Exclusion of Bosnia and Herzegovina from EU Visa Regime

[Press release from Bosniak American Advisory Council for Bosnia and Herzegovina]

The Bosniak-American Advisory Council for Bosnia and Herzegovina (BAACBH) is astounded by the announcement by Javier Solana, the European Union's Foreign Policy High Representative, about the abolishment of visa travel requirements for citizens of Serbia and Montenegro, a new regime that excludes Bosnia and Herzegovina (B-H). The decision emphasizes that the European Union (EU) is not taking into consideration the implications this decision will have on B-H. The decision will consequently leave Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims) as the only citizens of B-H without the possibility of visa-free travel to the EU. It will fuel ethnic divisions as the majority of Bosnian Croats hold dual Bosnian and Croatian citizenship and Bosnian Serbs hold both Bosnian and Serbian citizenship. Furthermore, it will undermine the democratic process of regional stability and reconciliation as both Serbia and Montenegro have been perpetrators of aggression against B-H.

The decision comes only three days after the 14th anniversary of the fall of Srebrenica, a declared United Nations (UN) safe haven, during which the lives of over 8,000 innocent Bosniak victims were brutally taken. BAACBH, a non-profit, non-governmental and non-partisan organization advocating on behalf of Bosnian-Americans, commemorated Srebrenica and the genocide that occurred in B-H, a tragic episode of human history that many said would never happen again. Today, sadly, we see those victims being forgotten, as the exclusion of B-H from the new visa regime means Bosniaks who have survived ethnic cleansing and genocide are persona non grata in the EU.

BAACBH urges the EU and the international community to examine the grave consequences of the exclusion of B-H from the new visa regime and act to rectify the situation.

The 14th Srebrenica Genocide Commemoration

The Bosniak-American Advisory Council for Bosnia and Herzegovina (BAACBH) shares the grief and sorrow of families' victims of the Bosnian genocide as it commemorates the 14th anniversary of the Srebrenica Genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH).


On July 11, 1995, the Bosnian town of Srebrenica, a declared United Nations safe haven, fell to Serb paramilitary forces led by General Ratko Mladic, an indicted war criminal who is still at large. The fall of Srebrenica marks the final act of brutal ethnic cleansing and genocide in BiH, when more than 8,000 Bosniak (Bosnian Muslim) men and boys were slaughtered within a five day period. The systematic killings were not only part of the vicious campaign to eliminate the Bosniak population in the name of radical Serb nationalism, but also to eliminate the historical pattern of tolerance and shared experiences that characterized life in BiH.

[Press release from the Bosniak American Advisory Council for Bosnia and Herzegovina; released yestereday.]

Today, 14 years after the Srebrenica Genocide, the worst atrocity committed in Europe since the end of the Second World War, we are reminded that we are the voice for the countless victims and advocates for genocide prevention around the world. As the surviving relatives, neighbors and hundreds of diplomats and members of the international community gather to commemorate the Srebrenica Genocide, let us not forget that justice must prevail. Furthermore, let us be reminded that justice is the only path towards a democratic, prosperous and stable BiH, as well as Southeast Europe.


The 14th commemoration of the Srebrenica Genocide is a dark reminder that the world failed to protect innocent civilians. BAACBH, as an independent non-governmental organization advocating on behalf of Bosnian-Americans, is committed to preserving the memory of those who suffered and to disseminating knowledge about BiH and the tragedy that took place as the world watched.

JUDGE CONSIDERS DROPPING SOME CHARGES AGAINST KARADZIC

Please see this post at the Srebrenica Genocide Blog for details, explanation, and a list of contacts so you can take action.

EDIT: Please see the comment from Owen below; it appears that initial reports might have been too alarmist. Which is good news.

Bosnia and Herzegovina Days on Capitol Hill

[Press release from the Bosniak American Advisory Council for Bosnia and Herzegovina]


The first national gathering of young Bosnian-American professionals who have dedicated their time to advocate for issues important to the Bosnian-American community was held in Washington, D.C. during the Bosnian Days on Capitol Hill (B-H Days) from June 25 to June 26, 2009. The Bosnian-American young professionals represented the Bosnian-American community which consists of approximately 350,000 constituents living across the United States. The goal of the B-H Days on Capitol Hill was to introduce the Washington, D.C. policymaking community to the young Bosnian-American professionals as we continue to advocate and develop joint efforts for improving the security and stability for all in Southeast Europe, with particular emphasis on Bosnia and Heregovina (B-H).

The B-H Days on Capitol Hill comprised of a number of important meetings, briefings, and events. The Bosnian-American professionals over the two-day period attended the "Bosnia and Herzegovina: Parsing the Options" conference at the U.S. Institute of Peace. They visited a number of members of U.S. Congress which included a meeting with the co-chairs of the Congressional Caucus on Bosnia, Congressman Russ Carnahan (D-MO) and Christopher Smith (R-NJ), Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson, Congressman Patrick Murphy, Congressman Mike Quigley, Senator Mark Warner, Senator Claire McCaskill, and Senator Kit Bond. The event included a briefing at the U.S. Helsinki Commission, a meeting with the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Stuart Jones and National Security Council Director for Southeast Europe Katherine Helgerson at the U.S. Department of State, a breakfast at the Embassy of Bosnia and Herzegovina with the Bosnian Ambassador Mitar Kujundzic, a tour and lunch at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, a meeting with the Heinrich Boell Fundation North America, the Advocacy Project, and the Turkish Coalition of America.

The Bosnian-American community during the two days of B-H Days on Capitol Hill expressed their sincere support for the relationship between the United States and B-H, especially when it comes to ensuring stability in Southeast Europe and developing new channels for educational and cultural programs between the two countries. At the meetings the Bosnian-American young professionals emphasized that since 1992, the United States has remained a committed and loyal ally of B-H and all of its citizens, including the Bosnian-American diaspora community in the U.S. In partnership with the international community and the Congressional Caucus on Bosnia,the United States is a leading voice in support of B-H's Euro-Atlantic integration and NATO membership. The young professionals expressed their support for the passage of House Resolution 171 (H.Res.171) introduced by Congressman Howard Berman and expressing the sense of the House of Representatives on the need for constitutional reform in B-H and the importance of sustained U.S. engagement in partnership with the European Union (EU), which re-affirmed the United States' commitment to support B-H in its efforts in reconstruction, peace and post-conflict reconciliation, and democratization as a united and sovereign nation.

In order to effectively promote stability in B-H and Southeast Europe, the Bosnian-American community expressed their concerns about the Dual Citizenship Clause in Article 17 of the B-H Constitution, which threatens the majority of Bosnian-American citizens with the loss of their B-H citizenship. The Bosnian-American community strongly advocated that the clause should be amended so that citizens of B-H descent who have acquired U.S. citizenship do not lose their B-H citizenship.

The young professionals re-affirmed their commitment to promote the cultural and educational exchange programs in order to further consolidate the long-standing friendship between B-H and the United States. The participants stressed that exchange programs are of vital importance, and provide young professionals from B-H with an insight into the world of international affairs through the prestigious graduate programs offered by universities in United States. The participants want to enable B-H students to receive world-class education and equip them with the tools required to bring about a better future for B-H and all of its citizens. At the same time, the community is encouraging American students to visit B-H to obtain a deeper understanding of the political, social, and economical challenges facing the country going forward on its path of democracy and integration into the EU and NATO membership. Through cultural and exchange programs, the Bosnian-American community emphasized its strong supportfor the development of economic exchange as it will enable the two countries to further develop their economy and a strategic partnership of mutual understanding.

Speaking of Editorial Standards--Who's in Charge at "Bosniaks.net"?

As of today, the website Bosniaks.net is featuring some pretty dubious articles.

I understand why the implicitly racist editorial The Balkan Mess Redux might have been featured--the author is former US ambassador William Montgomery, so if this article was submitted for publication, I certainly recognize the pressure a small website such as this would accept the piece, no questions asked. However, I suspect that this article was highlighted because Montgomery advocates partition--this website has a subtly but pervasive Islamist bent, and perhaps ethno-religious partition would suit the editors fine.

I hesitate to make such an accusation with any fervor, because I don't have enough context to confidently make such a claim. However, there are some other troubling stories which collectively suggest that I need to monitor this site more carefully if I'm going to continue to link to it.

If nothing else, one should be leery of any website which publishes an overtly LaRouchite article on the front page--or anywhere else on the site, for that matter.

I will refrain from further comment until I've spent more time reviewing this site with a critical eye.

Genocide Denier Allowed to Slander Bosniaks in University of Minnesota-connected Center for Holocaust & Genocide Studies

As already noted by Daniel in this post at the always-excellent Srebrenica Genocide Blog, the Center for Holocaust & Genocide Studies at the University of Minnesota has made a poor and disturbing choice--to allow a well-documented genocide denier to write at least one page of their website:

"Bosnia and the Holocaust is a very incomplete, disingenuous, and misleading article to be as generous as possible. While the decision to defer on this niche topic to an "expert" like Carl Savich, who possesses the requisite academic credentials, might be understandable, someone in an editorial capacity should have had second thoughts when the web "source" Savich links to were given the most cursory of examinations. Savich links to this article from the "Srpska Mreza" website. Put aside how grossly misleading and dishonest this article is--the writing is atrocious, and the style is far below the level expected of an undergraduate paper.

Someone at the Center for Holocaust & Genocide Studies has really dropped the ball on this. There are simply no standards of basic academic honesty or fundamental research to be seen--this is a disgrace to the Center and the to the University of Minnesota.

What is most troubling is that, after reading Daniel's account, I sent a rather detailed email alerting the Center to this problem, and to date have not even received a perfunctory acknowledgment of my concerns. Considering that I informed them they were allowing a genocide denier to use a pro-genocide, far-right website as a source in an article promoting propaganda as history, one would think someone at their end would want to address my concerns. So far, however, nobody there seems to care much.

More on this issue as it develops--or, so far, as it has sadly failed to develop.

"Washington's War" by Michael Rose [4]

Introduction

The rest of this book is nothing more than a polemic against the Iraq War, with a faint whiff of anti-Muslim bigotry which never really comes out from the shadows to show its' true face. That should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with Rose's earlier writings on his time in Bosnia; nor should anyone be shocked that he is against vigorous military action against terrorism and the regimes which support it. Because Rose has written more directly about Bosnia, I will not go any further with my review of this book, other than a brief consideration of the Introduction.

This book is almost painful to read, because Rose is determined to find parallels between the American War of Independence and the current Iraq War regardless of how poorly the facts of history and todays' headlines fit his preconceived interpretation. Rose gets a lot of very basic things wrong over and over again, which makes it all the easier to uncover his motives for writing this book.

His assertion that the government of King George III failed to fully exploit divisions within colonial society early in the conflict because he and his advisers were too arrogant might have some limited validity (even if Rose ignores the hierarchical nature of 18th Century society--the paternalism of King George III was a feature, not a bug) but I do not find his comparison to the sectarian divisions in Iraq at all convincing. However, I do give Rose credit for his observation that the Americans failed by recognizing and dealing with three groups (Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds), a decision which forced Iraqis to chose an "ethnic" identity and which empowered sectarian leaders. However, I strongly reject his assertion that the proper response would have been to divide Iraq along multiple tribal, social, ethnic, and religious lines.

Like many Balkan revisionists, Rose seems to be a moral relativist who believes that there are no universal human rights. Furthermore, for all his pretensions to a sophisticated analysis of Iraq social and cultural divisions, he seems to regard the "Muslim world" as uniform and monolithic. He also enjoys attacking strawmen:

"In the same way that George III thought civilized society was only possible under royal protection, today President Bush and Prime Minister Blair believe that civilized society can only properly flourish where conditions of democracy and freedom exist."

This is simply not true--I cannot imagine Tony Blair being daft enough to believe that "civilization" is only a product of Western-style liberal democracy. Nor do I believe that he or Bush have ever declared that Iraq was not a civilized country. It is true that both men professed a belief in the universal worth of democracy and freedom, and that they believed that a more democratic world would ultimately be a more peaceful world; but again, this is different than the words Rose is in effect putting in their mouths.

Here is what Rose claims "Muslims" (he does not differentiate between any of the more than 1 billion Muslims on the planet in this argument) believe is necessary for "civilization":

"They do not believe that Western liberal-style democracy is necessary to their personal fulfilment or to good governance--since these can best be obtained through adherence to their religion, family and tribe, and obedience to their hereditary ruler."

And so on. Rose briefly states that Iraqis would not tolerate a lengthy occupation of their country because "Iraq contains some of the most holy Islamic sites after Mecca and Medina," yet he fails to consider that most people in most countries would chafe at an occupation by a foreign power; he also fails to note that some of those holy Islamic sites have been damaged by terror attacks by other Muslims. Blaming America for Al Qaeda attacks on Shiite holy sites seems more than merely oversimplifying, to be kind.

Rose argues that the American failure to mobilize local support in Iraq (how this would be possible since all Muslims automatically reject our alien Western notions of freedom is not clear) to the British failure to mobilize loyalist militias in the colonies, an assertion that conveniently ignores how pitiful the performance of patriot militias was. Why Rose feels that hypothetical Tory militias would have been more successful when they didn't even have the advantages that patriot militias mostly failed to utilize very successfully is not clear.

And so it goes. This is a dreary book full of bad history and simple-minded, disingenuous analysis. And subsequent events seem to have passed Rose by--Iraq has not descended into full-scale civil war, the Iraqis have largely rejected Islamic extremism, and the state--although fragile--seems to have a future. There is no need to surrender in Iraq, no matter how much Rose seems to want it. Rose's attempts to compare the American Revolution to the thuggish reign of terror imposed on Iraq by a motley collection of sectarian militias and terrorist groups seeking to take advantage of the collapse of a corrupt state and the initial failure of the occupiers to account for that power vacuum are clumsy, informed by suspect motives, and happily seems to be sliding into irrelevance.