text:
Sustainable Return: A Guarantee for Stability and Integration in Bosnia-Herzegovina | Balkan Diskurs
Tomaž Kravos
February 3rd, 2016
This paper analyzes the importance of the return process and sustainable integration of returnees for reconciliation in post-war Bosnia-Herzegovina. With Annex VII of General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia (Dayton Peace Agreement, or DPA), refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs) were ensured they could return to their pre-war homes. One obstacle for returnee families is in education – ethnically biased curricula increase divisions between groups.
Recent physical attacks on returnees and the announcement of the independence referendum in Republika Srpska are just some of the everyday pressures placed on the returnee population, which suggests further divisions in Bosnia.
After the war, over half of the 4.4 million pre-war population of Bosnia was displaced, with an estimated 1.1 million displaced internally and approximately 1.3 million fleeing to neighboring countries and Western Europe. War, together with ethnic cleansing policies and creation of “ethnically clean” areas, caused large forced migration from all parts of Bosnia. We should also not forget those internally displaced as a result of changing control over territories after the signing of the Dayton Peace Agreement (DPA), which brought an end to hostilities and provisions for the displaced. A central aspect for displaced persons in the DPA is Annex VII, the first article of which states:
All refugees and displaced persons have the right freely to return to their homes of origin. They shall have the right to have restored to them property of which they were deprived in the course of hostilities since 1991 and to be compensated for any property that cannot be restored to them. The early return of refugees and displaced persons is an important objective of the settlement of the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
For the first time, the external powers gave displaced persons the special right to return to their pre-war homes. Annex VII was supposed to reverse the policies of ethnic cleansing and recreate a multicultural Bosnia. It was a direct response to the policy of forced migrations and an integral part of the reconciliation process. For Mirhunisa Zukić, President of the Union for Sustainable Return and Integration in Bosnia, “Annex VII anticipated the most important role in the reintegration of Bosnia to the greatest victims: the returnees. It was in strong contrast to the policies that started the war and created fear and persecution. For all the participants of the peace process, Annex VII was pure illusion – only refugees and displaced persons saw the chance in it.” At the same time, the DPA both created two ethically divided entities – the Federation of BiH, with mostly Bosniaks and Croats as its constituent peoples, and Republika Srpska, with mostly Serbs – and promoted the return to a multiethnic country, which are two conflicting processes. For Denis Dzidić, a journalist at the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network, “Annex VII and the return process is an essential question of achieving peace and stability in this country.”
In 2002, when official figures showed that almost one million displaced people had returned to their pre-war homes, High Representative Paddy Ashdown stated, “We’ve invented a new human right here, the right to return after a war,” and, “It’s absolutely astonishing, a huge success by Bosnians and the international community that has gone unrecognized.” Indeed, Bosnia could be a success story in terms of the property-return process. Property return is a great achievement of the international community and state authorities, as 99.9% of property claims are registered as closed. But this does not mean that the vast majority of the displaced population now live in their pre-war homes (some people did not claim their property; others did but were not willing to stay), nor that there are sustainable solutions for returnees.
For the international community and state institutions, the return process means only the return of displaced persons to their pre-war homes without considering the level of human rights and the sustainability of return. Health and social care, education, work, employment and other human rights should be respected; IDPs, once returned, no longer have the need for protection and assistance linked to or resulting from their displacement. Annex VII, article II, however, asks all state authorities “to create political, economic, and social conditions conducive to the voluntary return and harmonious reintegration of refugees and displaced persons, without preference for any particular group.”
In Bosnia, 20 years after the war, there are still around 85,000 IDPs, and around 8,000 living in collective centers (like Mihatovići) in the worst possible conditions. Half of the displaced population is still out of their pre-war homes. For example, in one such center (before the war a nursing home for the elderly), in Doboj, a husband and wife live with social aid of 100KM per month.
Moreover, in areas of return (the areas of origin of IDPs), little has been done for the reintegration of returnees. More than half of the returnees are ethnic minorities in their local communities; consequently, they are subject to segregation and do not have equal access to rights, including the right to health care, employment, education, social care and other rights connected with social inclusion in the local community. The UNHCR states in its “Dialogue on Voluntary Repatriation and Sustainable Reintegration in Africa” that “if the issue of sustainability or reintegration of refugee and displaced populations is not addressed properly, the countries concerned will almost inevitably slide back into conflict.” Black and Gent argue that return itself is not enough for reconciliation. In fact, it has to be successful and sustainable, meaning that the outcome for individuals is acceptable.
Even though the official statistic of return until 2010 shows more than one million returnees, the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights estimates that just one-third of the total number of refugees and IDPs (2.5 million) have actually returned and stayed in pre-war areas. This is not surprising, as nationalistic policies, daily discrimination (hate speech, inappropriate symbols) and obstruction of access to human rights (education, health care, employment) still exist.
Attacks in Zvornik on April 27, in which a policeman and an assailant were killed and two others were injured, demonstrate the unstable situation. Such events can cause ethnic tensions and can quickly destroy years-long efforts to reconcile the community. Bosnian leaders and politicians should not misuse such events to gain power; they have to change social circumstances to prevent similar events on which ethnic tensions gain momentum and hinder future reconciliation. Recent incidents of physical attacks on two returnees from the towns of Vrbanjci and Vlasenica in Republika Srpska in June and July of 2015 are alarming indicators that even the safety of returnees is not entirely guaranteed.
One of the human rights obstructed is the right to education. Once IDPs return to their pre-war homes and towns, they try to reestablish their lives. Returnee families send their children to schools, where they could be the victims of an ethnically segregated and discriminatory educational system. Post-war education in Bosnia represents the difficulties for reconciliation and creates tensions between different ethnic groups. Bosnia has no state-level ministry of education. All decisions concerning education are in hands of the Republika Srpska–level Ministry of Education and the cantons of the Federation of Bosnia. Together with the politicization of the education system, school curricula vary depending on the dominant ethnicity of the region. The identity-building subjects (e.g., history, religion, geography, literature and language) are at the same time the most biased. Analysis of textbooks in returnee areas shows that history, geography and religion are unsuitable since they are failing to build a common Bosnian identity; they focus on the culture and traditions of one nation and frame Bosnian multiculturalism as a problem and not as a social richness.
Bush and Saltarelli point out that “education on post-war environment can help facilitate recovery and reconciliation and be a focal point of community redevelopment.” In the case of Bosnia, education is an obstacle to reconciliation, which shows the opposite side of education as a “tool in the post-war environment to prolong or reignite the conflict and promote division and intolerance.”
Since many returnee families are not willing to educate children according to ethnically biased curricula, they are sending them on costly journeys to distant schools, which could be in another entity, with curricula corresponding to their ethnicity.
The spontaneous return process was at its highest level in 2002 and 2003. During those years, the international community pushed local authorities to implement Annex VII of the DPA, therefore creating conditions for the successful return of refugees and the internally displaced. Education became a priority for the international community, which forced both entity’s Ministries of Education to sign the Interim Agreement on Accommodation of the Rights and Needs of Returnee Children, which should create a more inclusive and tolerant environment, particularly for educating children who became part of the minority population in returnee areas. This agreement includes the introduction of national group of subjects (selective subjects to meet the needs of returnee children, including the mother tongue, history, religion and geography) as an option for minority returnee children whose parents do not agree with local, ethnically biased curricula. For example, in a school with Serb curricula, a Bosniak returnee child can choose subjects from his own curricula (only for history, literature and religion). This creates the issue of two schools under one roof (two schools in the same building using different curricula according to their ethnicity).
The 2014 case of “Sveti Sava” elementary school in Vrbanjci, Republika Srpska illustrates the issue of implementation of the agreement. Parents did not send children to school because the school did not introduce the national group of subjects and courses in Bosnian language. In similar cases, children are losing a school year, and parents can be punished or deprived of child benefits, which in some cases presents the sole income of families. Because of these problems, some families have left their homes and moved abroad.
Recently, the Republika Srpska education ministry instructed that all primary schools in the region officially change the name of the Bosnian language to the language of Bosniak people. Such decisions are creating increased tensions, deepening social divisions and erasing the existence of a common identity.
In conclusion, education in Bosnia is creating further division in society and not promising a better future for the country. For returnees, the right to education is only one of many rights being violated.
The responsible authorities of both entities should put aside their political interests and reform the education system of the whole of Bosnia to better the level of human rights for their citizens.
Dayton Peace Agreement, General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovinia, 21 November 1995. Annex VII. [Online] Available at: http://www.ohr.int/?page_id=63261&lang=en
Phuong, C. 2000. At the heart of the return process: solving property issues in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Forced Migration Review, 7, pp.5–7. Available at: http://www.fmreview.org/FMRpdfs/FMR07/fmr7.3.pdf
Zukić, Mirhunisa. 2012. Fenomen povratka 1995-2000: Naučene lekcije povratka u BiH – model za globalni mir. Izbjegle i raseljene osobe, ur. Emir Vajzović, 91–100. Sarajevo: Fakultet političkih nauka Univerziteta u Sarajevu, Institut za društvena istraživanja, Centar za studije o izbjeglim i raseljenim osobama.
Nenadić, M. 2014. Interview in Vreme. Interviewed by Radmilo Marković. [Online] Available at: http://www.vreme.com/cms/view.php?id=1225575
UNHCR. 2016. Bosnia and Herzegovina – UNHCR subregional operations profile. [Online] Available at: http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49e48d766.html
Nenadić, M. 2014. Interview in Vreme. Interviewed by Radmilo Marković. [Online] Available at: http://www.vreme.com/cms/view.php?id=1225575
UNHCR 2004 in Black, R. and Gent, S. 2006. Sustainable Return in Post-conflict Contexts. International Migration, 44(3), pp. 15–38.
Black, R. And Gent, S. 2006. Sustainable Return in Post-conflict Contexts. International Migration, 44(3), pp. 15–38.
Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in BiH. 2008. Report on Human Rights Practices in BiH. [Online] Available at: no longer accessible.
Bush, K.D and Salteralli, D. 2000. The two faces of education in ethnic conflict: towards a peacebuilding education for children. Florence: UNICEF, Innocenti Research Centre.

created: February 3rd, 2016

author: Tomaž Kravos


text:
Journalists are Partly to Blame for Hate Speech | Balkan Diskurs
Mladen Lakić
February 8th, 2016
Incitement, slander and other forms of hate speech are present in the media, but mainly as the weapon of political powers. Opinions are divided on whether or not journalists are to blame for this situation.
According to professor from the Department of Journalism at the University of Banja Luka, Vesna Djurić  it’s a major problem that incitement, slander, and discrimination are commonplace in public discourse.
She says that defamation and hate speech are unacceptable in the public arena, and journalists are partly to blame for the present situation.
“In order to get a ‘juicy story’, journalists fail to inform their interviewees that they cannot use such language and are, therefore, indirectly contributing to making such communication part of the established norm,” said Djurić.
Zlatiborka Popov Momčinović, a professor from the Faculty of Philosophy in Pale, is one of the leading researchers on a project that focuses on the presence of hate speech within media content. In her opinion, the problem is the fact that those using hate speech and other forms of inappropriate speech are primarily politicians.
“We are talking about messages of incitement and discrimination that are directed towards ethnic, sexual, and other minorities,” said Popov Momčinović.
She recalled the “Sejdić-Finci” ruling; an instance when politicians used extremely inappropriate language. “Especially in public discourse, the emphasis on different of different denial froms—denial of Bosnia-Herzegovina’s sovereignty and genocide denial—has become characteristic of the statements made by politicians during appearances,” she added.
For Popov Momčinović, the most important finding from the above-mentioned research is that, in most cases, journalists were not the ones using hate speech. “Although the media are subject to considerable criticism with regard to their adherence to professional standards, the fact that the journalists themselves do not use hate speech is encouraging and gives hope for positive change related to education and sensitivity surrounding this issue,.”
Bedrana Kaletović, a journalist from Tuzla, believes that direct hate speech has undergone a certain change of late.
“Now it is indirect, and often allegorical, descriptions and statements that interviewees clumsily use. The problem with their naivety becomes even more apparent when you realize that they have no awareness of the words they have spoken, or of the serious implications they can have. And what’s worse is that journalists don’t sanction this,” said Kaletović.
Jana Bjelica, an unemployed journalist from Eastern Sarajevo, agrees with Kaletović.
“They rarely really hate someone or wish evil on someone (at least I would like to believe that), but this type of speech is often used to gain political points or popularity from a portion of the public, and that is bad for everyone – especially for us, the young people,” said Bjelica.
Nataša Crkvenjaš, a journalism student from Eastern Sarajevo, said that at the university they are being taught how to properly and ethically approach a situation in which the interviewee uses hate speech, but the question remains – how to, for example, interrupt a high-ranking government official while he is using such speech.
Our interviewees conclude that hate speech can never be justified through freedom of speech, and that society must make it clear that hate speech will not be tolerated under any circumstances.

source: news-balkandiskurs

created: February 8th, 2016

license: Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

author: Mladen Lakić


text:
Taking a Stand Against Hate Speech | Balkan Diskurs
Elma Karahodžić
February 10th, 2016
An increasing number of NGOs, informal groups and individuals have started numerous initiatives with the common goal of fighting the prevalence of hate speech and discrimination in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
According to non-governmental and international organizations, hate speech in Bosnia-Herzegovina is present in the media, schools and also in the public. Because of its comparison to freedom of expression as a fundamental human right, hate speech has become generally accepted as a form of expression and action.
Over the last few years, numerous initiatives have been launched by non-governmental organizations (NGOs), informal groups and individual activists related to the prevention of hate speech and discrimination in Bosnia.
The initiative Supergrađani/Supergrađanke (Supercitizens) was launched by the OSCE Mission to Bosnia and Herzegovina in 2013. It brings together 19 coalitions that fight against hate speech, prejudice, intolerance, discrimination and other forms of offensive behavior. The initiative’s website offers the possibility of reporting perceived instances of hate speech, offensive graffiti, physical violence or damage to property.
Established in June 2013 by the municipal Youth council of Novo Sarajevo, the coalition “Zanemari razlike” (Ignore Differences) was created with the goal to fight hate speech and to create a society without prejudice. Their work focuses on preventive measures in response to negative phenomena occurring within the community, such as offensive graffiti or incidents derived from hate, which they publicly condemn as well as call on responsible others to do the same.
Mirela Geko from the coalition “Zanemari razlike” said that she is particularly pleased with the fact that the coalition is trying new approaches each year to reach different groups of youth in an effort to solve local problems.
“Last year we particularly focused on sports and the reduction of hatred on the sporting fields. Male and female players stressed that they do not like the situation and that it bothers them,” stated Geko. She added that this year the coalition also started covering issues related to religion and faith in an effort to show youth that the sermons of every faith proclaim that it is vital to respect others and that we are all alike.
Geko believes the biggest challenge is to not allow politics to control and divide people in Bosnia, and people should be aware that our differences are, in fact, the root of our prosperity.
Student Eldar Komar, who is an activist for the Youth Initiative for Human Rights in Bosnia-Herzegovina and a board member of the Youth Council of Stari Grad, believes that Bosnian society is in transition and is subject to influences, changes and problems. He explained that, as a result, people are not aware of the consequences of hate speech related not only to communication between members of different ethnicities or nationalities, but also to other aspects of life in Bosnia.
“Our country’s NGO sector, especially those organizations that deal with anti-discrimination policies and human rights, tries to prevent hate speech and its influence on the youth. However, it is not possible to solve this problem without the full inclusion and participation of citizens and their awareness of this problem’s existence,” said Komar.
The Coalition to Combat Hate Speech and Hate Crime was established in 2013 to work towards improving the legal framework that is used to sanction cases of hate speech and hate crimes. The coalition is also committed to improving the implementation of existing laws. It has brought together 10 NGOs from across Bosnia that deal with promoting human rights and tolerance, as well as fighting hate speech and hate crime. The Center for Youth KVART in Prijedor can be credited for the successful work of this coalition.
“The motivation behind dealing with these problems is primarily due to the fact that members of our organizations were, at one time or another, victims of hate speech and attacks from radical right wing parties and political representatives in our city,” stated Goran Zorić, Executive Director of KVART an organization that has implemented a series of actions to remove graffiti and hate speech from public spaces over the past two years.
“We can combine our actions to combat these phenomena by using existing channels and institutions that are responsible for these issues (for example, reporting incidents to the police or tracking the work of the prosecutor’s office regarding such cases), as well as create our own mechanisms for fighting against hate speech through the media, public awareness, and public condemnation of these phenomena. In the future, we seek to include additional competent institutions who will also assume responsibility in working to prevent hate speech in public spaces,” clarified Zorić.
Hate speech is a pervasive phenomenon in most countries, especially in post-conflict societies like Bosnia. It is almost impossible to eradicate it completely, but what is most necessary in the fight against hate speech, and what is emphasized by NGO representatives and activists, is for each of us to actively respond instead of turning a blind eye to the situation.

created: February 10th, 2016

author: Elma Karahodžić


text:
Bullying and the Boy Unseen | Balkan Diskurs
Sara Velaga
February 16th, 2016
Bullying among peers must be recognized so as to avoid tragic cases with fatal consequences.
After the usual teasing in school, a 12-year-old from Jajce alienated himself from others. His works in art class said more than he wanted to. By using the color black and depicting figures that hung from ceilings, he expressed his sadness, anger and grief. His behavior wasn’t deemed problematic, and he has since committed suicide.
The boy’s adoptive parents provided us these details, but were not open for further discussion. Do we as a society recognize violence amongst peers or do we consider it as an acceptable part of growing up, which is supported by the explanation of ‘that’s how children get stronger’?
“The truth is that conflict between children has always existed, but there are differences between children’s conflict and bullying. Bullying is long-term and chronic, with no real motive for conflict, and the victim is always weaker in some aspects than the perpetrator or group of perpetrators. That is why kids need the help of adults,” stated professor Gordana Buljan Flander.
As stated by Buljan Flander, even experts who work with children confirm a lack of reaction after receiving information related to violence among peers.
Professor Tanja Dejanović-Šagadin describes the term peer violence as abuse that is recurring or poses a recurring threat over a long period of time.
“It is important to understand that it is not just physical violence, bullying is not just hitting but also other forms of violent behavior. In addition to physical violence (hitting, pushing, pulling, tripping, damaging or throwing of belongings, etc.) there are other forms of peer violence that aren’t as readily apparent. Bullying can take the form of gossiping, maliciously spreading of lies about you, insults, humiliation, making fun of and provoking you, ignoring, influencing others not to talk to you, forcing you to do something you do not want to do, threats, and following you home,” explained Dejanović-Šagadin.
According to her, it is hard to determine the various forms of peer violence that tend to hide in spheres of life which are not easily accessible and noticeable, and it is these forms that often cause more damage than physical injuries.
For the 12-year-old who committed suicide, there was no help given. After everything happened, everyone tried to shift the blame away from themselves, justifying their inaction as an inability to foresee the events because, to them, the child seemed happy and socialized with others.
As is apparent from this example, it is necessary to work on preventative measures regarding peer violence among children because some consequences can never be erased.

created: February 16th, 2016

author: Sara Velaga


text:
Whirlpool of Silence | Balkan Diskurs
Yorgos Konstantinou
March 8th, 2016

created: March 8th, 2016

author: Yorgos Konstantinou


text:
450 Years of Jewish Life in Sarajevo | Balkan Diskurs
Mads Jacobsen
March 14th, 2016
In this week’s long read, Mads Jacobsen explores the Jewish experience in Bosnia-Herzegovina through the eyes of Sarajevo-born Rabbi Eliezer Papo.
“If you imagine Bosnia to be a piece of somun, that piece of bread you eat during Ramadan, you cannot say that Jews are the water of that somun, nor can you say that they are the flour, but you can certainly say that they are the black seeds on the top of it. Now, could a somun survive without it? Yes. Would it still be the same somun? Certainly not. Jews are currently a small percentage of the Bosnian population, but they are an important part of the urban population, and they have contributed a great deal to the country. So, could Bosnia do it without Jews? Yes. Would it still be the same Bosnia? Certainly not”, explained Rabbi Eliezer Papo in an interview with the Post-Conflict Research Center.
This year, the Jewish community in Sarajevo celebrated its 450th anniversary by hosting an international conference in the Ashkenazi Synagogue dedicated to folklore, linguistics, history and the relationship between the Jewish community and other communities. Following this anniversary, Mads Hoeygaard Jacobsen – an intern at the Post-Conflict Research Center – had the chance to interview Sarajevo-born Rabbi Eliezer Papo to talk about the Jewish experience in Bosnia-Herzegovina during the different epochs of the country’s history.
“Every single life is marked by traumatic events,” started Rabbi Papo. “It is very traumatic to be born, and it is probably quite traumatic to die, but in between there is an entire life. Nobody reduces life to those two traumatic events. So, unlike the Jewish experience in many different parts of the world, their experience in Bosnia was a good one.”
The earliest records indicate that Jews had settled in Sarajevo by 1565 and were of the Sephardic branch of Judaism, descendants of Jews who had lived in Spain and Portugal prior to being expelled in 1492.
In order to illustrate to what extent the Sephardic Jews lived a robust existence in Sarajevo during the Ottoman era, the Rabbi pointed to a piece of jurisprudence that the Bosnian Jewish community contributed to the Halakha, or Jewish Law, in those years. On the Sabbath, it is forbidden for a religious Jew to light a fire, so how does one smoke?
“Well,” explained Rabbi Papo, “if on Friday you take a nargilla and fill it with tobacco smoke without taking it into your lungs and then close the lid from both sides, you can use it during the Sabbath without the starting a fire…That’s the way Jews in Sarajevo lived. Think of it, if these were the questions Rabbis dealt with, investing time and effort into inventing a way to smoke on Sabbath, that means all other problems were solved and that life was very good and easy.”
When the Sephardic Jews settled in Bosnia, they fell under the control of the Pact of Umar, a piece of Islamic jurisprudence. This law stated that non-Muslims within the Ottoman Empire would be provided security if they adhered to various strict prohibitions of their religious practices. One of the conditions proclaimed that non-Muslim religious buildings would be permitted to function, but no new buildings were allowed to be built and no repairs were to be made to those already existing. This presented a problem because no synagogues existed in Bosnia prior to the Jewish settlement in the sixteenth century. But the Sephardim soon began negotiations with the Ottoman administrators who, in the words of Rabbi Papo, said:
“OK, you know what? Let us make this profitable for all of us. Our heart hurts when we have to break sharia, so you will have to pay for that.” The Rabbi continued: “If building a synagogue costs a million dollars, it would actually cost two million in the Ottoman Empire because you needed to bribe everybody along the way from Sarajevo, to Travnik, to Istanbul.”
This system continued until the end of the nineteenth century when Bosnia came under the rule of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
“When Austro-Hungary arrived, things changed from good to better,” explained Rabbi Papo. “I mean, the country was still occupied, but it was more like: goodbye to an old dying empire and hello to something much more enlightened. Jews started to thrive even more as new European concepts of freedom, citizenship, and equality, were brought to the country.”
It was during the Austro-Hungarian occupation that the Sephardic Jews were joined by some of their Ashkenazi brethren who arrived from the Habsburg Empire, even though they had separate houses of worship and language.
Jewish participation in public and political life during this period was also very high. Jews were freely appointed to various regional and local governments, and in Sarajevo, for example, the Austro-Hungarians established a city council where three to four seats were secured for members of the Jewish community.
Then came World War One, after which Bosnia became part of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, later renamed the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. During this period, the Jewish community in Sarajevo started doing even better. Rabbi Papo explained:
“Sarajevo became the center of a much bigger Jewish community. It became the center of Jewish life for the entire Kingdom of Yugoslavia. How do we know this? When they decided to start building a school for Rabbis, all Yugoslavian Rabbis, it was built in Sarajevo. It was not built in Belgrade, it was not built in Zagreb, it was built in Sarajevo. This is because the leaders of the Jewish community said: ‘Jewish life in Sarajevo is the strongest, and this is the way through which future Rabbis have to pass.’ If you are familiar with Sarajevo you can see how many synagogues were in the city. In fact, every fifth person in Sarajevo during the Kingdom of Yugoslavia was Jewish.”
But things would dramatically change with the coming of the Second World War to Sarajevo in 1941. Bosnia was occupied by Croatia and the flourishing Jewish community was violently stripped of rights, property and even of life itself. First, the Jewish institutions were sacked, then the Jews were barred from economic and political life, and then their organizations were shut down.
The deportation of Sarajevo’s Jews began on 3 September 1941, and many were transported to the Jasenovac concentration camp, a place from where few survived. Just prior to World War Two, approximately 14,000 Jews lived in Bosnia – 10,000 of them in Sarajevo. By August 1942, it is estimated that only 120 Jews were left in Sarajevo.
During the war, many Jews in Bosnia volunteered for Tito’s Partisan movement because active resistance and “Brotherhood and Unity” seemed like a better alternative than waiting for deportation and death. The toll on Jewish life was high and, when the war ended, around 10,000 Jews in Bosnia. were dead or missing, 7,092 of them from Sarajevo. This accounted for 68% of the region’s prewar Jewish population. Likewise, of the 450 Jews who had joined the Partisans or served the Communist party, 316, or 70%, had lost their lives.
The Jews who survived and remained in Bosnia after World War Two found themselves in Tito’s socialist Yugoslavia. Here, the Jewish community got the chance to get on their feet again. Rabbi Papo explains that, after the war, most Jews were marrying outside their group, likely because of their reduced numbers. As a result, many Serbs, Croats and Muslims were assimilated into the Jewish community. The Rabbi remembers this period:
“Whether the father was Serbian and the mother was Jewish or whether the mother was Croat and the father was Jewish… well, it would be silly to say the kids from mixed marriages felt ‘Jewish’ because everybody was Yugoslavian, but it was cool to be Jewish. Being Jewish meant being urban. Being Jewish meant not being rural. It meant good English and having international contacts. Being Jewish was good.”
These mixed marriages proved important in Sarajevo during the Bosnian War from 1992 to 1995, since the Jewish community of around 2,000 people was the only one equally related to the three combating groups.
“Before the war, the community wasn’t aware of its strength; it was a traumatized community of Holocaust survivors,” Rabbi Papo explained. “But the Jews had learned from the last war, and this time they were very organized on a local and world scale. The Jewish community was well connected with all warring parties, and we were able to get help into the city. We were able to bring in supplies from abroad, which we equally distributed to everybody in the city. We were the only group that could make it past Croatian, Serbian, and Muslim control posts,.”
“There were probably others that were able to achieve such things, but being capable does not mean you will do it, so it was something very special to see such a tiny community doing such a big thing.”
The Rabbi remembers one instance during the conflict when a sentence was written on the Jewish community’s building in Sarajevo. It was a sentence that the Rabbi believes expressed exactly what the city was feeling at the time: “Kikes are Saving the City,” it ironically read. “I like it actually,” Rabbi Papo commented. “Although I do not like the word, I do like the saying.” 1,500 Jews were evacuated during the conflict, and today there are around 500 Jews left in Bosnia.
With the end of the war and the signing of the Dayton Agreement a new problem arose. Jews, along with other ethnic minorities, were not recognized in the constitution as a constituent people, meaning they could not be elected to Bosnia’s House of Peoples.
Jakob Finci, who is considered the de facto leader of the Jewish community in Bosnia, brought the case to the European Court of Human Rights in 2009 in Sejdić-Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina. Although the court voted in Finci’s favor, the reforms that aim to change this point in the constitution remain in limbo.
When asked about his personal position on the matter, Rabbi Papo explained:
“I remain ambivalent on this issue. On the one hand, I think that Jews, after living in Sarajevo for 450 years, are entitled to run this country just as anybody else who is born here is. On the other hand, I would not want the Jewish community to be recognized as cooperating with one national group against two others to undermine Dayton. Personally, I would not have pressed charges, not because Dayton is a sacred cow, but because Bosniak Muslims are pushing strongly for constitutional reform towards centralization of the country, and I do not believe Jews should play into their hands.”
Nonetheless, Rabbi Papo believes that Jews would probably do a good job running Bosnia by pointing out that during his tenure Emerik Blum, the Jewish mayor of Sarajevo from 1981 to 1983, greatly contributed to the city’s prosperity.
Rabbi Papo is planning another conference in Sarajevo that is likely to take place in the summer of 2016. The theme of this event: “The Great War and Jewish Literatures.” The assassination of the Austro-Hungarian heir to the throne Archduke Franz Ferdinand by Gavrilo Princip in 1914 makes Sarajevo a fitting location for conversations about World War One.
450 years ago, Jewish life in Sarajevo began after the Jewish community’s traumatic expulsion from the Iberian Peninsula. The Jews experienced 400 years of prosperity under the rule of various empires and kingdoms until tragedy again struck the community during World War Two and the Croatian occupation from 1941 to 1945. Then, from 1992 to 1995, despite being fragmented and few in number, the community managed to unite, using its full capacity to aid suffering civilians in war-torn Bosnia.
Donia, Robert J. 2006. “Sarajevo: A Biography”, paperback edition from 2009. London: C. Hurst & Co. Ltd.
Ibid.
Ibid.
European Jewish Congress. n.d. “The Jewish Community of Bosnia-Herzegovina”. [online] Available at: http://www.eurojewcong.org/communities/bosnia-herzegovina.html
Donia, Robert J. 2006. “Sarajevo: A Biography”, paperback edition from 2009. London: C. Hurst & Co. Ltd.
European Jewish Congress. n.d. “The Jewish Community of Bosnia-Herzegovina”. [online] Available at: http://www.eurojewcong.org/communities/bosnia-herzegovina.html
Donia, Robert J. 2006. “Sarajevo: A Biography”, paperback edition from 2009. London: C. Hurst & Co. Ltd.
European Jewish Congress. n.d. “The Jewish Community of Bosnia-Herzegovina”. [online] Available at: http://www.eurojewcong.org/communities/bosnia-herzegovina.html
Ibid.

created: March 14th, 2016

author: Mads Jacobsen


text:
Combatting Hate Speech in Bosnia and Herzegovina | Balkan Diskurs
Balkan Diskurs
March 16th, 2016
This special report explores the prevalence of hate speech in Bosnia-Herzegovina.  Balkan Diskurs has pulled together a collection of articles from its team of youth correspondents, providing valuable insights into the fight against online and offline hate speech across the country.

created: March 16th, 2016

author: Balkan Diskurs


text:
Ron Haviv: Imaging War | Balkan Diskurs
Marta Vidal
March 21st, 2016
American photographer, Ron Haviv, spent 10 years documenting the Balkan wars. His work was used as evidence for prosecuting war criminals. An exhibition of his work Blood and Honey: a Balkan War Journal is being held in the Srebrenica Gallery in Sarajevo until April 2016.
Ron Haviv has spent almost 25 years documenting conflicts around the world, from the wars in Bosnia and Rwanda to the famine in Somalia. He spent 10 years photographing the Balkan wars, taking some of the most famous photographs of the Bosnian war. We met in Sarajevo, where an exhibition of his war photography, called Blood and Honey: a Balkan War Journal, is being held at the Srebrenica Gallery until April 2016.
“As a photographer and journalist, I grew up in the former Yugoslavia. I learned my lessons about how to tell stories, about the power of photography and the implications of photography, I made great friends here, and I lost friends here,” says Haviv, explaining his strong connections, particularly to Bosnia. When the war started in 1992, Ron Haviv was 27 years old. He had been an international photographer for almost two years.
“I already had some experience in the impact of photography, and I thought it could have a bigger impact than it did.” In Bosnia he learned of the limitations his wartime images would have in eliciting a response that could change the future course of events. In the spring of 1992, before the war had officially started, he photographed Muslim civilians being kicked, beaten and killed by Serb forces in Bijeljina. “I thought the photographs would serve as visual proof of the brutality: here are unarmed, middle aged men being executed in the streets. [But] there was no reaction whatsoever.” Haviv felt “extremely disappointed”.
Later, while working in Sarajevo, Haviv and his colleagues continued to feel frustrated by the lack of response they were receiving to their documentation of wartime atrocities. He recalls, “The most disappointing thing was that, by 1993, people would see us with cameras, come up to us and say, ‘You should go home, we don’t want you here.’ We were representatives of the West and they were expressing their frustration with what was happening.” With so many journalists and photographers being wounded and killed, many did, in fact, decide to leave Bosnia.
But Haviv made the decision to stay. “It was important to document [the war]. Since I had been there from the beginning, I wanted to see it through to the end. It was important to create this body of evidence in order to hold people accountable.” Even though he came to realize his photographs might not create a significant reaction, he still believed in the impact they could have, some of which he could not have predicted. He cites General Divjak as an example. Jovan Divjak was a Bosnian Serb general considered to be “one of the great defenders of Sarajevo”, Divjak told Haviv that when he saw his photographs of Bijeljina “he couldn’t fight alongside the Serbs”. “I’m sure there were many other factors involved in his decision, but this is the beauty of photography. You put it out into the world, and you have no idea how it will affect others.”
Although his images didn’t stop the war, Haviv’s continued documentation of the atrocities led to perhaps the most significant impact of his work. His photographs were used in prosecuting war criminals at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague, one example being the indictment of Zeljko Raznjatovic Arkan, commander of an elite unit known as the Tigers.
Haviv photographed Arkan in the fall of 1991, and, after gaining his trust, was later able to accompany the Tigers while they were fighting. He photographed the soldiers executing civilians in Bijeljina, and when the pictures were published, Arkan put Haviv on a death list. “He said he looked forward to the day he could drink my blood.” Haviv spent the next eight years trying to avoid Arkan. “I was very lucky not to see him [again].”
In the fall of 1995, Haviv followed the Fifth Corps in Bosnia, one of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s seven army corps, which was mostly made up of soldiers who were fighting to take back their villages that had been lost in 1992. A young soldier named Senad Medanovic took Haviv to his village where he found his house in ruins. He was the sole survivor of a massacre that killed 69 of the village’s inhabitants who were buried in a mass grave in his front yard.
“As we were leaving, he was overcome with emotion and just collapsed on a tree and started crying,” Haviv recalls. He was able to return to his village but there was nobody living there. He was the sole survivor.”
As a war photographer, Ron Haviv has witnessed the worst that mankind has to offer. After documenting the genocides in Bosnia, Rwanda and Darfur, he admits, “I don’t have a huge amount of faith in humanity. I see what people can do to each other and it’s pretty shocking.”
Yet, he has witnessed acts of heroism, tenderness and kindness, and this gives him hope. “When you see these little moments when somebody is trying to help someone else, or even when you just see the bravery of trying to live a normal life during the war… I’m overwhelmed by humankinds’ resilience and desire to survive,” the photographer says.
In Sarajevo, “when people were wounded or in the midst of sniper fire, a complete stranger would run into the middle of the street to save them from the line of fire and then take them to Kosevo [Hospital],” Haviv recalls. People would risk their own lives to help complete strangers “by instinct and bravery.” This gave him hope.
According to Haviv, it’s not only the commanders or politicians who give the orders, or the soldiers who carry out the orders, who need to be held accountable. It is also the general public. His work hold accountable all those who did nothing as thousands were killed and millions were forced to flee the country.
Committed to documenting conflicts and raising awareness on human rights issues, Haviv says, “It’s a privilege for me … to watch history unfold and to be able to show the world what I witnessed.” After returning to visit Bosnia, Haviv says he is “happy to see that there is no fighting and that people are somewhat coexisting,” but he also feels “extremely disappointed that Bosnia has not moved much further forward than it was at the end of the war.” The divisions are still prevalent, not only among people, but also within the government. Haviv thinks this is “very disrespectful” to all the people who lost their lives on all sides. He hopes the politicians will do a better job with this “new push towards the EU” and under “pressures by the people”.

created: March 21st, 2016

author: Marta Vidal


text:
(Un)civilized Living | Balkan Diskurs
Lejla Bečar
March 31st, 2016
Despite recent improvements, litter remains a major problem in parts of the Bosnian city of Visoko. Lejla Becar explores.
A few years ago, all the local media were reporting on the communal and animal waste problem in Visoko. The city was insufferably dirty, and garbage dumps were everywhere. Today, the situation is better in the center of the city, that is, Alija Izetbegovic Street and Carsijska Street are trash-free. But once you step away from the center, the situation is very different.
Next to the cinema, museum, and parking lot, there is an “urban garbage dump, which represents an art installation about the living habits in Visoko”.
The center of Visoko was designed to improve local trade, but its current state highlights only how poorly people are treating the city.
During the day, local waste management company workers try to remove these mini garbage dumps. But every night, the citizens who apparently want a real city garbage dump at this location show their determination.
In the vicinity of one of the city’s two primary schools, you can observe how children are taught from an early age that using a trashcan for your trash is a Sisyphean task. This antique trashcan has been standing here for decades, and it has not been used for its intended purpose for decades.
The new city promenade has also suffered because of citizens’ unrelenting habit to dispose of their trash “in the most convenient place available”. With its “decorations” of garbage, the promenade welcomed the vandalizing of the street furniture (benches, fences, and concrete flowerpots).

created: March 31st, 2016

author: Lejla Bečar


text:
Next Generation Democracy and Interfaith Dialogue: Response to Violent Extremism | Balkan Diskurs
Marko Kljajić
April 25th, 2016
At the Bosniak Institute in Sarajevo, a panel of experts discussed the role of interfaith dialogue in addressing violent religious extremism.  By Angelika Hoerner, Tasha Fell, and Marko Kljajić
On 2 February 2016 the international forum titled “Next Generation Democracy and Interfaith Dialogue – Response to Violent Extremism” was held at the Bosniak Institute in Sarajevo. Sponsored by the Foundation for Shared Societies and Values Sarajevo, a non-profit organization whose mission is to “promote a concept of shared societies” in Bosnia-Herzegovina and around the world, the forum engaged the topic of violent extremism in an era of globalization, the value of interfaith dialogue in reducing violent terrorism and religious radicalization, and the positive role religion can have in the creation of inclusive, tolerant, and pluralistic societies.
To navigate the intimate relationship between faith and politics, with a focus on the compatibility and conflicts between Islam and Western liberal democracy, the Foundation invited Dr. Ismail Serageldin, former Vice-President of the World Bank and the current Director of the Bibliotheca Alexandrina, Mr. Kjell Magne Bondevik, former Prime Minister of Norway and Founder and President of the Oslo Center for Human Rights, and Dr. Hilmo Neimarlija, Professor at the Faculty of Islamic Studies in Sarajevo and Board Member of the Bosniak Institute. The panel was moderated by the Founder of the Shared Societies and Values Foundation Sarajevo, Dr. Zlatko Lagumdzija.
The distinguished panel addressed what can be learned from the history of faith-based conflict and peace in Europe and the Middle East, as well as the practices and role of interfaith dialogue in reducing religious extremism. Based on their analysis they outlined the ways policymakers can elevate interfaith dialogue as a practical instrument for future conflict resolution and peace-building in Bosnia-Herzegovina and around the world.
Dr. Serageldin spoke about the compatibility between Islam and Western liberal democracy. Referring to historical examples of tolerance in Islam – pluralistic societies during the Middle Ages, the contribution of Sharia Law to modern jurisprudence, and Islamic principles of free expression – Dr. Serageldin argued that Islam is organically democratic and Muslims have co-existed with other religious groups throughout history, thus refuting the popular misconception, used by populists and religious extremists alike, that Islam is anathema to Western liberal democracy. Dr. Serageldin told the audience that one of the core principles of Islam is the freedom of belief: to believe or not to believe is a private affair between the individual and God. According to the Quran, Dr. Serageldin explained, Muslims are encouraged to co-exist with other religious groups and maintain peace and goodwill. Given this rule, Islamic extremists, who preach and exercise violence against so-called non-believers, reflect bigotry and jingoism rather than Islamic principles.
To clarify modern misconceptions about the rigidity of Sharia Law, Dr. Serageldin referred to the reign of Umar ibn Al-Khattab (634-644 AD), one of the most powerful and influential Muslim caliphs in history, who, for his legal expertise and pious and just nature, earned the epithet Al-Farooq (“the one who distinguishes between right and wrong”). Under his rule, the empire expanded, and Muslims, Christians, and Jews lived in harmony, each receiving fair treatment, social services, and protection according to the Muslim code. Citing the Treaty of Umar, one of the most progressive treaties in legal history, which granted religious minorities freedom of religion and security in Muslim-dominant societies, Dr. Serageldin stressed the responsibility of modern Muslim leaders to avoid rigid interpretations of Sharia Law and the need to mold core Islamic principles for current contexts.
Freedom of expression is the first freedom of human existence because it guarantees all others, claimed Dr. Serageldin. On this topic, he shared his opinion on the Charlie Hebdo cartoon controversy and its tragic fallout. While he condemned the terrorist attacks against the satire magazine, he was also disappointed with the reaction of Western media and many non-Muslim political leaders because rather than condemning the cartoons as “hate speech”, they spoke in support of the cartoons’ publication on the basis of “freedom of speech”. Dr. Serageldin asked the audience, would their reaction have been the same had the cartoons been racist or anti-Semitic? Popular support for the cartoons attracted more attention than necessary and reinforced the position of Islamic extremists, who were able to represent them as an assault on Islam. While censorship is not the answer, said Dr. Serageldin, such cartoons, as a form of hate speech, should elicit social rejection. Democratic governments in Muslim-minority countries must not favor one religious group over another in working towards a truly pluralistic society that values the beliefs, customs, and practices of all its members.
Moving from the past to the future, Mr. Bondevik outlined a framework for good democratic governance in the twenty-first century. Based on the universal principle of human dignity and established codes of human rights, Mr. Bondevik charted the contours for a “New Generation Democracy”, a type of political organization characterized by free and fair elections and the division of powers, as well as equal power-sharing, inclusive ideologies that bridge differences and bring social cohesion, and virtuous leadership. He emphasized the importance of these principles in countering violent extremism, especially with the decline of democratic standards across the world over the last ten years. As the processes of globalization increasingly connect, transfer, and mix human communities and create pluralistic societies, it is imperative to promote authentic democratic governance and open societies in which there is a continuous public dialogue, particularly between majority and minority populations, as this is a litmus test for legitimate democracy.
Claiming that the primary source of violent extremism is exclusion from society, Mr. Bondevik maintained that it is important for nation states to cultivate inclusive societies, in order to create a sense of fellowship and unity, and thereby, prevent extremism. Political and spiritual leaders have used religion throughout history as a cover for their own self-serving ends, exploiting social differences and manipulating latent fears and anxieties. Interfaith dialogue, Mr. Bondevik told the audience, is therefore the primary tool to build shared societies because it creates a space to challenge radical interpretations of faith and to show people that peace, justice, and human dignity are common to all major religions.
To contextualize the challenge of violent extremism, Dr. Neimarlija discussed the importance of the 2015 Sarajevo Declaration, a joint appeal by political, spiritual, and intellectual Bosnian leaders against Islamic extremism in Bosnia-Herzegovina and beyond. The importance of the Declaration, according to Dr. Neimarlija, is that it establishes violent extremism as both a local and global phenomenon whose complexity is too often simplified, leading to weak counter-strategies and poor policy-making. Adopted by over 40 Muslim leaders in Bosnia, including Grand Mufti Husein Kavazovic, the Declaration may not offer a concrete solution to the challenge of religious extremism, but it shows that the majority of Bosnian Muslims oppose radical Islam. It also sets the foundation for an inclusive Islam based on principles of freedom, peace, and inter-communal existence, said Dr. Neimarlija.
After the lectures, the panellists responded to questions about the stagnation of scientific inquiry, technological development and cultural innovation in the modern Muslim world, as well as the role of education in reducing extremism and the relationship between neo-liberal capitalism and Islam.
To conclude the session, Dr. Lagumdzija cautioned the audience that there is no “Plan B” to interfaith dialogue. If we sacrifice our collective human interest for individual selfish ends, then there is no chance for co-existence, co-habitation, and co-operation within and between communities. He reminded those in attendance that we have the means, knowledge, and passion to tackle the critical challenges of violent extremism, but without interfaith dialogue, our efforts will be futile.

created: April 25th, 2016

author: Marko Kljajić


text:
Ferhadija Mosque Reopening: A test of tolerance in a divided city | Balkan Diskurs
Lidia Kurasińska
May 24th, 2016
Twenty-three years to the day since it was demolished by Serbian nationalists as part of an ethnic cleansing campaign, Banja Luka’s grand mosque, Ferhadija, was reopened on 7 May. Despite continuing tensions between the Serbian and Bosniak population of Banja Luka, the ceremony passed off without incident and marked an important date in the city’s troubled history.
“Today is a day of joy for the Muslims of Banja Luka, and all those who came to rejoice with them. Many Orthodox Christians, Catholics and even atheists are celebrating Ferhadija’s return. They say Banja Luka is now complete”. This is how Osman ef. Kozlić, the mufti of Banja Luka, addressed the crowd gathered to witness the reopening of Ferhadija, the city’s grand mosque.
Despite heavy security and fears over possible outbreaks of ethnic violence, the atmosphere was festive and celebratory. The 8,000-strong crowd included non-Muslims, families with young children, and the elderly, who made themselves comfortable and enjoyed the Saturday morning sun in a scene that resembled a picnic more than a high-risk security event.
The mosque has not always been a place of peaceful interfaith celebration, however. Constructed in the mid-16th century at the request of Ferhat Pasha Sokolović, an Ottoman general and the first beylerbey of Bosnia, the building was demolished in 1993 as part of an ethnic cleansing campaign by Serbian nationalists against the Muslim population of Banja Luka. It was blown up, alongside Arnaudija, another mosque located nearby, on the night between 6-7 May, in an elaborate and well-planned operation.
A total of 16 mosques were destroyed in Banja Luka the during the 1992-1995 conflict. The debris from Ferhadija, a gem of Ottoman architecture and one of Bosnia’s officially-listed National Monuments, was hidden in nearby landfills or dumped in riverbeds, where it was left for years. In 2001, the Islamic Community (Islamska Zajednica), the official Muslim body in Bosnia, was granted a permit to reconstruct the mosque. The ceremony to lay the new cornerstone of the mosque took place on the eighth anniversary of the mosque’s demolition but it was marred by violence by Serb nationalists. As a result of the rioting, 30 Bosniaks were injured. One person later died from head injuries. Over 250 people, including the head of the UN in Bosnia and a number of foreign officials, were trapped in an Islamic centre as the attackers wreaked havoc outside. The date, 7th May, was subsequently chosen as Bosnia’s official Mosque Day.
The re-creation of Ferhadija, the most significant architectural reconstruction in Bosnia since the rebuilding of the Mostar Bridge, was a painstaking process that took over 15 years and ended up costing 10 million KM. Around 35,000 pieces, 65% of the original material, were recovered from various locations thanks to tip-offs from locals and reused in the new construction to preserve the mosque’s authenticity.
The recovered stones were thoroughly examined to make sure they belonged to Ferhadija and not one of the other 15 nearby mosques that were also demolished. Each piece was scanned into a specialised computer programme and then matched against a digital model of the mosque to identify their most likely location in the construction. According to one account, the Bosniak stonemasons who worked at the site were performing prayers inside the mosque’s bare walls, breathing new life into it.
The reconstruction process was delayed, not just by the complexities of preserving the mosque’s architectural authenticity, but also by high costs. However, those were alleviated when the Islamic Community signed a financing contract with the Turkish International Cooperation and Coordination Agency.
The work was also funded by the government of Republika Srpska (RS), widely known for its often-borderline incendiary statements regarding the unity of Bosnia and relations with the Muslim population. The RS authorities used the reopening of Ferhadija as an opportunity to soften their hardline nationalist image and reach out to Banja Luka’s Bosniak minority. Milorad Dodik, the president of RS, frequently met with the reopening ceremony organising committee and donated carpets that traditionally cover mosque floors. He repeatedly stressed that RS “supports the reconstruction of damaged religious sites since it leads to strengthened coexistence”. He congratulated the Muslim community on reopening Ferhadija, saying that it promoted community cohesion and that people of all faiths and ethnicities are welcome in Banja Luka and RS.
However, despite the positive rhetoric, the demographic composition of Banja Luka remains profoundly changed since the war’s end. Only 8,000 Muslims live in the city now, compared to 30,000 at the beginning of the conflict in 1992. The return process has been very slow and often damped by recurring instances of discrimination against returnees across RS.
In a landmark case, the Islamic Community sued the RS in 2008 over the wartime destruction of Muslim religious sites in Banja Luka, claiming that the acts of violence were aimed at not just physically destroying the buildings but also erasing all Muslim presence from the Serb-controlled area. Although a local court ruled in favour of the Islamic Community, the decision was later overturned by the highest court in Sarajevo on the basis that authorities were not responsible for damages caused by individual people.
However, wartime acts of violence occurred on all sides. Over 90% of churches in Banja Luka were destroyed, and a number of Orthodox and Jewish facilities also suffered huge damage. The reopening of Ferhadija last Saturday brought leaders of those religious communities together. By jointly eschewing inter-religious prejudice and celebrating each faith’s contribution to the local community, they sent a powerful message to those attempting to sow division that such acts are no longer welcome in Banja Luka and in Bosnia.

author: Lidia Kurasińska


text:
BiH Institutions Must Work Together in the Fight against Terrorism | Balkan Diskurs
Danka Cvijić
June 6th, 2016
It is becoming increasingly common to see in the media that ISIL members have killed people in bombings. Terrorism is often associated with BiH, in which there have been several terrorist acts. It is very difficult to say whether those who take lives are somewhere around us or far away. In order to avoid doubt about that, experts consider that we need coordinated action and more government engagement.
In the law books, terrorism is defined as the premeditated use of unlawful violence or the threat of unlawful violence in order to instill fear, with the intent to coerce or intimidate governments or societies in order to achieve political, religious, or ideological goals. Today, terrorism is associated with politicized religion, which leaves no room for any questions.
Friar Drago Bojić, a Franciscan from the Franciscan Province of Bosna Srebrena (Bosna Argentina), told the portal novilist.hr that religious ideologies are the most dangerous because they hide behind divine authority.
“History is full of religious fanaticism and all sorts of pathology and illness clad in divine authority. Religious fanatics do not “fall from the sky”, they are born, raised, and created at the heart of a particular religion, and they feed off its reservoir of hatred, contempt, and intolerance towards others,” said Friar Bojić.
Following several wars, there is no doubt that world peace is yet again disrupted by increasingly frequent terrorist attacks. Innocent people are being killed. One can say that we are in a passive war with no warning, and it is tied to ISIL.
During his appearance on the TV show “The Difficult Word” Mufti Muamer Zukorlić emphasized that the Muslims of today are put in a position where they need to justify themselves as a result Western media’s direct linkages between Islam and terrorism.
“Nowadays, it is enough to point your finger at a Muslim, to put a label on someone. A man is labeled as a terrorist and disappears – that is a very serious situation,” Zukorlić said.
The Mufti stressed that the media is trying to demonize Muslims and to make them legitimate targets. He adds that there is no justification for the crimes committed from any point of view, least of all a religious one – however, it is first necessary to discover and tackle the cause of the problem.
In the media, we often see articles and terrifying scenes of terrorist acts. When asked whether terrorism is indeed a threat, the Dean of the Law Faculty of the University of Banja Luka Vitomir Popović stated that it was one of the greatest evils that humanity has ever faced.
“We all must condemn terrorism and do our best to fight it so that the world can live in peaceful and dignified existence and so that we can plan our destiny instead of having it cut short in a cinema, during a meeting, in an airplane, or anywhere else,” added Popović.
It is a known fact that some of the weapons used in terrorist attacks are coming from BiH. It is also known that there are young men from our country that have been recruited and are fighting on foreign battlefields, and are then returning to BiH.
According to Dean Popović, the most important thing in the fight against terrorism is the coordination and synchronization of authorities and services operating in this area. “These services need to be able to deal with the initial initiatives of terrorism, such as the mounting of the Islamic flag in Maoča (a village in the Brčko Municipality of BiH), and the recruitment of young Bosnian Muslim men,” said Popović.
Supporter of the fight against terrorism in BiH Dževad Galijašević describes terrorism as the greatest source of threats with a potential for escalation.
“Terrorism is something that has evolved from the so-called Islamic militias of the El Mujahadeen unit that existed during the war, and a failure to punish their crimes has signaled to them that they are free to organize a network in BiH. BiH is a base and, in a base, terrorist actions are performed sporadically as a warning,” Galijašević explained.
According to Galijašević, it is necessary to shift from a general to a concrete approach to this problem, which entails naming terrorist groups and the locations where they meet and develop their ideas.
Organizing debates and conferences on this topic can give us a better understanding of the problem and ways to fight it. At the end of last year, a debate entitled “Terrorism, the World, and Us” was organized at the Law Faculty of the University of Banja Luka. The lecturers explained to the students and the audience why and how the fear of terrorism in the world came to pass.
One example that demonstrates the situation in BiH is the portal “Ummah News”, which celebrates terrorist acts and the deaths of many people. The portal spreads hatred and awakens terrorist thoughts in Bosnian young people. The portal was shut down several times, but it still continues its work. No one has managed to find out who its administrators are, nor have they managed to shut it down permanently.
BiH citizens have different opinions on terrorism. Some say that they are frightened by the constant attacks and that they do not plan to travel, not even around BiH, as they feel that the threats are everywhere and that no one can be trusted. Elders express that they are afraid for their children. However, there are also those that believe that terrorism is far away from us and that we are of no interest to the terrorists.
As to the accuracy of these reflections, only time will tell. This is also true regarding the willingness of the people, the government, and the institutions of BiH to work together in the fight against terrorism.

created: June 6th, 2016

author: Danka Cvijić


text:
Protecting “The Beauty on the Vrbas River” | Balkan Diskurs
Nataša Kondić
June 9th, 2016
Although it is known as “The Green City”, Banja Luka shows that human negligence is overriding the willingness and efforts of the citizens and institutions in charge of maintaining the city. In certain places, one can see examples that are contradictory to the city’s other nickname “The Beauty on the Vrbas River”.
Environmental protection, specifically in Banja Luka, significantly contributes to a better, healthier life.
The environment and tourism are closely related, and environmental protection poses a significant influence on the touristic potentials, offers, and the overall attractiveness of a destination.
According to tourism expert Mladen Šukalo from the Touristic Organization of Banja Luka, nature-based tourism is the fastest growing sector of tourism, and its potential is often underestimated. Banja Luka has opted for sustainable development, which was formalized in the Banja Luka 2013-2020 Tourism Development Strategy in which the principle of environmental protection plays a key role.
“The state of the environment has a direct influence on Banja Luka’s potential touristic products, such as: health tourism, Banja Luka adventures, and cave exploration. The quality of touristic products depends on our attitude towards the environment, which consumers surely notice,” Šukalo notes.
Since many sporting events are held on the Vrbas River, the Touristic Organization of Banja Luka is aiming to create new touristic ventures based on the principles of sustainable development. These ventures include: the Vrbas Adventure Resort, Banja Luka Hike and Bike, The Green Horseshoe, cleaning up Ljubačevo Cave, landscaping the Banj Brdo picnic area, celebrating International Tourism Day, landscaping the shores of the Vrbas River, and advocating for the treatment of waste waters that flow into the Vrbas River as well as for the protection of certain areas around it.
“The issues of creating waste and managing it, energy efficiency, attitudes towards flora and fauna, and awareness of our surroundings are significant for tourism providers. This is why we are trying to influence both citizens and organizations in charge of environmental preservation, so that these natural beauties can be presented to our tourists in the best possible light,” says Šukalo.
Natural resources are protected in three primary ways: through research, through legal protection, and by practical conservation. Jovica Sjeničić, President of the Association for Research and Conservation of Biodiversity, explains that there are many organizations that fight using legal and advocacy methods to raise the awareness of the public, whereas their particular organization researches biological diversity, and systematizes the knowledge about certain parts of nature in order to monitor its condition.
“We also work to educate the public by publishing various educational texts, working with children in schools, organizing popular science lectures, and organizing three to four events each year that promote wildlife conservation,” says Sjeničić, adding that, in March, they are organizing a conference in association with the Croatia-based Hyla Herpetological Society and the UK-based Rufford Foundation.
Part of the conference will be dedicated to the review of best practices and the possibilities for regional cooperation between biologists, ecologists, researchers and nature conservationists from the Balkans.
Some of the more efficient ways of protecting natural resources are to educate the public and to popularize conservation practices.
“A big challenge for nature researchers is how to engage people and how to get them interested in this issue. There are many reasons for a lack of interest, and, perhaps, the most important might be that today’s society is alienated from nature. People tend to believe that natural resources are unlimited because they don’t possess an understanding about where they are coming from,” explains Sjeničić.
On the topic of public education, it is important to mention the media, which focus their reporting on the topics that people are interested in. Thus, stories on endangered species and other similar topics are not well-represented in our country. The usual justification for this is that there exist other problems that take priority such as unemployment and the like, but this is no excuse for the disregard of nature.
“There has recently been an increased interest in our work, likely because of the things they see on mediums like the National Geographic Channel. However, they still have no knowledge about endangered species of plants and animals or about the research we do on these issues. We have little support from governmental institutions, which primarily reduces our ability to acquire logistical support, which, in and of itself, is also very hard to come by,” Sjeničić admits.
Members of the Center for the Environment have expressed a similar attitude, and point out that their struggle is going to be a difficult one as long as private interests are put before public ones.
“In addition to raising public awareness, which is still necessary throughout BiH, it is essential that all relevant institutions take our natural resources seriously and understand that they must be managed more responsibly. There are only a few journalists who have freedom to continuously report on this issue, and we have a good cooperation with them. As for institutions, we have a good cooperation with the Institute for the Protection of Cultural, Historical, and Natural Heritage of Republic of Srpska, and they have been our partner for years,” says Nataša Crnković, the President of the Center for the Environment.
The Center for the Environment has had several positive experiences when asking citizens to get directly involved in the protection of nature. In Banja Luka, huge steps have been made towards raising awareness about the importance of green spaces in urban areas and the need to protect and cultivate, rather than destroy them.
“As part of a citizen’s initiative, we’ve managed to collect five thousand signatures, which is a clear indicator that the public wants to keep the green space on which a church was supposed to be built in tact. The public has an opinion, as well as the will and a way to fight for the conservation of nature, they just need to be encouraged and, of course, asked about their opinions,” Crnković explains.
There needs to be a shift of mindset before an ecological catastrophe occurs or before we reach a resource crisis, because, once this happens, it will be too late for the quick solutions to which we are so accustomed to. Throwing garbage into garbage bins is not the only way we can make a difference in better taking care of the environment we live in, the rivers we bathe in, and the air we breathe. It is necessary to engage the numerous organizations devoted to protecting the environment as well as to give our own contribution to the conservation effort. If you don’t have the time to do personally contribute, then you can at least support these institutions in their efforts so that life can be better for all of us.

created: June 9th, 2016

author: Nataša Kondić


text:
The Right to Choose: Embracing Differences in an Increasingly Intolerant Society | Balkan Diskurs
Jasmila Talić-Kujundžić
June 13th, 2016
By setting double standards and speaking about quasi-democracy and human rights while rejecting everything that is different, Bosnian society is becoming increasingly intolerant.
The media sow powerful seeds that contribute to the growth of prejudice and hate speech. Lately, we’ve been witnessing ever-growing Islamophobia as a result of terrifying terrorist attacks, which are automatically linked to Islam. The public, uninformed and blinded, easily falls under this influence.
Our Bosnian-Herzegovinian society is rich in cultural, ethnic, and religious diversity, but we often do not view this as an advantage, but rather as fertile ground for widening the gap between us, which allows the political minority to rule.
A recent decision by the High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council (VSTV) forbidding people to wear “religious symbols” inside the Court has greatly affected hijab wearers and resulted in a peaceful walk with the motto: “Hijab: my right, my choice, my life”. That, in turn, has sparked numerous lengthy discussions on social media and news portals. However, little has been said about the importance of individual stories and the very experience of wearing the hijab for those women.
Amela Karkelja from Sarajevo is 26 years old, has a Master’s degree in psychology, and wears the hijab. She says that, since she started wearing it, she’s become more self-confident, calmer, more peaceful, and happier.
“When I decided to wear a hijab and to, how can I say, put on my crown, I never dreamed that a piece of cloth on my head was going to change my life so much, or that it would do me so much good. I will never, not even for a second, envy women who live without it,” says Karkelja.
She says that she has received the occasional look of disapproval, but thinks that if you smile and start a conversation, no one will run away from you.
“Our religion does not allow us to be harsh or unaccommodating,” Karkelja says.
On another continent, Soumiya Noor Bouchikchi, a 29-year-old professor of computer science from Morocco, decided to wear a hijab in 2002 when she was around 16 years old. The reactions of the people around her were quite unexpected.
“When I made my decision to start wearing the hijab, and when I got to the point where I felt naked without it, my family’s reaction was completely strange. They were against it and said it was old-fashioned, that I wouldn’t find a good job or a husband if I wore it. My uncle didn’t speak to me for a long time, and he called me an extremist – I didn’t even know what that word meant back then,” Soumiya says.
After that, Soumiya faced many instances of discrimination. She was not allowed to speak about her field of work in front of a foreign delegation and she was rejected from participating in several conferences. Additionally, she is often harassed at airports.
“Every time I’m traveling somewhere, I’m inspected several times at the airport. I have to pass through the scanner, the female security personnel take off my hijab, open it, and check whether I’m hiding something in my hair,” explains Soumiya.
In spite of this, Soumiya is a fighter. She travels a lot, speaks several foreign languages, and is writing her doctoral thesis on renewable energy. She did an internship in Germany where she faced the negative first impressions she seemed to leave on people. She never gives up on her fight to change those stereotypes, because she knows that the majority of the information that people know about Muslims and hijabs comes from the media.
“I’ve explained that women in my country can be mothers, nurses, teachers, engineers. A woman wears the hijab as a personal choice, not as an obligation. We ponder, we think, we lead, we teach, and we are important agents of change,” says Soumiya.
It was important to find out about the opinions of young people in Bosnia and Herzegovina and to explore the connections between Islam and terrorism.
Dalibor Kraisnikovic, an 18-year-old student of the Economics High School in Bijeljina, said: “In my opinion, one needs to make a clear distinction between traditional and radical Islam. It is well-known what is normal and what is not, what can be advocated for and what must not be supported. It is absurd to blame all Muslims around the world for those tragic events, because true Islam does not advocate violence.”
When asked about the recent VTSV decision in Bosnia, Dalibor explained that he feels that the decision was not intentionally Islamophobic, but was, rather, a result of the process of the country’s secularization. However, he is fully aware that Muslim women are the ones most affected by the decision.
“I have mixed feelings on the matter. On the one hand, the Qur’an requires women to wear the hijab, and, on the other hand, we strive to be part of the modern European world, which advocates a secular state free of religious symbols in state institutions. My views for and against balance the scale, and neither pan outweighs the other,” says Dalibor.
Monika Mijic, a 26-year-old psychologist feels that people should not take offense to the wearing religious symbols.
“I am not sure about all the reasons why, but I think women are wearing hijabs to shield themselves from inappropriate glances, to stay pure, and to preserve their uniqueness, which brings them closer to God. If it is for religious reasons, I think it is justified. Everyone should be able to wear whatever they want to. I don’t understand why anyone would be bothered or offended by it?! A true believer respects others, regardless of their religion, nationality or ethnicity!” Mijic states.
The current state of ethnic and religious diversity among young people can be seen through the popular broadcast “Perspective”, which has caused a big stir in the country and the region. We had the chance to speak with Mirela Remi Priselac, lead singer of the band Elemental, who has moderated several episodes of the show.
“Every time I return home from filming Perspective, many thoughts run through my head because I am surprised, and sometimes shocked, by how young people think. But, even when I see narrow-mindedness in them, I don’t want to throw blame at them. They are ventriloquist puppets of their parents and grandparents, and of the people who help them to form their opinions, and perhaps do so too much,” says Priselac.
Priselac feels that we need to fight for a social and political environment in which the “others” will be able to express their views, and in which they will be valued and respected.
“Without diversity, we will be reduced to a mass of faceless yes men who nod their heads because someone else wants them to. As for the Balkans, it is not easy to be different here – whether you’re a different religion, skin color, sexual orientation, or, to trivialize, when you simply like music that is different from what the majority listens to. But this is exactly what we need to work on – as citizens (I am referring to the issue of civil liberties!), but also as people,” concludes Priselac.

author: Jasmila Talić-Kujundžić


text:
Music, Art, Theater and Culture: Rising Above Nationalism in Mostar | Balkan Diskurs
Dino Pehlić
June 15th, 2016
As long as they continue to work together to create music, works of art and culture, and theatrical performances, they will bring back the real “Mostar identity” – an identity that belongs to everyone.
The war of the 1990s has become a significant determinant of the way today’s society functions. Transforming tolerance into enmity, it moves from one system to another in its transition to a structure of national classifications.
Mostar’s nationalism has quickly expressed itself in this post-conflict society, establishing two city centers, which are strictly divided along invisible ethnic borders.
The postwar stagnation of the city’s economic, cultural, and social development was caused by a systemic stifling of its institutions. Corruption and theft have brought galleries, theaters, museums, archives, and educational and cultural centers to their deathbed. In such a social atmosphere, artists and those involved in cultural work are losing significance, and their work and purpose is being suppressed.
At the end of the 90s, the idea of a new and unified music scene in Mostar seemed impossible.
“In 1998, a small group of people tried to start a music school. I remember how at that time the Pavarotti Music Center had a car that could pass through the checkpoints without any problems, and I used it to pick up people who lived on the so-called “western” side of the city,” remembers founder of the school, Orhan Maslo.
After two attempts to found a music school, the third attempt made the idea a reality and, in 2012, the “Mostar Rock School” started to assemble music lovers, experienced musicians, and those who wanted to learn how to play an instrument. Applications to participate were coming in from all over Herzegovina.
Although the school presents an informal approach to education, it has completed several successful projects through which it spreads a universal message of unity and multiculturalism, however, means allocated by the government for its support are minimal. Donations are its only source of income.
“If we ask ourselves whether music can directly change the world and influence certain processes, the answer is ‘no’, but when we talk about its indirect influence, the answer is absolutely ‘yes’. Music is not just about someone on stage playing an instrument. Music is a lifestyle. It connects and entertains people. I believe that every child and adult should be part of the music culture. It is a kind of informal education that promotes togetherness and provides a place where every individual can present his or her skills. That is what Mostar Rock School is all about,” explains Maslo.
According to him, music and culture can influence nationalism and its neutralization through the building of trust. Such trust already exists between the students of this school who, together, achieve excellent results in the field of music. The relationship between them is one of absolute tolerance.
“I have traveled the world and have seen how developed societies function. True wealth exists where diversity is used to unite and solve the common problems that occur in almost all societies. I therefore feel that nationalism does not possess the stronghold to survive here,” Maslo says optimistically.
In the fight against nationalism, he explains that music can be used to manipulate and win over the masses, which, to him, means that it can also be used to promote nationalism – the only question is whether the masses will recognize and accept it as an ideology.
“We’ve raised many generations with the completely wrong values. Many love the country they live in, but they don’t love those who are living in it. I find all this nationalism ridiculous because I just wasn’t raised that way,” adds Maslo.
The Abrašević Youth Cultural Center, which reopened its doors in 2003 under the initiative of several informal citizen groups and organizations, became a haven for the realization of the youth’s ideas in Mostar. Since that time, the Center has fought against discrimination, domination, degradation, and nationalism through the implementation of workshops, plays, concerts, debates and lectures.
Kristina Ćorić, who has been working on organizing the youth center’s activities for a while now, says: “The center is located on what used to be a war demarcation line, so a symbolism exists there for connecting people. We managed to revive the prewar Abrašević Center, which also used to bring young people together. We soon became owners of this center and started renovating it. We created a space for young people who have ideas for social development, regardless of their national identity.”
As part of the team that has been working to revive cultural life in Mostar, Kristina also emphasizes: “Nationalism should not be the primary part of a person’s natural identity. Anyone can be aware of their origins, tradition, or roots, but that should not be common identity. We should build our relations based on other identities.”
The Abrašević Youth Cultural Center serves as an indicator that socially-beneficial cultural activities can effectively combat nationalism. The Center points out that they deal with the past in order to build peace and offer young people a “healthier” form of development and education.
Another important institution in the development and establishment of the cultural and artistic identity of Mostar is the Croatian National Theater. After overcoming problems related to founding rights were solved, the National Theater in Mostar and the Croatian National Theater obtained equal status at the city and cantonal levels. These institutions are only awarded occasional grants, and, despite technical and financial difficulties, both institutions have conducted joint activities to offer the city a quality program, and to raise awareness around certain social issues.
When discussing the persistence of nationalism in Mostar, Director of the Croatian National Theater, Ivan Vukoja, says: “The unresolved national identity issue is the main generator of nationalism. I think the vast majority of problems arise because the issue of nationality hasn’t been resolved via institutions in a just or politically legitimate way. This creates a situation in which it is suitable for national interests to be articulated in a vulgar and ugly way.”
The problem of identity continues to exist, and, today, these different identities are not being viewed as valuable to the enrichment of cultural and historical heritage, and it is through art and culture that we can help revive this point of view.
“My institution is led by Croats as well as the people of Mostar, and the citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and theater belongs to all above all else. Regardless of the institution’s designation, it must work on cooperation. We have to recognize accept our differences,” says the director of the theater.
The Ministry of Education, Science, Culture, and Sports of the Hercegovacko-Neretvanski Canton states that it supports cultural institutions through co-financing via public tenders. According to them, there are also very low rates of nationalism existing within cultural institutions, but that does not mean that national divisions have been eliminated.
From these conversations, we can conclude that nationalism, disguised or not, does exist, and it plays a large role in dividing the city and creating distrust among the people.

author: Dino Pehlić


text:
Problems in the Processing of War Crimes Understood as an Attack | Balkan Diskurs
Velma Saric
June 23rd, 2016
The processing of war crimes at the state level in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) was criticized by international experts after these cases have been worked on for more than ten years. Their conclusion is that only low-ranking perpetrators are being processed, indictments are often “fragmented” and sent back multiple times for corrections, there is inconsistency regarding the legal qualifications of local law officials, and there are problems with the application of protection measures for witnesses.
It all started in May of last year, after the OSCE Mission to Bosnia and Herzegovina, with the support of the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), asked for an analysis related to how war crimes are being processed.
Judge Joanna Korner from Great Britain was chosen to conduct the analysis. Her experience includes work as a senior prosecutor in the ICTY’s Office of the Prosecutor.
After contacting the Court and Prosecutor’s Office of BiH to acquire the necessary information, problems with chief prosecutor Goran Salihović surfaced. In August of 2015, he stated that the Office could not grant the request for information as it would violate the principles of confidentiality and impartiality, that is, the right to a fair trial. He also stated that it would constitute a violation of the rights of both the witnesses and the suspects.
Despite attempts to change his attitude, Salihović did not concede. In early September 2015, the High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council (VSTV) granted the OSCE Mission access to the Prosecutor’s documents pertaining to war crimes. “In the case one declines to follow the recommendations, the possibility of starting disciplinary proceedings exists,” the memo by VSTV president Milan Tegeltija stated.
Judge Korner met with several prosecutors and judges, and, based on these interactions along with the documents that were provided, she conducted the analysis, which was published by the OSCE in June of this year.
The analysis contains recommendations for processing war crimes, but also criticizes the work of the Prosecutor’s Office of BiH, as well as its chief prosecutor Salihović.
Correcting Indictments
Korner concluded that the quality of indictments is in decline. After talking to judges from the Court of BiH, she learned that it was able to confirm that of the total number of indictments issued only 39% were not returned to the Prosecutor’s Office for corrections. It was also stated that the Court entirely rejected four indictments, one of them for formal reasons, and the remaining three for lack of grounded suspicion that the suspect committed the acts he had been charged with. According to Judge Korner’s report, the Court of BiH has returned 42 indictments for corrections over the course of a year and a half, some of which have been sent back multiple times.
“Prosecutors [waste] time correcting factual descriptions at the stage of the indictment’s confirmation of instead of presenting their views at the main hearing before the Court of BiH,” stated the response sent to Judge Korner by the Prosecutor’s Office of BiH.
Another criticism outlined in the analysis was that the Prosecutor’s Office does not transfer less complex war crimes cases to entity or Brčko District courts despite the fact that there is clearly prescribed criteria that states that ordinary soldiers and police officers fall into the jurisdiction of the District and Cantonal Prosecutors’ Offices, The analysis concluded that such cases are instead tried before the Court of BiH.
The report states: “If one examines the general level of perpetrator indicted relatively few fall into the category of those who were leaders or held command responsibility. The majority appear to be low level direct perpetrators of the crimes, camp guards and members of the military or paramilitary formations.”
Judge Korner recommends ending the practice of indicting suspects as a means to meet the “quota” requirements, for statistical reasons, or as a result of pressure from the media and/or  victims’ groups.
“The emphasis should now be firmly placed on quality rather than quantity,” Korner said, stressing that the Prosecutor’s Office of BiH should focus on suspects who held command responsibility, that is, those who either ordered or instigated a crime.
Computer, Telephone, and Transportation
Korner also suggested drafting internal guidelines about the form and content of war crimes indictments and to urge prosecutors and investigators to attend an additional course at the Special Department for War Crimes within the Prosecutor’s Office of BiH at least once a year during the first two years of their employment .
Concerning the indictments of the Prosecutor’s Office, Korner recommends establishing a policy of “consistency in charging suspects”, which means that it is necessary to apply the same legal qualifications to crimes committed during the same events in a particular area, at a particular time, unless there are good evidential reasons why the policy should not apply.
In order to reduce the backlog of cases, it is recommended that the Prosecutor’s Office of BiH and its judges undertake a full review of cases not yet in trial to ascertain whether any may be transferred to entity courts.
In her analysis, Korner additionally dealt with the management of the Prosecutor’s Office and concluded that the chief prosecutor should make the structural changes necessary for more efficient working practices. According to her, it should not be the responsibility of the chief prosecutor to carry out the day-to-day management of the war crimes cases. Such responsibility should be delegated to the deputy chief prosecutor.
The naming of a “chief of prosecutions” who would assist the deputy chief prosecutor with the daily management of the Special Department for War Crimes was also recommended. According to the report, there should be a return to the original concept of smaller teams who work in a  particular area of conflict. This can help to avoid the issue of prosecutors working on cases in relative isolation as well as promote the establishment of a consistent approach to evidence and legal interpretation.
It is also necessary to introduce the practice of mentoring new prosecutors. Mentorships should involve instructing new prosecutors on topics such as the creation of an investigation plan, where and how to find evidence, how to use databases, and the criteria for prioritizing cases as well as for closing an investigation, etc.
According to the report, the deputy chief prosecutor or a designated team leader should be responsible for monitoring the work of every new prosecutor.
With regard to investigators, Korner suggests that funds within the budget be allocated to providing each with a laptop and cellphone, and to covering transportation costs associated with their work on the ground.
The final analysis was published by the OSCE Mission to BiH. Head of the Mission, Jonathan Moore, stated that the president of the High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council has promised his support for implementing the recommendations of the analysis.
The spokesperson for the Prosecutor’s Office, Boris Grubešić, said that he views this “alleged” analysis as an attack on the Bosnian judiciary. He also claims that the analysis is essentially “Moore meddling in the Prosecutor’s cases because he is the subject of certain investigations.“
Grubešić stated that the analysis is subjective and that the Prosecutor’s Office has charged 610 individuals with war crimes, of whom 80% were convicted. He also pointed out that the Office enjoys the support of the victims, and that the relevant institutions adopt their reports on activities.
Moore emphasized that Korner is an expert and that this analysis is not meant to spur conflict or feuding.
Judge Korner’s recommendations are just that. There are no requirements that these recommendations be implemented in the processing of war crimes.
In their press release from June 20 2016, the collective of employees for Prosecutor’s Office unanimously rejected the analysis of Judge Korner and OSCE Mission to BiH.

author: Velma Saric