Bosnia and Herzegovina

Madam President Baerbock, Mr. Secretary-General, Excellencies, Ladies and gentlemen,

Taking as my starting point the theme of this year's session of the United Nations General Assembly — "Better Together: 80 years for peace, development and human rights" — allow me, from this significant place, on behalf of Bosnia and Herzegovina and all its citizens, to extend congratulations to the United Nations, which is marking 80 years since its founding, and at the same time 80 years of uninterrupted work on what is the fundamental goal of this organization: ensuring and maintaining peace in the world.

How successful that effort has been over the preceding period, as well as the results of the work and participation of several generations within the United Nations itself, in its bodies and organizations, history will certainly render its final judgment. But at the same time, I believe it is important that today too we clearly state our shared position: that peace in every part of the world has no alternative, and that we must and should continue to work persistently together toward it.

I would like to believe that we all share the same positive view, that we must protect peace in every part of the world.

However, reality and what is happening today in various parts of our planet clearly show us that peace in the world is often not in the interest of certain geopolitical actors, for whom conflict or war is a means of achieving their political and economic interests, which largely deviate from the goals set out in the Charter of the United Nations.

If we add to this the fact that attempts are being made to change state borders in the world by means of armed force, in a manner contrary to the UN Charter, then we can draw a simple conclusion: that international law is not applied equally to all states, as subjects of that same international law.

We are witnessing that, over the past period, an armed conflict is consciously and deliberately provoked, so that afterward, through the use of significant armed force, a state with smaller or weaker military power cannot resist.

After that, the attacked state is required to sit at the negotiating table and sign away parts of its territory, ostensibly in the name of peace, but in fact in the name of force.

I believe that all of us in this hall know that the United Nations Charter allows for the changing of state borders, but exclusively through voluntary agreement between states, without the use of armed force or political pressure backed by armed force.

However, if armed force is used to compel the other side to accept an imposed agreement in which it loses part of its territory, then there is no good and genuine will there — only coercion, which is contrary to numerous acts of international law.

In this specific case, I am referring to Ukraine and the pressures it faces as a sovereign state, in which it is being asked to relinquish parts of its territory, allegedly in order to achieve a lasting and sustainable peace.

Are we, in this specific case, participants in a change of the world order in which peace is no longer set as the ultimate goal, but war and armed force appear instead as a legitimate means for achieving the political goals of major geopolitical actors?

By changing interstate borders through the use of armed force, which creates political pressure aimed at making a particular state give up parts of its territory, a dangerous precedent is being created in international law — one that can easily become the rule, which ultimately means we would live in an unstable world in which peace no longer has any value.

That is certainly not a desired outcome, nor could such a thing be justified by any provision of the UN Charter or other acts of international law.

We have an equally undesirable situation today in the Gaza Strip, where violence is being carried out against the local population of a kind that, in its form, indicates the presence of several elements of genocide, as defined in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

As a reminder, it should be pointed out that genocide, besides representing the physical liquidation or removal of a national, ethnic, racial or religious group from a particular territory, can also be committed where such a national, ethnic, racial or religious group is deliberately subjected to living conditions so harsh that they threaten to completely destroy it in that territory.

And ultimately, such an aggressive, genocidal approach is used as a means for the violent seizure and takeover of territory that, under international law, cannot belong to whoever initiates and carries out the aggression.

This is what we have today in the Gaza Strip, where the people of Palestine face these two elements of genocide, as set out in the aforementioned Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, while a part of the world's political public closes its eyes and stays silent about this immensely terrible fact.

There is no political interest, or even economic interest driven by intent to exploit natural resources such as oil or natural gas in that part of the Mediterranean, that can justify such a high degree of genocidal violence against the local Palestinian population.

Besides the fact that such violence is unjustified and unacceptable, the silence — and at times even the approval — coming from various political circles in the world is equally unacceptable.

What kind of peace, development, or protection of human rights can we even speak of if such violence, violence bearing the hallmarks of genocide against the Palestinian people, is allowed?

Does this mean that the political interests of certain countries, or the interests of corporate capital, are stronger and more significant than our shared obligation to protect peace in every part of the world, and thereby the preconditions for the development and self-sustainability of different societies, while at the same time protecting the human rights of every individual in the world?

This is a great challenge that we face today, and one we cannot run from, nor can we continue to keep silent about it for the sake of some higher, opportunistic interests. Let us remember that phrase: silence is in fact an expression of either cowardice or approval.

Distinguished delegates,

Allow me to say a few brief words about my own country, Bosnia and Herzegovina.

A little more than 30 years ago, Bosnia and Herzegovina faced aggression coming from neighboring countries.

At that time, the United Nations formed a peacekeeping force called UNPROFOR, made up of countries that expressed interest in participating.

The role of UNPROFOR was such that, for the most part, they were mere observers of a series of war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and ultimately genocide committed by the aggressors against Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Of course, there were also positive examples of UNPROFOR's activities, which should certainly not be forgotten, and for which we are sincerely grateful.

But, unfortunately, a stain remains on that United Nations mission, because certain UNPROFOR commanders refused to authorize air strikes that could have prevented ethnic cleansing, and in particular the genocide committed in Srebrenica in July 1995.

Unfortunately, the Srebrenica genocide was committed; hundreds of thousands of citizens throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina lost their lives during the aggression, even more were wounded, while more than a million citizens were displaced around the world.

I want to briefly remind you that before the International Criminal Tribunal in The Hague, established by these very United Nations, the guilt of several individuals for the genocide committed was established, as was the existence of a number of joint criminal enterprises, all of which had the same goal — ethnic cleansing, with the creation of ethnically pure parts of the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in order to separate those parts from Bosnia and Herzegovina and annex them to neighboring states.

A little more than a year ago, here at the United Nations, we together voted for a Resolution on the genocide committed in Srebrenica, which I consider a great step forward and an important document, not only for Bosnia and Herzegovina but far more broadly, because the strength of that Resolution lies in its intention to prevent the possible commission of new genocides, which could happen anywhere in the world.

Although we faced lobbying by several states against the adoption of such a Resolution, it was nevertheless passed, thereby creating a new environment in which, through a culture of remembrance, preventive action can be taken so that genocide, as the most terrible of war crimes, never happens again.

We saw then that there are states which, for their own political reasons or political convenience, were not prepared to support the text of the Resolution, which was based on the judgments handed down by the International Criminal Tribunal from The Hague — which, I repeat once again, was established by these very United Nations.

May such refusal to support the text of the Resolution stand as a mark of honor for those who lobbied against its adoption and for those who did not give it their clear support.

I want to remind you that during that period in the 1990s, the international community, through United Nations bodies, imposed an embargo on Bosnia and Herzegovina on the purchase of defensive weapons, thereby preventing our state from defending itself against a two-front aggression.

That would, in any case, have significantly shortened the duration of the war conflict; many lives would have been saved, because a peace agreement would have been reached much sooner, for which the necessary precondition was the creation of a balance of military power between Bosnia and Herzegovina and the two neighboring countries that committed the aggression.

Because of that embargo, the aggression against Bosnia and Herzegovina lasted almost four years, and a great number of human lives were unnecessarily lost.

That war conflict was ended with the signing of the Dayton-Paris Peace Agreement, which brought about the necessary peace, for which we are also grateful, but which at the same time created such a sui generis political system in Bosnia and Herzegovina that, today, 30 years after its creation, represents a problem for the normal functioning of the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Such a political system does not contain democracy, but rather some deviant form of it, unprecedented in practice anywhere else in the world, in which ethnic affiliation is placed in the foreground, thereby entirely negating basic human rights, while at the same time undermining democracy to such an extent that it almost no longer exists.

We can call this political system an incidental political system, one that continuously destabilizes the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Why do I mention democracy here?

For at least two reasons.

The first is that states which choose democracy and its principles should have the opportunity to fully apply that democracy within their own borders, fully aware that there are also a number of states which, for their own reasons — historical, cultural, or religious — do not want democracy and its principles.

Bosnia and Herzegovina has clearly chosen democracy and a transition from the previous political system to a new, democratic political system, but in reality this is continuously prevented by elements of the political system established by the Dayton-Paris Agreement.

The second reason relates to the fact that, having faced an embargo on the import of defensive weapons during the 1990s, Bosnia and Herzegovina today faces an embargo on democracy, which certain actors from the international community are seeking to secure through their political and diplomatic activities.

So, having once had an embargo on defending ourselves, today we have an embargo on democracy and democratic development.

How else can we explain such activity by that part of the international community, which in various ways seeks to secure this incidental political system in which a minority governs the majority, overturning one of the fundamental principles of democracy — which requires a system in which, in fact, the political majority should govern its own state?

Although such actors describe this as an alleged distribution of political power among ethnic communities in Bosnia and Herzegovina, at its root this undermines democracy to such an extent that it almost no longer exists in my country, because what exists is simply called ethnocracy, in which a political minority governs the state, because this present deviant political system allows it to do so.

Whether such actors of the international community are seeking to ban or impose an embargo on democracy in Bosnia and Herzegovina because of its demographic makeup, or are seeking to produce a situation in which discussions about Bosnia and Herzegovina are reopened with an uncertain outcome for its existence within its present borders, remains an open question.

I will remind you here that without democracy there is no rule of law, and without the rule of law there is no protection of individual human rights.

As an example of such conduct by part of the international community, one can point to the so-called "Kovačević" case before the European Court of Human Rights.

A case that is unknown to you, perhaps even unimportant to you, but which is extremely important to us in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

This is a case in which the applicant sought a simple, justified, and logical protection of his active right to vote, which had been denied to him.

The case was decided at first instance in favor of the applicant Kovačević, with a finding of ethno-territorial discrimination, which a part of the international community then, investing enormous diplomatic and financial effort, sought to overturn on appeal.

One of the countries — which is completely incomprehensible and unacceptable — gave a financial donation to the European Court of Human Rights and later appeared, in that very same case, as an interested party, which is an expression of classic political corruption.

This is why the logical question arises here — can the judgments of international courts be bought?

The High Representative of the international community in Bosnia and Herzegovina also actively participated in overturning that judgment, even though this is not among the powers granted to him by the Dayton-Paris Agreement, likewise investing enormous financial resources from unknown sources, for the use of which he did not have the necessary consent of the Peace Implementation Council.

So, a completely identical situation occurred as with the adoption of the Resolution on the Srebrenica genocide, where certain countries, by lobbying against the Resolution, sought to deny the judgments of the International Criminal Tribunal from The Hague, while in the case I cite as an example, other countries sought — and still seek — to overturn the judgment through their lobbying and broader diplomatic activity, which then leads us to the conclusion that there is a part of the international community that does not allow democracy in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

"Yesterday" an embargo on weapons necessary for the defense of the country, "today" an embargo on democracy and human rights!

For this reason, I want to briefly remind you of another United Nations document, called the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which, among other things, guarantees: "...to vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors..." — which, unfortunately, is not allowed in Bosnia and Herzegovina, with great efforts by the international community that seeks to preserve discrimination, deny democracy, resulting in a lack of the rule of law and, ultimately, insufficient and almost non-existent protection of individual human rights.

The logical conclusion that imposes itself is that democracy, like the right to defend one's country, is a privilege whose application is determined and enabled by political elites from larger and wealthier countries, while small and poorer countries can receive only as much democracy as the larger and wealthier allow them. That is certainly not an expression of equality, which we should all strive for together today.

Distinguished delegates,

Here we also come to the question of human rights, or more precisely, the equality of every individual in their own country, and more broadly, and especially their right to participate equally and by their own will in every aspect of social life in their country.

We have a whole series of documents or acts of international law that guarantee such things, and so the open question arises here too: are we prepared to be consistent or persistent in protecting individual human rights in any part of the world, using the tools that these international documents provide us?

Every question of protecting human rights begins with the fight against discrimination, or against any form of inequality among individuals in all the rights guaranteed to them by documents of international law, and, as a logical continuation, by the documents or laws of various states.

Discrimination in any form is prohibited by acts of international law, but, unfortunately, we very often encounter situations in which discrimination is passed over in silence, and after that silence, even encouraged.

Speaking from the perspective of Bosnia and Herzegovina, we have five judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in which the existence of discrimination against citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina, based on their ethnic origin or place of residence, has been established.

Part of the political elites in Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as part of the international community present in Bosnia and Herzegovina, refuse to accept this and to implement it through constitutional amendments.

Along with the non-implementation of the aforementioned five judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, this sixth judgment, in a case seeking the rejection of ethno-territorial discrimination — and which was overturned thanks to pressure, "donations," and similar actions by certain countries, as well as by the person authorized by the peace agreement to implement that agreement and to protect all aspects of it, including all acts of international law concerning human rights — brings us to difficult questions and even more difficult answers.

Are human rights and their protection a privilege of larger and wealthier societies and states, while smaller and poorer ones are, consciously or deliberately, bypassed in the protection of human rights, from the right to life to the right to equality and democracy?

In closing, allow me to emphasize that all three open questions, which are the theme of this session of the United Nations General Assembly, can only be answered through consistency and principled insistence on the protection of peace, so that we may create the conditions for the unhindered development of societies in the member states of the United Nations, and so that, ultimately, together, we may emerge as active protectors of human rights in any part of the world.

Without such consistency on these issues, we will once again be nothing more than a group expressing concern over deviant phenomena in the world, such as wars, the violent changing of borders, genocide and war crimes, and the denial of human rights, without actually doing anything more than expressing concern.

The consistency I am referring to means complete determination to oppose various deviant phenomena in the world, through the tools that international law provides us.

We must be determined and unwavering in our intention to protect the fundamental values of the United Nations, without making any distinction among states as subjects of international law.

In that determination, I invite you not to make distinctions among ourselves, dividing us into large and small states, rich and poor, but instead, together as an organization, to actively seek and enable solutions for all the open questions that arise in the world.

Peace is not a privilege; peace is an obligation for all of us to ensure, at every moment and in every place.

Likewise, human rights are not a privilege, but a lasting civilizational obligation that we must continuously fulfill.

This is certainly an enduring challenge, one that generations before us have faced and that generations after us will face. Our mission is to leave them a world better than it is now, and for that goal, persistent and continuous, active work is needed.

Thank you for your attention!