To Start Page

TOP
Voice of Diaspora

 
INDEX ABOUT TOPICS - CONTENT REGION TOMORROWS

Important News, Belangrijke nieuws, Nouvelles importantes, Wichtige News, Fontos hírek, Importanti novitŕ, Pomembne novice, Importante Notícias, Viktiga nyheter



Ing. Salih CAVKIC
Editor in Chief
by ORBUS.BE
info@orbus.be
www.orbus.be


 
No more Paris nor Brussels!
Stop terrorism!
We want to live in peace with all our neighbors.
  regardless of their religion, color and origin.
Therefore, we condemn any kind of terrorism!

*****
Ne više Pariz ni Brisel!
Stop terorizam!
Mi želimo živjeti u miru sa svim našim komšijama,
bez obzira koje su vjere, boje kože i porijekla.
Zato mi osuđujemo svaku vrstu terorizma!


Belang van Limburg
De Morgen
De Standard
Het Laatste Nieuws
La Libre Belgique
Nieuwsblaad

VRT
VRTNieuws

N-TV.DE
Deutsche Welle
West-D. Zeitung




The man of the year 2009
Guy Verhofstadt
Mr. Guy Verhofstadt

The man of the year
L'homme de l'ane
De man van het jaar
2009


A proven Democrat, protector and fighter for justice and human rights in the World.

Een bewezen Democraat, beschermer en strijder voor rechtvaardigheid en mensenrechten in de Wereld.

Un prouvé démocrate, protecteur et combattant pour la justice et des droits de l'homme dans le Mond.

Eine bewährte Demokrat, Beschützer und Kämpfer für Gerechtigkeit und Menschenrechte in der Welt.

Dokazani demokrat,
 zaštitnik i borac za pravdu i ljudska prava u Svijetu.





Maasmechelen Village
Belgium



The man of the year 2012


Mr. Barak Hossein Obama

The man of the year
L'homme de l'an
De man van het jaar
2012


Guarantee
peace in the world

Garantie
vrede in de wereld

Garantie
la paix dans le monde

Garantie des Friedens in der Welt

Zabezpečenie
mieru vo svete

Garancija
mira u svijetu





Prof. dr. Murray Hunter
University Malaysia Perlis




Eva MAURINA
20 Years to Trade Economic Independence for Political Sovereignty - Eva MAURINA




Aleš Debeljak +
In Defense of Cross-Fertilization: Europe and Its Identity Contradictions - Aleš Debeljak

ALEŠ DEBELJAK - ABECEDA DJETINJSTVA

ALEŠ DEBEJAK - INTERVJU; PROSVJEDI, POEZIJA, DRŽAVA




Rattana Lao
Rattana Lao holds a doctorate in Comparative and International Education from Teachers College, Columbia University and is currently teaching in Bangkok.




Bakhtyar Aljaf
Director of Middle-East and Balkan Studies (IFIMES) in Ljubljana, Slovenia




Rakesh Krishnan Simha
Géométrie variable of a love triangle – India, Russia and the US





Amna Whiston
Amna Whiston is a London-based writer specialising in moral philosophy. As a PhD candidate at Reading University, UK, her main research interests are in ethics, rationality, and moral psychology.





Eirini Patsea 
Eirini Patsea is a Guest Editor in Modern Diplomacy, and specialist in Cultural Diplomacy and Faith-based Mediation
.




Belmir Selimovic
Can we trust the government to do the right thing, are they really care about essential things such as environmental conditions and education in our life?





Dubravko Lovrenović+
Univ. prof. Dubravko Lovrenović is one of the leading European Medievalist specialized in the Balkans, pre-modern and modern political history.




Manal Saadi
Postgraduate researcher in International Relations and Diplomacy at the Geneva-based UMEF University




doc.dr.Jasna Cosabic
professor of IT law and EU law at Banja Luka College,
Bosnia and Herzegovina




Aleksandra Krstic
Studied in Belgrade (Political Science) and in Moscow (Plekhanov’s IBS). Currently, a post-doctoral researcher at the Kent University in Brussels (Intl. Relations). Specialist for the MENA-Balkans frozen and controlled conflicts.

Contact: alex-alex@gmail.com






Dr.Swaleha Sindhi is Assistant Professor in the Department of Educational Administration, the Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda, India. Decorated educational practitioner Dr. Sindhi is a frequent columnist on related topics, too. She is the Vice President of Indian Ocean Comparative Education Society (IOCES). Contact: swalehasindhi@gmail.com




Barçın Yinanç
 It is an Ankara-based journalist and notable author. She is engaged with the leading Turkish dailies and weeklies for nearly three decades as a columnist, intervieweer and editor. Her words are prolifically published and quoted in Turkish, French an English.




 By İLNUR ÇEVIK
Modified from the original: They killed 1 Saddam and created 1,000 others (Daily Sabah)




Aine O’Mahony
Aine O'Mahony has a bachelor in Law and Political Science at the Catholic Institute of Paris and is currently a master's student of Leiden University in the International Studies programme.Contact: aine-claire.nini@hotmail.fr




Elodie Pichon

  Elodie Pichon has a  bachelor in Law and Political Science at the Catholic Institute of Paris and is currently doing a MA in Geopolitics, territory and Security at King's College London. Contact : elodie.pichon@gmail.com




Qi Lin

Qi Lin, a MA candidate of the George Washington University, Elliott School of International Affairs. Her research focus is on cross-Pacific security and Asian studies, particularly on the Sino-U.S. relations and on the foreign policy and politics of these two.





ALESSANDRO CIPRI
Born in Chile and raised in Rome, Alessandro Cipri has just finished his postgraduate studies at the department of War Studies of King's College London, graduating with distinction from the Master's Degree in "Intelligence and International Security". Having served in the Italian Army's "Alpini" mountain troops, he has a keen interest in national security, military strategy, insurgency theory, and terrorism studies. His Master's dissertation was on the impact of drug trafficking on the evolution of the Colombian FARC.




Ms. Lingbo ZHAO
is a candidate of the Hong Kong Baptist University, Department of Government and International Studies. Her research interest includes Sino-world, Asia and cross-Pacific.

Contact: harryzhaolin@gmail.com

 


Hannes Grassegger
Hannes Grassegger and Mikael Krogerus are investigative journalists attached to the Swiss-based Das Magazin specialized journal.

 

Mikael Krogerus

Hannes Grassegger and Mikael Krogerus are investigative journalists attached to the Swiss-based Das Magazin specialized journal.

 


Michal Kosinski

Scientific analysis

 


Elodie Pichon,
Ms. Elodie Pichon, Research Fellow of the IFIMES Institute, DeSSA Department. This native Parisian is a Master in Geopolitics, Territory and Security from the King’s College, London, UK.





Djoeke Altena



Muhamed Sacirbey
Muhamed Sacirbey

Ambassador Muhamed Sacirbey currently lectures on Digital-Diplomacy. "Mo" has benefited from a diverse career in investment banking & diplomacy, but his passion has been the new avenues of communication. He was Bosnia & Herzegovina's first Ambassador to the United Nations, Agent to the International Court of Justice, Foreign Minister & Signatory of the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court. He also played American football opting for a scholarship to Tulane University in New Orleans after being admitted to Harvard, oh well!!




Amanda Janoo

Amanda Janoo is an Alternative Economic Policy Adviser to governments and development organizations. Graduate from Cambridge University with an MPhil in Development Studies, Amanda worked at the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) supporting government's with evidence-based industrial policy design for inclusive and sustainable growth. Her research focus is on the relationship between international trade and employment generation. She has worked throughout Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa promoting greater economic self-determination and empowerment.










INDEX 2017

INDEX 2016


English
Important News


Dutch - Nederlands
Belangrijke nieuws


French - Français
Nouvelles importantes


German - Deutsch
Wichtige News


Bosnian-Bosanski
Važne vijesti






 

 

SEPTEMBER 2017
 

Bridge over troubled waters – Growing meritime dispute between Croatia and Bosnia, neglected by the EU

Dr. Enis Omerović and Adil Kulenović,

 

The bilateral international agreement on the state border between Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republic of Croatia, known as the Agreement on the Border between the two states, or more familiarly, as the Tuđman-Izetbegović Agreement, signed in Sarajevo on 30 July 1999 between the then President of the Republic of Croatia, Franjo Tuđman, and the Chairman of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Alija Izetbegović, represents in its 23 Articles, conditionally, "a valid act since it has been applied until a new one is made" (V.Đ. Degan, 2013). This Agreement could also be perceived to contain a transitional or provisional solution, since it has never been ratified by any parliament and does not serve its ultimate purpose - the permanent establishment and determination of the land and sea border between the two neighbors. In this regard, it can even be argued that the Republic of Croatia de facto abandoned the execution of this Agreement when its official authorities decided to embark on the building of a permanent construction at sea. This all supports the fact that the issue of delimitation and demarcation at sea, especially in the area of the Bay of Neum and the Mali Ston Bay, is still permanently undefined and unsettled and thus requires, in our opinion, a serious step towards opening an official dialogue with Zagreb with the involvement of EU institutions, since the Republic of Croatia is a member of the European Union.

The second difficulty should be addressed together with the first. It would be especially important to define the sea boundary, regarding the tip of the Klek Peninsula and the uninhabited islets, Veliki and Mali Školj or, more precisely, the rocks in the Mali Ston Bay, which are part of a unique geomorphologic unit, together with the Klek Peninsula. If we drawthe line of equidistance for purposes of delimitation of two states whose shores in one bay lie or are opposite to one another (the Peninsula of Klek and Pelješac), which is in accordance with the international law of the sea, as well as Article 4 (3) of the bilateral Agreement which, inter alia, prescribes that border at the sea stretches "the median line of the sea area between the land of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republic of Croatia", it could be claimed that the disputed area would belong to Bosnia and Herzegovina. Closely connected to this, the question of Bosnia-Herzegovina's access to the High Seas or international waters of the Adriatic Sea and other world seas should be addressed, where no country in the world has territorial sovereignty, nor does it exercise any sovereign rights. High sea areas are world seas and oceans which are outside any state territory and provide a regime of free navigation and overflight, as well as other freedoms inherent to the High Seas. On this part of the planet, according to general customary international law, all countries in the world, under certain circumstances, exercise their jurisdiction over vessels flying the flag of their country.

For these reasons, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea from 1982 (UNCLOS) (ratified both by the Republic of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina) states in Art. 7 (6) of the Convention that, in declaring its straight baselines, from which the width of the territorial sea is measured, the coastal State may not cut off the territorial sea of another coastal state from the High Seas or the exclusive economic zone. As things stand currently, in order to get from the waters of Bosnia and Herzegovina by vessel to the High Seas, it is necessary to pass through the internal waters and the territorial sea of the other coastal state, so that, in crossing the line that represents the outer boundary of the territorial sea, one leaves the sovereign territory of the Republic of Croatia. Further into the High Seas, the Croatian Protected Ecological and Fishing Band (ZERP) has been declared and covers the sea area in the Adriatic Sea from the external border of the territorial sea in the direction of the open sea to its outer boundary, determined by the general international law, and temporarily follows the line of demarcation of the continental shelf established by the Agreement between Italy and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia concerning the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between the two Countries in the Adriatic Sea from 1968.

In fact, it is essential for Bosnia and Herzegovina to secure a specific route, that is to say, a corridor, which will physically connect its waters with the High Seas, since it is in an unfavorable geographic position, due to its sealed coastline. At this level, it is state practice to support coastal states to limit the width of their territorial sea, due to the undisputed flow or passage of the other coastal state to the High Seas, in accordance with the above-mentioned UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which represents a codification of this branch of international law. Examples of this are the Republics of Estonia and Finland in the Gulf of Finland in the Baltic Sea, in relation to the Russian Federation (St. Petersburg area), and the Republic of France in relation to the territorial sea of the Principality of Monaco in the Mediterranean Sea.

Hence, Bosnia and Herzegovina should not accept the guarantee of the neighboring state that Bosnia and Herzegovina will have the right only to innocent passage for all vessels to and from Neum or, in the case of some other ports in the state territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina, since Neum is extremely unconducive to the construction of a larger port which would be open to international traffic - we predict that a port of this type and category could be built on the Klek Peninsula, whose waters are much more suitable, especially in respect of access and sea depth, for the construction of an international port. This is because the right to innocent passage of a vessel is linked to the territorial sea, not to the internal waters of the coastal state. This should have been precisely defined in accordance with the principles and rules of international law, preferably by a bilateral international agreement between the two neighboring states, namely, the existence, the position, the proper width and the legal regime of such a corridor or waterway, which would probably be through the Neretva and the Korčula Channel, to move all vessels to and from Bosnia and Herzegovina. The legal regime of such a corridor should be explicitly articulated in writing, together with the rights and obligations of both contracting parties, all in accordance with international law.

Therefore, it could be understood that there is a noticeable difference between the right to innocent passage of foreign ships through the territorial sea of a coastal state and the formation of a corridor with a special legal regime. The latter would most likely pass through Croatian territory, as it would be unrealistic to expect that the Republic of Croatia in the area of such a corridor remains without its territorial sovereignty and integrity. This is regardless of the fact that it not very legally rightly inherited from the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, by its Maritime Code, the straight baselines under the conditions of more sovereign states whose coastlines are touched and lean on one another in the same sea area. Namely, the disputed area in terms of the declaration of these straight baselines is from the Cape Proizd (near the island of Korčula) all the way to the southwestern tip of the island of Vodnjak, near some of the more famous Paklinski islands (along the island of Hvar), as this act simply contributed to the "closure" of Bosnian and Herzegovinian waters. We have written "most likely to pass" since it is hard to imagine that in the area of the Neretva and Korčula Channels, with a width of not less than 1-1.5 nautical miles, that condominium (shared sovereignty) can be established or that an international legal regime be determined completely outside Croatian sovereignty.

Finally, in support of the assertion that any coastal state should have unimpeded (not just innocent passage, which is subject to various restrictions on the part of the coastal state) access to the High Seas, there is the final determination of the arbitral award of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague in the case the Republic of Slovenia and the Republic of Croatia of 2017, according to which the Republic of Slovenia, through the so-called junction of 2.5 nautical miles wide, i.e. the physical link of its territorial waters with the high seas area of the North Adriatic was awarded a corridor from their waters, where Slovenia enjoys full sovereignty to the High Seas, where many freedoms are guaranteed to all countries of the world, both coastal and non-coastal, as well as to those with an unfavorable geographic position regarding access to the sea, as in the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Namely, as the Chairman of the Arbitration Council in this very case, G. Guillaume, stated in the public statement of the arbitral award, "the junction between the Slovenian territorial sea and the High Seas is a space where ships and planes have the same right of access to Slovenia as well as in the High Seas. The Court identified the area of the Croatian territorial sea that is adjacent to the Italian waters within which a special legal regime would be applied. The corridor is approximately 2.5 nautical miles wide, and located immediately next to the border, according to the Treaty of Osimo, within Croatian territorial waters. A special legal regime should guarantee the integrity of the Croatian territorial sea, and Slovenian free communication between its waters and the High Seas." It follows that the free communication of a coastal state between its waters and the High Seas is not the same as its right/obligation to innocently pass through the waters of another coastal state. It should, therefore, be concluded that the first term refers to the freedom of navigation and over flight to a little more extent than that provided by the institute of the innocent passage of foreign ships to territorial sea, which is only a necessary passage, since every foreign vessel must navigate through this area on the shortest conventional route, without disruption or delay. Moreover, this accessory or connecting corridor would have a kind of limitation of Croatian sovereignty and jurisdiction, since it would be in the spirit of this particular legal regime that would go in the middle of the Neretva and Korčula Channel. It would be worth questioning, moreover, whether Croatian internal waters should be left where they are now. The same question appeared to have been posed by a legal scholar from Croatia – “the question remains whether the waters of Croatia delimited by the territorial sea of Bosnia and Herzegovina can continue to be considered as having the legal status of internal waters.” (B. Vukas, 2006).

Accordingly, a maritime corridor with a specific legal regime needs to be differentiated widely, or clarified in detail, so it does not necessarily represent identical international legal categories with the right to innocent passage of foreign ships and the right of transit passage. These latter terms are characteristic of the very specific maritime zones and parts of the sea which are not the subject of our current exploration and explication.

When all interconnected notions finally acquire their coherent power in terms of consistency, then will be the time to discuss continuing the construction ofa permanent artificial installation on the sea, called the Pelješac Bridge (mainland – Pelješac Peninsula). Having understood that the Republic of Croatia only wants to connect two parts of the mainland, that is, the northern and southern ends of their country with a high-quality road link, this modern traffic connection should not endanger, or be detrimental to, the interests of their neighbors. Therefore, for the purpose of solving the traffic difficulties of the Republic of Croatia, the continuation of the construction of the Pelješac Bridge should be permanently solved by settling the so-called previous issues elaborated earlier - the permanent maritime delimitation on the Adriatic Sea as well as the permanent determination of the land border through a bilateral international frontier treaty, which will be applied equally and in good faith by both signatory parties and which will, above all, be confirmed in both the Croatian Parliament and the Parliamentary Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina, where the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969 would be applicable in the event of any dispute as to its application, and the interpretation of certain provisions thereof. In addition to this, as mentioned above, it is necessary to establish in an internationally appropriate manner the legal regime and the width of the future corridor, which will represent, inter alia, a junction between Bosnian and Herzegovinian waters and the High Seas of the Adriatic.

Hence, only after the final determination of all the aforementioned, and after a thorough, concrete and legally binding determination of the legal regime of the corridor above which the permanent bridge will be built, the scientific and professional processing of the project known as the Pelješac Bridge must be approached. This should meet all the technical characteristics of bridges that have already been built over water within the international legal regime, i.e. international waterways, such as the Fatih Sultan Mehmet Bridge and the Bosporus Bridge in Istanbul that cross over the waters of the Bosporus strait which is under international legal regime, or the Oresund bridge (although most of the international maritime traffic takes place above the underwater tunnel) linking the Kingdom of Denmark and the Kingdom of Sweden and which is also located over the international waterway. This means that if the agreement between the two neighboring coastal states in this part of the Adriatic Sea could be achieved, in the sense of completing its construction and opening it for all road traffic, the bridge of these dimensions must have a certain minimum navigation height and a minimum range between the pillars, or at least the central ones, so that big ships could also sail into the Neum waters.

Bosnia and Herzegovina always somehow tends to delay consideration of certain questions. If this continues, there is a great chance that there will be no single institutional response, with the result that the position of Bosnia and Herzegovina in relation to this important international legal issue will remain very vague and indeterminate. Additionally, there is a very long internal tradition which does not encourage political cooperation, and a lack of understanding of things that are of fundamental significance to the whole country, not just to one of its constituent peoples.

However, in expectation of any kind of determination on the part of Bosnia and Herzegovina, with or without the Pelješac Bridge, the problem of the permanent "drawing" of the borderline between the two countries, both on the sea and on the land, will remain. The question of the access corridor or the connection of Bosnia-Herzegovina's waters with the High Seas will not be sorted out alone. So, is it wise to wait for the international community or the Office of the High Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina (if it is still here?!) to take steps to protect the international interests of this state?

This is an opportunity to see the strength of the Bosnian-Herzegovinian diplomacy which will once again demonstrate its position on the international stage. There is certainly a consistent lack of unity, resulting predominately from the less than satisfactory territorial organization, and attempts to build a state on the basis of ethnicity. This lack of unity is reflected in the impossibility of coming to clear institutional views on the part of the official state government. There may again be the emergence of a culture of conflict and non-cooperation at the Parliamentary Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina (which could, adopt the declaration, as a political act, with precisely defined conclusions), the Council of Ministers and the Presidency.

But if dialogue is opened, perhaps after formal disagreement through a diplomatic note to the Republic of Croatia, the latter will surely have the advantage, or at least a better negotiating position, due to its European Union membership. This fact may well be crucial (since the European Union also recognizes the interest in land consolidation of its territory, so that its members can better monitor and control their state territory, with the goal of Croatia's entry into the Schengen area) to the success of the negotiations as a diplomatic mean of settling one international dispute,
which surely here does exist, at least with respect to the territorial title. Finally, it is worth mentioning that an international dispute does not need to be specifically proclaimed, the essence is in the existence of a disagreement with respect to essential facts, or in their apparently different interpretations.

If there is an international dispute between two coastal states that share the eastern coast of the Adriatic Sea - that is not debatable - it is now best to choose the most appropriate and effective means of settling the dispute with, if possible, mutual interest as its aim. In this respect, it would be best to choose the most appropriate means for peaceful settlement of disputes from a large palette of diplomatic and legal means that are equally available to each state. Based on the foregoing, a dispute can be brought before the ICJ in The Hague, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) in Hamburg, or it can be "easily" settled through ad hoc arbitration, i.e. special arbitration tribunals. But for the decision, which is the only outcome of these legal proceedings, it is necessary to wait for years, since such international legal processes can be very long-lasting and, above all, extremely expensive. In any case, Bosnia and Herzegovina will surely need to find a modus operandi in solving the above-mentioned issues with its western neighbor. This could be found in the Joint Team of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republic of Croatia for Negotiations on the Implementation of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Delimitation at Sea or, perhaps, on a general level, in a body that will be composed on a parity basis, such as the Inter-State Diplomatic Commission for the Determination of the Border Line, which should, inter alia, settle the border dispute over the Danube River between the Republic of Serbia and the Republic of Croatia, still, so far, with little success. All this graphically demonstrates the complexity of the international law of the sea, particularly in the area of delimitation.

Dr. Enis Omerović and Adil Kulenović,

Group of Friends of NEUM, Krug 99 – Sarajevo




September 3, 2017


AUGUSTUS 2017

WHAT ARE WE DEALING WITH – TRUMP OR DEMOCRACY

By: Tomislav Jakić

 

Although it is still not sure if Donald Trump will go down in history as champion of bombastic, but empty threats, or as somebody who did what he threatened with, thus starting a dangerous local war with potentially global consequences, one thing is absolutely sure: Donald Trump, the eccentric billionare with a turbulent business career, a showman, proved with his entry into the White House, but as well as with the campaign waged by the so called liberals (in the best way of almost forgotten McChartism) to evict him from there, that the model of western democracy, especially its American version, is irreparable corrupted. If we look at the facts as they are, there can be no doubt about this.

Trump was elected as president of America, a country that was for decades, with good reason, viewed as the light-bearer of democracy. He was elected in accordance with the rules of the American democratic system, rules that are – basically – applied from the very beginning of the existence of the United States. Here we stumble upon the first “but”. Only to enter the race for the nomination for the presidential candidate, one must have money, very much money. In democracy, meaning the rule of the people, the people are robbed of the possibility to elect the best and forced to elect among the rich the one, who seems to be most capable. Or, and this is the second “but” (which was obviously the case in the last elections), people are left to choose and to decide who is the lesser evil. This is why, choosing between Trump, who at that time presented a fresh and for America even radically changed foreign policy program and the former First lady and Secretary of State, an undisputed political hawk with no other foreign policy program that the continuation of toppling regimes in foreign countries and installing those who suited the US best and – not to forget – the continuation of the reborn Cold war, people opted for Trump, as lesser evil. Of course, when we use the term “people” we have in mind those who decided to use their voting right, which is usually about 50% of those registered as potential voters. And here is the third “but”. The President is elected by the minority of the Americans and imposed upon the majority.

This is how American democracy functions, at least in the last couple of decades. But, being strongly influenced by everything coming from America, similar trends are more and more present in Europe too. In other words, system we call democracy and we praise as “something that is not perfect, but there is nothing better than it” (as the legendary British prime minister form the times of WW 2, Winston Churchill once said), is giving all chances and opening all doors not to those who are capable, but to those who are rich. This very system often forces the voters to choose only between the greater and lesser evil. And in many countries (France was, at least until today, an exception) the voters are to such a degree fed up with politics, with politicians and with the scandals accompanying them, that they in significant numbers simply abstain from their right to vote, leaving it to the minority to impose its choice to the majority. And this should be the rule of the people?

But let us deal with facts, as they are. Trump was elected in the same way as all his predecessors. He was not unique (meaning the first) even because of the fact that his opponent won more popular votes, but he won the elections due to the electoral votes. To put it as simply as possible: he won in a democratic way and his victory was legitimate. And here begins the second chapter of the saga about the corrupted democracy. Despite the fact that he was democratically elected, despite the fact the legality of his election could not have been disputed, followers of the candidate who lost (and in whom the disoriented left leaning European liberals all of a sudden see a leftist - what she never was!) started with help of the mainstream media, either friendly to them or controlled by them (free media, is it?) an unprecedented campaign against Trump. His “main sin”, needless to say is, according to them, that he won due to the Russian meddling in the election process – which is a gigantic compliment to the Russian propaganda and secret services, but at the same time an even greater offence to the American voters. Parallel to this Trump’s mental health, his ability to perform the duties of the President and - more recently - his threat to start a nuclear war are being discussed. The champion of the anti-Trump campaign, the global TV network, CNN, already discusses his state of mind (his accountability, to put it bluntly), the degree of his connection with Moscow (a second detant is obviously something very frightening for Trump’s political adversaries) and finally the mechanisms of impeachment. The special prosecutor investigating the alleged ties between Trump and the Kremlin, already conveyed the so called grand jury, a citizen’s assembly which will in the best tradition of senator Joe McCharty’s investigations of the anti-American activities, decide – based on the reports of the US intelligence agencies which have until today presented no hard evidence, no “smoking gun”, proving that Moscow really did meddle in the presidential elections – if Trump was elected American president due to the will and support of the American votes (meaning electors), or due to the influence from Moscow.

Judging by the present state of affairs, it is not hard to anticipate their decision.

In the meantime nobody is mentioning any more the financial irregularities (to say the least) in the activity of the Clinton Foundation, or the unprotected e-mails the former Secretary of State sent from an unprotected mobile phone, thus breaking the law (what she, despite the evidence, denied to have done). Nobody is mentioning her role in the ill-fated Arab Spring, especially in the toppling of the Lybian regime and the murder of colonel Ghadafi. On the contrary! The promotion of her hastily written book, entitled “What really happened” is announced, with the clear aim to close the coffin of Trump’s presidency.

And Trump, although being a “foreigner” on the political scene is far from being naďve. He fully understands that it is for him to be or not to be. And he acts like a wounded animal, chased into a corner. He forgets everything he promised during the election campaign (with the exception of the wall along the border with Mexico), he forgets his words that “America will no longer impose the American way of life” on anybody and his politics (if the stumbling from one day into the other can be called politics) resembles more and more those of George W. Bush and Barack Obama (read: Hillary Clinton). And he repeatedly and with ever greater enthusiasm threatens with the American military might, which brought him on the verge of open war with seemingly unpredictable, but in reality very “down to the Earth” regime of North Korea. Kim Yong Un seems to be an enigma to the world, but let us not forget that he was educated in the West. He knows perfectly well whom he is dealing with, while Trump entered the war games without knowing anything about Kim – if we forget the slogans about the harsh dictatorship and the last bastion of communism and what else the military-industrial complex is “feeding” him with in order to always have an enemy, even at the risk of a world war.

Today’s world is on the brink of a confrontation with unforeseeable consequences. But, it is not Donald Trump who is to be blamed for this in the first place. Much more – the system that opened for him the doors of the White House and is now trying- mainly through the activities of the deep state – to throw him out of there. Both things, needless to say: democratically. Because of that, is it not the last minute to start thinking about what is really the system we call democracy and what is this system giving us (or taking from us)? So, it is not Donald Trump we are dealing with, it is democracy, better to say system we view as democracy and which has with the original meaning of the world less and less in common. After all, was it not the 2nd President of the United States, John Adams, who said: “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” And did we remember, do we remember?


Tomislav Jakić
Author (born 1943, graduated at the Law Faculty of the Zagreb University), is a long-time journalist, (TV and press), who served between 2001. and 2010. as foreign policy adviser to the second President of the Republic of Croatia, Mr. Stjepan Mesić.


Augustus 17, 2017


JULY 2017

Review of the Book

Europe and Africa – Similarities and difference in Security Structures

Written by Anis Bajrektarevic and Giuliano Luongo

NOVA Publishers ( https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=62974 )

“For the past few centuries, Africa lived fear but dreamt a hope of Europeans …From WWI to www.” In this one short statement is the essence of the 6th book on geopolitics of prof. Anis Bajrektarevic: ‘Europe and Africa’ just released by the US publisher NOVA. This time professor is co-signing book with his junior researcher from Italy, Guliano Luongo, who is a Director of Africanistic studies at the Rome-based Institute for Geopolitics (IsAG).

The book combines in a unique way both the past and the presence of two continents, which are quite different – in almost every aspect – now, but which were deeply interconnected during the colonial past – with Europe influencing Africa and Africa planting the seeds of influence on Europe that will be unveiled many years after.

The book concentrates on security structures of both the ‘Old’ and ‘Forgotten’ continent, trying to answer the question why Europe is multilateral and Africa still bilateral in this field. To this end, Prof. Anis and his coauthor dive into the historical experiences and look in them for causes of today’s developments, and future prospects of Afro-Med and Euro-Med.

Special emphasis is put on integration processes in Europe and Africa and the reasons why Africa is far away from its own pan-continental organization (despite the current state of the EU and several attempts to put into life something similar to the EU in Africa). Asian security structures and the reasons why they are asymmetric, did not escape the focus of prof. Anis and Giuliano, although they are primarily dealing with Europe and Africa, always searching – with good reason – for the roots of today’s situation in the European past, and its footprint on Afro-Asian soil.

The central message of the book is formulated in the following quotation: “For a serious advancement of multilateralism, mutual trust, a will to compromise and achieve a common denominator through active co-existence is the key. It is hard to build a common course of action around the disproportionately big and centrally positioned member which would escape the interpretation as containment by the big or assertiveness of its center by the smaller, peripheral members.”

Sometimes, big means populous and young; the world’s 10 youngest populations are all in Africa, a continent with a 40% of people under age of 15. And their future is not waiting, but brewing. Better than anything else the authors formulate their ‘philosophy’ in the sentence: “Our history warns. Nevertheless, it also provides a hope.”

Hope is based on knowledge. And whoever wants to seek and grasp, should read the book ‘Europe and Africa’. It explains not only what happened in the past, but also what and why is happening today. And this is why this book is ‘much needed’ for our common Future of History.

Few other endorsements:

Dr. Walter Schwimmer, former Secretary General of the Council of Europe (1999-2004)
We all are Africans.
Anis Bajrektarevic and his coauthor see in security, peace and democratic stability the key to the solution not only of Africa’s problems but also of improving the relations between Europe and Africa.

Dr. Franz Fischler, EU Commissioner (1995–04), President of the European Forum Apbach
Africa is the future continent. For all that security is key.

The book of prof. Anis and Guiliano will help to understand better the security structures of Europe and Africa and can form a base for improvements in the interrelations between these two diverse continents.

Prof. dr. Ernest Petrič, ambassador and former President of Constitutional Court of Slovenia
Concise but comprehensive books on Africa are rather rare. Those, unbiased, fair and timely are even rarer. Therefore, this book is a much-needed reader; for scholars and practitioners, be it Europeans interested in Africa, Africans interested in Europe or those seeking beyond.

Prof. Dr Bruce Hearn, University of Sussex
I commend the authors on presenting an otherwise dauntingly complex political and security situation across the continent of Africa in a straightforward and easy to comprehend way. This work makes a truly insightful read for public policy practitioners, political scientists and those with an interest in development alike.

Dr. Dr. Emanuel L. Paparella (Yale University) Professor of  philosophy at Barry University
this is the kind of book that needs to be read and pondered, discussed and debated carefully and seriously. It that is done, it may well clarify quite a few unsolved geo-political puzzles of the bizarre and confusing times in which we live and have our being.

Dr. Ilham A. Habibie, Chairman, Institute of Democracy through Science & Technology, The Habibie Center, Jakarta, Indonesia
From the cradle of civilization to the planetary underachiever: The pre-colonial, colonial and post-colonial Africa and its interaction with Europeans – all that prof. Anis and his coauthor analyze in a brilliant and interesting way.

I highly recommend this book as a must-read literature giving valuable information for all of us, particularly the ones who are interested in the underlying reasons for many problems that we see on both continents, which are today very actual looking at hotspots such as refugee crisis and terrorism.

Cheng Yu Chin, Director, EU-China Economics and Politics Institute
Excellent news – with this book – for those who argue that European multilateralism is a right solution to manage Africa out of a lasting crisis. This fascinating comparative read further navigates those of academia and practitioners who want to steer us towards stabile Europe and prosperous Euro-MED.

Prof. Rejane Pinto Costa, PhD  Brazilian War College
A brilliant piece of work! The authors were able to take a challenging subject and turn it into a compelling read that I recommend to all who are interested in such an intriguing subject.

Slavko Kulić, prof.dr.sc. IOM, St Catherine Oxford, Institute on World Problems for Europe
Europe needs new models of articulation. From vertical hierarchies, the European world of preponderance today must rethink the new horizontal organization in sociology of international relations. Authors of this book are bravely, clearly and repeatedly pointing this out.

Elvis Adjei, Professor of Financial Economics & Regional Director - Africa
University of Ghana, Accra
Anis and Giuliano skillfully guide the reader through the threshold concepts that reveal the historical perspectives of institutions with deep resonance for security structures in Africa and Europe.

An outstanding book that is guaranteed to be of interest to faculty and students. It provides a major contribution to security issues that would undoubtedly be a valuable resource to historians as well as national and international security professionals of both continents and well beyond. 

Prof. Alexander Zistakis, PhD (University of Athens)
By skillfully contrasting and comparing the ‘forgotten’ with an ‘old’ continent, the authors have accomplished a real feat. For scholars dealing with the geopolitics of Africa and Eurasia this will be a must read for many years to come.



July 20, 2017


The Return of Good Policies for Bad Reasons

Populism and Industrial Policy

Amanda Janoo

Throughout the most of human evolution both progress as well as its horizontal transmission was extremely slow, occasional and tedious a process. Well into the classic period of Alexander the Macedonian and his glorious Alexandrian library, the speed of our knowledge transfers – however moderate, analogue and conservative – was still always surpassing snaillike cycles of our breakthroughs. When our sporadic breakthroughs finally turned to be faster than the velocity of their infrequent transmissions – that very event marked a point of our departure.

Simply, our civilizations started to significantly differentiate from each other in their respective techno-agrarian, politico-military, ethno-religious and ideological, and economic setups. In the eve of grand discoveries, the faster cycles of technological breakthroughs, patents and discoveries than their own transfers, primarily occurred on the Old continent.

That occurancy, with all its reorganizational effects, radically reconfigured societies – to the point of polarizing world onto the two: leaders and followers” – noted prof. Anis H. Bajrektarevic in his luminary book Europe, 100 years later.

Will we ever close our technological and spiritual gap, physically and psychologically? Following lines are an interesting take on the topic.

* * * * * *

The world is at a unique moment. People are disillusioned with the status quo. We are on the brink of a paradigm shift that could transform our political and economic realities. Industrial policy has a unique opportunity to re-assert itself as an alternative way of managing an economy that is responsive to the desires and aspirations of society. Industrial policy experts must be careful, however, not to pander to the fascist winds brewing as this could spell demise for the discipline and the world.

For decades, countries have operated under the assumption that there is no alternative to market fundamentalism. Described by many as “neoliberalism,” market fundamentalism calls for a one-size-fits-all approach to economic policy. All countries, but particularly developing countries, were told to abide by the three sacred tenants: liberalize, privatize and deregulate. In this context, industrial policy was actively discouraged if not straight-up prohibited. However, the tide seems to be changing.

We have recently seen populist uprisings in the two countries that were the chief architects of neoliberalism, the United States and United Kingdom, with people and politicians actively disavowing the free market consensus of the proceeding decades. This explicit flirtation with economic protectionism by these ideological giants, presents an opportunity for developing countries to openly question free trade and experiment with alternative economic policy approaches that are more in line with their societal priorities and objectives. The danger is however, that the world will emulate the scapegoating, separatist and authoritarian rhetoric being articulated by the likes of Donald Trump and Marie Le Pen to legitimize the use of more interventionalist economic policies.

Reminiscent of Karl Polanyi’s description of the “double-movement” in the inter-war period, we are witnessing a yearning for social and political instruments to temper the inequality, instability and degradation wrought by decades of market fundamentalist policies. Industrial policy experts, having a deep understanding of the failings of an unruly free market system, are in an ideal position to advice governments disillusioned with Chicago School policy prescriptions. As space opens for new economic approaches, industrial policy can position itself as a more “hands on” and socially-responsive form of economic management. The danger is that industrial policy inherently implies a more powerful role of government in economic affairs, and therefore can just as easily be used to support authoritarian ambitions.

At the time of writing in the post-war period, Polanyi saw the “double-movement” manifesting in Europe in two extreme forms: Fascism and Socialism. In looking at the recent US elections we could easily see how the two populist candidates Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders fit into these polar categorizations. Both candidates appealed to economic protectionism but for very different reasons. Trump criticized free trade in order to further an aggressive foreign policy agenda and assert US dominance. While Sanders called for protectionist measures to help reduce social inequality and re-industrialize the economy. The clear danger here is that the same protectionist policies could be employed for either political agenda but if industrial policy becomes aligned with the fascist movements underway it will ultimately be discredited forever.

At this pivotal junction in history, industrial policy experts must not become drunk with the prospect of re-legitimation and bolster political movements that propagate messages of conspiracist scapegoating and cultural superiority. We must use industrial policy to support our global community to stand together as they critically reflect on the failures of market fundamentalism. It is time to creatively envision new forms of economic organization that can deliver on societies desire for greater dignity and security. The old economic consensus is out. The question is whether industrial policy can articulate a persuasive alternative that re-empowers governments to mold and direct their economies without instigating a trade war that will bring more harm than good.

(Early version of this text appeared in the UNIDO magazine Making It )

About the author:
Amanda Janoo

Amanda Janoo is an Alternative Economic Policy Adviser to governments and development organizations. Graduate from Cambridge University with an MPhil in Development Studies, Amanda worked at the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) supporting government's with evidence-based industrial policy design for inclusive and sustainable growth. Her research focus is on the relationship between international trade and employment generation. She has worked throughout Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa promoting greater economic self-determination and empowerment.



July 19, 2017


Balkan Transitional Justice
Serbia Delivered Srebrenica Refugees to Mladic: Report

Filip Rudic - BIRN-Belgrade

The Humanitarian Law Centre NGO said it will file criminal complaints against Serbian officials involved in handing over Bosniak refugees from Srebrenica who fled to Serbia to Ratko Mladic’s forces.



A Bosniak woman at a funeral ceremony at the Srebrenica memorial on July 11. Photo: Beta/AP/Amel Emric.

The Belgrade-based Humanitarian Law Centre said in a report launched on Thursday that it has identified 30 Bosniak refugees who crossed the border seeking shelter in Yugoslavia after the July 1995 genocide in Srebrenica, but were handed over to Bosnian Serb forces, who killed at least 15 of them.

Nine of the Bosniaks are still listed as missing and six survived.

At the launch of the Humanitarian Law Centre report in Belgrade, one of the survivors, Muhamed Avdic, recalled how he lost his father, Azem, who remains listed as a missing person.

“My mother, sister and I parted with father on March 30, 1993, when [Bosnian Serb commander Ratko] Mladic’s forces were around Srebrenica,” said Avdic, who was a teenager at the time.

His father stayed behind while the rest of the family took a UN refugee agency humanitarian aid truck to the nearby town of Tuzla. Their only communication with Azem was through letters sent via the Red Cross.

“When Srebrenica was declared a safe zone, we were happy and waiting for father to return. In August 1995 we received information that he had been captured,” Avdic said.

The HLC had found official records showing that Azem was caught on July 31, 1995, 20 days after the fall of Srebrenica, by police in the Serbian town of Bajina Basta.

They handed him over to the border police, who in turn gave him to the Bratunac Brigade of the Bosnian Serb Army; he was never seen since.

After Srebrenica was captured on July 11, 1995, Serb forces killed some 8,000 Bosniaks, which the international courts have qualified as an act of genocide.

After the mass murders, the Bosnian Serb Army pursued the Bosniaks who had escaped. The pursuit, capture, and murders continued for weeks after the fall of Srebrenica, according to the Humanitarian Law Centre.

“Every man who was caught on Serbian territory was handed over to the Bosnian Serb Army, including those who, according to police records, resorted to self-harm to prevent [themselves] from being returned,” said Milica Kostic from the Humanitarian Law Centre.

According to the report, no domestic or international court has ever prosecuted Serbian officials for the crimes.

One of the few survivors, Abdurahman Malkic, said he left Srebrenica as the town was being captured in July 1995.

“I took the road to salvation, towards [Bosniak-controlled territory in] Tuzla, there were 15,000 of us in a ten-kilometre column,” Malkic said.

After constant attacks on the refugee column, he and his brother swam over the river Drina and crossed into Serbia.

According to records obtained by the HLC, they were captured together with other men on July 23.

After being sent back to Bosnia, six of them, including Malkic, were transfered to the Batkovic prisoner camp near Bijeljina. They were the only ones who survived the deportations.

“It was a routine operation. Men were captured by the Serbian police, then turned over to the border police in Bajina Basta or Ljubovija. There they were interrogated, tortured, and turned over to the border police of [Bosnian Serb entity] Republika Srpska, which in turn handed them over to the Bosnian Serb Army,” Kostic said.

She added that Serbia knew that the men were refugees from Srebrenica, and that they were in danger from the Bosnian Serb police and military.

“Most importantly, everybody knew that the men from Srebrenica were systematically murdered by the thousands,” she said.

At the presentation of the report, Muhamed Avdic showed a picture of his father, a school teacher, surrounded by the Bosniak and Serb children that he taught.

“Since we are facing denial of genocide and claims that the numbers [of Srebrenica victims] are made up, here is the proof my father lived,” Avdic said.

“I hope that the state authorities who wish to defend Serbia’s honour will do something and punish the culprits,” he added.



July 19, 2017



The Truth and Reconciliation stuggle on the Balkans

Senadin Lavić

We live in a post-genocidal society, divided into ethnic-religious ghetto by means of war. In such broken society are continually inserted seductive and controversial concepts that serve the goals that are not realized by means of war. The terms such as federalism, unitarism and separatism come mainly as political games of political life actors in our country, but regarding the separatism of the entities RS, the Greater Serbian policy is absolutely focused on this goal. The shaping of political reality and the main ideas in it is a work of the ideology – par excellence, which then means that these terms are mostly ideologically determined and conceived in the minds of their constructors.

We should remember that M. Kasapović (Zagreb) in 2005 imposed and installed the term of consociation as territorial separation of the people in Bosnia and as the only possible model for the organization of the political system in Bosnia, followed by an orchestrated story of federalization and electoral units. The vague concept about the "impossible state" by N. Kecmanović (Banjaluka) is added to this in 2007 and till today, these two, assembled Serbian-Croatian projects of the dissolution of Bosnia stifled us and taken to a blind track of history. Kasapović has already come to Cyprisation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

These two names, Kasapović and Kecmanović, are witnesses to the great moral problem that has dampened our present social reality! We did not forget that on the ground of Bosnia, "pure ethnic territories" were created. On the objection that separatism must be halted, separatist forces respond that separatism is a reaction to unitarism and the non-recognition of entity "RS" or the necessity of federalization because of the vulnerability of Croats by Bosniaks. Thus, the syntagm of "unitarist politics" is a good excuse to continue the policy of division, ghettoization, hatred, great Serbian policy and similar enterprises.

The Dayton political system with imposed Constitution in Anex IV has brought peace to Bosnia, but, it should be emphasized, left the hope of anti-Bosnian forces to continue what they did not end in the war. This was immediately understood by the Greater Serbian policy and the entity RS was called the "Serbian state", "war booty" or "the rest of the remnants of the Serbian ethnic territory" west of the Drina River. The name of the entity itself allows this in perspective! Many people are already "trained" to speak "Serbian entity" regardless of the fact that it was made by genocide against Bosniaks.

Unitarianism is falsely identified with majorization in the explanations of separatist policies that, in fact, do not want the state of Bosnia or want only the formally present state institutions that are subordinate to the entity. The unitary system of government means that there is a state power that is accomplished throughout the territory of the state. Relating to this idea, Bosnia is a highly decentralized state divided into entities and cantons, which considerably slows down its functioning. The key matter is that separatism and federalism as parts of the political ideology of anti-Bosnianism do not want strong state of Bosnia. In such divided state, there we cannot talk about unitarism.

The expansionist nationalism of Serbs and Croats sees its goal in the assimilation of the Bosnian territory, then the "territorial authority" of ethnics means suppressing everything different from our "territory" and disregarding that in “our territory "state power or some national (state) institution has any influence. From here to dissolution, it is just a step. This is the way that tribal games go to the extreme. Serbian and Croatian national projects are seeking a "Bosniak policy" that would agree to implementation of Bosnian state's dissolution in this way and end with its political and historical existence. A brave Bosnian policy should offer the concept of regionalization of the state area and constantly insist on it regardless of all Serbian-Croatian agreements against Bosnia.

Bosnia has five historical regions that derive their meaningful existence from medieval times and that should not be ridden of the mind. In addition, the Bosnian ethatist political philosophy must be reaffirmed, therefore, a new development of awareness of the importance of the state. By this, it should be ended the Bosniak jeremiad in the last twenty years and defeated the anti-politics.

The ideologized vocabulary of anti-Bosnian politics

We must not agree to accept the ideologized vocabulary of anti-Bosnian politics at all. Unfortunately, we still do not have a sufficiently strong Bosnian policy that could deal with numerous subversives, simulacrums, deceptions and abuses of the system institutions, and we are all troubled by the failure of the rule of law. Parts of the law apply only to powerless or politically unbounded. It seems that the system of law in this country is the main source of corruption and manipulation of citizens, such a monstrous system that we have not even imagined. Organized groups have appropriated "right" of rights institutions and it appears as "party" and "ethnic" property, plus family clans, and the state is catastrophically damaged and turned into a "super-market" for robbery. The law system is subordinate to political groups that implement their constructions of social life. Weak state institutions open the space to all degenerative phenomena that undermine political stability. The state is vulnerable, institutionally deprived and does not breathe full of lungs. It would be good if the unitary system of government worked and organized the political life in the state through the devolution. It would be much more order, responsibility and better life. There would be no anarchy, hunting in the fog, ethnophulism in the education system, anachronistic ideologies, mythical consciousness, Chetniks and Ustasha, denying of genocide, denying the right to Bosnian language for children in schools ... In post genocidal society, a strong and responsible state is needed in order to overcome war trauma and reached legal satisfaction. What we have now is a knock-together form of war achievements and fulfilled wishes of the Milosević’s regime.

The bureaucrats from the so-called International community

We should not be naive and believe to bureaucrats from the so-called International community, to people like for example, B. B. Ghali, J. Akashi, J. Mayor, M. Lajčak or C. Bildt and many others, known and unknown. They consider Bosnia as a regular working task and they did not carry out anything to improve life in Bosnia. Let remember José Cutilliero, Lord Carrington, David Owen, Philippe Morillon and dozens of others who have done everything to carry out an anti-Bosnian idea in Bosnia and led us to the madness of the division of the country towards the ethnic-religious lines of war conquest. They were "just mediators" – that sounds innocently. They came here as maharaja with their colonial narrations. Today's generations must not forget these people and must save a real memory about them. It is important, for example, to leave a recorded memory of F. Mitterrand and similar figures of modern cynicism that convinced us that we could walk across the city under the siege of Serbian howitzers and snipers beside the burnt City Hall or Markale. They turned our disaster into a "humanitarian issue" and shamefully closed their eyes against the genocide against Bosniaks all over the Bosnia. In addition, Bosnia is settled at the heart of the former South Slavic area and it is "ideal" as a focal point in which Western, European, Anglo-Saxon, Germanic, civilized mediators "experts" can be involved for the division of territories leaving the peoples in conflicts. When “bureaucrats” stop working this in the Balkans, it is absolutely certain that peace will be here – to avoid saying eternal peace, because we have never started wars. Let's look back to the 20th century - everything was transparent. Egoistic bureaucrats do not need civil Bosnia or peace among South Slavic "tribes", because what would they do then and how they deal with their problems.  European bureaucrats have been watching aggression on Bosnia for four years and wrote letters to Milošević. They did not provide protection and defence of an independent state with the UN forces. In today's constellation, they worry about the Bosnian and South Slavic "primitives" who do not know what "civil society" is and play the role of a civilizing factor.

The political matrix of ethnic-religious representation of people

It would be worth to express a sceptical attitude towards the "civil political option" syntagm, because it does not have clear semantic structure, as well as a "nationalist policy". Until we begin to name precisely the phenomena around us, we will not know what is happening to us! Since the 1990s in Bosnia the political matrix of ethnic-religious representation of people has been imposed, so that they have not appeared as individuals, citizens, free citizens, but only and exclusively as members of the team/collective, Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks and Others.

In that wretched matrix, people of Bosnia are not autonomous and free individuals. They have to think as the "team/collective says" or the priest on behalf of the team/collective (tribe, people, nation, religion) and in such way their individuality is reduced of them, and then they are only "cannon flesh" of some great "Načertanija" (1844) and pathological conditions of hegemonic politics. Such a collectivist spirit is controlled by religious institutions and ruling political oligarchs. Here, the religion is the basis of the nation - and it tells us where we are! It is an illusion to present the policy throughout the conceptual pair of "nationalist" and "civil" politics when we know that this is only the seductive surface of the project of tribal division of the people of the South Slavic area and the imposition of a matrix to Bosnia that opposes against its historical political philosophy.

Our heroic peoples, who have neglected their production of knowledge and general culture, managed by people with suspicious projects, they will be slaves and serfs in the upcoming establishment of the world order as a system of hegemony of several powers. The pair of terms "civil" and "nationalist" does not correspond to the essential meaning of the historical process in which we are overtaken by a sub-national political culture, a feudalized landscape in which neither citizens nor nationalists “can” appear.

We have not yet learned to participate freely in a democratic culture as citizens with their opinions and interests. We still need tribal chiefs and priests who do not know anything about the Bosnian political future! We need to ask questions that help us to focus primarily. For example, first of all - how did it happen that we are the only ones in today's Europe who has a "tribal political system" or a "state of tribes", such a constitutional arrangement imposed by Annex IV? Who set us this up as the Constitution of the State?

Why all European diplomats are silent on this issue and say that we should "agree" when they, as the International Community, have fulfilled the wishes of the aggressors and nationalist forces in the Balkans and against Bosnia? This cynical European bureaucracy, above all, regardless of European ideals, is a self-sufficient, static and enlarging political group that accumulates great power in its hands. It pretends as awkward in front of the Balkan fascists, the Nazis, the fundamentalists, because such characters serve it as an example of the "primitive Balkans" and "wild Slavic tribes" who are slaughtered each other without mercy. This colonial background and the orientalistic image about us disable a realistic approach to solving problems in this area.

There are also quite low and hypocritical moves of Croatian "European" policy that plays its petty-bourgeois super-ordination to this area and shows itself to others as an "heir of European values" while supporting the Hague convicts with Tompson's songs and ideology. This Croatian unilateralism has led to the incomparable exodus of Bosnian Croats from their homeland - Bosnia and has torn them away from their Bosnian state. The second guidance that helps us to orient ourselves is focused on understanding the distinction between national and ethnic, civil and ethnicity. First of all, it should be reminded that in the area of South East Europe, where the South Slavic nations were located, the state structure of these nations failed because they were mostly obsessed with their own mythical, religious and ethnic constructions or fabrications that served them to represent themselves as a nation superior to others. In Bosnia, this has been happening during the whole 20th century in big noises of the Serbian and Croatian national determinations.

Thus, the national question was shaped at a very primitive level as a question of creating an ethnic-religious state from which all who are not "ours" by religion and nationality will be excluded. This incompetence for the difference led the national question under the control of religious institutions of Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks. In one-track politics, the nuances of the fascist-shape relation to the different are noticed, as R. Konstantinović wrote about it, so knowledgeable and anticipatory, as well as Miodrag Popović. So, it could be said that the South Slavic peoples, as well as the peoples of Bosnia, have not yet developed and tested a political culture that surpasses the "tribal image of the world" and prefers free man as the greatest value of the social life of people.

We need to teach people that nationally are not a tribal, ethnic, folk, regional or ethnic-religious definition of a person, but it is meant that a free citizen belongs to a state-nation that assures him all human rights as to its citizen. Nationality is thus a civil definition, a legal-political concept of people's life who does not exclude their cultural perceptions of themselves. So, it is time to learn to distinguish the political-legal level of human life in the community from the cultural-historical dimension through which a certain national identity is recognized as specific among others. The Bosnian Serbs were captured in the mythologist of the 19th century about the "great Serbian state" in which all Serbs will live and - only Serbs. In front of them there is a great historical task to overcome their own misconceptions, self-denial and historical blind alley.

A similar process of liberation from the "Ottoman image of the world" has already begun by the Bosniaks and they are carrying it out. In the end, it should be emphasized that in our country the civil has not yet matured in citizenship awareness, but it entails historicist narratives of Tito-statehood, fraternity and unity, communism and a one-party world, the monolithic Left, existence without identity, misunderstanding of anti-Fascism, bipolar diversity of the world, unable to anticipate the new Bosnian idea of ​​life, and so on. In fact, the civil has never come to life in this region as a political culture of respecting a man, an individual, a free citizen of the Bosnian nation. We still do not know what it means to be a citizen, free and conscious again in our own Bosnianhood?

We have not considered this in the past thirty years under the siege of collective metaphysics of ethnic-religious groups. In today's monstrous political systems, this seems to be utopian, unreal and unachievable before the dictatorship of party oligarchies, leaders and their assistants. In that danger is growing the rescue-thing - Heidegger would remind to Hoelderlin.

 

Senadin Lavić is a professor at the Department of the Sociology of Political Sciences Faculty Sarajevo, at University of Sarajevo, in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Prolific author of numerous books and seminal works, prof. Lavić is the Chairman of the Bosnian Cultural Union 'Preporod'.



July 18, 2017


2017




PUBLICATIONS SEPTEMBER, 2017:

   

   Bridge over troubled waters – Growing meritime dispute between Croatia and Bosnia, neglected by the EU - Dr. Enis Omerović and Adil Kulenović



PUBLICATIONS AUGUSTUS, 2017:

   WHAT ARE WE DEALING WITH – TRUMP OR DEMOCRACY - By: Tomislav Jakić


PUBLICATIONS JULY, 2017:

 
Europe and Africa – Similarities and difference in Security Structures - Written by Anis Bajrektarevic and Giuliano Luongo

  The Return of Good Policies for Bad Reasons - Populism and Industrial Policy - Amanda Janoo

  Serbia Delivered Srebrenica Refugees to Mladic: Report - Filip Rudic -BIRN-Belgrade

  The Truth and Recon
important_news.htmciliation stuggle on the Balkans - Senadin Lavić

  Bosnian Reporter Flees After Condemning Mladic Rally - BIRN - Banja Luka

  REGIONAL SECURITY ARCHITECTURES: COMPARING ASIA AND EUROPE - Insights from Anis Bajrektarevic


PUBLICATIONS JUNE, 2017:

  “We win, they lose” – Wonderful world of Binary categorisations - (Refeudalisation of Europe – III Part) - Anis H. Bajrektarevic

  Sarajevo, Jerusalem of Europe

  Memorandum of Understanding between IFIMES and GBAA

  Paris and Pittsburgh, pesticides in Indonesia: When none is best - Julia Suryakusuma

  COMMON SENSE – A RELIC OF THE PAST? - By: Tomislav Jakic

  The post-Christian West and post-Western World - (Refeudalisation of Europe – II Part) - Anis H. Bajrektarevic


PUBLICATIONS MAY, 2017:

  Zbigniew Brzezinski & the Battle on Post Communism Fascism - By, Ambassador Muhamed Sacirbey

  Post-secular Europe and post-Soviet Russia - Anis H. Bajrektarevic

  The story of a Bosnian woman who lost her entire family to the terror of the 1990s:“I feel like a cut tree. I am neither alive nor dead … There is no justice and there will never be,” - Robert Leonard Rope

  'Schindler List' for Southeast Europe - Pakistanisation as the Final Solution for the Balkans? - Prof. Zlatko Hadžidedić

  Brazil in the short Strikes – the ultimate price of welfare - By Luísa Monteiro



PUBLICATIONS APRIL, 2017:

  Pimp my s/ride - Ms. Elodie Pichon

  SPIRITUALITY AND THE ECONOMY OF CLIMATE CHANGE - Anis H. Bajrektarevic

  Who Needs Dysfunction in the Balkans? - Zlatko Hadžidedić

FATAL SPIRALE OF SENSLESNESS - By: Tomislav Jakic

Neo-religionism of the post ideological Russia (Refeudalisation of Europe – I Part) - Anis Bajrektarevic


PUBLICATIONS MARCH, 2017:

 Saudi king’s “Clash of Civilizations, convergence with Indonesia's hypocrisy and opportunism - by Julia Suryakusuma

The World’s Last Colony: Morocco continues occupation of Western Sahara, in defiance of UN - Nizar Visram

Culture as a binding factor in our society, interview with Camilla Habsburg-Lothringen - By Djoeke Altena


  ALL BREAKING BEDS OF OUR MOST FAVOURED AGGRESSOR - By Elodie Pichon

 National Congress of The Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina (NCR B&H) - March 2, 2017

 Bosnian precariat, militaristic world images and media cynicism - Senadin Lavić



PUBLICATIONS FEBRUARY, 2017:

 SR15 Caspian Basin.pdf

 THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK - By: Tomislav Jakić

 Decriminalize Victims, please - Sooyoung Hu

 Big data and the Future of Democracy - by Hannes Grassegger and Mikael Krogerus

 The Malta Plan – a humane EU border and asylum policy is possible - Gerald Knaus


PUBLICATIONS JANUARY, 2017:

 
The Diplomatic Insight JAN 2017.pdf


 La-La-Land of Central Asia Kazakhstan and its “Astana Code of Conduct” - By Samantha Brletich

 Donald Trump, Nuclear Issue and Nuclear War -By:  Markus Wauran

 TRUMP’S TURN - By Tomislav Jakić

 Facing the Trump Presidency – Will the Monroe doctrine finally die? - Nicola Bilotta

 Human Misery monetized - By Aleksandra Krstic

 Jakarta Gubernatorial Election 2017: Who Will Be Eliminated? - By: Igor Dirgantara


 
Battling the Tiger: Combating corruption in the Sino-world - By Lingbo ZHAO

 
A European swamp – corruption and human rights - Gerald Knaus



info@orbus.be
www.orbus.be






Koninkrijk Belgie - Monarchie Belgique










Maasmechelen Village


Maasmechelen Village




Adria




BALKAN AREA
BALKAN AREA




prof. dr. Anis Bajrektarevic
prof. dr. Anis Bajrektarevic

Editor - Geopolitics, History, International Relations (GHIR) Addleton Academic Publishers - New YorK

Senior Advisory board member, geopolitics of energy Canadian energy research institute - ceri, Ottawa/Calgary

Advisory Board Chairman Modern Diplomacy & the md Tomorrow's people platform originator

Head of mission and department head - strategic studies on Asia
Professor and Chairperson Intl. law & global pol. studies



Critical Similarities and Differences in SS of Asia and Europe - Prof. Anis H. Bajrektarevic



MENA Saga and Lady Gaga - (Same dilemma from the MENA) - Anis H. Bajrektarevic



Dr. Nguyen Anh Tuan, Assos. Prof.[1] Nguyen Linh[2]
HE ONGOING PUBLIC DEBT CRISIS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION: IMPACTS ON AND LESSONS FOR VIETNAM - Dr. Nguyen Anh Tuan, Assos. Prof.[1] Nguyen Linh[2]



Carla BAUMER
Climate Change and Re Insurance: The Human Security Issue SC-SEA Prof. Anis Bajrektarevic & Carla Baumer



 
Igor Dirgantara
(Researcher and Lecturer at the Faculty of Social and Politics, University of Jayabaya)




Peny Sotiropoulou

Is the ‘crisis of secularism’ in Western Europe the result of multiculturalism?




Dr. Emanuel L. Paparella
A Modest “Australian” Proposal to Resolve our Geo-Political Problems

Were the Crusades Justified? A Revisiting - Dr. Emanuel L. Paparella




Alisa Fazleeva
Earned an MA in International Relations from the University of East Anglia in Norwich, United Kingdom in 2013. Her research interests include foreign policy decision-making, realism and constructivism, and social psychology and constructivism.



 
Corinna Metz
She is an independent researcher specialized in International Politics and Peace & Conflict Studies with a regional focus on the Balkans and the Middle East.




Patricia Galves Derolle
Founder of Internacionalista
Săo Paulo, Brazil
Brazil – New Age





Dimitra Karantzeni
The political character of Social Media: How do Greek Internet users perceive and use social networks?

 


Michael Akerib
Vice-Rector
SWISS UMEF UNIVERSITY




  
Petra Posega
is a master`s degree student on the University for Criminal justice and Security in Ljubljana. She obtained her bachelor`s degree in Political Science- Defense studies.


Contact: posegap@live.com





Samantha Brletich,
 George Mason University School of Policy, Government, and Intl. Relations She focuses on Russia and Central Asia. Ms. Brletich is an employee of the US Department of Defense.


Interview on HRT-Radio

Prof. dr. Anis Bajrektarević




Dr Filippo ROMEO,



Julia Suryakusuma is the outspoken Indonesian thinker, social-cause fighter and trendsetter. She is the author of Julia’s Jihad.

Contact: jsuryakusuma@gmail.com 




Gerald Knaus




Mads Jacobsen
Mads is an intern at PCRC. Mads Jacobsen is from Denmark and is currently pursuing his Master's degree in 'Development and International Relations' at Aalborg University...




Dzalila Osmanovic-Muharemagic
University of Bihac, Faculty of Education, Department of English Language and Literature - undergraduate
University of Banja Luka, Faculty of Philology, Department of English Language and Literature - graduate study




Rakesh Krishnan Simha

New Zealand-based journalist and foreign affairs analyst. According to him, he writes on stuff the media distorts, misses or ignores.

Rakesh started his career in 1995 with New Delhi-based Business World magazine, and later worked in a string of positions at other leading media houses such as India Today, Hindustan Times, Business Standard and the Financial Express, where he was the news editor.

He is the Senior Advisory Board member of one of the fastest growing Europe’s foreign policy platforms: Modern Diplomacy.





Damiel Scalea
Daniele Scalea, geopolitical analyst, is Director-general of IsAG (Rome Institute of Geopolitics) and Ph.D. Candidate in Political studies at the Sapienza University, Rome. Author of three books, is frequent contributor and columnist to various Tv-channels and newspapers. E-mail: daniele.scalea@gmail.com




Alessio Stilo,
 
Research Associate at Institute of High Studies in Geopolitics and Auxiliary Sciences (IsAG), Rome, Italy, and Ph.D. researcher at University of Padova, is IMN Country Representative in Italy.




Tomislav Jakić
Foreign Policy Advisor to former Croatian President Stjepan Mesić





Zlatko Hadžidedić

Graduate of the London School of Economics, prof. Zlatko Hadžidedić is a prominent thinker, prolific author of numerous books, and indispensable political figure of the former Yugoslav socio-political space in 1990s, 2000s and 2010s.




Mr. Nicola Bilotta
Nicola Bilotta has a BA and a MA in History from Universitŕ degli Studi di Milano and a MSc in Economic History from the London School of Economics. He works as a Global Finance Research Assistant at The Banker (Financial Times) and collaborates as an external researcher at ISAG (Istituto di Alti Studi di Geopolitica e Scienze Ausiliari) N_bilotta@lse.ac.uk




Markus Wauran

Date and Place of Birth: April 22, 1943 – Amurang, North Sulawesi, IndonesiaEducation: Bachelor in Public Administration.
Writer was a member of the House of Representatives of Indonesia (DPR/MPR-RI) period of 1987-1999, and Chairman of Committee X, cover Science and Technology, Environment and National Development Planning (1988-1997).
Currently as Obsever of Nuclear for peace
.




Sooyoung Hu

Attached to the US-based Berkeley University, Sooyoung Hu is a scholar at its Political Science and Peace and Conflict Studies Department. Miss Hu focuses on international relations, international organizations and its instruments.




Senahid LAVIĆ





Nizar Visram
 Nizar Visram is a Ottawa-based free-lance writer from Zanzibar, Tanzania. Recently retired Senior lecturer on Development studies, he extensively publishes in over 50 countries on 4 continents. He can be reached at
nizar1941(at)gmail.com .




Robert Leonard Rope
He studied at the University of Michigan,
He lives in: San Francisco, California: San Francisco, California, USA




Dragan Bursac,
Journalist




Dr. Enis OMEROVIĆ