Cantonization Initiative Does not mean Support for the Division of Bosnia-Hercegovina

Hrvatska Rijec, Sarajevo, Bosnia-Hercegovina, May 21 1998

The biggest and most important problem at the moment are (new) single-nation cantons. That is what the media in Sarajevo, political leaders, international factors are saying... Because of that they threaten HDZ (the author of the thorough cantonization initiative) and the Croats in general with sanctions. Supposedly, the initiative is not in agreement with the spirit and letter of the Dayton agreement, undermines Bosnia-Hercegovina and leads to its definite partition, it is undemocratic and uncivilized, etc... Therefore, they say, it cannot be good for Croats. Especially these days, on the eve of HDZ party congress, based on the excerpts from the proposed congress declaration and certain statements by Croat leaders quoted out of context, they are intensifying campaign whose goal is to demonstrate that Croats are the greatest obstacle to the implementation of the Dayton peace agreement. In that the initiative for the establishment of single nation cantons is the central evidence that Franjo Tudman and HDZ haven't changed their policy with respect to "Bosnia".

What is the origin of this strong aversion of foreigners and Bosniak politicians in Sarajevo towards national? Is that a true or faked aversion? Actually, the real question is to what extent is the ethnic criterion really in the spirit of the Dayton Peace Agreement? If it is, then who is actually for the implementation of the Agreement and who is against?

Not only are ethnic criteria in the spirit of the Dayton Agreement, but were used in the definition of almost every single article of that Agreement, at the request of all participants in the negotiations in Dayton: in the Constitution of Bosnia-Hercegovina, and in the constitutions of both entities, the structure of all sate institutions mirrors the three major ethnic groups in Bosnia-Hercegovina, and the decision making process has built in "fuses" to ensure ethnic equality. If one considers that all previous peace proposals by the International Community were based on the ethnic criteria, what is the reason for such forceful resistance to the idea about application of that criterion to the small, remaining part of Bosnia-Hercegovina to which it hasn't been applied: to the two cantons with special status, the so called mixed Hercegovina-Neretva and Central Bosnia cantons. The explanation that such modification would mean the changes in the Dayton Agreement may be true, but actually hides the intentions of the opponents of the proposal who refuse to apply ethnic criteria anywhere in Bosnia-Hercegovina, which implies negation of the criterion upon which all articles of the Dayton Peace Agreement are based. Consequently, that can only mean the negation of the spirit of the Dayton Peace Agreement.

If everything in Bosnia-Hercegovina, not only in the documents produced in peace negotiations but in daily life as well, is based on ethnic criteria, then the establishment of another two ethnically based cantons is not an exception nor should it present a danger to Bosnia-Hercegovina. It is well known that almost everything in Bosnia-Hercegovina is based on ethnic criteria, from cantons, entities, state institutions, religious communities, schools, sport organizations, humanitarian organizations, cultural and art societies, academies of arts and sciences, universities, undertakers... The only multi-national institutions in Bosnia are the police in some cantons and the Federal Army to that extent which was imposed by the International Community's threats, although the Army in practice still functions as two separate organizations. In spite of all that, the very idea about thorough cantonization is presented as the greatest danger for the survival of Bosnia-Hercegovina. Thus the Council of the Congress of Bosniak Intellectuals announces to itself and the world that the ideas about demilitarization and cantonization are a threat to the Bosniak people and a the same time represent a desire to destroy Bosnia-Hercegovina and Bosniaks without a war. Putting aside the customary identification of Bosnia-Hercegovina with the Bosniaks only, one must note that this Council is everything but a council of a congress of certain intellectuals. Actually this is a serious misuse of the term intellectual and true Bosniak intellectuals. Namely, true intellectuals could never come up with such erroneous conclusions. However, as far as the SDA policy is concerned, some professors, doctors etc. are prepared to put their titles in service of daily party politics in return for some miserable rewards.

How come, gentlemen "intellectuals" the existing ten cantons do not endanger the existence of Bosnia-Hercegovina and Bosniaks and another two would do that? How come a whole ethnic entity with far wider (state) jurisdiction, the Republic of Srpska on 49 percent of Bosnian territory does not represent a danger to Bosnia-Hercegovina and another two cantons where a single ethnic group would be in majority do? The answers are well known, but... In practice, the existence of another policy, contrary to the spirit of the Dayton Agreement is more than obvious, although, indeed, there are only ten cantons in the Constitution of the Federation Bosnia-Hercegovina. But, as we have already indicated, the very existence of two cantons with special status negates the main principle of the Dayton Peace Agreement and especially the Washington Agreement.

All objective analyses would confirm that conclusion. The remaining formally undivided part of Bosnian territory where none of the ethnic groups is in clear majority is the main obstacle to the peace process. These two cantons, Hercegovina-Neretva and Central Bosnian cantons in practice still function as "double cantons"; exactly the way they would function if the basic principle were observed and the cantons divided. Since these two cantons are an obstacle to the full functioning of the Federation, which is the basis of the peace process, it is obvious that they present a serious problem. If the practice would get formal confirmation (legality, since it already has legitimacy) then the Federation would continue forward in fourth gear.

The refusal to modify even a single letter of the Dayton Agreement is actually a huge break with the spirit of the Agreement, with its basic principle. Everyone can see that such implementation of the peace agreement does not fill anyone with joy, but the international circles still insist on it. American envoys Richard Holbrooke and Robert Gelbard confirmed this with their recent statements. They even said that they were satisfied with the implementation of the Agreement. Of course, with many objections. However, if one insists on the solutions which are not in the spirit of the agreement then the resistance to the implementation can only increase. Until that moment when all ethnic groups realize that the implementation of the Agreement is in their interest, the Agreement will not be implemented. If Croats and Serbs insisted on their national entities in Dayton and the Serbs got theirs while the Muslims are demanding the same, but on the whole territory of Bosnia-Hercegovina, than the only logical approach is to meet their demands. If the multiethnicity continues to be favored at the expense of single nation entities that would be only another important source of frustrations and nationalism. But, if the ethnicity is affirmed that will bring about the possibility for inter-ethnic communication and cooperation.

The initiative for cantonization does not equal support for the division of Bosnia-Hercegovina, as some say, but support for the consistent application of the fundamental principle. Bosnia-Hercegovina can be divided into two entities; it could also be divided into three entities. It is only a matter of choice.