conditions in srebrenica

8/3/2019 Conditions in Srebrenica

1/32

PRIKAZ STAWA U SREBRENI^KOM KRAJU

PETNAEST GODINA POSLE ZAVR[ETKA RATA


2/32

NGO Srebrenica Historical Project, The Netherlands

CONDITIONSIN SREBRENICA FIFTEEN

YEARS AFTER THE END

OF THE WAR

Memorandum to the Human Rights Committee

of the European Parliament

B e l g r a d e2 0 1 0


3/32

Fond Istorijski projekat Srebrenica, Holandija

PRIKAZ STAWAU SREBRENI^KOM KRAJU

PETNAEST GODINAPOSLE ZAVR[ETKA RATA

Memorandum Odboru za qudska pravaEvropskog Parlamenta

B e o g r a d2 0 1 0


4/32

Odgovorni urednik

Stefan Karganovi}

Editor-in-chiefStephen Karganovi}

ISREBRENICA: CONDITIONS IN SREBRENICA FIFTEEN YEARS AFTER THE END OF THE WARCopyright 2010 by Srebrenica Historical Project. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may bereproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, digital, electronic, mechanical,

photocopying, recording, or otherwise, or conveyed via the Internet or a Web site without prior written permissionof the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews .

Inquiries should be addressed to:Srebrenica Historical Project

[email protected]

ISREBRENICA: PRIKAZ STAWA U SREBRENI^KOM KRAJU PETNAEST GODINA POSLEZAVR[ETKA RATA Copyright 2010 by Srebrenica Historical Project. Sva prava zadr`ana. Nijedandeo ove publikacije se ne sme reprodukovati, pohrawivati u bilo kakvoj bazi podataka, ili prenositina bilo kakav na~in, digitalno, elektronski, mehani~ki, fotokopirawem, snimawem, ili na nekimdrugim sredstvom, niti se sme slati preko interneta ili prikazivati na internet sajtu bez prethodnepismene dozvole izdava~a, sa izuzetkom kratkih navoda u okviru kriti~kih ~lanaka ili prikaza.

Za dozvolu kontaktirati:Istorijski projekat [email protected]


5/32

Izdava~ev uvod

Tekst koji sledi ne{to je prilago|ena verzija Memoranduma koji jeIstorijski Projekat Srebrenica nedavno podneo Odboru za qudska pravaEvropskog Parlamenta u vezi sa kriti~nim stawem u kome se nalazi srpskostanovni{tvo u srebreni~kom kraju. Iz wega je jasno da se agonija qudisrebreni~kog kraja nastavqa, punih 15 godina posle zavr{etka rata, po-sebno ukoliko oni imaju tu nesre}u da pripadaju politi~ki nekorektnimetni~kim skupinama. U tom slu~aju, oni }e biti zaobi|eni i izigrani, aobe}awa posleratne obnove i izgradwe ne}e vaìti za wih. Upravo u ta-kvom nezavidnom poloàju na{li su se ve}inska srpska i malobrojna, alipodjednako autohtona i ni malo mawe va`na, hrvatska zajednica.

Ciq ovog Memoranduma sa prilozima koji je Istorijski projekat Sre-brenica pripremio i podneo Odboru za qudska prava Evropskog parla-menta bio je da se korifejima evropskog morala i stranim politi~kimfaktorima uop{te, koji se neumorno bave problematikom Bosne i Herce-govine, ali iskqu~ivo iz svog uskog politi~kog ugla, sumarno prikaèskandalozna stvarnost u srebreni~kom kraju koja jo{ uvek traje deceniju ipo posle zavr{etka rata. Te{ko je opredeliti se za najprikladniji pridevkoji bi tu stvarnost najboqe mogao da obuhvati: da li je ona skandalozna,dramati~na, jeziva, ne~ove~na, {okantna ili mo`da kombinacija svegatoga? Re~nik sinonima po svoj prilici i nije dovoqno bogat da bi se mogaoprona}i pravi pojam koji bi istovremeno pokrivao dve stvari koje su sa-stavni delovi iste stvarnosti. To su (1) divqa~ka svirepost, kojom su to-kom rata 1992. do 1995. srpska naseqa oko za{ti}ene i demilitarizovanezone Srebrenice bila paqena i ru{ena a wihovi ìteqi ubijani i ra-seqavani, i (2) vrhunsko pokvarewa{tvo i licemerje koji su do{li doizraàja od zakqu~ewa mira, a kojima su `rtve bile progla{ene agre-sorima i samim tim li{ene svakog pomena, dostojanstva i podr{ke da se

od ratnih strahota oporave.Mada su ovaj Memorandum i prilozi koji ga prate prvobitno bili

nameweni stranim faktorima, o~igledno je da je i {iroke segmente srpskepublike neophodno edukovati u vezi sa sudbinom i stawem ne wihovihsunarodnika, jer iz {ire moralne perspektive etni~ki afinitet zaistanije mnogo bitan, ve} nedu`nih qudskih bi}a ~iji civilizacijski nepri-hvatqiv poloàj ni toliko dugo posle zavr{etka rata jo{ uvek nije pri-znat i preko ~ije patwe i strani i doma}i revniteqi qudskih prava ihumanizma bezobzirno i cini~no prelaze.

Stefan Karganovi} Istorijski projekat Srebrenica


6/32

Publishers Preface

The English-language version of the text that follows is a somewhat editedversion of the Memorandum which Srebrenica Historical Project recently sub-mitted to the Human Rights Committee of the European Parliament in Brusselsabout reconstruction and development issues that the Serbian community in Sre-

brenica faces. It leaves scarcely any room for doubt that the agony of the peopleof Srebrenica continues unabated, in particular if they happen to belong to cer-tain politically incorrect communities. In that case, post-war promises of re-

construction and development do not apply to them. That is the unenviable posi-tion in the region of Srebrenica of the majority Serbian and the much smaller, but equally autochthonous and no less important, Croatian communities.

The objective of this Memorandum and the annexes that are attached to itis to raise the consciousness of European parliamentarians and political estab-lishment in general about a dimension of the Srebrenica conundrum that appearsto be completely off their radar screens. The fact that practically all the attentionand reconstruction resources have been channeled systematically to one commu-nity affected by the war to the targeted and specific exclusion of their equally af-fected neighbors is nothing less than an outrage and a scandal of major propor-tions.

This Memorandum unmasks deliberately and cynically imposed inequality.Unless those to whom it was addressed take meaningful steps to correct theseabuses, the facts which are detailed here will give the lie to their moralistic pre-tensions and they will demonstrate persuasively the hollowness of their commit-ment to human values.

Stephen Karganovi}Srebrenica Historical Project


7/32

Prikaz dru{tvenopoliti~kog stawa u srebreni~kom kraju

i predlog mera u vezi sa diskrimnatorskim stavom

me|unarodnih donatorskih agencija za obnovu i razvoj

prema srpskoj zajednici1

A. Op{ta razmatrawa

1. Srebrenica je podru~je od posebnog interesa za Republiku Srpsku.

Ona, pre svega, u svetlu ratne propagande i konstrukcija koje su tomtemequ nastale ima vaàn simboli~ki zna~aj koji ~esto sluì kaopovod za osporavawe legitimiteta Republike. Zatim, a to je ~iwenicakojoj se ne posve}uje dovoqna pa`wa i koja se lako gubi iz vida, madasu na tom podru~ju obe zajednice stradale, koriste}i povoqnu okol-nost da je bila predmet intenzivne pa`we doma}ih i me|unarodnihfaktora, bo{wa~ka zajednica se uglavnom uspe{no oporavila, dok sasrpskom to uop{te nije bilo slu~aj. Zapostavqena u posleratnom pe-

riodu iako je bila `rtva masovnog qudskog i materijalnog stradawa,srpska zajednica nikada opet nije stala na svoje noge, ni u poli-

ti~kom, ni u materijalnom, ni u dru{tvenom pogledu. Dok bo{wa~kastrana pokazuje ne samo znake fizi~ke revitalizacije ve} i upornognastojawa da potvrdi i pro{iri svoje prisustvo, srpska strana tavori.

2. Za ovakvu situaciju sigurno je da su odgovorni odre|eni politi~kifaktori, ~ija uloga nije predmet na{e prezentacije. Mi èlimo daprikaèmo ~iwenicu i prakti~ne posledice neravnopravnog polo-àja dveju zajednica vis-a-vis posleratne obnove i mogu}nosti za odr-ìv opstanak.

3. Osnovna teza, od koje se polazi, je slede}e: Srebrenica se nalazi nateritoriji Republike Srpske. U woj se moraju primewivati i po-{tovati zakoni i propisi Republike Srpske. Srpsko stanovni{tvo uSrebrenici mora imati ravnopravan pristup pogodnostima koje stojena raspolagawu svim gra|anima. To kao minimum zna~i: (1) ravno-pravno u~e{}e u politi~kom sistemu u op{tini; (2) delotvorno pri-sustvo u svim planovima koji se razra|uju sa ciqem poboq{awa pri-vrednog i dru{tvenog statusa op{te zajednice i wenih sastavnih de-lova; i (3) ravnopravan dostup sredstvima za obnovu i razvoj, {to je

1 Tekst koji sledi ne{to je prilago|ena verzija Memoranduma koji je IstorijskiProjekat Srebrenica nedavno podneo Odboru za qudska prava Evropskog parlamenta u vezisa kriti~nim stawem u kome se nalazi srpsko stanovni{tvo u srebreni~kom kraju.


8/32

neophodan preduslov za odrìvi opstanak, deceniju i po posle za-vr{etka rata.

B. Relativni materijalni poloàj

1. Materijalni poloàj podrazumeva sve osnovne faktore koji uti~u nasposobnost jedne zajednice da opstane i da se razvija: qudske, dru-{tvene, ekonomske, politi~ke i kulturne, da pomenemo samo one glav-ne. Kada se upore|uje na ovakav na~in poloàj dveju zajednica kojeìve jedna pored druge, va`no je obratiti pa`wu ne samo na trenutno~iweni~no stawe, ve} i na dinamiku kretawa bitnih pokazateqa.

2. Stawe je veoma nepovoqno po srpsku zajednicu u srebreni~kom re-gionu posmatrano iz oba ugla.

3. Obrati}emo posebnu pa`wu na dva aspekta: ekonomski razvoj sa sta-novi{ta odrìvosti zajednice na srebreni~kom prostoru i rekon-strukcija materijalnih resursa, koji su bili o{te}eni ili razorenitokom ratnog sukoba, ali koji su neophodni za odrìvi opstanak .

4. Ekonomski aspekt: Prema podacima koje je prikupila na{a nevladinaorganizacija, trenutno u op{tini postoji razvojni plan koji predvi-|a dve industrijske zone, jednu u Poto~arima, drugu u Skelanima.Me|utim, dinamika razvoja te dve projektovane zone vrlo je nerav-nomerna. Dok se ona u Poto~arima razvija ubrzano sa namerom da ona

bude centar razvoja op{tine, zona oko Skelana se zapostavqa iako uwoj ìvi dva puta vi{e stanovnika, i to prete`no Srbi. Dokaz da suprete`no bo{wa~ki Poto~ari privilegisani u razvoju su nesrazmer-na infrastrukturna ulagawa (n. p. asfaltirani putevi koji vode uokolna bo{wa~ka sela) i ulagawa u industrijske objekte koji pruàjumogu}nosti zaposlewa (fabrika Cimos, hladwa~a, vinarija, pocin-kaona, itd.) U Poto~arima, n. p. u pocinkaoni 11 mart otvoreno je300 novih radnih mesta, izgra|eno je 30 novih stanova, planiraju se{kola, sportska hala, itd. Sa druge strane, u Skelanima nije otvorenoni jedno novo radno mesto u privredi, nema ni zadruge ni hladwa~e,

niti otkupne stanice za mleko i jagodi~asto vo}e. Okolnosti kojeoteàvaju svakodnevni ìvot, a stanovnike li{avaju dugoro~ne per-spektive, mogle bi se nabrajati: vodovod nije osposobqen, filteri sustari pa se ~esto pije zaga|ena voda, ukida se komercijalni grani~niprelaz prema Bajinoj Ba{ti {to znatno oteàva izvoz lokalnih po-qoprivrednih proizvoda, nema apoteke niti hitne pomo}i, nema ban-ke, stanbene zgrade se ne obnavqaju, op{tina u nedovoqnoj meri po-maè rad lokalnog obdani{ta gde ima 28 pred{kolske dece, nema kul-turno-prosvetnih ustanova kao ~itaonica, nema podr{ke od op{tineza razvoj zna~ajnih lokalnih potencijala kao {to su poqoprivreda i

turizam. Ovi nedostaci poga|aju ìteqe skelanskog kraja obe nacio-nalnosti, to se podrazumeva, ali po{to je stanovni{tvo prete`no

8


9/32

srpsko, kao {to je oko Poto~ara prete`no bo{wa~ko, ovakva razvojnapolitika nosi jasne poruke i ima nedvosmislene implikacije po odr-ìvost ove dve zajednice u srebreni~kom regionu.

5. Obnova: Ako sada prenesemo teì{te razmatrawa na ne{to {to je, ustvari, primarno u odnosu na gorwu ta~ku, a to je obnova i revita-lizacija osnovnih elemenata ìvotne sredine, {to u slu~aju srpskogstanovni{tva srebreni~kog kraja zna~i rekonstrukcija razorenihsrpskih sela i osposobqavawe za daqi ìvot stanbenih objekata uwima, stawe je vrlo obeshrabruju}e. Obim fizi~kog razarawa i ma-sovnost proterivawa srpskog stanovni{tva tokom ratnog sukoba opi-suje se najupe~atqivije u izve{taju Holandskog instituta za ratnaistraìvawa (NIOD), Prvi deo: Jugoslovenski problem i uloga Za-

pada, 19911994; poglavqe 10: Srebrenica pod opsadom: Musliman-ski borci iz Srebrenice napali su ukupno 79 srpskih mesta u po-dru~jima Srebrenice i BratuncaNa kraju je od prvobitnih 9.390stanovnika Srba u podru~ju Srebrenice ostalo samo wih 860, i touglavnom u ~etiri sela: Skelani, Crvica, Petrica i Lije{}e. Takvo

je bilo stawe krajem ratnog sukoba, pre petnaest godina.

6. Monografija dr Qubi{e Simi}a, Stradawe srpske Srebrenice,19921995: fotografski putopis kroz zemqu jada i ~emera (IzdaweIstorijskog projekta Srebrenica, Beograd 2010.) predstavqa vizuel-

ni i neoborivi dokaz da se stawe u razorenim srpskim selima Sre-brenice od tada ne samo da nije poboq{alo, ve} da je danas ono mnogogore. Na oko 200 fotografija prikazan je sada{wi (2009. godina) iz-gled naseqa gde je do izbijawa ratnog sukoba ìvelo srpsko stanov-ni{tvo (wih oko 9.000) koje se pomiwe u izve{taju Holandskog insti-tuta za ratna istraìvawa. Op{ti zakqu~ak je jasan: srpska naseqa suu procesu posleratne obnove bila zaobi|ena, i kao posledica pro-terano srpsko stanovni{tvo nema kuda da se vrati da ponovo zapo~neodrìvi ìvot. Ogromne povr{ine srebreni~kog regiona su ili bri-sani prostor zato {to su naseqa koja su se nekada tu nalazila srav-

wena sa zemqom, ili su prekrivene ru{evinama koje nisu pogodne zaqudsko obitavawe. Zapadne donatorske organizacije, koje se bave ob-novom i revitalizacijom, skoro u potpunosti su zaobi{le mesta gdesu ìveli Srbi. Po mi{qewu dr Simi}a, koje zvu~i potpuno razum-no, razlog za ovakvu situaciju je u celosti politi~ki: îwenica dasu srpska sela i daqe neobnovqena ne govori da organizacije sa Za-pada vole Bo{wake a mrze Srbe. Radi se o poklapawu politi~kihinteresa. Kada bi evropski fondovi za razvoj i revitalizaciju sre-breni~kog regiona po~eli obnavqati srpska sela, do{li bi u situ-aciju da moraju da priznaju da su ona bila uni{tena. To bi navelo na

zakqu~ak da su ih uni{tili Bo{waci, a iz toga bi se zakqu~ilo da suBo{waci ~inili najgnusnije zlo~ine u tom regionu. Od toga bi se

9


10/32

sru{ila teza o krivici samo jednog naroda, u ovom slu~aju Srba.(Stradawe srpske Srebrenice, s. 25)

V. Diskriminatorski karakter procesa obnove

1. Kao {to razvojna politika srebreni~ke op{tine pokazuje jasne dis-kriminatorske tendencije, tako {to privilegi{e podru~je op{tinekoje je uglavnom naseqeno jednom zajednicom, dok sistematski zapo-stavqa podru~je koje je prete`no naseqeno drugom, ~ime se obeshra-bruje ne samo povratak ve} i ostanak, proces obnove za posledwihpetnaest godina obeleàva ista zamisao. Prilog 1: Kuda idu srpskasela?, uz kratak prigodni komentar pruà upe~atqiv vizuelni utisaksada{weg stawa, petnaest godina posle rata. To stawe je neposrednaposledica doslednog vo|ewa navedene jednostrane politike obnove i

revitalizacije.

2. Tokom istraìvawa na podru~ju Srebrenice i kontakata sa privat-nim licima i predstavnicima vlasti, Istorijski Projekat Srebre-nica dobio je iz vi{e izvora u su{tini istu informaciju, koja na-izgled zvu~i potpuno neverovatno. Naime, me|unarodne organizacijeza obnovu i revitalizaciju, koje su relativno brzo nakon obustave

ratnih dejstava 1995. godine ostvarile svoje prisustvo u srebre-ni~kom regionu, kada su zaobilazile srpska naseqa i uskra}ivala immaterijalnu pomo} da ponovo stanu na noge, to nisu ~inile slu~ajno

ili iz neznawa. Mnoge od wih, mada su operisale na teritoriji Re-publike Srpske, izri~ito su uslovqavale svoju pomo} time {to }eona i}i iskqu~ivo ili najve}im delom pripadnicima bo{wa~ke za-

jednice a pripadnike srpske zajednice iskqu~iti. Moè se na-ga|ati da je ovakav stav odraz wihove percepcije da je u Srebrenici

jedna strana kolektivno `rtva, a ona druga agresor. Ali bez ob-zira na motivaciju, ako samo gledamo na posledice takve politike,ne~ove~no je i nedopustivo da je neko nesmetano vodi deceniju i po nateritoriji Republike Srpske.

3. Pore|ewa radi, vredi istaknuti da bi sli~no pona{awe u nekoj za-

padnoj zemqi ne samo bilo oceweno kao dru{tveno neprihvatqivo,ve} da bi to bilo zabraweno zato {to je protivno pozitivnim za-konskim propisima koji garantuju jednakost svim stanovnicima. Naprimer, posle katastrofalnog udara uragana koji je uni{tio grad WuOrleans u SAD, da su se pojavile neke humanitarne agencije iz Afri-ke sa izri~itim zahtevom da se wihova pomo} moè deliti samo po-stradalim gra|anima crna~ke rase, to bi ne samo izazvalo buru dru-{tvenog negodovawa ve} bi bilo i zakonom zabraweno. To isto bivaìlo i za neku organizaciju belih rasista koja bi insistirala da sewihova sredstva dele samo postradalim belcima. U ameri~kom ustavu

postoji klauzula equal protection under the law, {to se odnosi napravo na jednak tretman. Ta klauzula se {iroko tuma~i, i weno prak-

10


11/32

ti~no dejstvo je poja~ano zakonskim regulativama kojima je defini-sana wena primena u nizu specifi~nih situacija. Ovakva primenakoncepta jednakosti gra|ana nije karakteristi~na samo za ustavno za-

konodavstvo u SAD, ve} je ugra|ena i u regulative Evropske Unije,kojoj teè svi relevantni faktori u BiH. Najzad, i ustav Bosne iHercegovine, par. 4, ~lan 2, zabrawuje diskriminaciju uop{teno pobilo kakvoj osnovi, a na osnovu nacionalne pripadnosti speci-fi~no.2 Sa izuzetkom organizacija iz islamskih zemaqa, sve huma-nitarne agencije koje su se bavile obnovom na srebreni~kom podru~jupoti~u iz SAD ili EU.

4. U slu~aju raspodele humanitarne pomo}i postradalima od ratnog su-koba na podru~ju Srebrenice, mi smo otkrili veliki broj agencija

koje su primewivale diskriminatorski pristup na etni~koj osnovi.Pomenu}emo ovde neke od wih:

(a) Engleska fondacija Lady Nott (vidi Prilog 2) izgradila je 45ku}a samo za Bo{wake u mesnim zajednicama Toplica, Ratkovi}i iSkenderovi}i. Izgradwa kompleksa za Bo{wake u zaselku Jezero,Prilog 1, predstavqa primer wihovog na~ina rada. Za Bo{wake sa-gra|ene su potpuno nove ku}e sa name{tajem i svom potrebnom opre-mom, po principu kqu~ u ruke. Srpske ku}e u neposrednoj blizini,koje su Bo{waci tokom rata razorili i u~inili neupotrebqivim zaìvot, strana humanitarna agencija potpuno je zaobi{la.

(b) OIK, organizacija Islamske konferencije, sagradila je 50 ku}a nateritoriji op{tine, ali samo za Bo{wake, i delila je materijalnupomo} po istom principu.

(v) Pakistanska vlada je donirala oko 700 motokultivatora, ali samoza Bo{wake, na teritoriji op{tina Srebrenica, Bratunac i Mili}i,od ~ega najve}i broj u Srebrenici.

(g) Austrijska organizacija Hilfswerk sagradila je oko 200 stanbenihobjekata, od ~ega je ogromna ve}ina pripala Bo{wacima.

(e) Austrijska organizacija BHB donirala je oko 100 monta`nih ku}a,

samo Bo{wacima.(d) Vlada tuzlanskog kantona uloìla je oko 3 miliona KM u izgrad-wu ku}a i ekonomsku podr{ku za Srebreni~ki kraj, {to je bilo usme-

reno iskqu~ivo Bo{wacima.

(|) Vlada Federacije BiH uloìla je oko 10 miliona KM u obnovuinfrastrukture, ku}a i ekonomsku podr{ku samo za Bo{wake.

(e) Kancelarija UNDP u Srebrenici ve} {est godina implementirasvoj projekat za op{tine Srebrenicu, Bratunac i Mili}i, od ~ega 50odsto ide na op{tinu Srebrenica. Do sada su potro{ili blizu 10

11

2 Trebalo bi jo{ ista}i da ~ak i ustav BiH garantuje najvi{i stepen me|unarodnopriznatih qudskih i osnovnih prava, par. 1, ~lan 2.


12/32

miliona dolara u srebrei~koj op{tini, od ~ega su Bo{waci dobili80 odsto sredstava.

(`) Organizacija CRS prisutna je na podru~ju op{tine Srebrenicave} {est godina. Potro{eno je oko 10 miliona KM, od ~ega su Bo{wacidobili preko 90 odsto. Ova agencija je donirala ku}e za korisnikealternativnog sme{taja, obnavqala je infrastrukturu, davala je eko-nomsku podr{ku i pomagala je dodeqivawem poqoprivrednih ma{i-na. CRS je na planu stanbene obnove Bo{wacima sagradila 250 ku}a, aSrbima 25.

(z) Vlada Holandije svake godine ulaè oko 10 miliona KM u Sre-brenicu i do sada je uloìla vi{e od stotine miliona. Preko 80odsto tih sredstava koristili su Bo{waci.

(i) Danska organizacija DRC ve} ~etiri godine gradi ku}e, u oko 90odsto slu~ajeva Bo{wacima. Ukupno je obnovila Bo{wacima 120 ku-}a, a Srbima 12.

(j) Karitas (katoli~ka humanitarna organizacija, vidi Prilog 3) ba-vi se uglavnom obnavqawem ku}a i mawim projektima elektrifika-cije. Na terenu je ve} pet godina. Od oko 200 ku}a koje je Katritasobnovio, 80 odsto je pripalo Bo{wacima.

(k) UNHCR obnavqa ku}e i re{ava pitawe alkternativnog sme{taja.U 80 odsto slu~ajeva, korisnici su Bo{waci.

(l) CEERve} pet godina obnavqa stanbene objekte i pruà ekonomskupodr{ku. U 70 odsto slu~ajeva, korisnici su Bo{waci.

(q) Spisak potencijalnih korisnika organizacije MLJPI, na osnovuzvani~nog dokumenta srebreni~ke op{tine (vidi Prilog 4) elokvent-no govori o etni~kom pripadni{tvu stanovni{tva kome je wihovapomo} namewena.

5. Kada se uzme u obzir zbirna statistika obnove poru{enih stanbenihobjekata u srebreni~kom kraju, 1.755 za Bo{wake, 564 za Srbe i 7 zaHrvate (Prilog 5: Informacija SO Srebrenica od 212.2009. O sta-

wu i ìvotu povratnika i interno raseqenih lica), etni~ka neurav-noteènost tog procesa na {tetu nebo{wa~kih zajednica postaje o~i-gledna. Na{ Projekat raspolaè spiskom sa oko 5.000 stanovnika srp-ske nacionalnosti sa podru~ja Srebrenice koji su bili proterani izsvojih sela i naseqa, i sada ìve na drugim mestima, a ne mogu da sevrate i da nastave ratom prekinuti ìvot na svojim jo{ uvek razo-

renim ogwi{tima. Razlog je {to za to ne postoje stanbeni, infra-strukturni i ekonomski uslovi. Ti uslovi se nikada ne}e ni poja-viti, sve dok ne bude do{lo do odlu~ne intervencije Vlade Repu-blike Srpske sa ciqem da se dosada{wa politika, koja je diskrimi-

natorska prema srpskoj zajednici, promeni i usaglasi sa me|unarod-nim standardima.

12


13/32

G. Predlozi osnovnih mera koje bi trebalo preduzeti

1. Kao {to je napred bilo re~eno, aksioma svake politike Republike

Srpske u odnosu na ovo podru~je mora da bude da je to moralno ipoliti~ki neotu|ivi deo Republike gde se svi weni propisi i normeimaju dosledno primewivati. Ravnopravan tretman svih gra|ana tu jena prvom mestu.

2. Materijalna podr{ka koja se pruà postradalim pripadnicima bo-{wa~ke zajednice ne predstavqa apsolutno nikakav problem. Prob-lem je diskriminatorski mehanizam raspodele te podr{ke. Da bi bilau skladu sa me|unarodnim standardima, i osnovnim postulatima hu-manosti, ta pomo} se mora deliti po etni~ki neutralnom principu.To je osnovna i polazna ta~ka na kojoj Republika Srpska mora da in-

sistira i na~elo kojim }e se rukovoditi u kreirawu nove politikeprema srebreni~kom regionu.

3. U protivnom, ako se dopusti daqe sprovo|ewe diskriminatorske po-litike, perspektiva srpske zajednice u srebreni~kom kraju bi}e vrlomutna. Obnova poru{enog je osnovni preduslov za povratak. Ravno-pravna dostupnost ekonomskih mogu}nosti osnovni je preduslov zaodrìvi ìvot i daqi tazvoj zajednice. Ako ta dva faktora za vrlokratko vreme ne budu bila obezbe|ena, srpska zajednica }e nastavitida se iseqava (kratkovido koriste}i geografsku blizinu Srbije) apreostali wen deo postepeno }e odumreti.

4. Prirodno je da }e ih na tim prostorima zameniti ona zajednica kojaagresivno polaè iskqu~ivo ili bar vrhovno pravo na celokupnuBosnu i Hercegovinu, a koja od prestanka rata uìva stalnu mate-

rijalnu, politi~ku i moralnu podr{ku, {to moè samo ohrabruju}eda deluje na weno zalagawe da ostvari svoje ambicije. Dok jedna stra-na uìva podr{ku i ohrabrewe, ona }e biti u usponu; strana koja jezapostavqena i demoralisana moè samo da se povla~i, i to povla-~ewe }e prestati samo onda kada ona bude nestala sa tih prostora.

5. To je, dakle, opasnost koja se nadvija nad srpskom zajednicom u sre-

breni~kom regionu. Vi{e od toga, nadvija se opasnost koja preti sa-moj Republici Srpskoj: primenom mirnih sredstava ona u podriw-skom regionu moè biti prese~ena na na~in koji je mnogo ozbiqniji ibremenitiji nepovoqnim posledicama nego u slu~aju Br~ko distrik-ta. Zato predlaèmo slede}e mere koje bi trebalo da u|u u programRepublike za re{avawe ovog problema.

6. Kao prvo, da Vlada Republike Srpske formira Specijalnu kancelarijuza Srebrenicu, preko koje }e se formulisati i koordinirati dràvnapolitika prema ovom izuzetno va`nom i osetqivom regionu Republike.

7. Drugo, da bi se spre~ili masovno otu|ivawe zemqi{nih poseda idaqe osipawe i raseqavawe srpskog stanovni{tva srebreni~kog re-

13


14/32

giona, na dràvnom nivou ustanoviti Zemqi{ni fond, sa pravom pre-~e kupovine nekretnina.

8. Tre}e, republi~kim zakonom propisati obavezu stranih i doma}ihhumanitarnih agencija, koje se bave obnovom i stimulisawem pri-vrednog razvoja u srebreni~kom kraju, da }e se u svojoj delatnosti

rukovoditi politikom etni~ke ravnopravnosti. To zna~i da }e u Re-publici Srpskoj svoje delatnosti mo}i da obavqaju samo sa licencomkoja }e se davati pod uslovom da svoju pomo} i ulagawa dodequju naetni~ki neutralnoj osnovi svim kvalifikovanim licima i porodi-cama.

9. êtvrto, izborni sistem koji je u okviru dejtonskog sporazuma biostvoren samo za Srebrenicu potpuno je anahron i groteskno je ne-

uskladiv sa osnovnim demokratskim na~elima. On ne funkcioni{e poprincipu jedan ~ovek jedan glas, za koji su se Nelson Mandela inadbiskup Tutu tako istrajno borili u Ju`noj Africi, nego po prin-cipu da svako ko tvrdi da je do pre izbijawa sukoba ìveo u Sre-brenici bez obzira na trenutno mesto boravka ima pravo glasa nasrebreni~kim izborima. Taj apsurdni sistem bio je nametnut podpla{tom te`we da se spre~i da posledice etni~kog ~i{}ewa musli-manskog stanovni{tva u julu 1995. postanu trajna stvarnost poli-ti~kog ìvota u op{tini Srebrenica. Suvi{no je napomiwati dasli~an izborni sistem, koji ignori{e ~iwenice na terenu, nije bio

nametnut u Sarajevu gde bi, po wemu, po~i{}eni Srbi trebalo daimaju najmawe tre}inu odbornika u op{tinskim skup{tinama, madadanas oni predstavqaju zanemarqiv procenat stanovni{tva. Kao po-sledica sistema koji glasawe na op{tinskim izborima omogu}ava li-cima koja ìve u raznim zemqama sveta i na raznim kontinentima, ikoja su odavno izgubila svaku stvarnu vezu sa sredinom u ~ijem po-liti~kom ìvotu vi{e stvarno ne u~estvuju ali na wega mogu zna~ajnoda uti~u kao etni~ka glasa~ka ma{ina, sve strukture srebreni~keop{tine danas kontroli{u predstavnici fakti~ke mawine. Suvi{no

je napomiwati da oni te mogu}nosti koriste za promociju svojih et-

ni~kih ciqeva, ne obaziru}i se previ{e na prava i interese drugihzajednica. Na ne{to sli~no ru{evinama srpskih sela, koja su bila razorena u svirepim napadima od 1992. do 1995. godine i takva dodanas ostala, verovatno ni u Drezdenu se ne bi nai{lo petnaest go-dina posle zavr{etka rata. To re~ito i ubedqivo svedo~i o skan-daloznoj nepravednosti sistema koji reguli{e obnovu u srebreni~komkraju.

10. Istorijski Projekat Srebrenica spreman je da sve svoje resurse stavina raspolagawe organizacijama i dràvnim ustanovama kojima bi tomoglo koristiti da se istina o Srebrenici utvrdi, a srebreni~ke

nepravde isprave.

14


15/32

Social and Economic Conditions in the region of Srebrenicaand the Discriminatory Policies of International Reconstruction

and Development Agencies toward the Serbian Community

The memorandum that we have the honour to submit3 focuses onsocio-economic and material conditions in the municipality of Srebrenica, inBosnia and Herzegovina, and solicits your help to increase awareness and mobi-lize support in order to overcome the effects of ethnically discriminatory policiesin the district of Srebrenica.

A. General considerations

1. Srebrenica is a region of particular interest not only for the Republic ofSrpska, but also for the international community. It has significant sym-

bolic value as the place of intense combat between the two major commu-nities, Serbian and Muslim, during the 1992 1995 conflict in Bosnia.Just as it has had a polarizing effect, it may also exhibit potential for recon-ciliation if the work of reconstructing homes, villages, and most impor-tantly mutual trust is pursued wisely and equitably. The record shows

that both communities in Srebrenica have suffered grievously. However,due to the fact that it has been the object of continuous international atten-tion, the Muslim community has for the most part laid successfully thefoundations of a successful recovery. With regard to the Serbian commu-nity, that has not been the case at all. Neglected after the wars end in1995, and virtually unrecognized as the victim of massive human and ma-terial suffering, the Serbian community has not managed to regain its equi-librium either in the political, material, or social dimensions. While theMuslim community shows not just signs of physical revitalization , but alsoa lively thrust to affirm and expand its presence, the Serbian community is

just hanging on barely.2. This state of affairs is probably the result of a combination of political cir-

cumstances which are not the subject of our presentation . Our purpose hereis only to present the reality and the practical consequences of the unequal

position of the two communities in terms of post-war reconstruction andtheir respective options for sustainable survival.

3. The starting point of our analysis is that members of all communities inSrebrenica must have equal access to all benefits that are offered to its citi-

3 This is a somewhat abbreviated version of the Memorandum which Srebrenica HistoricalProject recently submitted to the Human Rights Committee of the European Parliament in Brusselsabout reconstruction and development issues that the Serbian community in Srebrenica faces.


16/32

zens. At a minimum, that means: (1) participation in the political system ofthe municipality on an equal footing; (2) effective recognition in all planswhich are being developed in order to improve the economic and social

status of the community as a whole, as well as of its constituent parts; and(3) equal access to reconstruction and development resources because, adecade and a half after the destructive conflict , that is an indispensable pre-condition of sustainable life.

B. Relative material position

1. Material position refers to all the basic factors which affect a commu-nitys ability to survive and develop: it includes human, social, economic,

political, and cultural components, to mention just the principal ones. When

the position of two communities living side by side is compared usingthese parameters, it is important to pay attention not just to the situation asit currently stands, but also to the prevailing trends which indicate likelyfuture developments.

2. From both points of view, the Serbian community is seriously disadvan-taged in Srebrenica.

3. We will focus particularly on two aspects: economic development from thestandpoint of the communitys sustainability in the region of Srebrenicaand reconstruction of basic material resources which sustainable survival

requires. This is a reference to resources that were damaged or completelydestroyed during the war, 19921995.

4. The economic aspect: The Municipality of Srebrenica, it should be noted,is politically under the control of the Muslim community notwithstanding

the fact that it constitutes a minority in the area. That is because certainclauses of the Dayton peace treaty have exempted Srebrenica from theone man, one vote standard that democratic procedure presupposes. InSrebrenica elections, former residents dispersed throughout Bosnia and be-yond are allowed to take part notwithstanding the fact that physically theydo not live there. The reason offered is to redress the consequences of eth-

nic cleansing within that community. One of the perhaps unintended prac-tical consequences of that remedial measure is the creation of very unevendevelopment plans which do not regard Srebrenica as a single political

space belonging equally to both communities, but favour one communityat the expense of the other. The current development plan provides for twoindustrial zones, one in Poto~ari, and another in Skelani. However, the de-velopmental dynamic charted for those two zones is very uneven. Whilethe Poto~ari zone is being primed for rapid development and is slated to

become the economic hub of the municipality, the Skelani zone is largelyneglected notwithstanding the fact that it has twice as many inhabitants,

the majority of whom are Serbs. The conclusion that mainly Muslim Po-to~ari is being given preferential treatment in fostering development is

16


17/32

supported by much evidence: imbalance in infrastructural investment (e. g.asphalt roads have been built to Muslim villages in the surrounding area)and investment in the construction of industrial facilities which will lead to

employment possibilities (Cimos factory, food processing plant, winery,zinc purification plant, etc.). In Poto~ari, for instance, in the March 11zinc processing plant, 300 new jobs were created, 30 new apartments were

built, plans exist for the construction of a school, sports facility, etc. Onthe other hand, in Skelani not a single new job was created in the last cou-

ple of years, there is no agricultural cooperative or food processing facil-ity, there are no mechanisms for the wholesale purchase of farmers major

produce such as milk and berries. Some of the conditions which encumbercitizens everyday life and deny them long term prospects in the area are:inadequate water pipes, obsolete filters which often cause water to be con-taminated, closure of the commercial border crossing to Serbia in nearbyBajina Ba{ta, which greatly complicates the exportation of local agricul-tural produce, to mention just some. In addition, there is no local pharmacyor urgent care clinic, no bank, apartment buildings are not being main-tained or renovated, the local day care center, with 28 pre-school children(compared to 40 in Srebrenica town) is receiving inadequate support fromthe municipality, there are no cultural institutions such as reading rooms,and no municipal assistance to develop potential local assets such as agri-culture and tourism. Naturally, these factors impact Skelani residents from

both communities. But since the majority of the population is Serbian, justas in Poto~ari the majority are Muslim, this kind of development policyconveys clear messages and its implications are unambiguous with respectto the sustainability of the two communities in the region of Srebrenica.

5. Reconstruction: We turn now to the condition precedent for sustainable de-velopment, and that is the reconstruction of the basic elements of the livingenvironment. Where Serbian residents of Srebrenica are concerned, thatmeans the reconstruction of devastated Serbian villages and restoration ofthousands of demolished homes to the point where they would once more

be fit for human habitation. In that regard, a decade and a half after the end

of the war in Bosnia, the situation is most discouraging. The scope of phys-ical destruction and the massive scale of the expulsion of the local Serbianpopulation during the conflict was impressively depicted in the Report ofthe Netherlands War Research Institute NIOD, Part I: The Yugoslavian

problem and the role of the West , 19911994; chapter 10: Srebrenica un-der siege: Muslim fighters from Srebrenica attacked 79 Serbian places inthe districts of Srebrenica and Bratunac ultimately, of the original 9390Serbian inhabitants of the Srebrenica district, only 860 remained, mainly infour villages of Skelani, Crvica, Petrica and Lije{}e. That was the state ofaffairs at the end of the war, fifteen years ago.

6. The monograph of Dr. Ljubi{a Simi}, The Martyrdom of Serbian Sre-brenica, 19921995: a photographic journey through a land of misery and

17


18/32

sorrow Srebrenica Historical Project, Belgrade 20104 is visual evidenceof the fact that the condition of Serbian villages since then not only has not

improved, but has deteriorated considerably. In about 200 photographs thepresent 2009 appearance of the villages referred to in the NIOD Report,which before the outbreak of the conflict were inhabited by Serbs about9000 in total, is visually depicted. The general conclusion is clear:

post-war reconstruction sidestepped Serbian villages and, as a conse-quence, the expelled Serbian population has nowhere to return to beginsustainable life. Enormous areas of the district of Srebrenica are eitherscorched earth because the villages that used to be there were razed , orthey are covered with ruins unfit for human habitation. Western donorsorganizations have almost completely ignored the locations where Serbs

used to live. In the opinion of Dr. Simi}, which sounds quite reasonable,the motive for this situation is almost wholly political : The fact that Ser-

bian villages continue to be unreconstructed does not tell us that Western

agencies love the Muslims and hate the Serbs. At play is no more than acoincidence of political interests. Were European development and recon-struction funds to start rebuilding Serbian villages, they would be ratherhard pressed to admit that those villages had been destroyed . That wouldlead to the conclusion that it was the Muslims who destroyed them,whichin turnwould suggest that Muslims did indeed commit heinouscrimes in the region. As a result, the thesis that only one community isguilty, in this case the Serbs, would have to collapse.5

C. The discriminatory character of the reconstruction process

1. The Srebrenica municipality development plan shows unmistakable dis-criminatory tendencies by mainly favoring municipal areas inhabited by

one of the communities, while systematically neglecting areas identifiedwith the other. That discourages not just return but staying as well. The re-construction process over the last fifteen years has been marked by the

same philosophy. Annex 1, attached herewith, Quo vadis Serbian vil-lages?, presents a striking visual impression of the current status, fifteen

years after the war. That status is the direct consequence of the consistentimplementation of a one-sided policy of community reconstruction and re-vitalization in Srebrenica.

2. While doing field research in Srebrenica on issues of interest to our Pro-ject, we had many contacts with private individuals and local governmentadministrators. Srebrenica Historical Project has received essentially iden-tical information from various sources, and at first blush it sounds quite in-credible. It is the following. When after peace was restored in 1995 inter-

18

4 For the electronic version of the book, please refer to: http://www.srebrenica-pro-

ject.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=20&Itemid=185 Dr Ljubi{a Simi}, The Martyrdom of Serbian Srebrenica, ibid. p. 25.


19/32

national aid and reconstruction organizations established their presence in

the region, they did not sidestep Serbian villages and channel vital recon-struction assistance away from them inadvertently or out of ignorance of

the local situation. Many of them in fact explicitly conditioned their assis-tance by insisting that it go exclusively or for the most part to the Muslim

community and that members of the Serbian community be excluded. Onecan speculate that this policy reflected their perception that in Srebrenica

one side was the collective victim, while the other was the aggressor. Butregardless of the motives which impelled it, if we only consider the impactof such policy, its implementation in such an overtly discriminatory formis inhuman and unacceptable.

3. In any Western country, similar conduct would be considered not just so-

cially unacceptable, but in many instances legally prohibited as well. It iscustomary in Western societies for the law to explicitly guarantee the equality

of citizens. For instance, after the catastrophic storm which struck New Or-leans, it is unimaginable that some relief agencies should have appearedfrom Africa to offer assistance on the explicit condition that it be distrib-

uted to African-American citizens only. That would not just be widely con-demned; it would also be plainly illegal under the equal protection underthe law clause of the U. S. Constitution. The constitutional principle ofequality is in force in European Union countries and it is enshrined in Arti-

cle 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Of critical impor-

tance in the present circumstances, it is mandated also in the constitutionof Bosnia and Herzegovina. Paragraph 4, Article II, prohibits discrimina-tion on any grounds, and it specifically outlaws it on the grounds of na-tional origin.6

4. While closely studying the distribution of humanitarian assistance to com-munities affected by the war in Srebrenica, we noticed that many agenciesapply an ethnically based discriminatory approach. Here are some examples:

(a) The British Lady Nott Foundation (see Annex 2) constructed 45 hous-ing units for Muslims only in the local communities of Toplica, Ratkovi}i

and Skenderovi}i. The housing project for Muslims in the hamlet of Jezeroaccurately depicts the way they work. Completely new turn key homeswere built for Muslims, equipped with furniture and all amenities. Serbianhomes, often just meters away, which during the war Muslims destroyed orrendered uninhabitable, were completely avoided by the humanitarianagency from abroad.

(b) OIC, Organization of the Islamic Conference, constructed 50 homes inthe municipality, but for Muslims only, and it distributed material assis-tance following the same principle.

19

6 It should be noted that par. 1 Article II of the Bosnia-Herzegovina constitution guaranteesthe highest level of internationally recognized human rights and fundamental freedoms.


20/32

(c) The Pakistani government donated about 700 agricultural machines inthe municipalities of Srebrenica, Bratunac, and Mili}i (most of them inSrebrenica), but for Muslims only.

(d) The Austrian organization, Hilfswerk, constructed about 200 housingunits, most of which were donated to Muslims.

(e) The Austrian organization BHB donated about 100 prefabricated homes, but to Muslims only.

(f) The Tuzla Cantonal Government invested 3 million convertible marks(Bosnias currency, about 1.5 million euros) into housing construction andinfrastructural projects to benefit exclusively the Muslim community.

(h) The UNDP office in Srebrenica has been implementing its project inthe municipalities of Srebrenica, Bratunac and Mili}i for the last six years.

About half of the resources are spent in Srebrenica. So far they have spentnearly $10 million in Srebrenica, of which 80% was channeled to the Mus-lim community.

(i) CRS is an organization that is present in the municipality for the last sixyears. It has spent about 10 million KM ($5 million Euros), 90% of whichwas funneled into projects benefiting the Muslim community. This agencydonated homes for families living in alternative accommodations, did someinfrastructure reconstruction work, gave individual financial assistance, anddonated agricultural equipment. In terms of housing renewal, CRS rebuilt250 homes for Muslims, and 25 for Serbs.

(j) The Dutch government invests about 10 million KM in Srebrenica ev-ery year and so far its investment is close to 100 million. Over 80% ofthose resources are destined for Muslims.

(k) The Danish relief organization, DRC, has been involved in housing re-construction for the last four years, 90% of which has gone to Muslims.They reconstructed 120 homes for Muslims, 12 for Serbs.

(l) Caritas (the Catholic relief organization, see Annex 3) does mainlyhousing reconstruction and minor electrification projects. It has been ac-tive in Srebrenica for five years. Out of about 200 homes reconstructed by

Caritas, 80% belonged to Muslims.(m) UNHCR does housing reconstruction and alternative housing accom-modations. In 80% of the cases, its clients are Muslims.

(n) CEER has been involved in housing reconstruction and economic support for five years. Seventy percent of their clients are Muslim.

(o) The list of potential aid beneficiaries of the MLJPI relief organization,based on an official Srebrenica municipality document (see Annex 4) speakseloquently about the projected beneficiaries of their assistance. Most of thenames on that list are Muslim.

5. When statistical data concerning the reconstruction of destroyed and dam-aged housing in the district of Srebrenica are summarized , the result is that

20


21/32

1755 homes have been constructed or rebuilt for Muslims, and only 564for Serbs and 7 for Croats,7 and the ethnic imbalance of the reconstruction

process to the detriment of non-Muslim communities becomes clear. OurProject has a list of about 5000 Srebrenica district residents from the Ser-

bian community who were expelled from their villages and settlementsduring the conflict and now reside elsewhere, but are unable to return andresume their lives which were interrupted by the war because their homesand properties are still in the original devastated condition. The housing,infrastructural, and economic conditions favoring sustainable return do notexist. The current, unfavorable, situation will persist until there is a deci-sive intervention from outside to change discriminatory policies toward theSerbian community and to raise the distribution of reconstruction and hu-manitarian assistance in Srebrenica to a level that is acceptable under inter-

national standards.

21

7 Srebrenica Municipality Information, December2, 2009: Condition of returnees and inter-nally displaced persons (O stanju i `ivotu povratnika i interno raseljenih lica )


22/32

Prilog 1

KUDA IDU SRPSKA SELA?

Putopis kroz srebreni~ki jad i ~emer

Po~etak devedesetih i ratna stihija doneli su mnogo nevoqa srpskimselima u Podriwu. Razularene horde harale su i palile srpska sela u po-trazi za tragovima ìvota, kako bi u potpunosti iskazali svoju netrpe-qivost prema doju~era{wim kom{ijama. Iako je ratni vihor ve} odavnopro{ao, wegove posledice, a to je dana{wa slika srpskih sela, nimalo senisu promenile. Srpska sela su i daqe zale|ena u vremenu, onakva kakva suih kom{ije Bo{waci ostavili po~etkom devedesetih nakom niza beso-mu~nih, ni~im isprovociranih napada. Prolaze}i kroz sela, jasno moèteda osetite uàs i strahote kroz koje su prolazili wihovi stanovnici. Naku}ama, ili boqe re}i ogqi{tima i ru{evinama (u nekim selima skoro ida nema vi{e ku}a) jo{ su sveì tragovi nasiqa kao da se sve dogodilo

ju~e, a ne 15 godina ranije.Uprkos svemu, zidovi nekih ku}a jo{ uvek stoje uspravno, odolevaju i

prirodi i vremenu, i kao da ih vi{e ni{ta ne moè uni{triti i izne-naditi. Oni su svedoci stra{nih zlo~ina, oni su spomenik koji nam govorikako da na wihovim temeqima izgradimo boqu budu}nost za nova pokolewa.Jedan stanovnik sela Boì}i, koji poku{ava da nam do~ara ratne strahotekoje je selo preìvelo, kaè da je ku}a u kojoj je ìveo bila napravqena prePrvog svetskog rata i da je uspela da preìvi dva svetska rata, ali napadkom{ija Bo{waka nije uspela preìveti. Spaqena je i sru{ena do temeqa5. avgusta 1992. Ni{ta boqe nisu pro{le ni ostale ku}e u tom selu. Danasu tom mestu ìvi {a~ica Srba. Kako kaù, to je dobar rezultat jer u drugimselima broj ìteqa je mawi a ima i sela gde vi{e nema nikog. Do takvihsela vi{e nije mogu}e do}i, jer gusta vegetacija i zakr~eni putevi one-mogu}avaju bilo kakav pristup. @iteqi najve}eg broja srpskih sela su

uglavnom u poznijim godinama, {kole su kao i wihove ku}e uglavnom za-paqene i do danas u velikom procentu neobnovqene, a i za{to bi nekoobnavqao {kole gde je gotovo nemogu}e ~uti de~ji àgor i kada dece skorouop{te nema.

Da slika ne bude tako jednoli~na, i da sve ne bi izgledalo tako pustoi beznade`no, pobrinula se jedna dobrotvorska organizacija iz VelikeBritanije, koja je pre ~etiri godine odlu~ila da, usred poru{enih srpskihsela, u mestu Jezero podigne jedan velelepan kompleks napravqen od de-setine lepih ku}a. Ku}e su potpuno opremqene, kako spoqa tako i iznutra.Ove ku}e napravqene su za Bo{wake jer predstavnici iste organizacije

nisu imali sluha za srpske patwe. Ne èlimo da verujemo da renomiranaorganizacija sa ostrva nije htela da pomogne srpskom ìvqu. Verovatno da


23/32

nisu znali da su i Srbi u ratu stradali, ili je period od deset godina odokon~awa rata bio suvi{e kratak da bi wihovo uvo moglo prihvatiti in-formaciju takve vrste. Kakogod, poznavaju}i poslovi~nu pravi~nost i

pravdu za koju su se Englezi oduvek borili, i koju danas sprovode iupra`wavaju {irom sveta, ovakvu jednostranu pomo} pre bi mogli pri-pisati wihovoj neupu}enosti o srpskim patwama i stradawima, a ne nekojzluradoj i tendencioznoj nameri.

Neposredno uz navedeni kompleks ku}a nalazi se i nekoliko ru{e-vina koje pripadaju Srbima. Jedno od srpskih doma}instava dobilo je iznekih drugih donacija jako skromnu ku}u, koja se ne moè ni po ~emu po-

rediti sa velelepnim ku}ama napravqenim za Bo{wake, {to se moè vi-deti i na priloènim fotografijama. Ku}a je dosta mawa u odnosu na onukoju je vlasnik ranije imao, a koju su Bo{waci poprili~no uni{tili. I

pod takvim uslovima, ta jedina obnovqena srpska ku}a je oskrnavqena.Ubrzo po wenom zavr{etku, razbijeno je prozorsko okno, {to fotografija

jasno pokazuje. Ne izvla~imo nikakve zakqu~ke ko je mogao po~initi takavgest i ko, 14 godina nakon rata, i daqe baca kamewe na srpske ku}e. Upotpunosti je ostavqeno da svaki ~italac donese svoj sud.

Iako je broj uni{tenih srpskih sela i srpskih ku}a daleko ve}i odbroja uni{tenih bo{wa~kih, do danas je obnovqeno jedva 500 srpskih ku}aod preko 3300 koliko je ukupno bilo obnovqeno na teritoriji op{tine Sre-brenica. Broj srpskih porodica, koje su svoj spas prona{le na drugoj obaliDrine, samo iz srebreni~kog kraja ve}i je od pet hiqada.

@ivot onih koji su ostali na svojim ogwi{tima u Republici Srpskoj dalekoje teì. Kaù, za razliku od wihovih kom{ija Bo{waka koji dobijaju pomo}sa raznih strana, oni su prepu{teni sami sebi. Republika Srpska nema do-voqno sredstava da svima pomogne, matica Srbija ne sme da se me{a u unu-tra{wa pitawa BiH, a svet zatvara o~i pred vapajima srpske dece.

Osnovno pitawe, koje se samo po sebi name}e, je: koliko }e jo{ zimasrpska deca provesti u polusru{enim ku}ama da bi neko ~uo wihov glas?Ima li ikog, ko èli da vidi i ~uje stradawa i progon, koji do danas nijezav{en? Da li iko èli da pomogne napa}enom srpskom narodu protiv kogase vodi organizovani medijski rat i koji trpi razne vrste pritisaka po-

sledwih 15 godina?Da li je mogu}e da Srbi nisu dobrodo{li ~ak ni ovde, na svojimogwi{tima, na zemqi koju su bezbroj puta natopili sopstvenom krvqu, i u~ije su korene ugradili svoje ìvote?

Ili mo`da svoja ogwi{ta treba da ostave tu|inu!

dr Qubi{a Simi}^lan stru~nog tima Istorijskog projekta Srebrenica

23


24/32

Annex 1

QUO VADIS SERBIAN VILLAGES?

The beginning of the 90s and the maelstrom of the war inflicted many mis-fortunes upon Serbian villages in the Podrinje region, the strip of land adjacent tothe Drina river on the Bosnian side. Out of control gangs devastated and ravagedSerbian villages, extinguishing all signs of life in them, thus expressing their intol-erance toward those who only the day before were their neighbors. Although themadness of the war is long over, its tracesevident in the current condition of Ser-

bian villageshave not been removed to any significant extent. Serbian villagescontinue to be frozen in time, in much the same state in which they were left byMoslem neighbors in the early 90s after a series of savage and unprovoked attacks.While walking through those villages, you unmistakably feel the horror and may-hem that its inhabitants must have gone through. The houses, or more correctly ex-

posed hearths and ruins in some villages barely a house is left standing still ex-hibit seemingly fresh traces of violence, as if all that had happened yesterday andnot 15 years ago. In spite of everything, the walls of some houses still stand erect ,defying both nature and time, as if there were nothing left that could surprise ordestroy them. They bear witness to horrific crimes, but they are also a monument

that reminds us that on their foundations we must now build a better future for thecoming generations. One of the residents of the village of Bo`i}i tries to convey tous the wartime nightmare which his village had lived through . He says that thehouse in which he used to live was built before World War I and that it had man-aged to survive two world wars, but not the relentless assault staged by BosnianMoslem neighbors. It was torched and destroyed to its foundations on August 5,1992. Other houses in his village hardly fared better. Today, only a handful ofSerbs still inhabit that village. But as the locals point out, that is a good outcome

because in other villages even fewer people are left and there are still others wherenot a soul remains. Those villages are virtually inaccessible because thick vegeta-tion and obstructed roads have cut them off. The inhabitants of the majority ofSerbian villages are mainly elderly people, the schools, just like their homes, weretorched and to this day for the most part remain unrenovatedIndeed, why wouldanyone bother to renovate schools when childrens cries are not to be heard andthere are in fact almost none that are left.

To make this picture a bit less somber and to see to it that it would notleave the impression of complete devastation and hopelessness, a British philan-thropic organization decided four years ago to build a splendid compound ofabout a dozen comfortable homes in Jezero, right in the midst of ravaged Serbianvillages. The homes are fully equipped, inside and out. These homes were con-structed for Bosnian Moslems because the humanitarian organization had no em-

pathy for Serbian suffering. One simply refuses to believe that the reputable phi-lanthropists from Great Britain did not want to extend a helping hand to Serbs


25/32

only because they were Serbs. Most likely no one had informed them that Serbshad suffered also during the war, or the ten year period since the wars end wastoo brief for that information to reach them. As the case may be, we know the

proverbial fairness which defines the British character, a concept which the Brit-ish have always promoted wherever their influenced was felt in this world. It istherefore more likely that the one-sidedness of their assistance is explained bytheir lack of familiarity with local affairs rather than by any ulterior motive .

Right next to the newly built housing compound, there are a couple of ru-ins which belong to local Serbs. It so happened that one of the Serbian familieswas able to obtain some donor support to construct a modest dwelling which

bears no comparison to the comfortable houses built for the Muslims, as the pic-tures clearly demonstrate. The dwelling is considerably smaller than the owners

previous home which is located nearby and which the Bosnian Muslims had

rather thoroughly demolished. But even so this, the only reconstructed Serbianhome standing in that neighborhood, was desecrated. Soon after it was built, awindow pane on it was smashed, which is also obvious in the photo. No conclu-sions are drawn as to who, 14 years after the wars end, might have been respon-sible for hurling stones at Serbian homes. It is left entirely to the reader to drawhis own conclusions.

Even though the number of devastated Serbian villages and homes is by fargreater, to this day barely 500 homes, out of over 3300 which have been rebuilton the territory of Srebrenica municipality, are Serbian. The number of Serbianfamilies from the region of Srebrenica who have sought their safety on the Ser-

bian shore of the Drina River exceeds five thousand.Life for those who have remained on their homesteads in the Republic ofSrpska is indeed difficult. They say with a single voice that, in contrast to theirMoslem neighbors who receive assistance from a variety of sources, they are ba-sically left to fend for themselves. The Republic of Srpska does not have suffi-cient resources to offer substantial help; Serbia dares not get involved lest it beaccused of interference in the internal affairs of Bosnia and Herzegovina, whilethe world is shutting its eyes to the cries of Serbian children.

The basic question is: how many more winters will Serbian children haveto spend in crumbling homes before their voices are heard ? Is there anyone will-ing and able to see the suffering and persecution of Serbs, which have not endedto the present day? Is anyone prepared to help the martyred Serbian people whohave been targeted by an organized media campaign and subjected to a variety ofother pressures over the last 15 years?

Is it possible that Serbs are unwelcome even here, on their own hearths, onthe land which they have inhabited for centuries, upon which they have shed their

blood innumerable times, the land which is an inalienable part of their lives?Or will they perhaps be obliged to leave their hearths to others, to become some-one elses inheritance?

Dr Ljubi{a Simi}

Senior research fellow SrebrenicaHistorical Project

25


26/32

26

Kompleks sagra|en Bo{wacima u selu JezeroA housing compound built by foreign donors for Moslem residents of the village of Jezero

Ku}e iz bo{wa~kog kompleksa u JezeruHomes in the Moslem housing compound in the village of Jezero


27/32

27

Bo{wa~ka novosagra|ena ku}a u JezeruA new home built for Moslems in the village of Jezero

Demolirana srpska ku}a koja se nalazi na 50 metara od novog kompleksa sagra|enogza Bo{wake u selu Jezero

A demolished Serbian home located 50 meters from the housing compound built for Moslemsin the village of Jezero


28/32

28

Razbijeni prozor na obnovqenoj ku}i jednog srpskog povratnika u selu JezeroBroken window on the renovated home of a Serbian refugee who returned to the village of Jezero

Polo`aj jedine obnovqene (i opet o{te}ene) srpske ku}e u Jezeru u odnosu na obli`weneobnovqene ru{evine srpskih ku}a

The position of the only renovated (and then again damaged) Serbian home in Jezero next to theruin of an unrenovated formerly Serbian home in the village of Jezero


29/32

Prilog 2/Annex 2

29


30/32

Prilog 3/Annex 3

30


31/32

Prilog 4/Annex 4

31


32/32

Prilog 5/Annex 5

32

Dokumenat Skup{tine op{tine Srebrenica, 2122009 oStawu i `ivotu povratnika i interno raseqenih lica

Srebrenica Municipal Assembly document of 2 December 2009 onThe Condition of returning refugees and internally displaced persons

conditions in srebrenica

Documents