CERIĆ WANTS TO DICTATE TO SERBS WHOM AND HOW TO MOURN

ISTOČNO SARAJEVO, SEPTEMBER 3 /SRNA/ - Former head of the Islamic Community in BiH Mustafa Cerić is suggesting to Serbs that they should not mourn their commander, General Ratko Mladić, who defended both Republika Srpska and the Serb people, while at the same time justifying his decision to lead the funeral prayer for wartime criminal Rasim Delić as a "religious and human duty."

In a public statement to an SRNA journalist, whom he had previously told that he "was not in a position to speak," Mustafa Cerić takes it upon himself to draw a parallel between General Mladić and Rasim Delić, under whose command the "El Mujahideen" detachment operated, whose members beheaded Serb fighters. Regarding Delić, who was convicted of war crimes by the ICTY, Cerić believes that he had the right to a dignified burial, but is adamant in trying to prove that General Mladić "should not be the measure of heroism," even though he honorably defended the Serb people and their ancestral homes and publicly stated that, if it were up to him, even the word "war" would be banned. The ICTY sentenced Delić to three years in prison for failing to take the necessary and reasonable measures to prevent or punish the cruel treatment of captured Serb soldiers by members of the "El Mujahideen" detachment, who carried out ritual killings and forced prisoners to kiss the severed head of their fellow fighter. Cerić makes no mention of the suffering of those who were imprisoned, nor of what their loved ones endured. He maintains that “all innocent victims are equal,” yet leaves out Serb victims and sites of atrocities across BiH. Although he invokes the universality of suffering and says that “a mother’s tear knows neither nation nor faith,” of the numerous sites where Serbs were massacred, he mentions only Kazani, before going on to list “Sarajevo, Srebrenica, Prijedor, Grabovica and Ahmići,” thereby showing that Serb victims are clearly not of much interest to him. Cerić’s response gives the impression of a selective approach when it comes to victims, as he only mentions Kazani in passing, the pit on Mount Trebević overlooking Sarajevo where civilians, mostly Serbs, were killed in 1992 and 1993 by members of the 10th Mountain Brigade of the so-called Army of BiH, commanded by Mušan Topalović Caco. Given all the campaign of vilification directed against the Serb military and political leadership during and after the war in BiH, coupled with claims that the Serbs had committed aggression against themselves, condemnation of the person who headed the Army of Republika Srpska was expected. However, if respect for victims is being demanded, the principle must be the same for everyone, and respect must also be shown to Serb victims. If the glorification of one convicted war commander is condemned, then the responsibility of another must not be relativized, nor should the Serb people be condemned for wanting to bid a dignified farewell to someone to whom they owe their freedom today. True respect for all victims means more than simply acknowledging that they existed; they should be named, their memory should be preserved, and attempts to suppress their suffering because it does not fit one’s own narrative of the war should be rejected. Selective remembrance is not reconciliation, but a continuation of divisions by other means. The Serb people cannot be forbidden from giving their commander a dignified farewell, nor can they be expected to erase him from their collective memory, especially when such calls come from Mustafa Cerić and those like him.