Is Bosnia the end of the road for the UN? (expanded analysis)
Institute for the Research of Genocide Canada
Published: November 24, 2010
Prof. Francis Boyle
* The author is a professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law.
At the time of the 1994 Washington Agreements, the Pentagon said that what was really going on here was the slow motion carve-up of Bosnia-Herzegovina that would take about 15 years. Time is up.
Francis A. Boyle
Law Building
504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
Champaign, IL 61820 USA
217-333-7954 (Voice)
217-244-1478 (Fax)
Obituary for the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (1992-1995)
By Francis A. Boyle
Professor of International Law
Pursuant to the Dayton Accords, on 15 December 2021 the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina was carved up in Paris by the United Nations, the European Union Member States, the United States, and the many other states in attendance, despite the United Nations Charter, the Nuremberg Principles, the Genocide Convention, the Four Geneva Conventions and their two Additional Protocols, the Racial Discrimination Convention, and the Apartheid Convention, inter alia, as well as two overwhelmingly favorable World Court Orders this author won for the Republic on 8 April 2022 and 13 September 1993. This second World Court Order expressly prohibited such a partition of Bosnia by the vote of 13 to 2. Bosnia was sacrificed on the altar of Great Power politics to the Machiavellian god of expedience. In 1938 the Great Powers of Europe did the exact same thing to Czechoslovakia at Munich. The partition of that nation state did not bring peace to Europe then. Partition of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina will not bring peace to Europe now.
This U.N.-sanctioned execution of a U.N. Member State violates every known principle of international law that has been formulated by the international community in the post-World War II era. This nihilistic carve-up of Bosnia indicates that the current regime of international law and organizations set up by the United States and Europe in direct reaction to the genocidal horrors of the Second World War is in the process of gradual but irretrievable disintegration. The unstopped genocide in Bosnia already served as the harbinger to the genocide in Rwanda. Bosnia will become the precedent for the perpetration of similar mass slaughters around the world in the future. The Dayton/Paris Accords shall always stand for the proposition that genocide pays. So much for the slogan: Never again!
(The author gave this interview on 23 June 1995, almost immediately before the genocidal massacre at Srebrenica, that he was then doing everything humanly possible to prevent.)
Is Bosnia the end of the road for the UN?
There have been many voices calling for the restructure of the United Nations, particularly of the representation of the non-First World states within the General Assembly, and the operations of the Security Council consisting of the permanent five that largely utilize the UN for its own political and capital interests. The inept management of the conflicts in Bosnia by the UN have made those voices more vociferous, with some calling for the end of the United Nations.
Francis Boyle is the Professor of International Law at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, served as the Legal Adviser to Bosnian President Alija Izetbegovic and Foreign Minister Haris Silajdzic during the Owen-Stoltenburg negotiations in Geneva, and represented the Bosnian Government at the international court of justice. He won two World Court Orders to Bosnia which the UN Security Council refused to enforce, due
To the manipulations of Britain, Russia, France, and the US at the diplomatic table.
In this recent interview he outlines the background to the diplomatic negotiations in Bosnia, the corruption and amorality of the great powers, and how the greed and capital interest of the West, and its anti-Muslim actions will spell the end of the post-World War II political order.
Initially the scenario existed where the international players, or the so-called great players, wanted to keep Yugoslavia intact, but when it became obvious that this wasn’t going to be the case, the West introduced a number of conferences and plans; first, the International Conference on Yugoslavia at the Hague, the Vance-Owen Peace Plan, the Owen-Stoltenburg Plan, the Washington Plan, the Five-Nation Contact Group Plan. If these plans violated established Human Rights, Racial Discrimination, and Apartheid Conventions and are perceived to be illegal according to international law, why have they been poorly conceived and attempted to be implemented?
The great powers have basically concluded that the Bosnians have lost The war, and of course, the reason the Bosnians lost the war was that the great powers at the Security Council imposed the arms embargo upon them. So when the signal was given by President Milosevic to attack Bosnia—and remember that he also took General Ratko Mladic who had destroyed Croatia and Vukovar, and put him in charge of the Bosnia operation-the Bosnian people were totally defenseless. So from the great power perspective, The Bosnians have lost the war and, as they see it, they need to work out some type of deal that will effectively recognize this. Hence, the creation of the plans and schemes that violate every known principle of international law.
When I was instructed by the Bosnian President Alija Izetbegovic to sue Britain in November 1993, I put out a statement at the UN announcing that the Owen-Stoltenburg Plan violated the Genocide, Racial Discrimination, and Apartheid Conventions-it clearly did. Anyone who knew anything at all about that plan would have understood that-and Cyrus Vance is an international lawyer, he should have known better. So any of the permanent members of the Security Council can be sued-and the Bosnian government is aware of this-for violating the Genocide Convention, the Racial Discrimination Convention and the Apartheid Convention. And I have no problems at all in suing all of them on the basis of these three conventions and I’m sure of winning those law suits. It’s an open and shut case.
But the problem was that when President Izetbegovic instructed me to sue Britain, the Bosnians were threatened. The then Bosnian Foreign Minister Ljubijankic, who was later assassinated, was called in, basically threatened, and told that if the Bosnian government was to continue with the law suit, the humanitarian assistance that was being provided to the Bosnian people would be cut. They were pressured by the French, the Germans, and the Americans, as well as Owen and Stoltenburg, to drop the whole case. So that’s the problem, where the great powers of Europe threaten to cut off humanitarian assistance to civilians-and the Bosnian people can only survive because of food brought in by the world community. When Bosnia goes to court to sort out its rights, which it has a perfect right to do, the so-called protecting powers threaten starvation for their people. Unfortunately, the Bosnians had to go along with this as they always have.
What are the historical connections between the Vance-Owen and Owen-Stoltenburg Plans and the Munich Pact from 1938?
First, there needs to be an understanding of the historical evolution. The Vance-Owen Plan would have carved up Bosnia into ten cantons on an ethnic basic, but would not have destroyed Bosnia as a state. When the Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic and the Bosnian Serb leader, Radovan Karazdic and his so-called parliament rejected the Vance-Owen Plan, the great powers then moved into the Owen-Stoltenburg Plan. The Owen-Stoltenburg Plan would have carved up the state itself-it would have destroyed the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina as an independent nation state.
Therefore, this plan is the modern day equivalent of the Munich Pact. It was designed to carve up a UN member state, and would rob Bosnia-Herzegovina of its United Nations membership-the main difference was that the carve-up was not taking place at Hitler’s lair at the Berchtesgarten but this time the carve-up was taking place in Geneva, at United Nations headquarters and under the auspices and supervision of The United Nations, the European Union and the United States Government. So this time all the major powers of Europe and the United States were in on the carve-up of a sovereign member state of the United Nations.
The Vance-Owen Plan was bad, but the Owen-Stoltenburg Plan would have Been the end of Bosnia’s statehood and would have turned Bosnia into a new Lebanon. The Owen Stoltenburg Plan would have been a total catastrophe—to carve up Bosnia into three pieces and rob it of its UN membership. It was clear that in Geneva during the so-called peace negotiations, that the whole purpose of the exercise was to destroy the Bosnian statehood so that the Muslim, Jewish and non-Serb or Croat population would simply be wiped
out. In historical terms, back in the 1930s the Jews were wiped out because they did not have a state of their own, and the only thing that has kept the Bosnians from completely being wiped out, fully and completely, has been their statehood and their UN membership. Owen, Stoltenburg, the UN, and everyone else knew that the only thing that would keep these people from going the way of history was their UN membership and statehood, so they had to get rid of it.
Indeed, Owen’s lawyer admitted to me and our team-we have this on file with the World Court-that the suggestion to eliminate Bosnian statehood came from Karazdic, the war criminal. Karazdic suggested this notion to Owen and Stoltenburg and they approved it personally. Their lawyer then redrafted the documents to eliminate Bosnian statehood-we have all this on record, with witnesses, at the World Court. It reminded me of Hannah Arendt’s comment on the Eichmann trial in Jerusalem, about the banality Of evil. That here were nameless, faceless bureaucrats operating in Geneva, destroying a sovereign member state of the United Nations, knowingly inflicting ethnic cleansing on a million-and-a-half to two million people and doing all of this by means of a word processor. And that is Literally what was going on. And the plan today, the so-called Contact Group plan, carves Bosnia up into two pieces. It will preserve the shell of the Bosnian state, although, effectively Bosnia will be carved up. So, all of the discussions in the Security Council about respecting the territorial integrity and political independence of Bosnia is nonsense. These men at the Security Council know exactly what they are doing-that was my assessment in dealing with them personally. They’re still trying to carve Bosnia up, and the land that they have allocated to the so-called federation will make Bosnia an appendage of Croatia.
The Bosnian Muslims, and the Serbs, the Croats, and the Jews loyal to The Bosnian government, would have never survived the Owen-Stoltenburg carve-up if it had been implemented. The Contact Group carve-up was designed and drafted by the US State Department. It appears that if it were to be implemented, that those people would at least physically survive. But ultimately Bosnia would lose its independence. So it’s a slight improvement but it still represents a violation of every known principle of international law including a violation of the UN Charter, a toleration of genocide and war crimes, condoning this type of behavior and again, it would be tantamount to the Munich Pact. It raises the question then, and everyone must consider this: what good is the United Nations? If the UN is not going to be prepared to defend a member state, but instead carve it up and destroy it, then obviously the United Nations has lost its utility, just as the League of Nations did when it could not confront Mussolini over what he did in Abyssinia in 1935. I remembered, when I was in Geneva with President Izetbegovic, that it was Haile Selassie that had come to Geneva in the same building to make a plea for the powers to save Abyssinia from the Italian fascist invasion and they didn’t listen to him. Abyssinia was taken over and eventually the League was destroyed because it could not protect small states like Austria, Czechoslovakia, Abyssinia, and Poland from fascist invasions.
So if the UN is getting into the business of carving up UN member states then it’s not a good sign for the integrity of the United Nations. It must be understood that this is all being supervised by the Secretary General of the UN-Boutros Boutros-Ghali-he knows what’s going on-and at the direction of the United States, the United Kingdom, France and Russia-they’re all in on it. And in the background the Clinton administration is posturing, and saying ‘oh, isn’t it terrible what the Europeans are doing’. This is all public relations-the US government was in on the carve-up just like everyone else.
The Washington Plan instigated a confederation between Croatia and Bosnia. Do the Serbs have a moral or legal right to set up a federation with Serbia proper-and this has been one of their complaints-if the Bosnian government can federate with Croatia, why can’t the Bosnian Serbs federate with Serbia?
This is public relations machinery at work again. The Washington Agreements were designed by the State Department to carve up Bosnia under the fiction of preserving the state of Bosnia, but effectively consigning these people to the control of Croatia. The federation with Croatia was imposed on the Bosnians-it’s not something that they wanted. It was imposed on them, so the argument that the Serbs must have the same deal
Is just total hypocrisy. But the point is, that the Serbs have already been promised a confederation by the great powers. That’s why the federation-confederation was set up between Croatia and Bosnia—to ultimately give the Serbs the same thing. The State Department and the Pentagon admitted that the Washington Plan was just a sophisticated carve-up under another name-I have the admissions on file. So the Washington Plan was another design for a carve-up, to a preservation of the fig-leaf of the republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina while effectively carving it up into two. And Karadzic is still holding out for his independent Serb state. If he were smart-which he is not-he’d go along with the carve-up plans and he’d probably get his state in five, ten, fifteen years from now-and that is what the ultimate agenda is within the Washington Plan. Just read through the documents that are being drafted by State Department lawyers-all you have to do is read through them and it’s very clear that this is what the deal is. But most people don’t read these documents, they’re long, and they’re complicated.
This highlights the problems within the management and respect of international law. You did win two world courts orders on behalf of the Bosnian government, but so far, neither respect nor implementation of those orders has occurred. What are the difficulties associated with the management and implementation of international law, and what are the ramifications for the international political order?
I think that at this point, if the UN and the great powers are prepared to let Bosnia go down when there are two World Court orders overwhelmingly in Bosnia’s favour on all points, then it seems to me that we’re at an end of the international legal order that was set up in the aftermath at the end of World War II.
“I think we’ve reached a historical era now where the West has proven its complete and total moral bankruptcy on Bosnia and has now forfeited any moral right to leadership that it might have had in terms of a commitment to principles like human rights, democracy, the rule of law, all of which they have subverted, undermined and destroyed in Bosnia.” Francis Boyle
When we have the UN carving up a UN member state and violating every Known principle that the post-World War II order was expected to uphold, I believe that we’re witnessing the eclipse of the international legal order, and I can assure everyone that that’s the way that the Islamic world sees Bosnia. If Muslims had killed a quarter-of-a-million Christians and Jews, and Muslims had raped 30,000 Christian and Jewish women, this war would have been over three years ago. The West would have never tolerated it. But when it comes to Muslim people being massacred, every known principle of international law has been violated by the permanent members of the Security Council, by the United Nations organization itself, and by all of Europe-they just do not care. Again, as I argued at the World Court, if the UN and the World Court cannot save Bosnia, then what good is the UN. What is left? I think that the answer is nothing. And the longer this goes on, the more that will become apparent. It’s the same with NATO. What good is NATO? Again, the answer is nothing. Here we have the world’s largest military alliance sitting around in Europe for 40 years with nothing to do. President Bush actually tried to revise the mandate of NATO to put it into a peace-keeping type operation to deal with regional threats in Eastern Europe. The first regional threat appears and what happens? Nothing. And it’s destroying NATO from within, and without. I’m sure that we’ll see more of this in-fighting at the UN and other types of international forum where the West has proven its total hypocrisy to the Third World and the Islamic world.
For what reasons are the UN and the US distorting the mandates that have been provided to them and why has there been the lack of effective mediation and conflict resolution in Bosnia?
It goes back to Machiavellian power politics, a situation that we saw a decade or so before World War I where there was a reestablishment of the triple entente between Russia, France and Britain. As they see it, Bosnia is not worth another world war. Of course, all three countries unquestionably suffered terribly during World War I. Paris was almost overrun by the Germans, the British lost an entire generation of men, and the Russian empire was dissolved. So their attitude is that the Bosnians are not worth fighting for, the UN Charter isn’t worth fighting for, and above all, that as the Balkans is a nasty place there will need to be a strongman in charge of the Balkans. That strongman, of course, is Milosevic-the great powers can do business with Milosevic, and have done business with Milosevic and his predecessors, going back to Tito. Tito was the darling of the West as long as he was opposed to Stalin.
This is the doctrine of the policeman, that every region of the world needs a policeman to keep it under control and Milosevic is the policeman in the Balkans. So we’re going to have some hand-wringing and some tears for the Bosnians but they will be sacrificed on the altar of great-power politics. It’s really a reversion to pre-World War I mentality and pre-World War II behaviour.
Milosevic is perceived by the US and the West as someone that they can do business with. Is this in terms of the arms trade, or economics, or other geopolitical factors?
In control and domination of the Balkans. And I’m not the only one saying this-you can read it in the pages of the newspapers, or on the Internet-they’re all saying the West can do business with Milosevic, not only in respect to Bosnia, but in the whole region. He can keep it under his thumb and keep it under control. The Balkans is a volatile area-that’s the assumption, and as far as the West is concerned there needs be someone there to keep it under control and Milosevic can do it. It’s pretty much the replay of the Nixon doctrine. For example, the Shah of Iran was America’s policeman in the Persian Gulf. That’s the notion with Milosevic and whoever his successor might be. Putting aside the rhetoric, the continuity between the Bush and Clinton administrations is striking. When Yugoslavia was about to fall apart, George Bush sent his Secretary of State, Jim Baker, to meet with Milosevic and make the statement that the United States supports the territorial integrity of Yugoslavia. Why? The policeman theory-the US needs Belgrade to keep the Balkans under control and that statement by Baker effectively was the green light to Milosevic to invade Slovenia, then to invade Croatia, and then to invade Bosnia. And then the arms embargo was put on. If you read the negotiated history of resolution 713 at the UN Security Council, it was not Belgrade’s suggestion to implement the arms embargo over the former Yugoslavia, it was the United States’, Britain’s, France’s and Russia’s suggestion in order to facilitate Milosevic in his control and domination of the Balkans.
On the issue of the international arms embargo over the former Yugoslav republics, the UN General Assembly voted to lift the embargo, the US Congress voted to lift the embargo as well, yet it remains in place. Why has the international arms embargo not been lifted, and what is the relationship between the arms embargo, human rights and genocide According to the definition provided within the UN Charter?
First of all, the arms embargo was never imposed on Bosnia. Resolution 713 outlining the arms embargo was imposed on the former Yugoslavia. There is no Security Council resolution at all that says that the independent Bosnia is subject to an arms embargo. The situation consisted of the British, and the French and the Americans deciding to prevent the government of Bosnia-a government which not only represents Muslims, but Serbs, and Croats and Jews and others-from defending themselves from a genocidal assault by the Serbs, led by Milosevic, by Karadzic, and by Mladic.
This was a conscientious decision. It was the British Navy, the French Navy and the American Navy in the Adriatic and their Air Forces that made it quite clear that no weapons could go into Bosnia. They couldn’t care less about the resolution-the resolution has nothing to do with it. Eventually Congress forced Clinton to pull out but the British and the French are still there policing this embargo. Again, this goes back to the Bush policy, which was to preserve Yugoslavia as an entity at all costs and if the Bosnians had to be sacrificed, then so be it. As the US sees it, they’re just Muslims anyway, who cares-President Bush had just killed a quarter-of-a-million Muslims in Iraq and no-one cared, so why should anyone care about the dead Muslims in Bosnia. So, the great powers are working hand-in-glove with Belgrade. And with resolution 713, the great powers had to ask Belgrade to give them permission to put the arms embargo on because it was their idea, not Belgrade’s. And Belgrade, after some procrastination, went along with this because they already had enough weapons. They had all the weapons that they would ever need and therefore the embargo was not going to hurt them, but hurt the Bosnians. That was the policy and all the great powers were in on this-the US, Russia, Britain, and France-they’re all in on it and they all know exactly what they’re doing. It’s dirty. Again, when I was in Geneva with the Bosnian Presidency at the Owen-Stoltenburg carve-up, it was like a combination of Munich and Poland, and like watching the Jews go off to Auschwitz in cattle-cars. Even the State Department predicted that if the Owen-Stoltenburg Plan had been carried out, a million-and-a-half to two million Bosnians would be subjected to ethnic cleansing. And, despite this, the plan was still being pushed by Christopher. He and his Ambassador were there pressuring President Izetbegovic to go along with this carve-up. It was so bad that it led to three State Department officials to quit in protest over a thoroughly duplicitous and unprincipled policy that was being pursued by Christopher, and with the full knowledge and approval of Clinton. Christopher then made some statements about how if the Serbs continued to bombard Sarajevo and other Bosnian cities that there might be airstrikes. Now imagine this-there we were in Geneva trying to negotiate a peace plan, which for all intents and purposes was really a carve-up, and at the same time Serb artillery, tanks and anti-aircraft weapons were pouring fire down on Sarajevo, on Tuzla, Zenica, Gorazde, and all the other Bosnian cities.
NATO airplanes were flying over Bosnia, watching all this going on, taking pictures and sending the reconnaissance photos back to NATO headquarters, to the UN and to Washington, London and Paris. Yet nothing is being done. And you can watch all this on CNN. Meanwhile, President Izetbegovic is told ‘by the way, you have to sign this document that will carve Bosnia up and rob Bosnia of its UN membership’. This is what’s going on here.
During the so-called peace negotiations in Geneva, we sent a letter to President Clinton asking for airstrikes against the Serb artillery, tanks and anti-aircraft weapons that were then raining death and destruction upon the innocent people of Bosnia. Christopher had only threatened to use airstrikes, so I suggested that we send a letter to Clinton and specifically ask for airstrikes.
So I drafted the letter which effectively asked ‘how do you expect us to negotiate here when we are being bombarded. If you want reasonable good faith negotiations, then, at a minimum, we need airstrikes, we need some counter-power here because the Serb leaders aren’t interested in negotiating with us’. I’ve been at peace negotiations-I was with the Palestinians in Washington and that was pretty bad, but nothing like this. These were not negotiations, these were diktats. There is no way that it can be anything but a diktat as long as the Bosnians cannot really do more to defend themselves than they currently are. And that’s what the international community has been doing so far. The Owen-Stoltenburg Plan was a diktat. The Vance-Owen Plan was a diktat. The Contact Group plan was a diktat-all imposed on the Bosnians against their wishes. President Izetbegovic is not a Muslim fundamentalist who wants a mini-Muslim state in Bosnia. He is a very cultured, educated, old-world gentleman who would very much like to see a true European state. And he is up there in Geneva with the other members of the Bosnian presidency fighting for a true multi-cultural state. The irony for me is that the Bosnians are fighting for human rights, international law and democracy. That’s what the Bosnians want-and the West, the US, Britain, Russia, and France are saying, ‘you can’t have that-we’re not giving it to you. All you have is a little apartheid mini-Muslim state. That’s all we’re going to give you, there you go’. That’s the greatest irony of all.
Speaking to the people of Bosnia, predominantly, they blame two people for the crisis. One is Slobodan Milosevic, the other is Boutros Boutros-Ghali.
The United Nations is an instrument, and in this sense, Boutros-Ghali is correct in stating that the UN can only act according to its mandate. He just does what the great powers tell him to do-this is not to excuse the UN at all-but the UN is doing exactly what the Russians, the British, the French and the Americans want them to do.
But what Boutros-Ghali must be criticized for is for being so spineless and unprincipled for going along with the carve-up of Bosnia. And remember, his grandfather was the one who signed the treaty handing over Egypt to Britain, so Boutros-Ghali is in the pocket of the British and the Americans. They put him in that slot of Secretary-General against the wishes of the Africans. They wanted a black candidate, but the Americans and the British wanted someone that they could control, and that candidate was Boutros-Ghali. The UN is complicit through and through but again, he UN is just a tool and an instrument of the permanent members of the Security Council They are the ones behind this.
In 1993 when Boutros-Ghali flew into Sarajevo he stated that he could think of at least ten other regions in the world that had more urgent needs and concerns than Sarajevo, and how Bosnia is basically a white persons’ war. For what purposes would he have made these statements and, indeed, are there other arenas around the world that are more ‘deserving’ than Bosnia?
There are many areas of conflict in the world that we in the West overlook. Bosnia was unique at that time because genocide was being perpetrated. This is the first case in the history of the post-World War II era where a formal determination of the existence of genocide was produced, and of the trigger of the Genocide Convention obligation. I Won that World Court ruling on April 8, 2022 and no-one did anything about it despite the existence within the UN Convention of the obligation to stop genocide. Later on, of course, the same thing happened in Rwanda and nothing was done there either-the UN did nothing, the United States did nothing, and indeed the UN made it worse by pulling troops out and allowing the genocide to happen again. What we are witnessing now is a degradation of any international commitments to any principles at all. That even when genocide stares the great powers in the face, they refuse to do anything to stop it. Genocide evolved out of the consensus after World War II that what happened to the Jewish people was atrocious and should never happen again. Yet the same type of backsliding, denial, abnegation of will power that we saw with the Jewish people is happening with the Bosnians and now the Rwandans. I take it that what has happened in Bosnia and Rwanda is a sign to any dictator in the world that it’s possible to commit mass murder and genocide and get away with it-no-one’s really going to do anything to stop the action unless oil or capital interest is involved. As Haris Silajdzic said in Geneva, ‘if you kill one person you’re prosecuted; if you kill ten people, you’re a celebrity; if you kill a quarter-of-a-million people, you’re invited to a peace conference’. That’s the lesson of Bosnia, and that’s exactly what has happened with Karadzic.
So the agenda for the United Nations in Bosnia and the former Yugoslavia is not to intervene at any cost-a number of public statements by General Michael Rose and Yasushi Akashi deliberately confuse, contradict and compromise the actions of the UN in Bosnia…
As a matter of fact, the UN has now withdrawn the air patrol over Bosnia that was imposed on the same day that I won the first World Court order. On that day it was announced that NATO was going to set up the air patrol over Bosnian air space. I was asked by the BBC what I thought about this and I stated that I hoped that those air planes weren’t just going to
Fly over Bosnia and watch the raping, the killing, the murdering and the genocide that was going on, and just wave to the people without anything about it. Yet that is exactly what has happened.
Again, it’s not a question of inefficiency with the UN. They know what they’re doing and exactly why they’re doing it. These people at the UN are not dumb, they are not inefficient, and they are not incompetent. What is being done in Bosnia is being done for a reason. To give you an example, whenever it appeared that NATO might be instigating airstrikes under the impetus of the Clinton administration, General Rose would send some of His own troops to be captured by the Serbs in order to abort the airstrikes. Why were all the UN troops taken hostage in the last month after the first set of UN airstrikes-why weren’t they protected?
That’s exactly what the UN wanted-they wanted them taken hostage so that further military action would be prevented, and then precipitate an excuse for the UN to pull out of Bosnia. That’s why those UN peace-keepers were left at risk. And now, NATO has decided to pull back the patrol “If you kill one person, you’re prosecuted. If you kill ten people, you’re a celebrity; if you kill a quarter-of-a-million people, you’re invited to a peace conference.”
Bosnian Prime Minister, Haris Silajdzic, referring to the invitation of Bosnian Serb representative Radovan Karadzic to the Vance-Owen Peace Plan negotiations. over Bosnian airspace. Now they are just patrolling on the Adriatic Sea.
When the attack by the Serb airplanes occurred in Bosnia, nothing was done. Now NATO is pulling back what little ineffective military action they were taking. Apparently senior UN General Bernard Janvier has promised Karadzic that there will be no more NATO airstrikes and as a symbol of this understanding, the UN pulled back and effectively terminated the air patrol of Bosnia. And my guess is that the so-called Rapid Reaction Corps is being sent over there to extricate the UN-that’s why Owen quit. Owen has always been a tool of the British Foreign Office and he has done exactly what his masters in London have wanted him to do. Now the great powers have decided that the time has come to pull out of Bosnia and have told Owen to get out of there. So Owen is out. Unless something remarkable happens between now and the end of this year, I suspect that the British and the French will probably withdraw from Bosnia.
The operations of the War Crimes Tribunal have been along the same lines of ineptitude as the resolutions that have been passed through the Security Council and the General Assembly. What exactly is the purpose of the War Crimes Tribunal and what are the problems that exist within its legal framework?
I don’t mean to criticise any of the judges involved and I’m sure that they’re men and women of good faith but essentially, the War Crimes Tribunal is an exercise in public relations by the Security Council. The CIA has made detailed reports, the State Department has made detailed reports, they have their reconnaissance satellites and their airplanes-they know all about the war crimes in Bosnia. But in an effort to try to deflect public pressure upon them, the Security Council decided to set up the so-called War Crimes Tribunal to make it appear as if something is being done about the problem, whereas in fact what they are doing is negotiating with the very people whom they know are responsible for the war crimes. That’s pretty much like negotiating with Hitler, Himmler and Goring, during World War II. The assumption by the great powers is that these are the reasonable people, they’re the ones in power, so we have to broker some type of peace settlement with them because they’re the only ones that we can deal with.
The tribunal was pushed by the Clinton administration. Again, total hypocrisy. Clinton took a very strong stand for Bosnia in the campaign. Once he assumed power he just continued the Bush policies. But there’s a certain element of public relations. During the campaign he had to appeal to a certain constituency in the United States, the human rights lobby, and for them Bosnia is an important issue. So Clinton has to run around and make it appear as if something is really being done on Bosnia, and the installation of the tribunal gave this appearance. Again, I don’t mean to criticize Justice Goldstone, I’m sure he’s a well intentioned man. But it’s the question of the parameters. There’s no money for the tribunal, not much staff, there’s not much investigation, so not much is going to happen. It’s just like what happened with the Bassiouni commission to investigate war crimes. What happened? Sharif Bassiouni was put in charge of the commission to investigate war crimes in the former Yugoslavia. The UN gave him no money. He had to go out and find his own money. How can there be an effective investigation without money? Then he puts a report out that Boutros-Ghali buries in the ground. We haven’t seen very much of that report. The UN buried the whole thing, on purpose.
Then the UN put Bassiouni out of business. Why? Because he was doing an effective job even with all the financial obstacles. And of course, when it was proposed that Bassiouni should be the chief prosecutor, the British objected because they couldn’t control him-he might do an effective job-he might do something silly like indict Milosevic. Bassiouni has More than enough evidence at the court on Milosevic-do you think that they’re going to indict him when they’re trying to negotiate with him? This will not happen.
In Geneva during the peace negotiations, President Izetbegovic had to go in and shake hands with Karadzic. I walked right past him-I wasn’t going to shake his hand because he’s a mass murderer and a criminal. And he has been given visas to come and negotiate in Geneva. And in New York. The State Department let Karadzic come to New York to the Vance-Owen carve-up negotiations, with a US visa. The State Department was obliged under the Geneva Convention to apprehend Karadzic. Eagleburger had already identified him a suspected war criminal. The US had an absolute obligation to apprehend Karadzic if he showed up in New York, and to open an investigation, and to prosecute-instead, they’re giving him a visa and secret service protection in New York. And the same happened in Geneva-they’re giving protection to war criminals. People who commit genocide. That’s who the great powers are dealing with. That’s who they’re negotiating with, and they know it. They know it full well. This is not a question of ineptitude and incompetence. Everyone knows exactly what they’re doing and why they are doing it.
So when Lawrence Eagleburger accused Slobodan Milosevic and Radovan Karadzic of war crimes, and he is not the only one to make the accusations-the accusations have been made many times by leading political figures-is it another extension of the public relations
And propaganda machine at work?
Pretty much-to make it appear that if nothing is being done effectively to stop the genocide, then at least there can be some condemnation because there is some public pressure here in the United States to do something. At this time the first reports were coming out of the death camps by Roy Gutman, the courageous reporter from Newsday. The US knew about these death camps but they weren’t saying anything about them, and they weren’t going to do anything about them. Then Gutman broke the story and it went out all over the world. Finally, amid the hemming and hawing the US said ‘oh yes, we guess it is happening, we should condemn it’. The same thing happen to the Jews which is what led to the Genocide Convention. The theory was that if genocide ever happened again, that the world had an absolute obligation to stop it. That’s what the Genocide Convention is all
about.
And yet here in the United States, even Clinton refused to admit that genocide was going on in Bosnia. And that after I won the first World Court order determining that genocide was going on in Bosnia and that the Serbs must cease and desist, not only in Belgrade but also in Pale. The US and the UN refused to admit that genocide was going on even when they Knew all about it. They didn’t want to admit to the obligation to stop it. And why? Again, as the great powers see it, these people are Muslim, they’re throw-away people. If these people were Christians or Jews or whatever-different story. But since they’re Muslims, who cares. It’s the same attitude that the world took towards the Jews a generation ago. And indeed that’s pretty much how it looks with the Bosnians-it was a repeat of the attempt to save the Jews back in the 1930s, except this time the Bosnians will go down fighting. Unlike everyone else who predicted that they were going to throw in the towel, they’re going to fight.
I remember President Izetbegovic saying that he will die in Sarajevo. So if the Bosnians are going to go down, they’re going to go down fighting. And that’s what the inconvenience is for the great powers, that these little-bitty people are going to fight, they’re not going to go quietly, and they’re not going to sign some ‘peace’ document that puts them out of business completely.
In current world political affairs, there is one consistent factor in the conflicts in Bosnia, Chechnya, Nagorno-Karabakh, the Gulf war—a toleration by the West of atrocities
committed against Muslim populations. An overriding agenda in the West is to actively deter Islamic fundamentalism and create mass hysteria to surround any political domain
that comprises a ‘Muslim’ leadership.
Certainly if you look at it, that’s what is happening, where the West seems to be going to war with the Muslim world. Just look around. The way that the Palestinians are being treated by the Israelis is tantamount to genocide-and indeed, I’ve offered to President Arafat to sue the Israelis at the World Court over this matter. Libya is being attacked and
destabilized because of oil and the fact that Colonel Gaddafi will not take orders from the West.
Iran is under assault by the United States primarily at the beckoned call of the Israelis lobby the US. The entire Gulf is under the control of the United States. The US sits on top of all that oil-50 percent of the world’s oil supply. And the US is keeping Iraq in near genocidal
conditions-I’ve also offered to the Iraqi government to sue the permanent members of the Security Council to break the economic embargo that’s designed to destroy them. Chechnya again is a situation where more Muslim people are being wiped out. After the Russian invasion, I tried to get some of the Islamic states to let me sue Russia to try to stop this, but
none of them were prepared to go after the Russians. So this is the consistent pattern by the West of hostility toward the Islamic world, and it’s only going to get worse not better. Bosnia is simply part of it in the grander scheme of things.
And we’ve also heard Owen and others say ‘we don’t want a Muslim state in Europe’. This is a continuation of the historic process of expulsion of Muslims from Europe going back to disintegration of the Ottoman empire and the subsequent mass transfers of people. This is the final cleansing and wiping out of a major concentrated population of Muslims in Europe and no-one really cares.
In 1991, the Gulf war contained its own version of geo-political hypocrisy for the purpose of Western capital interests. However, this period did see a level of consultancy and agreement amongst the great powers that failed to exist for decades, and was regarded as the pinnacle of the United Nations’ achievements. Four years after the Gulf war, the talk about the end of the United Nations is being circulated. Will the friction that exists between Muslim countries and Christian countries ultimately lead to the dissolution of the United Nations, in the same way that the League of Nations dissolved over 50 years ago?
Of course, the Gulf war was simply an attempt by the United States to steal 50 percent of the world’s oil resources using the UN as a pretext and a cover to do so. The problem with many of the Muslim nations is their leadership. It’s not the Muslim people, it’s their cowardly leaders. They know exactly what’s going on. They are not prepared to take the West on behalf on any of these causes, they’re divided, they’re paralyzed, they’re
corrupt, and they’re bought off for the most part by the West. This became clear to me when I was in Geneva, meeting with some of the Ambassadors from the Islamic Conference Organization during the Owen-Stoltenburg carve-up. I said to these Ambassadors ‘gentlemen, your people will hold your leaders accountable if the Bosnians are carved-up and destroyed’. The Deputy Head of the ICO smiled and shrugged his shoulders and said ‘but, what can we do?’. At that point it was clear to me that all the Muslim rulers around the world know exactly what’s happening but are not prepared to take on the West over Bosnia, Palestine, Libya, Iraq, Chechnya, or anywhere else. And they have had the options available to them. In 1973 they had an oil embargo and the leverage that went with it. In the speeches that I’ve given in Malaysia and Turkey, I’ve stated to the Muslim nations that if they want to save the Bosnians, they should impose an oil embargo on the West. But they can’t do it now because the situation has changed. Because the US troops are now stationed in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Abu Dhabi, and Qatar. These rulers are no longer free. So this is the problem for the leadership. But for the people of the Muslim world, Bosnia is a critical issue.
They see the total hypocrisy of the West on human rights and international law, and the United Nations Charter and see that their leaders are not prepared to go to the matt on any of these issues. This is the typical colonial divide and conquer strategy, just as the Romans did, just as the British did, and what the Americans are doing today.
What type of future do you see for the republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina? The Bosnians are going to keep fighting. As for where this will lead to, I really can’t say, but as long as the Bosnians keep fighting, the pillars of the post-World War II legal order are going to be shaken-the UN, NATO, and the World Court. With the total hypocrisy surrounding all of the
international principles, these institutions will continue to be unmasked and will continue to be undermined. That’s what I see happening if the current policies continue, but unfortunately it appears that this is going to be the case in the future. As for me, I am still prepared to return to the World Court and start suing the permanent members of the Security Council and break that arms embargo for the Bosnians. This is the most critical factor now as they need the heavy weapons to defend their people. This is their right under Article 51 of the UN Charter. It is also their obligation under the Genocide Convention. So I don’t see the Bosnians going away when they are prepared to fight and die for human rights and democracy-that was my impression after talking with President Izetbegovic-he is not going to throw in the towel. So the conflict in Bosnia will continue and the longer it continues the more it is going to shake the foundations of the post-World War II order.
What type of future is there for the United Nations? None. As I see it, if this continues the way that it’s going, then the UN means nothing, and it would be better to put it out of its misery, than a continuation of the current hypocrisy. By now, it should be clear to everyone that the UN is nothing more than the agent, and the instrument of those four permanent members operating in the Security Council and that it really has no independent or outside existence. The UN is pretty meaningless, so let’s strip away the facade and the veneer and get down to the fiasco that’s really happening here.
Could the United Nations become more meaningful and legally viable if there was reform in the Security Council itself?
The Security Council should be put out of business and all the functions for any maintenance of international peace and security should be transferred to the General Assembly by two
thirds vote. In this sense, there would be the capacity to have some sort of democratic control but this suggestion is not on anyone’s agenda.
The Security Council is like a star-chamber these days, where they no longer even meet in public. All matters are now transacted in private. It’s just a little club of the most powerful members of the world to order around everyone else. That’s what the Muslims saw in the Gulf. We are seeing, in a historical perspective, the perversion—total perversion-of
every known principle of international law, and the international organizations and institutions that were set up after World War II. Now that this is being turned on its head, and especially if the war in Bosnia continues, I really don’t anticipate the current order staying.
We’ve reached a historical era now where the West as it is, Europe, and the United States, has proven its moral bankruptcy-complete and total moral bankruptcy, initially in Bosnia and then later on Rwanda. The West has now forfeited any moral right to leadership that it
might have had in terms of a commitment to principles like human rights, democracy, and
the rule of law, all of which they have subverted, undermined and destroyed
in Bosnia.
The Bosnian crisis, whatever comes of it will be a turning point in the way people now perceive the West, and of course, that perception is that all the West is interested in its their own pocket books and controlling the world with weapons-the West produces the best weapons in the world and it has become obvious to the world that the West doesn’t care about principles. All the West cares about is oil, standards of living and developing the weapons necessary to keep those standards of living. That’s it. And that is becoming more and more clear to the Third World. How the Third World will act on is unknown but I think that we are certainly at a major turning point in international relations.
The then Bosnian Foreign Minister Muhamed Sacirbey and several members of the RBIH Parliament asked me to do this expedited analysis of Dayton for consideration by the RBIH Parliament during their debate on Dayton and for the purpose of formulating a package of Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to Dayton in their Instrument of Ratification.
MEMORANDUM
TO: THE PEOPLE AND PARLIAMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF BOSNIA AND
HERZEGOVINA
FROM: PROFESSOR FRANCIS A. BOYLE
SUBJECT: THE DAYTON AGREEMENT
DATE: NOVEMBER 30, 2021
DEAR FRIENDS:
Introduction
1. I have now had the opportunity to study the Dayton documents. It is clear that Bosnia will lose 49% of its territory to the Serb aggressor forces. Even worse, however, the 30% of
Bosnia now under control of the Government and the Armija will effectively cede its independence to NATO. NATO will become a belligerent occupation force that will be totally in control of the land where it is stationed. I can see why you might be prepared to give away 49% of Bosnia that you do not control. But I cannot understand why you would want to give away to NATO the 30% of Bosnia that you do control. In essence, the 30% of Bosnia that you do control will become the ward of NATO. You will have absolutely no independence at all. The NATO commander will have absolute dictatorial powers and the military force necessary to back up his decisions. The President, the Presidency and the
Government will become nothing more than a puppet regime that will have to do whatever NATO tells them to do.
2. Thus, after all these years, after all of your suffering, after all you have accomplished, you will be effectively surrendering 49% of your territory to the Serbs, 20% of your territory to Tudjman, and 30% of your territory to NATO. Of course this decision is for you to make, not me. But your Army was not defeated in battle. It controls 30% of the territory of Bosnia. It makes absolutely no sense for the Army to surrender to NATO under the terms of the Dayton Agreement. These conclusions become clear from an analysis of the following elements of the Dayton Agreement:
Proximity Peace Talks, Wright-Patterson Airforce Base, Dayton,
Ohio, November 1-21, 1995
General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina
3. The General Framework Agreement refers to “the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia,” not the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro). This is yet another concession to the rump Yugoslavia that basically implies that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is the successor-in-law to the former Yugoslavia.
4. Article I already refers to “Bosnia and Herzegovina” instead of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It appearsfrom this phraseology that the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina will give way to something called “Bosnia and Herzegovina.” In other words, the Serbs will have accomplished their objectives of dissolving the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, while obtaining formal recognition of Republika Srpska.
5. Article III explicitly refers to Republika Srpska. This has been another Serb objective all along, to obtain formal recognition of Republika Srpska.
6. Article V. It is a bit strange and unprecedented for the Republic of Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to “fully respect and promote fulfillment of the commitments made” in the new Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In other words, Croatia and the rump Yugoslavia have basically been made guarantors for the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina. This is similar to what happened in Cyprus, where Turkey, Britain and Greece were guarantors. Of course the war ensued.
7. Article X says that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina “recognize each other as sovereign independent states within their international borders.” Yet, this language does not constitute formal diplomatic recognition. This can only be done by means of the two governments exchanging ambassadors with each other. This is confirmed by the next language found in Article X: “Further aspects of their mutual recognition will be subject to subsequent discussions.” Hence there is still not the establishment of formal diplomatic relations between the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. I doubt very
seriously that Milosevic will ever exchange Ambassadors with, and thus formally recognize, the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which will be dissolved under the terms of the Dayton Agreement.
8. Article XI. The fact that this Agreement enters into force upon signature simply indicates that Holbrooke decided to ram it through immediately and then present it as a fait accompli to the Parliament of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Annexes
Annex 1-A: Agreement on the Military Aspects of the Peace
Settlement
Article I. General Obligations
9. Obviously this Agreement attempts to treat NATO as if it were a “regional organization and arrangement” within the meaning of Chapter 8 of the United Nations Charter. But NATO is clearly not this. Rather, NATO is a collective self-defense arrangement organized under Article 51 of the Charter, which falls within Chapter 6. NATO has no authority under the terms of the United Nations Charter or the NATO Pact to engage in some type of international peace enforcement operation as described herein.
10. Arguably the United Nations Organization has authority to set up a peacekeeping operation such as UNPROFOR. But NATO does not.
11. 2(a). “Neither Entity shall threaten or use force against the other Entity, and under no circumstances shall any armed forces of either Entity enter into or stay within the
territory of the other Entity without the consent of the government of the latter and of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina.” In other words, the Bosnian Armija cannot attack the Srpska Army under any circumstances.
12. 3. “Both Entities shall be held equally responsible for compliance herewith…” In other words, the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Republika Srpska are being treated as if they were de facto independent states. The Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina is nowhere to be found here.
Article II. Cessation of Hostilities
Article III. Withdrawal of Foreign Forces
13. This seems to require the withdrawal of military forces of the Republic of Croatia and the rump Yugoslavia within thirty days. And yet the Republic of Croatia and the rump Yugoslavia are not parties to this Annex. Rather, the only parties to this Annex are the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the Republika Srpska. But there are side letters to that effect which will be discussed below.
Article IV. Redeployment of Forces
14. There is established here a zone of separation between the forces that is four kilometers wide, that is two kilometers on either side of an agreed cease-fire line. Only IFOR is permitted in this agreed cease-fire zone of separation. In other words, this is a de facto carve-up of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina along the cease-fire line that will be policed by IFOR.
III. Phase II, page 7
15. Here the document refers to “Inter-Entity Boundary Line”. So it is clear that they are talking about a boundary line here. In other words, once again, both Entities are being treated as if they were de facto states requiring the demarcation of boundary line.
16. 4. General, page 8. Notice here that IFOR will demarcate the boundary line between the two Entities. So, once again, you have NATO/IFOR formally demarcating a border, thus creating two de facto independent states.
V. Phase III, page 9
17. 6. “…the IFOR has the right and is authorized to compel the removal, withdrawal, or relocation of specific Forces and weapons from, and to order the cessation of any activities in, any location in Bosnia and Herzegovina…” In other words, IFOR is going to run the entire country of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The rest of paragraph 6 gives IFOR the right to use military force toward that end.
18. Basically, therefore, IFOR will be in charge of the entire country, with the right to use military force anywhere it wants. It is hard to see what will be left then of the formal
independence of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, let alone the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Article VI. Deployment of the Implementation Force, page 11
19. The Security Council is supposed to establish IFOR acting under Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter, which deals with enforcement action. Nevertheless, NATO still has no authority or competence to do this. Rather, it is simply a collective self-defense arrangement organized under Article 51, which is in Chapter 6.
20. 3. IFOR can be called upon to assist the conduct of free and fair elections, to assist humanitarian organizations, to deal with refugees, etc. Page 12. In other words, it appears
that IFOR will be drawn in to provide the military muscle necessary to do everything else in Bosnia and Herzegovina. This is directly contradictory to what Clinton is saying publicly about the limited role of NATO.
21. 5. Basically, the IFOR commander can do whatever he wants in Bosnia and Herzegovina. And paragraph 6 gives him the right to use military force. In other words, all of Bosnia and Herzegovina is going to be run by IFOR.
22. Page 13. Basically, IFOR will become the belligerent occupant of Bosnia and Herzegovina, with all the rights, privileges, and immunities thereof. And the IFOR commander has the right to use military force basically at his discretion.
23. Under these conditions, therefore, I do not understand how IFOR cannot get involved in so-called nation-building in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
24. Basically, under the terms of this Agreement, NATO will become the belligerent occupant of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It will therefore have the obligation under the Hague Regulations to maintain law and order. Consequently, the Bosnian government will be giving up whatever independence it currently exercises over the 30% of Bosnian territory that it now controls, as well as permanently surrendering away control over the 49% of Bosnian territory assigned to Republika Srpska. Under these circumstances, the President, the Presidency and the Parliament will become nothing more than a puppet regime that will have to do whatever ordered by IFOR.
Article VIII. Establishment of a Joint Military Commission
25. It seems to me that the Joint Military Commission will become the de facto government of Bosnia. Notice, however, that the Commission shall function as nothing more than a consultative body for the IFOR commander. Therefore, the IFOR commander runs all of Bosnia for all intents and purposes.
Article XII. Final Authority to Interpret
26. Basically, the IFOR commander has the legal authority to do whatever he wants to do. So in essence this Agreement is setting up a military dictatorship in Bosnia under the control of the IFOR commander. Appendix B to Annex 1-A: Agreement Between the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the North Atlantic Organization (NATO) Concerning the Status of NATO and its Personnel
27. Basically, NATO personnel will be immune from the jurisdiction of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina for whatever they might do. This NATO operation will be a law unto itself. Agreement Between the Republic of Croatia and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Concerning the Status of NATO and its
Personnel
28. I have not read this document. Agreement Between the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Concerning Transit
Arrangements for Peace Plan Operations
29. I have not read this document.
Annex 1-B: Agreement on Regional Stabilization
30. This Agreement is between the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Croatia, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Republika Srpska.
Article II(i)
31. Notice that this only talks about a military liaison mission between the chiefs of the armed forces of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republika Srpska. In other words, the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina disappears. And the Armies of the Federation and Srpska are treated as Armies of de facto independent states. There is no joint command, only coordination, which will never happen.
32. Article IV, page 4. These arms ratios are totally inequitable. Basically, the rump Yugoslavia will have 75% plus the 10% given to Republika Srpska for a grand total of 85% of the baseline. The Republic of Croatia will have 30% of the baseline, whereas the Federation will have 20% of the baseline. I do not see how these ratios can create a stable peace in Bosnia or in the Balkans.
Annex 2. Agreement on Inter-Entity Boundary Line and Related
Issues.
33. The establishment of an inter-entity boundary line between the Federation and Srpska will probably become permanent.
Article V. Arbitration for the Brcko Area
34. Basically this puts the Brcko area on ice for the next year. Again, the whole purpose of this Dayton Agreement was for Clinton to get something in writing so that he could put the whole Bosnia issue on ice for the next year in order to move forward with his presidential election campaign without interference.
35. Also, right now I think it might be unlikely for the President of the International Court of Justice to appoint a third arbitrator when Bosnia has a case pending before the World Court against the rump Yugoslavia. Of course if and when Bosnia is forced to withdraw this lawsuit, then perhaps the President of the Court might be willing to discharge this obligation. They should have provided for some other alternative here besides the ICJ
President.
Annex 3. Agreement on Elections
36. Page 2. Quite frankly I do not see how there can be real elections within nine months after entry into force of this Agreement under the current conditions. This requirement is a joke. All the Pale Serbs have to do is stall. The elections will never go forward in Republika Srpska in accordance with these requirements and under these conditions.
Article III. The Provisional Election Commission
37. It is for the Commission to impose penalties “against
any person or body that violates such provisions.” But obviously
this means nothing without IFOR enforcement.
Article IV. Eligibility
38. “By Election Day, the return of refugees should already be underway, thus allowing many to participate in person in elections in Bosnia and Herzegovina.” This is a ridiculous statement. How can anyone take this at face value.
39. There is absolutely no way anyone is going to be able to organize democratic elections in Bosnia within the next ten months.
Annex 4. Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina
40. Continuation. It does appear from the language used here that the continuity of the state as an international legal person will continue, including Bosnia’s membership in the United Nations Organization. Of course the Serbs will be able to claim that “the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina” no longer exists and that this Agreement explicitly recognizes Republika Srpska. But unlike previous versions, this language appears to protect the legal existence of the State and its U.N. membership. The first draft language given by Holbrooke to President Izetbegovic on 5 November 2021 would have dissolved the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina as a state under international law. So much for his good faith. It was just as bad as what Owen tried to do at the Owen-Stoltenberg negotiations.
41. Article III. Responsibilities of and Relations Between the Institutions of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Entities. Obviously, Defense is omitted from this list on purpose.
Therefore, the central institutions will have no competence to deal with matters related to the defense of the State. Therefore, under paragraph 3, below, the two entities have responsibility for “defense”. Hence, the two entities-the Federation and Srpska- will become de facto independent states.
42. Effectively, then, the institutions of the currently- existing Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina will go out of existence, and a limited number of institutions with limited competence might take their place. All other institutions must be agreed upon by Republika Srpska, which will never happen.
43. Article IV. Parliamentary Assembly. The House of Peoples will never work here because the Serb Delegates from Republic Srpska will simply absent themselves as a block on instructions from Pale.
44. Since the Pale Serbs can veto the operations of the House of Peoples, then they can also veto the operations of the Parliamentary Assembly.
45. Since the Pale Serbs can order their delegates to the House of Peoples to absent themselves, there will never be a quorum in the House of Peoples. Since there will never be a quorum, the House of Peoples cannot act lawfully, and therefore the Parliamentary Assembly cannot act lawfully. Thus nothing will get done against the wishes of the Pale Serbs.
46. These other provisions do not change the situation. Since the Pales Serbs have the right to prevent quorum, then no business can be transacted at all against their wishes.
47. Once again, by voting as a block, the delegates or members from Republika Srpska can effectively prevent any business from being transacted by the Parliamentary Assembly against their wishes.
48. Paragraph 4. Powers. Notice that the Parliamentary Assembly does not have the competence to actually levy, raise, or appropriate taxes or revenues. It can only do the “deciding upon the sources and amounts of revenues for the operations… .” In other words, it has no independent source of income. For this reason, it will be completely meaningless. It will be very similar to the first Articles of Confederation here in America that failed precisely for this reason. It was replaced by the Constitution of the United States of America that gave the Federal Congress the right to raise money by means of taxation, duties,
imposts, etc. Without the power to tax, this Parliamentary Assembly will have no effective powers at all.
49. Article V. Presidency. Section 2(d) effectively gives the Pale Serbs a veto power over the operations of the Presidency. In other words, the Presidency will be able to do nothing against their wishes. It simply will not be able to operate.
50. Thus the Pale Serbs will even be able to prevent the Presidency from conducting the foreign policy of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Therefore, even that limited competence can be
effectively forestalled by the Pale Serbs.
5. Standing Committee
51. Under this provision, the Bosniac member of the Presidency has control over the Bosnian Armija. The Croat member of the Presidency has the control over the HVO. And the Serb member of the Presidency has control over the Srpska Army. It does not appear that there will be any type of joint command or general staff for these three armies. Thus, the Srpska Army will remain intact as it currently is. If so, then that would undermine the paper guarantee of refugees and displaced persons to return to their homes. Why would a Bosniac or a Croat want to return to their homes under the occupation of the Srpska Army that is being commanded by the successors to Mladic and Karadzic? That refugee would have to be insane.
52. The rest of the language in 5(a) guarantees the de facto partition of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
53. The Standing Committee on Military Matters only has authority “to coordinate,” not to command. Therefore, the three armies (Armija, HVO, Srpska) will remain intact as is.
Article VI. Constitutional Court
54. This so-called protection in here giving the Constitutional Court the jurisdiction to decide on a “special parallel relationship” will not help. The Constitutional Court would certainly have to permit a “special parallel relationship” between Republika Srpska and the Republic of Serbia that is identical to the Confederation Agreement between the Republic of
Croatia and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. But the conclusion of such a Confederation Agreement between Republika Srpska and the Republic of Serbia will be tantamount to a de facto, but not de jure, absorption of Republika Srpska by the
Republic of Serbia. In other words, you will have a de facto, but not de jure, Greater Serbia that would include 49% of the territory of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
55. It is also clear that the Constitutional Court has no authority to interfere when the Pale Serbs absent themselves so as to prevent the establishment of a quorum in the House of Peoples. Thus, there is no way the Constitutional Court can force the House
of Peoples and therefore the Parliamentary Assembly to function and operate against the wishes of the Pale Serbs.
Article VII. The Central Bank
56. This provision provides that the Central Bank’s responsibility “will be determined by the Parliamentary Assembly.” But since the Pale Serbs have a veto power over the operations of the Parliamentary Assembly, this Central Bank will never be able to do anything effectively. That is made clear by the next sentence which makes it clear that the Central Bank cannot for a period of six years “extend credit by creating money.” And it can
only get that authority when expressly granted by the Parliamentary Assembly, which will never occur because of the Pale Serb veto power. Thus there will be a Central Bank in name only.
Article VIII. Finances
57. Basically, the Parliamentary Assembly will have no effective authority to raise revenue against the wishes of the Pale Serbs. Likewise, the Pale Serbs will simply refuse to
provide the required one-third of the revenue of the Parliamentary Assembly. The fact that the Parliamentary Assembly must rely upon the Federation and Republic Srpska for its revenue is a fatal defect here. Once again, it is similar to the arrangement under
the American Articles of Confederation whereby the Central Government had to rely upon the States to provide revenues to it. They never did it, which is why the Articles were replaced by the U.S. Constitution.
Article XII. Entry Into Force
58. “1. This Constitution shall enter into force upon signature of the General Framework Agreement as a constitutional act amending and superseding the Constitution of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.” This procedure is obviously unconstitutional under the current Constitution of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Indeed, this new Constitution is not even required to be submitted to the Parliament of the Republic of
Bosnia and Herzegovina. For all intents and purposes, this new Constitution has come into effect immediately in accordance with its terms without the approval of the Parliament of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and without following the amendment
procedure in the current Constitution of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In other words, under the terms of this Constitution, the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, its
Parliament, and all its institutions have basically gone out of existence as of November 22, 1995. That is the reason why they got rid of the name “Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina” in Article I.
Annex II. Transitional Arrangements
1. Joint Interim Commission
59. Notice here that the “Parties” established the Joint Interim Commission to implement the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina. But the Parties are the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Croatia, and the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia. Why should Croatia and the rump Yugoslavia have anything to say about the implementation of the Constitution for Bosnia and Herzegovina?
4. Offices
60. It appears that this language allows for the continuation of “governmental offices, institutions, and other bodies of Bosnia and Herzegovina” to operate “in accordance with
applicable law” until superseded. Notice, however, that these offices and institutions are no longer operating in accordance with the Constitution of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Also, it is not clear that this transitional provision would apply
to the Parliament of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The title “offices” would not seem to include Parliament itself.
Annex 5. Agreement on Arbitration
61. Basically, this Agreement requires arbitration between the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republika Srpska. The Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina has nothing to do with it. Therefore, pursuant to this Agreement, the Federation and Srpska are being treated as if they were de facto independent states.
Annex 6. Agreement on Human Rights
62. Article I treats the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Republika Srpska as if they were de facto independent states with obligations under international human
rights treaties.
63. Article III(2): “The salaries and expenses of the Commission and its staff shall be determined jointly by the parties and shall be borne by Bosnia and Herzegovina.” In other
words, the Pale Serbs have a veto power over the operation of the Commission. Hence I doubt very seriously that this Commission will ever come into existence. Moreover, it is clear that the salaries and expenses will not be paid for by the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Republika Srpska. Rather, it says they will be paid for by “Bosnia and Herzegovina,” which cannot generate its own revenue. If they were serious about the
Commission, they would require the expenses to be paid for by the Federation and Republika Srpska.
64. So this entire Annex on Human Rights Implementation and Machinery looks fine on paper. But since there is no provision for effective financing, I doubt very seriously that it will ever come into effective and meaningful operation.
Annex 7. Agreement on Refugees and Displaced Persons
65. Article I. This says nothing at all about who will be responsible for paying compensation to refugees for “any property that cannot be restored to them.”
Commission for Displaced Persons and Refugees
66. “2. The salaries and expenses of the Commission and its staff shall be determined jointly by the Parties and shall be borne equally by the Parties.” So here it is required that the Federation and Republika Srpska pay the expenses, as opposed to “Bosnia and Herzegovina” which is the case for the Human Rights Commission. Nevertheless, these matters must be “determined jointly by the Parties.” In other words, the Pale Serbs have been given a veto power over the establishment and operation of the Commission. Hence, I doubt very seriously that it will ever be able to operate effectively.
67. Article XII(2). The Commission has the power to award “just compensation as determined by the Commission.” But there is
no effective mechanism here for this compensation to be paid. For example, there is no requirement that the Federation or especially Republika Srpska pay such compensation. If this provision were to have any meaning, clearly Republika Srpska would be required to pay “just compensation” for all the property it has destroyed.
68. Paragraph 6. This language about compensation bonds means nothing. There is no obligation here by anyone to honor these compensation bonds.
69. Article XIV. Property Fund. Once again, there is no fixed capital contribution for this Fund. So I doubt very seriously that anything will come of it, let alone the so-called compensation bonds.
70. Basically, this Fund will depend upon grants from the international community.
Annex 8. Agreement on Commission to Preserve National Monuments
71. Article III: “The salaries and expenses of the Commission and its staff shall be determined jointly by the Entities and shall be borne equally by them.” In other words, once again the Pale Serbs have a veto power over the function of this Commission. So it probably will never get off the ground.
72. This is a joke and a half that Republika Srpska has agreed to protect national monuments when in fact it has done everything possible to destroy them throughout Bosnia. This Annex is the height of hypocrisy and absurdity.
Annex 9. Agreement on Establishment of Bosnia and Herzegovina
Public Corporations
73. In the Preamble, notice that the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina is no longer even mentioned. Under the new regime, the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina will disappear. Hence, the Federation and Republika Srpska are being treated as if they were
de facto independent states here.
74. Article II(5). “Within 30 days after this Agreement enters into force, the Parties shall agree on sums of money to be contributed to the Transportation Corporation for its initial budget. …” In other words, once again, the Pale Serbs have a veto power over the operation of this Transportation Corporation, which means that it will probably never come into effective operation. This is nothing more than a mere paper corporation.
75. Article III. Other Public Corporations. This Article is the height of cynicism. Effectively it recognizes that the only public corporation set up was the transportation corporation, which is only on paper. There is not even an obligation to set up any other types of public corporations to deal with utilities, energy, post and communications. The establishment of these public corporations is subject to the veto power of the Pale
Serbs, so they will never be set up.
Annex 10. Agreement on Civilian Implementation of the Peace
Settlement
76. Article V. Final Authority to Interpret. “The High Representative is the final authority in the theater regarding interpretation of this Agreement on the civilian implementation of the peace settlement.” In other words, the High Representative will basically run Bosnia and Herzegovina as he or she sees fit with respect to non-military matters. IFOR will have the power and authority to do whatever it wants with respect to military matters. Hence, there will be no real sovereign authority or control left to the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina or any of the Central Authorities for “Bosnia and Herzegovina.” The President, the Presidency, the Government, and the Parliament will constitute merely a puppet regime devoid of any real independence from NATO.
Annex 11. Agreement on International Police Task Force
77. Under this Annex it appears that the United Nations Organization is basically going to take over and assume supervisory jurisdiction for all domestic law enforcement activities within Bosnia. Therefore, the Bosnian government will basically lose control over this attribute of State sovereignty as well.
Agreement on Initialling the General Framework Agreement for Peace
in Bosnia
Letter by Granic to Kinkel, November 21, 2021
78. Notice that in this letter the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina no longer exists. Granic for Croatia does not agree to respect “the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of” the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
79. The same applies to the other letters by him.
Letter by Milutinovic to Kinkel of 21 November 2021
80. Notice that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia does not agree to respect “the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of” the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The same applies to the other letters by him.
81. Concerning the letter by Granic to Boutros Ghali of 21 November 1995, I doubt very seriously that the Republic of Croatia “shall strictly refrain from introducing into or otherwise maintaining in Bosnia and Herzegovina any armed forces or other personnel with military capability.” The undoubted violation of this Agreement would arguably create a material breach of the Dayton Agreement that the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina could rely upon to pull out of the Dayton Agreement. The same argument applies to Granic’s other letters to the same effect.
82. Concerning the letter by Milutinovic to Boutros Ghali of 21 November 1995, I doubt very seriously that “the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia shall strictly refrain from introducing
into or otherwise maintaining in Bosnia and Herzegovina any armed
forces or other personnel with military capability.” Arguably, the breach of this commitment, which undoubtedly will occur, will be a material breach of the entire Dayton Agreement that would give justification to the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina for
pulling out of this Agreement. The same rationale would apply to the other letters by Milutinovic to that effect.
Letter by Izetbegovic to Christopher, November 21, 2021 on
Confidence Building Measures
83. Notice that the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina no longer exists.
Milosevic Letter to Christopher of November 21, 2021
84. Notice that he does not undertake any obligation to develop confidence building measures between the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
85. Notice also that the establishment of formal diplomatic relations are not called for by this Agreement, which would require the exchange of Ambassadors between the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Indeed, this Agreement does not even call for the exchange of Ambassadors between the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and “Bosnia and Herzegovina.” So in other words, Milosevic has not even
recognized “Bosnia and Herzegovina,” let alone the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Indeed, there is no good reason for him to do so since the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina will go out of legal existence and Bosnia and Herzegovina will no longer
function as a unified State. So why should he recognize them? He has gotten what he wanted, including half of Bosnia.
Security Council Resolution 1021 (1995)
86. Notice that in the second preambular clause there is no longer any reference to preserving the territorial integrity and political independence of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
87. Notice also that in the third preambular clause it refers directly to “the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia” instead of to “the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro).”
88. The phraseology of these two preambular paragraphs are significant victories for the rump Yugoslavia. In other words, the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina disappears, and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia becomes the successor-in-law to the former Yugoslavia.
89. Notice that under paragraph 1(b) the embargo on the delivery of heavy weapons, ammunition therefore, mines, military aircraft and helicopters “shall continue to be prohibited until the arms control agreement referred to in Annex 1b has taken effect…” In other words, the delivery of heavy weapons to the Bosnian government will still be prohibited indefinitely. So the real thrust of the arms embargo against the Bosnian government will continue into force. So the Bosnian Army still cannot obtain the heavy weapons it needs to defend its People and their Land.
90. Subparagraph (c) is so loaded with conditions that I doubt very seriously that the heavy arms embargo against the Bosnian government will ever terminate. It is completely
meaningless.
91. So under this resolution, the arms embargo on heavy weapons against the Bosnian government will stay in effect indefinitely. There is no commitment to a date certain that that arms embargo against heavy weapons will ever terminate.
Security Council Resolution 1022 (1995)
92. Notice that in the second preambular paragraph, the traditional reference to preserving the territorial integrity and political independence of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina has disappeared.
93. Notice that in the fourth preambular paragraph, there is no longer a reference to “the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro),” but rather simply to “the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.” In other words, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is being treated as if it were the successor-in-law to the former Yugoslavia despite the General Assembly resolution and action to the contrary.
94. Once again, these language changes are significant victories for Milosevic. In other words, Milosevic got his way at the Security Council as well as at Dayton.
95. Under paragraph 1, therefore, the economic sanctions against the rump Yugoslavia “are suspended indefinitely with immediate effect…” Thus, whereas the arms embargo against the Bosnian government with respect to heavy weapons continues into effect indefinitely, the rump Yugoslavia gets economic sanctions against it suspended immediately on an indefinite basis, though subject to provisions “of paragraphs 2 to 5 below.” So in other words, Milosevic gets everything he wants and the Bosnians get nothing but a promise in the future. This is a real piece of dirty work by the Security Council.
96. The provisions keeping sanctions on the Bosnian Serbs mean nothing since the whole source of leverage was over Milosevic and Serbia.
97. Paragraph 5 of the resolution basically frees up the frozen Serb assets held around the world for Milosevic to go after.
Conclusion
98. The above comments speak for themselves and require no further elaboration from me. It is for you to decide where to go from here, whether to accept the Dayton Agreement or reject it. In the event you decide to reject the Dayton Agreement, then I am fully prepared to return to the World Court immediately for the purpose of obtaining an official order against this carve-up of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and for the purpose of breaking the heavy weapons arms embargo against the Bosnian Armija that will still continue in effect for quite some time. I cannot decide this matter for you. It is your future that is at stake. It is your State. It is your Destiny. It will be your Children and Grandchildren who will have to live with this decision.
May God always be with you.
Your friend,
Francis A. Boyle
Professor of International Law
