To Start Page

Voice of Diaspora


Important News, Belangrijke nieuws, Nouvelles importantes, Wichtige News, Fontos hírek, Importanti novitŕ, Pomembne novice, Importante Notícias, Viktiga nyheter

Ing. Salih CAVKIC

No more Paris nor Brussels!
Stop terrorism!
We want to live in peace with all our neighbors.
  regardless of their religion, color and origin.
Therefore, we condemn any kind of terrorism!

Ne više Pariz ni Brisel!
Stop terorizam!
Mi želimo živjeti u miru sa svim našim komšijama,
bez obzira koje su vjere, boje kože i porijekla.
Zato mi osuđujemo svaku vrstu terorizma!

Belang van Limburg
De Morgen
De Standard
Het Laatste Nieuws
La Libre Belgique


Deutsche Welle
West-D. Zeitung

The man of the year 2009
Guy Verhofstadt
Mr. Guy Verhofstadt

The man of the year
L'homme de l'ane
De man van het jaar

A proven Democrat, protector and fighter for justice and human rights in the World.

Een bewezen Democraat, beschermer en strijder voor rechtvaardigheid en mensenrechten in de Wereld.

Un prouvé démocrate, protecteur et combattant pour la justice et des droits de l'homme dans le Mond.

Eine bewährte Demokrat, Beschützer und Kämpfer für Gerechtigkeit und Menschenrechte in der Welt.

Dokazani demokrat,
 zaštitnik i borac za pravdu i ljudska prava u Svijetu.

Maasmechelen Village

The man of the year 2012

Mr. Barak Hossein Obama

The man of the year
L'homme de l'an
De man van het jaar

peace in the world

vrede in de wereld

la paix dans le monde

Garantie des Friedens in der Welt

mieru vo svete

mira u svijetu

Prof. dr. Murray Hunter
University Malaysia Perlis

20 Years to Trade Economic Independence for Political Sovereignty - Eva MAURINA

Aleš Debeljak +
In Defense of Cross-Fertilization: Europe and Its Identity Contradictions - Aleš Debeljak



Rattana Lao
Rattana Lao holds a doctorate in Comparative and International Education from Teachers College, Columbia University and is currently teaching in Bangkok.

Bakhtyar Aljaf
Director of Middle-East and Balkan Studies (IFIMES) in Ljubljana, Slovenia

Rakesh Krishnan Simha
Géométrie variable of a love triangle – India, Russia and the US

Amna Whiston
Amna Whiston is a London-based writer specialising in moral philosophy. As a PhD candidate at Reading University, UK, her main research interests are in ethics, rationality, and moral psychology.

Eirini Patsea 
Eirini Patsea is a Guest Editor in Modern Diplomacy, and specialist in Cultural Diplomacy and Faith-based Mediation

Belmir Selimovic
Can we trust the government to do the right thing, are they really care about essential things such as environmental conditions and education in our life?

Dubravko Lovrenović+
Univ. prof. Dubravko Lovrenović is one of the leading European Medievalist specialized in the Balkans, pre-modern and modern political history.

Manal Saadi
Postgraduate researcher in International Relations and Diplomacy at the Geneva-based UMEF University

doc.dr.Jasna Cosabic
professor of IT law and EU law at Banja Luka College,
Bosnia and Herzegovina

Aleksandra Krstic
Studied in Belgrade (Political Science) and in Moscow (Plekhanov’s IBS). Currently, a post-doctoral researcher at the Kent University in Brussels (Intl. Relations). Specialist for the MENA-Balkans frozen and controlled conflicts.


Dr.Swaleha Sindhi is Assistant Professor in the Department of Educational Administration, the Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda, India. Decorated educational practitioner Dr. Sindhi is a frequent columnist on related topics, too. She is the Vice President of Indian Ocean Comparative Education Society (IOCES). Contact:

Barçın Yinanç
 It is an Ankara-based journalist and notable author. She is engaged with the leading Turkish dailies and weeklies for nearly three decades as a columnist, intervieweer and editor. Her words are prolifically published and quoted in Turkish, French an English.

Modified from the original: They killed 1 Saddam and created 1,000 others (Daily Sabah)

Aine O’Mahony
Aine O'Mahony has a bachelor in Law and Political Science at the Catholic Institute of Paris and is currently a master's student of Leiden University in the International Studies programme.Contact:

Elodie Pichon

  Elodie Pichon has a  bachelor in Law and Political Science at the Catholic Institute of Paris and is currently doing a MA in Geopolitics, territory and Security at King's College London. Contact :

Qi Lin

Qi Lin, a MA candidate of the George Washington University, Elliott School of International Affairs. Her research focus is on cross-Pacific security and Asian studies, particularly on the Sino-U.S. relations and on the foreign policy and politics of these two.

Born in Chile and raised in Rome, Alessandro Cipri has just finished his postgraduate studies at the department of War Studies of King's College London, graduating with distinction from the Master's Degree in "Intelligence and International Security". Having served in the Italian Army's "Alpini" mountain troops, he has a keen interest in national security, military strategy, insurgency theory, and terrorism studies. His Master's dissertation was on the impact of drug trafficking on the evolution of the Colombian FARC.

Ms. Lingbo ZHAO
is a candidate of the Hong Kong Baptist University, Department of Government and International Studies. Her research interest includes Sino-world, Asia and cross-Pacific.



Hannes Grassegger
Hannes Grassegger and Mikael Krogerus are investigative journalists attached to the Swiss-based Das Magazin specialized journal.


Mikael Krogerus

Hannes Grassegger and Mikael Krogerus are investigative journalists attached to the Swiss-based Das Magazin specialized journal.


Michal Kosinski

Scientific analysis


Elodie Pichon,
Ms. Elodie Pichon, Research Fellow of the IFIMES Institute, DeSSA Department. This native Parisian is a Master in Geopolitics, Territory and Security from the King’s College, London, UK.

Djoeke Altena

Muhamed Sacirbey
Muhamed Sacirbey

Ambassador Muhamed Sacirbey currently lectures on Digital-Diplomacy. "Mo" has benefited from a diverse career in investment banking & diplomacy, but his passion has been the new avenues of communication. He was Bosnia & Herzegovina's first Ambassador to the United Nations, Agent to the International Court of Justice, Foreign Minister & Signatory of the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court. He also played American football opting for a scholarship to Tulane University in New Orleans after being admitted to Harvard, oh well!!

Amanda Janoo

Amanda Janoo is an Alternative Economic Policy Adviser to governments and development organizations. Graduate from Cambridge University with an MPhil in Development Studies, Amanda worked at the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) supporting government's with evidence-based industrial policy design for inclusive and sustainable growth. Her research focus is on the relationship between international trade and employment generation. She has worked throughout Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa promoting greater economic self-determination and empowerment.

Michael dr. Logies,


INDEX 2017

INDEX 2016

Important News

Dutch - Nederlands
Belangrijke nieuws

French - Français
Nouvelles importantes

German - Deutsch
Wichtige News

Važne vijesti



Access to Justice as a Key Element of the Rule of Law
Date and Time
: 16 November 2017, 13:30-14:45
: Room 532, Hofburg, Vienna (5th floor)
Permanent Mission
Working language:

Snacks and refreshments will be served in Ratsaal Foier at 13:00 before the event

Discussion moderated by:

Prof. and Chair for Intl. Law & Global Political Studies, Editor of the GHIR
(the New York Addleton Academic Publishers’ specialized Magazine for Geopolitics, History and Intl. Relations)

Dr. Gabriel LANSKY
Attorney at Law, Partner at Lansky, Ganzger and Partner
Special Agent at the European Court of Human Rights
(name tbc)
Regional Expert
(name tbc)

Read more on the next page:.........

October 31, 2017

Long story of Kurz: ‘Austria You will be Macronised’

Max Hess

“There is a claim constantly circulating the EU: ‘multiculturalism is dead in Europe’. Dead or maybe d(r)ead?... That much comes from a cluster of European nation-states that love to romanticize – in a grand metanarrative of dogmatic universalism – their appearance as of the coherent Union, as if they themselves lived a long, cordial and credible history of multiculturalism. Hence, this claim and its resonating debate is of course false. It is also cynical because it is purposely deceiving. No wonder, as the conglomerate of nation-states/EU has silently handed over one of its most important debates – that of European anti-fascistic identity, or otherness – to the wing-parties. This was repeatedly followed by the selective and contra-productive foreign policy actions of the Union in the MENA, Balkans and Ukraine.” – wrote prof. Anis H. Bajrektarevic in his luminary and farsighted essay Denazification – urgently needed in Europe .

Last two parliamentary elections in Central Europe are indicative enough: Europe inevitably loses its grip over the grand narrative, fatherly eroding its place in history. Hereby a few lines about the latest of them.

Sebastian Kurz, 31, is likely to become Austria’s new Chancellor following the 15 October election. He would be the youngest-ever head of government in the European Union and to many of his supporters will be seen as a bold new face ready to lead Europe through and past the ongoing crises over migration, integration, fiscal authority, and identity that have dominated European politics, within and without the EU, in recent years. A new leader of Europe’s populist right is likely on the horizon, yet he has received little international attention compared with candidates such as Marine Le Pen or Nigel Farage who were always long shots.

Kurz’s Rise – Aus Iuridicum

Rapidly rising through the youth wing of the Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP), Kurz was elected its head in 2009 and then promoted directly into the party’s upper echelon in 2011 when he was named to the newly-created post of state secretary for integration at age 24.

From the earliest days, Kurz embraced a populist right-wing worldview although he initially steadfastly avoided divisive rhetoric that could have derailed his rise. Kurz used his post as state secretary to publicize these ideas, while also astutely employing the leeway afforded by his youth to take positions deviating from the ÖVP platform.

In 2013 Kurz was elected to the national legislature, also winning the most direct ‘preference votes’ of any candidate and a third more than the ÖVP’s then-head Michael Spindelegger. The ÖVP received less overall votes than the Social Democrats (SPÖ) and again went into government as the junior coalition partner. Kurz was rewarded with the second-highest post of any ÖVP leader when he was named foreign minister.

Austrians see themselves both as core members of the ‘West’ but also as traditionalists and the inheritors of a unique culture. The historic heft of the former Austro-Hungarian Empire, a separateness from Germans and Germany that was cemented by the divides caused by the Enlightenment and birth of Protestantism, and steady decades-long growth in income and living standards all have served to shape an image of Austria and Austrians as reasoned yet traditional, sober yet dandy, and reserved yet welcoming. It is precisely in this image that Kurz has tried to cast himself.

Even Kurz’s critics are quick to acknowledge that from the beginning of his career he had a remarkable ability to gauge the prevailing zeitgeist, all the while grounding himself in the core Austrian conservatism that the ÖVP represents. In contrast to populist politicians who have at best half-convicningly attempted to portray themselves as outsiders, Kurz embraces the fact he has had his sights set on a political career since his youth. Kurz recognized the quickest route to ‘authenticity’ was to never speak the word.

Kurz, the Foreign Minister

As Foreign Minister, Kurz was able to play host and diplomat to Austria’s wide variety of partners. He also judiciously avoided controversy in mainstream international media. On issues where Kurz would perhaps have been more vocal, he accepted his role as a government minister and did not speak out overly loudly when he disagreed with his party’s leaders, while tweaking those of the SPÖ, the senior coalition partner, in a way that did not offend Austrian sensibilities.

Kurz’s four years in the foreign ministry saw a series of regional and political crises, attesting to his political skill. Three months after taking office, Ukrainian oligarch Dmytro Firtash was arrested on a visit to Vienna on the request of US authorities. The arrest came two day’s before Moscow’s controversial referendum in Crimea and struck at the core of domestic politics in Ukraine, where Firtash long played an outsize role. Yet Kurz did not shy from being thrust in the spotlight, in fact he appeared to be hungering for it, with the then-27-year old even offering to mediate Russia and Ukraine’s disputes over Crimea.

Kurz ultimately backed sanctions, sensing the prevailing winds in Europe. However, he was vocal in calling for European business’ interests to be considered even before Italian, Hungarian and Cypriot politicians subsequently took up such positions. The move played well domestically in Austria, where many criticize great power games, perhaps with a slight, albeit unstated view towards the rearview mirror given their fatal role in Austria’s own history. Austria’s Raiffeisen bank also derives most of its profits from Eastern Europe and is the largest foreign player in Russia’s banking market. Russian President Vladimir Putin also travelled to Vienna in June 2014, his first post-Crimea visit to a Western country, with Kurz vocally defending the invite and signing of a controversial pipeline deal at the same time EU and US officials were deliberating sanctions on Russia’s energy sector.

Kurz’s time as foreign minister also coincided with Europe’s migration crisis, which was nearly simultaneous with his push towards the spotlight when he backed the stance of Austria’s eastern and southeastern neighbors even while then-Chancellor Werner Faymann waffled on the issue. By February 2016, Kurz was publicly embracing not only the positions of Warsaw, Budapest, and Ljubljana, but their rhetoric as well. In March 2016, Austria had closed its borders to most asylum seekers. By the end of May of that year, Faymann resigned. He was subsequently replaced by Christian Kern, the current head of the SPÖ.

Kurz took advantage of the weakness of the senior leadership within the SPÖ and his own ÖVP to push his personal agenda and reputation to the fore. Kurz has even sought to use the largely-symbolic rotating chairmanship of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), which Vienna holds for 2017, to promote his political agenda. Kurz was bold enough to broadcast this intention, declaring in an interview with Der Spiegel that he would use the post to push for the lifting of sanctions against Russia. He has also used the platform to again propose he mediate a solution to the conflict in Donbas, even writing an English-language op-ed for Politico on the subject this September. Demonstrating Kurz’s eye for the future, however, a number of senior staff members have left Kurz’s Foreign Ministry since the start of the year, promoted as Austria’s new ambassadors to some of its leading partners. A further major reshuffle is expected after the election, a possible indication that Kurz will continue to cut a prominent figure on the international stage. 

Kurz, the Candidate: Dressed to Impress

A year after Faymann’s resignation, the Kern government collapsed, prompting the elections that will be held on 15 October. The interim period saw the contested and contentious 2016 presidential run-off election, in which the initial result was annulled and the far right Freedom Party’s (FPÖ) Norbert Hofer was narrowly defeated by independent candidate Alexander Van der Bellen. Kurz had refused to endorse either candidate. Yet it was the fact that the run-off featured neither a candidate of the SPÖ nor the ÖVP for the first time that appears to have most shaped Kurz’s current candidacy.

Van der Bellen, an alumnus of Austria’s relatively minor Green Party, was seen by many on the Austrian right as nearly as radical as Hofer. The Austrian presidency is also largely symbolic – although Hofer’s platform included steps that would have been unprecedented by the Austrian executive. As a result, there was little domestic political cost to Kurz remaining neutral.

The lack of an SPÖ or ÖVP candidate in the final round highlighted the shifts underway at the heart of Austrian politics, and the weakness of then-ÖVP leader Reinhold Mitterlehrner, who stepped back in May, enabling Kurz’s ascent.

Kurz, however, attached a number of conditions to the proposal that he lead the ÖVP. The decades-old party fell in line behind Kurz quickly, even agreeing to campaign under the joint branding of ÖVP and ‘Kurz List – the New People’s Party’. Kurz’s image, rhetoric, and bold proclamations on the campaign trail have put the party comfortably in the lead in the polls.

The lead Kurz maintains in the polls has come primarily at the expense of the far-right FPÖ, although incumbent Chancellor Christian Kern has done his party no favors following a series of scandals. Kern’s SPÖ is polling behind the FPÖ in most polls and he has declared that he would prefer to lead the opposition than re-form a coalition with the ÖVP.

Kurz and Kern’s relationship was already poor but the latest scandal around the SPÖ alleges a controversial former election advisor set up social media pages aimed at besmirching Kurz, only dampening the possibility for a renewed coalition. Yet Kurz also knows the difficulties inherent to forming a government with the FPÖ, despite having adopted much of its rhetoric in his own campaign. Such a government could come under some degree of EU censure, as it did the last time the ÖVP and FPÖ formed a government in 2000. The FPÖ then was the larger of the two parties but would undergo a series of splits while in government.

Although the FPÖ of today has long since coalesced under the leadership of Heinz-Christian Strache, it too will be wary of a coalition with the ÖVP, albeit less over concerns of an EU rebuttal than over Kurz continuing to encroach on its political space.

Get Shorty - the Chancellor? the future EU Commission President?

Kurz is likely to become Austria’s most prominent Chancellor on the international stage in decades. His willingness to be outspoken and take on issues far afield from Austria steadily grew during his tenure in the foreign ministry. Beginning with his early proposal to mediate between Moscow and Kyiv towards the end of his term, he was sufficiently confident to publicly endorse incumbent Macedonian Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski ahead of that country’s December 2016 election.

Kurz’s alliances in the Balkans and Eastern Europe are extensive and he was one of the few leading EU politicians outside the region to defend Hungary’s crackdown on migrants and refugees. Kurz’s economic policies are more traditionally liberal than those of the Visegrad Group but are also tinged by his populist bent. Nevertheless, he sees himself as a leading exponent of the same cultural conservatism embraced by leaders such as Viktor Orban or Nigel Farage. He is telegenic and well-spoken and has shown a knack for youth politics, of particularly importance in Austria where the voting age is 16.

On 8 May, France elected Emmanuel Macron as president in a vote that many hailed as a landmark victory for Europe’s centrist establishment. On 15 October, Austria is likely to elect Kurz as its next chancellor, in a vote that the populist right will hail as its own landmark victory.

Max Hess is a senior political risk analyst with the London-based AEK international, specializing in Europe and Eurasia.

October 19, 2017

Germany that kills itself and Europe

Michael dr. Logies,


The over-financialization and hyper-deregulations of the global(-ized) markets has brought the low-waged Chinese (peasant converted into a) worker into the spotlight of European considerations. Thus, in the last two decades, the EU economic edifice has gradually but steadily departed from its traditional labor-centered base, to the overseas investment-centered construct. This mega event, as we see now with the Euro-zone dithyramb, has multiple consequences on both the inner–European cultural, socio-economic and political balance as well as on China’s (overheated) growth. That sparse, rarefied and compressed labor, which still resides in the aging Union is either bitterly competing with or is heavily leaning on the guest workers who are per definition underrepresented or silenced by the ‘rightist’ movements and otherwise disadvantaged and hindered in their elementary socio-political rights. That’s how the world’s last cosmopolitanEurope departed from the world of work, and that’s why the Continent today cannot orient itself (both critically needed to identify a challenge, as well as to calibrate and jointly redefine the EU path). To orient, one need to center itself: Without left and right, there is no center, right?!” – prof. Anis H. Bajrektarevic brilliantly summarized situation in Europe already years ago. Let’s see how it reflects on just closed German elections, and some fallacies surrounding (interpretations of) it.

Contrary to the constant reporting the low unemployment figures in Germany are simply misleading. The volume of work has shrunken slightly over the last 30 years. Many once well paid jobs have become part time jobs with low incomes. The lower 40 percent of population have not made any economic progress the last decades or have fallen back in real terms. The economic gap between the lower 40% and upper 10 % has widened. Prices of rents and houses are exploding in the bigger cities due to immigration, speculations driven by low interest rates and bau-mafia.

All this is  putting economic stress on the lower and middle class. Merkel`s politics of initially open doors for over a million Arabic and African immigrants threatens the lower incomes classes because of more fierce competition on the labour market. And the SPD as a coalition partner in government did nothing to protect the lower classes from this competition, as it did traditionally.

(For those interested in a in-depth analysis do a graph of the SPD results over time. You will quickly notice a huge bump. This happened when Schulz became candidate and made all the right noises about social fairness. The bump quickly faded, after he was unable to add meat to it. So we are NOT looking at an electorate, which wouldn't vote for the classic profile of the SPD. Instead, we are looking at an SPD, which is unable to agree on a coherent program for it.

Moreover, just yesterday, the Germans were polled about it. About 80% (!!!) responded, that the SPD wants to stand for social justice, but isn't able to explain, how they want to do that.)

And all this in a country which exports its unemployment by an export surplus of 8-9% of GDP to other countries. Simply, Germany exports more than any other country on earth.

On the other hand since decades the German mainstream media are dominated by transatlantic elites with a neoliberal agenda for Germany and the EU, mimicking the US, ignoring most of these facts. The devastating effect on other countries in the EU by German under-investment and austerity politics for the EU has been completely ignored in these German elections.

For me this all means that German elites are not able to lead the EU proactively. German elites are only reacting, based on a misleading, neoliberal economic theory (for alternatives: e. g. Steve Keen, Richard Werner or look to Scandinavian countries). The EU may implode because other countries don`t want to remain the poor backyard of Germany. Or the national elites in other EU countries, also dominated by neoliberal economics, will continue to successfully suppress there lower incomes classes like in the US, provoking silly reactions like electing Trump after even more silly removal of reasonable, economic alternatives like Bernie Sanders by the elites. Of course Trump is unable to deliver, what he has promised, with the usual consequences of populistic right wingers: making the rich richer (although perhaps a different fraction of the rich), suppressing minorities, cooking wars, etc.

Michael dr. Logies,

October 4, 2017




The International Institute for Middle-East and Balkan Studies (IFIMES) in Ljubljana, Slovenia, regularly analyses events in the Middle East and the Balkans. IFIMES has prepared an analysis of the situation in view of destructive actions and politics led by the President of the Republic of Croatia Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović that are threatening regional peace and stability, and examined their consequences the region, for the EU and for Croatia. The most relevant and interesting sections from the analysis entitled “Croatia and the West Balkan region: Grabar-Kitarović and Vučić on a joint mission to (de)stabilize the region” are published below.

Croatia and the West Balkan region:

Grabar-Kitarović and Vučić on a joint mission to (de)stabilize the region

or the past few months, President of the Republic of Croatia Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović (HDZ) has been intensively shifting Croatia’s inner political problems as well as her personal political conflicts and ambitions to the foreign-political field, thus causing destabilisation of the West Balkan region and consequently threatening the EU security and defence system.

In Serbia, the President of the Republic of Serbia Aleksandar Vučić (SNS) won his inter-party war for supremacy over Tomislav Nikolić (SNS), who was the most recent President of the Republic of Serbia. President Grabar-Kitarović is still in constant conflict with the key officials from Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ) and she has extended this conflict also to her relations with the Government of the Republic of Croatia. The problems stem from the internal political restructuring of HDZ and the preparations for the next general election in Croatia. President Grabar-Kitarović is sparing no effort to gain the absolute dominant position in HDZ and to ensure her candidacy at 2019 presidential election in Croatia. Her conflict with the incumbent Prime Minister of the Republic of Croatia Andrej Plenković (HDZ) is only the tip of the iceberg of political frictions and interparty tensions within HDZ.

Croatian President became a hostage to certain lobbies?

In order to gain political points within HDZ Grabar-Kitarović has escalated tensions with the neighbouring countries by opening political issues that have not been subject to any political consensus between Croatia and other countries, as well as by direct interference in the inner political affairs of those countries. Regrettably, Prime Minister Plenković has often tried to copy her irrational and perilous foreign (in) security policy, thus further aggravating the damage caused by actions led by Grabar-Kitarović. The so-called generals lobby and (again) the Herzegovinian lobby play an important role in inner political restructuring - not only in HDZ but also in other

political parties. Grabar-Kitarović is trying to establish “close cooperation” with the above stated lobbies which have existed since the time of the first President of the Republic of Croatia Franjo Tuđman (HDZ) and have shown intemperance when it comes to power and brutality when it comes to disintegrating Bosnia and Herzegovina with the formation and revitalisation of the para-state known as the so-called Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna. This close cooperation between Grabar-Kitarović and the above stated lobbies has brought numerous results, such as the appointment of Daniel Markić as director of the Security and Intelligence Agency (SOA) on proposal of general Ante Gotovina, establishment of personal connections and relations with the controversial Zdravko Mamić, and constant pressures on the institutions of Bosnia and Herzegovina, EU and NATO to implement the federalisation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and/or to make changes to the election law in order to formally establish the (extinguished) para-state of Herceg-Bosna. In the future those lobbies will obviously be assessed and valorised based on the “who gives more” principle. Thus the incumbent Vice Prime Minister and Defence Minister of the Republic of Croatia general Damir Krstičević (HDZ) has already been mentioned as the potential candidate for the next president of the Republic of Croatia. The latest statement by retired Admiral of Croatian Navy Davor Domazet-Loša that Croatian infantry could reach Ljubljana in 48 hours represents another proof that the so called generals lobby has been reactivated in Croatia and that President Grabar-Kitarović deserves most credit for Croatia’s regression to the rigid policy that once almost brought Croatia into isolation from the international community and which is partly the subject of pending court proceedings or judgements made by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in the Hague .

It is known that former President of the Republic of Croatia (2000-2010) Stjepan Mesić sent to retirement war generals who had become “a state within the state”. Now the incumbent government has re-mobilised them; thus the recent dismissal of retired Admiral Domazet-Loše reminds of the dismissal of HDZBiH chairman and president of the so-called Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna Mate Boban (HDZBiH) by Franjo Tuđman due to pressures of the international community and his responsibility for destroying the Stari most (the Old Bridge) in Mostar. In the attachment to this analysis it is shown how Franjo Tuđman used his generals and especially General Ljubo Ćesić-Rojs (HDZ) who - by Tuđman’s order - secretly sent a report from the 5th HDZBiH Assembly in Mostar on 6 May 1998 which contained his proposals and assessments that were later accepted and implemented by Tuđman (see Attachment No. 1 to this analysis).

Croatia uses EU and NATO to destabilise BiH and the region

olinda Grabar-Kitarović has dedicated most of her professional career to foreign policy, serving for Croatia as well as for international organisations, including NATO.

She was elected President of the Republic of Croatia on account of her international experiences and connections, as the voters believed they could trust someone who understands the functioning of the international politics and would therefore integrate Croatia as soon as possible into the western civilizational systems of political, economic and security values. Unfortunately Grabar-Kitarović blended with lightning speed in Croatian daily political games and succumbed to the structures that still dream about the so-called Greater Croatia project, siding with (post)war lobbies and triggering security problems at the regional and European levels.

Unlike Aleksandar Vučić who will have to spend his whole term of office as President of the Republic of Serbia pretending he advocates and promotes the European and western values while developing close ties with Russia and with Serbian war profiteering structures, Grabar-Kitarović plays the opposite role in Croatia where she has to pretend to be more of a patriot than the “Father of the Nation”, late President Tuđman.

Analysts have noted that the above actions of Croatian and Serbian presidents may have dangerous repercussions and effects on regional and European security and stability. Both states aim to destabilise Bosnia and Herzegovina based on the matrix set by late presidents Franjo Tuđman and Slobodan Milošević (SPS): Vučić by supporting the separatist tendency of the President of the Republika Srpska entity in Bosnia and Herzegovina Milorad Dodik (SNSD) who is also referred to as the “new Radovan Karadžić”, and Grabar-Kitarović by supporting treacherous and hypocritical politics of HDZBiH leader and member of BiH Presidency representing the Croatian nationals Dragan Čović (HDZBiH) which resembles the past politics of the Hague convict Jadranko Prlić (HDZBiH).

Grabar-Kitarović and Vučić are both in their own way jointly responsible for disagreements and conflicts with Bosnia and Herzegovina, Slovenia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Hungary, Kosovo, Romania, Albania and even Italy, while direct relations between Croatia and Serbia are constantly marked by war rhetoric with an emphasis on the last regional war and World War II.

Analysts have noted that the war profiteering structures acting together with Croatian and Serbian presidents represent a great danger for peace in the region, especially bearing in mind that Grabar-Kitarović formally represents the Euro-Atlantic aspirations (EU and NATO) while Vučić is oriented towards Russia and its interests in the West Balkans. Croatia is using her EU membership to realise its specific nationalistic tendencies in the region, notably regarding Bosnia and Herzegovina, while trying to “Croationalise” its NATO membership, ignoring the fact that NATO is a transnational organisation for collective defence and security. Analysts believe that the EU and NATO officials should be further warned of Croatia’s past and potential future misuses of EU and NATO membership for the realisation of its politics from

the recent past which are the subject of pending court proceedings or judgements made by the Hague International Criminal Tribunal.

Saving the dead Tuđman

he hysterical and unfounded attacks at Bosnia and Herzegovina by Grabar-Kitarović have been reflected in the last annual report of Croatian Security and Intelligence Agency in which it is stated that there are 10,000 members of Salafi movement in the “south-eastern neighbourhood of Croatia”. Accusations and implications by Grabar-Kitarović that Bosnia and Herzegovina is the base of Islamic radicals and potential terrorist attacks are nothing but the recycled statements about Bosnia and Herzegovina made by Tuđman. In her criticising and smearing of the Hague International Criminal Tribunal (ICTY) and the first-instance judgement against the war-time prime minister of the so-called Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna Jadranko Prlić and other defendants, Gabar-Kitarović stated that in her diplomatic contacts she would warn other states about the inconsistent practice of ICTY regarding joint criminal enterprise (JCE) that is used to establish collective liability against her. In numerous so-called presidential transcripts that were endorsed by Franjo Tuđman who recorded all his meetings and that were submitted to ICTY by Croatia, Tuđman described Bosnia and Herzegovina as a fictional and made-up Islamic state that represents a terrorist threat to Europe. Grabar-Kitarović is actually the advocate of Tuđman’s politics, as she is trying to annul the legal decisions of the judgement against Jadranko Prlić and other defendants by rejecting the joint criminal enterprise and the conclusions on the aggression of the Republic of Croatia against Bosnia and Herzegovina in order to remove the name of Tuđman as one of the key organisers and participants of JCE from the ICTY judgement.

The statements made by Grabar-Kitarović about thousands of Islamic Jihadists in Bosnia and Herzegovina are nothing but a well-thought-out diplomatic action to send a message to the key states in the world and show that in 1990s Tuđman fought against the creation of the Islamic state in Bosnia and Herzegovina and against “Islamic terrorists” and that he was not a part of war plans that led to concentration camps and war crimes in Bosnia and Herzegovina with the aim to annex certain parts of another sovereign state to the Republic of Croatia. Grabar-Kitarović utilised her SOA intelligence agency to falsify and make up the figure of 10,000 Salafists in order to support her Islamophobic statements and activities, so that she could exert pressure on ICTY and some influential states that have connections and staff in ICTY in view of the forthcoming judgement on the appeal which is expected in November 2017. She has nevertheless concealed the fact that more than 250,000 Muslim Bosniaks took part in defending Croatia and that 1,180 of them lost their lives fighting for Croatia.

The documents attached to this analysis contain some examples of the so-called presidential transcripts that were used before ICTY in the proceedings against Jadranko Prlić and others (see Attachments Nos. 2-4),notably the meeting of 8 March 1993 between Franjo Tuđman and the representatives of the so-called Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna (Attachment No. 2), the meeting of 4 December 1993 between Tuđman and the representatives of Croatian Home Guard (Attachment No. 3) and the meeting of 12 January 1994 with the bishops of BiH Roman-Catholic Church (Attachment No. 4). At all those meetings Tuđman made negative statements and comments regarding Bosnian Muslims and based his theses on the fact that the Islamic state in Bosnia and Herzegovina is a potential terrorist base. The statements made by incumbent President of the Republic of Croatia Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović resemble those Tuđman’s observations on Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Bosniaks.

By threatening regional peace Grabar-Kitarović undermines EU security

y well-thought-out fabrication of disinformation and lies about the invasion of alleged Jihadists and terrorists from Bosnia and Herzegovina and parallel revitalisation of the so-called Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna, a para-state which was abolished with the Washington Agreement, Grabar-Kitarović is directly destabilising the region, the EU and Croatia itself.

Analysts have noted that the intelligence and security agency in Bosnia and Herzegovina played and still play the strongest role in the prevention of any incidents in the territory of the Republic of Croatia, especially during the tourist season, which includes the blocking of false information on potential terrorist targets in Croatia. If BiH officials assumed the same position towards Croatia in their public statements as Grabar-Kitarović did towards BiH, while even misusing the security and intelligence agencies, the position of Croatia as one of the most secure tourist destinations in the world would definitely be undermined.

President Grabar-Kitarović has embarked upon a very dangerous geopolitical game by producing the alleged Jihadists in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In the end, this could bring most damage to Croatia, Croatian tourism and to Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Eager to save the dead Tuđman from the second-instance judgement of ICTY Grabar-Kitarović is threatening the peace and relative stability in the region, in Europe and also in Croatia.

Ljubljana, 23 September 2017

International Institute for Middle-East and Balkan Studies (IFIMES) – Ljubljana


Dr. Zijad Bećirović
Bakhtyar Aljaf

September 23, 2017

Bridge over troubled waters – Growing meritime dispute between Croatia and Bosnia, neglected by the EU

Dr. Enis Omerović and Adil Kulenović,


The bilateral international agreement on the state border between Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republic of Croatia, known as the Agreement on the Border between the two states, or more familiarly, as the Tuđman-Izetbegović Agreement, signed in Sarajevo on 30 July 1999 between the then President of the Republic of Croatia, Franjo Tuđman, and the Chairman of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Alija Izetbegović, represents in its 23 Articles, conditionally, "a valid act since it has been applied until a new one is made" (V.Đ. Degan, 2013). This Agreement could also be perceived to contain a transitional or provisional solution, since it has never been ratified by any parliament and does not serve its ultimate purpose - the permanent establishment and determination of the land and sea border between the two neighbors. In this regard, it can even be argued that the Republic of Croatia de facto abandoned the execution of this Agreement when its official authorities decided to embark on the building of a permanent construction at sea. This all supports the fact that the issue of delimitation and demarcation at sea, especially in the area of the Bay of Neum and the Mali Ston Bay, is still permanently undefined and unsettled and thus requires, in our opinion, a serious step towards opening an official dialogue with Zagreb with the involvement of EU institutions, since the Republic of Croatia is a member of the European Union.

The second difficulty should be addressed together with the first. It would be especially important to define the sea boundary, regarding the tip of the Klek Peninsula and the uninhabited islets, Veliki and Mali Školj or, more precisely, the rocks in the Mali Ston Bay, which are part of a unique geomorphologic unit, together with the Klek Peninsula. If we drawthe line of equidistance for purposes of delimitation of two states whose shores in one bay lie or are opposite to one another (the Peninsula of Klek and Pelješac), which is in accordance with the international law of the sea, as well as Article 4 (3) of the bilateral Agreement which, inter alia, prescribes that border at the sea stretches "the median line of the sea area between the land of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republic of Croatia", it could be claimed that the disputed area would belong to Bosnia and Herzegovina. Closely connected to this, the question of Bosnia-Herzegovina's access to the High Seas or international waters of the Adriatic Sea and other world seas should be addressed, where no country in the world has territorial sovereignty, nor does it exercise any sovereign rights. High sea areas are world seas and oceans which are outside any state territory and provide a regime of free navigation and overflight, as well as other freedoms inherent to the High Seas. On this part of the planet, according to general customary international law, all countries in the world, under certain circumstances, exercise their jurisdiction over vessels flying the flag of their country.

For these reasons, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea from 1982 (UNCLOS) (ratified both by the Republic of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina) states in Art. 7 (6) of the Convention that, in declaring its straight baselines, from which the width of the territorial sea is measured, the coastal State may not cut off the territorial sea of another coastal state from the High Seas or the exclusive economic zone. As things stand currently, in order to get from the waters of Bosnia and Herzegovina by vessel to the High Seas, it is necessary to pass through the internal waters and the territorial sea of the other coastal state, so that, in crossing the line that represents the outer boundary of the territorial sea, one leaves the sovereign territory of the Republic of Croatia. Further into the High Seas, the Croatian Protected Ecological and Fishing Band (ZERP) has been declared and covers the sea area in the Adriatic Sea from the external border of the territorial sea in the direction of the open sea to its outer boundary, determined by the general international law, and temporarily follows the line of demarcation of the continental shelf established by the Agreement between Italy and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia concerning the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between the two Countries in the Adriatic Sea from 1968.

In fact, it is essential for Bosnia and Herzegovina to secure a specific route, that is to say, a corridor, which will physically connect its waters with the High Seas, since it is in an unfavorable geographic position, due to its sealed coastline. At this level, it is state practice to support coastal states to limit the width of their territorial sea, due to the undisputed flow or passage of the other coastal state to the High Seas, in accordance with the above-mentioned UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which represents a codification of this branch of international law. Examples of this are the Republics of Estonia and Finland in the Gulf of Finland in the Baltic Sea, in relation to the Russian Federation (St. Petersburg area), and the Republic of France in relation to the territorial sea of the Principality of Monaco in the Mediterranean Sea.

Hence, Bosnia and Herzegovina should not accept the guarantee of the neighboring state that Bosnia and Herzegovina will have the right only to innocent passage for all vessels to and from Neum or, in the case of some other ports in the state territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina, since Neum is extremely unconducive to the construction of a larger port which would be open to international traffic - we predict that a port of this type and category could be built on the Klek Peninsula, whose waters are much more suitable, especially in respect of access and sea depth, for the construction of an international port. This is because the right to innocent passage of a vessel is linked to the territorial sea, not to the internal waters of the coastal state. This should have been precisely defined in accordance with the principles and rules of international law, preferably by a bilateral international agreement between the two neighboring states, namely, the existence, the position, the proper width and the legal regime of such a corridor or waterway, which would probably be through the Neretva and the Korčula Channel, to move all vessels to and from Bosnia and Herzegovina. The legal regime of such a corridor should be explicitly articulated in writing, together with the rights and obligations of both contracting parties, all in accordance with international law.

Therefore, it could be understood that there is a noticeable difference between the right to innocent passage of foreign ships through the territorial sea of a coastal state and the formation of a corridor with a special legal regime. The latter would most likely pass through Croatian territory, as it would be unrealistic to expect that the Republic of Croatia in the area of such a corridor remains without its territorial sovereignty and integrity. This is regardless of the fact that it not very legally rightly inherited from the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, by its Maritime Code, the straight baselines under the conditions of more sovereign states whose coastlines are touched and lean on one another in the same sea area. Namely, the disputed area in terms of the declaration of these straight baselines is from the Cape Proizd (near the island of Korčula) all the way to the southwestern tip of the island of Vodnjak, near some of the more famous Paklinski islands (along the island of Hvar), as this act simply contributed to the "closure" of Bosnian and Herzegovinian waters. We have written "most likely to pass" since it is hard to imagine that in the area of the Neretva and Korčula Channels, with a width of not less than 1-1.5 nautical miles, that condominium (shared sovereignty) can be established or that an international legal regime be determined completely outside Croatian sovereignty.

Finally, in support of the assertion that any coastal state should have unimpeded (not just innocent passage, which is subject to various restrictions on the part of the coastal state) access to the High Seas, there is the final determination of the arbitral award of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague in the case the Republic of Slovenia and the Republic of Croatia of 2017, according to which the Republic of Slovenia, through the so-called junction of 2.5 nautical miles wide, i.e. the physical link of its territorial waters with the high seas area of the North Adriatic was awarded a corridor from their waters, where Slovenia enjoys full sovereignty to the High Seas, where many freedoms are guaranteed to all countries of the world, both coastal and non-coastal, as well as to those with an unfavorable geographic position regarding access to the sea, as in the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Namely, as the Chairman of the Arbitration Council in this very case, G. Guillaume, stated in the public statement of the arbitral award, "the junction between the Slovenian territorial sea and the High Seas is a space where ships and planes have the same right of access to Slovenia as well as in the High Seas. The Court identified the area of the Croatian territorial sea that is adjacent to the Italian waters within which a special legal regime would be applied. The corridor is approximately 2.5 nautical miles wide, and located immediately next to the border, according to the Treaty of Osimo, within Croatian territorial waters. A special legal regime should guarantee the integrity of the Croatian territorial sea, and Slovenian free communication between its waters and the High Seas." It follows that the free communication of a coastal state between its waters and the High Seas is not the same as its right/obligation to innocently pass through the waters of another coastal state. It should, therefore, be concluded that the first term refers to the freedom of navigation and over flight to a little more extent than that provided by the institute of the innocent passage of foreign ships to territorial sea, which is only a necessary passage, since every foreign vessel must navigate through this area on the shortest conventional route, without disruption or delay. Moreover, this accessory or connecting corridor would have a kind of limitation of Croatian sovereignty and jurisdiction, since it would be in the spirit of this particular legal regime that would go in the middle of the Neretva and Korčula Channel. It would be worth questioning, moreover, whether Croatian internal waters should be left where they are now. The same question appeared to have been posed by a legal scholar from Croatia – “the question remains whether the waters of Croatia delimited by the territorial sea of Bosnia and Herzegovina can continue to be considered as having the legal status of internal waters.” (B. Vukas, 2006).

Accordingly, a maritime corridor with a specific legal regime needs to be differentiated widely, or clarified in detail, so it does not necessarily represent identical international legal categories with the right to innocent passage of foreign ships and the right of transit passage. These latter terms are characteristic of the very specific maritime zones and parts of the sea which are not the subject of our current exploration and explication.

When all interconnected notions finally acquire their coherent power in terms of consistency, then will be the time to discuss continuing the construction ofa permanent artificial installation on the sea, called the Pelješac Bridge (mainland – Pelješac Peninsula). Having understood that the Republic of Croatia only wants to connect two parts of the mainland, that is, the northern and southern ends of their country with a high-quality road link, this modern traffic connection should not endanger, or be detrimental to, the interests of their neighbors. Therefore, for the purpose of solving the traffic difficulties of the Republic of Croatia, the continuation of the construction of the Pelješac Bridge should be permanently solved by settling the so-called previous issues elaborated earlier - the permanent maritime delimitation on the Adriatic Sea as well as the permanent determination of the land border through a bilateral international frontier treaty, which will be applied equally and in good faith by both signatory parties and which will, above all, be confirmed in both the Croatian Parliament and the Parliamentary Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina, where the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969 would be applicable in the event of any dispute as to its application, and the interpretation of certain provisions thereof. In addition to this, as mentioned above, it is necessary to establish in an internationally appropriate manner the legal regime and the width of the future corridor, which will represent, inter alia, a junction between Bosnian and Herzegovinian waters and the High Seas of the Adriatic.

Hence, only after the final determination of all the aforementioned, and after a thorough, concrete and legally binding determination of the legal regime of the corridor above which the permanent bridge will be built, the scientific and professional processing of the project known as the Pelješac Bridge must be approached. This should meet all the technical characteristics of bridges that have already been built over water within the international legal regime, i.e. international waterways, such as the Fatih Sultan Mehmet Bridge and the Bosporus Bridge in Istanbul that cross over the waters of the Bosporus strait which is under international legal regime, or the Oresund bridge (although most of the international maritime traffic takes place above the underwater tunnel) linking the Kingdom of Denmark and the Kingdom of Sweden and which is also located over the international waterway. This means that if the agreement between the two neighboring coastal states in this part of the Adriatic Sea could be achieved, in the sense of completing its construction and opening it for all road traffic, the bridge of these dimensions must have a certain minimum navigation height and a minimum range between the pillars, or at least the central ones, so that big ships could also sail into the Neum waters.

Bosnia and Herzegovina always somehow tends to delay consideration of certain questions. If this continues, there is a great chance that there will be no single institutional response, with the result that the position of Bosnia and Herzegovina in relation to this important international legal issue will remain very vague and indeterminate. Additionally, there is a very long internal tradition which does not encourage political cooperation, and a lack of understanding of things that are of fundamental significance to the whole country, not just to one of its constituent peoples.

However, in expectation of any kind of determination on the part of Bosnia and Herzegovina, with or without the Pelješac Bridge, the problem of the permanent "drawing" of the borderline between the two countries, both on the sea and on the land, will remain. The question of the access corridor or the connection of Bosnia-Herzegovina's waters with the High Seas will not be sorted out alone. So, is it wise to wait for the international community or the Office of the High Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina (if it is still here?!) to take steps to protect the international interests of this state?

This is an opportunity to see the strength of the Bosnian-Herzegovinian diplomacy which will once again demonstrate its position on the international stage. There is certainly a consistent lack of unity, resulting predominately from the less than satisfactory territorial organization, and attempts to build a state on the basis of ethnicity. This lack of unity is reflected in the impossibility of coming to clear institutional views on the part of the official state government. There may again be the emergence of a culture of conflict and non-cooperation at the Parliamentary Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina (which could, adopt the declaration, as a political act, with precisely defined conclusions), the Council of Ministers and the Presidency.

But if dialogue is opened, perhaps after formal disagreement through a diplomatic note to the Republic of Croatia, the latter will surely have the advantage, or at least a better negotiating position, due to its European Union membership. This fact may well be crucial (since the European Union also recognizes the interest in land consolidation of its territory, so that its members can better monitor and control their state territory, with the goal of Croatia's entry into the Schengen area) to the success of the negotiations as a diplomatic mean of settling one international dispute,
which surely here does exist, at least with respect to the territorial title. Finally, it is worth mentioning that an international dispute does not need to be specifically proclaimed, the essence is in the existence of a disagreement with respect to essential facts, or in their apparently different interpretations.

If there is an international dispute between two coastal states that share the eastern coast of the Adriatic Sea - that is not debatable - it is now best to choose the most appropriate and effective means of settling the dispute with, if possible, mutual interest as its aim. In this respect, it would be best to choose the most appropriate means for peaceful settlement of disputes from a large palette of diplomatic and legal means that are equally available to each state. Based on the foregoing, a dispute can be brought before the ICJ in The Hague, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) in Hamburg, or it can be "easily" settled through ad hoc arbitration, i.e. special arbitration tribunals. But for the decision, which is the only outcome of these legal proceedings, it is necessary to wait for years, since such international legal processes can be very long-lasting and, above all, extremely expensive. In any case, Bosnia and Herzegovina will surely need to find a modus operandi in solving the above-mentioned issues with its western neighbor. This could be found in the Joint Team of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republic of Croatia for Negotiations on the Implementation of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Delimitation at Sea or, perhaps, on a general level, in a body that will be composed on a parity basis, such as the Inter-State Diplomatic Commission for the Determination of the Border Line, which should, inter alia, settle the border dispute over the Danube River between the Republic of Serbia and the Republic of Croatia, still, so far, with little success. All this graphically demonstrates the complexity of the international law of the sea, particularly in the area of delimitation.

Dr. Enis Omerović and Adil Kulenović,

Group of Friends of NEUM, Krug 99 – Sarajevo

September 3, 2017



By: Tomislav Jakić


Although it is still not sure if Donald Trump will go down in history as champion of bombastic, but empty threats, or as somebody who did what he threatened with, thus starting a dangerous local war with potentially global consequences, one thing is absolutely sure: Donald Trump, the eccentric billionare with a turbulent business career, a showman, proved with his entry into the White House, but as well as with the campaign waged by the so called liberals (in the best way of almost forgotten McChartism) to evict him from there, that the model of western democracy, especially its American version, is irreparable corrupted. If we look at the facts as they are, there can be no doubt about this.

Trump was elected as president of America, a country that was for decades, with good reason, viewed as the light-bearer of democracy. He was elected in accordance with the rules of the American democratic system, rules that are – basically – applied from the very beginning of the existence of the United States. Here we stumble upon the first “but”. Only to enter the race for the nomination for the presidential candidate, one must have money, very much money. In democracy, meaning the rule of the people, the people are robbed of the possibility to elect the best and forced to elect among the rich the one, who seems to be most capable. Or, and this is the second “but” (which was obviously the case in the last elections), people are left to choose and to decide who is the lesser evil. This is why, choosing between Trump, who at that time presented a fresh and for America even radically changed foreign policy program and the former First lady and Secretary of State, an undisputed political hawk with no other foreign policy program that the continuation of toppling regimes in foreign countries and installing those who suited the US best and – not to forget – the continuation of the reborn Cold war, people opted for Trump, as lesser evil. Of course, when we use the term “people” we have in mind those who decided to use their voting right, which is usually about 50% of those registered as potential voters. And here is the third “but”. The President is elected by the minority of the Americans and imposed upon the majority.

This is how American democracy functions, at least in the last couple of decades. But, being strongly influenced by everything coming from America, similar trends are more and more present in Europe too. In other words, system we call democracy and we praise as “something that is not perfect, but there is nothing better than it” (as the legendary British prime minister form the times of WW 2, Winston Churchill once said), is giving all chances and opening all doors not to those who are capable, but to those who are rich. This very system often forces the voters to choose only between the greater and lesser evil. And in many countries (France was, at least until today, an exception) the voters are to such a degree fed up with politics, with politicians and with the scandals accompanying them, that they in significant numbers simply abstain from their right to vote, leaving it to the minority to impose its choice to the majority. And this should be the rule of the people?

But let us deal with facts, as they are. Trump was elected in the same way as all his predecessors. He was not unique (meaning the first) even because of the fact that his opponent won more popular votes, but he won the elections due to the electoral votes. To put it as simply as possible: he won in a democratic way and his victory was legitimate. And here begins the second chapter of the saga about the corrupted democracy. Despite the fact that he was democratically elected, despite the fact the legality of his election could not have been disputed, followers of the candidate who lost (and in whom the disoriented left leaning European liberals all of a sudden see a leftist - what she never was!) started with help of the mainstream media, either friendly to them or controlled by them (free media, is it?) an unprecedented campaign against Trump. His “main sin”, needless to say is, according to them, that he won due to the Russian meddling in the election process – which is a gigantic compliment to the Russian propaganda and secret services, but at the same time an even greater offence to the American voters. Parallel to this Trump’s mental health, his ability to perform the duties of the President and - more recently - his threat to start a nuclear war are being discussed. The champion of the anti-Trump campaign, the global TV network, CNN, already discusses his state of mind (his accountability, to put it bluntly), the degree of his connection with Moscow (a second detant is obviously something very frightening for Trump’s political adversaries) and finally the mechanisms of impeachment. The special prosecutor investigating the alleged ties between Trump and the Kremlin, already conveyed the so called grand jury, a citizen’s assembly which will in the best tradition of senator Joe McCharty’s investigations of the anti-American activities, decide – based on the reports of the US intelligence agencies which have until today presented no hard evidence, no “smoking gun”, proving that Moscow really did meddle in the presidential elections – if Trump was elected American president due to the will and support of the American votes (meaning electors), or due to the influence from Moscow.

Judging by the present state of affairs, it is not hard to anticipate their decision.

In the meantime nobody is mentioning any more the financial irregularities (to say the least) in the activity of the Clinton Foundation, or the unprotected e-mails the former Secretary of State sent from an unprotected mobile phone, thus breaking the law (what she, despite the evidence, denied to have done). Nobody is mentioning her role in the ill-fated Arab Spring, especially in the toppling of the Lybian regime and the murder of colonel Ghadafi. On the contrary! The promotion of her hastily written book, entitled “What really happened” is announced, with the clear aim to close the coffin of Trump’s presidency.

And Trump, although being a “foreigner” on the political scene is far from being naďve. He fully understands that it is for him to be or not to be. And he acts like a wounded animal, chased into a corner. He forgets everything he promised during the election campaign (with the exception of the wall along the border with Mexico), he forgets his words that “America will no longer impose the American way of life” on anybody and his politics (if the stumbling from one day into the other can be called politics) resembles more and more those of George W. Bush and Barack Obama (read: Hillary Clinton). And he repeatedly and with ever greater enthusiasm threatens with the American military might, which brought him on the verge of open war with seemingly unpredictable, but in reality very “down to the Earth” regime of North Korea. Kim Yong Un seems to be an enigma to the world, but let us not forget that he was educated in the West. He knows perfectly well whom he is dealing with, while Trump entered the war games without knowing anything about Kim – if we forget the slogans about the harsh dictatorship and the last bastion of communism and what else the military-industrial complex is “feeding” him with in order to always have an enemy, even at the risk of a world war.

Today’s world is on the brink of a confrontation with unforeseeable consequences. But, it is not Donald Trump who is to be blamed for this in the first place. Much more – the system that opened for him the doors of the White House and is now trying- mainly through the activities of the deep state – to throw him out of there. Both things, needless to say: democratically. Because of that, is it not the last minute to start thinking about what is really the system we call democracy and what is this system giving us (or taking from us)? So, it is not Donald Trump we are dealing with, it is democracy, better to say system we view as democracy and which has with the original meaning of the world less and less in common. After all, was it not the 2nd President of the United States, John Adams, who said: “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” And did we remember, do we remember?

Tomislav Jakić
Author (born 1943, graduated at the Law Faculty of the Zagreb University), is a long-time journalist, (TV and press), who served between 2001. and 2010. as foreign policy adviser to the second President of the Republic of Croatia, Mr. Stjepan Mesić.

Augustus 17, 2017




   Long story of Kurz: ‘Austria You will be Macronised’ - Max Hess

   Germany that kills itself and Europe - Michael dr. Logies,


Grabar-Kitarović and Vučić on a joint mission to (de)stabilize the region

   Bridge over troubled waters – Growing meritime dispute between Croatia and Bosnia, neglected by the EU - Dr. Enis Omerović and Adil Kulenović




Europe and Africa – Similarities and difference in Security Structures - Written by Anis Bajrektarevic and Giuliano Luongo

  The Return of Good Policies for Bad Reasons - Populism and Industrial Policy - Amanda Janoo

  Serbia Delivered Srebrenica Refugees to Mladic: Report - Filip Rudic -BIRN-Belgrade

  The Truth and Recon
important_news.htmciliation stuggle on the Balkans - Senadin Lavić

  Bosnian Reporter Flees After Condemning Mladic Rally - BIRN - Banja Luka



  “We win, they lose” – Wonderful world of Binary categorisations - (Refeudalisation of Europe – III Part) - Anis H. Bajrektarevic

  Sarajevo, Jerusalem of Europe

  Memorandum of Understanding between IFIMES and GBAA

  Paris and Pittsburgh, pesticides in Indonesia: When none is best - Julia Suryakusuma

  COMMON SENSE – A RELIC OF THE PAST? - By: Tomislav Jakic

  The post-Christian West and post-Western World - (Refeudalisation of Europe – II Part) - Anis H. Bajrektarevic


  Zbigniew Brzezinski & the Battle on Post Communism Fascism - By, Ambassador Muhamed Sacirbey

  Post-secular Europe and post-Soviet Russia - Anis H. Bajrektarevic

  The story of a Bosnian woman who lost her entire family to the terror of the 1990s:“I feel like a cut tree. I am neither alive nor dead … There is no justice and there will never be,” - Robert Leonard Rope

  'Schindler List' for Southeast Europe - Pakistanisation as the Final Solution for the Balkans? - Prof. Zlatko Hadžidedić

  Brazil in the short Strikes – the ultimate price of welfare - By Luísa Monteiro


  Pimp my s/ride - Ms. Elodie Pichon


  Who Needs Dysfunction in the Balkans? - Zlatko Hadžidedić


Neo-religionism of the post ideological Russia (Refeudalisation of Europe – I Part) - Anis Bajrektarevic


 Saudi king’s “Clash of Civilizations, convergence with Indonesia's hypocrisy and opportunism - by Julia Suryakusuma

The World’s Last Colony: Morocco continues occupation of Western Sahara, in defiance of UN - Nizar Visram

Culture as a binding factor in our society, interview with Camilla Habsburg-Lothringen - By Djoeke Altena


 National Congress of The Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina (NCR B&H) - March 2, 2017

 Bosnian precariat, militaristic world images and media cynicism - Senadin Lavić


 SR15 Caspian Basin.pdf


 Decriminalize Victims, please - Sooyoung Hu

 Big data and the Future of Democracy - by Hannes Grassegger and Mikael Krogerus

 The Malta Plan – a humane EU border and asylum policy is possible - Gerald Knaus


The Diplomatic Insight JAN 2017.pdf

 La-La-Land of Central Asia Kazakhstan and its “Astana Code of Conduct” - By Samantha Brletich

 Donald Trump, Nuclear Issue and Nuclear War -By:  Markus Wauran

 TRUMP’S TURN - By Tomislav Jakić

 Facing the Trump Presidency – Will the Monroe doctrine finally die? - Nicola Bilotta

 Human Misery monetized - By Aleksandra Krstic

 Jakarta Gubernatorial Election 2017: Who Will Be Eliminated? - By: Igor Dirgantara

Battling the Tiger: Combating corruption in the Sino-world - By Lingbo ZHAO

A European swamp – corruption and human rights - Gerald Knaus

Koninkrijk Belgie - Monarchie Belgique

Maasmechelen Village

Maasmechelen Village



prof. dr. Anis Bajrektarevic
prof. dr. Anis Bajrektarevic

Editor - Geopolitics, History, International Relations (GHIR) Addleton Academic Publishers - New YorK

Senior Advisory board member, geopolitics of energy Canadian energy research institute - ceri, Ottawa/Calgary

Advisory Board Chairman Modern Diplomacy & the md Tomorrow's people platform originator

Head of mission and department head - strategic studies on Asia
Professor and Chairperson Intl. law & global pol. studies

Critical Similarities and Differences in SS of Asia and Europe - Prof. Anis H. Bajrektarevic

MENA Saga and Lady Gaga - (Same dilemma from the MENA) - Anis H. Bajrektarevic

Dr. Nguyen Anh Tuan, Assos. Prof.[1] Nguyen Linh[2]

Climate Change and Re Insurance: The Human Security Issue SC-SEA Prof. Anis Bajrektarevic & Carla Baumer

Igor Dirgantara
(Researcher and Lecturer at the Faculty of Social and Politics, University of Jayabaya)

Peny Sotiropoulou

Is the ‘crisis of secularism’ in Western Europe the result of multiculturalism?

Dr. Emanuel L. Paparella
A Modest “Australian” Proposal to Resolve our Geo-Political Problems

Were the Crusades Justified? A Revisiting - Dr. Emanuel L. Paparella

Alisa Fazleeva
Earned an MA in International Relations from the University of East Anglia in Norwich, United Kingdom in 2013. Her research interests include foreign policy decision-making, realism and constructivism, and social psychology and constructivism.

Corinna Metz
She is an independent researcher specialized in International Politics and Peace & Conflict Studies with a regional focus on the Balkans and the Middle East.

Patricia Galves Derolle
Founder of Internacionalista
Săo Paulo, Brazil
Brazil – New Age

Dimitra Karantzeni
The political character of Social Media: How do Greek Internet users perceive and use social networks?


Michael Akerib

Petra Posega
is a master`s degree student on the University for Criminal justice and Security in Ljubljana. She obtained her bachelor`s degree in Political Science- Defense studies.


Samantha Brletich,
 George Mason University School of Policy, Government, and Intl. Relations She focuses on Russia and Central Asia. Ms. Brletich is an employee of the US Department of Defense.

Interview on HRT-Radio

Prof. dr. Anis Bajrektarević

Dr Filippo ROMEO,

Julia Suryakusuma is the outspoken Indonesian thinker, social-cause fighter and trendsetter. She is the author of Julia’s Jihad.


Gerald Knaus

Mads Jacobsen
Mads is an intern at PCRC. Mads Jacobsen is from Denmark and is currently pursuing his Master's degree in 'Development and International Relations' at Aalborg University...

Dzalila Osmanovic-Muharemagic
University of Bihac, Faculty of Education, Department of English Language and Literature - undergraduate
University of Banja Luka, Faculty of Philology, Department of English Language and Literature - graduate study

Rakesh Krishnan Simha

New Zealand-based journalist and foreign affairs analyst. According to him, he writes on stuff the media distorts, misses or ignores.

Rakesh started his career in 1995 with New Delhi-based Business World magazine, and later worked in a string of positions at other leading media houses such as India Today, Hindustan Times, Business Standard and the Financial Express, where he was the news editor.

He is the Senior Advisory Board member of one of the fastest growing Europe’s foreign policy platforms: Modern Diplomacy.

Damiel Scalea
Daniele Scalea, geopolitical analyst, is Director-general of IsAG (Rome Institute of Geopolitics) and Ph.D. Candidate in Political studies at the Sapienza University, Rome. Author of three books, is frequent contributor and columnist to various Tv-channels and newspapers. E-mail:

Alessio Stilo,
Research Associate at Institute of High Studies in Geopolitics and Auxiliary Sciences (IsAG), Rome, Italy, and Ph.D. researcher at University of Padova, is IMN Country Representative in Italy.

Tomislav Jakić
Foreign Policy Advisor to former Croatian President Stjepan Mesić

Zlatko Hadžidedić

Graduate of the London School of Economics, prof. Zlatko Hadžidedić is a prominent thinker, prolific author of numerous books, and indispensable political figure of the former Yugoslav socio-political space in 1990s, 2000s and 2010s.

Mr. Nicola Bilotta
Nicola Bilotta has a BA and a MA in History from Universitŕ degli Studi di Milano and a MSc in Economic History from the London School of Economics. He works as a Global Finance Research Assistant at The Banker (Financial Times) and collaborates as an external researcher at ISAG (Istituto di Alti Studi di Geopolitica e Scienze Ausiliari)

Markus Wauran

Date and Place of Birth: April 22, 1943 – Amurang, North Sulawesi, IndonesiaEducation: Bachelor in Public Administration.
Writer was a member of the House of Representatives of Indonesia (DPR/MPR-RI) period of 1987-1999, and Chairman of Committee X, cover Science and Technology, Environment and National Development Planning (1988-1997).
Currently as Obsever of Nuclear for peace

Sooyoung Hu

Attached to the US-based Berkeley University, Sooyoung Hu is a scholar at its Political Science and Peace and Conflict Studies Department. Miss Hu focuses on international relations, international organizations and its instruments.

Senahid LAVIĆ

Nizar Visram
 Nizar Visram is a Ottawa-based free-lance writer from Zanzibar, Tanzania. Recently retired Senior lecturer on Development studies, he extensively publishes in over 50 countries on 4 continents. He can be reached at
nizar1941(at) .

Robert Leonard Rope
He studied at the University of Michigan,
He lives in: San Francisco, California: San Francisco, California, USA

Dragan Bursac,


Max Hess
Max Hess is a senior political risk analyst with the London-based AEK international, specializing in Europe and Eurasia.