Nacionalističke vlade Bosne i Hercegovine: Paddy Ashdown i paradoks izgradnje države
Nacionalističke vlade Bosne i Hercegovine: Paddy Ashdown i paradoks izgradnje države
Table of Contents
  1. Executive Summary
Changing Dynamics in the Western Balkans
Changing Dynamics in the Western Balkans
Report 146 / Europe & Central Asia

Nacionalističke vlade Bosne i Hercegovine: Paddy Ashdown i paradoks izgradnje države

Povratak nacionalnih partija na vlast nakon općih izbora iz oktobra 2002 u Bosni i Hercegovini (BiH) uglavnom je ocjenjen kao velika nesreća. Pojedini promatrači čak su ustvrdili da ishod ovih izbora označava poraz svih napora međunarodne mirovne misije koja je u BiH započela prije sedam godina.

  • Share
  • Save
  • Print
  • Download PDF Full Report

IZVRŠNI SAŽETAK

Povratak nacionalnih partija na vlast nakon općih izbora iz oktobra 2002 u Bosni i Hercegovini (BiH) uglavnom je ocjenjen kao velika nesreća. Pojedini promatrači čak su ustvrdili da ishod ovih izbora označava poraz svih napora međunarodne mirovne misije koja je u BiH započela prije sedam godina. Ipak, novi Visoki predstavnik, Paddy Ashdown, nije obeshrabren. Ne samo stoga što je pobjeda nacionalista bila vrlo tijesna, već i zbog uvjerenja da s nacionalistima može raditi ukoliko se oni pokažu odani predizbornim obećanjima o prihvaćanju reformi, što ih je Visoki predstavnik skicirao od svog preuzimanja OHR-a u maju 2002. Reformski plan ima za cilj da nadoknadi izgubljeno vrijeme: provedba ekonomskih, pravnih i reformi vladinih struktura nastoji BiH učiniti prosperitetnom, zakonitom i mirnom državom i postaviti je na put integracija u Europske strukture. Lord Ashdown, dakle, pokušava sebe ostaviti bez posla stavljajući BiH na put ka Europskoj uniji.

Devet mjeseci nakon izbora, odnosno pola godine od uspostave državnih i entitetskih vlada, još uvijek je prerano tvrditi da li će pakt, što Ashdown vjeruje da ga je uspostavio sa nacionalistima, proizvesti rezultate. Sigurno je tek da je to novi pristup. Ashdownov prethodnik, Wolfgang Petritsch, također je nakon izbora u novembru 2000 pokušao nešto novo: “partnerstvo” između međunarodne zajednice i nenacionalističke koalicije - Alijanse za promjene, koje je bilo potpomognuto međunarodnim intervencijama. To je partnerstvo imalo određene rezultate, ali uglavnom skromne i nedostatne, kako za navodne parnere tako i za izborno tijelo.

Ashdown pokušava ostvariti partnerstvo ne toliko sa vladama koliko sa građanima BiH. Tvrdeći, kao svaki dobar zapadni političar, kako ih je uvijek spreman saslušati i kako osjeća želje običnih ljudi, Ashdown insistira da bi i bosanski političari trebali imati takav pristup. On je vješto naveo nacionaliste da potpišu program reformi koje predlažu on i njegove kolege iz međunarodne zajednice. Zahtjevi koje su pred BiH postavili NATO, Europska unija, Vijeće Europe, vlada SAD i drugi međunarodni čimbenici, donijeli su Lordu Ashdownu dodatne ovlasti, po snazi jednake njegovim tzv. Bonnskim ovlašćenjima, koja mu omogućuju da smjenjuje izabrane ili imenovane zvaničnike, nameće zakone i donosi administrativne ukaze. Zbog nezajažljive potrebe za glasovima i vlašću – ili možda čak zbog tog što se s tim slažu – nove vlade su do sada prihvaćale Ashdownove ciljeve.

No, možda postoje čak i prednosti u procesu reformi koje potiče međunarodna zajednica a provode ih vlade kojima dominiraju nacionalne stranke. Izbori su potvrdili da su nacionalne stranke osigurale najveći dio podjeljenog izbornog tijela, unutar kojeg svaki od naroda još uvijek prihvaća tvrdnje da je, ili glavna žrtva rata, ili da je njegov opstanak najugroženiji. Ovo znači da bi nacionalisti mogli biti u najboljoj poziciji da uvjere svoje glasače da reforme neće ugroziti njihove nacionalne interese. Nove vlade, stoga, možda mogu lakše osigurati podršku za reforme nego što je to bila u stanju Alijansa za promjene.

Do sada su nacionalisti ili prihvaćali ili tolerirali reforme na kojima je insistirao Lord Ashdown - bilo zato što su te reforme nužne za prijem u Euro-Atlanske integracije, čemu deklarativno teže sve partije, bilo zbog odmazdi koje bi u protivnom slijedile. Primoravanje nacionalista, koji su započeli i vodili rat, da preuzmu odgovornost za reforme može, dakle, biti i jedina opcija i najbolja osveta. No, to je strategija koja je visoko rizična. Visoki predstavnik može izdavati naredbe, no on ne može provoditi reforme. Za to je potreban istinski angažman domaćih vlasti.

No, ukoliko se vlade tek razmeću praznim obećanjima u vezi reformi, a brojne administracije ne radi ništa, onda su karte otvorene. Rad Vijeća ministara do sada ne ulijeva previše povjerenja. Ono je usvojilo nekoliko strateških dokumenata, pripremljenih od strane međunarodne zajednice, ali nije uspjelo da te dokumente predstavi kao svoj program rada. Dogodilo se i da dva nova državna ministarstva - sigurnosti i pravde, koja su u početku pozdravljana kao značajni simboli jačanja državnosti BiH, i dalje ostaju prazne institucije, bez osoblja i vlastitog budžeta. U međuvremenu, nacionalni paralelizmi su se počeli ponovno javljati u ostalim ministarstvima, od kojih su neka, također, bez kormila jer nemaju pravilnike o internoj organizaciji, planove rada ili nijedno od toga.

Sada više nerotirajući predsjedatelj Vijeća ministara, Adnan Terzić, kojeg Ashdown preferira oslovljavati premijerom BiH, do sada nije demonstrirao potrebno liderstvo koje bi rezultiralo razbijanjem postojećih blokada i prelaskom s deklarativnog prihvaćanja reformi na njihovu realizaciju. Vijeće ministara uglavnom reagira, umjesto da samo pokreće stvari. Ni entitetske vlade nisu ništa bolje, niti sposobnije. Inicijative, gotovo isključivo, dolaze od Visokog predstavnika i nema naznaka da će se tu bilo šta uskoro promjeniti.

Gotovo osam godina nakon Daytona, stanje u BiH za mnoge je zabrinjavajuće. Ono je svakako zabrinjavajuće za Lorda Ashdowna, koji se nadao da bi mogao biti posljednji Visoki predstavnik. Dilema o tome kada i kako se povući uistinu postoji. Što se duže ljudi i političari u BiH budu oslanjali na strance da u ime njih donose teške odluke i plaćaju njihove račune, to će kasnije opraštanje i razilazak biti teži. Ipak, prerano je kako za očajavanje tako i za bilo kakav osjećaj neo-kolonijalne krivnje. Što se prvog tiče, dosljednost s kojom Ashdown potiče i propovjeda reforme počela je da razbija široko rasprostranjeni pesimizam makar u BiH, ako ne i u inozemstvu. Kad je o drugom pitanju riječ, umjesto neo-kolonijalnom međunarodna zajednica treba se još neko vrijeme baviti jednom drugom krivnjom: onom za rat koji se nije morao dogoditi, niti je morao trajati tako dugo, za mir koji je otvorio tek puku mogućnost za stvaranje stabilne države, te za nekoliko propuštenih godina u kojima se ta mogućnost nije iskoristila.

Lordu Ashdownu se stoga žuri da postigne ono što je u boljim uslovima moglo biti pokušano na samom početku međunarodnog angažmana: da ustanovi vladavinu zakona; da regenerira neproduktivnu, o pomoći ovisnu, post-socijalističku ekonomiju; da pojednostavi i ojača sposobnost javnih servisa; te da virtualnu državu naslijeđenu iz Daytona opremi svim atributima nužnim za članstvo u Europskoj uniji. On ovo mora postići prije nego međunarodno strpljenje i financijski izvori presahnu, odnosno do tada dok u ovoj zemlji još uvijek ima onih koji su skloni da se radije nadaju nego da očajavaju.

Finalna faza zakašnjelih međunarodnih napora da se izgradi samoodrživa BiH bit će ispunjena paradoksom. Da bi otišli iz ove zemlje, njeni će inozemni čuvari morati najprije da se u njoj još snažnije angažiraju. Da bi se odrekao korištenja Bonnskih ovlasti, Ashdown ih u kratkom roku treba koristiti još intenzivnije. Da bi realizirao obećanja iz Daytona, Visoki će predstavnik morati da prekorači granice onog šta se smatralo dopuštenim Daytonskim ustavom. On sve ovo već radi, prije svega kroz specijalne komisije kojima predsjedavaju stranci, a koje nastoje da pronađu ustavna opravdanja i postignu politički konsensus neophodan kako bi se popravio balans ovlaštenja između države i entiteta u oblasti odbrane, obavještajnih poslova i indirektnog oporezivanja.

Ukoliko ove komisije iskoriste svoj potencijal da ponište neke od najtežih efekata Daytonske podjele BiH, Visoki predstavnik bi mogao pribjeći još nekim, sličnim i specifično orijentiranim tijelima. Tada bi postojala nada da bi ukupni efekat ovakvih ad hoc procjena o tome šta Ustav dopušta mogao proizvesti konsensus potreban za punu reviziju ustavne konstitucije koju bi napravile domaće snage unutar BiH. No, ukoliko ove komisije ne uspiju da usvoje radikalne mjere koje će bitno ojačati kompetencije države BiH, onda za međunarodnu zajednicu nema druge opcije osim da direktno ukloni prepreke koje predstavljaju ustavni aranžmani. Činjenica da ona to već radi, promovirajući amandmane koji bi dopustili da Ustavni sud preuzme nadležnosti Doma za ljudska prava, mogla bi uspostaviti važan i snažan presedan u tom smislu.

Sarajevo/Brussels, 22 Juli 2003

Executive Summary

The return of the nationalist parties to power after the October 2002 general elections in Bosnia & Herzegovina (BiH) was widely assessed as a calamity. Some observers went so far as to claim that it signified the failure of the international peace-building mission over the previous seven years. But the new High Representative, Paddy Ashdown, refused to be downcast. Not only was the nationalists’ victory narrow, but he was confident he could work with them if they proved faithful to their pre-election pledges to embrace the reform agenda he had been charting since taking office in May 2002. This agenda seeks to make up for lost time: implementing the economic, legal and governance reforms required both to make BiH a prosperous, lawful and peaceable state and to set the country on track for European integration. Lord Ashdown aims to put himself out of a job by putting BiH on the road to the EU.

Nine months on, but only six months into the terms of the belatedly established state and entity governments, it remains too early to say whether the compact Ashdown believes he has established with the nationalists will produce results. It is certainly a new approach. Ashdown’s predecessor, Wolfgang Petritsch, had tried something new as well: “partnership” between the international community and the non-nationalist Alliance for Change coalition cobbled together with foreign assistance after the November 2000 elections. This had some modest success, but not enough to satisfy either the would-be partners or the electorate.

Ashdown has sought partnership not so much with the governments as with the people. Claiming, as any good Western politician would, to have listened to their voices and intuited their hearts, he insists that Bosnia’s politicians should do likewise. He has skilfully manoeuvred the nationalists into signing up for the reforms that he and his colleagues in other international organisations propose. The invocation of requirements set by NATO, the EU, the Council of Europe, the U.S. and others has provided Lord Ashdown with leverage as potent as that he enjoys by virtue of the so-called Bonn powers, which allow him to sack officeholders, impose laws and make administrative edicts. In their hunger for votes and office – and maybe even because they agree – the new governments have endorsed his aims.

There may, in any case, be some advantage in a reform process driven by the international community but carried out by nationalist-dominated governments. The elections confirmed that the national parties retain the confidence of the largest part of a divided electorate, whose separate nations still resonate to assertions either that they were the war’s main victims or that they are most at threat from the others. This means that the nationalists could be best placed to reassure their constituents that the reforms under way will not endanger their respective national interests. The new governments may thus find it easier to muster support for reform than did the Alliance.

So far they have accepted or tolerated the reforms insisted upon by Lord Ashdown – either because they are necessary for the Euro-Atlantic integration all parties claim to want or because of the retribution that would otherwise follow. Compelling the nationalists who made and fought the war to take responsibility for reform may thus be the only option and the best revenge. But it is also a high-risk strategy. The High Representative can command, but he cannot actually implement reforms. For this he needs the genuine engagement of the domestic authorities.

Yet if the governments do no more than pay lip service to reform and the numerous bureaucracies do nothing at all, the game will be up. The performance of the Council of Ministers (CoM) to date does not inspire much confidence. It has adopted several strategic documents prepared for it by the international community, but has failed to translate these into a legislative program. Initially hailed as signal contributions to BiH’s burgeoning statehood, the new justice and security ministries created by Lord Ashdown remain empty shells, without staffs or budgets of their own. Meantime, national parallelism appears to be emerging once again in other ministries, many of which are also rudderless because they still lack organisational rulebooks, work plans or both.

The now non-rotating chairman of the CoM, Adnan Terzic, whom Ashdown prefers to refer to as Bosnia’s prime minister, has thus far failed to exert the leadership necessary to break such impasses or to move from declarative endorsement of reform to its realisation. The CoM reacts, but does not yet act. The entity governments are no more coherent or competent. The initiative remains almost entirely with the High Representative, and there it is likely to stay for some time yet.

Nearly eight years after Dayton, this state of affairs worries many. It certainly worries Lord Ashdown. He hoped to be the last High Representative. The dilemma over when and how to disengage is real. The longer the people and politicians of BiH rely on foreigners to make their tough decisions and to pay their bills, the more difficult will be the reckoning. But it is too soon either for despair or for neo-colonial guilt. In the first case, the consistency with which Ashdown has pushed and preached reform is beginning to dissipate popular gloom in BiH if not abroad. As for the second, the international community needs still to expiate a different sort of guilt: for a war that need not have happened or lasted so long, a peace that established only the possibility of creating a viable state, and for several years that followed when it was not even feasible to try.

Lord Ashdown is in a hurry to accomplish what might, in better circumstances, have been attempted at the outset: to establish the rule of law; to regenerate a non-productive, aid-addicted, post-communist economy; to streamline and enhance the competence of public services; and to equip the virtual state inherited from Dayton with the attributes necessary for BiH to aspire to EU membership. He must do these things before international patience and resources run out and while there are still citizens inclined to hope rather than despair.

The terminal phase of the international community’s belated effort to build a self-sustaining state in BiH will be replete with paradox. In order to get out, the country’s foreign guardians will have to get in more deeply. In order to abjure use of the Bonn powers, Ashdown will need in the short run to use them more intensively. In order to realise the promise of Dayton, the High Representative will have to lift the ceiling of what is meant to be permissible under the Dayton constitution. He is doing all these things, most importantly through special, internationally-chaired commissions which are seeking to find the constitutional justifications and political consensus necessary to redress the balance of power between the state and the entities in the spheres of defence, intelligence and indirect taxation.

If these commissions realise their potential to undo the worst effects of BiH’s partition at Dayton, the High Representative could have recourse to more such issue-specific bodies. The hope then would be that the cumulative effect of ad hoc reassessments of what the constitution allows will create the consensus required for a fully-fledged domestic revision of BiH’s constitutional architecture. But if the commissions fail to adopt state-boosting options, there may be no alternative but for the international community to address constitutional obstacles directly. The fact that it is doing so already in promoting amendments that would permit the Constitutional Court to take over the mandate of the Human Rights Chamber could set a potent precedent.

Sarajevo/Brussels, 22 July 2003

Changing Dynamics in the Western Balkans

This week on War & Peace, Olga Oliker talks to Crisis Group expert Marko Prelec about the precarious situation in the Western Balkans, as Serb separatism in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the frozen Kosovo-Serbia dispute continue to stoke regional instability.

The Western Balkans, a region defined in part by not being in the European Union, also contains several countries that were devastated by war in the 1990s. Now it faces new troubles, driven in part by the legacies of the old. Bosnia and Herzegovina is confronted with calls for secession in the autonomous Serb-dominated region, Republika Srpska, as well as the ongoing electoral grievances of its Croat minority. Meanwhile, efforts to resolve Kosovo’s dispute with Serbia over its independence have come to a standstill, leaving minority communities on both sides of the border vulnerable.

This week on War & Peace, Olga Oliker talks to Marko Prelec, Crisis Group’s Consulting Senior Analyst for the Balkans, about why ethnic tensions persist in the region and whether there is any risk of a return to conflict. They discuss the prospects for European integration, asking whether the promise of EU membership remains an effective incentive for resolving these longstanding disputes. They also consider what impact Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has had for stability in the Western Balkans, a region where painful memories of war are still very salient today.



Click here to listen on Apple Podcasts or Spotify.

For more of Crisis Group’s analysis, make sure to check out our Balkans regional page and keep an eye out for our upcoming report on the risk of instability in the Western Balkans.

Subscribe to Crisis Group’s Email Updates

Receive the best source of conflict analysis right in your inbox.