Interview, David Pettigrew, Ph.D.

Mr. David Pettigrew, Ph.D.,  Professor of Philosophy Southern CT State University:

IT WOULD BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY TO INTERVENE NOW TO PROTECT BOSNIAKS IN REPUBLIKA SRPSKA

At the Conference in Sarajevo, the director of the Institute, Prof. Dr. Smail Cekic presented the preliminary conclusions. Among the conclusions were the following declarations that I will summarize: 1) the Parliamentary Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina should pass a Law on the prohibition of genocide denial; 2) the Republika Srpksa has been founded on genocide, crimes against humanity, and other war crimes; 3) the necessity to continue prosecution against the perpetrators of war crimes in the context of a state founded upon the rule of law; 4) the need to identify damages and provide compensation to victims of Serb aggression in a comprehensive manner; 5) the need for a mandatory course in the study of genocide to be offered at the University of Sarajevo….. I would say without hesitation that these young Bosniaks have been my heroes as they have told me their stories and helped my learning about the genocide and other war crimes that were committed….On Independence Day I was part of a delegation to lay a  wreath at the Memorial for Murdered Sarajevo Children. It was a very moving experience to remember the children who were victims of the siege and to meet parents who lost their children. This I will never forget….In my view, the crisis in Bosnia will only be solved through an honest confrontation with this genocidal geography, the genocidal legacy of Republika Srpska. In other words, Mladić has been apprehended but his legacy endures…..

Dear Mr. Pettigrew! You just returned from the capital of Bosnia and Herzegovina – Sarajevo, where you participated in a scientific seminar was held under the title “The political and military relevance of the defense of Sarajevo.” What are the main conclusions and messages from this Conference?

 Mr. Pettigrew: Thank you very much, Mr. Gusić for the opportunity to have this interview with you. I was honored to have been invited to present my research at the Conference by the Canton Sarajevo Government, Ministry of War Veterans,  by the University of Sarajevo and Institute for the Research of Crimes Against Humanity and International Law.  Also, I was grateful they presented the documentary film that I made with my son at the conclusion of the Conference. At the Conference in Sarajevo, the director of the Institute, Prof. Dr. Smail Cekic presented the preliminary conclusions. Among the conclusions were the following declarations that I will summarize: 1) the Parliamentary Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina should pass a Law on the prohibition of genocide denial; 2) the Republika Srpksa has been founded on genocide, crimes against humanity, and other war crimes; 3) the necessity to continue prosecution against the perpetrators of war crimes in the context of a state founded upon the rule of law; 4) the need to identify damages and provide compensation to victims of Serb aggression in a comprehensive manner; 5) the need for a mandatory course in the study of genocide to be offered at the University of Sarajevo. These are some of the conclusions…”

 How about more impressions (in general) from our country?

 Mr. Pettigrew: I was happy to return to Bosnia and especially to be in Sarajevo on Independence Day. The city was still covered by snow but the worst of the snowstorms seemed to be over. Sarajevo is a beautiful place no matter what the  weather. To walk from one end to the other is to walk through and reflect on layers of history and culture. And of course on this occasion I reflected often on the courageous defense of Sarajevo during the siege, a defense that preserved an independent and sovereign Bosnia and Herzegovina.

 Since you have previously visited the Bosnia and Herzegovina, are you in the occasion of this visit to notice some of differences in relation to the impressions of previous visits?

 Mr. Pettigrew: Over the years of my research in Bosnia I have benefited greatly from the guidance of young Bosniaks. They survived through the war years, escaping on the buses from Potočari, surviving the concentration camps, and enduring the sieges of Sarajevo, Srebrenica, Tuzla, and other cities. I would say without hesitation that these young Bosniaks have been my heroes as they have told me their stories and helped my learning about the genocide and other war crimes that were committed. This year one of them invited me to visit his family in Blagovac. Blagovac is a little village north of Sarajevo where refugees from Srebrenica have settled. The family welcomed me into their home. They had lost many relatives in July 1995 and are now struggling to survive. They have some cows and other animals and sell the milk for example.  I learned that there is a shortage of water  in the village and I am hoping to be in contact with someone who can help address the water shortage. I was deeply affected by the realization that the family and their neighbors who were displaced from Srebrenica,  remain refugees within their own country, so to speak. At the same time, I was touched by their hospitality and inspired by their courage to go on.

 You found it in Sarajevo on first of March, which is The Independence Day of  our country and you could be on the spot to convince that this day marks only in 51% of the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Do you have a comment?

 Mr. Pettigrew: I found the fact that Republika Srpska does not recognize Independence Day  extremely disappointing. I had assumed that, in spite of the presence of divisive political rhetoric in RS – which is well known-, they would none the less accept the national holiday of Bosnia and Herzegovina as a matter of political necessity if not expediency in advance of an eventual application for membership in the European Union.  Therefore I found the resistance of Republika Srpska to this Independence Day to be a  matter of great concern. This needs to be addressed by the international diplomatic community or by the European Union. The decision by Republika Srpska not to participate is a direct threat to reconciliation and to the reunification of Bosnia as a multicultural society.

 And how to comment the Serbian member of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina regularly absent from the ceremony on the occasion of Independence Day, because he says that does not recognize this holiday, but  he receives a salary from the budget of that independent and sovereign country?

 Mr. Pettigrew: I am sorry to hear this. On Independence Day I was part of a delegation to lay a wreath at the Memorial for Murdered Sarajevo Children. It was a very moving experience to remember the children who were victims of the siege and to meet parents who lost their children. This I will never forget. I would like to tell the Serb member of the Presidency that we must work together to insure a future of peace and justice for the children of Bosnia. We must honor the memory of  the children by joining in this common endeavor for reconciliation,  justice and  peace.

Who is, in your opinion, the most responsible for the current political, economic, social and constitutional crisis in Bosnia?

Mr. Pettigrew: In my opinion, the reason for this crisis is the political culture of Republika Srpska. Let me explain. The declaration of the ethnically denominated Republika Srpska within the national boundaries of Bosnia imposed Serbian ethnicity and initiated the violent destruction of Bosniak culture within its territory. Following recognition at Dayton the authorities in Republika Srpska have systematically sustained the active suppression or exclusion of Bosniak culture. Raphael Lemkin, the well-known Polish-Jewish jurist who coined the term genocide and championed its inscription in international law, wrote that the crime of genocide has two phases: “one, destruction of the national pattern of the oppressed group; the other, the imposition of the national pattern of the oppressor.”[1]Lemkin’s description of genocide helps us think about how Republika Srpska has imposed its culture on the territory it claimed. Republika Srpska has subsequently adopted Cyrillic as its official alphabet and has installed Cyrillic signage. In a country and region that has operated with two alphabets (Latin and Cyrillic) the adoption of Cyrillic  as the exclusive alphabet in Republika Srpska is an unfortunate assertion of ethnic difference. Further, new Serbian Orthodox churches “dot” the landscape, in some cases having been constructed directly  on the ruins of Mosques. In one case a Church was built on a Bosniak’s property without her (Fata Orlovic property, op. B.G.)  permission. Moreover, the political leaders of Republika Srpska demean Bosniak culture and language, engage in genocide denial, predict the failure of Bosnia as a state. Let us not forget that more than 350 mass graves have been discovered within the territory of Republika Srpska, and the human remains of the Bosniak victims are still being identified. For all of these reasons, along with the fact that their homes have been destroyed or occupied, and employment is scarce, many Bosniaks are discouraged from returning to their former homes and lives in Republika Srpska. In 2008 and 2009 I visited a village called Klotjevac, which is located south of Srebrenica on the Drina. Before the war there were approximately 80 homes and now there are only three. One study reported that 296 villages in the Srebrenica area were almost completely destroyed. This was the devastating effect of the genocide. In 2009 some of us went to Klotjevac to try to symbolically reinhabit the space and to dedicate a memorial to the victims. But one wonders, given the political culture of Republika Srpska, and given the level of destruction, how a genuine return would be possible. In the context of Lemkin’s statement, the genocide that began in 1992 with the establishment of Republika Srpska is, in a sense, still ongoing. In my research I call this a “geography of genocide” to which we must respond with a“geography of justice”. In this respect, the international diplomatic community must not only address the crimes of the past but must also find a way to address the extent to which Republika Srpska continues to be a dehumanizing zone of exclusion. In my view, the crisis in Bosnia will only be solved through an honest confrontation with this genocidal geography, the genocidal legacy of Republika Srpska. In other words, Mladić has been apprehended but his legacy endures.

 Can our country really survive by Annex IV of the Dayton Peace Agreement, and  if not, what is the alternative?

 Mr. Pettigrew: Well, the Dayton Peace Agreement has at least meant the absence of armed conflict in  the past 17 years. This is something we can be grateful for. I believe, however, that the destiny of the Dayton Accords was to achieve a genuine reunification of Bosnia as a multicultural society. This was also the promise of Bosnia’s declaration of independence in 1992. Recently there has been progress in terms of the formation of the government. And there is still optimism (in Bosnia) that laws will be passed that will help Bosnia advance toward membership in the EU. However, the internal divisions in the country need to be addressed. This might eventually be addressed through an international conference aimed at Constitutional Reform in Bosnia. In the shorter term, the Office of the High Representative and the European Community and other diplomatic representatives should insist that Republika Srpska cease blocking initiatives that would help Bosnia function as a unified State.  We might have a better opinion of Dayton if Republika Srpska had been a better partner in the peace.

 Would be the searching of solutions for constitutional and political crisis in our country an EU priority, only? Or, do you believe the mentioned crisis can’t be solved without stronger involvement of the United States, again?

 Mr. Pettigrew: I actually believe the international community must intervene now. The fact that the international community is not taking a more visibly active role will have negative consequences in the future. The politics of Republika Srpska fosters a  culture of dehumanizing exclusion for Bosniaks. When I accompanied the government exhumation team to Višegrad in 2010 I discovered posters celebrating indicted war criminals such as Vojislav Šešelj quite near the Mehmed Paša Sokolović Bridge.  These posters included provocative ultranationalist images such as the map of “Greater Serbia,” or the depiction of the “White Eagles” military unit.  In my view, the celebration of war criminals is a form of psychological terror against Bosniaks. It is an intentional part of a political culture designed to instill fear and insecurity in all non-Serbs. Some families of the victims of the atrocities in Višegrad, including those identified from the recent exhumations, are reluctant to bury their loved ones in what is now a Serb-controlled town.  There is an important effort under way to create a memorial center in Stražište Cemetery to provide a proper site for the burial and commemoration for the victims of Višegrad. In general, Bosniaks who seek to install memorials to commemorate the atrocities in locations such as Višegrad, Foča or Kereterm, face formidable challenges.  They need our support now. Finally, the cultural landscape is contaminated by the President of Republika Srpska’s denial of the genocide at Srebrenica as well as his divisive rhetoric of secession from Bosnia.  We can assume, sadly that these elements of an ultranationalist, exclusionary political culture and discourse, are designed to harden public opinion against Bosniaks and against the Federation and to strengthen his political position. But here is my point, and here is my greatest concern: based on my research into the history of genocide, such ultranationalist indicators are the classic predictors of future aggression, even of a future genocide.Therefore it would be the responsibility of the international community to intervene now to protect Bosniaks in Republika Srpska from current and future psychological and physical harm.

The Genocide in Srebrenica took place and this fact was confirmed by many relevant international legal institutions. However, disputes that, Milorad Dodik denies it. How do you comment on the fact that the 11th of July in many European countries marks as The Day of Remembrance of the Victims of Genocide in Srebrenica, but that is not present in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia?

 Mr. Pettigrew: President Milorad Dodik’s denial of the Srebrenica genocide is indeed troubling. These horrible crimes have been confirmed as genocide by international courts. And as you point out, the genocide is recognized and commemorated internationally, including in the United States, Canada, and in the European Union. Given this international recognition and observance, President Dodik’s denial of the genocide is almost incomprehensible.  I would say that his denial is undignified of a political leader and insensitive to the suffering of Bosniaks, and thus demeaning and divisive.  In addition to his denial of the genocide President Dodik has made many public statements that are dismissive of the Bosnian language. This is insensitive because one would not expect a people who were targeted in a genocide to then adopt the language and cultural iconography of the perpetrators.  Once again, I would ask the international diplomatic community to advise Mr. Dodik that such rhetoric is unacceptable.  In time, hopefully Bosnia will adopt and be able to enforce laws against genocide denial and against hate speech.

Was the Dayton Agreement, except that ended the war in  Bosnia, rewarded the war crimes, and even the crime of genocide, too?

Mr. Pettigrew: My analysis is that the declaration and creation of Republika Srpska between the Fall of 1991 and Spring of 1992 involved a linguistic violence. By this I mean that the self-proclaimed “Republika Srpska” means, literally, “Serb Republic”. However, the implication is that it is a Republic of and for Serbs and that non-Serbs are not welcome. The problem with this declaration is that in many areas of the Republika Srpska, Bosniaks were the majority of the residents.  The linguistic violence was then followed by physical violence including displacement of the population, murder, concentration camps, rape and mass graves. The genocidal violence carried out the intention of an ethnically homogeneous Serb Republic. Subsequently the Serb Republic, or Republika Srpska, was recognized and legitimized by the Dayton Peace Accords.  What I have tried to explain in my research is that the legitimization of the Dayton Peace Accords has amounted to a reward for a successful genocide. As such this should be morally unacceptable for the diplomatic community. Our recognition of this moral problem, would be the position from which we can begin to find the solution.

 Thank you for your great contribution in dissemination of the truth about Bosnia and Herzegovina, and for this interview.

Mr. Pettigrew: Thank you again very much for the opportunity to have our conversation.

[1] RaphaelLemkin, Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: Laws of Occupation – Analysis of Government – Proposals for Redress, (Washington, D.C.:  Carnegie Endowment forInternational Peace, 1944), p. 79 – 95.

INTERVIEW CONDUCTED BY: Bedrudin GUŠIĆ (337)