Regarding the meeting in Rome, we neither got nor lost anything important there. The Croats rejected Koschnick's plan and Europe, as usual, evaded it. Does it surprise you, or is it something new? Did not Europeans in the hardest days of genocide tell us: make an agreement, there is no other option? Who did we have to agree with, slaughterers? That is why I do not understand why somebody should be shocked or disappointed now. Everything has already been seen and experienced. Koschnick's plan and district was only a project, it was not something we had and then lost in Rome. What the public should know to understand Rome is that EU had already abandoned Koschnick's plan when we went to Rome. They already had had a session demanding the so-called mutually acceptable solution. German representatives to the EU clearly told our expert Dr. Kasim Begic: "If you do not make an agreement today, the EU will withdraw from Mostar in three days." I had only one aim in that situation: to get the Croat side to agree to freedom of movement and the deployment of the federation police in the town. I knew it would not be entirely implemented, but it was important that the world's pressure be continued unabated in this respect. I think that the recent Geneva meeting proved I was right. As far as the atmosphere at the meeting is concerned, it was really hellish. There were three concurrent meetings on which new documents were constantly produced, rejected, changed, corrected and again rejected. This went on for more than 24 hours. On Sunday evening I told one of our journalists to start her report with words: "This is a mental institution". Fortunately, she wrote something similar instead.
Ljiljan: Mr. President, with your illness, Bosnia-Hercegovina and the Bosniak people have reached an unprecedented, although expected, trial. Have the countries, signatories of the Dayton agreement, given up on the united Bosnian state? We have the impression that, after the Dayton Agreement, the emphasis was on the entities and not on the Bosnian state as a multi-ethnic state, and that the world, especially Europeans, has accepted the concept of national states within Bosnia-Hercegovina... For example, yesterday, Mr. Zubak, claimed in Slobodna Dalmacija that Bosnia-Hercegovina was possible only as a federal-confederal state. It seems that new troubles are awaiting the Bosniak people if the world community decides to follow either one of these adventures. In a recent interview you have stated that you were not certain whether our public was aware of the difficult situation we were in. Were you talking about the same problems?
Internal and external disintegration forces in Bosnia are on the offensive. I am mostly concerned over the ethnic cleansing that continued after Dayton. The most significant item of the Dayton accords is one foreseeing gradual ethnic reintegration. There is no return of the displaced population, and the way how to start the thing in positive direction cannot be seen for the time being. It is the greatest problem and a threat to Bosnia. There are attempts to convince the world of equal guilt of all sides, that legal B-H authorities are not immune to narrow-mindedness and nationalism, either, and that B-H is not viable. Some errors - which are extant - are abused for the poison of propaganda. However, the situation demands the errors must not be made, as the world equates our errors with their crimes. It is sad, but the world is such as it is, we cannot change it. But we can know the facts, regardless of whether we like them or not, take them into account and try to make the calculations as accurately as possible. Our propaganda is, for the most part, erroneous. Media compete to show injustice and crimes which Serbs and Croats have committed against Bosniaks. Of course, the crimes should not be ignored or covered up, but is there anything good, human among those three nations ? Does any gesture of concern for the people of different religions and nations ever occur in our Bosnia ? I do not believe there are no such examples, but it is, for quite incomprehensible reasons to me, permanently suppressed. And it is something that should be pointed out in this situation. Proving that only trouble exists among the three nations in B-H is nothing else but proving that Bosnia is not viable, and it is a job well done by Krajisnik and Boban. I assume we are to prove otherwise, to find and point out positive examples. Of course, we should not invent them. You ask if the world has agreed with the concept of national states in B-H. The problem is not if the world agreed on that, but it seems that we have agreed or it is the way we act. Consider, for instance, some articles in our papers, and your papers, too. Reading them will not strengthen our belief that multi-ethnic state of B-H is possible. On the contrary !
Ljiljan: I think that our paper tries to, on all occasions, affirm Bosnia-Hercegovina. However, after finding two Iranians near Fojnica, the USA set the conditions and staff affecting the sovereignty of B-H. It is not even secret that they want to overthrow Izetbegovic's government. The main reason could be connection with Islamic world, with Iran during the aggression, when nobody else wanted to give a bullet to the B-H Army.
What happened in Podgorelica, near Fojnica, was our big mistake, a violation of what we had signed. Somebody had to draw the consequences and in democracy they are always the leaders. I ask you: will you, or all of us be happier if I confirm hidden assumption of your question that the USA is our enemy?
Ljiljan: I didn't say that the USA is our enemy, but that I don't understand some actions taken by the IFOR and some statements from Washington regarding Bosnia-Hercegovina and its legal authorities...
Fine, but let me ask you this: Will Bosnia be more secure if we find out that the USA and another 1O states in the world are all our enemies ?. What when we find that out? I think that the USA is not our enemy, but we can make them that. The USA will be our friend if convinced that survival of B-H as an integral state is their interest. If so, let us work in that direction as we must have America on our side. In the existing situation, it is a question of survival of Bosnia and our people. It is the only real policy, or shorter, it is the policy, as unreal policy is not a policy but stupidity. During the war, Iran proved to be a friend indeed, but Iran is far away and enemies very close, a stone's throw from us. When the allies are concerned, my full answer is: we must have the USA and the Islamic states on our side and as much as possible the rest of the world. It is possible and should be our policy.
Ljiljan: America is not close, either, it is also far away. Do you know if EU really support the B-H Federation project?
You are wrong. America has for a long time been here in Europe, don't you see that? Regarding the EU, I think they still do support the project of Bosnia-Hercegovina Federation. It is among the reasons for their supporting the Rome compromise. Otherwise, they would pretend to act according to the principles, and actually allow the events to follow their own direction. It is well-known what that means as the time is an enemy, not an ally, of the B-H Federation. As far as Europe is concerned, some ugly doubts are caused by behavior of France, some statements which I have just heard. It is too early for me to comment, as it is new and I do not know the context. It is never too late for bad news. There is no reason to rush them, as they alone knock on our door.