October 11, 2017

Croatia Is Brazenly Attempting to Rewrite its Holocaust Crimes Out of History

tabletmag.com

Croatia Is Brazenly Attempting to Rewrite its Holocaust Crimes Out of History – Tablet Magazine

Menachem Z. Rosensaft

31-39 minutes


An alarming and expanding wave of revisionism in Eastern Europe

October 9, 2017 • 12:00 AM

The leadership of the small Jewish community in Croatia, along with representatives of the country's Serb minority, has boycotted the last two government-sponsored Holocaust commemorations in 2016 and 2017. Demonstrating impressive moral courage and integrity, they refuse to condone a historical revisionism with echoes of Holocaust denial that aims to rehabilitate the Ustasha, a Croatian fascist movement led by the nationalist dictator Ante Pavelić that aggressively and ardently murdered hundreds of thousands of Serbs and tens of thousands of Jews during World War II.

The present stand-off between the Croatian Jewish community and the Croatian government (celebrating Croatian independence yesterday) over the manner in which the Holocaust is commemorated—or not commemorated—and the effective rehabilitation and glorification of the Ustasha came to a head after a March 2016 Israel-Croatia soccer match, where Croatian spectators shouted the notorious Ustasha slogan "Za dom spremni," or "Ready for the Homeland," in the presence of the Croatian prime minister, who apparently sat by without reacting.

Prime Minister Tihomir Oreskovic subsequently issued a statement in which he said "the Croatian government, and I personally, condemn the crimes of the Ustasha regime." However, "revitalization of the Ustasha regime is only exceptionally condemned," Dr. Ognjen Kraus, president of the Coordinating Committee of the Jewish Communities of Croatia, said at that time. "It is an avalanche that reminds us of what was happening in the so-called independent state of Croatia."

It is true that Croatian President Kolinda Grabar-Kitarovic had similarly condemned the Ustasha's role during the Holocaust during a 2015 visit to Israel. "I express my deepest regrets to all the victims of the Holocaust in Croatia, killed at the hands of the collaborationist Ustasha regime during World War II," she said at Yad Vashem in Jerusalem. On a subsequent trip to Canada, however, President Grabar-Kitarovic sent a far different message when she posed with a group of Croatian émigrés holding a flag bearing the Ustasha symbol. She also raised eyebrows when she said in a radio interview that "I adore listening to" a popular Croatian singer-songwriter who regularly glorifies the Ustasha.

Even President Grabar-Kitarovic's reference to the Ustasha as a collaborationist regime falls far short of the mark. The Ustasha initiated the brutality and mass killing of Serbs, Jews and Roma on their own initiative, for their own perverse ideological reasons. As Saul Friedländer wrote in his Nazi Germany and the Jews 1939-1945, The Years of Extermination:

In Croatia, no sooner did Pavelić return from Italian exile and establish his new regime—a mixture of fascism and devout Catholicism—then, as the German envoy to Zagreb, Edmund von Glaise Horstenau, reported "the Ustasha went raging mad." The poglavnik ("leader," in Serbo-Croat) launched a genocidal crusade against the 2.2 million Christian Orthodox Serbs (out of a total population of 6.7 million) living on Croatian territory, and against the country's 45,000 Jews, particularly in ethnically mixed Bosnia. The Catholic Ustasha did not mind the continuous presence of Muslims or Protestants, but Serbs and Jews had to convert, leave or to die. According to historian Jonathan Steinberg, "Serbian and Jewish men, women and children were literally hacked to death. Whole villages were razed to the ground and the people driven to barns, to which the Ustasha set fire. There is in the Italian Foreign Ministry archive a collection of photographs of the butcher knives, hooks, and axes used to chop up Serbian victims. There are photographs of Serb women with breasts hacked off by pocket knives, men with eyes gouged out, emasculated, and mutilated."

Other factors contributed to the Jewish community's decision not to participate in the April 2016 commemoration at Jasenovac. Earlier that month, extreme-nationalist Croatian Minister of Culture Zlatko Hasanbegović attended the widely-publicized Croatian premiere of a documentary film titled Jasenovac—The Truth, by the Croatian filmmaker Jakov Sedlar. This film contended that Jasenovac had not been a concentration camp where the Ustasha had committed genocide, but rather a far more benign labor camp and that the number of victims of Jasenovac had been greatly exaggerated. Hasanbegović publicly praised the film, saying, "This is the best way to finally shed light on a number of controversial places in Croatian history."

In sharp contrast, the Israeli ambassador to Zagreb, Zina Kalay Kleitman, who had also attended the premiere, denounced the film in no uncertain terms. "Since I am Israeli, and a descendant of a family that was hit by Holocaust, I wanted to see and look at the film, which, in my opinion, very selectively shows history, attempts to revise historical facts, and offends the feelings of people who have lost their loved ones in Jasenovac," she wrote in an open letter, adding that, "I also noticed an attempt to downplay the terrible extent of the crimes committed, or at least an attempt to illustrate them with historical events that led to them."

In late 2016, far-right political figures and veterans of the 1990-era Croatian Defense Forces put up a plaque in the Croatian municipality of Jasenovac that featured the "Za dom spremni" slogan. The ostensible reason for putting up the plaque was to commemorate 11 fighters of the Croatian military who died during the Balkan wars of the 1990s. Croatian journalist Vojislav Macoko placed the controversy squarely in historical and moral perspective. Setting the plaque in the town of Jasenovac was "unacceptable" for a number of reasons, he said. "The first is that it is unacceptable to erect a monument with such a greeting because it's the Ustasha salute. This is public glorification of domestic Nazism. The other reason is because it is, of course, Jasenovac."

At the time, the Croatian government's failure to take any action to remove the plaque, along with its general casting of the Ustasha as no worse (if not better) than the Communist-led anti-fascist partisans of WWII, caused the Jewish community to boycott the official state commemoration of International Holocaust Remembrance Day on Jan. 27, 2017. "If the red star [the insignia of the Partisans] and the Ustasha's 'U' [insignia] are the same, then there's nothing more to talk about," explained Dr. Kraus.

In early September of this year, the Associate Press reported that the plaque had at last been taken down in Jasenovac and that Croatian Prime Minister Andrej Plenkovic had said that the salute was unacceptable to him because of its association with the WWII Ustasha regime. However, according to a spokesperson of a Croatian veterans group, the plaque was merely being moved to another location. "It will be placed elsewhere as it is," Ivan Friscic declared. "With all the symbols and signs, and no one must touch it."

***

The overall history of the Holocaust in most of Nazi-occupied Europe is well known, thanks to a great extent to the works of historians such as Raul Hilberg, Saul Friedländer, Yehuda Bauer, and David Cesarani, and to major institutions dedicated to Holocaust remembrance and research, including the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, Yad Vashem in Jerusalem, and the Fondation pour la Mémoire de la Shoah in Paris. The same, however, cannot be said for the perpetration of the Holocaust in the Balkans.

The Balkan genocide during WWII has been more difficult to chronicle than the methodical annihilation of European Jewry at the hands of Nazi Germany elsewhere. In large part, this is due to the fact that, as David Cesarani noted in his monumental Final Solution: The Fate of the Jews 1933-1949, after Yugoslavia was dismembered in April 1941 following the invasion of that country by Axis forces, "around 40,000 Jews ended up in the German client-state of Croatia; 15,000 in Serbia, which was little more than an autonomous region under direct German rule; about 16,000 in Backa, a block of land annexed to Hungary; 8,000 in western Macedonia, occupied by Bulgaria; and several thousand in the coastal strip of Macedonia under Italian jurisdiction."

It must be noted that the Independent State of Croatia that was carved out of Yugoslavia in 1941 was geographically different from the present-day Republic of Croatia in that it included Bosnia and Herzegovina as well as parts of Serbia and Slovenia, but not Dalmatia, which had been given to Italy. Only 24,000 Jews lived in what is today the Republic of Croatia.

Any study of the Holocaust in the Balkans requires separate analysis of each of the regions of what had been—and would resume to be after the war—Yugoslavia. In Serbia, for instance, German soldiers massacred 4,000 to 5,000 Jewish men in the autumn of 1941, and thousands more Jewish men, women, and children, as well as Roma, were subsequently murdered at the Nazi concentration camp of Sajmište (Semlin in German). In Macedonia, Jews were in due course handed over by the Bulgarian government to the Germans for deportation, resulting in the near decimation of that community. In Croatia, the gruesome course of events was different yet again.

Also, while the Holocaust in most parts of Nazi-occupied or Nazi-dominated Europe was carried out predominantly by Nazi Germany, albeit with the assistance and often eager participation of nationals of the respective countries in question, Croatia is in a separate category, together with Ion Antonescu's fascist regime in Romania. The genocide in the Independent State of Croatia, headed by the Ustasha leader and ideologue Ante Pavelić, was carried out not by Germans but by Croatians without direction or even the participation by the SS or other German genocidaires. When it comes to Croatia, incidentally, the plural "genocides"—rather than singular "genocide"—is appropriate because the Ustasha targeted primarily Serbs for annihilation, alongside Jews and Roma. According to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, "The Croat authorities murdered between 320,000 and 340,000 ethnic Serb residents of Croatia and Bosnia during the period of Ustasha rule; more than 30,000 Croatian Jews were killed either in Croatia or at Auschwitz-Birkenau."

The Ustasha established a network of home-grown concentration camps infamous for their brutality and comparable to the barbarity of the German death and concentration camps. The most notorious of these was a group of five camps collectively named Jasenovac, near Zagreb, often referred to as the "Auschwitz of the Balkans." Again according to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, somewhere between 77,000 and 99,000 Serbs, Jews and Roma were brutally murdered there. The Jasenovac Memorial Site has identified by name 83,145 Serbs, Jews, Roma, and anti-fascists who perished in these camps.

"The Jasenovac camps were an execution site and grave for more than half the Jewish victims during the existence of the [independent state of Croatia] and for more than one-third of the Zagreb Jews who disappeared in the Holocaust in 1941-1945," wrote historians Ivo Goldstein and Slavko Goldstein in their The Holocaust in Croatia. Yet for most of the post-WWII era, little public discussion or awareness was devoted to the Holocaust within the former Yugoslavia or elsewhere in the Balkans.

Leaders of the Croatian Jewish community have expressed displeasure at the way the history of Jasenovac is being presented in the permanent exhibition at the site of the camp. "Jasenovac is shown there more as a collection and labor camp," Judge Sanja Zoričić Tabaković, president of the Executive Board of the Jewish Community of Zagreb and representative of the Jewish National Minority in the City of Zagreb, told the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network. "According to what [is displayed] and how it's presented in the exhibition, it doesn't look like an execution site. In the exhibition, one can't see photos of killed people, but only of those who saved themselves or were exchanged [in prisoner exchanges] or survived."

In effect, both the revisionist Sedlar film and the exhibit at Jasenovac affirmatively distorted and denied the fundamental truth that the Ustasha committed atrocities there that today would unquestionably be considered genocide as a matter of international law.

***

One of the earliest controversies in this regard came after Croatia declared its independence from Yugoslavia in 1991, and it became known that its first president, the hardline nationalist Franjo Tudjman, had maintained that the generally accepted number of Jewish victims of the Holocaust was greatly exaggerated. Tudjman had also made numerous anti-Semitic slurs, including, notably: "A Jew is still a Jew. Even in the camps, they retained their bad characteristics: selfishness, perfidy, meanness, slyness, and treachery." Tudjman eventually apologized—at least twice—first in 1992 in a letter to World Jewish Congress President Edgar M. Bronfman, and again the following year to Kent Schiner, the international president of B'nai B'rith.

Tudjman effectively began the process of casting the Ustasha as Croatian patriots rather than criminals, maintaining that fascist and anti-fascist Croatians deserved equal recognition for their service to their country. As The New York Times observed in 1997, "Perhaps no other country has failed as openly as Croatia to come to terms with its fascist legacy. While the French celebrate a resistance movement that was often dwarfed by the widespread collaboration with the Vichy regime, and while the Austrians often act as if the war never happened, the Croats have rehabilitated the Croatian fascist collaborators, known as the Ustasha."

Despite having himself fought with Tito's Communist partisans, Tudjman named former Ustasha officials to government positions. He also restored the kuna as the Croatian currency, using the name of the monetary unit that had been the national currency of Pavelić's Ustasha government. "I, like other Croatian Jews, am personally offended by this decision, as well as by the government's arguments, which are rubbish," said Ivo Goldstein, a medieval historian at the University of Zagreb. "This is an insult and an offense to Serbs, to Jews, and to the Croats who fought against the Ustasha regime."

The Croatian president's whitewashing of the Ustasha outraged many Croatians who had suffered under the fascist regime. "You cannot reconcile victims and butchers," declared Ognjen Kraus, head of the Zagreb Jewish community. "No one has the right to carry out a reconciliation in the name of those who vanished."

The Ustasha made no secret of their desire and intent to kill Jews and Serbs because of their respective ethnic or national identities. British historian Rory Yeomans quotes Ustasha leader Victor Gutić stating at a rally on May 29, 1941, that he had "published drastic laws" for the Serb population's "complete economic destruction, and new ones will follow for their complete extermination." Yeomans also quotes Croatian Foreign Minister Mladen Lorković declaring on July 27, 1941, that Ustasha Croatia's mission was to "cleanse itself of all those elements that are the misfortune of the nation, that drain healthy forces in our nation. These are our Serbs and Jews." Along the same lines, Professor Aleksandar Seitz, referred to by Yeomans as one of the Ustasha's "leading social theorists," said in a June 1941 speech that "the Serbs and the Jews will not exist, and nor will those who served them because our Croatian army and the Croatian Ustashas are guaranteeing it."

Ivo and Slavko Goldstein have chronicled in detail the subsequent brutal annihilation of Croatian Jews by the Ustasha in numerous concentration and death camps, and especially at Jasenovac, calling their text appropriately the "Apogee of Terror." The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum describes Jasenovac as follows: "Conditions in the Jasenovac camps were horrendous. Prisoners received minimal food. Shelter and sanitary facilities were totally inadequate. Worse still, the guards cruelly tortured, terrorized, and murdered prisoners at will."

Historians do not argue about conditions in Jasenovac—or about the purpose of the camp. Raul Hilberg referred to the Jasenovac camps as "death camps," and Saul Friedländer called Jasenovac an "extermination camp." Commenting on one of many incidents of Holocaust minimization and outright denial that now appear to be woven together in a comprehensive denial of historical reality, Judge Zoričić Tabaković said that: "I think that this is something so outrageous on an international level. This level of denial of everything that happened in Croatia in WWII is unbelievable."

***

A brief detour is necessary here to address the campaign in many formerly communist Eastern and central European countries to place Nazism and Communism on the same moral plane, or even to depict Stalinism and the various post-Stalinist strains of communism as worse—more evil, if you will—than Nazism. Without in any way minimizing the oppression and suffering endured by large parts of the populations under Communist regimes, it is beyond question that no post-WWII Communist regime anywhere in Europe committed or attempted to commit genocide. To be sure, there were large-scale political imprisonments, far-reaching deprivations of civil and human rights, and politically motivated killings. However, as Yehuda Bauer stated eloquently in response to a 2009 resolution of the European Parliament determining Aug. 23, the anniversary of the signing of the 1939 Nazi-Soviet nonaggression pact, as a date to commemorate the victims of both regimes, "to compare this with the murder of many millions of Europeans by the Nazi regime, and especially with the state-planned genocide of the Jews (Holocaust) in the context of Nazi crimes generally … is a distortion of history." The comparison is especially invidious, as Bauer made clear, because "a certain number" of those persecuted by the Communists "had, in fact, been Nazi collaborators."

This was certainly the case in Croatia, where the post-war Tito regime engaged in large-scale killing of members of the Ustasha, but this was in revenge and retaliation for the crimes—and they were crimes—committed by the Ustasha during their reign. Such politically motivated excesses, however heinous, cannot be compared, let alone equated, with the genocides that the Ustasha had unleashed on Serbs, Jews, and Roma. "One certainly should remember the victims of the Soviet regime," Bauer concluded, "and there is every justification for designating special memorials and events to do so. But to put the two regimes on the same level and commemorating the different crimes on the same occasion is totally unacceptable."

Initiatives to glorify Nazi collaborators have been undertaken elsewhere in the former Yugoslavia. In Serbia, proceedings are underway, despite objections by the Serbian Jewish community, to clear the name of Milan Nedic, the Quisling-like prime minister of Nazi-occupied Serbia who actively collaborated in the persecution of Serbian Jews. "Rehabilitation would represent a devaluation of indisputable historical facts, and an insult to all the victims and survivors of the survivors. Serbia would also suffer moral and political damage," Haris Dojc, a member of the Jewish Community of Belgrade, explained in 2016. "Nedic and his government were directly involved in the seizure of Jewish real estate, as well as in the identification and arrest of Jews in occupied Serbia, which confirmed his role in the implementation of the Holocaust in Serbia."

In the Bulgarian capital of Sofia, right-wing extremists hold an annual march in honor of an anti-Semitic Bulgarian general who headed the pro-Nazi Union of Bulgarian National Legions. Also in Bulgaria, the ultranationalist anti-Semitic, anti-Muslim, anti-Roma, and anti-Turkish Ataka party, which derived its name from Joseph Goebbels' Nazi paper, Der Angriff (the attack), has won seats in every parliamentary election since 2005. Ataka's leader, Volen Siderov, was described in The New York Times as "a former journalist turned xenophobic nationalist," and has publicly referred dismissively to "the so-called Holocaust." In 2011, The Bulgarian Helsinki Committee denounced the republication of Siderov's "extreme anti-Semitic and inciting books, The Boomerang of Evil and The Rule of Mammon" as "an abomination, which should not be overlooked."

Yet another example of the glorification of anti-Semitic fascists of the Holocaust era, among others, can be found in Slovakia, where the ultra-nationalist Kotleba—The People's Party—Our Slovakia (named for its leader, Marian Kotleba, who used to wear Nazi-like uniforms) won 14 out of 150 seats in the 2016 parliamentary elections. British-Canadian journalist Tom Nicholson described Kotleba's followers to the BBC as "skinheads who sieg heil in public and have rallies in Bratislava—1,500 to 2,000 people—shouting hatred toward refugees and migrants from the Middle East." Kotleba and other far-right groups in Slovakia have been actively promoting the rehabilitation of Yozef Tiso, the president of the Nazi collaborationist First Slovak Republic who wholeheartedly implemented the deportation of Slovakian Jews to the Nazi death camps, and who was hanged as a war criminal in 1947. In an open letter to the chairman of the Slovak parliament, the People's Party–Our Slovakia called Tiso "a martyr of Slovakia's sovereignty and a defender of Christianity against Bolshevism."

The Baltic states and Ukraine have also been receptive soil for such initiatives to rehabilitate individuals who took part in the deportation and murder of their Jewish neighbors. Such manifestations have included demonstrations glorifying homegrown units of the Waffen-SS, and naming streets for Nazi collaborators.

In Hungary, Budapest's Memorial to the Victims of the German Occupation (a) turns a blind eye to the 1944 deportation and subsequent mass-murder of Hungarian Jews; (b) portrays Hungary as a victim of Nazism rather than, for most of WWII, a willing ally of Nazi Germany; and (c) turns the entire Hungarian nation and people into a victim of a foreign evil, utterly ignoring the fact that it was primarily Hungarian policemen, not Germans, who rounded up Jews for deportation. Elsewhere in the Hungarian capital, a museum called The House of Terror, opened in 2002, effectively places Nazism on the same moral plane and in the same light as the post-WWII Communist regime, in effect equating the latter's secret police with Nazi Germany's notorious SS. Equally if not even more troubling, the House of Terror devotes substantially more space to Communist crimes than to the genocide of Hungarian Jewry during the Holocaust. Moreover, it goes out of its way to highlight the Jewish origins of some of those deemed responsible for the communist crimes. Meanwhile, the neo-fascist Jobbik party has become a fixture on the Hungarian political scene, complete with harsh anti-Semitic and anti-Roma rhetoric.

Which is not to say that Hungarian governmental attempts to rewrite history have been without consequences. Various initiatives in recent years by Hungarian officials to rehabilitate Admiral Miklós Horthy, the wartime regent of Hungary and Hitler ally on whose watch around 440,000 Hungarian Jews were deported to Auschwitz in May-July 1944, have been met with sharp criticism. In June of 2017, after Hungarian Prime Minister Victor Orban publicly referred to Horthy as an "exceptional statesman," World Jewish Congress President Ronald S. Lauder declared that "the horrors that Admiral Horthy inflicted on the Jewish community of Hungary by stripping them of their rights and their humanity, and his role in the deportation and murder of hundreds of thousands of Jews, can never be excused."

It is in this broader context of a disquieting trend to downplay if not totally ignore crimes against humanity committed by domestic Nazi collaborators, both individuals and movements, during the years of the Holocaust, that the Croatian Jewish community's confrontation with the Croatian authorities takes on special significance. The recasting of the Ustasha as national heroes and role models has ominous connotations in a country and region where ethnic hatred and strife have had catastrophic consequences, not just during WWII but more recently during the Balkan wars of the 1990s.

The publication in 2001 of Ivo and Slavko Goldstein's meticulously researched The Holocaust in Croatia makes it impossible for the Croatian authorities to claim ignorance of the Ustasha's direct responsibility for the genocides of Serbs, Jews, and Roma between 1941 and 1945. Indeed, this book, which was published in English in 2016 by University of Pittsburgh Press in association with the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, should be required reading in all Croatian schools and at all Croatian universities.

At a time when far-right politicians and ideologues like the above-mentioned former Croatian minister of culture, Zlatko Hasanbegovićare, becoming increasingly brazen, if not overtly shameless, in their attempts to write the crimes against humanity committed by the Ustasha out of their nation's history, the Croatian Jewish community deserves both respect and international support. Such support should come not just from international Jewish organizations and other Jewish communities, but from institutions and agencies around the world that are dedicated to the preservation of the memory of the Holocaust and other genocides. These small and overdue steps are necessary to prevent the re-creation of the xenophobic, hate-filled environment that allowed the Holocaust and other genocides to occur in the first place.

***

You can help support Tablet's unique brand of Jewish journalism. Click here to donate today.

October 05, 2017

Flashback to Yugoslavia, West's first color revolution victim

rt.com

Flashback to Yugoslavia, West's first color revolution victim — RT Op-Edge

7-9 minutes


While Washington makes evidence-less claims of Russian interference in US politics, it is worth remembering an epidemic of "color revolutions" around the world openly sponsored by the US, which began in Serbia 17 years ago.

October 5, 2000 now seems a lifetime ago. It is worth reaching that far back in the memory to the first "color revolution," a technique developed to overthrow governments Washington disliked and replacing them with more favorable and compliant ones.

According to the official narrative crafted by the Western media and their franchises in Serbia, the righteous people revolted against the corrupt, dictatorial regime of Slobodan Milosevic, took to the streets of Belgrade, stormed the public TV station and the parliament, and established freedom and democracy without bloodshed.

There is just one problem. None of it is true.

The US has long tried to replace Milosevic with someone more willing to obey unconditionally and remake what was then still Yugoslavia into yet another eastern European country that was "transitioned" from Communism and despoiled in the process. Previous attempts at doing so, from the 1995 intervention in Bosnia to the 1999 NATO attack and occupation of Kosovo, failed.

After Milosevic held out against the alliance for 78 days and eventually struck a negotiated armistice, agents of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the Soros Open Society Fund, USAID and other quasi-NGOs answering to Washington stepped up plans for regime change by other means.

Read more

US Ambassador Richard Miles "midwifed" the creation of the 'Democratic Opposition of Serbia' (DOS), a hodgepodge of small parties centered on the Democrats. The party's leader, Zoran Dindic, was kept in the shadows since he polled in single digits. Instead, the coalition's public face was Vojislav Kostunica, a mild-mannered law professor with no political baggage, picked as the best candidate against Milosevic in the September 24 presidential election.

Meanwhile, a student movement called 'Otpor' (Resistance) was quickly taken over by US-trained activists, like Srda Popovic. Training sessions in Hungary, run by NED contractors instructed Otpor activists, taught participants how to ridicule, disrupt and attack the government through civil disobedience. "Suitcases of cash" smuggled across the border paid for posters, placards, t-shirts, street art and other branding, all featuring the iconic fist logo. Another key NGO funded from the West was the Center for Free Elections and Democracy (CESID), a self-appointed vote watchdog whose claims directly contradicted the official electoral commission.

After the government announced that neither candidate got 50 percent of the vote and a runoff would be required, DOS and Otpor called for a general strike and mass street protests on October 5. Protesters stormed the Yugoslav Parliament and torched the ballot boxes stored there, conveniently obliterating any evidence of who might have actually won the election.

After meeting with Kostunica, Milosevic agreed to step down peacefully, robbing the rebels of some of their momentum. As a result, Đindic was unable to implement the full revolutionary agenda, with Kostunica objecting to his trampling of the laws in the name of "reformist" expediency.

Ever since then, however, who ruled Serbia was never really decided at the ballot box but at the US embassy, with either pre- or post-electoral alliances or cynical schemes to manipulate the parliamentary majority. Most recently, in 2012, leaders of the Radical Party re-branded themselves as the Progressives to get the US blessing to take over - and went on to deliver most of Washington's demands when it came to giving up the occupied province of Kosovo, among other things.

Exporting 'democracy'

None of this really mattered to the revolution's backers; they only wanted a vassal regime in Belgrade, the actual rule of law, democracy or human rights in Serbia be damned. They also decided the October 5 formula was too good to be used just once and set out to deploy it elsewhere.

Ambassador Miles oversaw the 2003 'Rose Revolution' in Georgia, installing in power the US-educated Mikhail Saakashvili. This, too, proved detrimental to the country's actual inhabitants: Saakashvili started the August 2008 war with Russia, lost the war, and the 2012 election, and fled the country before he could be arrested for corruption. He later joined the US-backed government in Ukraine, but that's another story.

In 2004, the US sponsored the 'Orange Revolution' in Kiev, backing a DOS-like coalition led by Viktor Yushchenko. By that point, Washington wasn't even pretending to be uninvolved.

"US campaign behind the turmoil in Kiev," ran a Guardian headline from November 26, 2004, talking about the role of Miles in Georgia and his colleague Michael Kozak in Belarus.

"The operation - engineering democracy through the ballot box and civil disobedience - is now so slick that the methods have matured into a template for winning other people's elections," wrote the Guardian's Ian Traynor, noting that "the campaign was first used in Europe in Belgrade in 2000."

A decade later, 'color revolution' techniques would once again be used in Ukraine, culminating in the February 2014 coup against President Viktor Yanukovich and the subsequent crisis in Crimea and the Donbass.

Mind-snatchers

The manual for this kind of coup was written by US scholar Gene Sharp. But it was the former Otpor activists who spread it across the world. In 2004, Popovic founded CANVAS (Center for Applied NonViolent Action and Strategies) and began traveling the world peddling his revolutionary methods to whoever was Uncle Sam's next target.

A 2011 documentary about the revolution business followed Otpor/CANVAS activity to North Africa during that year's 'Arab Spring' uprisings.

Wherever they go, these agents of chaos infect the target country's politics, manipulating genuine local activists into becoming the agents of their people's demise. While they preach democracy, their dirty tricks are effectively destroying its credibility in the long term. That's fine with them, however; the objective is not democracy but obedience. Besides, they won't stick around to see the consequences - there is always the next revolution to plan and execute.

And they always mobilize the young, known for their excess of emotion and shortage of wisdom. They sing the seductive song of "bringing down a dictator" (there's even a documentary! With a celebrity narrator!) to people who think that will solve all of their problems.

Before the dust from the 'revolution' clears, however, the CANVAS consultants have moved off to the next target, leaving their duped students to watch in horror as their countries descend into strife or chaos. If they are extremely lucky, they end up replacing one corrupt regime with another, only this time beholden to foreign masters.

While the 'color revolutions' are not always successful, even the failed ones cause severe damage to the target country's politics. Also, once infected, a country is always in danger of relapse.

Popovic was most recently sighted in Hungary, at the beginning of September, amid growing protests against that country's stubbornly independent government that eerily resemble the blueprint established in Serbia, 17 years ago.

Nebojsa Malic for RT

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/405771-october-2000-remembering-yugoslavia-nato/

Flashback to Yugoslavia, West's first color revolution victim

rt.com

Flashback to Yugoslavia, West's first color revolution victim — RT Op-Edge

7-9 minutes


While Washington makes evidence-less claims of Russian interference in US politics, it is worth remembering an epidemic of "color revolutions" around the world openly sponsored by the US, which began in Serbia 17 years ago.

October 5, 2000 now seems a lifetime ago. It is worth reaching that far back in the memory to the first "color revolution," a technique developed to overthrow governments Washington disliked and replacing them with more favorable and compliant ones.

According to the official narrative crafted by the Western media and their franchises in Serbia, the righteous people revolted against the corrupt, dictatorial regime of Slobodan Milosevic, took to the streets of Belgrade, stormed the public TV station and the parliament, and established freedom and democracy without bloodshed.

There is just one problem. None of it is true.

The US has long tried to replace Milosevic with someone more willing to obey unconditionally and remake what was then still Yugoslavia into yet another eastern European country that was "transitioned" from Communism and despoiled in the process. Previous attempts at doing so, from the 1995 intervention in Bosnia to the 1999 NATO attack and occupation of Kosovo, failed.

After Milosevic held out against the alliance for 78 days and eventually struck a negotiated armistice, agents of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the Soros Open Society Fund, USAID and other quasi-NGOs answering to Washington stepped up plans for regime change by other means.

Read more

US Ambassador Richard Miles "midwifed" the creation of the 'Democratic Opposition of Serbia' (DOS), a hodgepodge of small parties centered on the Democrats. The party's leader, Zoran Dindic, was kept in the shadows since he polled in single digits. Instead, the coalition's public face was Vojislav Kostunica, a mild-mannered law professor with no political baggage, picked as the best candidate against Milosevic in the September 24 presidential election.

Meanwhile, a student movement called 'Otpor' (Resistance) was quickly taken over by US-trained activists, like Srda Popovic. Training sessions in Hungary, run by NED contractors instructed Otpor activists, taught participants how to ridicule, disrupt and attack the government through civil disobedience. "Suitcases of cash" smuggled across the border paid for posters, placards, t-shirts, street art and other branding, all featuring the iconic fist logo. Another key NGO funded from the West was the Center for Free Elections and Democracy (CESID), a self-appointed vote watchdog whose claims directly contradicted the official electoral commission.

After the government announced that neither candidate got 50 percent of the vote and a runoff would be required, DOS and Otpor called for a general strike and mass street protests on October 5. Protesters stormed the Yugoslav Parliament and torched the ballot boxes stored there, conveniently obliterating any evidence of who might have actually won the election.

After meeting with Kostunica, Milosevic agreed to step down peacefully, robbing the rebels of some of their momentum. As a result, Đindic was unable to implement the full revolutionary agenda, with Kostunica objecting to his trampling of the laws in the name of "reformist" expediency.

Ever since then, however, who ruled Serbia was never really decided at the ballot box but at the US embassy, with either pre- or post-electoral alliances or cynical schemes to manipulate the parliamentary majority. Most recently, in 2012, leaders of the Radical Party re-branded themselves as the Progressives to get the US blessing to take over - and went on to deliver most of Washington's demands when it came to giving up the occupied province of Kosovo, among other things.

Exporting 'democracy'

None of this really mattered to the revolution's backers; they only wanted a vassal regime in Belgrade, the actual rule of law, democracy or human rights in Serbia be damned. They also decided the October 5 formula was too good to be used just once and set out to deploy it elsewhere.

Ambassador Miles oversaw the 2003 'Rose Revolution' in Georgia, installing in power the US-educated Mikhail Saakashvili. This, too, proved detrimental to the country's actual inhabitants: Saakashvili started the August 2008 war with Russia, lost the war, and the 2012 election, and fled the country before he could be arrested for corruption. He later joined the US-backed government in Ukraine, but that's another story.

In 2004, the US sponsored the 'Orange Revolution' in Kiev, backing a DOS-like coalition led by Viktor Yushchenko. By that point, Washington wasn't even pretending to be uninvolved.

"US campaign behind the turmoil in Kiev," ran a Guardian headline from November 26, 2004, talking about the role of Miles in Georgia and his colleague Michael Kozak in Belarus.

"The operation - engineering democracy through the ballot box and civil disobedience - is now so slick that the methods have matured into a template for winning other people's elections," wrote the Guardian's Ian Traynor, noting that "the campaign was first used in Europe in Belgrade in 2000."

A decade later, 'color revolution' techniques would once again be used in Ukraine, culminating in the February 2014 coup against President Viktor Yanukovich and the subsequent crisis in Crimea and the Donbass.

Mind-snatchers

The manual for this kind of coup was written by US scholar Gene Sharp. But it was the former Otpor activists who spread it across the world. In 2004, Popovic founded CANVAS (Center for Applied NonViolent Action and Strategies) and began traveling the world peddling his revolutionary methods to whoever was Uncle Sam's next target.

A 2011 documentary about the revolution business followed Otpor/CANVAS activity to North Africa during that year's 'Arab Spring' uprisings.

Wherever they go, these agents of chaos infect the target country's politics, manipulating genuine local activists into becoming the agents of their people's demise. While they preach democracy, their dirty tricks are effectively destroying its credibility in the long term. That's fine with them, however; the objective is not democracy but obedience. Besides, they won't stick around to see the consequences - there is always the next revolution to plan and execute.

And they always mobilize the young, known for their excess of emotion and shortage of wisdom. They sing the seductive song of "bringing down a dictator" (there's even a documentary! With a celebrity narrator!) to people who think that will solve all of their problems.

Before the dust from the 'revolution' clears, however, the CANVAS consultants have moved off to the next target, leaving their duped students to watch in horror as their countries descend into strife or chaos. If they are extremely lucky, they end up replacing one corrupt regime with another, only this time beholden to foreign masters.

While the 'color revolutions' are not always successful, even the failed ones cause severe damage to the target country's politics. Also, once infected, a country is always in danger of relapse.

Popovic was most recently sighted in Hungary, at the beginning of September, amid growing protests against that country's stubbornly independent government that eerily resemble the blueprint established in Serbia, 17 years ago.

Nebojsa Malic for RT

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/405771-october-2000-remembering-yugoslavia-nato/

October 03, 2017

"What's done to Serbia is violation of international law"

b92.net

"What's done to Serbia is violation of international law" - Politics

6-8 minutes


Ivica Dacic on Tuesday pointed to EU double standards in interpreting the referendum in Catalonia and the unilateral declaration of independence of Kosovo.

Source: B92, RTS Tuesday, October 3, 2017 | 16:23

 

(Tanjug, file)

Speaking for RTS, in remarks carried by the Serbian government, the foreign minister stressed that both cases represented unilateral acts contrary to international law.

Dacic denied the claim made on Monday by European Commission spokesman Margaritis Schinas that Kosovo was "a specific case" and that this was also a position "adopted by various UN declarations and various resolutions of the UN and the international community."

"Kosovo cannot be a separate and specific case, there have been no resolutions of the UN Security Council. There have been no UN resolutions other than Resolution 1244 that speaks about the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Serbia. What has been done to Serbia is a violation of international law," he stressed.

The first deputy prime minister added that what Serbia had warned the international community about has now happened in Catalonia, and added that this will not be the only example of such separatist tendencies in Europe.

"Everything we are saying about the double standards should by no means be interpreted as an objection to the preservation of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Spain. Spain is our great friend and, which, unlike some other EU members, has not recognized the unilaterally declared independence of Kosmet (Kosovo and Metohija)," said Dacic.

He, however, added he did not expect some of those 22 EU member-states that have recognized Kosovo to now change their minds.

"They bombed us because of Kosovo, they will not now say that they had made a mistake. But Pandora's box is open. In the Kosovo case, it was said that unilateral moves are possible, and then you depend on being in great powers' good graces. There is no international law there, that's the policy of force," Dacic said

 

October 02, 2017

The Dishonest Career of the Remarkable Srđa Popović

journal-neo.org

The Dishonest Career of the Remarkable Srđa Popović

Author: F. William Engdahl

11-14 minutes


 

Many readers likely never heard the name of the remarkable Serbia-born political operator named Srđa Popović. Yet he and his organization, CANVAS, have played a lead role in most every CIA-backed Color Revolution since he led the toppling of Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic in 2000, at least fifty according to last count. Now he has turned his sights on Hungary and Hungary's popular and defiant Prime Minister Victor Orban.

On September 8, the professional regime-change specialist Srđa Popović came to Budapest and joined with the anti-Orban opposition groups in front of the Hungarian Parliament. It's clear that Popović was not in town to promote his Hungarian book on nonviolent regime change but rather to give aid to the anti-Orban parties before Hungarian elections in spring of 2018. Many in Hungary smell the oily hand of Hungarian-born regime-change financier George Soros behind the Popović appearance now in Budapest.

Because of the manufactured aura of "hip doer-of-good-deeds" surrounding the personality of Srđa Popović, it's useful to look closely at who sponsored his remarkable career since he founded a tiny Belgrade student opposition NGO called Otpor! in 1998 with its now famous clenched fist logo. The career of Srđa Popović from 2000 until today suggest a remarkably dishonest manipulator in the service of foreign intelligence agencies and governments, despite his vehement claims otherwise.

Serbia's Otpor!

Popović first came to international notice as the founder of the Belgrade student political activist organization Otpor! which means "Resistance!" in Serbian. In October 1998 Popović founded Otpor!, initially as a student protest group at Belgrade University dealing with student grievances. That was soon to change. He and other Otpor founders were trained in the methods of US regime-change specialist Gene Sharp founder of the Albert Einstein Institute in Cambridge Massachusetts and by US State Department soft coup specialists such as Belgrade Ambassador Richard Miles and other trained US intelligence operatives, including election specialists and public relations image makers.

Guiding Otpor!'s Milošević ouster operation, US Ambassador to Serbia Richard Miles was a specialist in regime change, far more so than in classical diplomacy. He orchestrated the CIA coup in Azerbaijan that brought Aliyev to power in 1993 before arriving in Belgrade, and after that went on to orchestrate the CIA coup in Georgia that brought US asset Mikheil Saakashvili to power.

The US Agency for International Development (USAID), widely known as a CIA front, had channeled the Serb Otpor! Millions of dollars in funds through commercial contractors and through the US-government-financed NGOs: the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the National Democratic Institute, and the International Republican Institute. The Open Society Institute of George Soros was also funneling money into Popović 's Otpor! for the toppling of Milosevic. I have yet to find a CIA and US State Department regime change or Color Revolution in which the "democracy-building" foundations of Soros were not in a kind of harmony with the Washington State Department and CIA agenda. Maybe just a coincidence.

The NED with all its affiliates was a project of Ronald Reagan CIA head, Bill Casey, in the early 1980's to conceal CIA regime change operations around the world behind the front of a "private" democracy NGO, the NED. Allen Weinstein, cofounder of the NED admitted to the Washington Post, "A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA."

According to Michael Dobbs, who was foreign investigative reporter for the Washington Post during the Milosevic ouster, the IRI paid for Popović and some two-dozen other Otpor! leaders to attend a training seminar on nonviolent resistance at the Hilton Hotel in Budapest in October,1999. There Popović and the other handpicked Serbian students received training in such matters as how to organize a strike and how to communicate with symbols, such as the clenched fist that became their logo. They learned how to overcome fear and how to undermine the authority of a dictatorial regime.

The principal lecturer at the secret Hilton Hotel meeting was Gene Sharp's associate, retired US Army Col. Robert Helvey, a former Defense Intelligence Agency analyst who trained and then used the Otpor! activists to distribute 70,000 copies of a manual on nonviolent resistance in Serb translation. Helvey worked with Gene Sharp, founder of the controversial Albert Einstein Institution, teaching techniques to the US government to conceal its coup d'états under the guise of nonviolence. Sharp was described by Helvey as "the Clausewitz of the nonviolence movement," a reference to the renowned Prussian military strategist.

Popović and his Otpor! NGO were recipients of a major share of over $41 million US government money for their "democracy-building" campaign in Serbia. Dobbs describes the US involvement:

Behind the seeming spontaneity of the street uprising that forced Milošević to respect the results of a hotly contested presidential election on September 24 was a carefully researched strategy put together by Serbian democracy activists with active assistance of Western advisers and pollsters… US-funded consultants played a crucial role behind the scenes in virtually every facet of the anti-drive, running tracking polls, training thousands of opposition activists and helping to organize a vitally important parallel vote count. US taxpayers paid for 5,000 cans of spray paint used by student activists to scrawl anti-Milošević graffiti on walls across Serbia.

In short, Popović began his revolution-making career as a regime change specialist in an operation funded by the CIA, US State Department, US Government NGOs including the infamous NED and George Soros' Open Society Institute. The question is what did Srđa Popović do after his first helpful service to Washington in 2000?

Globalization of revolutions

After his success in getting rid of Milosevic for his US Government sponsors, Popović created a new organization called CANVAS. He decided to globalize his business model that worked so well in Belgrade in 2000, to make himself an international "go to" person for making US State Department fake democracy regime change. CANVAS or the Centre for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies calls itself a non-profit, non-governmental, "educational institution focused on the use of nonviolent conflict." According to Wikipedia, CANVAS seeks to "educate pro-democracy activists around the world in what it regards as the universal principles for success in nonviolent struggle."

Popović and CANVAS claim that at least 50% of their obviously substantial funding for this philanthropic work comes from Popović 's Otpor ally, Slobodan Đinović, co-chair of CANVAS and listed as CEO of something called Orion Telecom in Belgrade. A Standard & Poors Bloomberg business search reveals no information about Orion Telecom other than the fact it is wholly-owned by an Amsterdam-listed holding called Greenhouse Telecommunications Holdings B.V. where the only information given is that the same Slobodan Đinović is CEO in a holding described only as providing "alternative telecommunication services in the Balkans." It sounds someting like a corporate version of the famous Russian matryoshka doll nested companies to hide something.

Leaving aside the unconvincing statement by Popović 's CANVAS that half their funds come from Dinovic's selfless generosity from his fabulous success as telecom CEO in Serbia, that leaves the other roughly 50% of CANVAS funds unaccounted for, as Popović declines to reveal the sources beyond claiming they are all private and non-government. Of course the Washington NGO is legally private though its funds mainly come from USAID. Of course the Soros Open Society Foundations are private. Could these be some of the private patrons of his CANVAS? We don't know as he refuses to disclose in any legally auditable way.

There is no charge for CANVAS workshops and its revolutionary know-how can be downloaded for free on the Internet. This generosity, when combined with the countries CANVAS has trained regime-change opposition group "pro-democracy activists" suggests that the other 50%, if not more, of CANVAS funding comes from money channels that lead at least in part back to the US State Department and CIA. The Washington Freedom House is known to have financed at least a part of the activities of CANVAS. Freedom House, closely tied to the US neo-conservative war lobby, gets most of its funding from the US Government.

Popović's CANVAS claims to have trained "pro-democracy activists" from more than 50 countries, including Ukraine, Georgia, Zimbabwe, Burma (actually the legal name since independence from the British is Myanmar but Washington insists on the colonial name), Ukraine, Georgia, Eritrea, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Tunisia, Egypt and Syria. Popović 's CANVAS was involved as well in unsuccessful attempts to start Color Revolution regime change against Venezuela's Hugo Chaves and the opposition in the failed 2009 Iran Green Revolution.

Every one of those countries happen to also be targets for Washington regime-change of governments who refuse to toe the Washington line on key foreign policy issues, or which contain vital raw materials such as oil, natural gas or strategic minerals.

Goldman Sachs and Stratfor

Even more interesting details recently came to light on the intimate links between the US "intelligence consultancy", Stratfor—known as the "Shadow CIA" for its corporate clients which include Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and U.S. government agencies including the Department of Homeland Security and the Defense Intelligence Agency.

It was revealed in a huge release of internal memos from Stratfor in 2012, some five million emails provided them by the hacker community Anonymous, that Popović, after creating CANVAS also cultivated very close relations with Stratfor. According to the Stratfor internal emails, Popović worked for Stratfor to spy on opposition groups. So intimate was the relationship between Popović and Stratfor that he got his wife a job with the company and invited several Stratfor people to his Belgrade wedding.

Revealed in the same Stratfor emails by Wikileaks was the intriguing information that one of the "golden geese" funders of the mysterious CANVAS was a Wall Street bank named Goldman Sachs. Satter Muneer, a Goldman Sachs partner, is cited by Stratfor's then-Eurasia Analyst Marko Papic. Papic, asked by a Stratfor colleague whether Muneer was the "golden goose" money behind CANVAS, writes back, "They have several golden gooses I believe. He is for sure one of them."

Now the very remarkable Mr Popović brings his dishonest career to Hungary where, not a dictator, but a very popular true democrat who offers his voters choices, is the target for Popović' peculiar brand of US State Department fake democracy. This will not at all be as easy as toppling Milošević, even if he has the help of student activists being trained at Soros' Central European University in Budapest.

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine "New Eastern Outlook."

 

October 01, 2017

Serbia to Investigate Consequences of 1999 NATO Bombing

sputniknews.com

Serbia to Investigate Consequences of 1999 NATO Bombing

Sputnik

3-4 minutes


Europe

21:10 30.09.2017(updated 21:16 30.09.2017) Get short URL

The action group comprising of Serbian medical professionals, scientists and servicemen reportedly issued a request to the Serbian Ministry of Health and Ministry of Environmental Protection to conduct an investigation into consequences of 1999 NATO bombing, the meeting of the group members and ministers is scheduled for next week.

BELGRADE (Sputnik) — According to the action group, state of health of the people leaving in the areas close to the bombing sites is rather bad due to the impact of radioactive contamination. In particular, Prof. Danica Grujicic, the head of the neurosurgery department of the Clinical Centre of Serbia, raised the issue of cancer, autoimmune diseases and infertility.

"In the past the public has repeatedly pointed out that the land was contaminated in the places where the war crime [bombins with the use of radioactive substances] took place, and we are fully supporting the public in their efforts so that every case of radioactive contamination was released, and we will take part in creating a relevant commission," Minister of Environmental Protection Goran Trivan said, as quoted by the Radio Television of Serbia broadcaster.

The broadcaster noted that following the bombings the radioactive contamination had been found in the areas near Serbian towns of Bujanovac, Presevo and Vranje in the country's south, next to the border with Kosovo.

© AP Photo/ Dimitri Messinis

The investigation is expected to involve medical professionals in different fields, such as radiologists, epidemiologists and toxicologists, who will examine the land, water and air, as well as food products. Then the relevant coordinating body will reportedly conduct an economic and legal investigation. According to the broadcaster, the collected materials would serve as a basis for filing a lawsuit against 19 NATO members who took part in the offensive.

The Kosovo War between the ethnically Albanian Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) and the forces of Yugoslavia, consisting of Serbia and Montenegro in 1998-1999, ended after the UN-backed international intervention following NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia's troops.

The NATO strikes continued from March 24 to June 10, 1999. The exact number of victims is unknown. The Serbian authorities claim that the bombings claimed livers of nearly 2,500 people, including 89 children, while 12,500 people were injured. According to various estimates, the material damage amounted to $30-100 million. The military operation was undertaken without the approval of the UN Security Council, based upon the Western countries' claims that Yugoslavia's forces were carrying out ethnic cleansing in Kosovo.

 

September 29, 2017

Consequences of NATO’s bombing: the hidden truth

Consequences of NATO's bombing: the hidden truth

Posted on 25/09/2017 by Monica Ranieri in Politics with 5 Comments

Share1

In anticipation of a national lab that will uncover the consequences of NATO's bombing, a Belgrade daily writs that similar research has been done before.

According to Vecernje Novosti, two large studies have been done to date – but "without any epilogue." Namely, as soon as alarming data emerged, everything was swept under the carpet, the daily said.

One of these studies was conducted immediately after the NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999, the article continued. The military clinic VMA in Belgrade "attempted to find out to what degree soldiers and officers from Kosovo, as well as their children, were at risk because they were in contact with depleted uranium." 

A VMA expert told the daily that a sample was formed and observed that included about 2,000 soldiers, and that the research included their children born between 2000 and 2004 who were being treated and controlled within the clinic's system. There were 1,752 of these children. 

Also, a group of 1,204 children born earlier, from 1995 to 1999, was used as a control sample. 

According to the expert, "alarming data" was revealed after medical documentation was examined. Children born in the wake of the NATO bombing frequently had anomalies – endocrine and metabolic diseases, as well as malignant neoplasms. 

However, this study produced "no epilogue." The official explanation was that the number of those included was not sufficient for proper scientific analysis – while unofficially, the government at the time stopped the research, the newspaper writes. 

The article added that depleted uranium was also used during the bombing of Serb forces during the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and that a link was established between the use of this type of ammunition and a rising number of malignant diseases.

(b92, 25.09.2017)

https://www.b92.net/eng/news/society.php?yyyy=2017&mm=09&dd=25&nav_id=102392

 

September 27, 2017

Ex-Serbian commander 'Captain Dragan' sentenced to 15 years over murder, torture war crimes

abc.net.au

Ex-Serbian commander 'Captain Dragan' sentenced to 15 years over murder, torture war crimes

3-4 minutes


Updated about 9 hours agoTue 26 Sep 2017, 10:58pm

A Croatian court has sentenced a former Serbian paramilitary commander and Australian citizen to 15 years in prison for war crimes in the 1990s.

Key points:

  • Dragan Vasiljkovic was found guilty of two charges including torturing and beating prisoners
  • Holds dual Serbian-Australian citizenship after moving to Australia at age 15
  • Claims the trial was rigged and "an oppressive, fascist process"

The municipal court in the coastal town of Split found Dragan Vasiljkovic, also known as Captain Dragan and Daniel Snedden, guilty of the killings and torture of imprisoned Croatian civilians and troops while he was a rebel Serb commander during the 1991 to 1995 Croatian war.

Vasiljkovic, 62, was born in Serbia before moving to Australia at the age of 15.

He returned to the Balkans to train Serbian rebels in 1991, when they took up arms against Croatia's secession from Yugoslavia.

He was extradited from Australia in July 2015, after fighting a 10-year legal battle against being handed over to Croatia's judiciary.

Vasiljkovic, who holds dual Serbian-Australian citizenship, was living in Perth and worked as a golf instructor.

The three-judge Croatian court panel found Vasiljkovic guilty of two of the three charges, which included torturing and beating imprisoned Croatian police and army troops and commanding a special forces unit involved in the destruction of Croatian villages.

He was found responsible for the death of at least two civilians.

About 60 prosecution witnesses were questioned during the trial, including those who said they were tortured by Vasiljkovic.

Vasiljkovic, who was widely believed during the war to be working for Serbia's secret service, has claimed innocence throughout the one-year trial, saying the whole process was rigged.

"This is an oppressive fascist process," Vasiljkovic said during his closing statements last week. "Not only did I not commit any crimes that I am charged with, I can only ask why I was brought here and charged in the first place."

The judges ruled that they will take into account the time Vasiljkovic served in detention in Australia and in a Croatian prison, meaning he has three and a half years of his sentence remaining. He has a right to appeal.

AP/ABC

Topics: history, community-and-society, unrest-conflict-and-war, law-crime-and-justice, croatia, serbia, yugoslavia, perth-6000, australia

First posted yesterday at 9:19amTue 26 Sep 2017, 9:19am

 

September 20, 2017

Serbia and the EU: Stability over democracy

euobserver.com

Serbia and the EU: Stability over democracy

Steve Crawshaw

6-8 minutes


There were more headlines over the weekend praising the fact that the new out-and-proud Serb prime minister, Ana Brnabic, took part in a gay pride march in Belgrade.

And yes, that is in itself good news, given the disturbing context of homophobic violence that we have seen over the past years.

The implication of this new flurry of cosy headlines about Serbia, and about Ana Brnabic, is that Serbia is now a place where rights are more generally taken seriously at last. But, on that point, many Serb activists would beg to differ.

Brussels may be reluctant to criticise Serbia because of geopolitical considerations on Kosovo and other issues. This is what the European Commission likes to call Belgrade's "constructive role in the region", but Serbian activists would point out that their country's role has often been far from constructive.

They believe that Brussels' reluctance to speak out has damaging consequences for Serbia and the region.

However, there are indeed some scraps of good news that may seem to justify the new warmth.

Scraps of warmth

Serbia did recently gain its first female and first lesbian prime minister - in a country that has been plagued by homophobic violence.

Serb leader Aleksandar Vucic - prime minister between 2014 and 2017, and newly elected president - often speaks of EU membership as a "strategic priority".

The Balkan wars seem long ago. Slobodan Milosevic - ousted in 2000 after a bloody decade in power - was delivered to The Hague and died behind bars in 2006.

The bombed-out defence ministry building on one of Belgrade's central boulevards still stands as a conspicuous reminder of the Nato bombing in 1999, but such eyesores can seem like an archaeological relic. Some Serb voters were, after all, barely born at that time.

But the appointment of a gay prime minister (welcome though that is), and the official trumpeting of "European values" do not mean that Serbia now has a government committed to tolerance, justice and rule of law.

On the contrary: for those who dare to speak out, the problems are real and growing, even while Brussels and Washington turn a blind eye.

In the late 1990s, Vucic was information minister and chief media enforcer for Milosevic. But Vucic insists his approach has changed since that time, when troublesome journalists risked being murdered.

In Vucic's own words, "only donkeys don't change".

But the Independent Association of Journalists in Serbia recorded 69 attacks on journalists last year - and there has been a sharp increase in recent years.

The Association this month highlighted the government's silence, yet there are still more death threats - and this time against journalists at an independent news website.

No media freedom

The state television news and the majority of privately owned channels provide a steady drumbeat of unquestioning support, where little to no criticism of government policies can be heard.

Media ownership is often opaque, and demonising alternative voices is routine.

Anita Mitic, Belgrade director of the Youth Initiative for Human Rights, says she and her colleagues have given up reporting the death threats: "The police don't even call us back."

Under Vucic, the language used to criticise those who speak out is disturbingly reminiscent of his former master's voice.

Pro-government headlines accused the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network (BIRN) and KRIK, the Crime and Corruption Reporting Network, of being "liars" and "mercenaries".

For the moment, such attacks have subsided. More broadly, however, the pressure has not.

The apartment of a KRIK reporter, Dragana Peco, was ransacked last month in what Ljiljana Smajlovic, of the European Centre for Press and Media Freedom, described as a "brazen attempt to intimidate".

In a bid to keep European governments sweet, Vucic and his allies have regularly played the "Russia card" - in effect "If you don't love us, Moscow will" - including with regard to ongoing negotiations on the status of Kosovo. As a result, despite a range of human rights concerns, Brussels is much keener to praise than to criticise.

For Serbs who still dare to put their heads above the parapet, that self-censorship is a core part of the problem.

Serbia's stabilitocracy

"Stabilitocracy", a newly-coined Balkan buzzword, describes an all too familiar problem.

In the words of Jovo Bakic, a Belgrade sociologist: "The EU prefers stability to democracy or human rights. The EU made its choice. I think it's very shortsighted."

Dragana Zarkovic-Obradovic, Belgrade director of the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network argues: "They are allowing [Vucic] to poison the public - and that will backfire. He is feeding [them] all the worst things, and destabilising the country."

Anita Mitic of the Youth Initiative for Human Rights believes that the failure to speak out can have destabilising consequences for the future: "We are promoting European values more than Europe itself does. I'm frustrated that I can risk my life for European values - and the European Union abandons me, for the sake of a deal."

But none of this is new, of course.

Slobodan Milosevic himself, the arch-destabiliser, was at one point regarded by Western leaders not as part of the problem but as part of the solution. Or, as Milosevic himself once told me, while the war in Bosnia was getting underway: "I am for peace."

After thousands more lives were lost, Western illusions about Serbia's then strongman were eventually shattered. It is time to shatter today's illusions, too.

President Vucic, in welcome contrast to his one-time mentor, is no unleasher of wars.

But the bottom line remains: human rights and stability are not alternatives but two sides of the same coin - and the rule of law is essential for both. We cannot afford to ignore that simple truth.

Steve Crawshaw is a senior advocacy adviser at Amnesty International, and a board member of the Balkans Investigative Reporting Network.

 

September 05, 2017

In Conversation: Milorad Pupovac, Leader of Croatia's Serbs

balkanist.net

In Conversation: Milorad Pupovac, Leader of Croatia's Serbs

13-16 minutes


Over the weekend, a group of far-right protesters in Croatia burned copies of the Serb minority newspaper Novosti in front of the publication's office in Zagreb. The far-right group had a chilling warning for Milorad Pupovac, the leader of the Serb National Council (SNV) that publishes Novosti: it would be "dangerous" for him if the fascist Ustaša slogan za dom spremni (for the homeland ready) was removed from a Croatian Defense Forces (HOS) plaque near the WWII Jasenovac concentration camp, as he and others have suggested. On Monday, Croatian President Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović drew criticism and further attention to the issue when she described za dom spremni as "a traditional Croatian greeting".

Pupovac, who in addition to serving as the president of the SNV is the leader of Croatia's Independent Democratic Serb Party and a member of the Sabor, has been an outspoken critic of the plaque.

Balkanist spoke with Milorad Pupovac, leader of Croatia's Serbs, about the controversial plaque, the intense public and media scrutiny he and his party have faced in recent weeks, and Croatia's current ruling coalition, of which he and his Independent Democratic Serb Party are a part.


Balkanist: You and your party have recently been subject to intense public and media scrutiny in Croatia due to your stance on the HOS plaque in the vicinity of the Jasenovac Memorial Center. What's your response to this?

Pupovac: The plaque is found on the side of a building where the heads of the Ustaša concentration camp in Jasenovac were based. The fact that it was placed there represents the symbolic return of the Ustaša to the location of the Jasenovac concentration camp, and the connotations that this has go beyond the complex itself. For us, this represents an intense form of desecration; it defiles a place that was the site of the most monstrous crimes committed during World War II in Croatia and on the territory of occupied Europe. Therefore, any civilized government, any government that feels a moral obligation towards that level of suffering should feel that it's imperative that the plaque to be removed. Such plaques should not be allowed anywhere in Croatia, especially not in the vicinity of Jasenovac.

Balkanist: How does this fit into the platform of the political party you represent?

Pupovac: We are a party that has an anti-fascist political orientation, with a tradition that draws heavily on the anti-fascist tradition of Croatia and the former Yugoslav federation. Because of this aspect of our political philosophy we have a special sensitivity to the desecration of places that have seen a lot of suffering at the hands of fascist movements. We are sensitive to the relativization of crimes committed by fascist formations, in this case Ustasa formations. Our party is actively involved in confronting historical revisionism and confronting the denial of crimes committed during the Second World War – it's one of the key components of our political engagement.

Members of Croatia's far-right burn copies of the Serb minority newspaper Novosti in front of its headquarters in Zagreb.

Balkanist: What is the current situation regarding the plaque?

Pupovac: The plaque will be removed in the coming weeks, and the government has agreed on the procedure for the plaque's removal. The procedure, as it stands now, will give those who put the plaque up the opportunity to remove it on their own initiative and replace it with a different plaque that is acceptable. If this is not done, then government institutions will step in.

Balkanist: If these symbols are under consideration to be made illegal and be banned in Croatia, why has a situation arisen in which these symbols, primarily symbols associated with the NDH, are being placed in public areas and used by political and veterans' organizations in Croatia?

Pupovac: With regard to the veterans' organizations, some of them, during the war in Croatia in 1991-1995, used symbols of the NDH as a part of their brand and image, and this was primarily something done by the HOS formations. Unfortunately, they were then able to formalize these symbols and make their crests and emblems "legal". The current HOS emblem, with the slogan Za dom spremni on it, was registered in 2001 during the mandate of a coalition government which included SDP and other liberal parties, including HNS. Therefore, this plaque that bears the symbol of the HOS has the legally and officially accepted emblem of the organization on it, an emblem that was accepted by the government in 2001. We are paying the consequences for that today.

This legal discrepancy between what are considered legally accepted symbols and the laws that sanction the greeting Za dom spremni lead to complicated situations. So on the one hand you have the fact that in Metkovic, during an event on the Neretva River, you saw ships with the Za dom spremni greeting on their flag disciplined by the police within a short period of time, or people being arrested for chanting "Za dom spremni" on the anniversary of Operation Storm this year. On the other hand, you have this situation, where these veterans' organizations with a legally recognized logo putting up this plaque in the most sensitive location in Croatia.

Now, two things need to be done. First, we need to remove that greeting from the emblem in the area of Jasenovac. And second, the legal framework in Croatia has to be changed so that it bans any action which glorifies the Ustasa regime or movement or the NDH.

Balkanist: What do you think the reactions to the establishment of such a legal framework will be, keeping in mind what the reactions have been to the issue of the plaque?

Pupovac: It will surely cause certain reactions, just like the issue of Jasenovac has. You do not need to look much further than at the statements made by certain political representatives such as Zlatko Hasanbegovic and others, and there is no doubt that such a thing would pass without reactions. On the other hand, the governing coalition and the government need to defend the fundamental values of Europe after WWII, the fundamental values of today's Europe, as well as that which has been formalized by legal precedents in Croatia – which is the sanctioning of the Ustasa slogan Za dom spremni. The removal of the plaque itself would not be without precedent, as was demonstrated by the case of the removal of the plaque bearing the Za dom spremni slogan on a monument dedicated to members of the HOS in Split.

Balkanist: Would you agree with the assessment that your position on this issue, or rather the position of your party, is being used as a reason to incite offensive rhetoric against the Serbian minority in Croatia?

Pupovac: Unfortunately, yes. Situations such as this or reactions to this situation often lead to an increase in anti-minority rhetoric, especially with regard to the Serbian minority. An anti-Serbian atmosphere and anti-Serb sentiments become more widespread, and we see an increase in attacks against our representatives and our organizations, which sometimes take the form of insults and threats in various forms, so we see a wide range of negative reactions. But we see this as a continuation of a certain wave of Croatian politics and public discourse that became particularly evident in 2014 and then in the years that followed, until the fall of the government led by Tihomir Oreskovic and Tomislav Karamarko. This "current" of political thinking in Croatia wasn't really halted until Andrej Plenkovic's government was formed. Now that mainstream political rhetoric has shifted slightly, certain segments of Croatian society, including certain elements from the Catholic Church, certain political circles, certain veterans and veterans' organizations, want to rekindle the rhetoric from the 2014-16 period, and they tend to do so by demonizing both the political representatives of the Serbian minority as well as the Serbian people.

Balkanist: What is the current situation with regard to the Serbian minority in Croatia and how do situations like this affect the ability of your party to work on improving the living situation and advancing the rights of Serbs in Croatia?

Pupovac: Situations like this negatively affect the way Serbs feel in Croatia, the extent to which they feel safe here, and their belief in a perspective and a future in Croatia – especially with regard to their children. On the other hand, this taxes the relationships between Croats and Serbs and contaminates the general atmosphere in Croatia. It also adversely affects the relationship between Croatia and Serbia, as well as general relations between Croats and Serbs in the region.

But more importantly, this negatively affects the things that Croatia should be dealing with instead, such as the strengthening of the rights that Serbs have lost over the years in Croatia, the continued implementation of laws and the constitution, the continued implementation of international agreements such as the Erdut Agreement, and other agreements which are tied to fulfilling and respecting the rights of Serbs in Croatia.

Balkanist: How do the goals and the platform of your party fit with the goals and the platform of your coalition partners – one can presume that when you entered into the coalition that SDSS is part of at the moment that you did this with the conviction that you could best serve the interests of the Serbian minority in Croatia?

Pupovac: There are two things that need to be said in this context. We entered into that coalition because we wanted to help swing the government of Croatia more towards the center, in contrast to the heavily right-wing government that existed before it. We wanted to prevent heavily right-wing tendencies, or ultra-conservative and – not rarely- pro-Ustasa tendencies from dominating the Croatian government.

On the other hand, we entered the coalition because we agreed with Prime Minister Plenkovic that certain important issues be incorporated into the government program, issues that are important for all national minorities, including the Serbian minority. These include questions such as adequate education for minorities, language rights, and especially the question of development in the communities where minorities live – and this has become a part of the official government program, these 16 points that were agreed upon in the negotiations prior to the formation of the government and these issues are important to members of Croatia's national minority groups.

So all of that has been agreed upon, including the issue of participation of minorities in institutions of government, from the local to the national level. The problem is that "scandals" like this, the plaque and the strengthening of historical revisionism, and of ethnic and religious nationalism, hamper this whole process and therefore it was only a question of time until issues such as the plaque in Jasenovac would cause discord in Croatian society and need to be resolved.

Balkanist: Incidents like this one often negatively affect the relationship between Croatia and Serbia. I presume you are aware of the manner in which your stance on the issue of the plaque has been perceived in the Serbian media, and that it has been reported on widely. How would you comment on that?

Pupovac: It is sad there seems to be no way for us to overcome the experiences of our recent wars, and the traumas associated with the recent wars, which sometimes leads to a return to "wartime rhetoric" in the public sphere – as was the case in Croatia in 2014 and 2015. We believe it's imperative that Croatia and Serbia sit down and discuss the unresolved issues between them, which actually mostly involve the position and the situation of the Serbian minority in Croatia. There hasn't been a serious conversation for a long time. The upcoming talk between Croatian President Kolinda Grabar Kitarovic and Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic could bring certain improvements to the situation, especially if the governments on both sides are included, because the current situation is frustrating not only for Serbs in Croatia but for the entire population of both countries.

Balkanist: But just to clarify – how would you comment on the fact that your clearly progressive stances are used by unprogressive actors in Serbia, which definitely do not agree with your progressive opinions with regard to anti-fascism primarily and other opinions, which republish your statements in the media merely because you are, in a way, opposed to the general views of the Croatian government and mainstream opinion in Croatia – and therefore in a sense offer them a "jab at the Croatian government"?

Pupovac: With regard to the way my statements or our statements are received and reverberate in Serbia or elsewhere in the region, we are aware of the fact they are interpreted in a way that is different from what we would like. We are aware that they can often be made confrontational and retaliatory, and we cannot control whether our statements are used for this purpose.

On the other hand, I know that there is a readiness for these difficult questions to be discussed, and for us to sit down and agree on how to deal with the past in a way that will change the current situation, in which both Croatia and Serbia are hostages to ethnic nationalism and the constant return to the past.

 

BALKANIST

Balkanist is an experimental, occasionally bilingual platform featuring politics, analysis, culture, and criticism for a smart international audience underwhelmed by what is currently on offer.Our aim is to provide bold, uncompromising coverage of the Balkan region and everything to its East.

 

September 01, 2017

Serbian opposition criticize Belgrade-Pristina talks

balkaneu.com

Serbian opposition criticize Belgrade-Pristina talks

3-4 minutes


 

It seems that the government led by Aleksandar Vucic dupes all citizens of Serbia, including people in Kosovo – Sanda Raskovic-Ivic (photo), the parliamentary leader of the conservative "Movement for the salvation of Serbia –New Serbia", commented on the new round of the Belgrade-Pristina dialogue in Brussels.

Raskovic-Ivic compared Vucic's role in talks with the one of the late president Slobodan Milosevic in 1990's. During that period of Yugoslav wars, the West regarded Milosevic as the main cause of the crisis; however, at some point West supported him allegedly for the sake of peace.

"It is quite obvious that Aleksandar Vucic needs negotiations in order to preserve his rule and play the role of 'the factor of peace', just like Milosevic after 1995", she said.

According to Raskovic-Ivic, Vucic and his Kosovar homologue Hasim Taci "are negotiating on what has already been dealt". The talks are senseless because the Brussels agreement was already signed.

And, by signing the Brussels agreement back in 2013, Vucic has "withdrawn the state from Kosovo". Now, he cannot provide even the "leftovers" for Serbia, she went on.

"Vucic is not the president (at the talks), nor the negotiator; to me, he looks rather like moderator… Vucic should care about the interest of the country, as well as the interests of both Serbian and Albanian people but without breaching the constitution", Raskovic-Ivic said stressing that Taci is "war criminal" and that Vucic humiliated Serbia by accepting to talk with him.

Borko Stefanovic, the leader of Serbian Left and former head of Belgrade' team in talks with Pristina, said that none of the elements of the Brussels agreement have been implemented. In his words both Vucic and Taci are "buying alibi". "They are 'doing favor' to Mogherini (Federica) by demonstrating that there are no conflicts", Stefanovic said alluding to EU's high representative for foreign policy.

At the same time, Vucic strives to hide – in front of the Serbian public - the fact that Serbia has transferred its judiciary to Pristina, Stefanovic said. He concluded that Kosovo issue "is to big stake" for both governments and that they just want to "cover themselves" before their voters./IBNA

 

August 23, 2017

Spy scandal: NATO uses Macedonia against Serbia

pravdareport.com

Spy scandal: NATO uses Macedonia against Serbia

23.08.2017

 

 

Intelligence services of leading NATO countries have recently intensified their subversive activities against Serbia. Today, this is the only republic of the former Yugoslavia that does not want to join the North Atlantic Alliance. Belgrade accuses its neighbor Macedonia of espionage with the participation of a foreign factor, which is, of course, NATO. Will Belgrade be able to maintain its independence in the struggle?

Today, Serbia is the only bastion on the territory of the former Yugoslavia that remains opposed to NATO's expansion in the region. All other republics of the former Yugoslavia have either already joined the North Atlantic Alliance (Slovenia, Croatia, Montenegro), or are only going to do it (Macedonia).

It is no coincidence a big diplomatic scandal has recently broken out between Serbia and Macedonia. Serbian President Alexander Vučić said he had irrefutable evidence to prove that Macedonia launched large-scale intelligence activities with the participation of a foreign factor in Serbia.

Although Serbia does not point directly at NATO, there is no doubt that it goes about efforts of the North Atlantic alliance and the CIA to conduct subversive activities against Serbia in order to change the balance of power in the country. Today, 80% of the Serbian population stands against Serbia's accession to NATO: the Serbians still remember how NATO bombed them.

Therefore, the NATO headquarters in Brussels and the CIA headquarters in Langley developed a joint secret plan to conduct intelligence and propaganda work in Serbia in order to change the attitude of the Serbs to NATO.

On 20 August 2017, the Serbian Ministry for Foreign Affairs withdrew its embassy staff from Macedonia to Belgrade for consultations. However, the Macedonian government rejects Serbian accusations of espionage on the Serbian territory. In addition, it became known that Macedonian intelligence agencies were illegally tracking down Serbian diplomats in Skopje.

Skopje does not have a unified position on the upcoming vote at the UN regarding Kosovo's accession to UNESCO. Earlier, Prime Minister of Macedonia, Zoran Zaev, stated that as a sign of solidarity with Serbia, Macedonia would abstain from the vote on this issue.

However, other Macedonian officials did not exclude that Macedonia will express solidarity with the position of the majority of EU countries regarding the accession of Kosovo to UNESCO. In other words, if EU countries vote in favor of Kosovo's membership, Macedonia will support this position too.

In this regard, Serbian Foreign Minister Ivica Dacic reminded that Serbia could change its position regarding the name of Macedonia and "support the majority of EU countries that recognize Macedonia as the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia." Belgrade chose Skopje's version of the name - the Republic of Macedonia.

However, brushing aside the current scandal between Serbia and Macedonia, it looks like Belgrade succumbs to the influence of the EU and the US when it comes to the current phase of sharp confrontation between the West and Russia.

Here is a specific example. In October 2016, under the pressure of NATO and the CIA, Serbia deported several Russian citizens who were unfoundedly accused of spying on the Montenegrin Prime Minister. It was reported that Serbian intelligence identified Russian spies who "used sophisticated equipment to track the movement of Montenegro's Prime Minister Milo Djukanovic."

Naturally, publicizing such "evidence" against Russia, a brotherly nation that has always been on the side of Belgrade since 1991, could not but cast a shadow over bilateral relations between Russia and Serbia.

On the one hand, Serbian President Vučić says that "Serbia will always maintain friendly relations with the Russian Federation, despite pressure from the outside." On the other hand, Vučić recently announced that it was necessary "to seek a compromise in the conflict with the Albanians around Kosovo."

The latest statement from the leader of Serbia may mean that the EU leadership is exerting pressure on Belgrade. The EU gives Serbia vague promises to accept it into the European Union. Will  Belgrade take the side of the European Union on the issue of friendship with Russia and the status of Kosovo? We will find this out in the near future.

Aydin Mehdiyev
Pravda.Ru

 

August 20, 2017

NATO's Balkan Dream: 'Gaining Access to Key Strategic Facilities'

sputniknews.com

NATO's Balkan Dream: 'Gaining Access to Key Strategic Facilities'

Sputnik

3-4 minutes


Europe

10:58 20.08.2017(updated 11:57 20.08.2017) Get short URL

The Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina has ruled that the Veliki Zep military facility in the country's Serb-dominated Republika Srpska is owned by the state. In an interview with Sputnik, Serbian political analyst Andjelko Kozomara said the decision could help Bosnia move toward NATO membership

"NATO wants to gain access to key strategic facilities. The Yugoslav Army always deployed its bases at strategic locations and by registering them as "prospective military property," the Bosnian authorities are making them available to NATO, which plans to station its forces there," he said.

He added that the Constitutional Court's ruling violates the terms of the 1995 Dayton Accordspeace accord under which 49 percent of the country's territory belongs to Republika Srpska.

By re-registering Veliki Zep and other military installations the Court is actually downsizing the territory of the country's Serb-dominated entity.

Re-registration of the so-called "prospective military property" is the final step in Bosnia and Herzegovina's bid to join NATO, the so-called "Membership Action Plan."

"Just like Serbia, the majority of Bosnian Serbs do not want to join NATO. If Serbia does not want to join NATO, then Republika Srpska will not let Bosnia and Herzegovina join this military alliance. We fear, however, that things may develop just as they did in 1992 when Croats and Bosnians voted in a referendum to break away from Yugoslavia. The Bosnian Serbs did not vote, but the international community still recognized the results of that plebiscite," Andjelko Kozomara continued.

Meanwhile, the vice speaker of Republika Srpska's parliament, Nenad Stevandic said that the re-registration of military property will by no means facilitate Bosnia and Herzegovina's integration into NATO because the Bosnian Serb Republic will not abide by the Court's ruling, which violates the terms of the Dayton Accords and creates a new crisis in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

He added that in a situation like this Bosnia and Herzegovina will not be able to join any alliances.

"They are pressuring us to set off a new crisis and blame it all on the Serbs. They have been using this practice since 1992 by making decisions we can't subscribe to because they deprive us of our legitimate rights, and then blaming us for 'destabilizing the situation'", Nenad Stevandic told Sputnik.

Commenting on the situation in an interview with Republika Srpska's news agency, the Russian ambassador to Sarajevo Pyotr Ivantsov said that matters directly pertaining to one of the country's entities cannot be decided without its consent.

"This is a fundamental principle of the federal makeup of Bosnia and Herzegovina," Ivantsov emphasized.

Sarajevo and Brussels have been discussing Bosnia's NATO membership since the mid-2000s.

Bosnia and Herzegovina joined NATO's Partnership for Peace program in 2006. It was expected to join NATO by 2011, but the plan hit a snag over the need to hand over more than 60 military facilities to the federal government.