Kulenović: Who Pays for Schmidt's Engagement, It's Certainly Not the OHR

(Patria) - The first objective assessment is that humanity is truly in crisis, above all peace and security worldwide, said Adil Kulenović, president of Krug 99, last night as a guest on Hayat television, commenting on the escalation of conflict in southern Lebanon following Iran's bombing of Israel.

- The script behind Israel's current policy is the same script Hitler used when coming to power, when many in the world pursued a policy of appeasement, thinking it was possible to reach a peace agreement with him, all to avoid war - Kulenović stated.

He emphasizes that numerous world powers, starting with the US, and even some Arab countries, had the same approach since last year, but that policy ultimately led to Tehran now entering the war.

- This is the best confirmation that the policy of appeasement, as was the case with the aggression against Bosnia and Herzegovina, and now with Israel's aggression against other countries, is the key problem of the world - Kulenović points out.

He also commented on the open letter from Krug 99, as a form of protest against High Representative Christian Schmidt's appearance before the European Court of Human Rights.

Kulenović says he cannot yet predict the outcome, but he is extremely satisfied with the initial reactions the letter has provoked.

- We, of course, sent the letter not only to Bosnian officials and embassies of countries in Bosnia and Herzegovina, but also to the European Court of Human Rights, the Committee of Ministers, and to 800 other addresses worldwide, especially in the US and Europe.

The first reactions prove that the letter has attracted great attention, and it remains to be seen whether it will grow into principled support.

On the other hand, numerous questions remain unanswered, among which perhaps the most important is - who pays for such an engagement by Schmidt, because it is certain that it is not the OHR.

We know this because there is no consensus within the Peace Implementation Council, there is no agreement for this engagement of his.

There is also evidence in this direction because the Peace Implementation Council held a meeting on this topic, but did not issue a statement after the meeting, meaning they did not even reach a minimal consensus.

It is known that they cannot appear in public if they have not reached even a minimum of consensus.

We continue to monitor this development and I believe we will find out which countries were 'for' and which against Schmidt going, either through resourceful journalists or through historical distance.

That knowledge will help us understand which are friendly countries for Bosnia and Herzegovina, and which are 'friendly' - those that often appear here focused on protecting cats and dogs, but are not real friends.

I want to say clearly here - this is not just a question of the 'Kovačević v. Bosnia and Herzegovina' ruling, this is a question of the future of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Of course, Slaven Kovačević, with his request, which evidently required a lot of courage, and this is now shown by all the insinuations, threats and pressures he is exposed to, only sought what every person with basic democratic rights wants - to vote and be elected within his own country - Kulenović points out.

He states that it is actually about whether the entire European order and all its values will fall, and 'whether that carrot we have been striving for over 30 years will become our bitter pill.'

Finally, he emphasized the importance of the Grand Chamber's decision to confirm the 'Kovačević v. Bosnia and Herzegovina' ruling, which would preserve the European perspective of our homeland as a stable, functional and prosperous democracy.