistica
• Majda Šahman, Montenegrin Helsinki Committee
• Marko Atila Hoare, prof. dr.
• Martin Tais, predsjednik Skupštine Kruga 99
•  Mehdija Pepić, MSc. (PhD), Belgija
• Mehmed Jahić prof. dr.
• Mehmed Zenka, Montenegrin Helsinki Committee
• Mehmed Žilić, mr. publicist, Tuzla
• Meho Bajrić, mr. publicist, Tuzla
• Meho Kapo, dipl. ing. arhitekt MSA, Švedska
• Miodrag Vlahović, Montenegrin Helsinki Committee
• Miro Lazović, ex predsjednik Skupštine RBiH
• Mirsad Fazlić,  prof. dr Univerziteta u Tuzli
• Mirsad Kunić, prof. dr Univerziteta u Tuzli
• Mirsad Mujadžić, Full professor, redovni profesor
• Mirsad Šehanović dip. ing., Tuzla
• Mirsad Tokača, dir. Institut za istraživanje ratnih zločina
• Mirsad Veladžić, prof. dr. Bihać
• Muamer Kalić prof. dr, Goražde
• Mugdim Bajrić, prof. dr Univerziteta u Tuzli
• Muhamed Bilajac, mr ec. privrednik Gradačac
• Muhamed Hamzić, student
•  Muhamed Mahmutović, književnik, Švedska
• Muhamed Saracević, Dr. Sent Luis, SAD, spec.nuklerne medicine
• Muhamed Spuža, prof. Ulcinj
• Muharem Avdispahić, prof. dr. ex – Rektor UNSA
•  Muharem Cero, pravni ekspert
• Murat Baltić, književnik, Njemačka
• Murat Dizdarević prof. dr.
• Mustafa Alagić mr. ecc.
• Nebojša Kaluđerović, Montenegrin Helsinki Committee
• Nedim Suljić, prof. dr. Tuzla
• Nedžad Sivić, profesor, Bosanska Krupa
• Nedžad Ahatović, vojno politički analitičar
• Nejra Tinjić, psiholog
• Nermin Tursić, dr. Srebrenik
• Nihad Fejzić prof. dr.
• Nijaz Sofić, prim. dr. Sidnej
• Nikola Martinović,  Montenegrin Helsinki Committee
• Omer Spahić, prof. Malezija,
• Orhan Bajraktarević prof. dr.
• Rajko Živković, novinar
• Ramo Bronja dip. ing.
• Rasim Belko, novinar
• Ratko Orozović, reditelj
• Redžo Dizdarević akademik, prof. dr
• Refik Bulić, prof. dr Univerziteta u Tuzla
• Renad Šeremet, ing
• Resul Mehmedović prof., publicist, Tuzla
• Reuf Bajrović, politički analitičar
• Rijad Ahmetović,  student
• Rizah Sokoli, prof.publicist, Tuzla
• Sabahudin Hadžialić, prof. dr.
• Sabira Ramić, dipl. ecc., privreda, Ilidža
• Sado Bahtić, prof. dr. 
• Safet Zec, akademski slikar
• Sahudin Kačar, prof.
• Sakib Glibanović,  dip. ecc. Tuzla
• Salih Fočo, prof.dr. ex dekan Filozofskog fakulteta Sarajevo
• Satko Mujagić, magistar prava, Belgija
• Sead Husić, mr. bibliotekar
• Sead Jahić, dipl.ing. Gračanica
• Sead Nazibegović prof. dr, lingvistika
• Sead Numanović, novinar
• Sead Maslo, Doc. Dr. Mostar
• Sead Rešidbegović dip. ec., Gračanica
• Sead Selimovic prof. dr, Univerzitet Tuzli
• Selma Đuliman prof. dr.
• Selvedin Begović dip. ec, Travnik
• Senad Oprašić dr.
• Senada Memić, vet.
• Senadin Lavić, prof. dr.
• Senadin Musabegović prof. dr.
• Senahid Hodžić prof. dr, Tuzla
• Sifet Kukuruz, mr. prava
• Sirađ Duhan, BAD, Austrija
• Slaven Kovačević dr., apelant pred ESLJP
• Sulejman Kandić prof. dr.
• Suzana Sekulović Kadirić, savjetnica za liderstvo i komunikacije, Švedska,
• Šefket Krcić, prof. dr. Crna Gora
• Šeki Radončić,  Montenegrin Helsinki Committee
• Tamara Nikčević,  Montenegrin Helsinki Committee
• Tanya L. Domi, Adjunct Professor, Columbia University
• Tarik Kupusović, prof.dr. ex Gradonačelnik Sarajeva
• Vahidin Preljević, prof. dr.
• Zdravko Lučić, prof.dr. Pravni fakultet, Sarajevo
• Zijad Hasić prof.dr.
• Zilha Mastalić Košuta, dr. historičarka
• Zlatan Begić, prof. dr., Tuzla
• Zlatan Buljko, prof.Mostar
• Zlatko Hadžidedić prof. dr.
• Zlatko Prašović, književnik, Njemačka
• Zeljko Majstorović, metereolog

The post 191 potpisnika Proglasa appeared first on Krug99.

Intellectuals and public persons in the case of Schmidt vs the future of BiH

1. Intellectuals, public persons, the academic community, the majority of citizens, non-governmental organizations, including the Association of Independent Intellectuals – Circle 99, are not against the OHR as the institution, but they are against its policies and interventions that prevent the democratic future of Bosnia and Herzegovina [BiH]. The current High Representative in BiH, Christian Schmidt, does not act in accordance with his mandate or according to democratic practices in the modern world. With his overall approach to implementing the civilian part of the Dayton Peace Agreement in BiH, and especially with his interventions-on the Electoral Law in BiH on election night (in October 2022) in favor of ethnocentric interests and to the detriment of the civil constitutional-political organization of the state; by suspending the FBiH Constitution for 24 hours in 2023, and by opposing the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights in the case Slaven Kovačević vs BiH-Christian Schmidt is causing enormous long-term damage to the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and finally to the EU and the international community as a whole.
2. Although he serves as the High Representative of the international community in BiH, Christian Schmidt supports and advocates for a retrograde, conservative ethnocentric policy, both in foreign and domestic political relations in Bosnia, and in collaboration with the ethnocentric authorities. That is why he must be replaced.
3. With his policies supporting ethnocentrism in BiH, The High Representative is leading the citizens of BiH down a path to political isolationism, discrimination, segregation, political and constitutional-legal inequality, and mutual mistrust. He is causing citizens to doubt whether there is any possibility of improving the BiH constitution, as well as extinguishing any hope of a more democratic future of the state and a better life for citizens.
4. The judgment of the European Court in the case of Kovačević vs BiH calls for the abolition of constitutional-legal and political discrimination in the current Constitution of BiH. By opposing this judgment, Christian Schmidt in BiH is acting against European standards, and preventing BiH and its citizens from moving towards modern democratic standards, or towards legal and political equality as citizens of the European Union.
5. Christian Schmidt produces increased skepticism about Europe and the promise of joining the EU among citizens of BiH. Schmidt fails to promote Western democratic values in BiH. Citizens are losing hope of ever becoming a part of the EU. He undermines the efforts of BiH authorities to fulfill the conditions for the entry of BiH into the EU.
6. By interfering in the decisions of the European Court in the first-instance judgment of S. Kovačević, Christian Schmidt exerts political pressure on the Court, causing citizens to lose confidence in the Court, and creating the perception that this Court bows to political pressure from a high international political authority, and from Croatia as an EU member.
7. It is no longer a secret that Christian Schmidt is serving the hegemonic-neo-colonialist political agendas of Croatia and Serbia and acting more as their high representative than as the High Representative of the international community.
8. Christian Schmidt constantly favors Croatia with his amendments to the Election Law in BiH. He introduced the ethnic territorialization of the FBiH, thereby creating the basis for the re-establishment of the third, Croatian entity in BiH and he introduces ethnic discrimination favoring Bosnian Croat voters compared to Bosniak voters, etc. It is as though he is serving as “Croatia’s High Representative”.
9. The High Representative’s policies also favor Serbia in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Mr. Schmidt does not react appropriately to those in the Republika Srpska who are responsible for policies of irredentism and separatism, and he has not reacted sufficiently to the Declaration of the All-Serbian Meeting as an anti-Bosnian and anti-Dayton legal document. It is as though Christian Schmidt is Serbia’s High Representative.
10. It is apparently the case that Christian Schmidt does not actually oppose the first-instance verdict of Slaven Kovačević, nor the five previously passed final verdicts against BiH on legal grounds. He does not dispute that the BiH Constitution is discriminatory in terms of the issues from the verdict. However, he warns the European Court of Human Rights of the dangers that may arise from the implementation of those judgments, which is completely incompatible with the meaning of the court.
11. By opposing the European Court’ judgment in the S. Kovačević vs BiH case, Christian Schmidt indirectly damages all its final judgments adopted against constitutional discrimination of citizens in BiH as he rejects the need for the judgments to be implemented and declares them harmful for BiH. He thereby calls into question all the already final judgments of the European Court against ethnic political and constitutional discrimination of people in Bosnia and Herzegovina. He maintains the political and constitutional-legal inequalities of citizens contained in the current Constitution of BiH. He protects and maintains all assets of the two JCEs against BiH.  He equalizes the defenders of BiH and the aggressors of BiH. He freezes in place, for who knows how long, the Bosnian wartime political system. Finally, he tolerates, promotes, and incites political blackmail and violence in internal political relations with Bosnian-phobic political forces.
12. PIC member states do not have a consensus on the participation of Christian Schmidt at the European Court against the first-instance verdict of Slaven Kovačević vs Bosnia and Herzegovina. Hence, he seems to be proceeding on his own initiative.

JOIN US!

Sarajevo, October 25, 2024.

The post PROCLAMATION Intellectuals and public persons in the case of Schmidt vs the future of BiH appeared first on Krug99.

Sarajevo, 23.09.2024.

OTVORENO PISMO KRUGA 99

ČLANOVIMA VIJEĆA ZA IMPLEMENTACIJU MIRA

Na znanje:

Komitetu ministara Vijeća Evrope

Evropskom sudu za ljudska prava

Javnosti Bosne i Hercegovine

Uvažene Ekscelencije,

Članovi Vijeća za implementaciju mira,

U povodu informacije da će se Visoki predstavnik Christian Schmidt pojaviti pred Velikim vijećem Evropskog suda za ljudska prava, Krug 99 kroz ovo otvoreno pismo upućeno članicama Upravnog odbora PIK-a i bosanskohercegovačkoj demokratskoj javnosti izražava svoj protest.

Članom 2 Aneksa 10. Opšteg okvirnog sporazuma za mir donesenog u Daytonu jasno su definirane nadležnosti Visokog predstavnika.

Naše obraćanje je utemeljeno u Aneksu 10, član 1. gdje se jasno se kaže da je posao i nadležnost Visokog predstavnika implementacija civilnog aspekta Daytonskog mirovnog sporazuma u Bosni i Hercegovini, a ne izvan nje i posebno ne na internacionalnoj političkoj sceni. Krug 99 uz pružanje istinitih i kompletnih činjenica, iskazuje i ozbiljna upozorenja na greške u postupanju Visokog predstavnika, odnosno pokušaju kršenja Konvencije o zaštiti ljudskih prava i osnovnih sloboda, te vladavine prava u Bosni i Hercegovini.

S tim ciljem ukazujemo na sljedeće činjenice:

• VP C. Schmidt, sukladno Aneksu 10 član II, nema ovlaštenja da se miješa u sporove koje vode pojedinci, građani, pred Evropskim sudom za ljudska prava protiv Bosne i Hercegovine radi kršenja pojedinačnih ljudskih prava propisanih evropskom Konvencijom o zaštiti ljudskih prava i osnovnih sloboda, niti ima nadležnost da se pojavljuje kao strana u bilo kojem sporu pred internacionalnim sudovima.
• VP C. Schmidta nije ovlastila niti pozvala nijedna strana u postupku! U skladu s Pravilom 44. (Miješanje treće stranke), a u vezi člana 34: Sud može da prima predstavke od svake osobe, nevladine organizacije ili grupe lica koji tvrde da su žrtve povrede prava ustanovljenih Konvencijom ili protokolima uz nju, učinjene od strane neke Visoke strane ugovornice. Visoke strane ugovornice obavezuju se da ni na koji način ne ometaju stvarno vršenje ovog prava.
• U postupku pred Velikim vijećem Suda u predmetu dr. Slaven Kovačević vs BiH. C. Schmidt je zatražio od Suda, bez znanja članica Vijeća za implementaciju mira, da ga sasluša u svojstvu treće stranke u postupku i to putem jedne britanske advokatske kancelarije, što je skandalozno i paradoksalno. Na osnovu naprijed navedenog postavlja se pitanje u kojem svojstvu se C. Schmidt obraća Evropskom sudu za ljudska prava u predmetu Kovačević? Po čijem odobrenju to čini? Ko to plaća?
• VP mora znati da se civilni aspekt Opšteg okvirnog sporazuma za mir u BiH ne štiti učvršćivanjem i jačanjem etničkih podjela i pokušajem da se pravomoćne presude relativiziraju ili ponište, a sam Evropski sud za ljudska prava na taj način degradira.  

U presudama “Sejdić-Finci case law“, preciznije u presudi Zornić vs BiH, Sud zaključuje: Utvrđivanje povrede u ovom predmetu bila je izravna posljedica propusta vlasti da uvedu mjere kako bi osiguralo poštivanje presude Velikog vijeća u predmetu Sejdić i Finci. Propust tužene države da podnese ustavne i zakonodavne prijedloge kako bi se okončala trenutna neusklađenost Ustava i izbornog zakona s Konvencijom.

U članu 43. navedene presude Sud zaključuje: „…u vrijeme kada su donesene sporne ustavne odredbe na terenu došlo do vrlo krhkog primirja, te da je cilj tih odredbi bio da se zaustavi brutalni sukob obilježen genocidom i “etničkim čišćenjem“. Priroda tog sukoba bila je takva da je bilo neophodno pristati na “konstituentne narode” kako bi se osigurao mir. Međutim sada, više od osamnaest godina nakon završetka tragičnog sukoba, ne može postojati bilo kakav razlog za održavanje na snazi spornih ustavnih odredbi..“.

Pojednostavljeno rečeno obaranjem presude Kovačević dovode se u pitanje i sve ostale presude iz Sejdić-Finci case law, kao i njihova implementacija.

Isto tako, u Aneksu III Daytonskog mirovnog sporazuma u članu 4. – Pravo glasanja – jasno piše: Svaki državljanin Bosne i Hercegovine s navršenih 18 godina čije je ime na Popisu stanovništva Bosne i Hercegovine iz 1991. ima, u skladu s izbornim pravilima i propisima, pravo glasanja. Iz navedenog proizilazi da se ne daje nikakav prioritet etničkim skupinama kao kolektivitetu, već je to pravo dato jednako svim državljanima Bosne i Hercegovine.

C. Schmidt se samopozvao u Strazbur! On traži da bude “Treća strana – intervencija“ u postupku, ali ne da se pojavi kao ”prijatelj suda” u slučaju dr.  Kovačević. Zvanično saopštenje OHR-a o tome da su pozvani kao “prijatelji suda“ je apsolutna neistina. Time direktno utiče da se Bosna i Hercegovina i dalje drži zarobljena u procjepu etno-politika i nazaduje u svom demokratskom razvoju. C. Schmidt time pomaže nepovijesnu ideju “legitimnog predstavljanja naroda” i tome podređenog koncepta izbornog zakona. Ovo je potpuno suprotno njegovom mandatu!

Šta VP Schmidt može reći u vezi Presude u slučaju dr. Kovačević? Neće valjda svjedočiti da Bosanci uživaju u diskriminaciji i aparthejdu? Od ranije su poznate izjave hrvatskog premijera A. Plenkovića da je on uticao na C. Schmidta u vezi donošenja nedemokratskih izmjena Ustava i Izbornog zakona FBiH. Da li je C. Schmidt u ulozi koju mu je i ovaj put povjerio A. Plenković? Da li je zabrinut za svoju poziciju nakon odluka koje su napravile nered u kompleksnom izbornom sistemu Bosne i Hercegovine?

Opravdano se nameće pitanje o neprovođenju presuda Evropskog suda za ljudska prava i nepoštivanje Evropske konvencije o ljudskim pravima u Bosni i Hercegovini. Čini se, nažalost, da sam C. Schmidt uopće ne pokušava raditi na implementaciji ovih presuda niti preporuka Venecijanske komisije. Bosanskohercegovačka javnost treba dobiti informacije od C. Schmidta o svim ovim pitanjima. Građani BiH zaslužuju da budu istinito informirani o njegovom radu na razvijanju demokratskog poretka.

Nedopustivo je da Visoki predstavnik ispunjava želje i naloge politike Republike Hrvatske u BiH. On bi morao biti potpuno predan radu na razvoju Bosne i Hercegovine kao države s vladavinom prava, a ne izigravati kolonijalnog namjesnika koji radi sumnjive poslove za račun nekih hegemonijskih projekata.

Visoki predstavnik je odgovoran pred građanima BiH za svoje postupke koje mora opravdati na razuman i logičan način. Bez toga on postaje noćna mora našeg društvenog i političkog života!

Zbog njegove vidne pristranosti etno politici, što je percepcija velike većine građana Bosne i Hercegovine, smatramo da je došlo vrijeme da Upravni odbor PIK-a razmotri da li je Christian Schmidt odgovarajuća osoba za posao Visokog predstavnika u Bosni i Hercegovini.

Vjerujemo da ovim otvorenim pismom dajemo doprinos implementaciji civilnog aspekta mirovnog sporazuma, s pravom  očekujući da će članovi PIC-a razmotriti navode  ovog pisma i poduzeti odgovarajuće korake.

Uz izraze poštovanja,

Za Krug 99, Adil Kulenović, predsjednik

The post OTVORENO PISMO KRUGA 99 ČLANOVIMA PIC-A appeared first on Krug99.

TO THE MEMBERS OF THE STEERING BOARD OF

THE PEACE IMPLEMENTATION COUNCIL

Cc:

Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe

European Court of Human Rights

The public of Bosnia and Herzegovina

Sarajevo, September 23, 2024.

Respected Excellencies,

Members Steering Board of the Peace Implementation Council,

On the occasion of the information that the High Representative Christian Schmidt will appear before the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, Association of independent intellectuals Circle 99 expresses its protest through this open letter addressed to the members of the Peace Implementation Council Steering Board and the democratic public of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Article 2 of Annex 10 of the General Framework Agreement for Peace adopted in Dayton clearly defines the competences of the High Representative.

Our address is based on Annex 10, Article 1, where it is clearly stated that the work and competence of the High Representative is the implementation of the civilian aspect of the Dayton Peace Agreement inside of Bosnia and Herzegovina, not outside it and especially not on the international political scene. Circle 99, in addition to providing true and complete facts, also expresses serious warnings about mistakes in the actions of the High Representative, especially his attempt to violate the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and the Rule of Law in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

With that aim in mind, we point out the following facts:

• The High Representative (HR) C. Schmidt, in accordance with Annex 10 Article II, does not have the authority to interfere in disputes brought by individuals, citizens, before the European Court of Human Rights against Bosnia and Herzegovina for the violation of individual human rights prescribed by the European Convention on the

• Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental freedoms nor he has competence which gives him possibility to appear as a party in any dispute before international courts.
• High Representative Christian Schmidt was not authorized or invited by any party in the proceedings! In accordance with Rule 44 of the Rules of Court named – Third-party intervention in conjunction with Article 34 of the Convention: The Court may receive applications from any person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals claiming to be the victim of a violation by one of the High Contracting Parties of the rights set forth in the Convention or the protocols thereto.
  The High Contracting Parties undertake not to hinder in any way the effective exercise of this right.
• In the proceedings before the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in the case of dr. Slaven Kovačević vs Bosnia and Herzegovina, Christian Schmidt requested from the Court, without the knowledge of the members of the Peace Implementation Council, to hear him as a Third party in the proceedings through a British law firm, which is scandalous and paradoxical. Based on the above, the question arises in what capacity is C. Schmidt addressing the European Court of Human Rights in the Kovačević case? With whose approval is he doing that and at whose expense?
• The High Representative should know that the civil aspect of the General Framework Agreement for Peace in BiH is not protected by consolidating and strengthening ethnic divisions and by attempting to relativize or abolish final judgments, by so the European Court of Human Rights itself is thus degraded.

In the judgments “Sejdić-Finci case law”, more precisely in the judgment Zornić vs Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Court concludes: …The finding of a violation in the present case was a direct result of the authorities’ failure to introduce measures to ensure compliance with the judgment given by the Grand Chamber in Sejdić and Finci. The failure of the respondent State to introduce constitutional and legislative proposals to put an end to the current incompatibility of the Constitution and the electoral law with the Convention was an aggravating factor as regards the State’s responsibility under the Convention.

In Article 43 of the aforementioned judgment, the Court concludes: “…when the impugned constitutional provisions were put in place a very fragile ceasefire was in effect on the ground and that the provisions were designed to end a brutal conflict marked by genocide and “ethnic cleansing”. The nature of the conflict was such that the approval of the “constituent peoples” was necessary to ensure peace (ibid.). However, now, more than eighteen years after the end of the tragic conflict, there could no longer be any reason for the maintenance of the contested constitutional provisions…”.

Simply explained, changing or abolishing the Kovačević judgment calls into question all other judgments from the Sejdić-Finci case law, as well as their implementation.

Also, in Annex III of the Dayton Peace Agreement, Article 4 – The right to vote – clearly states: Any citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina aged 18 or older whose name appears on the 1991 census for Bosnia and Herzegovina shall be eligible, in accordance with electoral rules and regulations, to vote. It follows from the above that no priority is given to ethnic groups as a collectivity, but this right is given equally to all citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

C. Schmidt invited himself to Strasbourg! He requests to be a “third party – intervention” in the proceedings, but not to appear as a “Friend of the Court” in the case of Dr. Kovačević. The

official announcement given by the OHR that they were invited as “friend of the court” is an absolute lie. This has a direct effect on Bosnia and Herzegovina being trapped in the gap between ethno-politics and regressing in its democratic development. C. Schmidt thereby helps the ahistorical idea of ​​”legitimate representation of an ethnic communities” which he wants to use as a concept of the electoral law. This is completely against his mandate!

What can High Representative Schmidt say about the judgement in the case of Dr. Kovačević? Does he try to testify that Bosnians enjoy discrimination and apartheid? Croatian Prime Minister A. Plenković's statements that he personally and lobbied the High Representative regarding the adoption of undemocratic changes to the Constitution and Election Law of  the Federation of BiH have been known for a long time. Is C. Schmidt in the role entrusted to him by Croatian Prime Minister A. Plenković this time as well? Is he worried about his position after the decisions that he imposed created a mess in the complex electoral system of Bosnia and Herzegovina?

The question of non-implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and non-compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights in Bosnia and Herzegovina is justified. It seems, unfortunately, that C. Schmidt himself is not trying to implement these judgments or the recommendations of the Venice Commission at all. The Bosnian public should receive information from C. Schmidt on all these issues. The citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina deserve to be truthfully informed about his work on developing the democratic order.

It is unacceptable that the High Representative fulfills the wishes and orders of Croatian politics in Bosnia and Herzegovina. He would have to be fully committed to work on the development of Bosnia and Herzegovina as a state with the rule of law, and not play the role of a colonial governor who does dubious business for the sake of some hegemonic projects.

The High Representative is responsible to the citizens of BiH for his actions, which he must justify in a reasonable and logical manner. Without it, it becomes a nightmare of our social and political life!

Because of his visible bias towards ethnic politics, which is the perception of the vast majority of citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina, we believe that the time has come for the Peace Implementation Council Steering Board to consider whether Christian Schmidt is the right person for the position of High Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

We believe that with this open letter we are contributing to the implementation of the civilian aspect of the Peace Agreement, expecting rightfully that the members of the PIC Steering Board members will consider the allegations of this letter and undertake appropriate steps.

With expressions of our deepest respect,

Adil Kulenović,

President of the Circle 99

The post OPEN LETTER OF CIRCLE 99 – THE PEACE IMPLEMENTATION COUNCIL appeared first on Krug99.

Povodom najavljene manifestacije Bosanskog/Bošnjačkog Narodnog Vijeća (B/BNV), želimo izraziti svoj protest zbog unošenja dodatne konfuzije oko političkog identiteta državljana i države BiH.

Izražavamo naše neslaganje zbog pokušaja izjednačavanja etničkog i nacionalnog, odnosno mimikrijske obnove starog hegemonijskog političkog vokabulara zbog kojih naša domovina i njeno stanovništvo ne vide jasne perspektive izlaza iz postojećeg stanja. Namjesto toga, konačno se mora napraviti krucijalna diferencija između etničkog i nacionalnog identiteta, niti se više smiju integralno koristiti etnički i nacionalni prefiksi i nazivi u istom značenju. Nacionalni identitet, odnosno nacionalnost je činjenično stanje određeno pravom na suverenitet i državljanstvo – u ovom kontekstu bosanski nacionalni identiteta koji je identitet svih građana Bosne i Hercegovine. Pokušaj da se rasloji etnički identitet bošnjačkog naroda sa nacionalnim identitetom svih državljana, bio bi na štetu bilo kojeg od tri najzastupljenija etnička korpusa u našoj domovini

Tvrdimo da je BiH u procesu sticanja statusa priznate nacije prošla kroz sve faze priznanja koje su izraz i  dio internacionalnog i običajnog prava, o čemu studenti uče na boljim internacionalnim i domaćim katedrama humanističkih nauka. A to su, prvo, deklarirana politička volja izražena na referendumu o nezavisnosti i suverenosti Republike BiH, iskazana pod internacionalnim nadzorom. Drugo, neposredno poslije tog čina uslijedilo je čin priznanja nezavisnosti i suverenosti od drugih država u svijetu. Treće, Bosna i Hercegovina je primljena u ravnopravno članstvo Ujedinjenih nacija, a potom je sve do danas nastavljen prijem u ravnopravno članstvo najvažnijih internacionalnih organizacija.  I, četvrto, država BiH posjeduje legalan Ustav koji priznaje kontinuitet Republike BiH kao i definisan politički sistem suverene države. Dakle, BiH je internacionalno priznata nacija, u svom punom identitetu. Njen milenijski identitet je Bosanski.

O statusu suverene nacije se ne izjašnjava, taj status se stiče putem kojim je BiH već prošla.

Zbog toga  tražimo da politički prioriteti Bosne i Hercegovine moraju biti promocija bosanskog nacionalnog identiteta i političke reforme etnopolis stila državnog uređenja, ka modernoj i funkcionalnoj državi baziranog na jednakim pravima i principima za sve njene građane. Moraju se odbiti svi pokušaji da se BiH tretira kao corpus separatum, „mimosvijet“, sa dominacijom političkih elita tri etnopolitička korpusa, koji je zamrzavaju status quo stečen na postavkama Dejtonskog sporazuma potpisanog u okolnostima agresije na ravnopravnu članicu Ujedinjenih nacija.

Nužno je izbjeći zamke i zablude organizatora i učesnika B/BNV ka modernim vrijednostima demokratskog svijeta kojima je Bosanska država težila i teži već jedno stoljeće.

Mi, mladi, odbijamo biti u omči historijskih zabluda i manipulativnog govora prošlosti, već u modernim standardima politike i nauke demokratskog svijeta.  

Za Forum mladih Kruga 99:

Rijad Ahmetović, predsjednik

The post PROTESTNO PISMO FORUMA MLADIH KRUGA 99 POVODOM MANIFESTACIJE BOSANSKOG/BOŠNJAČKOG NARODNOG VIJEĆA appeared first on Krug99.

Neuspešna konsolidacija balkanskih zemalja – suočite se s tim

Kada je reč o Balkanu,  odnos većine zapadnih vlada bio je sve do 2018. godine u potpunosti u skladu s idealom „celovite, slobodne i mirne” Evrope koji je podrazumevao i stav da dalja promena granica ili etnoteritorijalizacija neće biti dozvoljena. Jednakost građana i prihvatanje multietniciteta kao istorijske stvarnosti na čitavom Zapadnom Balkanu predstavljeni su ne samo kao preduslovi za evroatlantske integracije, već i kao potreba za održavanje mira i sveobuhvatne bezbednosti nakon niza ratova u kojima je tokom jedne decenije poginulo više od 130.000 ljudi.

Do 2018. godine, zapadne politike u regionu duže od jedne decenije oslanjale su se na birokratski automatizam – formalno su bile posvećene kopenhaškim kriterijumima i liberalno-demokratskim vrednostima i standardima, dok su se sve više od njih udaljavale i popuštale pred formalizmom i transakcionalizmom u odnosu na lokalne elite. Ova “zombi” politika dozvolila je proširenje NATO i EU uprkos nerešavanju otvorenih sporova sa susedima. Posledice ove, tada počinjene greške sada su postale vidljive.

Inherentno polarizujući nacionalni autoritarni populizam koji podseća na nacionalizam viđen u bivšoj Jugoslaviji od kraja osamdesetih godina, postao je sve očigledniji i u nekim državama članicama EU, kao i u SAD posle izbora Donalda Trampa. Svi ovi faktori  ubrzali su negativnu dinamiku u vezi  demokratije na Zapadnom Balkanu. Jedini pozitivan pomak u ovom periodu sveo se na zbivanja u Severnoj Makedoniji, koja se sada, nažalost, razvodnjavaju; do toga, međutim, nije došlo zahvaljujući politici Zapada, već uprkos njoj. Pritisak građana primorao je EU i SAD da se opredele i primoraju Nikolu Gruevskog na nove izbore, a zatim i na prihvatanje njihovih rezultata.

          Podelu Kosova koju su u leto 2018. godine predložili predsednik Srbije Aleksandar Vučić i njegov kosovski kolega Hašim Tači – propagirajući je kao „razmenu teritorija“, „razgraničenje“ ili „korekciju granica“ – pihvatila je najpre Federika Mogerini, komesarka EU, a zatim i američka vlada. Time se odustalo od transatlantske (u američkom slučaju dvostranačke) politike vođene gotovo dve decenije. To je u neispunjenim nacionalističkim agendama širom regiona odmah registrovano; ustvari, od etnonacionalističkih aspiracija na Balkanu nikada se nije ni odustalo, već ih je suzbijao i odvraćao Zapad koji se nadao da će proces proširenja EU umanjiti potrebu za tim. Lider bosanskih Srba Milorad Dodik koji se već dugo zalaže za rasturanje Bosne i Hercegovine, spremno je prihvatio novu temu za diskusiju. Vučić je naglasio potrebu za dobrim odnosima „Srba i Albanaca“, naglašavajući time da su sadašnje granice upitne.

Ovo se sada zapaža u zajedničkoj politici EU i SAD prema Bosni i Hercegovini, kamufliranoj raspravom o izbornom integritetu. Pokušaj da se “izmeni i dopuni izborni zakon” u suštini se takođe svodi na demarkaciju unutrašnjih granica i podršku lideru HDZ Draganu Čoviću i njegovom dugogodišnjem snu o de facto ili de jure trećem hrvatskom entitetu – etnoteritorijalnom svetom gralu divizionalnih nacionalista. Što je još gore, podrška Zapada (EU/SAD/UK) izmenama i dopunama zakona oslanja se na govor o slučajevima Sejdić-Finci, Zornić i Pilav, iako ove presude obavezuju BiH da otvori politički prostor, a ne da učvrsti feudalni poredak. Hrvatska takođe učestvuje u celoj ovoj raspravi, što se ogleda u insistiranju na hrvatskim etnoteritorijalnim zahtevima unutar BiH.  Hrvatska je zajedno sa neliberalnim zemljama Bugarskom, Mađarskom i Slovenijom, kao i Grčkom, prosledila EK nezvanični dokument, tzv. “non-pejper”, koji pretnju disfunkcionalnošću države  (Čović i Dodik) povezuje s kontrolom granica EU, čime se dodatno rasplamsava strah desničara i ultradesničara od migranata i azilanata.

 Neposredan rezultat ove moralno dezorijentisane politike, protekle nedelje je pad  na novu najnižu tačku. Dok se verodostojnost dokumenta i dalje žestoko osporava, navodni „non-pejper“ koga je Briselu prosledio slovenački premijer Janez Janša, predlaže ujedinjenje Albanaca, Srba i Hrvata u regionu, podelu BiH, Severne Makedonije i Kosova, dok začudo, Crna Gora i srpski Sandžak tim planom nisu obuhvaćeni. Bez obzira na to koje je provenijencije „non-pejper“, nesumnjivo postoji čitava kohorta pristalica takvih etnonacionalističkih programa. Glavna namera možda i jeste da slični, ali nešto manje radikalni prijedlozi od navedenih, počnu da deluju kao razumniji. Ne bi se ipak trebalo zavaravati da bi bilo kakav pokušaj ostvarenja pomenutih ciljeva prošao bez masovnog nasilja i proterivanja stanovništva. Na „pogrešnim stranama“ postojećih i projektovanih mapa našlo bi se mnogo onih što su i te kako svesni sopstvene ugroženosti. 

Albanski premijer Edi Rama – samoproglašeni nacionalni vođa i jedan od onih što bi po svoj prilici od takvih promena bili na dobitku – tvrdi da je taj „non-pejper“ bio predmet njegovih razgovora s Janšom. Važno je da predsednica Evropske komisije i predsednik Saveta EU postojanje tog predloga demantuju i odbiju, ili pak potvrde. Ako je zaista autentičan, onda bi predstojeće slovenačko predsedavanje EU trebalo dovesti u pitanje, jer bi bila zabluda verovati da tokom tog predsedavanja neće biti negativnog moralnog, reputacijskog i materijalnog uticaja na bezbednost EU.

Još nije kasno da SAD i EU preduprede trenutnu negativnu dinamiku koja potencijalno vodi u nasilje. To se može postići samo ukoliko vlade budu spremne da se suoče s dosadašnjom neuspelom politikom. Još davno je trebalo ojačati snage odvraćanja u regionu (EUFOR i KFOR), kako bi kredibilno ojačale i omogućile viziju sveobuhvatne bezbednosti zasnovane na vrednostima koje ne bi predstavljale samo puku retoriku. 

Mi, potpisnici, predstavnici civilnog društva, akademske zajednice i zabrinutih građana iz celog regiona, ali i izvan njega – uključujući građane EU i SAD – molimo predsednike Bajdena, Fon der Lajenovu i Mišela Čarlsa, generalnog sekretara Stoltenberga, kao i šefove vlada vodećih država članica EU i NATO da prepoznaju jasnu i neposrednu opasnost koju predstavljaju njihove trenutne politike i da ih shodno tome promene.

S poštovanjem,

1. Prof. Dr. Mehmed Akšamija, member of Montenegrin Academy (CANU) Montenegro
2. Mustafa Alagić, economist and businessman, Bosnia and Herzegovina
3. Stephen Albert, Former English language Editor BosNet, Montreal, Canada
4. Safet Alispahić, political scientist, Sydney, Australia
5. Andy Aydın-Aitchison, Senior Lecturer in Criminology, School of Law, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
6. Dr. Sabahudin Bajramović, Professor, Faculty of Agriculture and Food Sciences, University of Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina
7. Jessie Barton-Hronešová, Oxford Dept. of Intl. Development, St. Antony’s College, University of Oxford, UK
8. Dr. Miroljub Barać, Professor, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Belgrade, Serbia
9. Svetislav Basara, writer, Serbia
10. Professor Hazim Bašić, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina
11. Dr. Kurt Bassuener, Senior Associate, Democratization Policy Council / CSTPV, University of St. Andrews; Dundee, Scotland, UK
12. Boban Batrićević, historian, Montenegro
13. Mr Nemanja Batrićević, political scientist, Montenegro
14. Ludwig Bauer, writer, Croatia
15. Edina Bećirević, Professor of Security Studies, University of Sarajevo
16. Samir Beharić, Fellow of the Transatlantic Inclusion Leaders Network (TILN) of the German Marshall Fund of the United States, Bosnia and Herzegovina
17. Biljana Bejkova, activist, North Macedonia
18. Mira Bekar, university professor, North Macedonia
19. Paolo Bergamaschi, Fondazione Alexander Langer Stiftung, Italy
20. Živan Berisavljević, ambassador, Serbia
21. Milivoj Bešlin, historian, Serbia
22. Dr. Florian Bieber, University of Graz, Austria
23. Sonja Biserko, Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia
24. Srđan Blagovčanin, Chairman, Transparency International Bosnia and Herzegovina
25. Assoc. prof. dr. Ana Bojinović Fenko, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia
26. Rade Bojovic, Gradjanska inicijativa 21. Maj, Montenegro
27. Dr Marko Božić, lawyer, Serbia
28. Draga Božinović, journalist, Serbia
29. Nerma Bucan, Office of Christian Schwarz-Schilling
30. Nenad Čanak, President of LSV, Serbia 
31. Svetlana Cenić, economist, Bosnia and Herzegovina
32. Dr. Luisa Chiodi, Director, Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso Transeuropa, Trento, Italy
33. Prof. Dr. Sci. Ana Chupeska, North Macedonia
34. Norman Cigar
35. Miloš Ćirić, political scientist, Serbia
36. Prof. Dr. Nerzuk Ćurak, political scientist, Bosnia and Herzegovina
37. Tarik Čengić, International Forum Bosnia, Bosnia and Herzegovina
38. Prof. Dr. Adnan Čirgić, philologist, Montenegro
39. Sabina Čoko, manager, Bosnia and Herzegovina
40. Darimir Ćurčić, pedagogue, secondary school director, Bosnia and Herzegovina
41. Prof. Dr. Hamid Čustović, Agricultural and Nutritional Faculty, University of Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina
42. Abdulah Daul, Bosnia and Herzegovina
43. Dr. Sedad Dedić, Constitutional and Administrative Law, Faculty of Law, University of Zenica, Bosnia and Herzegovina
44. Dr. Johanna Deimel, Independent Analyst on Southeast Europe/Western Balkans, Munich, Germany
45. Alex Denev, lawyer, North Macedonia
46. Ana Dević, sociologist, Serbia
47. Prof. Dr. Ismet Dizdarević, Professor emeritus, social psychologist, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina
48. Tanya L. Domi, Columbia University, NYC, US
49. Pavel Domonji, political scientist, Serbia
50. Momo Dragićević, journalist and satirist, Bosnia and Herzegovina
51. Dino Dupanović, historian, Bosnia and Herzegovina
52. Srđan Dvornik, translator, consultant, Croatia
53. Srećko Đukić, ambassador, Serbia
54. Slavko Đurđić, journalist, Montenegro
55. Aleksandra Đurić-Bosnić, culturologist, Serbia
56. Draško Đuranović, Editor of Pobjeda, Montenegro
57. Tinka Đuranović, sculptor, Montenegro
58. Peter Emerson, the de Borda Institute, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK
59. Ljubomir Filipović, political scientist, Montenegro
60. Prof. Dr. Salih Fočo, Philosophical Faculty, University of Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina
61. Muhamed Gačanović, International Forum Bosnia, Bosnia and Herzegovina
62. Rasim Gačanović, International Forum Bosnia, Bosnia and Herzegovina
63. Senid Gerin, International Forum Bosnia, Bosnia and Herzegovina
64. Davor Gjenero, political scientist, Croatia
65. Sabit Grabus, International Forum Bosnia, Bosnia and Herzegovina
66. Dr Dinko Gruhonjić, journalist, University professor, Serbia
67. Orhan Hadžagić, journalist, Bosnia and Herzegovina
68. Prof. Dr. Sabahudin Hadžialić, CSF, UNINETTUNO University, Rome, Italy
69. Prof. Dr. Enver Halilović, philosophy and sociology, ex-Rector University of Tuzla, diplomat, Bosnia and Herzegovina
70. Prof. Dr. Enver Halilović, member of the Montenegrin Academy (CANU), Montenegro
71. Dr. Rizvan Halilović, doctor of legal sciences, Bosnia and Herzegovina
72. Baroness (Arminka) Helić, UK
73. Aleksandar Hemon, Princeton University, US
74. Dr. Marko Attila Hoare, Sarajevo School of Science and Technology, Bosnia and Herzegovina
75. Dr. Carole Hodge, political scientist, University of Glasgow, Scotland, UK
76. Sejfudin Hodžić, Zvornik, Bosnia and Herzegovina
77. Dr. Andi Hoxhaj, University of Warwick, School of Law, UK
78. Sead Husić, International Forum Bosnia, Bosnia and Herzegovina
79. Mubera Isanović, professor, social activist, Bosnia and Herzegovina
80. Amb. Victor Jackovich (ret.), first U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of BiH, Member of Board, Vienna Economic Forum
81. Esad Jaganjac, Senior Mechanical Engineer at Deregallera, London
82. Dr.-Ing. Jasmin Jahić, Research Associate, Department of Computer Science and Technology, University of Cambridge, UK
83. Boško Jakšić, journalist, Serbia
84. Antun-Zvonimir Jan, civic activist, Bosnia and Herzegovina
85. Goran Janev, professor of social Anthropology, North Macedonia
86. Duško Janjić, Forum for Ethnic Relations, Serbia
87. Ferhad Jašarević, law graduate, Bosnia and Herzegovina
88. Nerma Jelačić
89. Jadranka Jelinčić, Doctor of Legal Sciences
90. Richard Johnson, U.S. Foreign Service Officer, retired
91. Ivana Jordanovska, PhD Student at University of Southern California
92. Matt Joseph, Dayton City Commissioner, Dayton, Ohio, US
93. Đokica R. Jovanović, sociologist, Serbia
94. Mića Jovanović, journalist, Serbia
95. Pero Jurišin, Senior Consultant at the City of Split, Croatia
96. Prof. Dr Husnija Kamberović, historian, Bosnia
97. Dr. Tomasz Kamusella, Reader, School of History, University of St. Andrews, Scotland, UK
98. Jasmina Kapetanović, architect/software developer, Amstelveen Netherlands
99. Planinko Kapetanović, Bosnia and Herzegovina
100. Dženeta Karabegović, University of Salzburg, Austria
101. Dr. Soeren Keil, Canterbury Christ Church University, UK
102. Prof. Dr. Izudin Kešetović, Finance and Financial Policy, University of Tuzla, Bosnia and Herzegovina
103. Dr. sc. Branko Kirigin, archeologist, Croatia
104. Suzana Kirandžiska, Executive Director Foundation for Education and Cultural Initiatives, North Macedonia
105. Izabela Kisić, Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia
106. Aleksandar Knežević, Professor Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina
107. Prof. Dr. Olivera Komar, political scientist, University of Montenegro
108. Prof. Dr. Ivo Komšić, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Sarajevo, UNSA, ex-member of the Presidency of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina
109. Dr. Slaven Kovačević, Faculty of Administration, University of Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina
110. Richard Kraemer, Head of Balkans Program, European Values Center for Security Policy, Prague, Czechia
111. Marion Kraske, political analyst/journalist, Hamburg, Germany
112. Dr. Gëzim Krasniqi, Lecturer in Nationalism and Political Sociology, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
113. Strajo Krsmanović, dramatist, Director of Art Gallery, Bosnia and Herzegovina
114. Ana Krstinovska, President of Estima, Skopje, North Macedonia
115. Professor Slavo Kukić, Member of the Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina, sociologist, Bosnia and Herzegovina
116. Adil Kulenović, President of Circle 99, professor and journalist, Bosnia and Herzegovina
117. Haris Kulenović, journalist and scenarist, Bosnia and Herzegovina
118. Mirza Kulenović, International Forum Bosnia, Bosnia and Herzegovina
119. Mirsad Kunić, university professor, Bosnia and Herzegovina
120. Tarik Kupusović, retired professor and researcher, hydraulic engineering, Bosnia and Herzegovina
121. Professor Senadin Lavić, Faculty of Political Science, University of Sarajevo
122. Dr. Lazar Lazić, university professor, Serbia
123. Slaviša Lekić, journalist, Serbia
124. Peter Lippman, author, Surviving the Peace: The Struggle for Postwar Recovery in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Seattle, UK
125. Željko Majstorović, physicist and climatologist, Bosnia and Herzegovina
126. Prof. Dr. Fatima Mahmutćehajić, university professor, Bosnia and Herzegovina
127. Rusmir Mahmutćehajić, International Forum Bosna, Bosnia and Herzegovina
128. Srđan Mandić, politician, Bosnia and Herzegovina
129. Eric Manton, Consultant, OSCE, Skopje, North Macedonia
130. Mr. Milan Marković, philologist, Serbia
131. Tomislav Marković, journalist, Serbia
132. Slobodanka Markovska, university professor, North Macedonia
133. Dr. Branislav Marović, historian, Montenegro
134. Fikret Mehović, Global Security Expert, Sarajevo
135. Nataša Micić, former Parliament Speaker, Serbia
136. Nedim Milanović, manager, Bosnia and Herzegovina
137. Dr. Aleksandar R. Miletić, historian, Serbia
138. Ema Markoska Miličin, translator, North Macedonia
139. Vladimir Milichin, theater director, North Macedonia
140. Srđan Milošević, historian, Serbia
141. Fata Muftić, professor of sociology, Faculty of Political Science, University of Sarajevo
142. Jasmin Mujanović, PhD, US
143. Dr. Asim Mujkić, Faculty of Political Sciences, University of Sarajevo
144. Dino Mustafić, film and theater director, Bosnia and Herzegovina
145. Fadil Mušanović, retired judge, Bosnia and Herzegovina
146. Sead Nazibegović, university professor, Bosnia and Herzegovina
147. John Paul Newman, Maynooth University, Ireland
148. Sir Geoffrey Nice, Geoffrey Nice Foundation, UK
149. Tamara Nikčević, journalist, Montenegro
150. Andrej Nikolaidis, writer and journalist, Montenegro
151. Boris A. Novak, playwright, Slovenia
152. Professor John O’ Brennan, Maynooth University, Ireland
153. Ivan Obradović, university professor, Serbia
154. Aleksandar Olenik, lawyer, Serbia
155. Edin Omerčić, historian, Institute for History UNSA, Bosnia and Herzegovina
156. Dr. Senad Oprašić, UNSA, ecology expert, Bosnia and Herzegovina
157. Ms. Sanja Orlandić, philosopher, Montenegro
158. Ratko Orozović, director and satirist, Bosnia and Herzegovina
159. Маrija Pandevska, university professor, North Macedonia
160. Žarko Papić, Director IBHI (Independent Bureau for Humanitarian Interests), Bosnia and Herzegovina
161. Safet Pašić, Ex-Ombudsman for Human Rights, Bosnia and Herzegovina
162. Lulzim Peci, Director KIPRED, Kosovo
163. Senad Pećanin, journalist, Bosnia and Herzegovina
164. Mirko Pejanović, academician and political scientist, Vice President of the Academy of Sciences and Arts of BiH, ex-member of the Presidency of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina
165. Prof. Dr. Marinko Pejić, Professor emeritus, Pedagogical Faculty, University of Sarajevo
166. Dr. Latinka Perović, historian, Serbia
167. Prof. Dr. Milenko A. Perović, university professor, Serbia
168. Dr. Valery Perry, Senior Associate, Democratization Policy Council, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina
169. Tanja Petovar, lawyer, Serbia
170. Violeta Petroska-Beshka, Professor of Psychology, President, Center for Human Rights and Conflict Resolution, Skopje, North Macedonia
171. Dr. David Pettigrew, Southern Connecticut State University, New Haven, CT, USA
172. Vesna Pešić, sociologist, Serbia
173. Jusuf Piralić, Business Magazine, Bosnia and Herzegovina
174. Amna Popovac, Mostar, BiH
175. Milorad Popović, writer, Montenegro
176. Dr. Adnan Prekić, historian, university professor, Montenegro
177. Nenad Prokić, playwright, Serbia
178. Branka Prpa, historian, Serbia
179. Randall Puljek-Shank, PhD, Bosnian-American Friendship Association, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina
180. Vesna Pusić, Sociologist, former Minister of Foreign and European Affairs, Croatia
181. Aleksandra Radoman-Kovačević, educational expert, Montenegro
182. Aleksandar Radoman, philologist, Montenegro
183. Šeki Radončić, journalist and writer, Montenegro
184. Duško Radosavljević, university professor, Serbia
185. Snežana Rakonjac, journalist, Montenegro
186. Prof. Dr. Šerbo Rastoder, member of Montenegrin Academy (CANU), Montenegro
187. Božo Repe, historian, Slovenia
188. Prof. Dr. Petra Roter, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia
189. Farida Sadiković, medical doctor, Bosnia and Herzegovina
190. Prof. Dr. Lada Sadiković, Vice-Dean, Faculty of Criminology and Security Studies, University of Sarajevo
191. Dr. Slobodan Sadžakov, university professor, University of Novi Sad, Serbia
192. Adnan Salkić, International Forum Bosnia, Bosnia and Herzegovina
193. Momir Samardžić, historian, Serbia
194. Prof. Dr. Nikola Samardžić, historian, Serbia
195. Dr. Zlatan Sarić, Prof., Faculty of Agriculture and Food Sciences, University of Sarajevo
196. Prof. Dr. Christian Schwarz-Schilling, former Federal Minister and international High Representative; Büdingen, Germany
197. Stefan Schwarz, Germany
198. Nedim Sejdinović, journalist, Serbia
199. Aleksandar Sekulović, lawyer, Serbia
200. Envera Selimović, journalist, Bosnia and Herzegovina
201. Daniel Serwer, Johns Hopkins SAIS/Peacefare.net, Washington DC
202. Abdulah Sidran, writer, Member of the Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bosnia and Herzegovina
203. Nijaz Skenderagić, businessman, Bosnia and Herzegovina
204. Mehmet Slezović, painter, Serbia
205. Dr. Nijaz Sofić, ophthalmologist, Sydney, Australia
206. Prof. Dr. Džemal Sokolović, sociologist, Faculty of Political Science University of Sarajevo / University of Bergen, Norway
207. Мenka Spirovska, consultant for environment and health security, North Macedonia
208. Simona Spirovska Kostovska, actress, North Macedonia
209. Mr. Nemanja Stankov, political scientist, Montenegro
210. Danica Stefanović, pedagogue
211. Ivan Stefanovski, Executive Director, EUROTHINK-Center for European Strategies, Skopje
212. Lidija Stevanović, actress, Montenegro
213. Prof. Dr. Dubravka Stojanović, historian, Serbia
214. Dr. Milan Subotić, sociologist, Serbia
215. Emir Suljagić, Director of the Memorial Center in Potočari (Srebrenica), Bosnia and Herzegovina
216. Prof. Dr. Nedim Suljić, Vice-Dean, Faculty of Mining, Geology, and Civil Engineering, University of Tuzla, BH/US Academy of Arts and Sciences
217. Hazim Šabanović, International Forum Bosnia, Bosnia and Herzegovina
218. Dino Šakanović, historian, Bosnia and Herzegovina
219. Đorđe Šćepović, writer, Montenegro
220. Senada Šelo Šabić, Senior Research Associate, Institute for Development and International Relations (IRMO), Zagreb
221. Stana Šego, retired educational inspector, Bosnia and Herzegovina
222. Renad Šeremet, mechanical engineer, Bosnia and Herzegovina
223. Bojan Šošić, psychologist, Association of Independent Intellectuals Circle 99, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina
224. Darko Šuković, journalist, Montenegro
225. Tanja Šuković, journalist, Montenegro
226. Srđan Šušnica, Master of Cultural and Religious Studies and Graduate of Law, Bosnia and Herzegovina
227. Martin Tais, physicist and climatologist, Bosnia and Herzegovina
228. Prof. Lamija Tanović, Chair, Humanity in Action, Bosnia and Herzegovina
229. Petar Todorov, historian, North Macedonia
230. Rako Todorović Todor, painter, Montenegro
231. Dr. Tijana Todorović, visual artist, Montenegro
232. Aleksandra Tomanić, Executive Director, European Fund for the Balkans, Belgrade
233. Ambassador Osman Topčagić (retired), Sarajevo
234. Rada Trajković, medical doctor, Serbia
235. Dragana Tripković, playwright, Montenegro
236. Dr. Nevenka Tromp, University of Amsterdam, Holland
237. Dr. Sead Turčalo, Dean of the School of Political Sciences, University of Sarajevo
238. Boris Varga, political scientist, Serbia
239. Dion van den Berg, Team leader Europe at PAX for Peace, the Netherlands
240. Jelena Vasiljević, Senior Research Associate, Institute for Philosophy and Social Theory, University of Belgrade
241. Faruk Vele, journalist, Bosnia
242. Miodrag Vlahović, ambassador, Montenegro
243. Azem Vllasi, lawyer, politician and publicist, Prishtina, Kosovo
244. Toby Vogel, Senior Associate, Democratization Policy Council, Brussels, Belgium
245. Nikola Vučić, journalist, Bosnia
246. Čedomila Vujosević Đurđić, journalist, Montenegro
247. Zoran Vuletić, President of GDF, Serbia
248. Bodo Weber, Senior Associate, Democratization Policy Council, Berlin, Germany
249. Dr. Jonathan Wheatley, Senior Lecturer in Comparative Politics, School of Social Sciences, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, UK
250. Dr. Mark Wheeler, Wivliscombe, Somerset, UK
251. Dr. Tim Wilson, Director, Handa Centre for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence (CSTPV), School of International Relations, University of St. Andrews, Scotland, UK
252. Laura Wise, Research Associate, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
253. Visat Xhambazi, D4D, Prishtina, Kosovo
254. Olga Zirojević, historian, Serbia
255. Azra Zornić, citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina
256. Rajko Živković, journalist, Bosnia and Herzegovina

(Među potpisnicima je i 48 aktivnih članova Kruga 99)

The post Apel regionalnog civilnog društva EU, SAD, NATO vladama appeared first on Krug99.

This is Your Deterrence Failure:  Confront It

Prior to 2018, the standard talking point for most Western governments toward the Balkans was fully consistent with the ideal of a Europe “whole, free, and at peace:” that no further pursuit of border changes or ethnoterritorialism would be permitted.  Equality of citizens and acceptance of the historical reality of multiethnicity throughout the Western Balkans was presented not only as a prerequisite to Euro-Atlantic integration, but a requirement for maintenance of peace and comprehensive security after a series of wars left over 130,000 people dead in the span of a decade. 

For well over a decade before 2018, the West’s policies in the region remained on bureaucratic autopilot – formally committed to Copenhagen criteria and liberal democratic values and standards, but increasingly distracted and defaulting to formalism and transactionalism with local elites.  This zombie policy allowed NATO and EU enlargement without true resolution of outstanding disputes with neighbors.  This error was raised at the time – and its effects can be seen now.

An inherently polarizing national authoritarian populism reminiscent of that seen in the former Yugoslavia beginning in the late 1980s became increasingly apparent among a number of EU member states and in the US with the election of Donald Trump.  This cocktail of factors accelerated the negative trajectory of democracy in the Western Balkans.  The only positive in this period – a breakthrough, now largely squandered in North Macedonia – came not because of the West’s policy, but despite it.  Popular pressure forced the EU and US off the fence to compel Gruevski to new elections, then to accede to the results.

The embrace of the proposed partition of Kosovo made in summer 2018 by Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić and his Kosovar counterpart Hashim Thaçi – marketed variously as “land swap,” “demarcation,” and “border correction” – first by the EU’s Federica Mogherini, then by the US government, deviated from nearly two decades of transatlantic (and in America’s case, bipartisan) policy.  Unfulfilled nationalist agendas regionwide immediately took note; florid ethno-nationalist dreams never disappeared in the Balkans; they had been suppressed and deterred by a West that hoped the EU enlargement process would obviate the need for deterrence.  Bosnian Serb leader Milorad Dodik had long advocated state dissolution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, so readily used the new talking point.  Vučić pointedly spoke of the need for good relations among “Serbs and Albanians,” with the clear implications that the borders in the region are not sacrosanct, but negotiable. 

This is currently visible in the joint EU and US policy in Bosnia and Herzegovina, where – camouflaged in talk about election integrity – an effort to “amend the election law” is actually also about internal border demarcations and granting HDZ leader Dragan Čović his long-articulated dream of a de facto or de jure Croat third entity – the ethno-territorial holy grail of divisive nationalists.  Even worse, the Western (EU/US/UK) support for this is using the Sejdić-Finci, Zornić, and Pilav cases as talking points, even though these rulings compel BiH to open the political space, not to tighten the feudal order.  Croatia has made itself felt throughout this debate to press Croat ethno-territorial claims within BiH.  The non-paper, Croatia put forward with illiberals Bulgaria, Hungary, and Slovenia, together with Greece, menacingly links state dysfunction (promised Čović and Dodik deliverables) to EU border control, to further inflame right and far-right fears of migrants and asylum seekers.

As a direct result of this morally rudderless policy, in the past week, we reached a new low.  While the veracity of the document is still hotly disputed, an alleged “non-paper” put forward by Slovenian Prime Minister Janez Janša proposes the unification of Albanians, Serbs, and Croats in the region, partitioning BiH, North Macedonia, and Kosovo, but leaving Montenegro curiously unscathed, and not touching Serbia’s Sandžak.  Whatever the provenance of the “non-paper,” there is no doubt a sincere cohort of adherents to such ethno-nationalist agendas.  The first-order intent may be to make changes below this threshold seem more reasonable.  But nobody should be fooled into belief that attempts to achieve these ends could be done without massive violence and forced population movements.  Many on the “wrong side” of existing and projected lines on maps are vulnerable – and know it.

Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama – self-styled national chieftain and one of the likely beneficiaries of such a carve-up – claims to have discussed the “non-paper” with Janša.  It is important that such a proposal be denied and rejected, or confirmed by the EU Commission President and EU Council President.  If it was indeed genuine, then Slovenia’s upcoming presidency should be called into question, as it would be delusional to believe that there would not be moral, reputational, and material impact on the EU’s security during its leadership tenure.

There is still time for the US and EU to arrest the current trajectory, which would eventually end in violence.  But only a willingness to confront the reality of a failed policy to date can achieve this – at the commanding heights of government.  Reinforcement of the deterrent forces in the region (EUFOR and KFOR) to credible strength and mobility is long overdue to ensure a vision of values-based comprehensive security is not simply rhetorical.

We, the signatories, representing civil society, academia, and concerned citizens from throughout the region and beyond – including citizens of the EU and US – implore Presidents Biden, von der Leyen, and Michel, and Secretary General Stoltenberg, as well as heads of government of leading EU and NATO member states to recognize the clear and present danger yielded by their current policies and to recalibrate them accordingly.

Sincerely,

1. Prof. Dr. Mehmed Akšamija, member of Montenegrin Academy (CANU) Montenegro

• Mustafa Alagić, economist and businessman, Bosnia and Herzegovina

• Stephen Albert, Former English language Editor BosNet, Montreal, Canada

• Safet Alispahić, political scientist, Sydney, Australia

• Andy Aydın-Aitchison, Senior Lecturer in Criminology, School of Law, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, UK

• Dr. Sabahudin Bajramović, Professor, Faculty of Agriculture and Food Sciences, University of Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina

• Jessie Barton-Hronešová, Oxford Dept. of Intl. Development, St. Antony’s College, University of Oxford, UK

• Dr. Miroljub Barać, Professor, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Belgrade, Serbia

• Svetislav Basara, writer, Serbia

1. Professor Hazim Bašić, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina

1. Dr. Kurt Bassuener, Senior Associate, Democratization Policy Council / CSTPV, University of St. Andrews; Dundee, Scotland, UK

1. Boban Batrićević, historian, Montenegro

1. Mr Nemanja Batrićević, political scientist, Montenegro

1. Ludwig Bauer, writer, Croatia

1. Edina Bećirević, Professor of Security Studies, University of Sarajevo

1. Samir Beharić, Fellow of the Transatlantic Inclusion Leaders Network (TILN) of the German Marshall Fund of the United States, Bosnia and Herzegovina

1. Biljana Bejkova, activist, North Macedonia

1. Mira Bekar, university professor, North Macedonia

1. Paolo Bergamaschi, Fondazione Alexander Langer Stiftung, Italy

• Živan Berisavljević, ambassador, Serbia

• Milivoj Bešlin, historian, Serbia

• Dr. Florian Bieber, University of Graz, Austria

• Sonja Biserko, Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia

• Srđan Blagovčanin, Chairman, Transparency International Bosnia and Herzegovina

• Assoc. prof. dr. Ana Bojinović Fenko, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia

• Rade Bojovic, Gradjanska inicijativa 21. Maj, Montenegro

• Dr Marko Božić, lawyer, Serbia

• Draga Božinović, journalist, Serbia

• Nerma Bucan, Office of Christian Schwarz-Schilling

• Nenad Čanak, President of LSV, Serbia 

• Svetlana Cenić, economist, Bosnia and Herzegovina

• Dr. Luisa Chiodi, Director, Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso Transeuropa, Trento, Italy

• Prof. Dr. Sci. Ana Chupeska, North Macedonia

• Norman Cigar

• Miloš Ćirić, political scientist, Serbia

• Prof. Dr. Nerzuk Ćurak, political scientist, Bosnia and Herzegovina

• Tarik Čengić, International Forum Bosnia, Bosnia and Herzegovina

• Prof. Dr. Adnan Čirgić, philologist, Montenegro

• Sabina Čoko, manager, Bosnia and Herzegovina

• Darimir Ćurčić, pedagogue, secondary school director, Bosnia and Herzegovina

• Prof. Dr. Hamid Čustović, Agricultural and Nutritional Faculty, University of Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina

• Abdulah Daul, Bosnia and Herzegovina

• Dr. Sedad Dedić, Constitutional and Administrative Law, Faculty of Law, University of Zenica, Bosnia and Herzegovina

• Dr. Johanna Deimel, Independent Analyst on Southeast Europe/Western Balkans, Munich, Germany

• Alex Denev, lawyer, North Macedonia

• Ana Dević, sociologist, Serbia

• Prof. Dr. Ismet Dizdarević, Professor emeritus, social psychologist, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina

• Tanya L. Domi, Columbia University, NYC, US

• Pavel Domonji, political scientist, Serbia

• Momo Dragićević, journalist and satirist, Bosnia and Herzegovina

• Dino Dupanović, historian, Bosnia and Herzegovina

• Srđan Dvornik, translator, consultant, Croatia

• Srećko Đukić, ambassador, Serbia

• Slavko Đurđić, journalist, Montenegro

• Aleksandra Đurić-Bosnić, culturologist, Serbia

• Draško Đuranović, Editor of Pobjeda, Montenegro

• Tinka Đuranović, sculptor, Montenegro

• Peter Emerson, the de Borda Institute, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK

• Ljubomir Filipović, political scientist, Montenegro

• Prof. Dr. Salih Fočo, Philosophical Faculty, University of Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina

• Muhamed Gačanović, International Forum Bosnia, Bosnia and Herzegovina

• Rasim Gačanović, International Forum Bosnia, Bosnia and Herzegovina

• Senid Gerin, International Forum Bosnia, Bosnia and Herzegovina

• Davor Gjenero, political scientist, Croatia

• Sabit Grabus, International Forum Bosnia, Bosnia and Herzegovina

• Dr Dinko Gruhonjić, journalist, University professor, Serbia

• Orhan Hadžagić, journalist, Bosnia and Herzegovina

• Prof. Dr. Sabahudin Hadžialić, CSF, UNINETTUNO University, Rome, Italy

• Prof. Dr. Enver Halilović, philosophy and sociology, ex-Rector University of Tuzla, diplomat, Bosnia and Herzegovina

• Prof. Dr. Enver Halilović, member of the Montenegrin Academy (CANU), Montenegro

• Dr. Rizvan Halilović, doctor of legal sciences, Bosnia and Herzegovina

• Baroness (Arminka) Helić, UK

• Aleksandar Hemon, Princeton University, US

• Dr. Marko Attila Hoare, Sarajevo School of Science and Technology, Bosnia and Herzegovina

• Dr. Carole Hodge, political scientist, University of Glasgow, Scotland, UK

• Sejfudin Hodžić, Zvornik, Bosnia and Herzegovina

• Dr. Andi Hoxhaj, University of Warwick, School of Law, UK

• Sead Husić, International Forum Bosnia, Bosnia and Herzegovina

• Mubera Isanović, professor, social activist, Bosnia and Herzegovina

• Amb. Victor Jackovich (ret.), first U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of BiH, Member of Board, Vienna Economic Forum

• Esad Jaganjac, Senior Mechanical Engineer at Deregallera, London

• Dr.-Ing. Jasmin Jahić, Research Associate, Department of Computer Science and Technology, University of Cambridge, UK

• Boško Jakšić, journalist, Serbia

• Antun-Zvonimir Jan, civic activist, Bosnia and Herzegovina

• Goran Janev, professor of social Anthropology, North Macedonia

• Duško Janjić, Forum for Ethnic Relations, Serbia

• Ferhad Jašarević, law graduate, Bosnia and Herzegovina

• Nerma Jelačić

• Jadranka Jelinčić, Doctor of Legal Sciences

• Richard Johnson, U.S. Foreign Service Officer, retired

• Ivana Jordanovska, PhD Student at University of Southern California

• Matt Joseph, Dayton City Commissioner, Dayton, Ohio, US

• Đokica R. Jovanović, sociologist, Serbia

• Mića Jovanović, journalist, Serbia

• Pero Jurišin, Senior Consultant at the City of Split, Croatia

• Prof. Dr Husnija Kamberović, historian, Bosnia

• Dr. Tomasz Kamusella, Reader, School of History, University of St. Andrews, Scotland, UK

• Jasmina Kapetanović, architect/software developer, Amstelveen Netherlands

• Planinko Kapetanović, Bosnia and Herzegovina

1. Dženeta Karabegović, University of Salzburg, Austria

1. Dr. Soeren Keil, Canterbury Christ Church University, UK

1. Prof. Dr. Izudin Kešetović, Finance and Financial Policy, University of Tuzla, Bosnia and Herzegovina

1. Dr. sc. Branko Kirigin, archeologist, Croatia

1. Suzana Kirandžiska, Executive Director Foundation for Education and Cultural Initiatives, North Macedonia

1. Izabela Kisić, Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia

1. Aleksandar Knežević, Professor emeritus, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina

1. Prof. Dr. Olivera Komar, political scientist, University of Montenegro

1. Prof. Dr. Ivo Komšić, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Sarajevo, UNSA, ex-member of the Presidency of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina

1. Dr. Slaven Kovačević, Faculty of Administration, University of Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina

1. Richard Kraemer, Head of Balkans Program, European Values Center for Security Policy, Prague, Czechia

1. Marion Kraske, political analyst/journalist, Hamburg, Germany

1. Dr. Gëzim Krasniqi, Lecturer in Nationalism and Political Sociology, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, UK

1. Strajo Krsmanović, dramatist, Director of Art Gallery, Bosnia and Herzegovina

1. Ana Krstinovska, President of Estima, Skopje, North Macedonia

1. Professor Slavo Kukić, Member of the Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina, sociologist, Bosnia and Herzegovina

1. Adil Kulenović, President of Circle 99, professor and journalist, Bosnia and Herzegovina

1. Haris Kulenović, journalist and scenarist, Bosnia and Herzegovina

1. Mirza Kulenović, International Forum Bosnia, Bosnia and Herzegovina

1. Mirsad Kunić, university professor, Bosnia and Herzegovina

1. Tarik Kupusović, retired professor and researcher, hydraulic engineering, Bosnia and Herzegovina

1. Professor Senadin Lavić, Faculty of Political Science, University of Sarajevo

1. Dr. Lazar Lazić, university professor, Serbia

1. Slaviša Lekić, journalist, Serbia

1. Peter Lippman, author, Surviving the Peace: The Struggle for Postwar Recovery in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Seattle, UK

1. Željko Majstorović, physicist and climatologist, Bosnia and Herzegovina

1. Prof. Dr. Fatima Mahmutćehajić, university professor, Bosnia and Herzegovina

1. Rusmir Mahmutćehajić, International Forum Bosna, Bosnia and Herzegovina

1. Srđan Mandić, politician, Bosnia and Herzegovina

1. Eric Manton, Consultant, OSCE, Skopje, North Macedonia

1. Mr. Milan Marković, philologist, Serbia

1. Tomislav Marković, journalist, Serbia

1. Slobodanka Markovska, university professor, North Macedonia

1. Dr. Branislav Marović, historian, Montenegro

1. Fikret Mehović, Global Security Expert, Sarajevo

1. Nataša Micić, former Parliament Speaker, Serbia

1. Nedim Milanović, manager, Bosnia and Herzegovina

1. Dr. Aleksandar R. Miletić, historian, Serbia

1. Ema Markoska Miličin, translator, North Macedonia

1. Vladimir Milichin, theater director, North Macedonia

1. Srđan Milošević, historian, Serbia

1. Fata Muftić, professor of sociology, Faculty of Political Science, University of Sarajevo

1. Jasmin Mujanović, PhD, US

1. Dr. Asim Mujkić, Faculty of Political Sciences, University of Sarajevo

1. Dino Mustafić, film and theater director, Bosnia and Herzegovina

1. Fadil Mušanović, retired judge, Bosnia and Herzegovina

1. Sead Nazibegović, university professor, Bosnia and Herzegovina

1. John Paul Newman, Maynooth University, Ireland

1. Sir Geoffrey Nice, Geoffrey Nice Foundation, UK

1. Tamara Nikčević, journalist, Montenegro

1. Andrej Nikolaidis, writer and journalist, Montenegro

1. Boris A. Novak, playwright, Slovenia

1. Professor John O’ Brennan, Maynooth University, Ireland

1. Ivan Obradović, university professor, Serbia

1. Aleksandar Olenik, lawyer, Serbia

1. Edin Omerčić, historian, Institute for History UNSA, Bosnia and Herzegovina

1. Dr. Senad Oprašić, UNSA, ecology expert, Bosnia and Herzegovina

1. Ms. Sanja Orlandić, philosopher, Montenegro

1. Ratko Orozović, director and satirist, Bosnia and Herzegovina

1. Маrija Pandevska, university professor, North Macedonia

1. Žarko Papić, Director IBHI (Independent Bureau for Humanitarian Interests), Bosnia and Herzegovina

1. Safet Pašić, Ex-Ombudsman for Human Rights, Bosnia and Herzegovina

1. Lulzim Peci, Director KIPRED, Kosovo

1. Senad Pećanin, journalist, Bosnia and Herzegovina

1. Mirko Pejanović, academician and political scientist, Vice President of the Academy of Sciences and Arts of BiH, ex-member of the Presidency of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina

1. Prof. Dr. Marinko Pejić, Professor emeritus, Pedagogical Faculty, University of Sarajevo

1. Dr. Latinka Perović, historian, Serbia

1. Prof. Dr. Milenko A. Perović, university professor, Serbia

1. Dr. Valery Perry, Senior Associate, Democratization Policy Council, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina

1. Tanja Petovar, lawyer, Serbia

1. Violeta Petroska-Beshka, Professor of Psychology, President, Center for Human Rights and Conflict Resolution, Skopje, North Macedonia

1. Dr. David Pettigrew, Southern Connecticut State University, New Haven, CT, USA

1. Vesna Pešić, sociologist, Serbia

1. Jusuf Piralić, Business Magazine, Bosnia and Herzegovina

1. Amna Popovac, Mostar, BiH

1. Milorad Popović, writer, Montenegro

1. Dr. Adnan Prekić, historian, university professor, Montenegro

1. Nenad Prokić, playwright, Serbia

1. Branka Prpa, historian, Serbia

1. Randall Puljek-Shank, PhD, Bosnian-American Friendship Association, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina

1. Vesna Pusić, Sociologist, former Minister of Foreign and European Affairs, Croatia

1. Aleksandra Radoman-Kovačević, educational expert, Montenegro

1. Aleksandar Radoman, philologist, Montenegro

1. Šeki Radončić, journalist and writer, Montenegro

1. Duško Radosavljević, university professor, Serbia

1. Snežana Rakonjac, journalist, Montenegro

1. Prof. Dr. Šerbo Rastoder, member of Montenegrin Academy (CANU), Montenegro

1. Božo Repe, historian, Slovenia

1. Prof. Dr. Petra Roter, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia

1. Farida Sadiković, medical doctor, Bosnia and Herzegovina

1. Prof. Dr. Lada Sadiković, Vice-Dean, Faculty of Criminology and Security Studies, University of Sarajevo

1. Dr. Slobodan Sadžakov, university professor, University of Novi Sad, Serbia

1. Adnan Salkić, International Forum Bosnia, Bosnia and Herzegovina

1. Momir Samardžić, historian, Serbia

1. Prof. Dr. Nikola Samardžić, historian, Serbia

1. Dr. Zlatan Sarić, Prof., Faculty of Agriculture and Food Sciences, University of Sarajevo

1. Prof. Dr. Christian Schwarz-Schilling, former Federal Minister and international High Representative; Büdingen, Germany

1. Stefan Schwarz, Germany

1. Nedim Sejdinović, journalist, Serbia

1. Aleksandar Sekulović, lawyer, Serbia

• Envera Selimović, journalist, Bosnia and Herzegovina

• Daniel Serwer, Johns Hopkins SAIS/Peacefare.net, Washington DC

• Abdulah Sidran, writer, Member of the Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bosnia and Herzegovina

• Nijaz Skenderagić, businessman, Bosnia and Herzegovina

• Mehmet Slezović, painter, Serbia

• Dr. Nijaz Sofić, ophthalmologist, Sydney, Australia

• Prof. Dr. Džemal Sokolović, sociologist, Faculty of Political Science University of Sarajevo / University of Bergen, Norway

• Мenka Spirovska, consultant for environment and health security, North Macedonia

• Simona Spirovska Kostovska, actress, North Macedonia

• Mr. Nemanja Stankov, political scientist, Montenegro

• Danica Stefanović, pedagogue

• Ivan Stefanovski, Executive Director, EUROTHINK-Center for European Strategies, Skopje

• Lidija Stevanović, actress, Montenegro

• Prof. Dr. Dubravka Stojanović, historian, Serbia

• Dr. Milan Subotić, sociologist, Serbia

• Emir Suljagić, Director of the Memorial Center in Potočari (Srebrenica), Bosnia and Herzegovina

• Prof. Dr. Nedim Suljić, Vice-Dean, Faculty of Mining, Geology, and Civil Engineering, University of Tuzla, BH/US Academy of Arts and Sciences

• Hazim Šabanović, International Forum Bosnia, Bosnia and Herzegovina

• Dino Šakanović, historian, Bosnia and Herzegovina

• Đorđe Šćepović, writer, Montenegro

• Senada Šelo Šabić, Senior Research Associate, Institute for Development and International Relations (IRMO), Zagreb

• Stana Šego, retired educational inspector, Bosnia and Herzegovina

• Renad Šeremet, mechanical engineer, Bosnia and Herzegovina

• Bojan Šošić, psychologist, Association of Independent Intellectuals Circle 99, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina

• Darko Šuković, journalist, Montenegro

• Tanja Šuković, journalist, Montenegro

• Srđan Šušnica, Master of Cultural and Religious Studies and Graduate of Law, Bosnia and Herzegovina

• Martin Tais, physicist and climatologist, Bosnia and Herzegovina

• Prof. Lamija Tanović, Chair, Humanity in Action, Bosnia and Herzegovina

• Petar Todorov, historian, North Macedonia

• Rako Todorović Todor, painter, Montenegro

• Dr. Tijana Todorović, visual artist, Montenegro

• Aleksandra Tomanić, Executive Director, European Fund for the Balkans, Belgrade

• Ambassador Osman Topčagić (retired), Sarajevo

• Rada Trajković, medical doctor, Serbia

• Dragana Tripković, playwright, Montenegro

• Dr. Nevenka Tromp, University of Amsterdam, Holland

• Dr. Sead Turčalo, Dean of the School of Political Sciences, University of Sarajevo

• Boris Varga, political scientist, Serbia

• Dion van den Berg, Team leader Europe at PAX for Peace, the Netherlands

• Jelena Vasiljević, Senior Research Associate, Institute for Philosophy and Social Theory, University of Belgrade

• Faruk Vele, journalist, Bosnia

• Miodrag Vlahović, ambassador, Montenegro

• Azem Vllasi, lawyer, politician and publicist, Prishtina, Kosovo

• Toby Vogel, Senior Associate, Democratization Policy Council, Brussels, Belgium

• Nikola Vučić, journalist, Bosnia

• Čedomila Vujosević Đurđić, journalist, Montenegro

• Zoran Vuletić, President of GDF, Serbia

• Bodo Weber, Senior Associate, Democratization Policy Council, Berlin, Germany

• Dr. Jonathan Wheatley, Senior Lecturer in Comparative Politics, School of Social Sciences, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, UK

• Dr. Mark Wheeler, Wivliscombe, Somerset, UK

• Dr. Tim Wilson, Director, Handa Centre for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence (CSTPV), School of International Relations, University of St. Andrews, Scotland, UK

• Laura Wise, Research Associate, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, UK

• Visat Xhambazi, D4D, Prishtina, Kosovo

• Olga Zirojević, historian, Serbia

• Azra Zornić, citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina

• Rajko Živković, journalist, Bosnia and Herzegovina

Open Letter to EU, US, NATO

Među potpisnicima je i 48 aktivnih članova Kruga 99

The post Open Letter to EU, US, and NATO Governments – This is Your Deterrence Failure:  Confront It appeared first on Krug99.