Autori Nadina Ronc i Dina Greenberg
Prošle godine moja koautorica Dina Greenberg me kontaktirala na LinkedIn-u. Pronašle smo se. Zanimljivo je da joj je ime bilo moj nadimak dok sam odrastala. Mislim da nam je suđeno da se nađemo. Napisala je „Nermininu šansu” koju sam pročitala za dan i po. Pogodilo me da jedna nebosanka može tako tečno opisati ratne zločine počinjene u Bosni kao što je ona to uradila. Ispričala sam Dini svoju priču, a ona je pretražila moje članke i TV nastupe na Googleu. To nas je dovelo do toga da udružimo snage da napišemo moje memoare, ali ne bilo kakve memoare, one koji bi opisivali i političke događaje koji su doveli do toga gdje smo sada.
Moja prošlost i sadašnjost
U januaru 1997. godine moj otac je objavio članak u bosanskohercegovačkim političkim novinama Ljiljan, koji je poremetio njegovu karijeru i brak. Iz moje perspektive, članak je najavio prekretnicu: ovo je bio trenutak kada je moja porodica počela da se raspada. Moj otac je od tada preminuo, ali njegov članak (pročitajte ispod na originalnom bosanskom) i dalje me proganja.
Reperkusije su ogromne. Iz više razloga, vjerujem da idem njegovim stopama. Nekoliko godina je pisao redovnu kolumnu za Ljiljan i, zbog sadržaja ovog članka i drugih, bio je na crnoj listi u Velikoj Britaniji, zemlji u koju je naša porodica pobjegla kao izbjeglice 1993. godine.
Velika Britanija je postala moj dom, ali i ja sam, također stavljena na crnu listu zbog njegovog pisanja.
Balkanski ratovi 1990-ih
Kako se nacionalistička politika razvijala u bivšim republikama Jugoslavije, ljudi različitih etničkih grupa pridruživali su se različitim političkim strankama koje su predstavljale njihovu etničku pripadnost (bosanski Muslimani, Hrvati i Srbi). Uskoro će, međutim, srpski nacionalizam zapaliti kampanju genocida i sistematskog silovanja širom Balkana.
Moj otac je 1989. godine izabrao članstvo u Stranci demokratske akcije (SDA) koju je vodio prvi predsjednik Bosne i Hercegovine Alija Izetbegović. SDA je Ljiljan osnovala 1990. godine.
Za mog oca njegovo članstvo u SDA nije predstavljalo vjersku pripadnost, već oblik protesta, jer su svi ostali donosili odluke o članstvu na nacionalnoj osnovi. Godine 1997. napisao je taj sudbonosni članak. Njegove riječi kopale su se ispod površine orkestracija Zapada (Britanije i Amerike) – postavljenih u Dejtonskom sporazumu iz 1995. – za, u najboljem slučaju, gorak i krhki mir u Bosni.
Ovako je počeo članak mog oca:
“U zapadnoj politici postoji trajni gen za uništenje, zasićenje, asimilaciju, ako je potrebno, cijele nacije ili nacije u ime njenih viših interesa. Ovu grotesknu odlučnost Zapada u posljednje vrijeme najbolje su osjetile Bosna, Ruanda i mnoge druge zemlje u kojima je izbio „građanski rat“.
Moj otac je bio akademac sa oštrim političkim uvidom i sposobnošću da sintetizira složene koncepte. Dijelim te intelektualne kvalitete i — što nije iznenađujuće — gravitirala sam novinarstvu i političkim naukama, gdje sam briljirala. Na kraju, odabrala sam karijeru sličnu očevoj. Međutim, kao analitičarka politike, uvijek moram biti svjesna onoga što se krije ispod površine. Moram da se pitam: ko donosi odluke i zašto? Koji su njihovi pravi motivi?
Sigurna sam da je moj otac postavljao ista pitanja, ali pitam se da li je u potpunosti shvatio težinu svojih postupaka. Izreka, “ne grizi ruku koja te hrani”, izgleda prikladna.
Veća priča
Niko ne želi da bude izbjeglica. Rijetko kada ljudi biraju zemlju u kojoj će naći utočište.
U mom slučaju, moj otac je napravio izbor. Poslije rata se vratio u Bosnu sa mojim bratom. Ostala sam u Ujedinjenom Kraljevstvu sa svojom majkom. Naša porodica je bila podijeljena na dva dijela.
Moji memoari u toku će detaljno ispričati cijelu priču. I, da, iznijet ću na vidjelo kako sam došla na crnu listu, iako pretpostavljam da ćete suštinu shvatiti čitajući članak mog oca.
Lagala bih kada bih rekla da ovo naslijeđe nije bilo razorno, ali opet, ja sam preživjela, ne odustajem. U stvari, tek počinjem.
Nadina Ronc, rođena je u Brčkom. Nadina Ronc je bosanska novinarka i analitičarka vanjskih poslova sa boravištem u Londonu, školovana u Velikoj Britaniji i Njemačkoj. Dobitnica je istraživačke stipendije Instituta za strateške studije Ratnog koledža američke vojske za svoj rad na analizi sigurnosnih prijetnji sa kojima se suočavaju države zapadnog Balkana iz Rusije. Nadina je pisala za Anadolu Agency, proizvodila vijesti na CNBC-u i Fox Business Network-u i komentirala za TRT World.
U prilogu ispod možete pročitati članak na Engleskom jeziku, kao i članak Nadininog oca na Engleskom jeziku
I’m a Bosnian Muslim and I’m Blacklisted in the U.K.
By Nadina Ronc and Dina Greenberg
Last year, my co-author, Dina Greenberg ,contacted me on LinkedIn. We hit it off. It was interesting that her first name was my nickname growing up. I think we were meant to meet. She wrote Nermina's Chance, which I read in a day and a half. It struck a chord with me that a non-Bosnian could so fluently describe the war crimes committed in Bosnia as she did. I told Dina my story, and she Googled my articles and TV appearances. This led to us joining forces to write my memoir, but not just any memoir, one that would also describe political events that led to where we are now.
My Past and Present
In January 1997, my father published an article in the Bosnian political newspaper Ljiljan that derailed his career and his marriage. From my perspective, the article heralded a turning point: this was the moment my family began to unravel. My father has since passed on, but his article (Read below in original Bosnian and in English Translation) continues to haunt me.
The repercussions are vast. In more than one sense, I believe that I follow in his footsteps. For a few years, he penned a regular column for Ljiljan and, because of the content of this article and others, he was blacklisted in the U.K., the country our family fled to as refugees in 1993. The U.K. has become my home but I, too, have been blacklisted here due to his writing.
The 1990s Balkan Wars
As nationalist policies were evolving in the former Republics of Yugoslavia, people of different ethnic groups joined different political parties that represented their ethnicity (Bosnian Muslims, Croats, and Serbs). Soon, though, Serbian nationalism would ignite a campaign of genocide and systematic rape throughout the Balkans. In 1989, my father chose membership in the Party of Democratic Action (SDA), led by Bosnia and Herzegovina’s first president, Alija Izetbegović. The SDA founded Ljiljan in 1990.
For my father, his membership in the SDA did not represent religious affiliation but rather a form of protest, since everyone else was making membership decisions on ethnic grounds. In 1997, he wrote that fateful article. His words dug beneath the surface of the West’s (Britain and America’s) orchestrations—set out in the 1995 Dayton Accords—for, at best, a bitter and fragile peace in Bosnia.
This is how my father’s article began:
“In Western politics, there is a permanent gene for the destruction, saturation, assimilation, if necessary, of the entire nation or nation in the name of its higher interests. This grotesque determination of the West in recent times was felt best by Bosnia, Rwanda and many other countries where the ‘civil war’ erupted.”
My father was an academic with keen political insight and the ability to synthesize complex concepts. I share those intellectual qualities and—not surprisingly—gravitated toward journalism and political science where I excelled. Ultimately, I chose a career akin to my father’s. As a policy analyst, though, I must always be aware of what lies beneath the surface. I must ask: Who is making decisions and why? What are their true motives?
I’m certain my father asked these same questions, but I wonder if he fully comprehended the weight of his actions. The saying, Don’t bite the hand that feeds you, seems apt.
The Bigger Story
No one wants to be a refugee. Rarely do people get to choose the country in which they find refuge. In my case, it was my father who made the choice. After the war, he returned to Bosnia with my brother. I remained in the U.K. with my mother. Our family was cleft in two. My memoir-in-progress will tell the whole story in detail. And, yes, I will bring to light how I came to be blacklisted, though I suspect you’ll get the gist by reading my father’s article.
I would be lying if I said this legacy hasn’t been devastating but, then again, I’m a survivor. I’m not giving up. In fact, I’m just getting started.
Članak Nadininog oca preveden na Engelskom jeziku
Published in Bosnian language on January 8, 1997
Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac – a sketch of a political portrait:
Who is the man who does not recognize small peoples and small nations and with all his power advocates for the division of Bosnia and Herzegovina?
A key promoter of British neo-colonialism
In Western politics, there is a permanent gene for the destruction, saturation, assimilation, if necessary, of the entire nation or nation in the name of its higher interests. This grotesque determination of the West in recent times was felt best by Bosnia, Rwanda and many other countries where the “civil war” erupted. In Bosnia, when the policy of firepower could not fulfill the goal of this grotesqueness, the policy of intrigue entered the business, its dirtiest and most dangerous side. Certainly, the main pillars of such a policy cannot bypass the British Foreign Office, or its branch Chatham House, headquarters of the Royal Institute for International Affairs, or the laboratory for the creation of “civil” and “ethnic wars.” As one respected doctor of contemporary history says, “Inside the core of British politics is doing evil to others. ” Of course, this could not be said for the British people who often readily criticize and raise their voice against their conservative government, in other words, the Foreign Office has long been doing things concealed from its people, and through their friends or agents outside the country.
CALL FOR THE PARTITIONING OF BOSNIA
British policy towards Bosnia during this aggression has been completely unveiled – from the “naive ignorance of the situation in the Balkans” to the completely openly siding with the aggressor. Since the weapons and even direct interference could not achieve the desired goal, the new approach is the policy of consensus – the British invention of disguised operations, all to undermine the Bosnian authorities and institutions – to an open call for the mediators on the partitioning of the country “for peace in the Balkans.”
The last example of this undermining was the condition of the dismissal of the Deputy Defense Minister, Hasan Cengic, one of the principal architects of Bosniak resistance. To be clear, Hasan Cengic contacted John Shalikashvili, the U.S. Chief of Staff, during the heaviest fighting. He turned to the Iranians, and to all of whom he hoped would help. The Iranians helped. The weapons found their way and defended the Bosniak people from further genocide. Now the democratic West can associate an “Iranian connection” with the genocide, and the background to such a request is aimed at undermining President Izetbegovic.
The request for Cengic's resignation dates back to the U.S. Republican presidential nominating convention in San Diego, on August 14, 1996, when the party gave the stage to those who could rightly be considered the most responsible for genocide in Bosnia: Lawrence Eagleburger and Henry Kissinger. The latter has never ceased to call for the partition of Bosnia (and we will see later why), and both have emphasized that Bosnia will be “a matter of preference” for the US president. Because of that, there was strong pressure on Clinton. Clinton finally acknowledged, through Glyn Davies, a colleague of Nicholas Burns (who will ask for Hasan Cengic's resignation) that the non-Bosniak soldiers have disbanded, that is, that there are no more “Iranian mujahedin,” and that unloading of weapons can be accessed at Ploce harbor. Fearing that Bosniaks will board the “American political ship,” the British intelligence service MI-6 is not stopping with trying to keep the image of Bosnia linked to Iranian mujahedin. The actions of MI-6 came to light in 1993, during the creation of false “Islamic fighters” as a way to trigger a Bosniak-Croat confrontation.
On September 8th, 1993, Henry Kissinger reacted to Clinton's claim of disbanded “Islamic fighters,” demanding a “realistic” American foreign policy towards Bosnia based on its partition and acceptance of genocide. “The only wise election process and the most compatible for American historical commitment … would be a referendum on each of the ethnic areas with a simple choice between multiethnic Bosnia and some division … A realistic, separate Muslim entity would perhaps be the most desirable outcome of the referendum. This would be the most compromising solution to the principles of self-determination and the most feasible for long-term stability…There are no innocents in Bosnia.”
BRITISH GENERAL
Who is, in fact, Henry Kissinger and why is he set on the partitioning of Bosnia? Yes, he became known as a Security Adviser and later a US Secretary of State to Nixon administration. Born in Germany in 1923, Heinz Alfred Kissinger, a German Jew, fled Nazi Germany to find himself in Manhattan working at a boar bristle factory. He graduated from college, and thanks to his German language skills, he was admitted to a special army training program, where he met Fritz Kraemer, who was leading a counterintelligence corpus. Kraemer studied at the London School of Economics and was anglophile to the core. Thus, Kissinger jumped into the orbit of the British intelligence even before the end of World War II. Performing various duties, with Kraemer's recommendation he got into Harvard University, and there he would meet William Yandell Elliott, chief of the government department and a hardened UK agent who studied at Oxford. He will become one of the leading organizers of the Round Table movement, an organization founded in 1910 by Cecil Rhodes, a faithful servant of the royal family. The idea behind this organization was, according to the founder himself: “I was thinking about the existence of God and giving him a 50:50 percent chance of being there. What would God want with the world? He’d want to be well-managed. According to that, I will work to the furtherance of the British Empire and the bringing of the whole world under British rule, for the recovery of the United States (the former colony), for making the Anglo-Saxon race but one Empire.”
SERIOUS SCORES OF SMALL COUNTRIES AND SMALL PEOPLE
It is not necessary to mention that Kissinger became a member of that Round Table movement, and then the first leader of the American branch of it and leading promoter of the British neocolonial system between 1952 and 1955. Kissinger participated in the group therapy of the Tavistock Institute in London, the psychiatric center for the brainwashing of the psychological study of warfare. Under the impression of these sessions, he began to swear under the doctrine of “credible irrationality.”
The emergence of British agent Henry Kissinger, as a powerful and influential man within the U.S. foreign policy decision-making in the period from 1969 to 1992, is the most evident proof of the dominance of London and Washington since the death of John Fitzgerald Kennedy. From 1963 to the 1993 Clinton election, no American President dared openly oppose London and the British crown in any significant foreign policy. “While I was in the White House, I informed the British Foreign Office better and more directly than the US State Department,” Kissinger said on May 10, 1982, in a speech at the Royal Institute of Foreign Affairs (Chatham House) at the celebration of the 200th anniversary of the British Foreign Office. He acknowledged that almost all the major political decisions he had helped to implement in America were “British made.” On that occasion, Queen Elisabeth II granted him an honorary knighthood at the recommendation of the British Foreign Secretary, Douglas Hurd. That same year Kissinger founded his private intelligence agency, a miniature State Department, funded by several banks – one of them was the Kissinger Association. Lord
Carrington was a member of the bank's founding board. Although he was only in that position for three years, he made a significant impact on Kissinger. Lawrence Eagleburger was the President of the Kissinger Association until leaving for the position of National Security Advisor in the George H.W. Bush administration.
According to Douglas Hurd, the former British Secretary of State who sang his praises, Henry Kissinger in his book Diplomacy, acknowledges the extraordinary demonic powerful synthesis of the moral (sic!) world order, based on a power of a relationship. So not the recognition of small nations and small states.
“Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac,” said this powerful man once. By the number of countries, he has destroyed, Kissinger is undoubtedly regarded as one of the more successful serial killers in this century.
This possibility, “the Bosnian embarkation on an American foreign policy” is exactly what scares London the most. Any attempt to consolidate the real alliance between Bosnia and President Clinton to the full mobilization was confronted by the “fifth column” Kissinger, Gingrich, and Bush.
