Homeless World Cup - Mexico City 2012

27.08.2010 - U zapisu sa prošlogodišnjeg Sarajevo Film Festivala zabilježio sam i ovo: “... Taj isti dan ostalo nam je da uveče pogledamo dokumentarni film Kick Off. Ovaj film sam odabrao jer sam u sinopsisu vidio da se radi o svjetskom prvenstvu u malom fudbalu (street soccer) za beskućnike. I s obzirom da sam ja nepokolebljivi vjernik u iscjeliteljsku moć fudbala, i da se ipak ne radi o ovom drugom fudbalu (FIFA, UEFA, Champions League, EPL... soccer) u kojem je potreba za jednim temeljitim egzorcizmom svakim danom sve očiglednija, to mi se ova tema učinila vrlo intrigantnom, kako bi to rekla uvažena selektorica Rada Šešić. U filmu ljudi od krvi i mesa koji su spletom, ne nesretnih, nego životnih okolnosti završili na ulici zbog droge, sitnog kriminala, alkoholizma ili nečega trećeg, predvođeni trenerom Gilbertom Prilasnigom, koga znamo kao dugogodišnjeg igrača Šturma u vrijeme kada je ovaj klub vodio Ivica Osim, uz prisustvo studenta režije Huseyna Tabaka, koji i sam zaljubljenik u film pravi film o njima i bodri ih sve vrijeme, i radnika Caritasa, pripremaju se za svjetsko prvenstvo u Melburnu stičući tako prijeko potrebno samopouzdanje za pobjede na terenu, i mnogo bitnije, van njega. Pa tako gledamo Serkana, glavnog igrača, kako slavi što je napokon dobio vizu dva dana prije polaska, i to nakon što je izgubio svaku nadu, njegovog saigrača koji radi noću kao čistač i ujutro odlazi na trening i koji sâm u jednom trenutku kaže: „... ponekad osjećam da će mi se tijelo slomiti“, dok za golmana kasnije, u razgovoru sa režiserom, saznajemo da je i na prvenstvu imao problema sa alkoholom, ali da je u međuvremenu našao posao, djevojku, i da će ići da po prvi put vidi svog sina. Možda je zvučalo pretjerano kada sam na q/a poslije filma rekao da mi je gledanje ovog filma bilo uzbudljivije od nedavno završenog svjetskog prvenstva u fudbalu, ali stvarno sam to mislio.”

22.12.2011 - U članku “Bh. nogometna selekcija beskućnika ide na SP” objavljenom na portalu Radio Sarajeva prije dva dana (http://www.radiosarajevo.ba/novost/70119/bh-nogometna-selekcija-beskucnika-ide-na-sp-), između ostalog stoji i ovo: “[b]oje naše zemlje na Homeless World Cup-u koje će se u oktobru naredne godine održati u Mexico City-u, braniće reprezentativci iz Sarajeva, Banja Luke, Tuzle, Doboja i opštine Doboj Istok pod selektorskom palicom Elmedina Škrebe... BiH će po prvi put nastupiti na ovom prvenstvu s obzirom na to da je tek od 22. avgusta ove godine postala članica Homeless World Cup-a... U našoj zemlji ne postoji zakonska regulativa o tome ko je beskućnik, tako da ranije i ne bismo mogli nastupiti na ovom takmičenju. Sada postoji 11 kategorija, među kojima su i povratnici, raseljeni, osobe koje borave u kolektivnom smještaju, bivši ovisnici o drogama... tako i našu zemlju predstavljaju momci koji pripadaju jednoj od ovih kategorija.”

Poželio bih našim igračima da im ovo iskustvo, kao što je to bio slučaj sa junacima filma Kick Off, donese pozitivnu promjenu u njihovim životima. Sretno Zmajevi!   

Ništa. Za. Prijaviti.

Granični prelaz Bosanski Brod. Uveče pred kraj smjene. Član 10. stav 2. tačka a) Uputstva o carinskom postupku u putničkom prometu kaže: „Oslobađanje od plaćanja uvoznih dažbina... primjenjuje se po putniku i po danu na nekomercijalnu robu, uključujući poklone i suvenire koji se nalaze u ličnom prtljagu putnika, a čija carinska vrijednost nije veća od 200 KM“. U kućici smo. Carinik provodi carinski postupak u putničkom prometu. Revnosno. Ja se bunim. Logično. Nema logike da mi naplaćujete carinu na stvari koje smo kupili poput zimske jakne, vjetrovke, patika za plažu ili Barceloninog kompleta (dres, šorc i štucne) za djecu do šest godina, ali cariniku se živo jebe za moju logiku. Pokazuje mi list papira na stolu sa relevantnim zakonskim odredbama označenim masnim slovima. Koje u članu 10. stav 4. uputstva kažu: „Kada se u ličnom prtljagu putnika nalazi roba iz stava (2) tačka a) ovog člana pojedinačne carinske vrijednosti veće od 200 KM, na istu se prilikom unosa u BiH moraju naplatiti uvozne dažbine i drugi indirektni porezi na njenu ukupnu carinsku vrijednost ...“

Nisam imao pojma o ovom limitu Uprave za indirektno oporezivanje koji u suštini i nije nikakav limit. Iskreno. Pročitaću sve podzakonske akte: pravilnike, uputstva, odluke, instrukcije, objašnjenja, obavijesti i naredbe pa ću se ubuduće ravnati, kako to organi vole reći, po istima. Lažem. Cariniku se i dalje jebe za moju trenutnu neinformisanost i obećano ravnanje. Dok uredno popunjava rubriku po rubriku: šifra carinskog službenika koji provodi carinski postupak, vrsta i iznos naplaćenih indirektnih poreza, potpis putnika i ovjera carinskog organa, priča mi kako je baš maloprije ocarinio televizor. Polovan. I to u ukupnoj carinskoj vrijednosti. Jer uputstvo kaže: „ako putnik nosi televizor u boji vrijednosti 500 KM, televizor se ne može ocariniti tako da se za dio vrijednosti od 200 KM oslobodi od plaćanja uvoznih dažbina, a da se na dio vrijednosti od 300 KM obračunaju i naplate dažbine, nego će carinski organi predmetni televizor ocariniti na vrijednost 500 KM i na taj iznos obračunati i naplatiti uvozne dažbine i druge indirektne poreze.“ Isto tako se veli: „... ne može se zbrajati povlastica više putnika pri uvozu jednog predmeta jer se povlastica odnosi na svakog putnika pojedinačno (npr. kada četvero putnika u motornom vozilu uvezu jedan predmet vrijednosti 800 KM, te zahtijevaju primjenu povlastice, ne može se odobriti povlastica, nego se uvozne dažbine i drugi indirektni porezi obračunavaju na cijelu carinsku vrijednost tog predmeta).“ Nema djeljenja. Nema zbrajanja. Ima samo množenja putnika. S nulom.    

Čekaj, drug moj, da se barem upoznam sa terminologijom iz prije nego izjavim kako nemam da platim. „Roba nekomercijalnog karaktera“ znači povremene uvoze robe isključivo za ličnu upotrebu putnika, njegove porodice ili za poklone, čiji karakter i količina upućuju da se ne radi o uvozu u komercijalne svrhe.“ „Uvozne dažbine“ znače carine i druge dažbine s podjednakim efektom kao carinske dažbine naplative pri uvozu robe, ali ne uključujući naknade i troškove za izvršene usluge.“ „Vrijednost robe za carinske svrhe je transakcijska vrijednost, tj. stvarno plaćena ili plativa cijena za robu prilikom prodaje za izvoz u carinsko područje BiH...“ Pod pojmom „indirektni porezi“ podrazumijevaju se uvozne i izvozne dažbine, akcize, porez na dodatnu vrijednost i svi drugi porezi obračunati na robu i usluge.“

Iako priglup za ovu problematiku, već u prvom čitanju sam zaključio da se zakonodavac zajeb'o. I da zakonske odredbe treba promijeniti jer je protivno zdravom razumu da za pobrojane stvari, koje su strogo za ličnu upotrebu i na koje sam u Hrvatskoj već platio pripadajući porez, plaćam tristo ili čet'risto maraka dodatnog poreza. Osim toga je i maltretiranje. A carinik ispunjava 'li ispunjava: „Prvi primjerak odštampan je crvenom bojom i ostaje u bloku. Drugi primjerak odštampan je plavom bojom i namijenjen je za potrebe evidencije Odsjeka za poslovne usluge u nadležnom Regionalnom centru. Treći primjerak odštampan je crnom bojom i namijenjen je putniku.“ Pa ja, ocrni ti putnika. Razmišljam da vratim stvari kod tete Janje u Zagreb. I da mu se istu noć vratim i uživam u tih par sekundi koliko mi treba da otegnuto izgovorim. Ništa. Za. Prijaviti.

Iznurivanje traje. Logika obezvrijeđena. Čeka se kraj smjene. 

On TransConflict

Both Gordon N. Bardos and Matthew T. Parish contribute articles for TransConflict though the latter does it more frequently than the former. What is in fact TransConflict? It is said on their website that “TransConflict was established in response to the challenges facing intra- and interethnic relations in the Western Balkans following Kosovo's declaration of independence. It is TransConflict's assertion that the successful transformation of conflict requires a multi-dimensional approach that engages with and aims at transforming the very interests, relationships, discourses and structures that underpin and fuel outbreaks of low- and high-intensity violence.“ Among others sitting on TransConflict's Advisory Board is a native of Gorazde, Savo Heleta.

Few words about the man. In his own words: „My name is Savo Heleta. I am the author of “Not My Turn to Die: Memoirs of a Broken Childhood in Bosnia”. I hold a Masters Degree in Conflict Transformation and Management at Nelson Mandella Metropolitan University in Port Elizabeth, South Africa. I am currently enrolled in a PhD program in Post-Conflict Development and Reconstruction at Nelson Mandella Metropolitan University.” In the words of Marko Attila Hoare who reviewed Heleta's book in his article entitled “The Persecution of Serb Civilians in wartime Gorazde”: “[speaking of Savo Hoare writes] ... he confesses that his anger at his family's wartime treatment drove him, among other things, to throw rocks at Bosniak cars that drove between Gorazde and Sarajevo after the war, sometimes smashing windscreens and windows: [quoting Savo] 'It hardly crossed my mind at the time that perhaps those people in the buses and trucks had not done anything bad to my family. Some of them could even have been those who had helped us. Maybe even the man who gave us his last loaf of bread. I was completely blinded by fury.'” And finally, in the words of Chunyan Song from California State University who assigned Heleta's memoir to her sociology students: “My students are inspired by Heleta's personal transformation from an angry teenager seeking revenge to a bright scholar actively seeking resolution to global conflicts.” As a side note, on the occasion when Savo addressed professor Song's students from his home in South Africa, students were so inspired by the author's personal transformation and devotion to world peace that they collected funds to purchase him a new laptop with a built-in camera after learning he borrowed one for their lecture. Good for Savo!

Having learnt a thing or two about the man's background and most importantly about his personal transformation from an angry teenager to a bright scholar, active seeker of resolution to global conflicts and devotee to world peace, all in one, let us now have a look at how Mr Heleta “engages with and aims at transforming... discourses... that underpin low- and high-intensity violence”, particularly with respect to the chief challenge in response to which TransConflict was established, as they themselves admit, that of Kosovo's declaration of independence.

Shortly after Kosovo declared independence, more precisely on 13 March 2008, Savo wrote an article entitled “Future Consequences of Kosovo's Independence” in which he argues that “[i]n the near future, we may see escalation of conflict in the Basque region of Spain and parts of France, fighting for independent Kurdistan in Iraq and Turkey, problems in Romania, Slovakia, Sri Lanka, China, the whole African continent and elsewhere.” On a more micro scale, “[i]t is very possible that some ethnic groups in Bosnia could decide to follow Kosovo’s path and seek partition of the country.” Besides the fact that this is hardly a talk of a peacemonger and that none of this actually happened in any of the mentioned places (including “elsewhere”) in the last three and a half years since the writing of the article or is likely to happen in the foreseeable future, I thought that the discipline of conflict transformation and management was all about preventing and containing conflicts, and not encouraging them.

In another article published on 4 April 2008 entitled “Some People (Europeans) Matter More Than Others (Africans)”, Savo Heleta, a student at Nelson Mandella Metropolitan University in Port Elizabeth, South Africa ostensibly tries to follow the anti-apartheid trail of the great man after whom his university was named, but strays along the way. Savo writes: “In 1999, Western countries claimed that up to 10,000 Albanians were killed in Kosovo by the Serbian security forces and that the world had to intervene immediately. They quickly decided to launch air strikes, using over 1,000 airplanes in their bombing campaign. After the short war, 2,100 people were confirmed to be killed in Kosovo by the Serbian forces before the air strikes, while another 2,000 were still missing. Back in 1994, 1 million dead Rwandans in only three months were not enough to influence Western countries to intervene.” Now, the problem with this argument, apart from being too simplistic and with statistics not being a favorite tool of any peacemonger, is that the author seems to object to the fact that Western countries did intervene in Kosovo, not that they did not intervene in Rwanda. In other words, non-intervention in Rwanda seems to have been used here only in support of an argument that Western countries should not have intervened in Kosovo either. Talking about some people (Serbs) mattering more than others (Albanians)! Furthermore, Savo resents the fact that “[i]t was easy to find 1,000 fighter jets to punish Serbia for killing a few thousand [non-mattering] people in Kosovo, but it is impossible to find 24 helicopters to start protecting people in Darfur.” The same pattern again. This sentence, as it is written, means that the failure to protect people in Darfur is wrong only because 1,000 fighter jets were found and used in what Savo believes was the wrongful act of punishment of Serbia. Finally, he concludes that “[i]t is an ugly world we live in.” To use the words of the great man Nelson Mandella himself: “Resentment is like drinking poison and then hoping it will kill your enemies.” And just to be clear, I do not think that Savo the transformed bright scholar has any real reason for resentment here. To sum up, Mr Heleta’s concern about the plight of Rwandans and people of Darfur seems to be quite opportunistic and used in support of making the case for Serbia, as shown above.

His subsequent writings are, among other things, about Hillary Clinton too, who in his view is “a phony pathological liar having no shame” and are generally too predictable to be even remotely interesting. Finally, going back to his Amazon profile, Savo writes: “Since letting go of the need for revenge, I have found common bonds with people from all over the world – India, Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Ireland, Trinidad, South Africa and, of course, America. The education and my new friends opened my mind to different perspectives, helping me grow, and persuading me to write about my wartime experience.” Any Bosnians or Albanians impressed by the “transformed discourse” among these “new friends”, huh?           

Chinese Man Records - Racing with the Sun (Courtesy of Koka Kokana)

On the occasion of Professor William Schabas's 60th year

On 9 July 2011, Iain Scobbie posted on the blog of European Journal of International Law (http://www.ejiltalk.org/page/8/) “Call for Papers: Public International Law, International Criminal Law & International Human Rights Law: A Critical Evaluation of the Scholarship of Professor William Schabas”.

On the occasion of Schabas’s 60th year, the editors Dr. Kathleen Cavanaugh, Senior Lecturer, Irish Centre for Human Rights, National University of Ireland and Prof. Joshua Castellino, Professor of Law & Head of Law Department, Middlesex University, London, United Kingdom sought contributions from scholars, practitioners, judges and others that critically engage with the published contributions of Professor William Schabas.

In praise of his scholarship and activism the two editors wrote: „Over the last half a century the discourse of public international law has been enlivened by a growing emphasis on international human rights law, spawning robust debate and discussion, and also the creation of an imperfect system of accountability for crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide. In the last two decades in particular, the scholarship and activism of Professor William Schabas has had a significant impact on the growth of the normative frameworks around these subjects... His sterling role on the Sierra Leone Truth Commission is but one manifestation that his contribution has spread well beyond the realms of the classroom: recognition that is also reflected in the bestowal of the Order of Canada upon him for his contribution to human rights...“

Now, in my capacity of “other” I would like to give my small contribution to this initiative merely by quoting some of Prof. Schabas's writings on issues such as the role of the ICTY, ICJ's Judgment in the Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Srebrenica and a few others.

On the role of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia: “The ICTY's role is to contribute to peace, accountability and ultimately reconciliation within a context of collective atrocity. Directing its fire at what are really no more than isolated social deviants can only distort the historical record in an unnecessarily provocative fashion.”  

On the ICJ Judgment, Srebrenica and Mladić’s power of improvisation: “Certainly the ICJ endorsed the conclusion that genocide had been perpetrated at Srebrenica. Here too, it followed the analysis of the ICTY, treating the massacre as an isolated and ultimately idiosyncratic event within a broader conflict whose essence was not fundamentally genocidal, a devastating and destructive attack on the Muslims of Srebrenica that was improvised at the last minute by General Mladić.”

On the condition of “Muslim life” (a rather interesting phrase) in Srebrenica in August 2007: “According to recent reports, Muslim life in Srebrenica is more vital and dynamic than ever.”

On those truly bend upon physical destruction of a group and others not so bend upon physical destruction of a group: “Can there not be other plausible explanations for the destruction of 7,000 men and boys in Srebrenica? Could they not have been targeted precisely because they were of military age, and thus actual or potential combatants? Would someone truly bend upon the physical destruction of a group, and cold-blooded enough to murder more than 7,000 defenseless men and boys, go to the trouble of organizing transport so that women, children and the elderly can be evacuated?”

On Milosevic trial and the true nature of relations between Belgrade and the Bosnian Serb leaders: “The unfinished trial of Milosevic never succeeded in joining up the dots to link him to Srebrenica. In fact, much of the evidence in that proceeding pointed to a rift between Belgrade and the Bosnian Serb leaders, rather than to the fabled conspiracy.”

On consistency and coherence: “... if the theoretical construct of the crime of genocide proposed by the ICTY and endorsed by the ICJ is to be sustained, it would have been more consistent and coherent to conclude that Srebrenica, too, was not an act of genocide. Both the ICTY and the ICJ seem to want to have their cake and to eat it too, espousing a rigorous legal analysis of the elements of the crime but nevertheless bowing to the crowd by acknowledging the most outrageous act in the entire war as rising to the level of genocide.”

And finally, on the lost chances: „... the final result [ICJ's Judgment], in February 2007, was really a setback for the Bosnian victims, whose lawyers should have convinced the state to discontinue their case. They probably could have obtained useful political considerations from Belgrade in exchange, but they have now, obviously, lost that chance.”

All the above quotes are from the following two articles by Professor William Schabas:

1. William A. Schabas, Legal Perspectives and Analyses: Was Genocide Committed in Bosnia and Herzegovina? First Judgments of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Fordham International Law Journal, Volume 25, Issue 1, 2001

2. William A. Schabas, “Genocide and the International Court of Justice: Finally, A Duty to Prevent the Crime of Crimes” Genocide Studies and Prevention 2, 2 (August 2007): 101-122 

Open Letter to International Lawyer and International Relations Expert, Matthew T. Parish

Matthew Parish is an international lawyer, but not just any international lawyer. In the preface to his 2011 book “Mirages of International Justice: The Elusive Pursuit of Transnational Legal Order”, Matthew Parish writes among other things that: “[i]nternational courts exist purporting to mete out international justice. Yet this image, so carefully cultivated, is a charade. International courts exist not to resolve disputes, but to cement their ever tenuous positions and pursue the growth of yet more international law.” So, he is actually a cynical international lawyer, which corresponds well with one of the positions he holds, as indicated in his professional biography, that of a Co-Chair of the International Law Association’s Committee on the Accountability of International Organizations. Phew. It is quite surprising that Matthew, who is in his mid- or late thirties now and has not been around for too long, has become so cynical and distrustful of the Lady (International) Justice. Let us then try to track the origins of this disillusionment.

In the preface to his above-mentioned book, he goes back to the time when he first became interested in international law and writes: “I first became interested in international law, and by extension the international organizations that propagate it, when I worked for two such institutions. One was World Bank (until 2005); the other was the Office of the High Representative of Bosnia and Herzegovina (until 2007).” Combining the results of empirical and theoretical research, Matthew concludes: “In time, I came to realise that absence of legal or any other kind of accountability was a recurrent feature of international organizations... they are unpleasant places to work. Unaccountable to anyone, their managers setting their own direction without reference to national or international law or the wishes or interests of their donors, staff become freed from the common decencies expected in civilized workplaces... Sexual and other sorts of harassment are known to be rife, as are corruption and nepotism.” Whether this specifically refers to OHR or WB or both remains unclear. However, there is no doubt that from late 2007 until now, Matthew excessively commented on the Office of the High Representative in Sarajevo and did not even make a passing reference to the World Bank in Washington D.C. Let us then have a look at the nature of his writings.  

Shortly after leaving the OHR, more precisely in December 2007, Matthew published an article entitled “The Demise of the Dayton Protectorate” in Journal of Intervention and State Building in which he basically argued that the Office of the High Representative should close its doors as “colonial dictatorship is no longer an appropriate mode of engagement”. His principal objection to this institution, as espoused in the article, concerns its practice of dismissal of public officials believed to obstruct implementation of the Dayton Peace Agreement without due process, which in Matthew’s view, is the overarching human rights and democratic issue in the post-Dayton Bosnia and Herzegovina. His dislike for “the international colonial governor” and the use of the so called Bonn powers was instantly picked up by the Republika Srpska Government, which, in its 2008 Report to the UN Security Council wrote: “Understandably, the continued use of peremptory decree and removal powers some thirteen years after the end of hostilities – has also been much criticized by legal and international relations scholars and experts. Critics include former international officials who have served in BiH.” Matthew’s name is mentioned only in the footnote, but by the time Republika Srpska dispatched its fifth and sixth reports to the UN Security Council in May and November 2011 respectively, former Chief Legal Advisor to the International Supervisor of Brčko, Matthew T. Parish made it to the body of the report.[1]  In this period (from 2009 to 2011),  Matthew published a series of articles and reports such as “Republika Srpska – After Independence”, “Milorad Dodik and the politics of referendum”, “Serb Machiavelli Has Bosnia’s Future in His Hands”, “The Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina faces ‘inevitable collapse’”, “The silent passing of Bosnian proconsulship”, “The unfortunate case of Dragomir Andan” and even “Kosovo Ruling Reveals World Court’s Darker Side”, which eerily coincide with the priorities on the RS Government agenda such as closure of the OHR, undermining of the state institutions, non-recognition of Kosovo, to name only a few. By ticking all these boxes on the RS Government agenda, Matthew made a successful transition from a disillusioned and cynical international lawyer to an overly enthusiastic mouthpiece of the Government of Republika Srpska. No mean feat in itself!   

For Matthew, the former cynic, the issues such as RS independence, “collapse” of the State Court and silent passing of “High Representatives’ tyranny” all have a ring of inevitability to them. Without going into much detail, suffice it to say that this legal and international relations scholar and expert wrote in November 2009 that “[a] new state – ‘Republika Srpska’ - is shortly to be born in South Eastern Europe, the eighth to emerge from the bloody Yugoslavian wars of the 1990s” while only a year earlier he wrote: “Unification of Bosnia into a reasonably centralised state will come in time, because the geographic logic of Bosnia's unification is compelling: the shape of the RS precludes it from being a credible contiguous independent territory.” So much for his consistency! From criticizing the institution of the OHR, Matthew shifts his attention to its staff: “OHR’s employees have become bloated and lazy on the arrogance of unrestrained power; and no capable international official would take a job in so decrepit an institution. OHR remains a slow form of career suicide.” He then advises that “[c]losure of OHR must involve dismissal of all OHR staff. They have been working there for years, and they are still living in the Paddy Ashdown era. They are bloated on the arrogance of power, and are responsible for many of the worst abuses committed by OHR.” Now, going back to Matthew’s comment about international organizations being “unpleasant places to work”, it is clear that Mr Parish found it professionally unfulfilling, to say the least, to work for OHR, but one does not have to be a member of the OHR staff to realize that this is more of a vendetta-style language than scholarly constructive criticism.

Finally, with your permission dear international lawyer based in Geneva and distinguished Co-Chair of the International Law Association’s Committee on the Accountability of International Organizations, let me ask you a civilized question:

Who are you accountable to?  

---

[1] The Fifth Report of Republika Srpska to the United Nations Security Council reads: “As summarized by Matthew Parish, the former head of one of the legal departments at the OHR, the High Representative’s legal mandate under Annex 10 is to be ‘a manager of the international community’s post conflict peace building efforts, and a mediator between the domestic parties.’ Any good-faith reading of Annex 10 support Mr. Parrish’s view of the limited scope provided to the High Representative by its legal mandate.” The Sixth Report again quotes Mr. Parish: “As Parish, the former OHR attorney, has recognized, the PIC’s Bonn declaration ‘ran quite contrary to the spirit and text of Annex 10 to the [Dayton Accords] and was legally quite indefensible.’” 

Once Brothers

Nakon sarajevske premijere filma „Once Brothers“ u februaru ove godine, na pitanje o tome na čiju inicijativu je došlo do snimanja ovog filma, Vlade Divac odgovara: „Film je snimljen na inicijativu Diona Cocorosa, koji je inače producent u NBA Entertainmentu. On je došao sa idejom, jer je znao celu situaciju sa igračima sa naših prostora. Ja sam je podržao, a iskren da budem nisam verovao da će uspeti da dočaraju baš kako je bilo i da pošalju prave poruke kroz film“. A da li je dočarano „baš kako je bilo“ i da li su poslane „prave poruke kroz film“?

Dion Cocoros ovako pojašnjava kako je nastao film: „Divac might not be there in terms of star power, but his story is unmatched... How many people fall out of friendship with their best friend and aren't able to reconcile with them because they die? Plus with a war surrounding them and, oh, by the way coming from these postage stamp-sized towns in Yugoslavia to make it to the NBA. Essentially, his story is almost unmatched... It's almost surreal how many layers there are.“

Krenimo zato sloj po sloj. Cocoros kaže između ostalog kako su Vlade Divac i Dražen Petrović bili najbolji prijatelji. Da vidimo šta na tu temu kažu njihovi bivši saigrači iz reprezentacije. Nakon projekcije filma u Zagrebu, Dino Rađa se našalio da je sa Divcem dok su igrali zajedno za reprezentaciju više puta spavao u sobi nego sa tadašnjom djevojkom. Stojko Vranković svoje druženje sa Petrovićem opisuje ovako: „Upoznali smo se 1980. godine u kadetskoj reprezentaciji bivše države i to se druženje nastavilo u juniorima i seniorima. Većinom, ne i uvijek, bili smo cimeri...“ Zdravko Radulović kaže: „Dok smo svi bili u reprezentaciji, Draženov i njegov odnos nije bio toliko blizak. Svima nama u ekipi je Dražen, koji je bio nešto stariji i već je igrao za Real Madrid, bio idol. Vjerujem da su se sprijateljili tek u Americi kad su otišli igrati u NBA jer im je zajedno bilo lakše u tom novom svijetu“. Zdovc nakon odgledanog filma dodaje da jesu bili prijatelji i da je to braća više onako „glamurozno, filmski...“

Nakon sjajnih igara Petrovića, Divca, Kukoča, Rađe, Paspalja, Zdovca i ostalih igrača na svjetskom prvenstvu u Argentini 1990. godine gdje su bili nedodirljivi za sve suparnike, došao je rat. Koji nam u u ovom filmu pojašnjava niko drugi do Gordon N. Bardos, profesor sa Univerziteta Kolumbija, kako je predstavljen u filmu. Ono što se ne kaže jeste to da se radi o čovjeku koji je 1997. godine, nakon što je „Oslobođenje“ objavilo slike na kojima pobjedonosno uzdiže tri prsta na ulazu u Pale i u Pravoslavnoj crkvi ljubi zastavu Republike Srpske, naprasno napustio funkciju zamjenika direktora za obuku glasača u sjedištu OSCE-a u Sarajevu gdje je radio kao službenik NATO-a. Bardos u filmu, očekivano, kaže sljedeće: „I think it's fair to say that the international community largely held Serbia responsible for the wars in Croatia and in Bosnia, but it was not a black-and-white struggle. War crimes were committed on all sides and ethnic cleansing was being committed by all sides...“ Ako je odabir naslova bio „filmski, glamurozan“ što se svakako može razumjeti zbog potrebe da se privuče što veći broj gledalaca, zar se nije mogao naći neko manje pristrasan da kaže par riječi o genezi ratova u Hrvatskoj i Bosni i Hercegovini?! Mislim kad se NBA Entertainment već potrudio da se u filmu pojave Magic Johnson, Kareem Abdul-Jabaar, Joe Dumars, Larry Bird, Clyde Drexler i ostali...

Sam Divac kaže u jednom intervjuu kako je film namijenjen američkom tržištu. Uspon Petrovića i Divca, koji su svoje prve košarkaške korake napravili u Šibeniku i Prijepolju, do NBA zvijezda predstavlja ostvarenje američkog sna, što je trebalo doprinijeti još većoj gledanosti filma. Da vidimo onda kako je film doživio prosječni američki gledalac, naravno ne računajući one historičare amatere, i usput košarkaške znalce, srpskog ili hrvatskog porijekla. Velika većina onih koji komentarišu raspad prijateljstva između ove dvojice košarkaških velikana Divca vidi u suštini kao pozitivca, a Petrovića kao negativca. Pa tako jedan kaže: „It was a pain to hear how the two principals fell out over geography, ethnicity, and international politics. The falling out was probably the fault of neither, or perhaps both. Divac, at least, apparently tried to mend the breach, but never was able to.“ Drugi gledalac ide čak korak dalje i veli: „After watching this I truly feel sorry for Dražen in that he was so shallow of a friend...“

Da zaključim, ako je namjera bila da se kroz priču o dvojici sjajnih košarkaša ispriča jedna veća, mnogo zamršenija priča o dešavanjima koja se dotiču svih nas na prostoru bivše Jugoslavije, onda se onim dijelovima filma koji se tiču brata Petrovića trebalo pristupiti mnogo opreznije, pogotovo imajući u vidu činjenicu da Dražen nažalost nije više među nama. To je taj sloj koji nedostaje. Jer svi mi znamo da je Dražen svima bio idol, da je u evropskim finalima davao po 60 koševa, da kao najbolji evropski igrač u to vrijeme nije smatran dovoljno dobrim da bi imao više minuta na terenu u Portlandu od prosječnih bekova Terry Portera i isluženog Danny Aingea, da ni najboljem svih vremena Michael Jordanu nije bilo lako čuvati ga... Novinarka E-novina Žarka Radoja piše: „Iako se insistira na velikom prijateljstvu dvojice košarkaša teško je povjerovati da je njihov privatni razlaz bio uzrokovan samo bacanjem te zastave, bez želje da se nakon toga o bilo čemu dodatno razgovara i razjasni.“ Mislim da je pored svih drugih okolnosti na koje nisu mogli uticati ni jedan ni drugi, razlazu kumovao stav Divca koji govoreći o intervenciji povodom dešavanja na Kosovu u emisiji Larry King Live, bez ustezanja nalazi krivce u NATO-u i teroristima iz Oslobodilačke vojske Kosova, dok su samo par godina ranije za granatiranje Šibenika krivi političari i propagandna mašinerija. I ne vidi ništa pogrešno u tome. Ni dan danas.    

       

Some background information to Milorad Dodik's address entitled “An American Foreign Policy Success Story: The Dayton Accords, Republika Srpska, and Bosnia’s European Integration” at the Columbia University in New York

On October 25^th 2011, Prime Minister of Republika Srpska, Milorad Dodik was scheduled to deliver an address entitled “An American Foreign Policy Success Story: The Dayton Accords, Republika Srpska, and Bosnia’s European Integration” at the Columbia University in New York. On the day of the event some persons who had their RSVPs confirmed earlier were denied access to the Faculty Room of Low Library where the event was to take place with no explanation given. The invitation read: “To RSVP, please contact Ms Catherine Brooks at kab2194@columbia.edu” Now, I do not know whether Ms Brooks was on hand to give an explanation to people who were turned back from the door, but it seems not to have been the case. In absence of any official explanation, suspicions were raised that those turned back from the door were persons with non-Serb names.

Going back to the invitation, it read: “On behalf of the Harriman Institute and the Njegos Endowment for Serbian Language and Culture at Columbia University, we would like to invite you...” As for the Njegos Endowment for Serbian Language and Culture, we learn from its newsletter dated March 14, 2003 that “[t]he meetings that we host are most often initiated and organized by Professor Radmila Gorup... and by Harriman Institute Assistant Director Gordon N. Bardos.” Now, let us assume for a moment that the persons were indeed prevented from attending this talk based on their ethnicity and look at what Harriman Institute Assistant Director Gordon N. Bardos recently had to say on the issue of ethnicity in Bosnia and Herzegovina in general and the issue of mixed marriages in particular.

In his article “In Defense of Richard Holbrooke” published by Transconflict on March 2^nd 2011 (http://www.transconflict.com/2011/03/in-defense-of-richard-holbrooke-023/), Gordon N. Bardos writes: “... That the “ethnification” of Bosnian society happened long before Richard Holbrooke came along is most apparent in the record regarding the most intimate of human relationships – marriage. Despite the myth of high levels of interethnic marriage in Bosnia and Herzegovina frequently expounded in the media, Bosnian social reality has throughout history been quite the opposite. In nineteenth century Bosnia, mixed marriages were completely unheard of. As late as 1988, ninety-three percent of Bosniacs married endogenously, and Croats and Serbs were not much more inclined to marry outside their ethnic groups either. In 2001 in the Herzegovinian town of Mostar, out of 176 recorded marriages, not a single one was between a Croat and a Bosniac...”

Next, at the panel discussion on the book entitled “Bosnia Remade” by Gerard Toal and Carl T. Dahlman, which took place on April 19, 2011, arguments made by discussant Gordon N. Bardos were summarized by Gerard Toal as follows (http://bosniaremade.wordpress.com/): “The authors hold a constructivist position that underestimates the power of ethnicity. While ethnicity was not the primordial axis of life in BiH it was the primary one. Ethnicity predicts two-thirds of the time who one will marry, what attitudes one will have, etc.” Bardos revisits the issue of “interethnic marriage” in his article for National Interest entitled “Fetishes and Fantasies in Bosnia” published on August 11, 2011 (http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/fetishes-fantasies-bosnia-5748). Bardos uses almost identical language as in the Transconflict article arguing that “[m]ixed marriages in nineteenth century Bosnia were unheard of, and despite the myth of high levels of interethnic marriage propagated in the 1990s, remained rare throughout Bosnia’s twentieth-century history. As late as 1988, for instance, 93 percent of Bosnia’s Muslims married within their ethnic group, and Bosnia’s Croat and Serb Christians were not much more inclined to intermarry...”

With this kind of background information, it seems quite likely that in this case ethnicity predicted who will attend RS President’s talk entitled “An American Foreign Policy Success Story: The Dayton Accords, Republika Srpska, and Bosnia’s European Integration”. And who will not.