23 March 2009 - INTERNATIONAL OFFICIALS AND EXPERTS SPEAKING AT NATO PA SEMINAR WARN OF UNRAVELLING OF REFORM PROCESS IN BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA AND CALL FOR SUSTAINED INTERNATIONAL ATTENTION

Bosnia and Herzegovina  has come a long way since the end of the Yugoslav wars and the conclusion of the Dayton peace agreement almost 14 years ago. It has built up state institutions and engaged important reforms. This progress has allowed the country to move closer to Euro-Atlantic integration. Bosnia and Herzegovina was granted an Intensified Dialogue with NATO in April 2008, and is currently working on its Individual Partnership Action Plan. It also recently signed a Status of Forces Agreement and is considering a first military contribution to a NATO operation through the deployment of 10 officers to ISAF in Afghanistan.

The prospect of NATO integration has been a key factor in the success of the defence reform process. Selmo Cikotic, Minister of Defence of Bosnia and Herzegovina, underlined how defence reform had been “a state-building exercise”; it amounted to a “constitutional change, setting “a firm basis for future progress in the country” and helping create a “culture of compromise”.  

Bosnia and Herzegovina  also achieved significant progress towards EU integration with the signature of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement (SAA) in 2008. Numerous regional initiatives, in which Bosnia and Herzegovina participates actively, have reinforced the process.

However, several worrying trends are evident. International officials denounced the radicalisation of political rhetoric, the tendency of local elites to question the viability of the Bosnian state, and the use of fear mongering as a tool of political mobilisation. Raffi Gregorian, Principal Deputy High Representative, warned Bosnian politicians that they “need to think about the consequences of their words, not just their actions”. International officials and experts also noted the growing disconnect between the political class and the population.

Local NGO representatives regretted that ethnic communities remain largely divided, and that divisions are often reinforced by separate education systems and curricula. As a result, new generations are sometimes even less exposed to other ethnic groups than were their parents. Zlatan Orhanovic, Executive Director of the Centre for Civic Initiatives, noted that reconciliation can only be achieved once one truth is established about the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina; currently, there are still three different “truths”, and no political will to hold members of one’s own community accountable for the crimes committed during the war. Gavin Ruxton of the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia also warned that, with the Tribunal’s mandate coming to an end, local courts will bear the responsibility of ensuring that no impunity gap is created, and that local war criminals are brought to justice. This transition to local justice will be an important step towards future reconciliation.

Several speakers lamented the unravelling of the reform process. According to Mr Gregorian, the end of 2005 marked the high watermark for reform. Since then, little has been achieved. Mr Gregorian asked why the current government seems unable to reform, while the previous government, working with the same constraints and in the framework of the Dayton institutions, managed to advance the reform agenda. Minister Cikotic regretted that even defence reform has slowed because it increasingly depends on progress in other state institutions. Police reform is even more problematic. Adoption of the second package of reform at the entity and cantonal levels is conditioned by constitutional reform. Yet, experts warned that adoption of a comprehensive constitutional package is unlikely in the current context, despite the establishment of a positive dialogue among the three main political parties in Bosnia and Herzegovina as part of the so-called Prud process. The global financial and economic crisis also creates an unfavourable environment for reform.

Speakers warned that there is a risk that Bosnia and Herzegovina ’s progress towards Euro-Atlantic integration might stall, both as a result of problems within EU and NATO, and developments in the countries of the Balkans. According to Sabine Freizer of the International Crisis Group, a first problem is enlargement fatigue and “soul searching within NATO and the EU”; a second problem is the “breakdown in regional solidarity” evidenced by political disputes between neighbours (Greece and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia[1]; Croatia and Slovenia); a third problem is the complexity of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s institutional structure. Ms Freizer insisted that “the EU needs Bosnia and Herzegovina to speak with one voice”; “only when the discussion about who is in charge is completed can Bosnia and Herzegovina fully engage in the process of EU accession”, she continued.   

In this context, participants in the seminar generally agreed that the international community needs to maintain a strong engagement in Bosnia and Herzegovina, even if this engagement assumes new forms.

The OHR has come under increasing criticism from local politicians. Ana Trisic-Babic, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, expressed her hope that the OHR would close by the end of 2009, suggesting that it was “suffocating democratic processes in Bosnia and Herzegovina ”. However, international officials and independent experts stressed that the OHR should not be closed until all conditions set by the PIC are effectively met and until the details of the transition from the OHR to an EU Special Representative (EUSR) with a reinforced mandate are agreed. Kurt Bassuener from the Democratisation Policy Council insisted that the international community must resist the temptation of “declaring victory too soon”.

Both Ms Freizer and Mr Bassuener stressed that the EUSR will need a strong consensus among EU member states, and should continue to report to the UN Security Council. Meanwhile, the use of Bonn powers should be limited to smaller issues or as a last resort.  

Speakers generally agreed that the international community cannot impose change, but can nonetheless establish a context for positive change. According to Mr Bassuener, the international community needs to insist that politicians refrain from using fear as a political tool. It should also set clear guidelines for future constitutional reform. Mr Cikotic also noted that defence reform has demonstrated that strong pressure works: whereas NATO provided robust guidance in steering defence reform in the country, the EU failed to do the same for police reform. Other speakers also called for a more consistent and rigorous approach. Mr Gregorian regretted that in the past few years, “progress on the ground has not matched the inducements offered to Bosnia and Herzegovina, including admission to Partnership for Peace and the signature of the SAA”. Mr Bassuener agreed that these steps had “undermined the credibility of the concept of conditionality”.

Several speakers also argued that the international community should not neglect the local level, and needs to work more closely with municipalities. Finally, several local officials and experts emphasised the benefits that visa facilitation could bring to the country, particularly by creating new opportunities for young people, many of whom are leading more provincial lives than their parents.

[1]Turkey  recognises the Republic of Macedonia by its constitutional name.