Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2025

The Assembly will hear an address by His Excellency Zirko Kohesic, Chairman of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina. I request protocol to escort His Excellency and invite him to address the Assembly. Dear Chairperson, Secretary General, dear colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, To start with the theme of this year's session of the United Nations General Assembly, Better Together, 80 Years and More for Peace, Development and Human Rights, allow me to express my congratulations to the United Nations from this important place on behalf of Bosnia and Herzegovina and all its citizens. The UN is celebrating 80 years since its founding, and at the same time 80 years of continuous work on the fundamental goal of this organization. That goal is to secure and maintain peace in the world. History will give the final judgment on how successful the UN has been in the past, as well as on the results of the work and participation of several generations in the United Nations itself, its bodies and organizations. At the same time, I believe it is important to clearly express our common position today. Peace in every part of the world has no alternative. We must continue to work together persistently on this. I would like to believe that we all share the same positive opinion, that we must protect peace in every part of the world. However, reality and what is happening today in different parts of our planet clearly show us that world peace is often not in the interest of certain geopolitical actors. For them, conflict or war is a means to realize their own political and economic interests. These interests largely diverge from the goals set out in the United Nations Charter. If we add to this the fact that attempts are being made to change the borders of states around the world by means of armed force in a manner that is contrary to the United Nations Charter, we can draw a simple conclusion. International law is not applied equally to all states that are subject of that very international law. We have been witnessing that in the past period certain armed conflicts have been deliberately provoked. What follows is the use of significant armed force, which a state with a smaller or weaker armed forces simply cannot resist. After that, the attacked state is required to sit at the negotiating table and sign a waiver of parts of its territory, ostensibly in the name of peace, but in reality in the name of force. I believe that all of us in this room know that the United Nations Charter allows for the changing of state borders. However, this can only be done by voluntary agreement between states. Armed forces or political pressure backed by armed forces cannot be used. However, if armed force is used to force the other side to agree to an imposed agreement, in which it loses part of its territory, then there is no good and sincere will. Only coercion is present, which is contrary to several acts of international law. In this particular case, I am speaking of Ukraine and the pressures it is under as a sovereign state. These pressures require Ukraine to give up parts of its territory in order to achieve a supposedly lasting and sustainable peace. Are we in this particular case participants in a change in the world order? In such an order, peace is not set as the ultimate goal. On the contrary, war and armed force appear as a legitimate means to achieve the political goals of major geopolitical actors. Changing international borders through the use of armed force creates political pressure to force a state to give up parts of its territory. This creates a dangerous precedent in international law, which can easily become the rule. Ultimately, it means living in an unstable world in which peace no longer has value. This is certainly not the desired outcome. Such a thing cannot be justified by any provision of the United Nations Charter or other acts of international law. Today, we have an equally unwanted situation in the Gaza Strip. There, such violence is perpetrated against the local population, which in its form indicates the existence of several elements of genocide, as established in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Let us recall. In addition to the fact that genocide represents the physical liquidation or removal of a national, ethnic, racial or religious group from a certain territory, it can also be committed in the event that such difficult living conditions are consciously imposed on that same national, ethnic, racial or religious group that threaten to ultimately destroy that group completely in a certain territory. Ultimately, such an aggressive genocidal approach is used as a means to forcibly occupy and take over territory. Under international law, these territories cannot belong to those who initiate and produce aggression. However, this is exactly what is happening in the Gaza Strip today. In Gaza, the people of Palestine face these two elements of genocide prescribed by the aforementioned Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide. A part of the world's political public closes its eyes and keeps silent about this extremely terrible fact. There is no political interest or even economic interest motivated by the intention to exploit natural resources, such as oil or natural gas in that part of the Mediterranean, which could justify such a high level of genocidal violence against the local Palestinian population. Such violence is unjustified and unacceptable. Equally unacceptable is the silence and occasional approval that comes from various political circles around the world. What kind of peace, development or protection of human rights can we even talk about if this kind of violence is allowed? Violence with forms of genocide against the Palestinian people? Does something like that mean that the political interests of individual countries or the interests of corporate capital are stronger and more important than our common obligation to protect peace in every part of the world and the human rights of every individual in the world? This obligation is a prerequisite for the development and self-sustainability of various societies. This is a major challenge that we are facing today and we cannot run away from that challenge. We must not continuously silence this interest for the sake of some higher opportunistic interests. Let us just remember the phrase. Silence is actually an expression of either cowardice or approval of cowardice. Dear Sir, allow me to briefly say something about my country, Bosnia and Herzegovina. A little more than 30 years ago, Bosnia and Herzegovina was faced with aggression coming from neighboring countries. At that time, the United Nations formed a peacekeeping military force called UNPROFOR with the participation of countries that expressed interest in such endeavor. The role of UNPROFOR was such that they were to a large extent mere observers of a series of war crimes, ethnic cleansing and ultimately genocide committed by the aggressors of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Of course, there were also positive examples of UNPROFOR's activities which should certainly not be forgotten and we are sincerely grateful for that. Unfortunately, a stain remains on that United Nations mission. Certain UNPROFOR commanders did not want to activate airstrikes in order to prevent ethnic cleansing, especially the genocide committed in Srebrenica in July 1995. Unfortunately, genocide was committed in Srebrenica. Hundreds of thousands of citizens throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina lost their lives during the aggression. Many more were injured and more than a million citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina were displaced around the world. I would like to briefly remind you that the International Criminal Court in The Hague, established by these very United Nations, has found the guilt of several individuals for committing genocide as well as the existence of a series of joint criminal endeavors. They all had the same goal, ethnic cleansing with the creation of ethnically pure parts of the territory in Bosnia and Herzegovina in order to separate these parts from Bosnia and Herzegovina and annex them to neighboring states. A little over a year ago, here at the United Nations, we worked together on the adoption of the resolution on the genocide committed in Srebrenica. I consider that a major step forward and an important document not only for Bosnia and Herzegovina but also more widely. The strength of that resolution lies in its intention to prevent the possible commission of some new genocides which could happen anywhere in the world. Although we were faced with lobbying from several countries not to adopt such a resolution, it was nevertheless passed. This created a new environment of preventive action through a culture of remembrance so that genocide, the most terrible war crime, would never happen again. This is when we realized that there were states that for their own political reasons or political convenience were not ready to support the text of that resolution. That text is based on the rulings of the International Criminal Court in The Hague which, I repeat once again, was founded by the United Nations. May such a refusal to support the text of the resolution serve to honor those who lobbied against its adoption and those who did not give clear support to the resolution. I would like to remind you that during that period, in the 90s, the international community, through the United Nations, imposed an embargo on Bosnia and Herzegovina on the purchase of defensive weapons. This prevented the defense of our country from double aggression. In any case, defense would significantly shorten the duration of the war and many lives would have been saved because a peace agreement would be reached much sooner. A necessary condition for a peace agreement was the creation of a balance of military power between Bosnia and Herzegovina and the two neighboring countries that committed the aggression. Due to that embargo, the aggression against Bosnia and Herzegovina lasted for almost four years and a large number of human lives were unnecessarily lost. Such a war ended with the signing of the Dayton-Paris Peace Agreement. That agreement brought the necessary peace and we are grateful for that. However, at the same time, it created such a sui generis political system in Bosnia and Herzegovina which today, 30 days after its creation, poses a problem for the normal functioning of the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Such a political system does not contain democracy but a deviant form of democracy, a form that is unheard of in practice anywhere in the world. Ethnicity is put to the fore and basic human rights are completely denied. At the same time, democracy is undermined to such an extent that it almost no longer exists. We can call this political system an incident political system which is constantly destabilizing the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Why am I even mentioning democracy right here? For at least two reasons. The first reason is that states that opt for democracy and its principles should have the opportunity to fully implement that democracy within their own borders. We must be fully aware that there are a number of states that, for their own reasons, be it historical, cultural or religious reasons, do not want democracy and its principles. Bosnia and Herzegovina has clearly opted for democracy and the transition from the previous political system to a new democratic political system. However, this is continuously being prevented in reality through elements of the political system established by the Dayton-Paris peace agreement. The second reason I mentioned is that after facing an embargo on the import of defensive weapons during the 90s, Bosnia and Herzegovina is now facing an embargo on democracy. Some actors from the international community are trying to ensure this through their political and diplomatic activities and resources. So after we had an embargo on defense, today we have an embargo on democracy and democratic development of Bosnia and Herzegovina. How else to explain such activity by that part of the international community? They are trying in various ways to ensure this incidental political system in which the minority governs the majority. This undermines one of the fundamental principles of democracy, which requires a system in which the political majority should actually govern the state. That is not the case in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The aforementioned actors describe this as an alleged distribution of political power between ethnic communities in Bosnia and Herzegovina. However, that undermines democracy so much at its root that it almost no longer exists in my country. What does exist, however, is something simply called ethnocracy in which a political minority rules the state. This current deviant political system makes this possible. Are such actors of the international community trying to ban or impose an embargo on democracy in Bosnia and Herzegovina because of its demographic picture? Are they trying to create a situation to reopen talks on Bosnia and Herzegovina with an uncertain outcome for its existence within its current borders? These questions remain open. I would like to remind you here that without democracy, there is no rule of law. Without the rule of law, there is no protection of individual human rights. An argument for such action by a part of the international community may be the so-called Kovacevic case before the European Court of Human Rights. This case is unknown to you, perhaps unimportant to you, but it is extremely important to us in Bosnia and Herzegovina. This is a case in which the appellant sought simple, justified and logical protection of his active rights to vote, which was denied to him. The case was resolved in favor of the appellant, Mr. Kovacevic, in the first instance. The court also found the existence of ethno-territorial discrimination. However, a part of the international community invested enormous diplomatic and financial efforts in its attempt to annul the verdict during the second instance proceedings. One of the countries, which is completely incomprehensible and unacceptable, made a financial donation to the European Court of Human Rights. That country later came forward in the same case as an interested party. This is an expression of classic political corruption. Because of all this, a logical question arises here. Can the judgments of international courts be bought? Are they for sale? The high representative of the international community in Bosnia and Herzegovina actively participated in overturning that verdict. Also, he was not given such powers by the Dayton Peace Agreement. He also invested enormous financial resources from unknown sources. He did not have the necessary consent of the Peace Implementation Council for such actions. So, a completely identical situation occurred as with the adoption of the resolution on the genocide in Srebrenica. Some countries tried to negate the judgment of the International Criminal Court in The Hague by lobbying against the resolution. In the case that I am now citing as an example, some other countries tried and are still trying to annul the judgment through their own lobbying and broader diplomatic activity. This leads us to the conclusion that there is a part of the international community that simply does not allow democracy in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Yesterday, we faced an embargo on weapons necessary for the defense of our country. Today, we have an embargo on democracy and human rights. Therefore, I would like to briefly remind you of another United Nations document called the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This document guarantees, among other things, to vote and to be elected at periodic elections which shall be held by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot with the guarantee of free expression of the will of each voter. Unfortunately, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, we are not allowed to do this. The international community is making great efforts to preserve discrimination and to deny democracy. The result is the lack of the rule of law as well as insufficient and almost no protection of individual human rights. The logical conclusion that arises is the following. Democracy as well as the right to defend the country are privileges whose application is determined and enabled by political elites from larger and richer countries. Small countries and poor countries can only receive as much democracy as those who are larger and richer allow them to get. That is certainly not an expression of equality that we should all strive for today. Here we come to the issue of human rights. To be more precise, I am referring to the equality of every individual in their own country and beyond. This particularly concerns the right of every person to participate equally and as they wish in every aspect of social life in their country. We have a whole series of documents of acts or acts of international law that guarantee such rights. This therefore raises an open question. Are we prepared to be consistent or persistent in protecting individual human rights in any part of the world using the tools that the aforementioned international documents provide us with? Every issue of human rights protection begins with the fight against discrimination or any form of inequality of individuals in all their rights guaranteed to them by international law. The logical continuation of this are the documents or laws in different countries. Discrimination in any form is prohibited by international law. Unfortunately, very often we encounter situations where discrimination is silenced and even encouraged. Speaking from the perspective of Bosnia and Herzegovina, we have five judgments of the European Court of Human Rights that establish the existence of discrimination against citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina based on their ethnic origin or place of residence. Some of the political elites in Bosnia and Herzegovina as well as part of the international community present in Bosnia and Herzegovina do not want to accept these verdicts or implement them through constitutional amendments. Therefore, the five aforementioned judgments of the European Court of Human Rights have not been implemented. The aforementioned sixth judgment in the case seeking the rejection of ethno-territorial discrimination was overturned thanks to pressure, donations and similar actions by certain countries. The person who was authorized by the peace agreement to implement that very peace agreement and to protect all aspects of that agreement also participated in this. This includes all acts of international law that speak of human rights. All of this leads us to difficult questions and even more difficult answers. Are human rights and the protection of the same privileges of the larger and wealthier societies and states while those that are smaller and poorer are consciously and internationally bypassed in the protection of human rights? It starts from the right to life all the way to the right to equality and democracy. Finally, let me emphasize that we can only respond to all three open questions which are the subject of this session of the United Nations General Assembly through consistency and principled insistence on the protection of peace. Only in this way can we create the conditions for the unhindered development of societies in the member states of the United Nations and act together as active protectors of human rights in all parts of the world. Without that consistency on those issues we will once again be just a group expressing concern over deviant phenomena in the world such as wars, violent border changes, genocide and war crimes, denial of human rights. In fact, we will do nothing more than express our concern. The consistency I am referring to means complete determination to confront various deviant phenomena in the world through the tools provided to us by international law. We must be resolute and unwavering in our intentions to protect the fundamental values of the United Nations without making any distinction between states as subjects of international law. Within this determination I call upon you to do the following. Let us not differentiate between ourselves, dividing us into large and small countries, rich and poor. Together, as an organization, let us actively seek and facilitate solutions to all the outstanding issues that arise in the world. Peace is not a privilege. Peace is an obligation of all of us, which we must ensure at all times and in all places. Likewise, human rights are not a privilege. Human rights are a permanent civilizational obligation, which we must continuously fulfill. This is certainly an ongoing challenge, one that generations before us have faced and that generations after us will keep facing. Our mission is to leave them a better world than the one we live in now. Such a goal requires persistent and continuous active work. Ladies and gentlemen, Your Excellencies, thank you for your attention. On behalf of the Assembly, I wish to thank the Chairman of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina. We shall now continue the general debate.