After 12 years of work, the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Bosnia and Herzegovina has gained the reputation of an impartial, objective monitor, an organization speaking out against violations of human rights, regardless of whom the violators or the victims are, and regardless of the ethnic, political and ideological background. – Interview with Srdjan Dizdarevic, Vice Chairman of the International Helsinki Federation and Chairman of the Helsinki Committee of Bosnia and Herzegovina. (12-JAN-07)

This interview was made available to www.humanrightshouse.org  t hrough Journal of the BH Helsinki Committee. The interview is conducted  by Dzenana Aladjuz, journalist. It has been translated for publication here by HRH / Mirsad Pandzic.

At the regular annual session of the Assembly of the International Helsinki Federation (IHF), the Chairman of the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Srdjan Dizdarevic, was re-elected Vice Chairman of this reputable international association. The Assembly of the International Helsinki Federation gathers the Helsinki Committees of 44 countries, which makes Srdjan Dizdarevic’s re-election a great tribute to him, but also the Helsinki Committee of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Were you elected for one of the top positions because you come from the country that is still being regarded as a crisis area, so you could be an ideal advisor for this region, or has Bosnia and Herzegovina moved away from this picture in the international public?

– There are two things here: firstly, the image of Bosnia and Herzegovina as it is. Independent international circles see our country as it is, with all its problems and cases of violations of human rights. The other thing is that the Committee for Human Rights in Bosnia and Herzegovina, after 12 years of its work, has gained the reputation of an impartial and objective monitor, an organization that speaks out no matter who the violators or the victims are, and regardless of the ethnic, political and ideological background. We have managed to rise up above divisions, ethnic divisions, and above political differences, which is the foundation for the reputation of the Helsinki Committee in the international family of committees. Those following more closely the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina understand clearly that this country is lagging behind a little bit, while all other countries of the region are moving faster in reforms and the European and North Atlantic integration, and we are tapping in one place. However, the efforts to democratise Bosnia and Herzegovina and lead it towards a healthy Europe-isation, have been recognized also.

Which are the healthy and positive forces?

– There has lately been more and more of articulation of something we may call actors of civil society, independent intellectuals, youth movements and women’s organizations. A series of non-governmental organizations that were founded during or immediately after the war are trying to articulate requests of citizens, individuals, organizations, all of whom are looking for greater democracy, better and more prosperous life, respect for human rights, greater accountability of the government. For example, in the eve of the recent elections, we had GROZD – citizens organized around a non-governmental organization for strengthening of the democratic movement. Around 500,000 people signed the 12 requests articulated by GROZD for the future authorities, whichever they may be. Some things are being changed. Surely, one should not be pretentious to say that we are capable of making the difference and determine the character of government. This movement is still growing, but it has become obvious that more care should be invested into what the citizens want and that politicians will have to show more understanding for this than they have so far.

The Chairman of the International Helsinki Federation is Ulrich Fisher from Germany, while the elected members of the Executive Committee are Vasilika Hysi from Albania, Bjoern Engesland from Norway, Krassimir Kanev from Bulgaria, Jos Kosters from The Netherlands, and Holly Cartner from the United States. What was discussed at this year’s Assembly session?

– This year we focused particularly on issues of fight against terrorism in the context of respect for human rights and prohibition of torture and other inhumane treatment. Efforts to combat terrorism were supported, but also the necessity of respect of human rights and freedoms. Impermissible practice of torture against terror suspects was stressed, as well as impermissible use of evidence, which is provided by torture, before courts. It was also stressed that some totalitarian regimes are using the fight against terrorism as means for battle against political opponents. The murder of Ana Politkovskaja was condemned strongly, as an attack and threat against human rights activists. It was concluded that the Russian authorities have the obligation to identify and punish perpetrators of this dreadful crime. The Assembly paid significant attention to the state of human rights in countries of Central Asia, Caucasus and Belarus, as countries where human rights are being violated harshly and systemically. In a special statement, the practice of violations of rights of members of national minorities in Bulgaria was condemned as impermissible and unacceptable, and an appeal was made to the European Union to remind Bulgaria, as a future member of the EU, of obligations related to respect of human rights and freedoms.

The post of vice chairman of the International Helsinki Federation for Protection of Human Rights carries a lot of work and obligations. Why do you need this?

– Well, I don’t know. I was nominated by the Helsinki Committees of Norway and Germany. The management of the International Helsinki Federation has probably made some progress over the past two years. I personally accepted this as a tribute, on one side, but also as a possibility to work on issues outside my home, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and to have a broader picture of the situation in other countries. I think this change is important, not having to think about yourself only, and not thinking that Bosnia and Herzegovina is the bellybutton of the world, but having a wider view of the state of human rights in the region and the world.

We are at the end of year 2006. Can you give us a brief summary of the current Bosnian politics’ achievements in the field of human rights over the past twelve months?
 
– Generally speaking, this year in Bosnia and Herzegovina was marked by complicating political relations, and consequently violations of human rights. The whole year passed in the atmosphere of the election campaign, although it, officially, lasted only for one month. The rhetoric reminding of that of the nineties dominated the scene. So, a high level of nationalism, spite, even hate of other people, inspiration of fear of others, all of this generated complicated national relations, which was reflected on the status of an individual, depending on his/her place of residence. This means that it was very difficult being a member of minorities in numbers in all parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina. This year, in fact, was not successful from the aspect of human rights, if one excludes the efforts of non-governmental organizations to articulate their requests.
In this year, we made a pre-draft of the law that should serve to prevent discrimination, i.e. an anti-discrimination law. I see this as a big achievement, something that should develop into a debate on human rights and discrimination next year and be introduced to the parliament as a proposal for law that should reinforce mechanisms of protection against discrimination, as a factor generating many violations of human rights.

Can you give us a glaring example of violations of human rights in this year?

– There are several levels when looking at this. First of all, there has not been any major breakthrough in one test field, which is the return of refugees and displaced persons. So, the year 2006 was very thin as far as return is concerned, particularly the return of those going back to places where their people do not form the majority. This is, in a way, an illustration of the context. Secondly, there were no major improvements in the national structure of employees anywhere in Bosnia and Herzegovina. A majority ethnic group in an area constitutes 95 to 99 per cent of employees in public institutions. Furthermore, there have been sophisticated signals made through attacks on mosques, churches, desecration of cemeteries, graffiti of unacceptable contents. Police have had difficulties identifying perpetrators of all these acts against minorities in numbers and their feeling of safety and equality. All this is a mosaic that shows that the citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina are not equal before law and the institutions of government, and that their status depends on their nationality and the place of residence. This is unacceptable and illustrates that there has been no major progress in comparison with the period of five or six years ago.

Why does this happen, eleven years after the war? Why do people fear one another? Is this a consequence of some theories of international conspiracy, mere wish of governments to gain wealth, actions of certain manipulative people, or citizens ignoring things that happen to them?

– First of all, we can discard the stores about international conspiracy. We are responsible for what is happening to us. There are two main responsible parties in this: political elites that think it is more comfortable and secure to go into elections with nationalist rhetoric, old methods of grouping into pens. These elites show little willingness to change the general state of mind, to guide citizens towards real values: better life, free citizens, European country, better science, education, culture … It is easier to go back to the discourse similar to that of Western Europe in the 19th century.  On the other side, there is the shy and fearful picture offered by the citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina, who seem as if in some kind of apathy. They believe that decisions are being made somewhere else in their name, without feeling that they can make any change. This should be emphasized – the “awakening” of the citizen and affirmation of belief that he/she should be the key actor in the decision-making process, change of political practices in which rights of individuals will not be suppressed in favour of various collective groups. Finally, I believe there is another reason, and that is the fact that the political scene, or the political offer does not really propose any options that would represent the possibility for changes for the better. Political parties and leaders do not differ very much amongst themselves. I think that citizens are in fact voting for either lesser evil or in accord with the census, guided by their ethnicities.

That feeling of fear seems never to go away and affects the youth who do not remember the war or who were born after it ended, Thus, we have frequent ethnic fights in Bosnia and Herzegovina’s secondary, and even elementary schools…. Mostar, Stolac, Prozor/Rama?

– These are never spontaneous reactions. Nationalists always stage them well, every time when one gets a feeling that the situation is getting better and inter-ethnic relations progressing towards normalisation, overcoming of fears and hatred. These examples only point to aspirations of nationalists to preserve results of war and ethnic cleansing in the time of peace. And ethnic division is simply imposed on the young who do not have strength to fight it alone in divided classes, schools, towns. Thus, they become easy victims of such manipulations in which nationalistic political parties, religious communities, school and family equally participate, while there is not much else to drive them towards other modern values, humane relations. It is the power of destruction that is much stronger than the power that is trying to weave together broken threads.

What is the role of the media and religious communities in this never-ending chain of fear?

– Religious communities, at least speaking of the three major ones, Catholic, Islamic and Orthodox communities, play a negative role. They have symbiotic ties with the leadership of nationalistic movements and actually play the role of spokesperson, acting of behalf of every ethic group alone. They are engaged in high politics and instruct voters how to vote, instead of dealing with spiritual issues, re-evaluation of spiritual values, basic postulates of religions. All of it would certainly contribute to healing of the society of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Therefore, I value negatively the role of religious leaders of the three mentioned religions. They are self-indulgent and not ready to take part in a sincere dialogue and embark on the process of normalisation, not to say, reconciliation. Speaking about some segments of the media, especially written media, since the CRA reduces a possibility of incidents in the electronic media to a certain extent. The press is noticeably tainted with malicious tones, often failing to meet standards of professional journalism, and rooted not only in nationalism but in partiality as well. It is not kind of partiality that could be swallowed in a sense that it is not prohibited that a newspaper may be inclined to one political option. What is impermissible is that the media does not allow a reader to learn about all current events and hear out both sides.  The press use means that could be described as ‘blows below one’s belt’, tarnishing people’s reputation without possibility to defend themselves. Democratic debates are missing. It sticks out like a sore thumb how Dnevni Avaz settled accounts with Zlatko Lagumdzija and Sulejman Tihic and how it favoured some political leaders – utterly unacceptable from the point of objective journalism. Naturally, we still take as a priority the freedom of expression as a crucial achievement in BiH. We hold that censorship should not be introduced, nor repressive measures applied against those who abuse it legally. However, within professional community mechanisms should be set up containing moral sanctions against journalists, editors and politicians who do not observe them.

Regardless of the fact that the elections have just ended, could you please comment on the conduct of newly elected government?

-Manifested delay in the forming of both Parliament and the executive power is impermissible. This is not only a political issue, it demonstrates the attitude towards democracy, Democratic character of elections is determined by democratic campaign, relations between the media and presentation of candidates, fair elections, as well as implementation of election results. The Copenhagen document stated that implementation is part of a process that can be evaluated as fair elections only as a whole. Delay, lack of readiness of leaders to reach agreement, to constitute the state Parliament, to elect chairs, committees, working bodies, and the need to elect the executive power- because all officials are now acting in a technical mandate, leads me to assess, and that is my position and that of the Helsinki Committee, that political leaders are acting irresponsibly towards democracy in BiH, contrary to the principles of democracy.

Would we be better off without the High Representative – maybe leaders would get more serous then?

– It is a double-edged weapon. The High Representative has solved some Gordian knots in absence of readiness and integrity of domestic politicians. On the other hand he has made authorities at home highly dependent so that they keep on expecting him to find or impose solutions. It is difficult to find a way out of that spiral. Evidently, the High Reprehensive cannot stay here forever. It would be better to let this country be turned over to their authorities and citizens, but it would mean that domestic authorities must rise to the situation and come to realise that this country must face the challenge of its independence and sovereignty.