Friday, March 20, 2009


National Congress of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina


No. 599

March 19, 2009


1. Bosnians donate Brcko to Serbs


3. This is the finalization of the Tudjman-Milosevic plan on division of Bosnia-Hercegovina




If you do not want to receive this Online Newsletter just reply with "UNSUBSCRIBE" in the subject line. Then your e-mail address will be promptly deleted.

Postovani citaoci, imamo dosta ljudi na ovoj mailing listi koji govore Engleski. Zato distribuiramo ovo internacionalno izdanje Glasnika, na Engleskom. Ako ne govorite Engleski, imacete priliku da sve ovo vidite na Bosanskom. Npr, sve iz clanka pod 3 se cuje na linku u pod 6 na Bosanskom, clanak broj 4 je prevod sa Bosanskog uvodnog clanka iz proslog Glasnika. Clank Br 1 ima pravod u ovom Glasniku. Ivanin govor, clanak br. 5 smo objavili na Bosanskom u proslom Glasniku.

1. Bosnians are donating Brcko to the Serbian Republic

The Brcko Amendment provides in relevant part as follows:

"Brcko District of Bosnia and Herzegovina, that exists under sovereignty of Bosnia and Herzegovina and that is under jurisdiction of the institutions of Bosnia and Herzegovina in a manner of jurisdiction emanating from this Constitution, whose territory is in mutual property (condominium) of entities....."

This Amendment recognizes that BIH has "sovereignty" and that Republika Srpska has "property." But if RS has "property" in and over itself, then what good is the "sovereignty" of BIH? What does it mean? BIH can assert its "sovereignty" all it wishes, but if RS has "property" in and over itself, then BIH's assertion of "sovereignty" over RS will mean very little if anything at all.

The recognition that RS has "property" in and over itself will be in derogation of and to the detriment of BIH's "sovereignty". Recognition that RS has "property" in and over itself is another way of saying that RS has "sovereignty" over itself since "property" and "sovereignty" pretty much mean the same thing legally.

The Drafters of this Amendment could not come out and give RS "sovereignty" over itself, which would have meant Independence, so they did the next best thing and gave RS "property" in and over itself, which is tantamount to "sovereignty."

Therefore the adoption of the Brcko Amendment will grant "property" to the Republika Srpska, which is tantamount to "sovereignty" for RS and thus just one step removed from formal Independence for Republika Srpska. Next, then the adoption of the Hays Reforms/April Package will finish off the job: De Facto Independence for Republika Srpska without the need for RS to secede from BIH.

Bosnia and Herzegovina will eventually disintegrate as a State. Republika Srpska will be absorbed by Serbia. The Federation will be absorbed by Croatia. This carve-up of BIH is precisely what was contemplated and designed by Richard Holbrook in his Washington Agreements of 18 March 1994. And before that by Tudjman and Milosevic in their 1991 meeting at Karadjordjevo.

Professor Francis A. Boyle



Poruka profesora Boylea, 19 . mart 2009

Amandman za Brcko dozvoljava slijedece tumacenje u ovim bitnijim dijelovima:

"Brcko Distrikt Bosne i Hercegovine, koji postoji pod suverenitetom Bosne i Hercegovine i spada pod nadležnosti institucija Bosne i Hercegovine onako kako te nadležnosti proizilaze iz ovog Ustava, cija je teritorija u zajednickoj svojini (kondominijumu) entiteta . . . "

Ovaj amandman priznaje da BiH ima "suverenitet" i da republika Srpska ima "svojinu". Ali ako RS ima "svojinu" u i nad sobom, kakva je onda korist od "suvereniteta" BiH?
Sta to znaci? BiH moze potvrdjivati svoj "suverenitet" koliko god hoce, ali ako RS ima "svojinu" u i nad sobom, onda potvrdjivanje "suvereniteta" BiH nad RS nece znaciti puno ako ce uopste bilo sta znaciti.
Priznanje da RS ima "svojinu" u i nad sobom ce biti u svrhu smanjivanja i na stetu "suvereniteta" BiH.

Priznjanje da RS ima "svojinu" u i nad sobom je drugi nacin da se kaze da RS ima "suverenitet" nad sobom posto "svojina" i "suverenitet" pravno imaju gotovo isto znacenje.

Kreatori nacrta ovog amandmana nisu mogli tek tako javno istupiti i dati RS-u "suverenitet" nad sobom jer bi to znacilo nezavisnost, tako da su oni umjesto toga uradili ono sto je bilo najblize ostvarenju toga, a to je "svojinu" nad sobom sto je u sustini jednako "suverenitetu". Na taj nacin ce usvajanje Amandmana za Brcko dodijeliti "svojinu" Republici Srpskoj sto je u sustini jednako "suverenitetu" za RS sto je samo jedan korak manje od formalne nezavisnosti za republiku Srpsku.

Usvajanje Hejsovih Reformi/Aprilskog Paketa koje slijedi ce zavrsiti posao: de fakto nezavisnost Republike Srpske bez potrebe da se RS otcijepi od BiH. Bosna i Hercegovina ce se na kraju raspasti kao drzava. Republika Srpska ce biti apsorbirana od strane Srbije. Federacija ce biti apsorbirana od strane Hrvatske. Ovo komadanje BiH je tacno ono sto je smisljeno i dizajnirano od strane Richarda Holbrooka u njegovom Washingtonskom Ugovoru od 18. marta 1994., a prije toga izmedju Tudjmana i Milosevica na njihovom sastanku 1991 u Karadjordjevu.

Prof. Francis A. Boyle

3. This is the finalization of the Tudjman-Milosevic plan on division of Bosnia-Hercegovina

[The Bosnian Hayat TV interviewed Francis Boyle, US lawyer who was legal counsel in Bosnia-Hercegovina's lawsuit against Serbia-Montenegro for genocide before the International Court of Justice. In the interview, broadcast on the Central News Bulletin with Senad Hadzifejzovic on 14 March 2009 at 1755 gmt, Boyle comments on the recently proposed constitutional amendments concerning the status of the Brcko District in Bosnia-Hercegovina.]

[Host Senad Hadzifejzovic] A US drama follows dear viewers. Former US lawyer of Bosnia-Hercegovina, a friend of our country, Francis Boyle, is also very, very concerned for the future of our country. We recorded the interview with Mr Boyle late last night. The interview was so dramatic that one could not sleep afterwards. If the Parliament of Bosnia-Hercegovina adopts the amendment for Brcko, it will automatically adopt the Dayton constitution, recognize the Serb Republic and division of the country. The big words used by Boyle in this interpretation are 'the end of Bosnia', 'break-up of the country', 'annexation of the Serb Republic to Serbia'. As a reminder for those who do not know, the so-called Bosnian parties, the three biggest ones, which have the partisan and stately target as a united Bosnia-Hercegovina, namely the SDA, SBIH and the SDP, have supported adoption of the [Bosnian constitution] amendment concerning Brcko, so that practically, apart from the small BOSS party, there is no opposition against this view. Sulejman Tihic supported the amendment, and publicly explained 'Dodik got Brcko'. It is paradoxical that Silajdzic has distanced himself from the amendment, but supported it nevertheless. It is a paradox that the SDP has supported the amendment without greater discussion. The Internet-based front of concerned Bosnians, individuals, intellectuals, groups, association is the only opposition, who are asking for support in panic, unity of Bosnians and warn of the defeating character of the amendment for the state.
The Bosnian Diaspora is also united in opposition against the amendment.

[Interviewer Kenan Cerimagic] Our guest lives in Champagne, Illinois in the United States of America, This is a great friend of Bosnia-Hercegovina, our lawyer and advisor to the lawyers from the Federation who had led the process during the arbitration for Brcko. Our guest is Professor Francis Boyle. Good evening, professor. Glad to see you again on our programme.

[Francis Boyle, in English with translation into vernacular superimposed] Well, thank you for having me and greetings to my friends in Bosnia.

[Interviewer] Let us start with your criticism against the amendment concerning the Brcko District. It is considered to be totally unimportant and used only for ratification of the Dayton Accord in the Parliament of Bosnia-Hercegovina.

[Boyle] Well, yes. There are many problems with the Brcko amendment. It seems to me that the US government is finishing up the final phase of the process of division of Bosnia-Hercegovina and the Brcko amendment is a part of that. What they want to do for the first time is to force the Bosnian parliament to ratify the illegal and unconstitutional Dayton constitution, which had been imposed to Bosnia by circumventing the rules of the former Bosnian constitution concerning constitutional amendments, not to speak about its changes. If the current composition of the parliament endorses this, this will be the first ratification and confirmation of the Dayton constitution. The next phase, in the view of Americans, will be the return to Hays' reforms and the so-called April package, which will be completion of the job. This package had previously failed due to shortage of two votes in the parliament. I believe they thought it would be difficult to start the process with the April package again, and that it would be better to start with this amendment, and if this amendment is endorsed, go back to the Hays' April package.

[Host] On our last week's programme, the supervisor for Brcko Raffi Gregorian said he considered the Brcko amendment his victory. What is the US role here?
What do they want to create in our country, Bosnia-Hercegovina?

[Boyle] As we had discussed before, at the time of the Washington Agreement, Pentagon had publicly declared that what was happening was in fact a slow motion of a division of Bosnia that will take 15 years. That is the agenda. The coming year of 2010 will be the 15th year after Dayton and the elections are planned for this year, if it comes to that at all. The Brcko amendment and the return to Hays' reforms and the April package is, for them, the final act of the Bosnia process. I do not know the new High Representative, but I am sure his intentions are good. Still, he will not have any other choice but to listen to the instructions of the British and US governments, which mostly support the Brcko amendment. Even the President Komsic [Croat member of Bosnian Presidency] said this week this was not the idea of Bosnians, but Britons and Americans. This was the case with the Hays' reforms and the April package. They were not designed by Bosniaks, but the so-called US Institute for Peace, which is only an extended hand of the State Department. This is the final act of Bosnia directed by the US and the British.

[Host] In his response to the question of what was Milorad Dodik [Serb Republic premier] getting with this amendment, Sulejman Tihic [SDA leader] simply said 'Brcko'. Is this correct?

[Boyle] That is correct. [Passage omitted, Boyle reads the Statute of Brcko and says the amendment brings Brcko back to the control of the Serb Republic].
This amendment was obviously created in favor of the Serb Republic and its extension to the Brcko, as well as cementing of the Serb Republic, which will lead to the start of Hays' reforms and the April package, which will finish off this job. Before official publishing of the document on Hays' reforms, the SDA had sent me a copy of the document during the preliminary talks, in order to get my opinion. It is clear from the talks and the document that the Serb Republic delegates knew perfectly well that the Serb Republic is fragile in the eyes of the world, which is why they asked for the existence of the Serb Republic to be forever cemented in the Hays' reforms and the April package. This is happening right now, first with the Brcko amendment, after which Hays' reforms and the April package, which have been supported, unfortunately, by Mr Tihic and the SDA, will follow.

[Interviewer] How do you comment the support for this amendment by the SDA, Party for Bosnia-Hercegovina and the SDP? Is this some kind of a sudden change of mind in Bosniak, Bosnian politics concerning this issue?

[Boyle] As for Mr Tihic, my sources from the SDA tell he does everything the Americans tell him to do. I had advised the SDA to reject Hays' reforms and President Tihic agreed with this. He then met the US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, who made enormous pressure on Tihic to accept Hays' reforms, which is what he eventually did. I then started to actively advocate knocking down of Hays' reforms, in which my client and an old friend, the president of the Party for Bosnia-Hercegovina Haris Silajdzic, joined me. Concerning SDP, what could you have expected for the former communist, Lagumdzija? I have continued to work with Silajdzic and the Party for Bosnia-Hercegovina, and I am convincing them that the Brcko amendment is very dangerous, as well as the Hays'
reforms and the April package. I have noticed that Silajdzic is disassociating himself from non-acceptance of Hays' reforms, claiming he want the amendment to be acceptable for the chief arbiter for Brcko Robert Owen. Media have reported that Owen said he will not accept this decision [as heard]. I would like to encourage Silajdzic to give up any support for the Brcko amendment. This amendment needs to be killed immediately.

[Interviewer] What kind of practical consequences can this amendment have on Bosnia-Hercegovina, for cases in The Hague, some new case before the International Court of Justice and functioning of the state in general, if endorsed?

[Boyle] The practical consequences will be that the Bosnian government and the central institutions will not be able to function any more. We have to understand that this was the intention of Holbrook and the State Department lawyers who had authored Dayton. The first version of the Dayton Accord, which I had analyzed for President Izetbegovic, had led de jure to a division of the Republic of Bosnia-Hercegovina. Fortunately, Izetbegovic had rejected that, while now we have de facto a government with a divided country, with a government that was intentionally created not to function. It is clear that Bosnia cannot function like this. [Passage omitted] The Brcko amendment, Hays'
reforms and the April package will only worsen the situation even more, which will lead to a final collapse of the state. I don't know how soon this will happen after ratification of the Brcko amendment and the Hays' package, but I don't know how will Bosnia survive at all as a state, if the Parliament adopts the Brcko amendment, together with Hays' reforms and the April package. I fear that Bosnia-Hercegovina will simply dissolve in all that.

[Interviewer] In your analysis of the Dayton Accord, you clearly say 'it will always be a message that genocide pays off'. Is this amendment in line with that message?

[Boyle] Well of course. The Brcko amendment provides for renewed establishment of control of the Serb Republic over Brcko and will continue to cement genocide, ethnic cleansing, rapes of Bosnian women. This amendment is horrendous [words indistinct].

[Interviewer] What would be your advice for politicians and the public of Bosnia-Hercegovina concerning changes of the constitution, step-by-step or change as a whole.

[Boyle] You have to understand that Bosnians will have only one chance at change of the constitution. You will have to give up all these amendments and organize a constitutional conference, in which all elements of the Bosnian society will be represented, including the Serb Republic, and that way reach an agreement that will satisfy all and enable you to have a functional central institutions, and not a constitution imposed by the Americans, such as Holbrook and Hays, which the British and the Americans want to impose in order to satisfy their interests. This goes for the Brcko amendments, which the British and the Americans want to impose for their own interest, in order to get rid of Bosnia as a state and a potential source of problems for them in the future.

[Interviewer] How do you comment the meeting of three leaders and support of the international community for the Prud agreement? Is this the exit strategy of the international community and the final farewell, on which Dodik and the Serb Republic have insisted?

[Boyle] Clearly, their time framework was 15 years, which is by 2010. The Brcko amendment and the April package, which Tihic supported, are parts of the same strategy to finish off the job and to leave Bosnia-Hercegovina, the state division and the break up of Bosnia, where the Serb Republic would be annexed to Serbia, and the Federation to Croatia. This was clear from the Washington Agreement, which I had analyzed for the Parliament of the Republic of Bosnia-Hercegovina, which you can find on the Internet. This is the end of the game and the finalization of the Tudjman-Milosevic plan on division of Bosnia-Hercegovina from Karadjordjevo in 1991. [Passage omitted, Boyle greets the women of Srebrenica]

Source: TV Hayat, Sarajevo, in Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian 1755 gmt 14 Mar 09



This is the official complaint against the government of Bosnia-Herzegovina regarding their conduct during the Public Debate

Muhamed Borogovac, Ph.D., ASA, MAAA

-To all representatives in both houses of the Parliamentary Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina
-To Raffi Gregorian
-To High Representative (OHR-Office of High Representative)
-To the European Union (please forward to Council)



As a citizen of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, by the power of the Constitution of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina I hereby participate in public debate about the Amendment 1 to the Constitution and I request that it is voted NO for the Amendment 1 (regarding Brcko) because the proposing side DID NOT PROVE support of the people to the Amendment 1.


In order for the Constitutional Amendment to be legitimate, it must have SUPPORT from the people according to Bosnian constitution. The sole purpose of the Public Debate, required by constitution, is to enable government to prove that the people support the amendment. The proposing party i.e. the BiH government is obliged to prove that the people are behind the amendment by means of Public Debate. Therefore, the low number of people who attended public discussion is a disqualifying problem for the government. People could not participate in the Public Debate because the authorities did not adequately inform them about the debate. Authorities were obliged to invite the people so that everybody feels encouraged to take part in the discussions regarding the amendment. It would have been necessary for the proposing party to secure a large numbers of people to rally behind the Amendment in order to fulfill the constitutional obligation of proving that the people support the change of the constitution. Only then their claim that "the people want this change of the Constitution" would be credible.

That is exactly why communists had always secured such large assemblies of support to their reforms during the Public Debates. That is why the constitutions of Yugoslav Republics were legitimate even under the strict Western criteria, which was confirmed by the decisions of Badinter committee.

Lawyers would say: "The burden is on authorities to prove that the people want the change."

However, instead of taking an effort to secure the credibility of people's assembles during public discussions, authorities were hiding from the people the information that there is a public debate scheduled. The question rises:
Why? The only logical answer is that they know that people DO NOT WANT the change of the constitution that in inconspicuous way legalizes partition of the country.

So even if all of 10-15 of debaters from people in Sarajevo expressed their support for the Amendment it is too small sample in order for the hypothesis that people want the constitutional change to be confirmed. On the other hand, the fact that those 10-15 debaters said NO to the amendments topples the hypothesis of the authorities i.e. it is statistically clear that the authorities did not prove that people support the Amendment. (Credibility theory and testing of statistical hypothesis are familiar topics to the author of this complain, who is an actuary in Boston, USA.)

It is of crucial importance that the opinions of large enough number of people are captured, because one cannot state that people support some change if one doesn't have convincing numbers.

Even a blind person can now see that our politicians intentionally circumvented the constitutional obligation, by putting into action their pre-meditated plan to hide this Public Debate from the people. In a normal country that would disqualify the proposed constitutional change because for which a large numbers of participants of the debate is necessary to prove that the people want the constitutional change.

The Internet was the only place were one could read correct information about the Public Debates while authorities were making countless obstructions during the debate. For example, they turned off the only e-mail address where one could send an opinion, they organized public debate during working hours instead of the weekend etc. etc. We all know that Internet use is only in its infancy in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the only important media in Bosnia and Herzegovina is television. If the authorities wanted to accumulate legitimacy to this constitutional change they should have circulated correct announcements about the debate, on daily basis on the TV and invite people to come and give them credible support.

The debate itself was also controlled so that only they (the politicians) set the tone for the discussion. They had unlimited time (i.e. Gregorian spoke for 40 minutes). But it did not help them. All speakers after Gregorian refused to support the amendment.


There are no statistics where authorities can show that they accumulated enough popular support for this constitutional change. The largest number of debaters was in Sarajevo, but even there it was no more than 15 and all of the citizens unanimously rejected the amendment.

Discussions by the representatives of the authorities are irrelevant because the proposing party (i.e. authorities) should have secured the support from the people, not again the support of the proposing party itself.

As for the discussions that were sent to the Parliament directly, the amendment was rejected by an overwhelming proportion of the people. We know that because many of them sent their copies to the e-mail address Bosnian Congress USA,

These numbers are much more credible because only people who use the Internet were informed. However, the most credible result was secured by the telephone survey of the NTV Hayat, where viewers massively and convincingly voted AGAINST the amendments 3,073 to 113. This would have been credible even under the strict U.S. standards.

If even after this obvious fact that Amendment did not get support of the people Parliament adopts the amendment it will be a grave rape of the nation. Each representative who votes for this amendment is by definition PARTICIPANT IN THE GENOCIDE, because attempt to get victims of genocide accustomed to the results of genocide is participation in genocide as well, according to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. There is no one reasonable who would justify those who vote for this amendment. And don't forget: the crime of genocide never expires.

We can see from following Gregorian's statement given to FENA (translated from Bosnian, below), given right after the Sarajevo Debate that it is clear that the Amendment did not get the required support from the people.

"High Representative and supervisor for Brcko District Raffi Gregorian told journalists, after he listened to the debate, that he is sorry for the fact that the majority of people who expressed their negative opinions today, did not speak about Brcko or about the content of the amendment itself, regardless of the fact that all of the citizens of Brcko including representatives of the parties, including the Party for Bosnia and Herzegovina (Stranka za BiH) in Brcko, all supported this amendment and want its adoption. "

According to his words, people who speak against amendments really speak about problems that they have with Dayton in general and what they want is the new Constitution and not the new amendment that considers Brcko specifically.

"People who organized this quite loud reply of their disagreement with this amendment did not at the same time offer any other alternative, a new proposal or a new constitution ", said Gregorian.

According to his words, what we should talk about here now is Brcko.

"This amendment is good for Brcko and that is why the citizens of Brcko support it too. The amendment is completely neutral in regards to the rest of the Constitution and these amendments do not give prejudice for the future constitutional reform in any way", said Gregorian." (FENA)

Comment on Gregorian's statement:

It is not true that people in Brcko supported the amendment, only the corrupt puppet politicians who listen to the "big shots from the world". It is not true that people did not offer an alternative; Participants in the debate offered that all constitutional changes should go in one package. Have in mind that authorities are promising the people the change of the constitution, and according to them this is only the first step. People do not believe that because, if adopted that would also be the final step.


Unchallenged speech of Ms. Ivana Mostarac at the Public Debate in Sarajevo, on March 17th 2009. The government official presiding over the meeting forbade the public from applauding the speakers after this speech.


March 17th 2009. G.

Nation of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina!




3. Articles 154 and 155 of the Constitution of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina empower us to never accept the Dayton (agreement) betrayal!

4. Dr. Gregorian, "our", as you say, representatives, don't have nor did they get a mandate to destroy the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina and people who live there. You too, have no such right regardless of your “Bohn authorities”! PROPOSITION: Dr. Gregorian, you sign, in the name of OHR, that you accept those amendments and then take full responsibility before the International community, because in the future (a dangerous one), only you will be able to correct the mistakes!

5. By you internet-based registration you intentionally turn people off in attending the public debate.

6. The debate was set during work time – intentionally so less citizens would appear.

7. It is the sole and irrevocable right and responsibility of citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina to and other ethnic groups living within, to protect and defend freedom, independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and order established by the Constitution of the Republic!


9. Legalizing "RS" means a prize for the genocide!

10. Proposition to approach to the change of the Constitution of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina can be submitted by: each council of the Assembly of the Republic, Presidency of the Republic, Government of the Republic and at least 30 representatives of the Assembly!

11. It is perfectly clear then that not one point from the Article 268. Of the Constitution of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina was not fulfilled so that according to that fact, the initiative and public debate about the change of Dayton-Constitution of BiH, by submitting amendments that deals with Brcko District – is completely illegitimate and unlawful!

12. Because of embedded mechanisms for human right abuse in current Constitution , Bosnia and Herzegovina can only became a candidate for the EC member but it will never become a member of European union. So the adoption of the Amendment I on the Constitution because of the inclusion of status of Brcko, will become an obstacle for Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s entry in European Union!!

13. DR. GREGORIAN, show by this example that you are indeed the friend of all of the citizens of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and that you are on the side of the protectors of the Human rights,and then those who are for peace can put you as a candidate for NOBEL PEACE PRIZE!

14. Free people and people with dignity can never agree that their freedom and sovereignty be taken away by a knife and aggression.


Ivana Mostarac, coordinator
NGO "Children Movement for Peace, Love and Friendship– Children of Sarajevo”
Malik Garibija, president of ¨Youth Council¨, Sarajevo



Obezbjedjen je sinhronizovani Bosanski prevod.


No comments: