Dodik Issues A Strong Condemnation Of The Neo-Colonial Globalist Regime In Bosnia, Calls for Peaceful Separation

0


Please Follow us on GabMindsTelegramRumbleGab TVGETTRTruth Social, Twitter, and Facebook

Milorad Dodik, President of Republika Srpska, one of the two separate entities that comprise Bosnia, issued a comprehensive statement over the weekend condemning the neo-colonial globalist regime that is ruling the country and calling for a peaceful separation for his country. Dodik is under harsh attack from globalist forces who are trying to violate the autonomy of Republika Srpska in an effort to impose a globalist centralized state in Bosnia.

Dodik, a fierce critic of U.S. and German colonial interference in the Balkans outlined the violations of international law and the Dayton Agreement that created modern Bosnia in 1995 in a post on his official website:

THERE IS A LIMIT by Milorad Dodik

“There is a limit, both the limit certified in Annex 2 of the Dayton Agreement, as well as the limit of how far something can go or how far something can be tolerated, and when one must say – ENOUGH. There is a border – not only as a border between the Republika Srpska and the Federation of BiH, but a border also exists in patience, tolerance, and acceptance.

The border according to Annex 2 of the Dayton Agreement is not only a border between two states – the Republika Srpska and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, from which “Bosnia and Herzegovina” was created in Dayton. It is a so-called “state”, but without specifying what it is according to the state structure. The closest definition of BiH is that it is an entity with internationally recognized borders and as such a member of the United Nations.

The indefinite “BiH” consists of the Republika Srpska on 49 percent of the territory of the pre-war SR BiH and the Muslim-Croat federation under the official name “Federation of BiH” on 51 percent of the territory. According to the Dayton Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republika Srpska and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, as two states within the Dayton framework, have their own legislative, executive and judicial bodies, their own army and police, their own customs and their own border services, their own taxes and their own finances from which they finance the minimum and necessary at the level of “BiH”, which is prescribed by Annex 4 of the Dayton Agreement as the Constitution of BiH.

According to the Dayton Agreement, the “State of BiH” has nothing, except what the two state-forming entities allow and give it. The Dayton “BiH” has only three bodies – the Presidency, the Constitutional Court and the Central Bank, all with very limited and precisely enumerated powers. All other unspecified state competencies, functions and bodies – belong to two states – the Republic of Srpska and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The border between the two state-forming entities exists and is clearly prescribed by Annex 2 of the Dayton Agreement, which states: “The border between the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republika Srpska (“inter-entity demarcation line”) will be as drawn in the geographical map found in the Annex” .

SERBIA IS THE COUNTRY OF THE SERBIAN PEOPLE

According to international law, the nation is the bearer of sovereignty, and the sovereignty of states also originates from this. The declaration of January 9, 1992, based on the Serbian people’s plebiscite of October 9, 1992. In November 1991, the Serbian people in Bosnia and Herzegovina established their political and administrative unit in the then Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina as one of the administrative and political units of the then SFRY.

The right to self-determination was used according to the then valid Constitution of the SFR Yugoslavia, whose basic principles state: “The peoples of Yugoslavia starting from the right of each people to self-determination, including the right to secede, based on their freely expressed will, etc.” Therefore, it is about the right of the people (and not the republics within the SFRY) to exercise their right to self-determination.

And numerous acts of international law regulated the issue of the right of peoples to self-determination. Thus, in the Charter of the United Nations, as the most important document of international law, it is written: “Development of friendly relations between peoples that are based on respect for the principle of equality and the right of peoples to self-determination”. In two international pacts that became an integral part of Annex 4 of the Dayton Agreement – the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, namely the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights from 1966, it is written:

“All nations have the right to self-determination. Based on this right, they freely determine their political status and freely ensure their economic, social and cultural development. In order to achieve their goals, all nations can freely dispose of their wealth and their natural resources, without prejudice to the obligations arising from international economic cooperation, based on the principle of mutual interest and international law. A nation cannot under any circumstances be deprived of its own means of living.

The member states of this pact, including those states that are responsible for the management of non-independent territories and territories under trusteeship, are obliged to help realize the right of peoples to self-determination and to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the United Nations Charter.

How does this sound in relation to the unconstitutional decisions of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina made by over-voting and agreement of three foreign judges with the OHR, which deprive the Serbian people in the Republic of Srpska, as an internationally recognized state-forming entity of the Serbian people, of their agricultural land, forests, waters, mineral resources, the right to dispose of its wealth and its natural resources?

They sound illegal and invalid, because they are contrary to the imperative norms of international law and the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina. An even worse violation of rights is the intention of an unelected foreigner, a representative of Germany, and not a party as prescribed by Annex 10 of the Dayton Agreement, to steal what inviolably belongs to the Republika Srpska as a state of the Serbian people and all others who live together with it.

According to its state status confirmed (and not obtained) by the Dayton Agreement, it belongs to 49 percent of the territory of BiH, which was created only on November 21 in Dayton, that is, by the signing of the Dayton Agreement on December 14, 1995 in Paris.

Republika Srpska, according to the Dayton Agreement and its Annex 4 as the Constitution of BiH, is the state of the Serbian people and all who live together with them. This is confirmed by the constitutional provisions by which the Serbian member of the BiH Presidency and five Serbian delegates to the House of Peoples of the Parliamentary Assembly at the level of BiH are elected.

The statehood of Srpska and the Serbian people cannot be changed even by the falsified decisions of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina made by overriding Serbian and Croatian judges on the alleged constitutionality of all in the entire territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The competences that were stolen from the Republika Srpska and given to the BiH level after the war by imposition, fraud and fraud are not constitutional, because the Constitution of BiH has not been changed. That is why these jurisdictions are of a temporary nature.

The Dayton BiH, to which the Republika Srpska agreed by signing all the annexes to the international agreement, is not a hindrance or a problem for us. On the contrary. Dayton BiH enables peace, stability, and development. The problem is the illegal anti-Dayton BiH created by the intervention of foreigners, high representatives and the Constitutional Court of BiH, which today is proving to be an unnecessary mistake and which generates instability. Such an anti-Dayton BiH is only needed by foreigners to maintain tensions in which they will be important, to determine to democratically elected bodies what they should do, what they should not do, and all this without any responsibility. That anti-Dayton BiH of theirs is on the path of disintegration and does not serve any people or citizens in BiH.

NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO INTERFERE

The Charter of the United Nations is the most important document of international law, and there, among other things, it says: “Nothing in this Charter authorizes the United Nations to interfere in matters that are essentially within the internal competence of each state, nor is the United Nations authorized to ask its members to demand that such issues be resolved on the basis of this charter”. When even the United Nations is not authorized to interfere in the internal affairs of member states, then third countries do not have that right. And third countries are gathered in BiH in the self-styled Peace Enforcement Council (PIK), in the PIK’s management board, OHR, but even more so in the offices of some embassies in Sarajevo. Those pretenders have come to the end of the road. We refuse to recognize Christian Schmidt, because he was not selected as High Representative in accordance with Annex 10 of the Dayton Agreement on two grounds.

FIRST: Because on March 10, 2021, it was decided: “The National Assembly of the Republika Srpska states that in accordance with Annex 10 of the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina, to which the Republika Srpska is also a signatory, only the contracting parties are competent to ‘ request the appointment of a high representative’. Republika Srpska cannot accept the imposition of any person as a high representative, reminding that the appointment of a high representative is conditional on the consent of the signatory parties to Annex 10 of the Dayton Agreement.

In this regard, the National Assembly of the Republic of Srpska considers that the previous nominations, election and confirmation of the high representative are insufficiently transparent, because the necessity of consultation and obtaining the consent of the parties, as provided for in Annex 10, was not respected. This is a sufficient basis for rejecting any appointment of a high representative. representative without the procedure provided for in Annex 10.

The National Assembly of Republika Srpska believes that the time has finally come for Bosnia and Herzegovina, with its two entities and three constituent nations, to take responsibility for its own development in accordance with the Dayton Agreement and international law, which is an integral part of the BiH legal system.

If this is not on the agenda in the near future, talks on a peaceful separation should be initiated, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, which guarantees every people the right to self-determination, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which are, according to Annex 1 to Annex 4, an integral part of the Constitution of BiH”.

SECOND: The self-proclaimed Christian Schmidt was not even nominated by the countries that signed Annex 10, but by Germany?! So even the UN Security Council could not confirm him as a high representative. It should be said that Christian Schmidt’s name was on the agenda of the Security Council meeting on July 21, 2021, but he was not confirmed as a high representative, because he received only two votes, while 13 members abstained.

ENTITIES IN B&H ARE STATES AND B&H IS NOT

Although the name “entities” has a broad definition, in this case there is no doubt that it is about the states – components of BiH as a state union. This is also confirmed by the European Commission for Democracy by Law – (Venice Commission of the Council of Europe), with opinion number 337/2005 adopted at the 63rd session of 10/11. June 2005. The Venice Commission considered the following question: Are annexes 4 and 6 of the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina, unilateral acts of Bosnia and Herzegovina or international agreements? In the aforementioned opinion, the Commission concluded, among other things:

“The essential obligations are contained in the annexes: therefore, it is clear that the intention of the parties to the General Framework Agreement was for it to be only a framework agreement, while the annexes would regulate its essence. The Commission notes that the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina addressed the Venice Commission for the Interpretation of the Constitution (Annex 4). The Commission is of the opinion that the annexes to the Framework Agreement should be considered an integral part of it, and must be considered international treaties. Their character or interpretation is therefore guided by international law, especially the Vienna Convention on the Law of International Treaties”.

The priority of international law is also confirmed by the Constitutional Court of BiH in Decision 5/98 in which it states, among other things: “Unlike the constitutions of many other countries, the Constitution of BiH in Annex 4 of the Dayton Agreement is an integral part of the international agreement.” Therefore, Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties – which establishes the general principle of international law, and those principles are, according to Article 3.3.(b) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina “an integral part of the legal order of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the entities” – must be applied in the interpretation of ALL its provisions, including the Constitution of BiH”.

Thus, the Vienna Convention on the Law of International Treaties also refers to the international Dayton Agreement. Article 34 of that Convention stipulates that the treaty (in this case, the Dayton Agreement) does not create rights or obligations for a third country without its consent, and Article 35 states that “an obligation for a third country arises from the provision of a treaty if the contracting parties to that treaty intend to through this provision create an obligation and if the third country expressly accepts this obligation in writing”, then Article 36, according to which “a right arises for a third country from a provision of a treaty if the contracting parties of that treaty intend to grant such a right either to a third state or to the group of states to which it belongs, or to all states, and if a third state agrees to it”.

The signatories of the Dayton Agreement and its 11 annexes did not give any written right or obligation to third countries, neither to PIK as the self-styled Peace Implementation Council nor to its Steering Committee. That is why it would be useful for foreign ambassadors in Sarajevo to start adhering to another Vienna Convention, the one on diplomatic relations, which Article 41 prohibits diplomatic representatives from interfering in the internal affairs of the state in which they are only ambassadors and nothing more.

PUNISH VIOLATORS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

Republika Srpska is preparing documentation that will be used for lawsuits by friendly countries before the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court for violations of international law and the international Dayton Agreement. Lawsuits will be brought before the courts of individual countries against their citizens, but also before domestic courts against accomplices and helpers, as well as those who work in the working groups of the non-existent OHR.”





Source
Las Vegas News Magazine

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Accept Read More