Vijesti.ba:

10.06.2019 / 22:06 Kultura – Dobitnik je mnogobrjnih nagrada

U Vijećnici održana promocija izabranih djela Dževada Karahasana

Mjesto promocije nije izabrano slučajno jer kao što je kazao uvodničar, prof.dr. Vahidin Preljević, Vijećnica nije samo jedan od motiva u djelu Dževada Karahasana, pisca, akademika i profesora, središnje ličnosti bosanskohercegovačke kulture.

Po riječima samog Karahasana, svaki ulazak u Vijećnicu je za njega svojevrsna emotivna arheologija. U njegovom životu, kao i životu Sarajeva i Bosne i Hercegovine, taj objekat ima posebno mjesto.

Vezu promocije izabranih djela Dževada Karahasana i objekta u kojem se desio ovaj događaj naglasio je i gradonačelnik Sarajeva Abdulah Skaka koji se također obratio zvanicama.

Promocija je protekla u formi razgovora pisca i Matije Bošnjaka, izvršnog urednika izdavačke kuće Connectum u čijoj ediciji su štampana izabrana djela.

Pisac je, osim njegove veze s Vijećnicom, odgovarao na Bošnjakova pitanja o književnosti kao faktoru koji može i mora razbijati ideološke floskule, zatim o Andriću kao jednom od Karahasanu najdražih pisaca od kojeg je učio i s kojim se „svađa“, Platonu kao još jednom od uzora i „prijatelja“, te o ljubavi kao jednoj od velikih tema u Karahasanovom opusu i istinskoj temeljnoj sili.

U izabranim djelima Dževada Karahasana koje je objavio Connectum su: „Šahrijarov prsten“, „Istočni diwan“, „Što pepeo priča“, „Sara i Serafina“, „Noćno vijeće“, „Knjiga vrtova/ O jeziku i strahu“, „Dnevnik selidbe“, „Kuća za umorne“, „Izvještaji iz tamnog vilajeta“ i „Kraljevske legende“.

Dževad Karahasan, u razgovoru s Matijom Bošnjakom, najavio je za ubuduće iz njegovog pera zbirku eseja „Knjiga o šutnji“ i roman koji će najvjerovatnije nositi naziv  „Uvod u lebdenje“.

Promocija Karahasanovih izabranih djela u deset knjiga održana je u prepunoj sali Vijećnice.

Dževad Karahasan rođen je u Duvnu 1953. godine. Studij komparativne književnosti i teatrologije sudbinski ga dovodi u Sarajevo, dok doktorsku disertaciju brani u Zagrebu.

Član je Akademije nauka Bosne i Hercegovine i Njemačke akademije za jezik i književnost.

U biografiji Dževada Karahasana, velikog ljubitelja i dramske književnosti, također je dugogodišnji rad u pozorištu.

Dobitnik je mnogobrjnih nagrada i priznanja u regioalnom i evropskom kulturnom prostoru.

Nominovan je dva puta za Nobelovu nagradu.

(Vijesti.ba)

Ovom prilikom upućujemo Hajra i ja srdačne čestitke prof. Dževadu Karahsanu za nastavak plodnog književnog stvaralaštva uz nadu da će uskor postati Nobelovac.

Ovdje je kratko sjećanje susrete sa Dževadom Karahasanom, te interview koji sam napravio s njim prije sedam godina, ali ne na književne, nego na tada i sada goruću političku temu.

U POVODU PRIKAZA SABRANIH DJELA DŽEVADA KRAHASANA, ČESTITKA UZ SJEĆANJE NA NAŠE SUSRETE

Sinoć je u Vijećnici u Sarjevu priređen prikaz sabranih djela književnika prof. dr. Dževada Karahasana.

Na N1 TV pred sinoć pred ponoć gledali smo interview s prof. Karahasanom, upriličen tim povodom.

Imalo se zaista šta čuti, i kao uvijek – učiti. Voditelj je postavljao umjesna i pametna pitanja, uslijedili su jedan za drugim filosofski odgovori Karahasana, OBJAŠNEJNJA svakom razumljiva. Karahasan je odličan sugovornik, nema teme o kojoj on ne može kao profesor, doktor, književnik i čovjek iz naroda govoriti. Nema sugovornika kojeg Karahasan ne poštuje.

Naša radost u povodu izlaska sabranih djela Dževada Krahasana je veća jer je prof. Karahasan i naš kućni prijatelj.

Poznajemo se dugo, od prije rata.

Dolazio je u Varcar sa književnikom Ivanom Lovrenovićem kada je Ličanin igrao Lovrenovićevu monodramu o fra Ivanu Frani Jukiću na pozornici tadašnjeg Spomen-doma ZAVNOBiH-a.

Poslije predstave, ostalo se do kasno uz ugodni razgovor i druženje u vrlo ugodnoj atmosferi, kojem smo prisustvovali Hajra i ja. U neko doba, zapjevalo se, pjevala je i Hajra, a Karahasan, kao i Lovrenović, sevdalije i meraklije, bili su oduševljeni Hajrinim sevdalinkama. Karahasan je tada rekao:

 

“Hajro, dođi u Sarajevo, pa ćemo od tebe napraviti opersku pjevačicu!”

Sjećam se dragocjene pomoći prof. Karahasana koju mi je pružio kao novinaru izbjeglici u Njemačkoj.

Kada sam pokrenuo tjednik “Eurobosnu” u Frankfurtu u proljeće 1993., Karahasan je postao jedan od najvažnijih suradnika, uz Ivana Lovrenovića, Midhata Ajanovića, Milu Stojića, Dubravka Lovrenovića, Stojana Cerovića, Mahira Sokoliju, Nasera Čustovića, Jelenu Lovrić, Marinka Čulića, Fahrudina Džapu, Nijaza Hamzu, Arifa Mesihovića, Tihomira Lozu, Širaza Muftića, Zekerijaha Smaijića, Budu Vukobrata, Draganu Tomašević…

Karahasan nikada nije tražio honorar.

Isto je bilo i kada sam izdavao moj vlastiti dvoheftani magazin na bosanskom jeziku “Most.”

U pripremi koncepcije “Mosta” učestvovali su Midhat Ajanović, Dževad Karahasan, Dragana Tomašević koje smo ugostii u našem stanu Hanau. Kad god bi se kasnije čuli i vidjeli, Karahasan je hvalio Hajrin burek…

Posljedni put smo se sreli u restoranu “Mlin” nadomak Bihaća kada je nastao ovaj interview. Bilo je to prije nepunih sedam godina.

 

Uz čestitke povodom izlaska sabranih djela ovog velikog, mnogi tvrde najvećeg živućeg BH-književnika i jednog od najvećih europskih pisca, nadajmo se i Nobelovca, uz želje za nastavkom plodnog književnog stvaralaštva prof. dr. Dževada Karahasna, objavljujem  i ovdje interview koji sam tom prilikom napravio sa prof. dr. Karahasanom.

Tokom susreta bilo je dotakli smo se mnogih tema, Karahasovih knjiga, ali interview nije na temu književnosti, već na – i tada i sada goruću političku i životnu temu.

Prof. dr. Dževad KARAHASAN, književnik

DAYTON JE PODVALA I ZLOČIN

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4scOP2Cz090

Tako godinama. Kad god stigni u Bosnu, pa iz Cazina nagni ka Varcaru, pa projdi  Mjestašce na cesti Pokoj, s desne strne ceste je slastčarna. Malo je izmaknuta od prometnice, pa moraš na vakat početi kriviti vrat i pogledati na desno, ako hoćeš da se slasti po izboru kolačima. Jedini koji nam nisu po volji su čupavci. Podsjećaju nas na Ruse i znate već na koga.

U ovoj slastičarnici, ko god te služi, srdačan je i zahvalan, posluga je poslovna, ispunjava svaku želju mušteriji. Ako se mušterija voli i našaliti, šala se prima bez hatora.

Hurmašice su predzadnje u našim željama, a na kraju – bosanske gurabije, ko biber po pilavu. Ne mere proći bez njih.

Dok ljubazna vlasnica slastičarne pažljivo reda slastice u kutiju (moraš odmah na početku reći koliko kolača želiš, kako bi prodavačica odabrala kutiju po mjeri..) Hajra i ja prlazimo očima po izooženim kolačima.

U kraju izloga ugledah gurabije, na starom mjestu.

..Ove nisu ni nalik onim ričkim, pogovo onoj što bi je pripremala đahkad moja rahmetli Bebe. Ove su žute i mehke, više liče na kukuruzu, i bojom i veličinom, ali nisu tako tvrde, nećeš puno mašiti, ako kažeš da liče na lutmu.

U Rici je običaj ispći gurabiju i odnijeti je na babine, na sunetluk, a baška su sprmane za regrute koji su odlazili u vojsku, u neki dalek kraj. Bosanske gurabije su moreš reći bile trajni kolač. Mogla je gurbija koja je darivana porodilji, dočekati i sunetluk njenog dječačića kurlehana, a da se ne obatali, ako je već nije  “odnila” nekome. Mogla je gurabija dočekati i odluženje po vojničkog roka, a da se ne užegne kada je već stari vojnik (kvrga) dohavati sa dna onog svog drvenog vojničkog sanduka kojeg je prtio još u Rici pri polasku u Armiju.

Moj izbjeglički život liči na bosansku gurabiju. Ne po slatkoći, ni po užeglosti, neg, nako, između. Ta ne obigram li ja haman pola dunjajluka, pa se vratim tamo odakle sam pošo, a ne znam jesam li pošo il sam došo.

Bosanske gurabije su obično bile obično mahalski putnici, u Rici su skuhane i spečene, mogle su obigrati i Gornju i Donju Mahalu, otići Uspolje, ili Uzriku, stići čak u Zavakuf, biti darivane za nekoliko radosnih prilika, od kuće do kuće, iz ruke u ruku, pa se vratiti u Riku baš onoj żeni koja ih je ispekla i nekom poklonila, a gurabija, kao draga i jedina hedija, obigrala tolike kuće, obveselila toliku čeljad, pa se nepojedena vratila odkle je i krenula. Tako smo se šalili o gurabijama hodalicama, ponekd bi ih i jeli. Tvrde ko kamen, ali drage i ukusne, topile bi se u ustima.

Danas je takvih grabija malo.

Rika je postala Rijeka,  Ričanini se rasuli ko rakova djeca, postali Amerikanci, Nijemci, Šveđani… Kome do Rike, kome do gurabija u ovom modernom vremenu. I, ko bi se još zahmetio oko gurabija, kad ih ionako nemaš kome poniti kad mu pojdeš u pohode. Kome, kad je Rika pusta!

Iako znam, vidim ih očima, eno ih đe i uvijek, na mjestu u ćošku izloga, eno se žute, mame, da gurabija ima u slastičarnici u kojoj se namirujemo, pitam ljubaznu prodavačicu, ima li gurabija, a gledam u njih.

“Ima!” Pkaže,  a Bog zna da mi se u sebi podsmihava, biva, ćorav kod očiju, tolke godine na plećima a ne zna kako izglidaju gurabije. Al, ne ibreti se, nije to njen poslovni stil.

“Evo, ovo su. Koliko će te?”

I gurabije su po marku, kao osali kolači.

Dok mi prodavačica dodaje gurabiju, da je vidim i opipam, rekoh joj uz osmjeh, da ne bi hatorila:

“Bogme, reko bi insan da je to kukuruza, ili lutma . Hem žuta, hem mehka ko duša! Deder, zamotaj nam tri četiri, plaho su fine.”

Dok ona smireno i uz osmjeh (ne hatori mi) reda trokutaste komade gurabije u našu kutiju, ne dade mi đavo odšutjeti:

“Moliću lijpo, kakva je to bosanska gurabija kad s njom ne mereš nekom razbiti glavu!”

Nasmijasmo se, platismo, i uz ono “Dođite nam opet!” na vrat. Rastadosmo se. Vlasnica slastičerne, otkuca nešto na onoj mašinici za račune, strpa pare u ladicu, zavrnu rukave i ode u kuhinju. Manjka joj, zar, gurabija u prodavnnici… ( i ove su ipak nalik bosanskim, dugovječne su, dureće, ne moraš hititi pojesti ih…)

Mi put pod noge. Safet, Zajim, Meho, Zehra, pjevaju nam iz dženeta dok mi jezdimo pokraj Une, uz Ripač, priko Mednog Polja, Bravska, popjevajucći uz dženetske pivače. Njzad, ukaza se Varcar, Baklava i khva kod zeta Jusufa, dobrodošlica, eglen o zdravlju, svemu i svačemu.

Tu me zateče vijest kako je moj brat, ne pitajući nikog, pa ni mene, posjekao staru krušku jeribasmu koja je sto godina rasla, u vrh bašče cvala, beharala i rađala na didovini. Mašio se sikire, pa  ne pitajući nikog, pa ni mene, sada najstarijeg Halilovića, ko ni do sad, posjeko krušku kao što je već posjeko sve što mu je pod sikiru  došlo.

Brat ko brat, zaslužio je gurabiju, al ne ovakvu kakvu kupih nadomak Bihaća, mekahnu ko lutma,  nego onu starinsku, ričku, kojom se glava može razbiti.

Dragi profesore Boyle, 

Hvala vam mnogo za primjerak Vaše knjige. Knjiga sigurno predstavlja pravni i politički presedan koji ste u svojstvu zastupnika naše države postigli na Svjetskom sudu pravde u Haagu kao vrlo važan dio borbe bosanskog naroda za slobodu.

Posljednja izjava Suda je dokazala ono što smo mi znali od samog početka da je Jugoslavija suučesnik zločina genocida.

Želio bih izraziti moju zahvalnost za Vaš veličanstveni napor koji ste uložili u sveopću borbu za pravdu u ovom svijetu i garantiram Vam da ćemo, ja osobno, kao i bosanski narod, uvijek poštovati sve što ste učinili i još uvijek činite za nas.

Vrlo sam zadovoljan da mogu čuti da mi uvijek možemo računati na Vašu dobru volju i visoko cijenjene sposobnosti.

Molim Vas primite izraze moga visokog uvažavanja.

Sarajevo, 16. Juna 1996.           Iskreno, Alija Izetbegović s.r.

U praksi, ni traga iskrenosti, poštovnju, priznanju velikom borcu za slobodu Bosanaca i Bosne, Francisu A. Boyleu jer je i Alija Izetbegović jedno mislio drugo govorio, a treće – sasvim suprotno radio. Takav licemjerni pogani posao nastavili su Sulejman Tihić, Bakir Izetbegović i SDA bratija uz pomoć hodža i hodžusija, mislitelja iz akademske zajednice, korumpiranih medija i bez protivljenja javnosti. 

SDA je prigrabila kao svoje najbolje i najpouzdanije partnere i koalicione saveznike najveće dušmane države Republike Bosne i Hercegovine i njenih građana i naroda, a najveće njene borce, među njima američko-bosanskog državljnina, prof. dr. Francisa A. Boylea. Profesora Boylea je Predsjedništvo RBiH ovlastilo da argumentira i podnese Tužbu protiv Srbije i Crne Gore za agresiju i genocid i po toj Tužbi zastupa RBiH na Svjetskom sudu pravde. Prof. Boyle je taj povijesno važan pravni posao kao svjetski stručnjak međunarodnog prava obavio briljanto. Isposlovao je dva sudska naloga kojim se izričito zahtjev od Srbije i Crne Gore da odmah obustave sve genocidne radnje prema džavljanima Republike Bosne i Hercegovine. Ti nalozi su bili pravna osnova za Presudu Svjetskog suda pravde iz 2007. po kojoj je RS proglašena krivom za genocid, a Srbija odgovornom što ga nije spriječila.

Za nagradu za svoj pravnički posao koji je radio besplatno, kao važan borac u borbi za slobodu bosanskog naroda, prof. Francis A. Boyle proglašen je bosanskim državljaninom. Pasoš Republike Bosne i Hercegovine uručen mu je na svečanosti u Predsjedništvu.  Kao savjetnik bosanske Vlade, prof. Boyle je učestvovao u svim važnim pregovorima o budućnosti naše države i nas samih. Dao je ogroman doprinos u sprečavanju podjele zemlje na tri državice po Vence-Owenovom planu i Owen-Stoltenbergovom planu iza kojih je stajala Amerika Odvraćao je, ali nije mogao odvratiti Aliji Izetbegovića od potpisivanja daytonskog Mirovnog sporazuma. Bio je žestoki protivnik usvajanju Haysovih “reformi” ilegalnog dajtonskog ustava poznatom pod nazivom “Aprilski paket” koji je predviđao cimentiranje genocidne RS i otvarao mogućnost njenoga osamostaljenja i pripajanja Srbiji. Doduše, Dodik se ponaša kao da je taj plan usvojen. On je postao gospodar daytonske BiH i naših sudbina. Svaki dan izjavljuje da je RS država. Na mitingu podrške Vučiću izjavio je da će zaustaviti put BiH u NATO, kao što je spriječio priznanje Kosova od strane BiH. SSND je rukom Nebojše Radmanovića potpisao doumkente kojim se otvara put kao NATO-u, ali Dodik je osokoljenim upsjehom koji je postigao uz pomoć Harisa Siljadžića na sprečavanju reforme policije BiH po europskim stadardima, mada je stavio svoj potpis pristanka na tu reformu. Od tada je Dodik naouružava svoju miliciju, a u toku je naouružavanje i rezervnog sastava. Prijeti izlaskom na entitesku granicu RS, uvježbava kako. Ništa od toga ne bi bio da se slušalo prof. Bolyea.

“Na konferenciji za novinare u Ženevi javno sam izjavio da je plan Owen-Stoltenberga bio gori od Hitlerovog münchenskog pakta iz 1938. godine. Nemački mediji su tada zatražili od njemačkog Ministarstva vanjskih poslova odgovor na moj komentar. Njemačko ministarstvo vanjskih poslova saopćilo je da se slažu sa mnom. Ekipa Nemačke TV stanice me je onda pitala kakav je bio moj odgovor na Komentar nemačkog ministarstva vanjskih poslova koji se slaže sa mnom da je Owen-Stoltenberg Plan bio gori od Hitlerovog Münchenskog pakta iz 1938. Rekao sam im: „Trebali bi znati. Oni su stručnjaci! ”  (Münchenski sporazum je ugovor s kojim je riješena Sudetska kriza u korist Hitlera. Ugovor je potpisan u Münchenu 30. septembra 1938. između zapadnih sila i Njemačke. Hitler je okupirao Austriju, a zatim pokušao na isti način aneksirati i češke Sudete, pod izgovorom da i tamo žive Nijemci i da ih dijeli vještačka granica. Češka je bila spremna oružano braniti svoju teritoriju, ali su je izdale svjetske sile Engleska i Francuska koje su sporazumom Münchenu priznale Njemačkoj pravo na Sudete.)

HTIO SAM U IME RBIH TUŽITI SVJETSKOM SUDU VELIKU BRIZNAJU I  ZA GENOCID, ALI NIJE MI DOZVOLJENO

Francis A. Boyle: “Bosnians should know that the Lawyer for U.S. President John F. Kennedy agreed to go into the World Court with me to  argue our Genocide Case against Britain free of charge. The story is in my book. RIP. Fab.”

(Prijevod: Bosanci bi trebali znati da se advokat američkog predsjednika Johna F. Kennedya složio da ide sa mnom na Svjetski sud besplatno u našem slučaju optužbe za genocid protiv Britanije. Priča o tome je u mojoj knjizi. POČIVAJ U MIRU! Fab.)

Prof Boyle: I could have lifted the Arms Embargo at the World Court in the lawsuit against Britain. That is why Izetbegovic gave me the authority to sue Britain at my request. My World Court Papers against Britain are in my new book for everyone to read.

Prijevod: “Da, mogao sam da podignem Embargo oružja na Svjetskom sudu Tužbom protiv Britanije. Zato mi je na moj zahtjev Izetbegović dao ovlasti da tužim Britaniju na Svjetskom sudu pravde.  Dokumenti protiv Britanije koje sam predao Svjetskom sudu nalaze se u mojoj novoj knjizi za svakoga.”

Britanci su nakon objave o Tužbi, pritisnuli i ucijenili Izetbegovića isporukom humanitarne pomoći; prof. Boyla su pokušali diskreditirati optužnom da je Irac, pa je Izetbegović podlegao ucjenama, što je također jedan oblik genocida. Inače, u izgladnjivanju drugih, potčinjenih, Englezi su se izvježbali. Počinili su genocid u Irskoj od 1845. do 1849. kada je od gladi umrlo oko 750.000 stanovnika zbog neravnomjerne raspodjele krompira od strane engleskih zemljopsjednika, kao osnovne prehrambene namirnice  stanovništva Irske. 

SVJETSKE SILE OD POČETKA SU SABOTIRALE NAŠU TUŽBU JER SU ZNALE DA BIH JE DOBIO, DA NIKAD NE BIH PRISTAO NA PODJELU DRŽAVE…  CARLA DEL PONTE ME JE IPAK POSLUŠAA I OPTUŽILA MILOŠEVIĆA ZA GENOCID

Prof. Boyle: “I have been saying this all along for many years the Great Powers sabotaged the World Court lawsuit for genocide against both Serbia and Montenegro. That is why I was fired. They knew full well I would have won those cases for RBIH.  They also knew that so long as I was the Lawyer for RBIH, I would never let them carve up RBIH. So I was fired. Even the Americans demanded I be fired, and at that point, RBIH complied. The rest has just been a long history of cover-ups and a whitewash and sabotage at both the World Court and the ICTY by almost everyone involved. And that is exactly why they fired me. They knew full well I would have won our case for genocide against Serbia and Montenegro. Ditto if they had let me sue Croatia.” 

Despite my repeated requests, I never got authority from the RBIH Government to sue Croatia at the World Court for genocide. Though I did stop Tudjman from carving us up at Owen-Stoltenberg and stealing Neum from us and rendering us landlocked. He even publicly attacked me personally there. Proud of that! Got his attention!

But in fairness, at my request, Carla Del Ponte did indict Milosevic for every crime in the ICTY Statute, including two counts of genocide: one count for Bosnia in general and the second count for Srebrenica in particular.

The whole rotten story is documented in my new book. At least we need to establish the historical record here about what happened so that people can understand it.fab.

Prijevod:  Već dugo govorim da su velike sile sabotirale Tužbu (RBiH) na  Svjetskom sudu pravde za genocid protiv Srbije i Crne Gore. Zato sam i dobio otkaz. Sasvim su dobro znale da bih dobio te slučajeve za RBIH. Takođe su znale da dok god sam ja advokat za RBiH, nikada im ne bih dozvolio da podijele RBIH. Zato sam dobio otkaz. Čak su i Amerikanci tražili da budem otpušten, i u tom trenutku RBiH je to prihvatila. Ostatak priče je – samo duga povijest zataškavanja i sabotaže i na Svjetskom sudu i na MKSJ-u od strane gotovo svih uključenih. Isto bi se dogdilo da mi je dopušteno da tužim Hrvatsku.

Uprkos mojim ponovljenim zahtjevima, nikada nisam dobio ovlaštenje od Vlade RBiH da tužim Hrvatsku pred Svjetskim sudom za genocid. Iako sam zaustavio Tuđmana da nas raskomada sa Owen-Stoltenbergvim planom, ukrade nam Neum  učini da nas nema. On me je čak i javno napao. Ponosan sam na to! Privukao sam njegovu pažnju!

Ali, pošteno govoreći, Carla Del Ponte je na moj zahtjev optužila Miloševića za sve zločine navedene u Statuta MKSJ-a, uključujući i dvije tačke za genocid: jedna se odnosi na Bosnu uopće, a druga na Srebrenicu.

Cijela ta truhla priča je dokumentovana u mojoj novoj knjizi. Mi barem trebamo napraviti historijski zapis o tome šta se dodogdilo tako da ljudi mogu da shvate.

Prof. Boyle je više puta ustvrdio da udaljen sa Svjetskog suda na izričit zahtjev Amerikanaca.

U konkurenciji sa književnikom Orhanom Pamukom i drugima visokim ličnostima, TV “Hayat” proglasio je prof. Boylea za ličnost godine. Ali, budući da SDA nikada nije odustala od svojih tajnih namjera podjele države, nagrađivanja četnika državom RS nakon genocida, pristajanjem na postojanje zločinačke Herceg Bosne, te kako je svim silama radila na umajivanju značaja spora RBiH protiv SCG na Svjetskom sudu, pa kako je svim raspoloživim sredstvima radila na nestanku naše države, a čemu se protivio prof. Boyle, SDA ga je izbacila iz sudskog procesa na Svjetskom sudu. Pritisci velikih sila su dobro došli kao izgovor za to. Mada je radio besplatno (pro bono, mukte) SDA ga je opanjkala da je zloupotrijebio džavni novac RBiH (sic!) pa se prof. Boyle mora pravdati. Njegovo mjesto preuzeli su Muhamed Šaćirbegović, Kasim Trnka, Van Biessen, i konačno Sakib Softić, koji će u povijesti države Bosne i Hercegovine i svjetske pravne prakse ostati zapisan kao osoba pogodna manipuliranju, pravnik sa oskudnim pravničkim znanjem i iskustvom i, konačno, veliki saboter prava i pravde i to za veliki novac.

Na svakom sudu u svijetu svjedočenje se tretira kao ključni dokaz za svaku tačku optužbe ili obrane. Sakib Softić je po naredbi vrha SDA uskratio pravo pojavljivanja svjedocima genocida na Svjteskog sudu pravde. Nije isto pokazati neki papir sudijama, ili sud suočiti sa svjedočenjem preživjele žrtve četničke agresije i genocida. Uzaludna su bila pravna objašnjenja prof. Boylea da se ni po koju cijenu ne usvaja Daytonski sporazum koji znači disoluciju i nestanak države RBiH. Objašnjavao je Aliji Izetbegoviću da se tim Sporazumom ukida Republika Bosna i Hercegovina i to već u prvom paragrafu, a ustupa mjesto Republici Srpskoj. Protivio se kapitulaciji RBiH u Daytonu jer Armija RBiH nije bila poražena. Držala je 30 posto državne teritorije i bila dovoljno jaka da oslobodi čitavu zemlju. Ukazivao je na činjenicu da daytonski Sporazum tretira oba entieteta kao zasbne suverene države: “RBiH nije moguće naći nigdje u ovom Sporazumu,” upozoravao je prof, Boyle “kolegu” pravnika Aliju Izetbegovića, ali džaba. “RS über alles!”

CLINTON ŽRTVUJE SREBRENICU, ŽEPU I GORAŽDE, A SDA MU LIŽE – ČIZME

Isječak iz jednog e-maila koji mi je poslao prof. Byle: “Holbrooke has publicly stated that he was instructed by his Boss Clinton to sacrifice Zepa and Srebrenica and Gorazde— It is in his Memoirs too. This is a total disgrace. Obviously, SDA has decided to bootlick Clinton. Yes, I argued to the World Court that Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Jews were also victims of the Serb Genocide. The new SDA lawyers dropped those two arguments, among many others. Fab  

Prijevod: Holbrooke je javno obznanio da je bio instruiran od svog šefa Billa Clintona da žrtvuje Žepu, Srebrenicu i Goražde. To je također zapisano u njegovim memoarima.  To je potpuna sramota.  Očigledno, SDA je odlučila lizati Clintonove čizme. Da, trvrdio sam na Svjetskom sudu pravde da su bosanski Hrvati i Jevreji žrtve srpskog genocida. Novi SDA advokati odbacili su, među ostalim, i ta dva argumenta. Fab”  * Iz Tužbe je izbačena tačka o planskom, genocidnom silovanju 40.000 žena, zatim dio optužnice za agresiju, izuzeta je Crna Gora iz Tužbe, kasnije nagrađena Sutorinom za svoje učešće u genocidu!

(Više o svemu ovom i još mnogo čemu drugom manje poznatom o veleizdaji generiranoj u vrhovima SDA-IZ, odobrenoju UN, EU, USA i krvavo sprovedenoj na terenu…, u knjizi prof. Boylea koja uskoro izlazi iz tiska u Bosni na engleskom jeziku. Da bi knjiga ugledala svjetlo dana, sadaku za njeno štampanje sakupljali su bosanski patrioti na čelu sa ing. Tarikom Delićem. SDA-IZ u međuvremenu zatupljuju Bošnjake po džamijama, na velikim džennazama, skupnim masovnim iftarima, oprostom genocida i urbicida, ratne odštete…)

Cinton je počasni i uzvišeni gost na komemoracijama u Srebrenici. Za desetu godišnjicu žrtvovanja Srebrenice i Žepe, on osobno i uz illakanje Mustafe Cerića koji inače poriče genocid i to baš nad kaburima i Clintonvih žrtava i “Elham” Alije Izetbegovića, otvara Memorijalni centar u Potočarima. O dvadesetoj godišnjci lije lažne krokodilske suze i biva (ponovo) zakićen Cvijetom Srebrenice, kao i četnički vojvoda Vučić. Dvojac SDA-IZ manipulira javnošću, obmanjuje je i laže. Ponižava mrtve i žive žrtve agresije i genocida UZP-ova, pa žrtve mire sa genocidnom RS, nestankom svoje države (samo da ne bude rata!) i poslušno kite svoje najveće dušmane najvećim priznanjem Srebrenice  

Prof Boyle: Bolesno je i ludo odati počast Clintonu nakon onoga što je učinio u Srebrenici. Ali svi ti koji to čine su svi u svakom slučaju iz SDA. (This is sick and demented honoring Clinton after what he did at Srebrenica. But these people are all SDA anyway.)

Uzgred, Slobodna Bosna objavljuje jedan tekst 24. aprila 2019. koji je zasnovan na svjedočenju jendog američkog diplomate koji tvrdi da je Karadžić bio spreman da se preda Tribunalu još 1995. U tom svjedočenju je stoji i ovaj vrlo zanimljiv pasus.

William Steubner: Clintonova administracija izvršila izbornu prevaru u BiH

“Ta se izborna prevara temelji na insistiranju Washingtona da se izbori u BiH održe prerano, piše Steubner, do septembra 1996. Motiv je bio ispunjenje Clintonovog obećanja američkim glasačima da će vratiti 20 hiljada američkih vojnika koji su u tu zemlju poslati kako bi osigurali implementaciju Daytonskog sporazuma koji su godinu ranije potpisali Slobodan Milošević, Franjo Tuđman i Alija Izetbegović.” 

Izbori nisu mogli biti održani prije povratka svoh na svoje, kako je bilo dogovoreno. Anenx VII o povratku izbjeglica svih na svoje ni do danas nije, niti će ikad biti proveden, što je olakšalo put  cimentiranja RS, odnosno statusa quo nakon genocida. Stanje je danas još gore jer se mnogi povratnici iseljavaju RS, a i ostalih dijelova zemlje zbog mizernih živonih uvjeta i beznađa, nesigurne budućnosti. Zato treba ponovno zakititi Clintona, uz Cvijet Srebrenice, treba mu na junačke grudi zakačiti i državni orden.

MOLIO SAM VIŠE PUTA SDA DA MI DOPUSTI DA NA SVJETSKOM SUDU PRAVDE POKUŠAM SPRIJEČITI MASAKR U SREBRENICI, ALI UZALUD… ČETIRI MUSLISMANSKE VLADE U SVIJETU SU TAKOĐER OSTALE GLUHE NA TE ZAHJEVE

Prof. Boyle: Uskoro istina o izdaji RBiH, Srebrenice i svih građana u knjizi koja izazi uskoro u Bosni

Prof Boyle, u jednom e-mailu 2. aprila 2016. tvrdi:  “Imao sam već pripremljene dokumente da se vratim u Svjetski sud i pokušam spriječiti masakr u Srebrenici. Neprestano sam ih molio (SDA vodstvo, op. I.H.) da mi to dopuste. Oni su ignorisali moje molbe. Kada sam shvatio da su moje molbe beznadežne, kontaktirao sam četiri muslimanske vlade u svijetu s kojima sam u prošlosti radio, tražeći da mi dopuste da na Svjetskom sudu spriječim masakr u Srebrenici. Ni oni nisu odgovorili. Masakr se dogodio. Fab.”

“I had the papers allready drafted to go back to the World Court to try to prevent the Srebrenica Massacre. I repeatedly pleaded with them to let me do it. They ignored my pleas. When I realized they were hopeless, I then contacted four  Muslim governments that I had worked with in the past asking them to let me go to the World Court to prevent the Srebrenica Massacre. They did not respond either. The Massacre happened. Fab.”

Clinton i Izetbegović uz osmjehe zajedničkom zločinačkim dodogovorom o žrtvovanju Srebrenice; prof. Boyle nije mogao odvratiti Izetbegovića od tog krvavog posla. Kada je prof. Boyle informiran da su žrtve genocida zakitile Vučića u Srebrenici, nije mogao doći sebi. Bio je bijesan kao ris!

U Daytonu je Alija Izetbegović utabao put nestanku RBiH. Po svjedočenju tadašnjeg člana Predsjedništva RBiH Stjepana Kljujića, A. Izetbegović nije predstavljao državu RBiH jer mu je bio davno istekao mandat u Predsjedništvu, niti je kao običan građanin smio pogaziti Ustav RBiH i priznati okupaciju čak i jednog kvadratnog centimetra njene teritorije. Zato je valjda slavaljen kao Mesija, iako lažni musliman, munafik i pučista u u Islamskoj zajednici i državi. Tuđman i Milošević su trebali baš takvog kako bi s njim raskomadali Bosnu.

Veleizdajničkim stopama nastavio je prvo Sulejman Tihić koji nije dozvolio prof. Boyleu da na Svjetskom sudu ukine genocidnu RS. Tihić je od prof. Boylea prvo tražio, pa prihvatio, a onda odbacio savjet da ni pokoju cijenu ne usvaja Aprilski paket ustavnih promjena. Džaba je bilo što su prof. Boyela podržali Šaćirbegović i još neki visoki dužnosnici SDA.  Prof.  Boyle je savjetovao Tihića da SDA ne prihvata Aprilski  paket Haystovih “ustavnih reformi” jer su one utemeljene na politici USA State departmenta na jačanju RS kako bi se jednoga dana osmostalila i pripojila Srbiji, na čemu Dodik neometano radi dugo godina, a danas bez ikakvog uvijanja. Tihić je odbacio pravne savjete prof. Boylea, Aprilski paket je propao, ali njegov nasljednik Bakir Izetbegović upravo izjavljuje kako je sazrelo vrijeme da taj paket usvoji. Koliko je Americi stalo do tih “reformi” – vidi se i po tome što je nakon fijaska Aprilskog paketa u Paralamntu, američki Ambasador  javno izjavio da se taj Paket mora usvojiti. (Ko se sjeća McEllahnya! Ambasadori dolaze i prolaze, SDA ih sluša bez pogovora, a RS sve jača i sve bliža samostalnosti.) Dodik se našao na crnoj američkoj listi. Međutim, sama činjenica da je on na vlast došao baš zahvaljujući Americi, te da se uz američku, SDA i HDZ pomoć popeo na najvišu funkciju države koju ne prizna, te da svakodnevno govori o otcjepljenju, zvecka oružjem, ne poštuje i krši daytonski ilegalni ustav, slobodno putuje po Europi, ide kod Pape. Sve to govori o tome da je stavljanje Dodika na američku crnu listu samo kamuflaža za konačni nestanak naše države kako bi se, po davnom predviđanju prof. Boyla, RS pripojila Srbiji i namirila za gubitak Kosova. To je cilj američke politike s kojom je suglasna EU. On je ojačao, naoružao i opremio genocidnu miliciju RS, sada djeli oružje rezervnom sastavu milicije, što je opasno zveckanje oružjem na putu osamostaljenja RS. Uostalom, i bez oružja poslije rata, Dodik je ostvario sve svoje ciljeve. On traži nemoguće, a dobije ono što mu treba. Ucjenjuje i prijeti. SDA ga ne želi zaustaviti, opozicija se bori samo za vlast, svi bi je rado podijeli sa Dodikom kao i B. Izetbegović.

Prof. Boyle i NKRBiH su pripremili deklaraciju o izdvjanju Srebrenice iz genocidne RS. Odluka o izdvajanju bi bila usvojena, da taj legalni akt nisu spriječili najviši predstavnici dvojca IZ-SDA.  Danas je načelnik Srebrenice četnik, pa sada nema ni govora o izdvajanju. Dodik poriče državu BiH kojoj je peredsjednik, poriče genocid, a s njim i svi koji priznaju opstanak genocidne RS. Na njihovom čelu su USA, EU, UN,  SDA, IZ, akademska zajednica, novinari, ceribaša Valentin Inzko, visoki predstavnik i izvršitelj plana nestanka RBiH koji se pravi blesav, pa ne zna zbog čega Dodik formira i naoružava zločnačku genocidnu miliciju.

“Četiri sahata su vozili od Sarajeva do Srebrenice da bi odbornike odvratili od izdvajanja Srebrenice iz genocidne RS” kaže prof. Boyle za one SA-IZ kadrove koji su zaustvili izdvajanje Srebrenice iz RS. Nema te naše žrtve koju SDA-IZ neće dati za RS i Srbiju, Herceg Bosnu i Hrvatsku.

Prof Boyle smatra da ne osnovu persude za genocoid Karadžiću, imamo pravo ukidanja genocidne RS, ako nikako drugačije, onda općinu po općinu, mjesnu zajednicu po mjesnu zajednicu… Ali takvo što Bakiru Izetbegoviću ne pada na pamet. Ta Boyle-ova izjava je dospjela čak i u daytonske medije, ali je uskoro potrpana izjavama mislitelja, prodanih SDA duša i čankoliza.

Nasljednik svoga oca Alije, sljedbenik Sulejmana Tihića na najvišem položaju u SDA i dejtonskoj državi, Bakir Izetbegović, nastavio je prljavi munafički posao prema državi i Bosancima također govoreći jedno, a radeći suprotno, gazeći sve norme domaćeg i međunadonog prava kako bi spasio Srbiju i Crnu Gru da ne budu osuđene za genocid, te kako bi sačuvao genocidnu RS za sva vremena. Zajedno sa Softićem, zatim agentom na Tribunalu Amirom Ahmićem, ta trojka je deset godina sabotirala pravni proces na prikupljanju dokaza o krivici Srbije i Crne Gore za genocid u Republici BiH.

Tvrdili su da postoje dokazi, zatim da je Softić legalan zastupnik na Svjetskom sudu u nastavku procesa po Tužbi RBiH protv Srbije i Crne Gore za agresiju i genocid. Obojica su znali da je tadašnji član Predsjedništva Mladen Ivanić pisao pismo Svjetskom sudu u kojem je  osporio Softićevu valjanost zastupanja naše države na tom Sudu. To pismo ne bi imalo nikakav značaj jer ga nije potpisalo tročlano Predsedništvo  nego samo jedan i to srpski član. Izetbegović je to znao, ali je lagao javnost.

Prof. Boyle je na vrijeme upozorio javnost da se radi o planskoj sabotaži dvojca Izetbegović-Softić. Sve do zadnjeg ternutka, nudio je svoju besplatnu pravnu pomoć kako bi Srbija i Crna Gora bile progla-šene krivom za agresiju i genocid, kako bi i dalje opstala genocidna RS i kako ne bi bila naplaćena velika suma ratne odštete.

Ali, Bakir Izetbegović nije ni tu stao. On nastavlja svoj prljavi posao na uništenju naše države. On je zabranio svaki kontakt bilo kojeg zvaničnika SDA sa prof. Boyleom tako da njegovi pravni savjeti ne bi mogli nauditi munafičkoj, drskoj i bezobraznoj upornosti Bakira Izetbegovića i SDA na uništenju naše države na račun velikosrpskog i velikohrvatskog projekta. Zadnji primjer je dogovoreni i zakazan interview novinara NAP Patrie Seada Omeragića sa prof. Boyleom.Prof. Boyle je grubo odbijen i tako je propuštena šansa da pravda bude zadovoljena i žrtve obeštećene. (Patriu uređuje Edina Latif, sad Radončićev, sad Izetbegovićev igrač, zavisno ko bolje plati. 

Ponudu prof. Boylea da besplatno savjetuje Komšića o tome kako spasiti državu, hinjski je prešutio, pa nakon četiri mjeseca čekanja, prof. Boyle nije dobio odgovor, osim što je išaretom poručio da mu je drađi i bolji Čeda Jovanović. U međuvremenu, i Komšić je postao jedan od trabanata B. Izetbegovića u koalicionom partnerstvu SDA-DF, pa tako i HDZ-SSND ne odričući se svog munafikluka, proturanje lažnih ideja o cjelovitoj državi, a radeći na stvaranju fildžan države na teritoriji od Stupa do Kozje ćuprije. Sabotiranjem pravnih savjeta prof. Boylea, SDA je potpuno ugrozila opstanak države načine uvijek lažući i obmanjujući javnost.

Profesora Boyla su ponizili i uvrijedili ne samo kao pravnog stručnjaka svjetskog glasa, nego kao i državljanina RBiH kojeg su počastili diplomatskim pasošem, kojeg je zaslužio, pa ga odbili produžiti. Boyleov diplomatski pasoš potpisao je lično Bakir Alispahić, a uručio mu ga Alija Izetbegović na svečanosti u Predsjedništvu.

“Pokušavao sam na sve moguće načine produžiti moj, makar i bio daytonski bosanski pasoš. Nakon višestrukih pokušaja i uporne šutnje bosanskih vlasti, nije mi preostalo ništa drugo nego da se predam,” kaže prof. Boyle.

Lično sam pozivao prof. Boyle u goste, u Varcar Vakuf. One se, međutim, zarekao da neće nogom kročiti u genocidnu  RS.

“Rado bih došao s bosanskim pasošem u Bosnu, u Sarajevo… Volio bih zaplivati u Jadranskom moru u Neumu,” kaže prof. Boyle.

Prof. Boyle je savjetom, kao i protivjnjem patriota na Bošnjalkom saboru, spriječio je usvajanje Owen-Stoltenbergov plana i spasio Neum od Tuđmanove  otimačine na koju je pristao Alija Izetbegović.

Valjda mu je baš zato kao i zbog svih  zasluga na spašavanju naše države – uskraćen i pasoš i ostala, ndajmo se za sada, neispunjena želja da zapliva u Jadranu, baš u Neumu.

Neum nije formalno, ali realno jeste hrvatski posjed, kao i Hercegovina, kao što je 49 posto državne teritorije u posjedu Srbije.

Da se slušalo prof. Franciska A. Boylea, ne bi tako bilo, imali bi Republiku BiH, snažnu Armiju RBIH, građansku vlast, ne bi nam Dodik bio predsjednik i ne bi je mogao rasturati u savezu sa SDA i HDZ uz pomoć Amerike, EU, Rusije…

Pa ipak, prof Boyle ne odustaje od borbe za, kako kaže, našu državu RBiH. U tome ga ne može obeshrabriti niko, ni USA, ni Rusija, ni EU, a pogotovo saboter Bakir Izetbegović. Ne mogu ga obeshrabriti ni korumpirani daytonski mediji, intele-ktualci koji ga nazivaju šarlatanom i jezuitom (sic!). Makar i bez bosanskog pasoša, prof. Francis A. Boyle smatra RBiH svojom domovinom; pravno je zastupao ne samo Muslimane – Bošnjake, nego i ugružene Srbe, Hrvate, Jevreje, građane… RBiH će postojati sve dok postoji njena stolica u UN-u tvrdi ugledni profesor doktor međunarodnog prava, veliki borac za Bosnu i slobodu Bosanaca. 

Prof. Boyle: JA SAM BOSANSKI GRAĐANIN, ALI MI JE USKRAĆENO PRAVO NA BOSANSKI PASOŠ

„Popunio sam sve bosansko-hercegovačke dokumente potrebne za sticanje državljanstva.  Dodkumenti su predati predsjedniku Aliji Izetbegoviću. On mi je dodijelio državljanstvo i uručio putovnicu u Predsjedništvu u Sarajevu.

Dvije godine sam posjedovao diplomatski pasoš RBIH koji jasno potvrđuje da sam građanin BiH.   

Pokušao sam obnoviti taj pasoš nakon isteka 1999. godine, ali SDA  mi je to pravo uskratila. Obnovio bih svoj RBIH pasoš makar bio i daytonski. Ah, dobro, šta mogu… Ali, oni odbijaju da mi daju novi pasoš. Pokušao sam mnogo puta i odustao sam. Poslaću vam dokumenta koja dokazuju da sam građanin BiH.”

Da se na kraju poslužim riječima Alije Izetbegovića upućenih prof. dr. Francisu A. Boyleu. Te mufaičke, lažne riječi, i sva sramota nanesena prof. Boyelu su i naša sramota jer je takav i naš odnos prema velikim našem prijatelju i borcu za pravo i pravdu i nas i naše države RBiH. 

Alija IZETBEGOVIĆ: “Želio bih izraziti moju zahvalnost za Vaš veličanstveni napor koji ste uložili u sveopću borbu u svijetu i garantiram Vam da ja osobno kao i bosanski narod ćemo uvijek poštovati sve što ste učinili i još uvijek činite za nas,” pisao je Alija Izetbegović profesoru Boyleu, a te Alijine riječi se savršeno uklapaju u ovu izreku velikoga Rumija:

Hazreti Džemalludin Rumi Masnevija

https://bs.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C5%BEelaludin_Rumi

Uoči odlaska u posjet Papi, Dodika je na njegov zahtjev primio Čovićev nadbiskup Vrhbosanski, preko kojega je vjerovatono i ugovorena posjeta Papi. Imaju se zbilja, i Nadbiskup, i Čović i Dodik pohvaliti stanjem katolika u Bosni, a posebno u onom dijelu pod okupacijom. Na prijemu bijaše malo razgovora i o tome, ali krivca ne spomenuše, biva ne znaju, valjda to zna dragi Bog, koji i nije zajednički, jer Srbi imaju svoga. Razgovaralo se i o povratu crkvene imovine, gradnji novih crkava, i na kraju, da se Vlasi ne dosjete, spomenut je Dodikov odlazak kod Pape. Prava trgovina – ja tebi ovo, ti meni ono. Onda su fino, Dodik i Puljić čestitali jedan drugom i vjernicima – predstojeće uskršnje blagdane koje  Dodik uveličava posjetom Papi, na radost Čovića, Puljića i Dodika. Svi su zaboravili sve optužbe i kletve kojma su Srbi, a posebno Dodik,  zasipali Vatikan

U Parizu je gorjela Katedrala Notre Dame, a Dodikov trbuhozborac, dokazani četnik sa Ozrena, nacista i fašista Rajko Vasić javno se veseli vatri koja gutala taj sakralni objekat. Vasić javno govori ono što fašista Dodik misli, osjeća i čemu se i sam veseli. Vasić je prije rata bio kominističko služinče (znam ga osobno!) jagmio se izvještavati sa kongresa SKBiH, brijao četničku bradu, ali sačuvao i osnažio svoju fašističku ćud. Nedavno je nekažnjeno obećao Bošnjacima novi genocid.

Bombaridiranje NATO-a u kojem je učestvovala i Francuska, inače dokazani srpski prijatelj, nije ni stoti dio kazne koju su zločinima i genocidom nad nevinim, urbicidom nad sakralnim i kulturno-povjesnim objektima zaslužili srpski fašisti i barbari; ne zaboravimo i hrvatske fašiste čak pod Hitlerovim zastavama, koji su činili teške zločine gdje god su to mogli, kao u Ahmićima, Stupnom Dolu…

Fašistička mržnja prema Bošnjacima buja. Nije li neki dan osvanuo kukasti krst na zidovima banjalučke Arnaudije koju su četnici srušili, kao i još preko hiljadu dvije stotine sakralnih i kulturno povjesnih objekata! Ustavni sud u kojem sjede SDA kadrovi Ćeman i Paravlićka presudio je da rušenje banjalučkih džamija nije djelo četnika. 

Sretanje Dodika s papom Franjom utanačio je jedan drugi, ni malo manji fašista od Dodika, njegov i SDA saveznik i partner Dragan Čović, inače ratni zločinac, poratni negator genocida i udruženih zločinačkih pothvata, glavni igrač u oživljavanju zločinačke Herceg Bosne i otvorenih planova pripajanju dijela BiH Hrvatskoj. To je po volji Dodiku, a nije mrsko ni Bakiru Izetbegoviću, koji je udarnički, stopama svoga pokojnog oca, pogurao srpsko-hravtski projekat osvajanja Bosne i Hercegovine sabotirajući pravo i pravdu na Svjetskom sudu.

Izetbegović se u ime svih Bošnjaka zaklinje u vječno postojanje RS. Uz SDA su izmanipulirane boračke organizacije, udruženja logoraša, žrtava genocida, narod zaslijepljen lažnim obećanjima, potkupljiv i lahkovjeran. Sada Izetbegović pušta probne balone u javnost o oživljavanju propalog Aprilskog paketa ustavnih promjena koje bi zauvijek cimentirale genocidnu RS.

Čović je već poljubio ruku Papi Vatikanu, bio važan čimbenik  u njegovu društvu prilokom posjete Sarajevu

Dodjeli ustaškog priznanja „Pečata Večernjeg lista“ nije se usprotivio ni papa Franjo, iako je iz viskoh crkvenih krugova upozoren iz kakvih mračnih i opasnih zločinačkih krugova to priznanje dolazi.

Prof. Francis A. Boyle

IS BOSNIA THE OND OF THE ROAD FOR THE UN?

(A lesson that must be learned!)

(Introduction) There have been many voices calling for the restructuring of the United Nations, particularly of the representation of the non-First World states within the General Assembly, and the operations of the Security Council consisting of the permanent five that largely utilize the UN for its own political and capital interests. The inept management of the conflicts in Bosnia by the UN has made those voices more vociferous, with some calling for the end of the United Nations. Francis Boyle is the Professor of International Law at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, served as the Legal Adviser to Bosnian President Alija Izetbegovic and Foreign Minister Haris Silajdzic during the Owen-Stoltenburg negotiations in Geneva, and represented the Bosnian Government at the international court of justice. He won two World Court Orders to Bosnia which the UN Security Council refused to enforce, due to the manipulations of Britain, Russia, France, and the US at the diplomatic table. In this recent interview, he outlines the background to the diplomatic negotiations in Bosnia, the corruption and amorality of the great powers, and how the greed and capital interest of the West, and its anti-Muslim actions will spell the end of the post-World War II political order.

Question: Initially the scenario existed where the international players, or the so-called great players, wanted to keep Yugoslavia intact, but when it became obvious that this wasn't going to be the case, the West introduced a number of conferences and plans; first, the International Conference on Yugoslavia at the Hague, the Vance-Owen Peace Plan, the Owen-Stoltenburg Plan, the Washington Plan, the Five-Nation Contact Group Plan. If these plans violated established Human Rights, Racial Discrimination, and Apartheid Conventions and are perceived to be illegal according to international law, why have they been poorly conceived and attempted to be implemented?

Prof. Boyle: The great powers have basically concluded that the Bosnians have lost the war, and of course, the reason the Bosnians lost the war was that the great powers at the Security Council imposed the arms embargo upon them. So when the signal was given by President Milosevic to attack Bosnia–and remember that he also took General Ratko Mladic who had destroyed Croatia and Vukovar, and put him in charge of the Bosnia operation–the Bosnian people were totally defenceless. So from the great power perspective, the Bosnians have lost the war and, as they see it, they need to work out some type of deal that will effectively recognize this. Hence, the creation of the plans and schemes that violate every known principle of international law.

When I was instructed by the Bosnian President Alija Izetbegovic to sue Britain in November 1993, I put out a statement at the UN announcing that the Owen-Stoltenburg Plan violated the Genocide, Racial Discrimination, and Apartheid Conventions–it clearly did. Anyone who knew anything at all about that plan would have understood that–and Cyrus Vance is an international lawyer, he should have known better. So any of the permanent members of the Security Council can be sued–and the Bosnian government is aware of this–for violating the Genocide Convention, the Racial Discrimination Convention and the Apartheid Convention. And I have no problems at all in suing all of them on the basis of these three conventions and I'm sure of winning those lawsuits. It's an open and shut case.

But the problem was that when President Izetbegovic instructed me to sue Britain, the Bosnians were threatened. The then Bosnian Foreign Minister Ljubijankic, who was later assassinated, was called in, basically threatened, and told that if the Bosnian government was to continue with the lawsuit, the humanitarian assistance that was being provided to the Bosnian people would be cut. They were pressured by the French, the Germans, and the Americans, as well as Owen and Stoltenburg, to drop the whole case. So that's the problem, where the great powers of Europe threaten to cut off humanitarian assistance to civilians–and the Bosnian people can only survive because of food brought in by the world community. When Bosnia goes to court to sort out its rights, which it has a perfect right to do, the so-called protecting powers threaten starvation for their people. Unfortunately, the Bosnians had to go along with this as they always have.

Question: What are the historical connections between the Vance-Owen and Owen-Stoltenburg Plans and the Munich Pact from 1938?

Prof. Boyle: First, there needs to be an understanding of the historical evolution. The Vance-Owen Plan would have carved up Bosnia into ten cantons on an ethnic basis, but would not have destroyed Bosnia as a state. When the Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic and the Bosnian Serb leader, Radovan Karazdic and his so-called parliament rejected the Vance-Owen Plan, the great powers then moved into the Owen-Stoltenburg Plan. The Owen-Stoltenburg Plan would have carved up the state itself–it would have destroyed the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina as an independent nation-state.

Therefore, this plan is the modern-day equivalent of the Munich Pact. It was designed to carve up a UN member state, and would rob Bosnia-Herzegovina of its United Nations membership–the main difference was that the carve-up was not taking place at Hitler's lair at the Berchtesgarten but this time the carve-up was taking place in Geneva, at United Nations headquarters and under the auspices and supervision of the United Nations, the European Union and the United States Government. So this time all the major powers of Europe and the United States were in on the carve-up of a sovereign member state of the United Nations.

The Vance-Owen Plan was bad, but the Owen-Stoltenburg Plan would have been the end of Bosnia's statehood and would have turned Bosnia into a new Lebanon. The Owen-Stoltenburg Plan would have been a total catastrophe–to carve up Bosnia into three pieces and rob it of its UN membership. It was clear that in Geneva during the so-called peace negotiations, that the whole purpose of the exercise was to destroy the Bosnian statehood so that the Muslim, Jewish and non-Serb or Croat population would simply be wiped out. In historical terms, back in the 1930s, the Jews were wiped out because they did not have a state of their own, and the only thing that has kept the Bosnians from completely being wiped out, fully and completely, has been their statehood and their UN membership. Owen, Stoltenburg, the UN, and everyone else knew that the only thing that would keep these people from going the way of history was their UN membership and statehood, so they had to get rid of it.

Indeed, Owen's lawyer admitted to me and our team–we have this on file with the World Court–that the suggestion to eliminate Bosnian statehood came from Karazdic, the war criminal. Karazdic suggested this notion to Owen and Stoltenburg and they approved it personally. Their lawyer then redrafted the documents to eliminate Bosnian statehood–we have all this on record, with witnesses, at the World Court. It reminded me of Hannah Arendt's comment on the Eichmann trial in Jerusalem, about the banality of evil. That here were nameless, faceless bureaucrats operating in Geneva, destroying a sovereign member state of the United Nations, knowingly inflicting ethnic cleansing on a million-and-a-half to two million people and doing all of this by means of a word processor. And that is literally what was going on. And the plan today, the so-called Contact Group plan, carves Bosnia up into two pieces. It will preserve the shell of the Bosnian state, although, effectively Bosnia will be carved up. So, all of the discussions in the Security Council about respecting the territorial integrity and political independence of Bosnia is nonsense. These men at the Security Council know exactly what they are doing–that was my assessment in dealing with them personally. They're still trying to carve Bosnia up, and the land that they have allocated to the so-called federation will make Bosnia an appendage of Croatia.

The Bosnian Muslims, and the Serbs, the Croats, and the Jews loyal to the Bosnian government would have never survived the Owen-Stoltenburg carve-up if it had been implemented. The Contact Group carve-up was designed and drafted by the US State Department. It appears that if it were to be implemented, that those people would at least physically survive. But ultimately Bosnia would lose its independence. So it's a slight improvement but it still represents a violation of every known principle of international law including a violation of the UN Charter, toleration of genocide and war crimes, condoning this type of behaviour and again, it would be tantamount to the Munich Pact. It raises the question then, and everyone must consider this: what good is the United Nations? If the UN is not going to be prepared to defend a member state, but instead carve it up and destroy it, then obviously the United Nations has lost its utility, just as the League of Nations did when it could not confront Mussolini over what he did in Abyssinia in 1935. I remembered, when I was in Geneva with President Izetbegovic, that it was Haile Selassie that had come to Geneva in the same building to make a plea for the powers to save Abyssinia from the Italian fascist invasion and they didn't listen to him. Abyssinia was taken over and eventually, the League was destroyed because it could not protect small states like Austria, Czechoslovakia, Abyssinia, and Poland from fascist invasions.

So if the UN is getting into the business of carving up UN member states then it's not a good sign for the integrity of the United Nations. It must be understood that this is all being supervised by the Secretary-General of the UN–Boutros Boutros-Ghali–he knows what's going on–and at the direction of the United States, the United Kingdom, France and Russia–they're all in on it. And in the background, the Clinton administration is posturing, and saying ‘oh, isn't it terrible what the Europeans are doing’. This is all public relations–the US government was in on the carve-up just like everyone else.

Question: The Washington Plan instigated a confederation between Croatia and Bosnia. Do the Serbs have a moral or legal right to set up a federation with Serbia proper–and this has been one of their complaints–if the Bosnian government can federate with Croatia, why can't the Bosnian Serbs federate with Serbia?

Prof. Boyle: This is public relations machinery at work again. The Washington Agreements were designed by the State Department to carve up Bosnia under the fiction of preserving the state of Bosnia, but effectively consigning these people to the control of Croatia. The federation with Croatia was imposed on the Bosnians–it's not something that they wanted. It was imposed on them, so the argument that the Serbs must have the same deal is just total hypocrisy. But the point is, that the Serbs have already been promised a confederation by the great powers. That's why the federation-confederation was set up between Croatia and Bosnia–to ultimately give the Serbs the same thing. The State Department and the Pentagon admitted that the Washington Plan was just a sophisticated carve-up under another name–I have the admissions on file. So the Washington Plan was another design for a carve-up, to the preservation of the fig-leaf of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina while effectively carving it up into two. And Karadzic is still holding out for his independent Serb state. If he were smart–which he is not–he'd go along with the carve-up plans and he'd probably get his state in five, ten, fifteen years from now–and that is what the ultimate agenda is within the Washington Plan. Just read through the documents that are being drafted by State Department lawyers–all you have to do is read through them and it's very clear that this is what the deal is. But most people don't read these documents, they're long, and they're complicated.

Question: This highlights the problems within the management and respect of international law. You did win two world courts orders on behalf of the Bosnian government, but so far, neither respect nor implementation of those orders has occurred. What are the difficulties associated with the management and implementation of international law, and what are the ramifications for the international political order?

Prof. Boyle: I think that at this point, if the UN and the great powers are prepared to let Bosnia go down when there are two World Court orders overwhelmingly in Bosnia's favour on all points, then it seems to me that we're at an end of the international legal order that was set up in the aftermath at the end of World War II.

Quote: “I think we've reached a historical era now where the West has proven its complete and total moral bankruptcy on Bosnia and has now forfeited any moral right to leadership that it might have had in terms of a commitment to principles like human rights, democracy, the rule of law, all of which they have subverted, undermined and destroyed in Bosnia.”  Francis Boyle

When we have the UN carving up a UN member state and violating every known principle that the post-World War II order was expected to uphold, I believe that we're witnessing the eclipse of the international legal order, and I can assure everyone that that's the way that the Islamic world sees Bosnia.

If Muslims had killed a quarter-of-a-million Christians and Jews, and Muslims had raped 30,000 Christian and Jewish women, this war would have been over three years ago. The West would have never tolerated it. But when it comes to Muslim people being massacred, every known principle of international law has been violated by the permanent members of the Security Council, by the United Nations organization itself, and by all of Europe–they just do not care. Again, as I argued at the World Court, if the UN and the World Court cannot save Bosnia, then what good is the UN. What is left? I think that the answer is nothing. And the longer this goes on, the more that will become apparent. It's the same with NATO. What good is NATO? Again, the answer is nothing. Here we have the world's largest military alliance sitting around in Europe for 40 years with nothing to do. President Bush actually tried to revise the mandate of NATO to put it into a peace-keeping type operation to deal with regional threats in Eastern Europe. The first regional threat appears and what happens? Nothing. And it's destroying NATO from within, and without. I'm sure that we'll see more of this in-fighting at the UN and other types of an international forum where the West has proven its total hypocrisy to the Third World and the Islamic world.

Question: For what reasons are the UN and the US distorting the mandates that have been provided to them and why has there been a lack of effective mediation and conflict resolution in Bosnia?

Prof. Boyle: It goes back to Machiavellian power politics, a situation that we saw a decade or so before World War I where there was a reestablishment of the triple entente between Russia, France and Britain. As they see it, Bosnia is not worth another world war. Of course, all three countries unquestionably suffered terribly during World War I. Paris was almost overrun by the Germans, the British lost an entire generation of men, and the Russian empire was dissolved. So their attitude is that the Bosnians are not worth fighting for, the UN Charter isn't worth fighting for, and above all, that as the Balkans is a nasty place there will need to be a strongman in charge of the Balkans. That strongman, of course, is Milosevic–the great powers can do business with Milosevic and have done business with Milosevic and his predecessors, going back to Tito. Tito was the darling of the West as long as he was opposed to Stalin.

This is the doctrine of the policeman, that every region of the world needs a policeman to keep it under control and Milosevic is the policeman in the Balkans. So we're going to have some hand-wringing and some tears for the Bosnians but they will be sacrificed on the altar of great-power politics. It's really a reversion to pre-World War I mentality and pre-World War II behaviour.

Question: Milosevic is perceived by the US and the West as someone that they can do business with. Is this in terms of the arms trade, or economics, or other geopolitical factors? 

Prof. Boyle: For example, the Shah of Iran was America's policeman in the Persian Gulf. That's the notion with Milosevic and whoever his successor might be. Putting aside the rhetoric, the continuity between the Bush and Clinton administrations is striking. When Yugoslavia was about to fall apart, George Bush sent his Secretary of State, Jim Baker, to meet with Milosevic and make the statement that the United States supports the territorial integrity of Yugoslavia. Why? The policeman theory–the US needs Belgrade to keep the Balkans under control and that statement by Baker effectively was the green light to Milosevic to invade Slovenia, than to invade Croatia, and then to invade Bosnia. And then the arms embargo was put on. If you read the negotiated history of resolution 713 at the UN Security Council, it was not Belgrade's suggestion to implement the arms embargo over the former Yugoslavia, it was the United States’, Britain's, France's and Russia's suggestion in order to facilitate Milosevic in his control and domination of the Balkans.

Question: On the issue of the international arms embargo over the former Yugoslav republics, the UN General Assembly voted to lift the embargo, the US Congress voted to lift the embargo as well, yet it remains in place. Why has the international arms embargo not been lifted, and what is the relationship between the arms embargo, human rights and genocide according to the definition provided within the UN Charter?

Prof. Boyle: First of all, the arms embargo was never imposed on Bosnia. Resolution 713 outlining the arms embargo was imposed on the former Yugoslavia. There is no Security Council resolution at all that says that the independent Bosnia is subject to an arms embargo. The situation consisted of the British, and the French and the Americans deciding to prevent the government of Bosnia – a government which not only represents Muslims, but Serbs, and Croats and Jews and others–from defending themselves from a genocidal assault by the Serbs, led by Milosevic, by Karadzic, and by Mladic.

This was a conscientious decision. It was the British Navy, the French Navy and the American Navy in the Adriatic and their Air Forces that made it quite clear that no weapons could go into Bosnia. They couldn't care less about the resolution–the resolution has nothing to do with it. Eventually, Congress forced Clinton to pull out but the British and the French are still there policing this embargo. Again, this goes back to the Bush policy, which was to preserve Yugoslavia as an entity at all costs and if the Bosnians had to be sacrificed, then so be it. As the US sees it, they're just Muslims

anyway, who cares–President Bush had just killed a quarter-of-a-million Muslims in Iraq and no-one cared, so why should anyone care about the dead Muslims in Bosnia. So, the great powers are working hand-in-glove with Belgrade. And with resolution 713, the great powers had to ask Belgrade to give them permission to put the arms embargo on because it was their idea, not Belgrade's. And Belgrade, after some procrastination, went along with this because they already had enough weapons. They had all the weapons that they would ever need and therefore the embargo was not going to hurt them but hurt the Bosnians. That was the policy and all the great powers were in on this–the US, Russia, Britain, and France–they're all in on it and they all know exactly what they're doing. It's dirty. Again, when I was in Geneva with the Bosnian Presidency at the Owen-Stoltenburg carve-up, it was like a combination of Munich and Poland, and like watching the Jews go off to Auschwitz in cattle-cars. Even the State Department predicted that if the Owen-Stoltenburg Plan had been carried out, a million-and-a-half to two million Bosnians would be subjected to ethnic cleansing. And, despite this, the plan was still being pushed by Christopher. He and his Ambassador were there pressuring President Izetbegovic to go along with this carve-up. It was so bad that it led to three State Department officials to quit in protest over a thoroughly duplicitous and unprincipled policy that was being pursued by Christopher, and with the full knowledge and approval of Clinton. Christopher then made some statements about how if the Serbs continued to bombard Sarajevo and other Bosnian cities that there might be airstrikes. Now imagine this–there we were in Geneva trying to negotiate a peace plan, which for all intents and purposes was really a carve-up, and at the same time Serb artillery, tanks and anti-aircraft weapons were pouring fire down on Sarajevo, on Tuzla, Zenica, Gorazde, and all the other Bosnian cities.

NATO airplanes were flying over Bosnia, watching all this going on, taking pictures and sending the reconnaissance photos back to NATO headquarters, to the UN and to Washington, London and Paris. Yet nothing is being done. And you can watch all this on CNN. Meanwhile, President Izetbegovic is told ‘by the way, you have to sign this document that will carve Bosnia up and rob Bosnia of its UN membership’. This is what's going on here.

During the so-called peace negotiations in Geneva, we sent a letter to President Clinton asking for airstrikes against the Serb artillery, tanks and anti-aircraft weapons that were then raining death and destruction upon the innocent people of Bosnia. Christopher had only threatened to use airstrikes, so I suggested that we send a letter to Clinton and specifically ask for airstrikes.

So I drafted the letter which effectively asked ‘how do you expect us to negotiate here when we are being bombarded. If you want reasonable good faith negotiations, then, at a minimum, we need airstrikes, we need some counter-power here because the Serb leaders aren't interested in negotiating with us’. I've been at peace negotiations–I was with the Palestinians in Washington and that was pretty bad, but nothing like this. These were not negotiations, these were diktats. There is no way that it can be anything but a diktat as long as the Bosnians cannot really do more to defend themselves than they currently are. And that's what the international community has been doing so far. The Owen-Stoltenburg Plan was a diktat. The Vance-Owen Plan was a diktat. The Contact Group plan was a diktat–all imposed on the Bosnians against their wishes. President Izetbegovic is not a Muslim fundamentalist who wants a mini-Muslim state in Bosnia. He is a very cultured, educated, the old-world gentleman who would very much like to see a true European state. And he is up there in Geneva with the other members of the Bosnian presidency fighting for a true multi-cultural state. The irony for me is that the Bosnians are fighting for human rights, international law and democracy. That's what the Bosnians want–and the West, the US, Britain, Russia, and France are saying, ‘you can't have that–we're not giving it to you. All you have is a little apartheid mini-Muslim state. That's all we're going to give you, there you go’. That's the greatest irony of all.

Question: Speaking to the people of Bosnia, predominantly, they blame two people for the crisis. One is Slobodan Milosevic, the other is Boutros Boutros-Ghali.

Prof. Boyle: The United Nations is an instrument, and in this sense, Boutros-Ghali is correct in stating that the UN can only act according to its mandate. He just does what the great powers tell him to do–this is not to excuse the UN at all–but the UN is doing exactly what the Russians, the British, the French and the Americans want them to do.

But what Boutros-Ghali must be criticized for is for being so spineless and unprincipled for going along with the carve-up of Bosnia. And remember, his grandfather was the one who signed the treaty handing over Egypt to Britain, so Boutros-Ghali is in the pocket of the British and the Americans. They put him in that slot of Secretary-General against the wishes of the Africans. They wanted a black candidate, but the Americans and the British wanted someone that they could control, and that candidate was Boutros-Ghali. The UN is complicit through and through but again, the UN is just a tool and an instrument of the permanent members of the Security Council They are the ones behind this.

Question: In 1993 when Boutros-Ghali flew into Sarajevo he stated that he could think of at least ten other regions in the world that had more urgent needs and concerns than Sarajevo, and how Bosnia is basically a white persons’ war. For what purposes would he have made these statements and, indeed, are there other areas around the world that are more ‘deserving’ than Bosnia?

Prof. Boyle: There are many areas of conflict in the world that we in the West overlook. Bosnia was unique at that time because genocide was being perpetrated. This is the first case in the history of the post-World War II era where a formal determination of the existence of genocide was produced, and of the trigger of the Genocide Convention obligation. I won that World Court ruling on April 8, 1992, and no-one did anything about it despite the existence within the UN Convention of the obligation to stop genocide. Later on, of course, the same thing happened in Rwanda and nothing was done there either–the UN did nothing, the United States did nothing, and indeed the UN made it worse by pulling troops out and allowing the genocide to happen again. What we are witnessing now is a degradation of any international commitments to any principles at all. That even when genocide stares the great powers in the face, they refuse to do anything to stop it. Genocide evolved out of the consensus after World War II that what happened to the Jewish people was atrocious and should never happen again. Yet the same type of backsliding, denial, abnegation of will power that we saw with the Jewish people is happening with the Bosnians and now the Rwandans. I take it that what has happened in Bosnia and Rwanda is a sign to any dictator in the world that it's possible to commit mass murder and genocide and get away with it–no-one's really going to do anything to stop the action unless oil or capital interest is involved. As Haris Silajdzic said in Geneva, ‘if you kill one person you're prosecuted; if you kill ten people, you're a celebrity; if you kill a quarter-of-a-million people, you're invited to a peace conference’. That's the lesson of Bosnia, and that's exactly what has happened with Karadzic.

Question: So the agenda for the United Nations in Bosnia and the former Yugoslavia is not to intervene at any cost–a number of public statements by General Michael Rose and Yasushi Akashi deliberately confuse, contradict and compromise the actions of the UN in Bosnia…

Prof. Boyle: As a matter of fact, the UN has now withdrawn the air patrol over Bosnia that was imposed on the same day that I won the first World Court order. On that day it was announced that NATO was going to set up the air patrol over Bosnian air space. I was asked by the BBC what I thought about this and I stated that I hoped that those airplanes weren't just going to fly over Bosnia and watch the raping, the killing, the murdering and the genocide that was going on and just wave to the people without anything about it. Yet that is exactly what has happened.

Again, it's not a question of inefficiency with the UN. They know what they're doing and exactly why they're doing it. These people at the UN are not dumb, they are not inefficient, and they are not incompetent. What is being done in Bosnia is being done for a reason. To give you an example, whenever it appeared that NATO might be instigating airstrikes under the impetus of the Clinton administration, General Rose would send some of his own troops to be captured by the Serbs in order to abort the airstrikes. Why were all the UN troops taken hostages in the last month after the first set of UN airstrikes–why weren't they protected?

That's exactly what the UN wanted–they wanted them taken hostage so that further military action would be prevented, and then precipitate an excuse for the UN to pull out of Bosnia. That's why those UN peace-keepers were left at risk. And now, NATO has

Quote: “If you kill one person, you're prosecuted. If you kill ten people, you're a celebrity; if you kill a quarter-of-a-million people, you're invited to a peace conference.” Bosnian Prime Minister, Haris Silajdzic, referring to the invitation of Bosnian Serb representative Radovan Karadzic to the Vance-Owen Peace Plan negotiations.

decided to pull back the patrol over Bosnian airspace. Now they are just patrolling on the Adriatic Sea. When the attack by the Serb airplanes occurred in Bosnia, nothing was done.  And my guess is that the so-called Rapid Reaction Corps is being sent over there to extricate the UN–that's why Owen quit. Owen has always been a tool of the British Foreign Office and he has done exactly what his masters in London have wanted him to do. Now the great powers have decided that the time has come to pull out of Bosnia and have told Owen to get out of there. So Owen is out. Unless something remarkable happens between now and the end of this year, I suspect that the British and the French will probably withdraw from Bosnia.

Question: The operations of the War Crimes Tribunal have been along the same lines of ineptitude as the resolutions that have been passed through the Security Council and the General Assembly. What exactly is the purpose of the War Crimes Tribunal and what are the problems that exist within its legal framework?

Prof. Boyle: I don't mean to criticize any of the judges involved and I'm sure that they're men and women of good faith but essentially, the War Crimes Tribunal is an exercise in public relations by the Security Council. The CIA has made detailed reports, the State Department has made detailed reports, they have their reconnaissance satellites and their airplanes–they know all about the war crimes in Bosnia. But in an effort to try to deflect public pressure upon them, the Security Council decided to set up the so-called War Crimes Tribunal to make it appears as if something is being done about the problem, whereas in fact what they are doing is negotiating with the very people whom they know are responsible for the war crimes. That's pretty much like negotiating with Hitler, Himmler and Goring, during World War II. The assumption by the great powers is that these are the reasonable people, they're the ones in power, so we have to broker some type of peace settlement with them because they're the only ones that we can deal with.

The tribunal was pushed by the Clinton administration. Again, total hypocrisy. Clinton took a very strong stand for Bosnia in the campaign. Once he assumed power he just continued the Bush policies. But there's a certain element of public relations. During the campaign, he had to appeal to a certain constituency in the United States, the human rights lobby, and for them, Bosnia is an important issue. So Clinton has to run around and make it appear as if something is really being done on Bosnia, and the installation of the tribunal gave this appearance. Again, I don't mean to criticize Justice Goldstone, I'm sure he's a well-intentioned man. But it's the question of the parameters. There's no money for the tribunal, not much staff, there's not much investigation, so not much is going to happen. It's just like what happened with the Bassiouni commission to investigate war crimes. What happened? Sharif Bassiouni was put in charge of the commission to investigate war crimes in the former Yugoslavia. The UN gave him no money. He had to go out and find his own money. How can there be an effective investigation without money? Then he puts a report out that Boutros-Ghali buries in the ground. We haven't seen very much of that report. The UN buried the whole thing, on purpose.

Then the UN put Bassiouni out of business. Why? Because he was doing an effective job even with all the financial obstacles. And of course, when it was proposed that Bassiouni should be the chief prosecutor, the British objected because they couldn't control him–he might do an effective job–he might do something silly like indict Milosevic. Bassiouni has more than enough evidence at the court on Milosevic–do you think that they're going to indict him when they're trying to negotiate with him? This will not happen.

In Geneva during the peace negotiations, President Izetbegovic had to go in and shake hands with Karadzic. I walked right past him–I wasn't going to shake his hand because he's a mass murderer and a criminal. And he has been given visas to come and negotiate in Geneva. And in New York. The State Department let Karadzic come to New York to the Vance-Owen carve-up negotiations, with a US visa. The State Department was obliged under the Geneva Convention to apprehend Karadzic. Eagleburger had already identified him a suspected war criminal. The US had an absolute obligation to apprehend Karadzic if he showed up in New York, and to open an investigation, and to prosecute–instead, they're giving him a visa and secret service protection in New York. And the same happened in Geneva–they're giving protection to war criminals. People who commit genocide. That's who the great powers are dealing with. That's who they're negotiating with, and they know it. They know it full well. This is not a question of ineptitude and incompetence. Everyone knows exactly what they're doing and why they are doing it.

Question: So when Lawrence Eagleburger accused Slobodan Milosevic and Radovan Karadzic of war crimes, and he is not the only one to make the accusations–the accusations have been made many times by leading political figures–is it another extension of the public relations and propaganda machine at work?

Prof. Boyle: Pretty much–to make it appear that if nothing is being done effectively to stop the genocide, then at least there can be some condemnation because there is some public pressure here in the United States to do something. At this time the first reports were coming out of the death camps by Roy Gutman, the courageous reporter from Newsday. The US knew about these death camps but they weren't saying anything about them, and they weren't going to do anything about them. Then Gutman broke the story and it went out all over the world. Finally, amid the hemming and hawing, the US said ‘oh yes, we guess it is happening, we should condemn it’. The same thing happens to the Jews which is what led to the Genocide Convention. The theory was that if genocide ever happened again, the world had an absolute obligation to stop it. That's what the Genocide Convention is all about.

And yet here in the United States, even Clinton refused to admit that genocide was going on in Bosnia. And that after I won the first World Court order determining that genocide was going on in Bosnia and that the Serbs must cease and desist, not only in Belgrade but also in Pale. The US and the UN refused to admit that genocide was going on even when they knew all about it. They didn't want to admit to the obligation to stop it. And why? Again, as the great powers see it, these people are Muslim, they're throw-away people. If these people were Christians or Jews or whatever–different story. But since they're Muslims, who cares. It's the same attitude that the world took towards the Jews a generation ago. And indeed that's pretty much how it looks with the Bosnians–it was a repeat of the attempt to save the Jews back in the 1930s, except this time the Bosnians will go down fighting. Unlike everyone else who predicted that they were going to throw in the towel, they're going to fight.

I remember President Izetbegovic saying that he will die in Sarajevo. So if the Bosnians are going to go down, they're going to go down fighting. And that's what the inconvenience is for the great powers, that these little-bitty people are going to fight, they're not going to go quietly, and they're not going to sign some ‘peace’ document that puts them out of business completely.

Question: In current world political affairs, there is one consistent factor in the conflicts in Bosnia, Chechnya, Nagorno-Karabakh, the Gulf war-toleration by the West of atrocities committed against Muslim populations. An overriding agenda in the West is to actively deter Islamic fundamentalism and create mass hysteria to surround any political domain that comprises a ‘Muslim’ leadership.

Prof. Boyle: Certainly, if you look at it, that's what is happening, where the West seems to be going to war with the Muslim world. Just look around. The way that the Palestinians are being treated by the Israelis is tantamount to genocide–and indeed, I've offered to President Arafat to sue the Israelis at the World Court over this matter. Libya is being attacked and destabilized because of oil and the fact that Colonel Gaddafi will not take orders from the West.

Iran is under assault by the United States primarily at the beckoned call of the Israelis lobby the US. The entire Gulf is under the control of the United States. The US sits on top of all that oil–50 percent of the world's oil supply. And the US is keeping Iraq in near genocidal conditions–I've also offered to the Iraqi government to sue the permanent members of the Security Council to break the economic embargo that's designed to destroy them. Chechnya again is a situation where more Muslim people are being wiped out. After the Russian invasion, I tried to get some of the Islamic states to let me sue Russia to try to stop this, but none of them were prepared to go after the Russians. So this is the consistent pattern by the West of hostility toward the Islamic world, and it's only going to get worse, not better. Bosnia is simply part of it in the grander scheme of things.

And we've also heard Owen and others say ‘we don't want a Muslim state in Europe’. This is a continuation of the historic process of expulsion of Muslims from Europe going back to the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire and the subsequent mass transfers of people. This is the final cleansing and wiping out of a major concentrated population of Muslims in Europe and no-one really cares.

Question: In 1991, the Gulf war contained its own version of geopolitical hypocrisy for the purpose of Western capital interests. However, this period did see a level of consultancy and agreement amongst the great powers that failed to exist for decades and was regarded as the pinnacle of the United Nations’ achievements. Four years after the Gulf war, the talk about the end of the United Nations is being circulated. Will the friction that exists between Muslim countries and Christian countries ultimately lead to the dissolution of the United Nations, in the same way, that the League of Nations dissolved over 50 years ago?

Prof. Boyle: Of course, the Gulf war was simply an attempt by the United States to steal 50 percent of the world's oil resources using the UN as a pretext and a cover to do so. The problem with many of the Muslim nations is their leadership. It's not the Muslim people, it's their cowardly leaders. They know exactly what's going on. They are not prepared to take the West on behalf on any of these cases, they're divided, they're paralyzed, they're corrupt, and they're bought off for the most part by the West. This became clear to me when I was in Geneva, meeting with some of the Ambassadors from the Islamic Conference Organisation during the Owen-Stoltenburg carve-up. I said to these Ambassadors ‘gentlemen, your people will hold your leaders accountable if the Bosnians are carved-up and destroyed’. The Deputy Head of the ICO smiled and shrugged his shoulders and said ‘but, what can we do?’. At that point, it was clear to me that all the Muslim rulers around the world know exactly what's happening but are not prepared to take on the West over Bosnia, Palestine, Libya, Iraq, Chechnya, or anywhere else. And they have had the options available to them. In 1973 they had an oil embargo and the leverage that went with it. In the speeches that I've given in Malaysia and Turkey, I've stated to the Muslim nations that if they want to save the Bosnians, they should impose an oil embargo on the West. But they can't do it now because the situation has changed. Because the US troops are now stationed in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Abu Dhabi, and Qatar. These rulers are no longer free.

So this is the problem for the leadership. But for the people of the Muslim world, Bosnia is a critical issue.

They see the total hypocrisy of the West on human rights and international law, and the United Nations Charter and see that their leaders are not prepared to go to the matt on any of these issues. This is the typical colonial divide and conquers strategy, just as the Romans did, just as the British did, and what the Americans are doing today.

Question: What type of future do you see for the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina?

The glorious Army of the Republic Bosnia and Herzegowina. Prof. Boyle, quote: First of all, the arms embargo was never imposed on Bosnia. Resolution 713 outlining the arms embargo was imposed on the former Yugoslavia. There is no Security Council resolution at all that says that the independent Bosnia is subject to an arms embargo. The situation consisted of the British, and the French and the Americans decided to prevent the government of Bosnia – a government which not only represents Muslims, but Serbs, and Croats and Jews and others–from defending themselves from a genocidal assault by the Serbs, led by Milosevic, by Karadzic, and by Mladic

Prof. Boyle: The Bosnians are going to keep fighting. As for where this will lead to, I really can't say, but as long as the Bosnians keep fighting, the pillars of the post-World War II legal order are going to be shaken–the UN, NATO, and the World Court. With the total hypocrisy surrounding all of the international principles, these institutions will continue to be unmasked and will continue to be undermined. That's what I see happening if the current policies continue, but unfortunately, it appears that this is going to be the case in the future. As for me, I am still prepared to return to the World Court and start suing the permanent members of the Security Council and break that arms embargo for the Bosnians. This is the most critical factor now as they need heavy weapons to defend their people. This is their right under Article 51 of the UN Charter. It is also their obligation under the Genocide Convention. So I don't see the Bosnians going away when they are prepared to fight and die for human rights and democracy–that was my impression after talking with President Izetbegovic–he is not going to throw in the towel. So the conflict in Bosnia will continue and the longer it continues the more it is going to shake the foundations of the post-World War II order.

Question: What type of future is there for the United Nations?

Prof. Boyle: None. As I see it, if this continues the way that it's going, then the UN means nothing, and it would be better to put it out of its misery, than a continuation of the current hypocrisy. By now, it should be clear to everyone that the UN is nothing more than the agent, and the instrument of those four permanent members operating in the Security Council and that it really has no independent or outside existence. The UN is pretty meaningless, so let's strip away the facade and the veneer and get down to the fiasco that's really happening here.

Question: Could the United Nations become more meaningful and legally viable if there was reform in the Security Council itself?

Prof. Boyle: The Security Council should be put out of business and all the functions for any maintenance of international peace and security should be transferred to the General Assembly by a two-thirds vote. In this sense, there would be the capacity to have some sort of democratic control but this suggestion is not on anyone's agenda.

The Security Council is like a star-chamber these days, where they no longer even meet in public. All matters are now transacted in private. It's just a little club of the most powerful members of the world to order around everyone else. That's what the Muslims saw in the Gulf. We are seeing, in a historical perspective, the perversion–total perversion–of every known principle of international law, and the international organizations and institutions that were set up after World War II. Now that this is being turned on its head, and especially if the war in Bosnia continues, I really don't anticipate the current order staying.

We've reached a historical era now where the West as it is, Europe, and the United States, has proven its moral bankruptcy–complete and total moral bankruptcy, initially in Bosnia and then later on Rwanda. The West has now forfeited any moral right to leadership that it might have had in terms of a commitment to principles like human rights, democracy, and the rule of law, all of which they have subverted, undermined and destroyed in Bosnia.

The Bosnian crisis, whatever comes of it will be a turning point in the way people now perceive the West, and of course, that perception is that all the West is interested in it's their own pocketbooks and controlling the world with weapons–the West produces the best weapons in the world and it has become obvious to the world that the West doesn't care about principles. All the West cares about is oil, standards of living and developing the weapons necessary to keep those standards of living. That's it. And that is becoming more and more clear to the Third World. How the Third World will act on is unknown but I think that we are certainly at a major turning point in international relations.

*

/This Interview was given on June 23, 1995, just before the massacre/genocide at the UN “safe-haven” of Srebrenica; Published in Periodica Islamica No. 2, at 45 (1996).

 (Pickup photos and legends: I. H.)