G7 - objections to the Report of 14.5.2022

If we correctly understood the G7 report from the meeting held on 14.05.2022 in Weissenhaus, Russia by way of "unprovoked and illegal aggressive war against Ukraine obviously” violated the international order, basic principles (self-determination, territorial integrity, etc.) and that by military force, economic coercion, interference basic democratic values were undermined etc.

For these reasons, as it was stated, the G7 is determined to uphold its values and defend its interests. At the same time, the G7 urges Serbia: to advance the area of rights, to fully harmonize its foreign policy with the EU, noting:

* that the G7 does not tolerate the secessionist policies of the Republic of Srpska, which jeopardize the future of Bosnia and Herzegovina and stability in the region,
* that it fully supports the mandates of High Representative Christian Schmidt and
* that Serbia should conclude a legally binding agreement with Kosovo.

We are aware that the G7 can create, solve or maintain problems in Ukraine or elsewhere, depending on what "values" and/or whose "interests" it applies. Therefore, it is no surprise that in a single day the largest country in the world is completely outlawed/excommunicated from the legal system; that the gold or foreign currency reserves are seized; that the property of legal or natural persons is seized; that natural or legal persons are which maintain economic, financial, transport, cultural, sporting, cultural or other relations with that state shall be punished; that freedom of press and freedom of speech are abolished; sanctions were attempted to be imposed on the head of a traditional religious community etc.

Furthermore, we have the impression that some of the G7 conclusions - which directly or indirectly affect Serbia, Republic of Srpska and the Serbian Orthodox Church - are vague, unfounded, inaccurate and without legal basis. We must highlight as a reminder that after years of demonization, isolation and illegal bombardment of Serbia, the Dayton Peace Agreement was concluded. At that time, the immediate participants and/or witnesses were Genscher, Kohl, Kinkel, Fisher, Sharping and Schroeder, who all decided upon our fates.
Ten months ago, possibly in the preparation phase of the "Strategic Compass" and Germany's new role, especially in the Balkans, the Bundestag nominated Christian Schmidt as a High Representative to BiH. Without the consent of Serbia, Republic of Srpska and other parties that signed Annex X of the Dayton Agreement, an informal group PIC (Peace Implementation Council) appointed him as a High Representative, even though such an appointment is illegal without confirmation of the UN Security Council.

BASE FOR CREATION OF OUR IMPRESSION IS:

Separation of Donbass and ties to Russia
Unilateral withdrawal from the Agreement that was signed on 21.2.2014 with the Ukrainian opposition leaders (Klitschko, Jatsenyuk and Tyahnbok) under the participation and presence of German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Poland's FM Radoslav Sikorsky and French MFA Director Laurent Fabius - and a day later, the illegal ousting of the Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych and the suspension of the Constitution - led to the independence of Donetsk and Lugansk.
Subsequent events justified the fear of the pro-Russian population that, after the events on "Majdan", general discrimination would be carried out: the Ukrainian Orthodox Church was separated in 2018 from the Moscow Patriarchate proclaiming its independence; the law on languages was derogated; a ban on the use of the Russian language in official use was imposed; the use of Russian language was banned in schools, media, shops, restaurants, banks post offices, gas stations, libraries, train stations, books, movies, songs, communication of the doctors with patients and similar, although 35% of Ukrainians consider Russian as their mother tongue, while 65% declared that they have knowledge of Russian. As of 16.1.2022, a law entered into force, imposing restrictions and fines for the use of Russian language in the service sector, television channels have been shut down, the Russian internet has been banned, etc.; in the past eight years, some 14.000 civilians, including about 500 children, have been killed in the Donbass… only because they were of Russian descent.

Referring to their Agreement on Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance with the Russian Federation, the self-determined republics of Donetsk and Lugansk asked Russia on 23.02.2022 to help them repel the aggression of the armed forces and formations of Ukraine.

A day later, Russia informed the public that it is launching a "special military operation in Donbas", citing Art. 1 of the UN Charter (the right of the people to self-determination) and Art. 51. UN Charter (right to self-defense until the UN Security Council takes the necessary measures to maintain international peace and security).

Proceedings before the International Court of Justice
On the second day after the conflict has begun, Ukraine requested from the International Court of Justice to initiate proceedings, take evidence and to convict Russia of genocide. Since Russia also bases its intervention on allegations: that Ukraine have been carrying out genocide against the Russian population in the Donbas for eight years and that the leading NATO countries support extreme nationalists and Neo-Nazis in Ukraine - the Court will most probably jointly rule on all relevant facts and reasons why only the USA and Ukraine have for years, and for the last time on 16.12.2021, kept voting against resolution to "combat glorification of Nazism and Neo-Nazism" in the United Nations, or on the issue of foreign biolabs in the Ukraine - which was raised by US deputy state secretary Victoria NULAND in her statement during Congressional Hearing.

UN General Assembly Resolution on Russian Aggression
Since the founding of the United Nations in 1945, to this day, some permanent members of the UNSC have caused or participated in dozens of wars and international conflicts, e. g. in the Rwanda genocide, in which some 800.000 people were killed. However, the UNSC has never accused any of its permanent members of aggression etc ., because all permanent members, even the member who has been indicted, would have to vote in favor of such a decision.
Recently there was an attempt to pass such UNSC resolution against Russia's military action in Ukraine. Since Russia did not vote against itself, a session of the UN General Assembly was convoked, at which Resolution A/Res-11/L-1 was passed on 1 March 2022, accusing Russia of aggression against Ukraine.

Since the UN Charter does not foresee the possibility of the General Assembly making decisions instead of the UN Security Council, this resolution would not have been controversial if the UN had previously amended Article 39 of the UN charter by granting to the General Assembly the power of decisionmaking instead of the UNSC in situations where one of its members makes use of its veto.

The RESOLUTION of the European Parliament
In order to protect against foreign interference (e. g. the influence of Russia, Serbia, the Republic of Srpska, the Serbian Orthodox Church, etc.) in all democratic processes in the European Union, including disinformation, the European Parliament adopted on 09.03.2022 a resolution (2020/2268/INI), invoking the duty of the EU and its members to defend its citizens and infrastructure, as well as its democratic systems, from foreign interference attempts through disinformation, manipulation of people's feelings, commercial activities, music, literature, sport, media, school and other literature, engaging former politicians such as Mr. G. Shroeder, F. Fiona, S. Fuele, etc.

These allegations, in addition to China and Russia, cover Serbia, Republic of Srpska and the Serbian Orthodox Church (falsely named as a part of the Russian Orthodox Church), on charges of inflaming conflicts, dividing the community destabilizing the entire region, promoting and protecting traditional family values, strengthening the relationship between the state and the church, spreading divisions among the local population, promoting biased writing of history etc. This way, the Resolution seems to confirm the statements of Brzezinski and Huntington - that for the New World Order orthodoxy is inappropriate and needs to be changed.

The G7's ALLEGATIONS
Serbia is not an EU member and is neither able nor obliged to fully harmonize its foreign policy with the EU, nor to protect their interests to its own detriment, nor to apply sanctions against Russia and its institutions, citizens, businessmen, artists, athletes, movies, music, TV and radio programs, the Internet, the Russian Orthodox Church, etc., and ESPECIALLY not against Republic of Srpska, Kosovo and Metohija, the Serbian Orthodox Church etc.

Moreover, in the meantime it was retreated from the greatest sanctions, noting that the legality of seizing profits from oil and gas is controversial, the legality of payments in rubles, legality of seizing and using foreign currency reserves and similar (statements made by the US Secretary of Treasury Janet Yellen and of the European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen on lack of the legal base, decision of the Swiss Government to unfreeze 3.4 billion CHF due to the lack of grounds to freeze it). In such situation, the states that unconditionally followed controversial decisions on sanctions are now under obligation to compensate the damages arisen due to illegal freezing of assets.

Contrary to the UN Charter and conclusion of the G7, that guarantee territorial integrity of countries, constant pressure is being exercised against Serbia to recognize the violent separatism of its territory, Kosovo and Metohija, where the US illegally built a permanent and the largest military base in Europe.

The desire of the Republic of Srpska to have implemented by war and victims created Dayton Agreement, Annex X and Constitution of BiH is being portrayed as secessionist and destruction of BiH, so the G7's conclusion remains unclear: "We will not tolerate the secessionist policies of the Republic of Srpska, which jeopardize the future of Bosnia and Herzegovina and a stablest in the region."

In accordance with the conclusion of the G7 and the UN Charter, that guarantee and the right to self-determination, the Republic of Srpska has every right to become independent, which it has never tried. It merely wants that the Dayton Agreement, Annex X and the BiH Constitution are implemented on entities and constitutional peoples.

By the way, in order to create a unitary BiH, which is not envisioned in the Dayton Agreement and the BiH Constitution, illegal "high representatives" have, through their illegal acts, over the past 27 years, dismantled the Dayton Agreement and made the Constitution of BiH senseless, passing acts to illegally transfer competences from the Republic of Srpska to the BiH, creating the unitary state. That is why the Republic of Srpska wants these decisions out of force, and this is by no means an act of secession, but a restoration of rights guaranteed by the Dayton Agreement.

In addition, believing it will be able to achieve common interests and reconciliation faster, if it co-operates with other constituent peoples, Republic of Srpska has transferred a part of its rights and powers to the BiH state to that end. However, since the expected goals have not been achieved – so the Republic of Srpska, due to changed circumstances to its detriment, wants to regain those rights, and such a behavior cannot be declared secessionist.

To this end, it is noted:
Contrary to the rights that belong to the entities and constituent peoples under the BiH Constitution and the Dayton Agreement, Muslims (who changed their name to "Bosniaks" at Congress on 27.09.1993) challenge on daily basis the constitutionality of the Serb and Croat peoples and keep accusing Serbs and the Republic of Srpska. The negative attitude towards Serbs and the permanent distance from reconciliation is also contributed by religious acts:
* Alija Izetbegović's "ISLAMIC DECLARATION" with a conclusion on the incompatibility of Islam and non-Islamic systems; about Islam containing the principle of ummet, i.e. the tendency to unite all Muslims into a single religious, cultural and political community; about the Islamic order that can only be achieved in countries where Muslims represent the majority of the population, etc.
* FETVA of Mufti Council regarding genocide in Srebrenica of 03.07.15 and referring to relations with Serbs;
* DECLARATION ON GENOCIDE AGAINST BOSNIAKS IN THE UN PROTECTED ZONE SREBRENICA ADOPTED BY THE ASSEMBLY OF THE ISLAMIC COMMUNITY 4.07.15 - which emphasizes the collective responsibility of the Serbian people with the demand of recognition that crimes were committed on behalf of that people, including the crime of genocide, and the obligation of the Serbian people to confront the consequences of the committed genocide;
* SANDŽAK DECLARATION ON THE UNITY OF MUSLIMS, adopted by the Council of Mufti of the Islamic Community in Bosnia and Herzegovina, on its 18th regular session, held on 21. safer 1440.h.g., i.e. 30.10.2018 in Novi Pazar, notes that the Islamic community is the main guardian of dins and ummet;
* By statement of Turkey's foreign minister: We will create the Balkans, the Caucasus, the Middle East, together with Turkey as the center of world politics in the future. This is the goal of Turkish foreign policy and we will achieve that ;
* Amanet (bequest) of Alija Izebegović, given to Erdogan, when the latter visited him while Izetbegović was ill on 18.10.2003 in Sarajevo, just a day before he died: "Tayip, you are descendants of Sultan Fatih, this space is in your amanet, so keep it." "The fact that he gave Bosnia in the amanet to Turkey is a manifesto of his civilizational horizon. Because Alija saw and knew that Muslims only united, and in the community and solidarity with each other, can achieve their civilizational thought," stated Erdogan, as quoted by the Turkish media.

Christian Schmidt – High Representative:
The G7 can appoint and support Christian Schmidt, whom Germany has proposed as High Representative, can support a self-organized group of citizens PIC (Peace Implementation Council) and non-binding "Bonn powers", and can ask the Republic of Serbia and Republic of Srpska, under threat of sanctions or force, to recognize them, but this will neither contribute to reconciliation in BiH nor will these acts become legal.
Regarding the status of the High Representative, the Constitutional Court of BiH also took the position and established in Decision AP 953/05 of 8.7.2006: "The Constitutional Court reminds that the Office of the High Representative (OHR) is the leading organization for the civilian aspect of peace implementation in BiH. On basis of the Dayton Peace Agreement, signed in 1995, the High Representative is competent on behalf of the international community to oversee the implementation of civilian aspects of the Peace Agreement in Bosnia. The High Representative also has the task to coordinate activities of the international and civil organizations and agencies operating in the country. The High Representative is nominated by the Steering Committee of the Peace Implementation Council, and nomination is confirmed by the UN Security Council, that approved the Dayton Peace Agreement as well as the deployment of troops in Bosnia and Herzegovina." By the way, we are not aware of the regulations or international agreements authorizing the High Representative to arbitrarily, contrary to the Dayton Agreement – especially the Constitution of BiH and Annex X - unfoundedly pass or change decisions or laws in BiH, dissolve and abolish entities, etc. Even insisting of the G7 on Serbia enforcing reforms regarding the rule of law will definitely not contribute to the recognition of such illegal decisions and acts.

Contrary to numerous promises made to Serbia, that it will become part of the EU, the impression remains that Serbia is not going to be admitted into the EU.

As early as 16.11.2009, during a meeting with Serbian President Tadić in Berlin, Angela Merkel disagreed with Serbia's desire to submit its EU membership application.

As early as the following year, during the meeting of prime ministers, foreign ministers, defence ministers and NATO representatives that took place from 28-30 April 2010. in Bratislava, a "Strategic Concept" was adopted with the impression that NATO could intervene outside member states in the future without the mandate of the UNSC, and without the parliaments of Germany and other countries deciding on it previously.

At the end of the Conference, in an official report submitted to German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder on 02.05.2000, Willy Wimmer (Deputy President of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, State Secretary at the German Defence Ministry, CDU MP in the Bundestag and security expert) summarizes that:

* the claim that NATO violated all international rights by attacking the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, particularly all appropriate provisions of international law, was not challenged (Note: In the Zeit-Matinee on 9.3.14, former SPD Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder admitted that the bombing of Yugoslavia violated international law, that the decision was made knowingly even though the war was illegal, as also confirmed by the Berlin Court in Judgment Ds 46/99).

* the European Legal Order is a hindrance to the implementation of NATO's plans; the war against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was waged to correct General Eisenhower's wrong decision from the WWII

* the American soldiers must be stationed there,

* and thus to compensate for what was missed back in 1945,

* that during the current expansion, NATO should re-establish the territorial situation in the area between the Baltic Sea and Anatolia as it existed at the time of the Roman Empire, at a time when it was at the height of its power and occupied the largest territorial expanse,

*that Poland must be surrounded from the north and south by democratic states as neighbors, and Romania and Bulgaria to secure a land link with Turkey.

Three years later (on 22.02.03) Serbian Prime Minister Zoran Djindjić had a meeting in Germany with Michael Steiner and Gerhard Schroeder. Speaking about Kosovo and borders of Serbia, Schroeder told him: “Serbia will never be a part of the European Union. The borders of the European Union are the borders of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy, plus the front line to Russia.”

Eighteen years later (on 15.06.2021), in a release from the Serbian Ministry of Interior, issued after Minister Alexander Vulin's meeting with Bundestag MP and Member of the German Parliament's Defense Committee Alexander Noah, Alexander Noah was quoted as saying that Brussels' policy is not sincere towards Serbia and that the EU does not want Balkan countries in its full membership, and especially not Serbia.

For these reasons, we propose that you free unreasonably indicted Serbia, Republic of Srpska and the independent Serbian Orthodox Church from demonization, pressure, threats, blackmails, etc. and help Serbia and Republic of Srpska and repair the damage incurred after years of international demonization, isolation and bombardment without a decision by the UNSC.

G7 Germany 2022

To the foreign ministers of Germany, France, Italy, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America and to the EU High Representative Josep Borrell