gostimir popovic is tommorow over

8/13/2019 Gostimir Popovic Is Tommorow Over

1/100


2/100


3/100

GOSTIMIR T. POPOVI

IS TOMORROW OVER?

(studies and commentary)


4/100

LIBRARY

ACTUALITY

Editor

Nenad NOVAKOVI

Reviewer

Slobodan BILIPejo URAINOVI, PhD

Translation from Serbian Language

Sneana LAZOVI


5/100

GOSTIMIR T. POPOVIC

IS TOMORROW

OVER?

(studies and commentary)

Banja Luka

Belgrade2001


6/100


7/100

CONTENTS

I. SOUTHEASTERN EUROPE INTEGRATION AND DISINTEGRATION

REGION OF PERPETUAL CONFLICT .....................................................7

Southeastern Europe ..........................................................................7

Integration Processes in Southeastern Europe.................................11

Integration Process Initiatives in Southeastern Europe ..................14

Conference on the Balkans ..............................................................16

Borders in Southeastern Europe ......................................................19

New Crisis Flashpoints in Southeastern Europe..............................22

Military Aspects of the War in Macedonia......................................25Initial Forms of Conflict in Macedonia ...........................................28

Special Parallel Relations between Republika Srpska

and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia..........................................31

International Organizations and Forces in the Balkans ..................35

Conflicts and Contradictions in Southeastern Europe ....................40

II. DAYTON PARIS PEACE ACCORDS .................................................43

STABILIZATION OR WAY INTO NEW CONFLICTS ............................43War in the Region of Bosnia and Herzegovina ...............................43

Dayton Paris Peace Accords............................................................48

Framework of the Dayton Paris Peace Accords ..............................53

Inconsistencies in Implementation of the Dayton Paris Peace

Accords............................................................................................57

Representatives of International Organizations in

Bosnia and Herzegovina..................................................................60

Unconstitutional Activities of Dayton-defined BH Council of

Ministers ..........................................................................................66Republika Srpska Defense System in Light of Provisions of the

Dayton Paris Peace Accords ............................................................69

Demands for Greater Concentration of Power by

the Representative of International Organizations in Bosnia and

Herzegovina.....................................................................................72

Activities of Representatives of International Organizations in

Bosnia and Herzegovina..................................................................75

Activities of the Representative of International Organizations in

Bosnia and Herzegovina..................................................................78Partnership for Peace and the Dayton Paris Peace Accords ............82


8/100

III. INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL

FOR EX-YUGOSLAVIA ........................................................................87

International Criminal Tribunal for ex-Yugoslavia in The Hague ..87Manipulation of International Judicial Institutions..........................90

Increase in Pressure on Serb People................................................93

Justice Action ..................................................................................96


9/100

7

I. SOUTHEASTERN EUROPE

INTEGRATION AND DISINTEGRATION

REGION OF PERPETUAL CONFLICT

Southeastern Europe

Volcano of Insecurity

The century that just came to a close, despite undeniabletechnological advances, was marked by permanent conflicts

between peoples, states, blocs (alliances) of states, and social

groups of all provenances, from those at a very low level of

development to those at the pinnacle of technology. Consequently,

the past century would be better termed a century of wars, crises,

conflicts and all forms of interpersonal intolerance than a century

of development, advancement and a period during which necessarypreconditions have been created for global tolerance, if not for

global peace.

In the past century, two world wars and a multitude of local and

regional wars have been waged. The second half of the century

was characterized by a Cold War, which through its influence on

the course of global events, contributed to the creation of a

pyramid-like structure among the international community inwhich power is concentrated in a very small segment of the global

community. The result of this is the uncontrolled use of all forms

of force, from economic and political pressure to armed

intervention during the course of which all decisions are made in

only one place. During the final years of the previous century, the

biggest or strongest alliance (as representatives of that alliance like

to emphasize) has undertaken a campaign of air aggression, ofcourse, without a declaration of war and formal pronouncement of


10/100

8

a state of war, against a sovereign country in Southeastern Europe

during the course of which it failed to honor any of better

conventions for waging war (if one can talk at all about better

conventions for killing people).

The region of Southeastern Europe, especially the Balkans, during

the course of the past century has been a military testing ground

where wars have been waged, states have disappeared, other states

have been created and experiments have been conducted with

various forms of organizing society. The end result of this has been

a permanently unstable region which for quite some time has been

infamously called, with reason, a "power keg" in which conflictsof interest as a rule are transformed into brutal armed conflicts in

which hundreds of thousands of people lose everything from their

very lives to everything that they have acquired during the course

of their lives. After such wars, as a rule, periods of cease fire and a

kind of peace ensued which characteristically served in order to

prepare people for the next war and not for peace; this is the best

proof that wars have not shown themselves to be effective meansof achieving permanent resolution of problems but only short-lived

demonstrations of who commands the greater brute force at any

given moment.

As a result of wars and all other forms of conflict in Southeastern

Europe, various integration and disintegration processes unfolded

in the region during the course of which states (monarchies,

federations, confederations, etc.) were created, states weredestroyed and others formed to replace them. However, the

incontestable fact remains that no form of social, state or any other

type of organization has emerged to date that provides for the

realization of the interests of the social groups which live in this

region. Not only were no one's interests satisfied but the

underlying causes of tensions, conflicts and wars and the

conceivable possibilities for overcoming them were never definedwith any degree of accuracy in order to enable the creation of basic


11/100

9

preconditions for the development of the region politically,

economically, technologically and in every other sense

correspondent to the times and the situation of humanity as a

whole.

After the most recent wars waged in the Balkans, representatives

of many international organizations are now present in different

capacities in the region ranging from representatives of the U.N. to

military implementation forces (SFOR, KFOR) to various organs

defined by the Dayton Paris Peace Accords and U.N. Security

Council Resolution 1244 on Kosovo. These representatives should

contribute to lasting peace in the region and, primarily, to thebuilding of trust among peoples which would be based, first and

foremost, on an equal approach to all peoples who live in the

region and the securing of a prosperous society which would not

be founded on any form of domination but on cooperation and the

meeting of complex needs of everyone from the individual to the

national community as a whole.

With hardly any exceptions, all institutions and organizations intheir work as a rule are concerned with the consequences which

arose after armed conflicts in the region and their common

characteristic is the imposition of solutions for the achievement of

short-term policies and day to day interests while the least

importance is attached to the category known as "the rule of law"

while the category of justice is practically not even considered as

something which could ultimately result in possibly eliminatingthe causes of conflict altogether.

The question poses itself whether, under these circumstances, it is

at all possible to secure lasting peace in a region that has so many

times during only its most recent history been a battlefield where

bloody wars have been waged. These wars, as a rule, appeared at

fixed time intervals and involved the use of the most contemporary

means of waging war and armed conflict available while the issue


12/100

10

of the causes of these wars, that is, the posing of a social analysis,

has not in any instance been seriously proposed.

A very superficial review of armed conflicts, from the Balkan wars

to the First and Second World Wars to the aggression by NATO

air forces against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, shows that

in almost all cases wars served as a means of resolving the

consequences of social conflicts. There was no political will to

create the composition of the region of Southeastern Europe in

such a manner that all the peoples who live in the region can

achieve approximately the same degree of success in meeting their

interests and in this manner cross over from permanent conflictand distrust toward peace, tolerance and trust. This would open the

door to the construction of a conflict-free society of free

individuals and states that would meet the needs of their

constitutive elements instead of representing institutions whose

basic characteristic is a monopoly on physical coercion.

If we assume that the securing of lasting peace on the planet is in

the best interests of humanity, then it is certain that this goal canalso be achieved in Southeastern Europe as well but it is necessary,

lest we should be forced to admit that we have no future, to seek

new approaches to the resolution of social conflicts beginning

from possible global conflicts to current local conflicts. In this

process, the key activities need to be directed toward a definition

of the causes of conflict and their elimination with approximately

equal satisfaction of the interests of the conflicting social groups.Conflicts and problems in Southeastern Europe cannot be resolved

without rapid development of integration processes throughout the

European continent, including Russia, resulting in a Europe which

will be a community of peoples who are meeting their political,

economic, spiritual, cultural and other interests on an equal basis.

This is the prerequisite for the current "powder keg" to develop

into a peace zone and to secure the meeting of local needs throughglobal developments.


13/100

11

Integration Processes in Southeastern Europe

Reality or Utopia?

The area of Southeastern Europe is one of the regions in Europe,

as well as the world, in which historical contradictions and all

forms of conflict situations among countries and nations are still

present and manifest themselves in all forms including armed

conflicts. Just as the development of modern technology has

enabled all events anywhere on the planet to be followed from any

other place, so the influence of all countries and international

organizations is being felt in all countries including the region,

which comprises the geographical area of Southeastern Europe.

If we look at the historical period of only the past one hundred

years, in this area there have been two world wars and one regional

war; despite this, basic social contradictions have not only

remained unresolved but in some aspects have become more

complex and thus remain as potential causes of all forms of

conflict.

All peace agreements and post-war accords (since the conclusion

of the First World War to the Dayton Paris Peace Accords to U.N.

Security Council Resolution 1244 and the Kumanovo Military-

Technical Agreement) have been short-lived for the simple reason

that none of these agreements removed the causes of conflict;

contemporary peacemakers concerned themselves only with

consequences.

The activities of various international organizations have recently

been focused on the realization of a program called the Stability

Pact for Southeastern Europe which some see as a panacea for the

region, others as yet another unsuccessful experiment on the part

of international institutions, still others as a complete miss withoutany chance of success.


14/100

12

Even a superficial look at the contents of the document with the

overly ambitious title of the Stability Pact for Southeastern Europe

leads to the unequivocal conclusion that this is a very good idea

but that certain crucial elements are missing for its realization, of

which the most important are:

Nowhere is there a precise definition of the geographical areato which the pact pertains

Causes of tensions and conflicts are not even mentioned, letalone analyzed

Not a single institution is defined which would satisfy any ofthe common interests of all peoples living in this region

There is no vision of the future configuration of the region ineither the political or the organizational sense that would be

founded on the articulated interests of all peoples in the region

The basic activities which individual representatives of

international institutions perform in terms of realizing the Pact

consist in organizing various conferences; and even in this process,

no clear and consensually agreed upon conclusions are reached

and no mention is made of projects which might serve as

embryonic models of integration.

Activities conducted in this manner cannot even secure apparent

peace in the region in the immediate future, let alone create

conditions for integration and the securing of lasting peace.

In practical terms, the approach of the representatives of the

international institutions in areas where there were recent armed

clashes (the areas of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo and

Metohija) almost appears to have the goal of maintaining existing

tensions instead of creating conditions for lasting peace and an

organizational form which will meet at least the minimal interests

of all peoples; this approach is expressed through favoritism

towards the members of one nation and the complete ignoring of

the minimal interests of the other nations.


15/100

13

In this historical milieu which is crowded with all forms of

conflict, it is not easy to create integration processes; nevertheless,

it is not impossible with a minimum of political goodwill both in

the region itself as well as in Europe which should have an interest

in seeing the transformation of a center of crisis into a stable and in

all respects profitable region.

In order to accomplish this, it is necessary to undertake a series of

practical measures to be implemented by the European Union, the

first among which should be:

Definition of the geographical framework of the region Establishing, by objective methodology, the causes of conflict

in the region based on truth and facts and not by emotions

Securing of conditions for membership in the European Unionof the entire region with satisfaction of the interests of peoples

that live in it

Creation of organizational forms that will be common to theregion based on the common criterion that formation of these

organizational forms should be in the interests of the peoples

in Southeastern Europe

This approach to integration processes in Southeastern Europe

would finally enable the elimination of the causes of all forms of

conflict in the entire region with the integration of the peoples of

the region into the family of European peoples; it would contribute

to stability in all of Europe and secure peace, which should be the

ultimate goal.


16/100


17/100

15

peoples have gone through the Golgotha of the Balkan wars, the

First and Second World War, and the war which started in 1991

and whose conclusion is still nowhere on the horizon; instead, its

conflicts are becoming increasingly intense.

In the event that there should be a demonstration of goodwill and

strength by European institutions (which, in all honesty, are still

engaged in the process of forming and organizing themselves), it

would be possible to call and organize a regional conference

whose basic principles should be equity and respect for the

interests of all peoples in the region.

Even though this region has been (and still is) a permanent sourceof all forms of conflict, it would be possible to find a solution to

bring an end to conflict and to institutionally secure the prosperity

and peaceful development which are the key problem of everyone

living in this region at the moment and, indirectly, of all the

European countries as well.

The initiator of all consultative and preparatory activities and the

organizer of such a conference on resolving conflicts in theSoutheastern European region itself should be the European

Union. The model defined at such a conference would be generator

of further integration processes throughout Europe that is,

objectively, the goal of all European peoples.

In conclusion, if we begin from the sincere desire to see "an

integrated Europe of European peoples" as the goal toward which

all European peoples are striving in the interests of peace andprosperity, then the holding of a conference which would result in

the structuring of the region to the mutual satisfaction of all is not

only desirable but essential.


18/100

16

Conference on the Balkans

Way out of Crisis for the Balkan Peoples andOpportunity for Long-Term Organization of States

in the Balkans and Southeastern Europe

The region of Southeastern Europe, especially its Balkan

Peninsula, has historically been (and unfortunately, remains today)

an area where interests of all pretenders to political influence atboth global and local levels have clashed. As a result of this clash

of interests, the region has been permanently embroiled in various

forms of conflict. Conflicts have so far appeared in every existing

form ranging from political and economic conflicts to armed

conflicts that have left lasting impressions on the consciousness of

the peoples and individuals native to the region.

During the 20th century, the region has been at the center of twoworld wars and a multitude of regional armed conflicts. The

tremendous human losses which resulted from these conflicts

apparently still are not enough to initiate a more serious approach

to the search for long-term solutions which would provide for the

elimination of the causes of conflict and create a viable framework

for all peoples without representing a threat to any one people.

At the beginning of the 21st century, the region remains at thecenter of armed and every other form of conflict and there is

absolutely no serious attempt being made to achieve a satisfactory

solution which would serve as the generator of long-term

stabilization.

The many international organizations and institutions present here

with an overwhelming number of representatives, troops and other

participants in various missions are basically wasting time and


19/100

17

doing almost nothing toward achieving stability and peaceful

development.

Occasionally we have heard from some representatives of

international institutions and from a few political straight-shooters

the idea of holding an international conference which would

finally define objectively the causes of conflict in the region,

determine the basis for integration processes, signify which

functions are capable of expressing joint interests, and prepare a

constitutional and legal framework for organizing the region as an

association of peoples.

Every initiative to hold such a conference on the Balkans so far hasbeen obstructed by the world centers of power that are now

holding a monopoly on the use of force for the simple reason that a

stable region would reduce the need for their engagement here and,

therefore, the centers of power would lose their own reason for

existence.

Despite the great resistance to this manner of resolving existing

problems in the region, the idea of such a conference has thepotential for success if the general concept and actual organization

are delegated to European institutions with maximum participation

by representatives of peoples from the region who are most

knowledgeable regarding the causes of conflict and would be most

effective in seeking, defining and deciding upon solutions for their

future together with their immediate neighbors.

Steps in the preparation, organization and work of the conferenceand later implementation of its document could be organized in

such a manner as to result in optimal solutions for a stable peace in

the region within a short period of time.

Basic goals could be achieved through several steps:

Review of basic causes of conflict between peoples Definition of integration factors for all peoples in the region Creation of constitutional and legal basis for organizing the

region as a unified whole


20/100

18

Organization of the implementation process Guarantees and assistance in implementation by neighboring

countries, member countries of the European Union and

Russia

The Balkans and the whole of Southeastern Europe should not

continue to be treated as a terminal "powder keg"; instead, the

imperative should be to transform the region into an area of real

peace and prosperity.

The strength and determination exist to conceptualize, organize

and realize the idea of a conference on the Balkans and to thus

institutionalize common interests of different peoples and to

transcend disintegration processes by means of integration

processes.

The primary champions of such activities can only be

representatives of European institutions, Russia and

representatives of peoples from the region itself while the key

factor that would guarantee such activity should be a united

Europe with all of her democratic institutions.


21/100

19

Borders in Southeastern Europe

Still a Cause of Instability and Conflict

The state and legal framework or organizational structure of

countries in the region of Southeastern Europe, especially in the

area called the Balkan Peninsula, is very complicated, non-

functional and, in the 20th century alone, has been the stage for

two world wars and a series of regional armed conflicts which

continued into the 21st century with the tendency for the region to

remain a long-term crisis area.

Not only armed conflicts but also all other types of conflict are

present in the region each and every day and there is no indication

that decisive and effective measures will be undertaken anytime

soon to transcend even some of the potential causes for conflict

and to allow the peoples living here to sail into calmer, if not

completely still, waters of peaceful development.

One of the problems which is evident and which is discussed every

day under various circumstances and contexts without, however,

any indication that any sort of solution is imminent, is the issue of

borders. This is one of the key issues in the region and its even

approximately just solution could serve as a foundation for further

regional integration into one of the already well-known forms of

integration.

With regard to this issue, there exist at least two diametrically

opposed views, one of which advocates a global redrawing of

borders in both the Balkan peninsula and in Southeastern Europe,

while the other holds that regional borders are unchangeable and

that they should be cemented just as they are.

Supporters of both views also offer their justifications for

individual political moves on the part of both local authorities, as


22/100

20

well as of representatives of international organizations present in

such great number, the most characteristic of which are:

Factors advocating a change in borders in the Balkansemphasize as their fundamental argument in favor of change

that so far the interests of all peoples living in this area have

not been resolved. They highlight the fact that so far the

peoples in this area have always had someone else drawing the

borders for them. In doing so, that someone indirectly

determined not only the fates but also the physical existence of

hundreds of thousands and millions of people.

Supporters of the unchangeability of borders in the region startfrom the view that, once established, state borders are

unchangeable and that such borders (even in cases where they

are imposed) are a guarantee of peace among peoples.

If we objectively examine both views, we come to the clear

conclusion that the second view, advocating the unchangeability of

borders, is quite contestable and the thesis that recognition of a

state's sovereignty ensures the unchangeability of its borders leads

to some sort of imposed protectorate that is very, very distant from

a democratic solution to social problems.

In order to approach a long-term solution which would eliminate

the causes of conflicts in the Balkans, it is necessary, among other

things, to seek solutions which would contribute to a new and

qualitatively different conceptualization of borders with the

fundamental goal of having borders satisfying the peoples'historical, economic and cultural interests.

This kind of approach would definitely transcend existing taboos

regarding the unchangeability of anything. Border changes would

be realized through international conferences in a civilized manner

rather than through bloody armed conflicts, as in the past.

Only in the past century, the borders in the region have been

changed no less than five times and each time the price was paid inhuman lives, in horrific numbers of casualties ranging from several


23/100

21

hundred thousand to several million per conflict. Therefore, it is

difficult to deny the attempt to do things differently in a manner

that would preclude massive bloodshed.

A well-prepared, well-organized international conference which

would recognize existing facts and define borders in the region

based on truth and reality and, in conjunction with this, determine

and organizationally shape several joint institutions may be the

first step which would lead the region down the path of stability to

social and economic prosperity.

Borders in the Balkans and throughout Southeastern Europe are, to

a large extent, determined by foreign pressures and imposedsolutions. They remain one of the key causes of armed conflicts

during the 20th and at the beginning of the 21st century.

A qualitatively enhanced approach to border changes that would

serve to satisfy the interests of all peoples in the region would

create initial positive conditions for integration processes as well

as positive conditions for lasting peace.

A conference on borders in the Balkans is not only desirable but itis high time for the Balkans, with the assistance and guarantees of

the European countries, to shed its negative historical legacy and

to create the basis for a stable region which will serve as a factor of

stability in an integrated Europe.


24/100

22

New Crisis Flashpoints in Southeastern Europe

Crisis as a Control Mechanism

In the area of Southeastern Europe, instead of reducing tensions

and seeking a way to transform a region of crisis into a region of

stability, old flashpoints are still smoldering even as new ones are

being created.

The already existing crisis flashpoints (the areas of Bosnia and

Herzegovina, Kosovo and Metohija and the Presevo Valley) are

being maintained at levels from political instability to armed

conflict which is for now of limited intensity; however, instability

is spreading toward the south to the border of Macedonia and the

Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (the Federal Republic of

Yugoslavia) with a tendency to also engulf the western part of

Macedonia. This may well be an introduction to widespread

clashes in the region.

The basic forms of the crisis in the region are:

Political instability Ethnic cleansing of the Serb population from Kosovo and

Metohija under the benevolent gaze of various international

organizations and their respective forces represented in the

units of KFOR

Armed attacks by Albanian terrorist formations on officialorgans of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

Arrogant attitude of representatives of key internationalinstitutions at the very thought that official organs of the

Federal Republic of Yugoslavia participate in the creation of a

safe environment for Serbs in Kosovo and Metohija, despite

the existence of a legal basis for this in U.N. Security Council


25/100

23

Resolution 1244 and the Kumanovo Military-Technical

Agreement

Provocation of the population and border patrol organs ofMacedonia by Albanian terrorist formations along its border

with the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

Even a quick glance at the approach of international factors toward

the situation in Southeastern Europe leads us to the inescapable

conclusion that so far the Serbs have been the only party

considered guilty and punished for everything that has gone wrong

in the region. In fact, every serious analysis demonstrates that the

Serbs have not created a single crisis flashpoint nor have they been

the initiators of any form of instability.

The maintenance and intensification of crisis flashpoints in

Southeastern Europe is threatening to develop into a widespread

armed conflict in the next several months. Such a conflict, which is

being persistently sought by Albanian terrorist formations, may

result in the failure to realize the final transformation from a region

of crisis into a region of stability within the foreseeable future.The activities being undertaken by individual international

organizations and the forces that are currently deployed in the

region are most concerned with seeking a way to satisfy the

aspirations of the Albanians. Not one of those organizations or

forces has taken energetic steps towards a long-term solution.

Despite the fact that they are present in the region in considerable

numbers and have at their disposal the most modern equipment foruse in low-intensity armed conflict conditions, KFOR forces under

the leadership of the North Atlantic alliance are acting like

observers and, in many cases, even as supporters of the Albanian

side. At the same time, not one of KFOR's tasks outlined in U.N.

Security Council Resolution 1244 has been realized.

Possible courses of action to resolve existing and possible future

crises and clashes in the region should be take the followingcourse:


26/100

24

The authority of international institutions, primarily the European

Union, should be used to bring an end to all armed actions and to

provide the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia with the possibility of

realizing its inalienable right to control its entire territory in

accordance with the standards of European nations and states.

The practical realization of the Stability Pact for Southeastern

Europe should finally begin by defining the causes of all forms of

conflict and then offering ways to satisfy basic criteria for the

realization of the interests of the peoples living in this region.


27/100

25

Military Aspects of the War in Macedonia

Another in a Series of Armed Conflicts inSoutheastern Europe

For several months there have been intense armed conflicts in

Macedonia between legal Macedonian security forces and terrorist

formations organized by Albanians residing primarily in the

western parts of that country where the armed conflicts, for themost part, are occurring.

Despite the persistent efforts of representatives of the biggest (and

most powerful) international organizations to hide the true nature

and actual scope of the war that is going on at full strength and in

every form in Macedonia, war is nevertheless the reality with

which this region is confronted. With each passing day, its armed

and media components are escalating.War is manifesting itself in all forms from political pressure to

psychological propaganda campaigns and media speculation to

armed combat in all dimensions available to the Macedonian

battlefront.

Armed conflicts are occurring in parts of Macedonia that have

either an absolute or a sizeable majority of the Albanian

population. Characteristic in the conflicts are already familiarmethods of manipulating the media and the civilian population in

such a way that truth and the true causes of the war are either

marginalized or completely ignored. This has been a fundamental

characteristic of all armed conflicts in this region in the past ten

years.

The Macedonian people is exposed to enormous pressure (another

already familiar method in this region) to respond to a classic


28/100

26

armed revolt with all elements of future secession of a large part of

Macedonian territory using selective use of force.

In addition to requests (and ultimatums) that limited force be

applied against the terrorists, there is also the persistent refusal to

allow legal organs to declare a state of war and thus harness,

theoretically and practically, all national resources to defend

themselves from terrorism. This critically reduces the effectiveness

of actions by the Macedonian forces while allowing the terrorists

to "buy time" and build their positions for the presentation and

realization of their goals.

Simultaneous activities at multiple locations in Macedonia arespreading the legal security forces thin while enabling the terrorists

to maneuver rapidly and inflict sudden and powerful attacks, thus

achieving not only military but also media effects leading to the

creation of conditions in which they will be an active party setting

conditions and demands at some future negotiations.

Official representatives of the NATO alliance, despite the

responsibility they have taken on to guarantee the security andintegrity of Macedonia during the period of the re-organization of

the Macedonian Army, are now waiting on the sidelines for the

right conditions to be created so they can enter this area in

Southeastern Europe, too, as a peacekeeping force.

Representatives of European institutions have invested more effort

in preventing the declaration of a state of war in Macedonia than

they have influenced the crushing of the armed rebellion and thecreation of prospects for peaceful and prosperous development for

Macedonia. By their statements that "Macedonia needs to hold

negotiations" they are opening the door to Albanian secessionism

and, by doing this, they are making peace impossible not only in

Macedonia but in the entire region.

In Macedonia a war is being waged in all forms between legal

Macedonian forces and terrorists from among a part of the


29/100

27

Albanian ethnic community in Macedonia that threatens to

escalate into a long-term armed conflict.

Using all available means, especially military, the terrorists are

seeking to realize their political goals starting with broad

autonomy and working their way up to the demand for

independence at some point in the future.

Representatives of international organizations engaged in the

region appear unable to see how to achieve a peaceful solution; at

the same time, by disallowing energetic action against the

terrorists, while at the same time insisting that negotiations be

held, they are opening the door to the legitimization of theterrorists.


30/100

28

Initial Forms of Conflict in Macedonia

Manifold War in the Balkans Is Not Over

The armed conflicts in Macedonia are escalating in intensity and,

in addition to combat operations, members of the rebellious

Albanian formations are increasing their propaganda activities.

Already we have seen the appearance of their representatives who

insist on negotiating with the Macedonian authorities as an equal

party, a prelude to gaining status as "one of the parties in the

conflict".

The combat operations at this time are most fierce in the general

area of Kumanovo, while powerful rebel formations control

several villages populated by ethnic Albanian majorities on the

approaches to Skopje, as well as controlling several important

means of communications which, in addition to their operations

against Macedonian army and police forces, enable them to win

and remain in the focus of the world's attention.

In western Macedonia (in the general region of Tetovo), Albanian

rebels are tying up significant military resources of the

Macedonian army and police through continuous combat

operations of low intensity, thus reducing the strike capability of

the legitimate forces.

The propaganda activities of the Albanian forces in Macedonia

have reached a very high level. The basic goal of this activity is to

bring the representatives of the so-called National Liberation Army

(ONA) to the negotiating table with the possible mediation of

international organizations among whom they have already

secured a certain degree of support.

The support that has already been secured is reflected in the

pressure being applied by international factors to change theMacedonian Constitution thus creating conditions for the creation


31/100

29

of a new organizational structure in Macedonia that would be

dominated by Albanians.

Within the framework of propaganda activities, the most obvious

is the so-called ultimatum issued by the commander of the

Albanian formations in northern Macedonia to the Macedonian

Prime Minister in which he threatened to carry out attacks on vital

objects in the capital city of Skopje. The Macedonian authorities

initially responded to this with a harsh denunciation instead of

effective action preventing the realization of such a threat.

Representatives of European countries who, besides Macedonia

itself, should be most interested in the rapid and effective end ofthe present state of war, are still engaged in issuing empty

statements instead of announcing any form of concrete activities

which would at least serve as an introduction to resolving the

armed conflicts which are already in an advanced phase.

They continue to insist on military and police operations on the

part of the legitimate authorities which would be of "a limited

scope" while continuing to talk about smaller groups of rebels whoshould be "isolated" from the Albanian population in the areas

where the rebellion is occurring. That is, they insist on remaining

blind to the fact that the number of rebels exceeded 20,000 men a

long time ago and that they are armed (for now only with light

infantry weapons with a small number of lighter means of support)

impressively for waging just this sort of armed conflict.

The foreign affairs ministers of the European Union have assessedthat an urgent "package of fundamental reforms which would

ensure the rights of all peoples in Macedonia, regardless of their

ethnicity" is critically needed.

This assessment would be a very sound basis for talks if the senior

officials of the countries of the European Unions had not missed

just one small detail: the goal of the Albanian leaders in

Macedonia is to change the Constitution and practically create anew state within a state over which the Skopje authorities would


32/100

30

have no influence, thus significantly reducing the territory under

the control of the Macedonian government.

Exceptional attention was devoted to the recent proposal of a

group of academicians of the Macedonian Academy of Sciences

and Arts (MANU) that the problems between Albanians and

Macedonians should be resolved by a so-called "humanitarian

exchange" of territory between the Macedonian and Albanian

states. Even though this initiative met with fierce opposition as a

result of which the president of MANU submitted his resignation,

the question must be asked whether it is better to have a

"humanitarian exchange" or a splitting of the Macedonian stateinto Macedonian and Albanian parts which will probably be a

prelude to permanent division.

Operations by Albanian rebel forces in Macedonia are continuing

and escalating along with direct threats of limited scope operations

against facilities within the capital city of Skopje itself.

Macedonian forces are attempting to stabilize and regain control

over territory in the general region of Kumanovo in order to isolaterebel forces; however, their own resources and pressures by

international factors demanding the use of "limited force" reduce

their ability to do this.

International organizations, especially the European Union, appear

to be still lacking a clear vision with respect to the resolution of the

war conflict in Macedonia because they continue to base their

positions on dealing with consequences while avoiding definitionof the causes of conflict. Generally, this is another instance of the

same approach we have seen during the past decade since the very

beginning of armed conflicts in the region of the former

Yugoslavia.


33/100

31

Special Parallel Relations between Republika

Srpska and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia- From Right to Obstruction

With the democratic changes in the Federal Republic of

Yugoslavia and the implementation of election results at all levels

in Republika Srpska, all necessary conditions have been created

for the realization, finally, of Republika Srpska's right to establishspecial parallel relations with the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

as defined in Article 3, Section 2(a) of the Bosnia and Herzegovina

Constitution.

The cited constitutional provision states the following: "The

entities will have the right to establish special parallel relations

with neighboring countries in harmony with the sovereignty and

territorial integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina." Since the Bosniaand Herzegovina Federation has already established special

parallel relations with the Republic of Croatia, not a single

obstacle should exist to establishing and implementing such

relations between Republika Srpska and the Federal Republic of

Yugoslavia.

Since the initial establishment of Republika Srpska institutions as

well as joint Bosnia and Herzegovina institutions, activities havebeen initiated several times toward the realization of this clear and

unambiguous right defined by the current Constitution; however,

to this very day, more than five full years after the signing of the

Dayton Paris Peace Accords, not only has this right remained

unrealized but various obstructions to its realization are being

carried out, primarily by certain representatives of the Bosniac

people but also by certain representatives of international

institutions.


34/100

32

All activities which Republika Srpska has undertaken and is

undertaking are based on rights defined by the Constitution and the

clear desire of the Serb people that special parallel relations be

defined, formulated in a legal document, signed and implemented

for the well-being of the Serb people; these relations, at the same

time, bear no trace of a threat to any interests of other peoples who

live in the region.

After the democratic changes in the Federal Republic of

Yugoslavia, one of the signatories and guarantors of the Dayton

Paris Peace Accords, activities were intensified toward the

establishment of special parallel relations with Republika Srpskawith the identical goal of realizing the constitutional rights of the

Serb people and also realizing the desire of the Serb people to have

as few divisions in the region as possible and as many integration

factors as possible to develop into lasting stabilizing factors.

During the month of February, contacts among official, legal and

legitimate representatives of Republika Srpska and the Federal

Republic of Yugoslavia were intensified and basic documents werepractically completed which regulate these special parallel

relations. This has met with an extremely positive response among

the entire Serb national body since it sees a guarantee for a more

secure and promising future in the realization of such relations.

And everything should be fine: provisions defined by the Bosnia

and Herzegovina Constitution are implemented; it becomes

possible for citizens to realize a wide spectrum of rights; a farsimpler flow of people, goods and ideas is achieved; the hard

borders between members of the same people are taken down; in a

word, the integration and well-being of the people is sought, while

at the same time posing no threat to any interests of other peoples

who live in the region

Just before the end of activities on the definition of documents on

special parallel relations, representatives of the Bosniac peoplespoke up with the absurd claim of a threat to the interests of their


35/100

33

people, though not one word is said regarding which specific

provisions endanger their interests and how. To make matters even

more absurd, one of the signers of the document in which they

oppose the establishment of special parallel relations is the Deputy

Speaker of the Republika Srpska National Parliament, who is from

among the ranks of the Bosniac people.

The opposition to the realization of this constitutional right by a

representative of the Bosniac people is all the more illogical if one

takes into consideration the fact that the agreement on special

parallel relations between the Bosnia and Herzegovina Federation

and the Republic of Croatia has already been in effect for severalyears and that the primary mediator in the adoption of that

agreement was the head of the U.N. mission in Bosnia and

Herzegovina.

Representatives of international institutions (whom some also call

by the simplified name of the international community) whose

job descriptions must include commitment to the rule of law as

well as an absolute impartiality toward all individuals and peoples,have not only failed to express their support for the establishment

of special parallel relations in their individual and sporadic

statements but have announced special kinds of arbitration and

supervision of certain provisions which is, most euphemistically

said, behavior not in keeping with the Constitution on the part of

institutions which should set be setting an example in

conscientious implementation of the highest judicial acts .Special parallel relations between the Federal Republic of

Yugoslavia and Republika Srpska represent a people's basic right,

the legality and legitimacy of which is founded on constitutional

provisions. Every delay, not only of the signing of documentation,

but of the full implementation of that right is a direct threat both to

the interests of the Serb people and to the constitutional and legal

order in both countries.


36/100

34

Special parallel relations will be a powerful contribution to

integration processes in Southeastern Europe and, what is more

important, will contribute to the development of a process of

establishing truth and true causes of all forms of conflict among

peoples in the region which may be one of the first steps toward

the creation of lasting peace in the region.


37/100

35

International Organizations and Forces

in the Balkans Nominal Set of Interest Groups without Concrete

Responsibility or Clear Solutions

Since the signing of the Dayton Paris Peace Accords to the

adoption of resolutions and documents that define the presence of

members of international organizations and forces in Kosovo andMetohija, there have been representatives of many organizations

and military forces primarily under the control of NATO in the

region of Southeastern Europe.

The key organizations that have their missions and forces here are:

United Nations Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe NATO Office of the High Representative in Bosnia and HerzegovinaAll these organizations have the defined goals of peacekeeping and

creation of conditions for a lasting peace in the region within the

scope of their mandates. Since not even a temporary, let alone a

lasting peace is on the horizon anywhere in the region, it is

necessary to briefly analyze the achievements of all these missions

since their goals in general have not been achieved in one singlerespect.

The United Nations is present with two key missions: the U.N.

Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the U.N. Mission in

Kosovo and Metohija (UNMIK). The U.N. Mission in Bosnia and

Herzegovina, whose responsibilities include the implementation of

Annex 11 of the General Framework Agreement (the Agreement

on International Police Task Force), exhausts itself, as a rule,through applying pressure on the Serb side with the goal of


38/100

36

creating joint organs and institutions which are not in accordance

with the Bosnia and Herzegovina Constitution, while its

fundamental task as defined by Article 1, Sections 1 and 2 (relating

to Civilian Law Enforcement) is implemented sporadically or not

at all.

During 1999 and 2000, the Mission focused all its energies on the

formation of an institution called the "state border patrol of Bosnia

and Herzegovina" which is not foreseen by the Bosnia and

Herzegovina Constitution at all. It is, in fact, an imposed

institution that practically represents a source of discord among the

entities and peoples instead of a confidence-building measure.The most well known organization under the U.N. Mission is the

IPTF (International Police Task Force) whose engagement even

laymen recognize as being unprofessional. The IPTF's greatest

success so far has been an operation during which approximately

150 prostitutes in the district of Brcko were arrested. Also worthy

of mention is the nightclub scandal in Prijedor where individual

members of the IPTF ran a classic extortion racket, demandingpayoffs from club owners. Once exposed, this resulted in a huge

media scandal that was promptly hushed up.

The U.N. Mission in Kosovo and Metohija has also failed to

achieve even the barest minimum of the tasks assigned to it by

U.N. Security Council Resolution 1244. The end result of the

work, or lack thereof, of the Mission in practical terms is the

disappearance of virtually the entire non-Albanian population fromthe territory of Kosovo and Metohija.

The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe is very

active within the scope of its Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina,

especially with regard to the organization and implementation of

elections, as well as the preparation of election regulations;

however, none of the results achieved by the Mission can be

described as confidence-building.


39/100

37

The bias of the OSCE Mission in its work is especially apparent

during the process and procedure of enacting the permanent

election law where they have practically taken sides with the

Bosniacs and completely articulated their interests while simply

ignoring the interests of the other two peoples in Bosnia and

Herzegovina.

One of the most significant aspects of the OSCE Mission is the

Department for Regional Stabilization which was formed with the

goal of assisting in the implementation of Articles 2, 4 and 5 of

Annex 1B of the General Framework Agreement. Annex 1B is the

Agreement on Regional Stabilization. Article 2 relates toConfidence- and Security-Building Measures, Article 4 defines

Measures for Sub-Regional Arms Control and Article 5 is the

Regional Arms Control Agreement.

If we take into consideration only the fact that nothing at all has

been done to date on the implementation of Article 5, while the

implementation of Articles 2 and 4 have been permanently marked

by the decided presence of a tendency toward compromising ofone of the basic rights of the entities (the right to a system of

defense), in this respect, too, the OSCE mission is not acting like a

factor for building confidence.

NATO forces in the region are deployed in two key formations:

SFOR (stabilization forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina) and KFOR

(forces in Kosovo and Metohija).

The stabilization forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina have evolvedfrom forces for keeping and stabilizing the peace into forces which

practically have no controls and have taken upon themselves even

the right to influence the appointment of senior military officials in

the entities. Completely overstepping their mandate, they have

formed a phantom body called the General Inspectorate" which

has no basis in any document of the General Framework

Agreement.


40/100

38

Especially characteristic is the behavior of these forces in the field

where they assume the right of being able "to do anything they

want" without being accountable to anyone. The treatment of the

local population can be most closely described as that of an

occupying force.

KFOR (NATO forces deployed in Kosovo and Metohija) have

achieved even less than this, resulting in the granting of

permission, although reluctantly, by all significant factors for

forces of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to enter the Ground

Safety Zone.

These forces under the direct command of NATO (with theexception of the Russian contingent) have neither the will nor the

capability to fulfill their mandate and in the future will continue to

be only a generator of conflict instead of a peacekeeping force.

The Office of the High Representative (OHR) in Bosnia and

Herzegovina was established in accordance with Annex 10 of the

General Framework Agreement with the goal of implementing the

civil part of the agreement.Over time, the OHR has become an institution that concerns itself

with everything except what is defined as its task by Annex 10,

Article 2 of the General Framework Agreement. The High

Representative has directed his activities toward the imposing of

signatures, laws and solutions; his area of expertise is the removal

from office of legally elected officials in direct violation of

Paragraph 7.9 of the Document of the Second Meeting of theConference on the Human Dimension of the Conference on

Security and Cooperation in Europe held in Copenhagen in 1990

which is an integral part of Annex 3 of the General Framework

Agreement and which states: "To ensure that the will of the people

serves as the basis of the authority of government, the participating

States will ensure that candidates who obtain the necessary number

of votes required by law are duly installed in office and arepermitted to remain in office until their term expires or is


41/100

39

otherwise brought to an end in a manner that is regulated by law in

conformity with democratic parliamentary and constitutional

procedures."

A large number of international organizations and forces are

present in the region of Southeastern Europe; however, their

accomplishments are very small or nonexistent and consequently,

their presence in the region cannot be justified. They do not

represent a factor of stability but a nominal set of interest groups

without concrete responsibility.

A detailed analysis of defined goals and results of all organizations

and forces should be conducted in order to redefine goals andcreate forces and organizations which can serve as factors of

stability and which will contribute to the stabilization of the region

and its development in the future.

An analysis and redefinition of goals should be conducted with full

participation of representatives of all peoples living in the region,

taking into account the individual arguments of every people.


42/100

40

Conflicts and Contradictions in

Southeastern Europe Need for Objective Determination of Causes of

Conflict in the Region as a Prerequisite on Path to

Truth and/or Reconciliation

The region of Southeastern Europe, especially that part of the

region that includes the territory of the former Yugoslavia, hasbeen caught up in many social processes of both integration and

disintegration. The basic characteristic of every change thus far has

been bloody armed conflict that appears to have become the only

means of resolving conflicts and as yet unsolved problems ranging

from territorial to national to religious issues.

The most recent conflict which began at the end of the 20th

century and is continuing at the same level of intensity at thebeginning of the 21st century has obviously demonstrated that

many lessons from history have not been mastered and, what is

more, that they have been poorly copied from history texts and that

they will therefore remain a continuous source of all forms of

conflict in the region for a long time to come.

In order to finally begin defining the causes of conflict in the

region, it is necessary to comprehensively review all factors whichcaused tensions, clashes and conflicts both generally with respect

to the whole region and individually for each people living in the

region as a national community and involved in previous clashes in

any way.

Such a huge undertaking aiming to provide the necessary

conditions for peaceful development of all nations in the region

can be realized if it is approached with several basic principles,which should be unconditionally accepted by all nations. The basic


43/100

41

principles on which the definition of causes of conflict can be

based are:

Truthful approach to all events and processes that caused theclashes

Transparency in research and free access to archives Both individual and institutional accountability Consensus in definition of individual and group causes of

clashes

Objectivity and an unbiased approached in research andpresentation of the results of the investigationIf one were to approach a project as enormous as the definition of

truth in the clashes in the region, such a project needs to enjoy full

legality and legitimacy among all peoples and it needs to mark a

clearly defined road that leads to lasting peace and prosperous

development.

The imposition of solutions and a priori judgments and divisions

of peoples into "good guys and bad guys" are condemned in

advance not only to fail but possibly to serve as initiators of new

clashes themselves.

At a time when the situation in the region still cannot be described

as post-war since there is an ongoing armed conflict in Macedonia,

Kosovo and Metohija is under the rule of an undefined protectorate

of international forces, and the territory of the entities of Republika

Srpska and the Bosnia and Herzegovina Federation (the state of

Bosnia and Herzegovina per the Dayton Paris Peace Accords) is

under unprecedented pressure to reduce the constitutional rights of

the Serb people, there is still not one single institution on the

horizon which could approach these complex issues in a competent

manner.

The definition of causes of conflict and the providing of an

objective and truthful judgment regarding conflicts in Southeastern


44/100

42

Europe is essential. It is necessary to begin planning, organizing

and realizing a project with this defined goal as soon as possible.

The key word in this entire activity should be "truth" because this

will ensure objectivity and the results would then serve the

function of establishing lasting peace in the region.

The truth which will serve as the basis of reconciliation and, later,

of further positive development of events and the basis for

peaceful development of all nations can only be provided by legal

and legitimate representatives of all peoples in the region with

consistent respect for the principles of objective historical truth

and the adoption of conclusions by consensus.


45/100

43

II. DAYTON PARIS PEACE ACCORDS

STABILIZATION OR WAY INTO NEW

CONFLICTS

War in the Region of Bosnia and Herzegovina

Causes Have Not Been Resolved

War and armed conflicts in the region of the former Yugoslavia,

including Bosnia and Herzegovina, have deep historical, political

and social roots and represent the consequence of unresolved

conflicts within society between people who live in this region but

also, to a large extent, the consequence which is expressed through

the promotion of the interests of the great and regional powers in

this area.A short walk through history shows us that time in this region,

unfortunately, can be measured only by short intervals of peace

between wars, none of which have served to resolve the

contradictions which brought them about and all of which have

sown the seed for some future war and armed conflict.

The most recent war (and it is our wish and hope that it was truly

the last war) waged in this region was the consequence of manythings left unmentioned in the social order of both Yugoslavias as

well as of the negative influence of certain circles of power in

certain international organizations and institutions (the working

principles of the Badenter Commission*) which saw in the

destruction of the Yugoslav state the opportunity for the realization

of monopolistic goals in Southeastern Europe and thus left no

opportunity whatsoever for the survival of Yugoslavia as a state.


46/100


47/100


48/100

46

The basic problem in the implementation of the civil portion of the

DPA is that the joint institutions at the Bosnia and Herzegovina

level (according to Article 3, Section 1 of the Constitution) truly

need to represent the interests of both Republika Srpska and the

Bosnia and Herzegovina Federation, while everything else should

be left to the discretion of the entities. What we see instead is a

neglect of the entity institutions and the creation by force of joint

or unitary institutions for matters which are within the jurisdiction

of the entities, such as education, culture, sports, defense,

judiciary, etc.

Of exceptional detriment to the implementation of the DPA inaccordance with the letter of the agreement and in the spirit of

tolerance is the practice of imposing legislative solutions (laws) as

well as the threats which are regularly issued by representatives of

certain institutions (e.g., you cannot join Europe with two armies)

because every imposed solution and deprivation of rights creates

lack of confidence and makes progress all the more difficult.

The future of Bosnia and Herzegovina will develop in one of twodirections:

1. In the development of a complex, decentralized society of thebasis of understanding, tolerance, the realization of the

interests of all people, the rule of law and the creation of the

sense of freedom starting from the individual and including all

three peoples as wholes which are organized into two self-

sufficient entities which will join, by virtue of joint policiesboth at the level of Bosnia and Herzegovina and at the level of

the entities, the integration processes in Southeastern Europe

and serve as a model of confidence-building; or

2. In the imposition of a centralized system in which the keymethod of work will be the marginalization and the imposition

of the will of the Muslim majority on the other peoples,

causing a decrease in the level of confidence and serving as a


49/100

47

constant generator of all kinds and forms of social conflict,

including the most serious form, armed conflict.

The fundamental cause of the most recent armed conflict in the

region of Bosnia and Herzegovina was the real danger of the

physical destruction of the Serb people while the Dayton Paris

Peace Accords has created realistic preconditions, through its

implementation, for the creation of necessary prerequisites for the

elimination of the causes of armed and all other forms of conflict.

* On 4 July 1992 the Arbitrary Commission of the EC (the so-

called Badenter Commission) published three opinions on the

questions put in the letter of 18 May 1992 forwarded by LordCarrington, Chairman of the Conference on Yugoslavia. In the

Opinion No. 8 the Commission considered "that the process of

dissolution of Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has come

to the end and it should be recognized that Socialist Federal

Republic of Yugoslavia does not exist any longer". In the Opinion

No. 9 the Commission considered "that states successors of

Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia should come to termsand by making agreement settle all issues related to succession". In

the opinion No. 10 it was said that "the Federal Republic of

Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) appears as a new state which

could not be considered the exclusive successor of Socialist

Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" and that "its possible recognition

on the part of member countries would depend on fulfillment of

terms provided by general international law as well by thedeclaration and directives of 16 December 1991".

(Serbian Unity Congress, Yugoslav Crisis 1992,

http://suc.suc.org/politics/chronology/chron92.html)


50/100

48

Dayton Paris Peace Accords

Joint and Separate Present Situation andFuture Prospects

The Dayton Paris Peace Accords (also known as the General

Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina)

ended an extended conflict in the former Yugoslav republic and

defined preconditions for the organization of a system that wouldreduce the possibility of renewed conflicts in the region.

Annexes to the General Framework Agreement (GFA) created a

legal framework for peaceful development, the key concept

enabling this being the development of Bosnia and Herzegovina

with two completely equal entities: Republika Srpska and the

Bosnia and Herzegovina Federation.

Article V of the GFA states that "The Parties welcome and endorsethe arrangements that have been made concerning the Constitution

of Bosnia and Herzegovina, as set forth in Annex 4. The Parties

shall fully respect and promote fulfillment of the commitments

made therein."

Article III of the Bosnia and Herzegovina Constitution, in which

the responsibilities and relationships between Bosnia and

Herzegovina institutions are defined, explicitly lists in its firstparagraph the responsibilities of the Bosnia and Herzegovina

government as follows:

Foreign policy Foreign trade policy Customs policy Monetary policy Finances of the institutions and for the internationalobligations of Bosnia and Herzegovina


51/100

49

Immigration, refugee, and asylum policy and regulation International and inter-Entity criminal law enforcement,

including relations with Interpol

Establishment and operation of common and internationalcommunications facilities

Regulation of inter-entity transportation Air traffic controlArticle 3, Paragraph 3(a) of the Constitution states that "All

governmental functions and powers not expressly assigned in this

Constitution to the institutions of Bosnia and Herzegovina shall bethose of the Entities."

Despite the fact that almost six years have passed since the signing

of the Dayton Paris Peace Accords and that, in addition to local

organs, a large number of highly ranked international

organizations are also working on its implementation, a qualitative

shift in the organization of the joint institutions as defined by

Article III, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution still has not occurred.

It is especially characteristic that in the creation of foreign policy,

a function which rests primarily with the joint institutions, a

solution which will satisfy the interests of the peoples and entities

is not even on the horizon nor do the will or desire exist to

organize this highly significant segment as an expression of the

will and interests of the peoples and entities.

Instead of focusing on the joint institutions which are either not

developing or are developing slowly, almost all international

factors are applying tremendous pressure to minimize the functions

of the entities and, in some cases, to do away with them altogether

which is in direct contradiction with the provisions of the

Constitution.

Almost all functions and powers of the entities are being attacked

by politicians from the Bosnia and Herzegovina Federation and


52/100

50

representatives of international organizations, the most

characteristic being as follows:

Existence of Republika Srpska Defense system Organized sports School systemThe orchestrated campaign for the so-called cantonization of

Bosnia and Herzegovina, which was initiated from one of the

world centers for the purpose of creating of crisis flashpoints and

whose most vocal spokesmen are representatives of the current

government of the Republic of Croatia, with the full assistance of

politicians and political parties whose membership is one hundred

percent Bosniac, has only one goal - the abrogation and complete

erasure of Republika Srpska from the political map and, with it, of

the Serb national presence west of the Drina River.

Despite the indisputable fact that Republika Srpska is one of the

most stable systems in the region, with fully implemented election

results, with all functions which belong to it in accordance with the

Bosnia and Herzegovina Constitution and its own Constitution,

and ensuring of high standards of a democratic society, it is being

exposed to very powerful and unjustified attacks which encroach

on its very being and bring its survival into question.

The defense system of Republika Srpska is under permanent

pressure, from daily demands to reduce numbers of personnel and

equipment to reducing its budget, although the Republic of Srpska

Army (VRS) has fully met its obligations which were signed in

documents implementing Articles II (Confidence- and Security-

Building Measures) and IV (Measures for Sub-Regional Arms

Control) of Annex 1B (Agreement on Regional Stabilization) of

the General Framework Agreement.

This fundamental right of the Serb people (the right to defense) is

thus brought into question; at the same time, the attempt is being


53/100

51

made to take advantage of the weaknesses which are occurring in

the Bosnia and Herzegovina Federation to impose a solution on

some kind of joint defense system which would be nothing more

than but a practical generator of some new kind of armed conflict

in the near future.

Even though nowhere is it stated nor in any document defined that

organized sports fall under the jurisdiction of joint organs,

representatives of individual sports associations are insisting on

joint organs, competitions and leagues, at the same time cruelly

blackmailing athletes from Republika Srpska by placing conditions

on their participation in international competitions.Athletes and sports organizations from Republika Srpska ask for

nothing more than what already exists in international sports and

that is the principle of organization as agreed upon, for example, in

Denmark between Denmark and the Faeroe Islands, a model which

is also applicable to Republika Srpska and the Bosnia and

Herzegovina Federation.

All peoples, including the Serbs, are sensitive to the organizationof their school system; despite the fact that organization of the

school system in its entirety falls under the jurisdiction of

Republika Srpska, there is at present continuous pressure to create

so-called joint plans and programs of instruction even though the

existing plans and programs of instruction which are presently in

effect in Republika Srpska were created in accordance with the

highest pedagogical standards.In this case as well, the attempt is being made to transfer

weaknesses that are occurring in the Bosnia and Herzegovina

Federation (due to the failure to achieve cooperation between the

Croats and the Bosniacs) to Republika Srpska. The most powerful

attacks are on the ties nurtured by the Serb people with their

compatriots in central Serbia with attempts being made by

representatives of international organizations and the Bosnia andHerzegovina Federation to sever every tie between the Serb people


54/100

52

in Republika Srpska and the Serb people in the Federal Republic

of Yugoslavia at any price.

These are just brief statements by way of comment on some

elements that fall under the jurisdiction of Republika Srpska but

are under constant pressure to merge into some kind of "joint

institutions" with the goal of taking away or stealing from the Serb

people its basic right to existence, defense and education.

There are may other areas in the Republika Srpska social system

which are under similar constant pressure including the media, the

judicial system, internal affairs, etc., each of which deserves a

separate analysis, commentary and approach.The Dayton Paris Peace Accords ended an armed conflict in the

region of the former Yugoslav republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina

and created preconditions for all three peoples and two entities to

organize a system in which they will be able to live without

marginalization of any people by any other people or either entity

by the other entity.

Initiatives for the revision of the Dayton Paris Peace Accords or,even worse, for solutions that are not in accordance with the letter

and the spirit of that agreement, represent a direct threat to

confidence and peace between the entities as well as throughout

the region.

By developing joint institutions while at the same time enabling

and demonstrating respect for the development of entity functions

and institutions, healthy preconditions would be created forpeaceful development in a democratic environment and ambience

which will radiate confidence among all factors comprising

Republika Srpska, the Bosnia and Herzegovina Federation and

Bosnia and Herzegovina as defined by constitutional solutions, and

the will of both entities and all three peoples.


55/100

53

Framework of the Dayton Paris Peace Accords

Experiment by Representatives ofInternational Organizations and

Local Political Hacks

The General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and

Herzegovina (the Dayton Paris Peace Accords) was created duringthe period between November 1 and November 21, 1995 at

Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio and signed in

Paris on December 1995. Its legal character classifies it as a peace

agreement between warring sides, namely, the peoples living in the

region of the former Socialist Republic of Bosnia and

Herzegovina. The agreement has 11 annexes, which, together with

the General Framework Agreement, became the basis for furtheractivities by both the local government as well as numerous

(military and civilian) representatives of international

organizations.

These documents define Bosnia and Herzegovina comprised of

two equal entities and three equal peoples with joint functions

defined with crystal-like clarity in Article III, Section 1 of Annex 4

(the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina). Also explicitlystated is that "All governmental functions and powers not

expressly assigned in this Constitution to the institutions of Bosnia

and Herzegovina shall be those of the Entities (Article III, Section

3(1) of the Constitution).

Present in the realization (or as it more frequently termed -

implementation) of this agreement five years after its signing is

the activity of representatives of international organizationsfavoring one people (the Bosniacs) and the striving to transform


56/100

54

the institutions of the entities into very firm centralized

institutions. There have even been open calls for the

"discontinuation" of the entities altogether on the part of certain

local politicians and official representatives of the Republic of

Croatia.

Although the constitutional and legal framework is clear and

unambiguous, certain local politicians from the ranks of the

Bosniac people are taking advantage of the situation to demand

that international mediators centralize all forms of social life that

fall under the jurisdiction of Republika Srpska. Representatives of

international organizations either tacitly support them or actuallyincite them to such actions. To date, there has not been a single

instance of even an attempt to sanction the unconstitutional

activities of representatives of the Bosniac and Croatian peoples.

Especially curious are the frequent statements by senior officials of

the Republic of Croatia (the President, the Prime Minister and the

Deputy Speaker of the Parliament) who on several occasions

already have made public statements calling for the abolishment ofRepublika Srpska. The most blunt was certainly the statement of

the Croatian prime minister in the Croatian weekly "Globus" of

May 18, 2001 that "Republika Srpska most certainly should be

abolished. The abolishment of Republika Srpska in the prerequisite

for the stability of Bosnia and Herzegovina."

Such a statement, which represents flagrant interference in the

affairs of others and a call for the abolishment of the rights of onepeople, was not met with any sort of condemnation by any of the

numerous representatives of organizations whose mandates specify

protection or rights and creation of a framework for a stable peace

in Republika Srpska and the Federation of Bosnia and

Herzegovina as well as throughout the Southeastern European

region which can only lead us to conclude that they support such

tendencies.


57/100

55

A second example is even more scandalous in the diplomatic

sense. The Bosniac member of the Bosnia and Herzegovina

Presidency, following a meeting of the three members of the

Bosnia and Herzegovina Presidency with the President of the

Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, was asked at a press conference

whether Republika Srpska should be abolished to which he replied,

succinctly and clearly, "Yes, of course."

Of course, this statement also did not meet with any kind of

reaction on the part of international mediators, despite the fact that

it is obviously unconstitutional and that it represents a direct attack

on the fundamental rights of one people - the Serbs.If we analyze just these examples of selective and biased behavior

on the part of representatives of international organizations and the

offensive tactics of politicians from the ranks of the Bosniac and

Croatian people toward the Serbian people and Republika Srpska,

we must conclude that this approach is completely outside the

constitutional and legal framework and represents a bad

experiment which strives to enable outvoting by one or twopeoples constituting a majority of the third people. That is the very

thing the creation of the General Framework Agreement sought to

prevent.

The Dayton Paris Peace Accords provided an institutional basis for

the securing of peace and development in Republika Srpska and

the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Only through its

implementation in every instance can tensions be reduced and thepossibility of conflict in all its forms be avoided in the near future.

Tolerance of unconstitutional statements by certain representatives

of the Bosniac and Croatian peoples by representatives of

international institutions not only fails to contribute to the building

of stability and confidence but also represents a direct threat to the

peaceful development of both entities and the three peoples living

in them.


58/100

56

Only the consistent and complete implementation of the Dayton

gostimir popovic is tommorow over

Documents