"Yugoslav" model of the distribution of funds from the common budget: One can reach this conclusion after an even superficial analysis of the basic financial indices, above all income and expenses in the budget of the larger Bosnian entity. The Croatian participation, as far as the revenues passed to the Federation budget are concerned, according to the estimates of financial experts, is above 50 percent of the budget. However, in the distribution of the Federation funds from the budget Croats receive only a third.
No one of the leaders of the HDZ BH has so far stated that that party advocates the third entity. In their media appearances, the HDZ politicians, including the president of the party, Ante Jelavic, have been avoiding all sorts of journalistic traps baiting them to say something amounting to "the HDZ wants a third entity," or "Croats in BH want a third entity".
In spite of the lack of "material evidence", Jelavic and the party leadership have been almost daily the target of accusations that they want a third entity, that their goal is to divide and destroy Bosnia-Hercegovina. The leaders of the largest political party representing Croats in BH have thereby been put in a defensive position. They have to continuously deny mentioned assertions and keep proving that they are not separatists, or that their goal is to divide or destroy BH.
However, what would happen if the HDZ and the voters who supported that party in the elections publicly stated, indeed only if they agree with that, "we support BH as a state of three federal units!"
Does the support for the organization of BH as a federation of three federal units automatically imply the advocacy of the division of BH, or is the opposite the case? Perhaps the advocacy of a federal solution is exactly the support for the preservation of BH? Could it be that possible formation of a "third entity" does not imply formation of ethnic states, but is the only method for just establishment of the civic model of government in the federal republics in BH? Would this imply ethnic cleansing or the protection of the rights of all constituent nations and citizens, in each of the three federal units?
It is undeniable that the Dayton Peace Agreement stopped the war in BH, but it is impossible to preserve BH based on the organization agreed in Dayton, because such a state is unnatural, unjust, dysfunctional and too expensive. Those who insist on sticking to the Dayton Agreement, as well as those who promote its modification in the direction of centralization, are leading Bosnia-Hercegovina to its demise.
Even Germans would find it too expensive: Why is BH too expensive and dysfunctional? Because in the territory with about three and a half million inhabitants there are 10 cantons, actually mini-states, two so-called entities (federal units) and the federal state. The economy and the citizens of BH thus finance all together 13 governments, ten cantonal governments, two entity administrations, and one federal administration, about one hundred ministries, from cantonal to federal level. There is no need to discuss other state institutions and organizations.
According to a source knowledgeable about the functioning of the local administration "that would be too much even for the Germans". It is clear that such unwieldy and huge administration is amenable to corruption, bureaucracy and lack of responsibility, as ministers are spared any type of public criticism, for the simple reason that neither the media nor the voters can memorize, let alone learn powers and duties of so many ministers.
The Dayton organization of BH is also unjust and unnatural because in Bosnia-Hercegovina three constituent nations exercise their sovereignty in two federal units. In that, Serbs exercise sovereignty in their own de facto centralized republic which was formed after the Dayton recognition of Serb wartime conquests and which covers half of the territory of BH. The other two nations are "squeezed" on the other half of the same territory.
In the Federation BH, in which there are three times as many Bosniaks as Croats, the House of Nations is the only mechanism for the prevention of domination of Bosniaks over Croats. Now, the rules and regulations of the Temporary Electoral Commission, dictated by the OSCE, give the Bosniaks as a three times more numerous nation in practice the opportunity to elect Croat representatives in the House of Nations, and Croats are denied the opportunity to on their own elect their representatives in the upper chamber of the Federation Parliament. Consequently, the Federation BH is slowly turning into a Bosniak republic, and BH into a federal state consisting of two centralized republics in which two nations have achieved their sovereign rights while those rights have been denied to the third nation.
Destiny of Croats in BH?: That question is these days on the lips of even those who are normally not interested in politics. In spite of threats, imprisonment of political leaders, physical force, not one nation in the world has ever given up its sovereignty, and the same applies to Croats. The theories of international protectors, Bosniak centralists, and their Croat satellites, that Croat interests can be represented by the individuals outside the HDZ, and that the HDZ does not have the exclusive right to represent Croats in BH, are actually baseless as they contradict the principles of democracy. Namely, democratic principles imply that legitimacy and the right to represent a certain constituency are earned in elections. Regardless of good intentions or certain qualities, those who received in elections one or two percent of Croat votes do not have the right to represent Croats. Therefore, people like Komsic, Kljuic, Simic or Zubak. Instead the Croat people can be represented only by those who received most of its votes, regardless of whether someone likes that or not, and regardless of what we may think about those politicians, their capabilities or ethics. If the people made a mistake by choosing the HDZ no one has the right to correct its mistake but the people itself.
It is a paradox that those who claim that it is their mission to implement democracy with their actions violate basic democratic principles by incorporating electoral losers into the highest authorities.
Furthermore, what are the implications of the BH Constitutional Court's decision that Croats, Serbs, and Bosniaks, are sovereign everywhere in Bosnia-Hercegovina for the Croats? In the current situation that decision is the same as if you told Israelis and Palestinians that they were sovereign everywhere in Israel. Tell that to Palestinians and you'll give them legitimacy to conquer all of Israel!
By definition sovereignty implies a nation, territory and effective government in the territory inhabited by a certain nation. Perhaps at this moment this will sound like heresy, but the achievement of sovereign rights of every nation in BH is only possible with the achievement of sovereignty in a certain territory where that nation is in majority. That principle can be achieved exactly through recomposition of Bosnia-Hercegovina into a commonwealth of three states. In a country organized in that manner it would be possible to apply civic principles in thereby organized states, as the majority population in each one of the states would consist of citizens with the same ethnic background, which would exclude the possibility that the another ethnic group could come to power in that state.
In a country organized in that manner, political parties would not be divided to national and anatonal, nor could they win elections by playing on the trump card of "if you do not elect us you'll be ruled by the other ethnic group". Without fear of a loss of sovereignty, as that state would be a part of the Constitutional order of the country, the voters will be able to freely choose between liberal, social-democratic, Christian democrat or any other political option, not endangering national sovereignty by doing that. Therefore, exactly the way it is now in the Republic of Srpska.
The rejection of any mention or discussion of the third entity is also motivated by a few other misconceptions: for example that the establishment of the third entity implies "autism", self-isolation, erection of borders, ethnic walls, etc. and that something like that is against the interest of intergration in Europe. Exactly the opposite is true: the process of integration in the European Union implies integration of sovereign states and nations. That process must be preceded by the establishment of mechanisms that would allow every nation to express its sovereignty, after which a part of that sovereignty would directly or through federal authorities be delegated to the future common home, the European Union. The existence of borders, border crossings, passports, national currencies, or anything similar is not necessary for the existence of federal units. The circulation of people, goods and services must be free. Those activities that are in common interest would be delegated to the common federal administration, while many laws in the states could be harmonized and even identical.
Furthermore, the existence of federal units does not require a compact territory, having in mind the freedom of movement and free circulation of people, goods, services and ideas. In practice that means that, for example, the territory of central Bosnia does not have to have a territorial link with Hercegovina in order to include both regions in a possible Croat republic in BH.
Is the third entity financially viable?: The opponents of the third federal unit claim, without valid analysis, that such a unit would not be financially viable. Rough estimates of possible budget revenues of the third federal unit indicate exactly the opposite. If, for example, the jurisdiction of the Federation BH and the Croat revenues paid to the Federation BH budgets are transferred to the new state, the cantons transformed into the units of local self-government, or regions, and some of their authority moved to the level of the third entity, that state would have a budget that would ensure significantly bigger revenues then those of the current beneficiaries of the Federation budget.
If the Croat participation in the revenues of the Federation BH budget were redirected to the budget of the "Croatian republic" and if it were added the portion of the revenues currently paid out to the cantons with Croat majority, the budget income would amount to over seventy percent of the current Federation budget. Let us assume that the current tax and customs duties collection rate could be increased from 50 percent as now, to for example realistic eighty percent. The budget of a possible third state would surpass KM 1 billion [about $500 million] and would surpass the planned Federation budget for the past year. If it is taken into account that the Croat beneficiaries of the Federation budget currently receive about KM 300 million per year, it is clear that in the Croatian republic the financial power of Croats and all of its citizens would be tripled. That is why the support of the policy of clear accounts is justified and because Croats have the right to "the Croatian wallet in the Croatian pocket". One can also understand the opposition to that. Namely, it is easier to live from someone else's work and someone else's money, than from one's own.
The insistence on the preservation of this type of the Federation BH and continuous condemnation of the Croats is not motivated by the desire to preserve centralized and multiethnic BH and the prevention of the division of BH, but are simply a mask for the prolongation of the policy of "stealing from someone else's pocket" following the example of the Greater Serbian policy in the former Yugoslavia, which, among other, fell apart because of that.