The International Institute for Middle-East and Balkan Studies (IFIMES) in Ljubljana, Slovenia, constantly analyses events in the Middle East and the Balkans. Recently it has examined the current situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The most important and interesting sections of the comprehensive analysis are given below:
The pre-election campaign is underway in Bosnia and Herzegovina for the October local elections and probably also for early parliamentary elections. The conflicts between political parties continue. The political combat is especially intensive between the leading national parties (Serbian Democratic Party, Party of Democratic Action, Croatian Democratic Union).
The present political conflict among the national parties in Bosnia and Herzegovina shows two characteristics:
The national parties are trying to capitalise on the conflict in order to strengthen their influence on their respective nations before the local elections claiming that they are the only autochton protectors of the national interests.
They are producing the conflict wilfully and in agreement since there was a sudden growth of social tensions which are developing into a new and very serious revolt and dissatisfaction with the government.
In order to preserve their influence, the leading national structures are carefully tackling the insufficiently resolved national issue in Bosnia and Herzegovina and thus try to avoid the essential problems in this state.
The national politicians are developing new political conflicts since they do not want do admit publicly their failure which was probably caused by their incapability and lack of knowledge to resolve the accumulated economic and social problems. In contrast to the neighbouring states which have recorded substantial growth rates, Bosnia and Herzegovina has been stagnating or showing minimum improvements which do not suffice for serious changes of very complex and burning economic and social issues. According to the data of the Foreign Investment Promotion Agency of Bosnia and Herzegovina (FIPA), direct investments to Bosnia and Herzegovina in the period from May 1994 to December 31, 2003 amounted to 2,1 billion Convertible Marks, which is insufficient and points to the incapability of the government to attract foreign investors.
The privatisation led by the national parties administration has turned into a plundering of the state property. All the three national parties are present in the background of those privatisation activities. The strings are pulled by those who were close to the war leaders of all the three sides (Croats, Serbs, Bosniaks), and together with a group of sympathisers positioned in all towns of Bosnia and Herzegovina they accumulated a wealth by plundering their own people during the process of war profiteering. Even today they operate from the background and have a strong influence on the present leaders of national parties. Thus, Dragan Kalinic and the SDS leaders are still controlled by Momcilo Mandic with a group of »fledgling businessmen«, the SDA is influenced by Hasan Cengic and the HDZ is under the power of the Herzegovinian business tycoons.
A blatant case is the privatisation plundering in the banking sector in the Republic of Srpska led by Mladen Ivanic. When he was President of the Republic of Srpska he sold banks worth several millions for only one Euro (Kristal banka a.d. was sold to Hypo Adria Bank for EUR 1). Also, Banjalucka banka a.d. was sold for KM 200.000 without having the real value of the capital defined in advance. The building of the Kristal banka in Brcko has recently been sold for about KM 1 million while the whole bank was sold for EUR 1.
Ivanic's main consultant and operator in the privatisation of banks was Milenko Vracar, who the USA and EU banned from entering their territories. This raises doubts that it is actually the criminal structures which have played the key role in Bosnia and Herzegovina for the past 12 years. The people are aware that this government offers no prospects for the future. Increasing dissatisfaction is expressed on the streets which threatens to turn into very serious mass protests throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina. Bosnia and Herzegovina was lead into such a situation after the power was once more taken over by the national parties in the entities and at the state level after a very short period of the reign of the democratic parties of the left (SDP, SP, SNSD). Bosnia and Herzegovina is another example which shows that the political right-wing in the Balkans is very different from its counterpart in the developed Western societies. The attempt of the national parties to transform and reform into calm conservative parties proved abortive. It was nothing but an »empty rhetoric« of the national parties which tried once again to deceive the representatives of the international community. Unfortunately, the High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina Lord Paddy Ashdown »fell« for it.
It is the High Representative Paddy Ashdown who is to assume the responsibility for strengthened role of the national parties which still identify themselves as the national movement. Ashdown is the first representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina to back the nationalists after the 2002 elections by proclaiming them to be reformed and democratic. This was perhaps the greatest delusion that could have occurred in the post-war Bosnia and Herzegovina. Though the national parties carried out the »cosmetic« changes, their ultimate goals remained the same. Bringing up again and realising the goals of the national parties would represent the complete ruin of Bosnia and Herzegovina. This ruin would not only be the failure of the nations and citizens in Bosnia and Herzegovina but also the failure of the international community to implement its policy in this part of the Balkans. It is therefore high time to start resolving the problems in Bosnia and Herzegovina fundamentally.
The protest gatherings of the opposition in Banja Luka and Vlasenica were a sign of hope that the changes have been initiated and that the iceberg peak has begun to melt. Despite bad weather about 30.000 people gathered in Banja Luka. Regrettably, the police of the Republic of Srpska used sophisticated methods to discourage the citizens from gathering. They spread information (threats) that the opposition is ready to take destructive action, even the destruction of the Republic of Srpska, but that never happened. It was the most dignified and greatest mass gathering in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The IFIMES International Institute believes that International Conference on Investment in Bosnia and Herzegovina held in Mostar on February 26 and 27 this year was yet but another futile attempt of the present government. What could have been the reasons for selecting Mostar as the place of the Conference if it was known that Mostar lacks among others an appropriate airport which would enable safe landing and takeoff? Such information must have been known to the President of the Conference Organisation Committee as well as to the then President of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Dr Dragan Covic. After all, the Conference was to be attended by the eminent statesmen and economists from abroad. Dr Covic should therefore not escape from the objective responsibility and should be included in the investigation in order to clarify definitely all the circumstances of the tragic death of Macedonian President Boris Trajkovski.
Such an international conference with eminent guests and this kind of concept can not bring concrete results. As it is practice, after the speeches of eminent statesmen are delivered very little time is left for concrete answers to the questions posed by those who actually came to the conference for this reason. At the Conference the floor was mainly given to the representatives of companies and organisations which have dominated in Bosnia and Herzegovina for several years as the support pillar for the country's development and which feel confident of their important mission: WB, EBRD, USAID. The main sponsors of the Conference made best use of the time for self-promotion and presentation of their plans for the future (Unicredito, Coca Cola, Hypo Alpe Adria, Daimler Chrysler). The first day of the Conference was concluded by Director of the Foreign Investment Promotion Agency of Bosnia and Herzegovina (FIPA) who presented the achievements of the past years and the potentials in various fields of economy in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Perhaps this kind of presentation would have some sense somewhere in Japan, but even there the questions posed would not be about the conditions of ownership transformation of the projects concerned but concrete questions which would require concrete answers and data.
On the second day of the Conference round tables were organised to discuss banking, industry, power supply, infrastructure, agriculture, food and tourism. The moderators were experts in their fields. The round tables enabled at least some concreteness which was essential for the Conference.
The IFIMES International Institute is of the opinion that the main aim of the International Conference on Investment in Bosnia and Herzegovina was to promote the political elite and international community rather than to deal with the reasons for the insufficiency and the lack of interest in investing in Bosnia and Herzegovina since the end of the war until today. There were not enough concrete information and data on the implementation of laws which would end the privatisation process and on proposed measures to be implemented by the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina in order to create a more favourable environment for foreign investment.
One of the problems of the newly established states in East and Southeast Europe is close connection between the political and criminal structures. The latter claim a debt against the political structures originating in the period of establishment and gaining independence of those states when the criminal structures substantially supported the political structures in their intentions. According to the data of the World Bank regarding corruption, Bosnia and Herzegovina occupies the 2nd place among the states of Europe and Central Asia, following Macedonia. Since the anticorruption, higher education and other laws have not been adopted, $ 118 million of the World Bank wait to be allocated.
The adoption of the law on direct election of the heads of municipalities in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina represents a positive step in the discriminatory election system which is the result of the Dayton Peace Agreement.
The capturing of suspected war criminals, notably Karadzic and Mladic as well as others, will continue to aggravate the relations of Bosnia and Herzegovina with the international community. The voluntary handing over of six Bosnian and Herzegovinian Croats charged with war crimes in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Prlic, Coric, Stojic, Petkovic, Praljak and Pusic) was a positive act. However, this will put an additional burden on the Republic of Croatia for being involved in the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina (1992-1995). The six Bosnian and Herzegovinian Croats, though they are the citizens of BiH, insisted on having their bill of indictment sent first to Zagreb so that they could be submitted to the Hague Tribunal by the Croatian authorities. Their release and ability to defend themselves at liberty have further contributed to the destabilisation of Bosnia and Herzegovina since they were the ones who implemented the policy of destruction the state of BiH and the discriminatory policy towards non-Croats (Serbs and Bosniaks), especially Jadranko Prlic as Prime Minister of the so called Croatian republic of »Herceg-Bosna« which was the marionette in BiH in the hands of the official Zagreb. The Government of the Federation of BiH made a false move by giving the guarantee for the six Hague suspects, who turned over to the Hague Tribunal through the mediation of the neighbouring state of Croatia while requesting guarantee from the Government of the Federation of BiH for their release and defence at liberty. EU approval of the commencement of accession negotiations represents a positive step for Croatia, though it will also cause problems, since Croatia will have to answer numerous (unpleasant) questions. Croatia will have to resolve the open issues with the neighbouring countries (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Slovenia, Serbia and Montenegro), the issue of the return of property to the citizens of Serbian nationality, the issue of affirmation (discrimination) of minorities, the issue of the reconstruction of the synagogue for the needs of the Jewish community in Zagreb which was destroyed under the NDH regime during the World War 2, as well as the issue of the return of property to Bosnian and Herzegovinian citizens seized during the recent war and other issues. The present EU approach based on the notion that Croatia is much closer to EU than Bosnia and Herzegovina, could further destabilise the situation in the region and cause new tensions, especially since the delegates of the Croatian Prime Minister and HDZ leader Ivo Sanader still secretly meet with the HDZ leaders in Bosnia and Herzegovina and through them they are ready to destabilise Bosnia and Herzegovina at any moment - which is what they are actually doing.
The policy of the SDA leaders as well as of the current President of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina Sulejman Tihic further contributes to this destabilisation. Tihic pursues an open »pro-Croatian« policy together with a part of SDA which was established by Alija Izetbegovic and which is still present latently. This policy is based on the invisible need to establish a union which would serve as counter balance to the Serbian interests. After all, in the Bosnian history there was allegedly a traditional policy of uniting Bosniaks and Croats to oppose the Serbs. It is most appropriate to justify such policy by apparent accession of Bosnia and Herzegovina to Europe through Croatia as (its) Western neighbouring country. Though such justification is well-founded, this policy in fact means union against the Serbs and it damages the unity of Bosnia and Herzegovina in which Serbs are to live as a constitutive nation.
Sulejman Tihic, who was a prisoner in Serbian concentration camps during the recent war, has been running a very clear »pro-Croatian« policy and confronting unsuccessfully the refined and »new« Dr Dragan Covic, leaving him to deal with all the economic issues in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Covic opened the fairs in Mostar and Gradacac and ZEPS in Zenica, convened the International Conference on Investment in BiH, through his ministers at the level of the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina completely controls the finance and the budget etc.). In the meanwhile, Tihic deals with the problems of refugees and especially with the emphasised issue of the police and FOSS (Federal Intelligence Security Services), the strikes of impoverished Bosniaks, organises the solemn opening of the old bridge in Mostar etc.
Additional tensions in Bosnia and Herzegovina are caused by false measures and behaviour of the international community, such as the recent unsuccessful SFOR action to arrest the war crime suspects Karadzic and Mladic at Pale, in which an Orthodox priest Jeremija Starovlah and his son Aleksandar were seriously injured. The example of capturing Saddam Hussein in Iraq has proved that war crime suspects can only be arrested successfully if the domestic authorities take part in the action.
The present situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina was described perhaps most illustratively by Petar Djokic, President of the Socialist Party, who said at the recent round table of the opposition (SDP, SNSD, SP, NHI) in Sarajevo: »The power is in the hands of parties which were dominant before the beginning and during the recent war, and that makes the process of integration very difficult. We have to stop thinking of Bosnia and Herzegovina as of a temporary solution, since it will never be divided nor will it become a unitarian state. We have to give up such ideas and resolve the problems such as plundering privatisation or else we will end up in a desperate state of crime and corruption.«
The IFIMES International Institute believes that the present political situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina leads to early parliamentary elections and elections to the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina, since numerous surveys have shown that though the present government has the legality, it lacks the necessary legitimacy and authority. Early elections would show the real attitude of political forces at the tumultuous political scene in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
PUBLIC OPINION POLL
Data on the sample:
• The sample: random, three-stage
• Size of the sample: 1143 respondents (male and female citizens of lawful age)
• Methodology: telephone survey
• Period: April 20 to April 23 2004
• Degree of reliability: 95%
• Control: per 10% specimens
• Standard deviation +/- 3
• Territory: the Republic of Srpska
How do you rate the protest gathering organised by the opposition (SNSD, SP AND DNS) which was held in Banja Luka on 23 March 2004 and in Vlasenica on 17 April 2004?
POSITIVELY ~ 78.10%
NEGATIVELY ~ 9.20%
NO OPINION ~ 12.70%
Data on the sample:
• The sample: random, three-stage
• Size of the sample: 1143 respondents (male and female citizens of lawful age)
• Methodology: telephone survey
• Period: April 20 to April 23 2004
• Degree of reliability: 95%
• Control: per 10% specimens
• Standard deviation +/- 3
• Territory: the Republic of Srpska
Do you believe that the present leading structures in the Republic of Srpska are criminal structures (SDS, PDP)?
YES ~ 77.10%
NO ~ 9.70%
NO OPINION ~ 13.20 %
Data on the sample:
• The sample: random, three-stage
• Size of the sample: 1143 respondents (male and female citizens of lawful age)
• Methodology: telephone survey
• Period: April 20 to April 23 2004
• Degree of reliability: 95%
• Control: per 10% specimens
• Standard deviation +/- 3
• Territory: the Republic of Srpska
Do you expect the opposition to announce publicly new development programmes?
YES ~ 72.20%
NO ~ 14.80%
NO OPINION ~ 13.00%
Data on the sample:
• The sample: random, three-stage
• Size of the sample: 2101 respondents (male and female citizens of lawful age)
• Methodology: telephone survey
• Period: April 20 to April 23 2004
• Degree of reliability: 95%
• Control: per 10% specimens
• Standard deviation +/- 3
• Territory: Bosnia and Herzegovina (Republic of Srpska, Federation of BiH, Brèko District)
Can such organisation of judicial power in Bosnia and Herzegovina offer objective protection to the citizens and ensure trust in foreign investors?
NO ~ 64.30 %
YES ~ 27.50%
NO OPINION ~ 8.20%
Data on the sample:
• The sample: random, three-stage
• Size of the sample: 2101 respondents (male and female citizens of lawful age)
• Methodology: telephone survey
• Period: April 20 to April 23 2004
• Degree of reliability: 95%
• Control: per 10% specimens
• Standard deviation +/- 3
• Territory: Bosnia and Herzegovina (Republic of Srpska, Federation of BiH, Brcko District)
Do you believe the high representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina, lord Paddy Ashdown and his politics which he is implementing in Bosnia and Herzegovina?
NO ~ 71.20%
YES ~ 19.90%
NO OPINION ~ 8.90%
