Full address by the Grand Mufti of Bosnia and Herzegovina at the Funeral and Commemoration of victims of the Srebrenica Genocide, 27 years on.
The Cordoba Foundation
Policy Exchange is no average research centre cum Think Tank. It’s a conservative base that has long been identified as the most vociferous mouthpiece for Neo-Conservativism in the UK, and therefore it comes as no surprise that it got the former Prime Minister, David Cameron to pen the foreword to its recent report on the voices that expressed opposition to the government’s counter-terrorism strategy, Prevent.
It also comes as no surprise to see the list of mentions, both individuals and organisations, the report cited, in what has become a tired exercise of copy-pasting, guilt-by-association, labelling and many other traits of reports and articles of this kind.
However, going through the 89 pages of this report, a number of important points emerge which need to be highlighted and which speak of the authors and their collective sponsors, more so than it does on Prevent as a government strategy, which we are told the report aimed to defend.
The first thought that came to mind was how rattled Prevent sponsors must feel to push them to publish what is objectively, quite a poor report even by Policy Exchange’s standards. This, I say in reference to the dismal track record of this set up, which came to prominence on the back of a story (https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2008/05/policy_exchange_dispute_update.html) in which its researchers literally fabricated evidence to implicate several UK mosques in dispersing extremist material. How it could be seen by governments and politicians as a respectable organisation given that, along with the reports The Cordoba Foundation published, is something that will need to be discussed at a later date and in some length.
Back to the main theme, one would’ve assumed that for Prevent to be defended and this strategy to be upheld, the report would be full of counter- arguments to the ones put forward by its critics, and brimming with data, statistics and anecdotes all pointing to the strategy’s outstanding achievements and amazing successes over the many years since it was introduced.
Yet, the report had little else but citations of what the various critical voices have said, where and sometimes when, before adding a bit of commentary to validate the piece being ‘a report’.
Further, the fact that significant names in the neo-con, right-wing and Islamophobic spheres, including David Cameron and Sir John Jenkins in what is essentially a diatribe rather than any work of added significance to world knowledge is itself quite telling. Have these figures and their backgrounds ran out of ideas?, one could justifiably ask.
But most importantly, the fact that these prominent individuals, all of whom have a long record of claiming to uphold democracy, human rights, freedoms of expression, thought and belief, rather than pose an argument that proves the critics of Prevent wrong from a totally objective perspective, chose to go all out against those critics themselves and what they allege they represent and whom they have met in the past and with whom they might or might not have worked, as well as in my case, dedicate several lines to explain the familial tree and blood relations.
It would be fair to assume that any government policy, let alone a strategy adopted by several successive governments could and indeed should be questioned, analysed and critiqued – and if evidence was present, opposed and fought in every possible way. If every time a voice emerged criticising a law or a government policy, that voice was labelled as disruptive, rebellious and borderline treacherous, there would be no meaning whatsoever to democracy or to personal and public freedoms.
For years, the dozens of organisations, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, that have spoken against the strategy, have based their views on real evidence and on empirical data, showing clearly that the phenomenon Prevent claims it aims to tackle, is actually on the sharp rise year by year. Moreover, they have demonstrated that this strategy is having the exact opposite effect it should upon the targeted groups, i.e. the various minority communities impacted by Prevent. Rather than convincing these communities and minority groups to work with the strategy and show them that it is of benefit to them somehow, every single community targeted has suffered and felt that Prevent is simply a form of community surveillance, which brutalises and harasses those it should be befriending and gaining their trust.
The criticism levelled against Prevent is based on real evidence and clearly set out and gathered data. The children affected are real and their names and addresses known to those who are concerned. The businesses shut down are also real and so are the families obliterated, intimidated and terrorised, and the impact on communities, and indeed on British society as a whole is impossible to brush aside. For years, proof has been submitted that this is a failed, harmful and undemocratic policy, and that it must be banished, and with those who sponsored and supported it hanging their heads in shame and banned from ever holding a public role in the future.
What Policy Exchange should have published, is a report outlining the counter to all of that, and demonstrating the achievements and successes of Prevent and how Britain has gained, grown and developed because of it. Not going after the critics, like is the norm with fascist and authoritarian dictators.
This report is poor, pathetic I might even suggest. But the fact remains that it shows a dangerous trend that is gaining momentum in our public debates; you either conform to whatever the government says, or your views will be presented as dangerous, you will be seen as a threat and ultimately treated as an outsider.
Dr Anas Altikriti
CEO & Founder, The Cordoba Foundation
WELCOME to part two of the first edition of Insights this year, focusing on Bosnia and Herzegovina. Following Dr Dževada Šuško’s exploration of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s 500-year history of peaceful, and often courageous, Jewish-Muslim coexistence; in this issue, Ambassador Vanja Filipovic warns of the dissolution of peace in the Balkans.
The timing of Ambassador Filipovic’s contribution is pertinent and evokes conflicting feelings. Whilst only last week Bosnians celebrated their 30th anniversary of independence from the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, a few days earlier the world watched in disbelief the start of a gruesome and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine by Russia. For many Bosnians who survived the 1992-1995 aggression by Serb forces, the terrible tragedy in Ukraine now is a grim reminder of their war and suffering.
The raging war in Ukraine serves as a stark reminder that as conflict is waged, so, too must peace be forged through the protection and defence of hard-won national and international agreements – such as those made at the end of the Bosnian war. Such agreements are critical to the existence of necessary values of the rule of law, tangible human rights, and cooperation in a diversely populated democratic nation such as Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Ambassador Filipovic echoes international observers’ disappointment by raising the alarm over threats posed by the breakaway of Serbian and Croatian groups from Bosnia and Herzegovina. By drawing attention to internal and external factors that have contributed to the gradual erosion of shared governance and legal frameworks that have helped sustain peace in the region, the Ambassador forewarns of the dissolution of peace in the Balkans. He concludes that two possible paths remain for Bosnia and Herzegovina: one leading to the benefits of further democratic development and the other ending in segregation, divisiveness, and uncertainty.
Responsibility lies squarely with the international community to unequivocally condemn the deliberate undermining of peace agreements by nationalist secessionist forces, along with all conflict and oppression – no matter where in the world it occurs. History is replete with testaments of the tragic consequences of silence and inaction – whether it be aggression against Ukrainians, Uyghurs in China, the Rohingya in Myanmar, Syrians, Palestinians, or countless others.
The history of human conflict teaches us that war does not happen spontaneously, nor does it occur in isolation. There is always a series of fissures that weaken relations and preclude war, always with regional, and sometimes global consequences. The future peace of Bosnia and Herzegovina remains uncertain; but as Ambassador Filipovic argues – the soul of Europe depends upon it.
WELCOME to the first edition of Insights for 2022. We have recovered from last year’s covid-induced break and are delighted to present the first edition of Insights for 2022 with a two-part special, focusing on Bosnia and Herzegovina.
In part one, Dr Dževada Šuško explores the fascinating, and largely unknown history of the peaceful coexistence between Jews and Muslims in BosniaHerzegovina spanning 500 years – a mark of mutual respect and civil courage.
Forthcoming in March 2022, part two is titled Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Battle for the Soul of Europe, contributed by His Excellency Vanja Filipovic, Ambassador of Bosnia-Herzegovina to the UK .
The spectacle of the Chinese regime preparing to open the largest winter sports carnival in the world, with its crimes against Uyghur Muslims continuing unabated, is obscene to say the very least.
The political posturing of the US, UK and European governments, should’ve been translated into solid actions by boycotting this sickening advent.
However, if ever we needed further proof, financial interests seem far more valuable than human lives or human principles.
Be on the right side of history, stop watching the Genocide Olympics!
The Cordoba Foundation
Sunday 9th January 2022
French leaders attend Republika Srpska Day celebration, glorifying war criminals and genocide of Bosnian Muslims
*Dr Admir Mulaosmanović
Exactly 30 years ago on 9th January 1992, the integrity, sovereignty, and functionality of the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina were ruthlessly attacked by Radovan Karadzic and his clique by declaring the so-called Republika Srpska (RS). Violent and illegal attempts were made to stifle this small state, but the resistance that began at the time lasted for more than 3 years and ended with the signing of the Daytona Peace Treaty.
During that period, Karadzic and his associates committed horrific crimes against Bosniaks (Muslims) and the crime of genocide in an attempt to completely ethnically-cleanse their territory. After the signing of the Dayton Peace Treaty, everything was done to make the few refugees and survivors of the Bosniak population lose their possessions in the RS entity created by the peace treaty and not return to their homes. Moreover, almost half of the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina was tried in every sense to become Orthodox and exclusively Serbian. All that time, January 9th was celebrated as RS Day, and the creators (Karadzic, Mladic, Krajisnik, Plavsic, and others) who were convicted of war crimes were also celebrated. It will not be a stretch too far to compare this with the celebrations of Hitler, Goebbels and others in Munich in 1975.
The Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, of course, declared the RS Day unconstitutional in 2015, but Dodik did not pay attention to that.
Today there is a celebration in Banja Luka again. Bosniaks will be threatened with slaughter, killing and expulsion. The scenography is well known to us. However, it is worrying that politicians who are also members of the European Parliament are attending the show and celebration. These are the Frenchmen Juvin and Mariani, right-wingers from the Marine Le Pen party.
Regardless of Le Pen and her limited associates, their attendance in this celebration sends a message from the French state. That is why the French state must make a very clear stance on the conduct of its officials: their participation in a celebration that glorifies war criminals, denies genocide of the Bosnian Muslims and finally threatens the emerging chauvinism.
*Dr Admir Mulaosmanović
Former member of the Bosnian Army (4th Knights Brigade) who was severely wounded in action during the 1992 war. Currently a Counselor and Associate Professor at the Council of Ministries, Bosnia-Herzegovina.