Mr. Bieber, how do you, from the outside, perceive the current situation in BiH?
Unfortunately, it is impossible to be optimistic these days. The crisis in which Bosnia has been finding itself is like trying to advance by jumping one step forward and two back. There is no willingness among the majority of the political elite to compromise and to have a substantial dialogue, to key preconditions to make BiH work. The problem is that a number of politicians, such as Milorad Dodik seem to want to prove that BiH does not work for their own interest.
Referendum on the work and the legitimacy of the BiH Court is the main topic in RS now, the decision on it has been published in the RS Official Gazette. Is the referendum in the RS a direct blow to Dayton, as the international community says?
The referendum directly challenges Dayton, there is little doubt about it. It challenges the authority of international actors, which is an integral part of the agreement. Furthermore, the idea that such issues, as the coorperation with state instutions can be decided unilaterally by one entity, voted in a referendum stands in contradiction to Dayton which establishes a state. The powers of the state and the division of powers are negotiatable, but a referendum as it is foreseen in the RS is only a tool of unilateral decisions, not of compromise.
Does referendum in the RS draw attention away from other things, poor economic situation, bleak outlook for the future, etc.? What is behind it?
The way the question is formulated and the whole process around it suggests that it is not about the content, but about the political gesture. The question is open and could justify many different policies, not only in regard to the state court. It thus seems not like a question to geniuinely ask for popular opinion, but to only use for populist means to mobilize citizens in a way the government wants. Direct democracy in countries like Switzerland is used to control the government and to give citizens the option to challenge the decision of the government. Even then it can be very populist. However, why does a government with a strong majority need a non-binding referendum? It seems clear what the answer will be and there is no legal requirement to organise such a referendum. In this case, it is pure populism to impose a decision and make it more difficult to reverse. Of course, if the suggested referendum is pure populism, then it seems clear that the government is trying to distract from other issues. In this sense, this is nothing new both in the way the RS leadership has been behaving since 2006 and other governments in the region are acting. If you are unable or unwilling to conduct reforms or want to cover up affairs, populist rhetoric always becomes appealing.
How do you assess the current role of the international community in this issue? On one hand, they increasingly threaten with sanctions against the RS, saying that the decision of the National Assembly on referendum should be reversed, but so far there has been no concrete action? How will this be resolved?
International organizations have been reluctant to intervene directly in recent years, trying to resolve matters through dialogue and compromise. It is ironic that Dodik is constantly talking as if Ashdown is still High Representative. The international actors are aware that Dodik is popular and that he wants confrontation as this will only increase his popularity. However, the international community has missed out on setting clear red lines over recent years and as a result Dodik has been able to roll back a number of important reforms. The referendum seems to be though a clear red line and it is hard to imagine that if Dodik is not willing to back down from the referendum that the international community will have to intervene.
Recently formed Croatian National Parliament in Mostar issued conclusions according to which the Croats in Bosnia have to be provided with a new territorial unit, how do you comment on the issue of Croats in Bosnia and how can it be resolved?
The Croat National Assembly seems like a problematic initative. It creates extra-institutional bodies and the Croat National Assembly cannot claim to represent all Croat interests. However, there is an understandable grievance at the core of the assembly’s demands. The SDP has been marginalizing Croat representatives in the Federation who enjoy most support among Croats. The re-election of Zeljko Komsic and the way the Federation government has been formed as been ignoring the understanding that not only members of different nations have be included in government, but they have to reflect the community itself. Of course, SDP is only doing what others have been doing as well (see the Croat Vice-President of the RS), but by doing so it undermined the Federation and gave additional legitimacy to the HDZs.
How do you see the current partnership between Milorad Dodik and the political establishment of Croats in BiH?
It is a logical alliance considering that Dodik wants to show two things: First that Bosniak parties seek to dominate where they can (not forgetting that he does of course the same where he can) and that the Federation does not work (along the logic may the neighbor’s cow die). However, this only likely to be a temporary alliance, as there are important differences. It is unlikely that Croats will achieve a separate territorial unit outside the federation. This will require seeking dialogue with Bosniak parties and Croat parties have a long term interest in the Federation working, unlike Dodik.
How do you comment on the political situation in BiH Federation in the terms of the legality of its elected representatives and the legitimacy of the federal goverment?
I am not a lawyer, so I am not qualified to judge the legality of the Federal government. It would seem that both sides to the conflict have treated the constitution of the Federation or the election law with little respect. The HDZ dominated cantons seem to have violated the constitution by delaying the format of the Federal institutions and SDP-led coalition similar violated the election law by forming a government and electing the presidency before the House of People is fully constituted. The situation is the result of bad laws which make the formation of government and institutions difficult and a drawn out process. However, the problem is inherently political: The HDZs appear to have been too greedy when it came to their demands for ministerial posts and SDP has often behaved triumphalist in recent months. This unfortunately does not bode well for finding a more constructive political atmosphere in the coming years.
Recent research on ethnic distance in BiH shows that the inter-ethnic tensions are still present and that there is no joint position on the past or the future of this country.. If BH is a Yugoslavia in miniature, as it is often called, what can we expect in terms of developing inter-national relations?
We have to distinguish between different visions of the country and ethnic distance. Surveys over the past decade have shown that interethnic tensions are generally low, even if the understanding of the past and the future are divided. We should thus distinguish political visions from everyday experience. Second, division about the nature of the state is a function of poltical rhetoric. Between the late 1990s and 2005 there was a continued increase among both Serbs and Croats in accepting the BiH state. Only since 2006 have those numbers declined again among Serbs. What happened? The state has not gotten stronger since, neither have there been efforts to abolish the RS, there have fewer laws imposed by the OHR or officials dismissed. Thus, the reason that support for BiH has declined since 2006 has been the relentless political campaign of the SNSD and the media it controls against the Bosnian state.
When we talk about the wider regional context, how do you comment on the reactions of both Serbs and Croats, to the Hague verdict in the cases of Croatian generals, Ante Gotovina and Mladen Markac? Many analysts say that it reminds of the atmosphere of the 90s....
The reaction suggests that the populations in the region still look at the past very differently and many still do not accept the crimes committed by armies in their own name. I still think it differs greatly from the 1990s. The conflict of the 1990s was based on different visions of the future. It is one thing to get people on the street for a day to protest, but it is more serious if people would be willing to make their political decisions based on this. Currently, there is no sense that outside of Bosnia, say in Croatia or Serbia, citizens make their choices on issues other than their economic interest. There, populists who talk about national issues are not doing all that well. Thus, the verdicts reveal how divided the region remains about the past, but these reminders are likely to remain short moments rather than developments which will dictate dangerous policies.
How do you assess the development of relations among former Yugoslav republics? Will it ever cease to be a Balkan "powder keg"?
I think that the Balkans are no longer a power keg. Serious political disputes remain and it would be foolish to predict stability without conflict. However, there is little indication that there is any readiness to engage in violent conflict. There is a big gap between the level of political dispute and a much improved communication in everyday life. It will remain a challenge to deal with the past develop maybe not a shared understanding for the past, but at least to eliminate the biggest myths and agree on basic facts. Initiatives like REKOM which seek to deal with the past are key in moving forward. In addition, there is a need to have convincing common projects which focus on the future. The only such project is EU integration. At the moment, it has lost a lot of its attractiveness. Here the EU will have to make a more convincing case of not only what EU integration means in terms of real change for citizens and how integration is not only about wealth, but also about norms. In addition, the EU needs to bring the countries of the region closer faster. I think it would be beneficial to make all countries of the Western Balkans EU candidates and start negotiations as soon as possible.
We will publish this interview on 9 May. Mr. Bieber, how far away is BH from Europe?
BiH is in Europe. Integration into the EU will take still a long time. The speed of legislation in BiH has been slow in recent years. At the current speed, it will take decades for BiH to join the EU. There is no doubt that slow pace of reforms cannot continue in BiH in the coming years as this will only deepen the crisis of Bosnia.
Interview prepared Elvir Padalovic
BHS version available here
