Monday, February 13, 2012


Features

Brokering Bosnia's Future No Easy Task

Fourteen years after Serbia's Slobodan Milosevic, Croatia's Franjo Tudjman, and Bosnia's Alija Izetbegovic (left to right) sign the Dayton peace agreement ending the war, Bosnia is still divided ethnically.
TEXT SIZE - +
By Heather Maher
Representatives from the 55-member Peace Implementation Council (PIC), the international body tasked with monitoring the fragile peace process in Bosnia-Herzegovina, are meeting in Sarajevo in an attempt to clarify the country's uncertain future.

Specifically, the PIC is due to take stock of Bosnia's steps toward membership in the European Union and NATO. So far, however, there's little progress to discuss.

This autumn has already seen at least three rounds of EU- and U.S.-mediated talks on the subject with representatives from Bosnia's two political entities -- the Muslim-Croat Federation and the Republika Srpska. But none has succeeded in agreeing on a set of objectives and conditions the international community believes is needed to prepare the country for membership in the Western clubs.

Those objectives -- the so-called "5+2" package, for five goals and two conditions -- focus on issues like the distribution of state and military property between Bosnia's government entities, fiscal sustainability, and measurable improvement in the country's political situation.

International mediators say that meeting the 5+2 objectives would allow Bosnia to take the first key step toward political autonomy and Western integration -- closing the Office of the High Representative (OHR).

The OHR is an international post tasked with monitoring Bosnia's peace process under the terms of the Dayton peace agreement, which was forged on November 21, 1995.

The Dayton accords, which brought an end to the Bosnia's brutal 1992-95 war, created the OHR as a temporary post to oversee the country's political development until the country was deemed stable enough to run itself.

Finding A Way Forward

Still operating 14 years later, the OHR -- currently held by Austrian diplomat Valentin Inzko -- is resented by many within Bosnia. The international community is in general agreement that the long-term goal should be to dissolve the post.

But getting Bosnia's fractious authorities to work together on meeting the international community's conditions has proved nearly impossible.

Representatives of the three main ethnic groups -- Serbs, Muslims (Bosniak), and Croats -- rejected the last compromise proposal offered by EU and U.S. negotiators.

A senior U.S. diplomat who has been involved in the negotiations and is taking part in this week's Sarajevo meeting says the United States plans to "take stock" of where things stand. Deputy Assistant Secretary Stuart Jones told RFE/RL ahead of the meeting that where some see a stalemate, he sees reason for optimism.

"I don't want to prejudge how that meeting might go -- the PIC has many members and ranges of views -- but I think we are making headway in our conversations with the party leaders," Jones said

"There seems to be a high level of engagement with us on the substance of our proposal, and so I hope that we will continue to move forward in a way that produces results."

Asked where he sees that headway, Jones said negotiators have had several meetings with political party leaders and experts on constitutional reform and division of state property. He said those meetings featured "fruitful conversations" and "good exchanges."

Bosnian Serb Reluctance

But Jones acknowledged that, going into the Peace Implementation Council meeting this week, there was no agreement on either of those key issues.

Among Bosnia's three ethnic groups, the stiffest resistance to international attempts to broker a compromise has come from the Bosnian Serbs.

Milorad Dodik, the prime minister of Republika Srpska, staunchly opposes any proposal seen as blocking his entity's drive for greater autonomy.

Dodik, whose political loyalties lie with Serbia rather than Bosnia, has routinely threatened to call a referendum on the right of the Republika Srpska to secede from Bosnia. He has also been the most vocal opponent of the OHR, and is grudgingly attending the current PIC meeting, saying it will be his "last."

Deputy Assistant Secretary Jones, however, rejected the notion that the Republika Srpska is blocking a deal. He said he is "encouraged by the way that the parties are engaging" -- including the Bosnian Serbs.

"We've had constructive meetings in Banja Luka and in Sarajevo in recent weeks and -- I'm not going to outline their position, and I'm not going to say that we are in agreement, or that they have accepted the package. That's not what I'm saying," Jones said.

"But certainly we've had very good substantive and constructive conversations."

Representatives of Dodik's government recently traveled to Washington to make the case to members of the U.S. Congress that talks on constitutional reform are premature, and that the OHR should be closed immediately so that Bosnia can work out its differences internally.

But the United States believes that "for OHR transition, the 5+2 criteria must be fully met. Full stop," Jones said.

"We are also saying that Bosnia needs to undertake constitutional reform in order to be able to present a credible application both for membership in the European Union, and also in the [NATO] Membership Action Plan," he added. "And that is exactly what we are encouraging."

He did seem to acknowledge that that position could change, depending on what the other members of the PIC say this week.

"We, the United States, and our European Union partners, are fully prepared to continue to engage with the parties," Jones said. "At the Peace Implementation Council meeting we will take stock, but if the parties continue to be engaged with us, as all of them are, then I think we would be willing to continue a bit further to see if we can't find agreement."

U.S. Sense Of Urgency

But Bosnia's national elections next year means the window of possible compromise is closing, says Jon Western, who recently argued in "Foreign Policy" magazine that the United States should adopt a more robust diplomatic commitment throughout the entire Balkan region.

Western predicts that next year's political campaign season will inflame nationalist tendencies, already strong in the Republika Srpska, and says U.S. negotiators know it will be nearly impossible to reach agreement in such a charged atmosphere.

"I think the American position is, we've got to get this done by the end of the year, and I don't think the Europeans have that same sense of urgency," Western says.

He points to the visit by U.S. Vice President Joseph Biden to the country in May and the deployment of Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg, the No. 2 official in the State Department, to talks this autumn as proof that the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama has a strong interest in helping Bosnia succeed.

And he says many people in the Obama administration who also worked for former President Bill Clinton during the Bosnian War saw firsthand how quickly ethnic tensions in that country can reach the boiling point and spill over into violence.

But he admits that Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan are much higher on Washington's foreign policy radar than Bosnia, "so I can't see the administration dedicating an enormous amount of energy [to Bosnia].

"On the other hand, I think they all recognize that in Bosnia in '92 there was a certain sense of complacency that led to a lot of miscalculations, and I think there's an awareness of that. My sense, from talking to various individuals in the administration, is that they're concerned that the situation in Bosnia is deteriorating and they don't want to see a return to war."

That's something that everyone in Bosnia can probably agree on.
This forum has been closed.
Comment Sorting
Comments page of 4
    Next 
by: Wim Roffel from: Leiden, NL
November 19, 2009 15:45
I am amazed that Western is cited. The comments on his Foreign Affairs article were devastating.

My recipe for Bosnia would be to first force the Bosniaks to finally accept a census. As it most probably reveal that there have been much less refugee returns to the Bosniak parts of Bosnia than to the Serb parts it will take something away of the Bosniak feeling of moral superiority and entitlement. That might enable them to finally accept the Serbs as equals inside Bosnia - an important basis for any agreement.

by: Pau from: Barcelona
November 19, 2009 20:48
What is the problem with autonomy?. Many western european countries have territories with high level of Autonomy and they are members of EU since long time ago. Germany, Belgium, Spain and even UK have regions with their own government, their own parliament, their own flags, and even their own oficial language. ¿Why R. Sprska can not be autonomous?

And more. One of the reason US have argued to ocupate Kosovo was the lack of autonomy. If autonomy were good for albanians... ¿why it is bad for serbs? I think this is a clear example of double standards.

by: Maja from: Washington, DC
November 21, 2009 16:24
Paul, there is nothing wrong with autonomy. In fact, the article argues that Bosnia AS A WHOLE needs to work toward political autonomy and Western integration.

Furthermore, one can not compare Republica Srpska with German, Belgium, Spain and the UK, when the RS was created in 1995 as a part of the Dayton Peace accords in an effort to end a war and ethnic cleansing that raped Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Dayton agreement was not designed to successfully run a country (as is blatantly evident now).

Not to mention, that the RS (not Serbia itself) is where most of the war criminals who committed atrocities reside and hide from the Hague Tribunal through their autonomous police system. Allowing RS to continue its status quo, or even allowing it more autonomy and/or separation, would be rewarding genocide.

Think of the message that sends to the many potential antagonists: strike first and strike ruthlessly and you will get what you want.
In the words of Professor Michael Sells: "In 1994, the extremist Hutu leadership of Rawanda was plotting genocide. They had every reason to expect that if genocide could be carried out with impunity in Europe, right in front of NATO, it could be carried out in Central Africa, far from any force like NATO. A final failure in Bosnia will send an ominous message to any other group in the world who might contemplate genocide."

by: Abdul Majid
November 21, 2009 22:48
Pau. The "autonomy " of the Serbs is based on genocide. Let's say Catalonia had achieved autonomy by force of arms and the Catalans drove out all Castilian-speakers by force. Like ETA is trying for so long now to do in the Basque country. Would that to be acceptable? To you,surely. To most of the people in Spain and in the world, NO. And the same is in Bosnia. Autonomy for the Bosnian Serbs? Sure, why not? But NOT for those who have Bosniak blood on their hands. For those there can only be a prison cell. NOT for those who want to tear Bosnia apart and erase it of the map. For them there can also be only a prison cell. For high treason. NOT by excluding all non-Serbs and trying to erase any historic landmarks as the Serbs have done, by destroying ALL mosques and MOST Catholic churches in the "RS". NOT by pointing teh finger at the Bosniaks and saying they are to blame, that it is all their fault, that serbs will not be ruled by Muslims blah blah blah. Not in its present form, created through terror and ethnic cleansing but in teh areas where before 12991 the Serbas were the majority. And the possibility of declaring independence and destroying Bosnia must be ruled out. Also the "entitiy voting" with which the Serbs can effectively block anything and THAT is what has kept Bosnia in a hole, NOT the Bosniaks!
I have trioed to explain all this to you calmly and logically, without letting my preferences get in the way. But I have the feeling it is useless. The Serbofascists and those who stand for ethnic purity - and I believe that you are one of them - will reject it out of hand and say "Nonsense! Ethnic partition now! Bring teh Bosniaks to their knees! Muslims (or Castinian-speakers) are undesirables!" And with that they only show that they are not better than Karadzic himself! Ort his cronies, or his henchmen like Milan Lukic! And I am certainly NOT for committing genocide on the Bosnian Serbs. True, some desrve death because of what they did. And there is no need for you to explain to me that "the Bosniask are no better" because you know this is not true. The Bosniaks NEVER did to the Serbs the same things as the other way round. So kindly refrain from telling me lies which you know I will not accept as the truth. Because for every killed Serb there are NINE Bosniaks who were murdered, not counting those who died of hunger or from lack of medical treatment. And thus, for me, teh more soem people defend those monsters, the more I get the impression that most Serbs still approve of the anti-Bosniak crusade, the less sympathy I have for them. And anybody who has ever been to Bosnia can plainly see that it is not true thae Bosniaks are all "jihadists" or some such and who does not see this it's only because he has a predisposition against them. Most Bosniaks I spoke to do not have anything against the Serbs as such, only against those who tried to exterminate them. But many Bosnian Serbs react with blind rage and monstrous hate. So for me it is clear who is evil here and who not. In Rwanda it was the same. But there at least the country was not partitioned and those who were victims in the end prevailed against the genocidals. With the result that today Rwanda is one of the more orderly countries in Africa. Too bad that (as in Bosnia, with French help) the murderers were allowed to escape and are to this day wreaking havoc in neighboring Congo. Had the Tutsi fought them to the last man there would be peace in the region long since. So, if it again comes to that I would very much like to see the situation in Bosnia resolved as the Tutsi have done in Rwanda or the legitimate Sri Lankan forces have disposed of the LTTE. Nobody has objected to that, so why here?
And another good advice, dear fellow: do not bring up the subject of ethnic purity in certain other regions. Else I would be tempted to think that Franco was right after all (after all, like Tito he only held his country together)

by: George from: Montreal
November 22, 2009 21:38
Double standards are continuously applied in the Balkans, especially towards the Serbs.
8000 men killed does not equal genocide, its simply a massacre, those of you who do not understand the definition. Genocide is aimed destruction of a whole nation, the Serbs never aimed at killing the whole Bosniak nation like the Germans killed the Jews, or how Croats killed the Serbs in WW2 as well or the Turks killing the Armenians (forcefully making million some people walk through a desert without giving them food or water).

And if you would like to actually talk about Republika Srpska "created on genocide/terror/massacres/ethnic cleansing in 3.5 years" then why don't we talk about 500 years of Ottoman terror opression, terror, blood tax, ethnic cleansing (replacing Serbs with Albanians/Slavic Muslims in those areas the Serbs left in order to alter the ethnic balance), wars all which took mostly place on Serbian Orthodox lands and on the back of the Serbian population. This whole so called "Bosniak" nation was created on the back of mostly the Serbs.

So Abdul Majid, habibi just because these Bosniaks adapted a "Bosnian" identity some 17 years ago doesn't give them an automatic right to the whole country of Bosnia, even though they populate only 30% of it's land, and just because they have higher birthrates doesn't allow them to take over the whole country and rule anyone they want how they wish. Even those Slavic Muslims that never lived in Bosnia who live in other parts of former Yugoslavia declare themselves Bosnian, which is as ridicilous as the whole "Bosnian Language" which is nothing but Serbian/Croatian with a few words changed.

Of course the excuse is, they changed identities..... well change it elsewhere

by: Abdul Majid
November 23, 2009 11:46
George, to begin, about 100.000 Bosniaks were killed, and the purose was to drive them from the land the Serbs claim as "theirs". That IS genocide!!! Even if they had killed only 3000 or 300 to make the other ones go away it would still be genocide! And not only that, you always tell the Bosniaks "look forward" but you always use old history to justify your crimes! And what shows your moral shortcomings is that you alwayas try to justify the evil you committed with other evil that was done a long time ago. It is as if I wanted to attack you over something your great-grandfather did to my great-grandfather, or what some ancestor of yours did to some of mine 500 years ago! That is morally ROTTEN! And all Serbs and their friends worldwide who deny, belittle, relativize, justify the genocide against the Bosniaks not only think exactly like Radovan Karadzic, they would be only too willing to commit genocide against the Bosniaks again! so, to me, all of them, including YOU, are guilty by association, as guilty as the actual henchmen, the Milan Lukics, and the ideologues that stand behind them, staring with Njegos, Pasic, Garasanin, the SANU memorandum, Dobrica Cosic, all the Serb nation has wanted to do since 1878 is to commit genocide against the Balkan Muslims!! It is the essence and purpose of the Serb state and the Serb nation! It is a collective paranoia and neurosis! The Serbs could very well make it their offical motto "Smrt Muslimanima!" or "Od Jadrana do Irana nece biti Muslimana!" and print it on their national flag. And since you have to talk about the genocide committed against the Armenians in 1915, the Turks by then were following the same ultranationalist and chauvinist policies they had learned from the Serbs and the Bulgarians which anyway were much en vogue and accepted everywhere else, and they justified it with the genocide that after 1878 the Greeks, the Bulgarians and the Serbs committed against the Balkan Muslims, where they killed 1.500.000 people and expelled most of the rest! Which is why now there is only a "folkloric minority" of Muslims in these countries, and an underprivileged underclass in the bargain! And if the Bosniaks are denied justice, if their expulsion is not reversed, if Karadzic is set free or only symbolically sentenced, then next time around the Bosniaks will apply your very own and same morally rotten logic to you, for Srebrenica and for all the rest, and if it takes 100, 500 or 1000 years, and then we will see how much you like it! But I say it to you again, the cross will not chase the crescent out of Bosnia! And no, I haven't been raised on hate of Christians as you have been raised on hate against Muslims! All my feelings towards Serbs come from their deeds of 1991 to this very day, and then after reading their attitude towarsd non-Serbs through history.
DOLJE REPLUKA SRPSKA!
DOLJE VELIKA SRBIJA!
And don't call me habibi, you ... !

by: Pau from: Barcelona
November 23, 2009 17:56
Ok, Maja, lets see if i have undertand you.

You are saying that Daiton was ok because ended the world, but today one of the parts, the muslims, with the support of USA, have the right to broke the accords and to impone her own point of view, even again the opinion of the other part. ¿Its ok? Well, until now in the civilizated world the accords and the contracts are to be respected, and if one part wants to change something of them needs the approval of the other side. Broking written accords is illegal in most of the countries.

During the war, there were also atrocities commited against the serbs, (but they had less media coverage) and anyway if every nation who had commited bad things in the past were punished with no right to decide or to exist , i wonder if could legally exist Germany aftter Nazi atrocities, Japan after imperialism or even USA after killing thousands of civil people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The message to the world wouldnt be worse that the one some countries have sent recognizing Kosovo independence: If you use terror (UÇK was recognized a terrorist group even by the American State Department), you cause enough victims and provoke the other side repression -wich of course will cause even more victims-, maybe USA, or another superpower country and its allies will recognize your independence. And this happens with Kosovo, and after with S Ossetia, Abjasia....¿and who will be the next?

by: Abdul Majid
November 23, 2009 20:03
Judging from the wild and gobbie responses I get from the Serbofascists, even when I present my findings in a calm and logical mannner, I must really have hit a raw nerve here. They have something to be ashmed of and that is why their responses are so passionate (in lack for a better word). To the enemies of my faith and my brethren I say: I am not taking back ANYTHING of what I said, and I as long as the Serb attitude towards the Milosevic wars does not change, as long as I get Muslim-baiting and Bosniak-baiting from them I not only know that I am in the right about the Serbs being a genocidal nation as Nazi Germany was. I mean, when somebody says "The Turks inflicted centuries-long suffering on us Serbs so we are right in taking revenge on the Bosniaks", that says all: Who say such things and believes in such things in order to have a moral justification for crimes committed against other peoples has resigned from the human race. Even if I know the Serbs say such things mostly to themselves for their own benefit to assuage their bad conscience for having been party to mass murder, mass rape, destruction of cultural property and forced removal of a people, in one case (Senida Becirovic) even taking a Bosniak child and raising her as a Serb - all of which is GENOCIDE! And brazenly saying tha tthere was no genocide even though it has been established at judgments that there WAS genocide (but then, 65 years after the Holocaust is still being denied). They dare call me a liar or a sleaze or a fraud or some such and at the same time they applaud to those who say "Noz, zica, Srebrenica" or some such. Then, it is easy to develop a profound dislike for them. And I do NOT want Serbia to be part of the EU. Not until Boris Tadic comes to Srebrenica but not to make some noncommital statemenst liek "I'm impressed" but to kneel down as Willy Brandt did befoe the Warsaw Ghetto Memorial. And to the Serbofascists who always say "History will show what happened" Well, the Bosniaks will see to it that history is not forgotten and in 500 years Bosniak mothers will tell their children when they misbehave "Be good, or Karadzic will come get you!" Just as the Germans will forever have to live witzhthe stain of Auschwitz, teh Serbs will forever have to live withthe stain of Srebrenica, Omarska, Trnopolje etc. But they will NOT erase the Bosniaks off the map!!! There will be no final line to draw. The Cross will NOT chase the Crescent from Bosnia!

by: Abdul Majid
November 23, 2009 20:25
If Dodik really pulls through some stupid stunt the time will come for the Bosniaks to seek redress by their own means. If the Rwandan Tutsi could do it and put an end to the genocidal Hutu regime, if the legitimate authorities of Sri Lanka could finally defeat the LTTE, and nobody objected to it, then why not the Bosniaks? This does not mean that the Tutsi or the Sinhalese have in turn committed genocide on the Hutu, or the Tamils. They just have removed the genocidal extremists from power. There are undoubtedly some legitimate demands and inalienable rights that the Bosnian Serbs do have (I would never harm somebody just because he is a Serb, but a chetnik or an anti-Muslim that's something completely different) BUT since they chose to commit genocide they have forfeited those rights, and if they present them out of a context of bad faith and malice, as they commonly do, then they themselves have invalidated their position. Who speaks out for Karadzic or who follows his ideals IS Karadzic. It is always possible to choose right or wrong, good or evil. Those Bosnian Serbs who stand for Bosnia, like Gen. Divjak or the Serb inhabitants of Baljvina or those Serbs still living in the Federation, and those Serbs who denounce and distance themselves from teh genocidal anti-Bosniak crusade, chose good over evil. Those who follwed Karadzic, who murdered or raped Bosniaks and destroyed their monuments, those who let all this happen and turned a blind eye to it, those who continue to defend, relativize, belittle or deny the anti-Bosniak genocide, all often at the same time, who continue to spit in the faces of the survivors and on the graves of the victims, chose evil. They ARE evil. Besides that, appeasement does not work. What is the Munich, er, Dayton armistice anyway? It was to give the aggressor - two pitiful, bankrupt tinpot dictators - all their ill-gotten gains acquired through violence and genocide on a silver platter. And now? More appeasement! Which will again only bring more evil! Even if we assume that a partition of Bosnia-Herzegovina could be done in an orderly manner, even if we leave aside in what position it would leave the Bosniaks: locked in from all sides by people who are hostile to them; what would happen? One year later the Serbs would only claim more, or claim all of it. Because if they could get away with annexing half of Bosnia to Serbia or establishing it as Dodik's personal feud, why be content with half of it when through brute force they can have it all? Many Serbs still continue to dream of Greater Serbia, which would contain all of Montenegro, Macedonia, Kosovo, Krajina, half or more of Dalmatia, and even swathes of Bulgaria. And the Serb government, incapable of feeding its people instead continues to foist chauvinism on them. What kind of peace can be established with people like that?

by: George from: Montreal
November 24, 2009 03:28
Abdul you keep screaming this genocide word, I dont know how good your english is but please refresh your memory. One definition I pulled of the internet was "systematic killing of a racial or cultural group ". Examples of genocide are the killing of Jews/Gypsies/Serbs/Others in WW2 and Armenians in WW1 as well as the Rwandan Genocide.
In all 3 cases, one nation deliberatly in some way or another sought to completely destroy the other by means of killing.
What happened in Bosnia was ethnic cleansing en masse, Serbs did it, Croats did it and Bosniaks did it as well, all 3 sides, though the Serbs and Croats did it more than the Bosniaks, but regardless all 3 sides did it.

Bosnia may have existed as a kingdom or region in Europe at times in history, but it was never an effective nation-state like Bulgaria serbia hungary france were.

And my friend, what your grandfather did to mine still counts today, and it largely shapes many nations and histories.

And my friend if anyone has suffered most ethnic cleansing, seperation and forced removal it has been the Serbs. Before WW2 they were some 30% of the population in present day Croatia, more than 50% in Bosnia and even in Kosovo they were on par with the Albanians. Today they are minorities or almost non existant in all 3. So facts speak better than your opinions on who has been cleansed and killed away.

Oh and for you to say the Balkan nations killed 1,5mn Muslims at some point in history or other proves your lack of political or historical bias and lack of knowledge. You simply have no idea.
Comments page of 4
    Next 

Most Popular

               
 
 
 
 
Being Discussed Now

U.S. Hearing On Balochistan Raises Hackles, Awareness In Pakistan

Latest Comment (1 total)

akram: It shows why pakistanis mistrust americans,US has plan for balkanization of pakistan and ... More

Jolie Earns Serbian Scorn For War Film

Latest Comment (86 total)

Abdulmajid: Well said, e.t., and I appreciate very much your qualifying 1992-95 as the ... More

Iran To Make Nuclear Announcement

Latest Comment (13 total)

Ivan: @ Jack from Upper Siberia, he only Official connection is Russia=Syria=Iran=Hamas=Hizbolla More