From Injustice to Justice and Back

Who knows how many times we have faced ignorance in the exercise of state functions in Bosnia and Herzegovina. This was confirmed in the process of seeking a revision of the judgment in the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia for genocide before the International Court of Justice in The Hague. 

In recent months, the public has been bewildered by the statements of various self-appointed guardians and experts, both domestic and foreign. Suddenly, they became champions of justice and truth, all in the name of the people and the state. We had the opportunity to listen, watch, and read exhaustive analyses about what a revision is, what the procedures for submitting a request for revision are, what it means for the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina, for Serbia, for the peoples, for Bosniaks, for Serbs, for Croats...

The media space was filled with statements from those in favor of the revision and those against it. There were also those who were sometimes for the revision and sometimes against it. Each in their own way tried to be part of a historic moment that was thought would bring glory to all who participated in it. Disappointment was not long in coming. 

What grated on my ears after the rejection of the revision were the headlines in directed party media. They wrote about how the people were humiliated by the shameful decision of the Court. Personally, I believe the people were humiliated in the 1990s by the crime committed against them. And now also by the ignoramuses led by Mr. Bakir Izetbegović, because they failed to prove that crime.

How could it come to this, how could we reach a situation where a member of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina knowingly conceals facts about the status of Bosnia and Herzegovina's agent before the International Court of Justice? How is it possible that critics of Bosnia and Herzegovina spoke the truth about the agent, while the „state-building“ forces did not tell the truth? Is it possible that they heard for the first time that the International Court of Justice is primarily a political institution, and everything else? 

Ideally, the state should be led and governed by people with vision, or people with approximately such capacity. Likewise, it would be ideal for that state to be represented at the international level by top experts. It seems we are not so lucky. We have been cursed with the evil fate of bad genes, a Lombrosian typology, installed in state institutions, aggressively plundering while neglecting all other dimensions of social life.

The only reason that comes to my mind for concealing the letter sent from The Hague in 2016 is that it is an established modus operandi of the member of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bakir Izetbegović, starting from the political murders that have burdened the Bosnian-Herzegovinian public for years, all the way to the latest case with the letter.

I am devastated by the realization that all those who said that agent Softić did not have the authority to represent Bosnia and Herzegovina before the International Court of Justice were actually telling the truth, while these „state-building“ figures were the only ones who misled the public, damaged the state's reputation, and ultimately suffered personal humiliation. 

Based on the media appearances of the member of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bakir Izetbegović, I get the impression that only he is unaware of the fact that the International Court of Justice is, above all, a political institution, a product of the political agreement of the great powers, which have retained the right of political influence over the outcome of this Court's decisions. It was clear, already in 2007, that international political circles and entities had more sympathy for official Belgrade than for official Sarajevo. To this day, official Serbian policy has done a lot to enhance its own reputation in the international community. On the other hand, representatives of Bosnia and Herzegovina have done nothing in this regard; they have even managed to squander the little international subjectivity this state had due to its victims. They have turned the state into an object for haggling within international relations and law.

My only consolation is that I finally see the emergence of a policy that has evolved from a patriotic into a criminal league, and as such, has sealed its own fate.

And the last thing I want to draw attention to is the statement of American professor David Scheffer, who tried to explain the case of the 2016 letter with legally relevant facts. He claims that the letter was deliberately ignored because there was a dilemma about which judicial instance should have sent it from The Hague to Bosnia and Herzegovina. I find this position understandable. The country from which the esteemed professor comes can afford to engage in the interpretation of international law, but the professor obviously forgot that in this proceeding, one of the interested parties is not America, but Bosnia and Herzegovina. That is, a state that cannot afford the luxury of questioning the jurisdiction of any instance of the International Court of Justice. If this fact escaped the esteemed professor, it certainly should not have escaped us. In particular, it should not have escaped Bakir Izetbegović, regardless of the fact that today he respects the Court's decision, but does not respect it.