HILLARY UNDER SNIPER FIRE IN THE SENATE? – January 15, 2009

- an interview with Mr. Muhamed Sacirbey, the former Foreign Minister of

Bosnia-Herzegovina and the signatory of the Dayton Peace Accords, which

ended the genocide in the Balkans.

Sebastian Aulich: Hillary has been under the sniper fire in Bosnia during the

last year’s presidential campaign. Is she going to be under the sniper fire in

the Senate because of her Bosnia’s adventure?

Muhamed Sacirbey: There are political skeletons buried in Bosnia-Herzegovina for some former and would be U.S. State Department’s officials. However, Hillary Clinton never held any formal position as a consequence by which she might be questioned and held accountable by the U.S. Senate. Nonetheless, Bosnia will continue to be a constant tag attached to Mrs. Clinton’s tenure as the Secretary of State. The success of Hillary Clinton’s term and the fate of Bosnia-Herzegovina will be intertwined, probably to a significantly greater extent than might be expected otherwise.

SA: Why would Bosnia be important for Hillary Clinton? All we know is that the Bosnian people are bad and allegedly tried to kill Mrs. Clinton, when she visited Tuzla in the 90’s?

MS: Well, this unfortunate misstatement will not be quickly forgotten. However, it is not something that I wish to constantly underline, as it serves no constructive purpose for Mrs. Clinton’s tenure or U.S.-Bosnia relations. The “misstatement” is most relevant in pointing out how the situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina had evolved in a rather different and probably more downbeat trend than projected in the U.S. election debates. Between campaign camps and the media, the question that was consuming the discussion was not whether Bosnia was a model example of success for U.S. foreign policy, but whether Hillary embellished her personal experience in Bosnia, which after all lasted only a few hours.

When Mrs. Clinton’s opted to highlight this brief experience in Tuzla, this was perhaps more reflective on her limited background in foreign policy, at least until she was elected to the U.S. Senate. However, it is probably more indicative of how much the Clinton Presidency team – from 1992 to 2000 – projected Bosnia as a landmark case of success of its Administration. When alluding to potential solutions for Iraq, candidate Hillary Clinton as well as members of the former Clinton Administration have been fond in throwing out Bosnia as an example, perhaps model for success. Similarly, Bosnia is related as an example of successful state building.

SA: How Bosnia is, or is not, a success story for the former Clinton Administration?

MS: Well, it depends on the perspective. Perhaps it is more appropriate to point to the integration of the former Communist block into NATO and the EU, from Slovenia and Hungary to Poland and Lithuania, as successes that were at least in part guided by U.S. policy during the Clinton Administration. Perhaps even Rwanda has turned out to be a more successful outcome, despite the tragedy of the genocide. In this instance President Clinton apologized to the victims for not having activated America’s involvement in Rwanda.

In Bosnia-Herzegovina, unlike Rwanda, the consequences of genocide have not been reversed. Yes, genocide has been perhaps rhetorically and legally rebuked. However, that is far from a sustainable or just remedy. Rwanda did not have direct U.S. intervention, but it is reasonable to assert that it is more successful in terms of functionality and has a more prospective future despite the troubled region and continent. The Bosnians-Herzegovinians were also willing to defend themselves and called out for such opportunity. After a lengthy and unwarranted delay, and after the defensive forces of Bosnia thwarted and even began to reverse the initial aggression, the U.S. through NATO did finally intervene. And, most Bosnians, including me, were glad for that as President Bill Clinton has outlined in his book.

SA: Bill Clinton said very good things about you in his autobiography “My Life.” He also said that you were glad to see the U.S. intervention in Bosnia finally coming in 1995. Are you still glad it happened?

MS: I’m not so sure anymore. The war and killing has ended. Nonetheless, how can it be that Rwanda has both a greater measure of justice, shared vision and not just principled but also more functioning state, and without any intervention? The U.S. and NATO intervention has mutated and evolved into something that shields the status quo regardless of ethical or functional deficiency, rather than establishing fertile environment for Bosnia’s development into a more “normal” European and NATO’s state. The objective analysis brings into question the intervention, or at least its objectives as characterized by current results and especially when compared to other former communist states.

SA: Why is Bosnia-Herzegovina so behind in the EU and NATO integration?

MS: It cannot be because it had traditionally suffered from communist rule more anti-democratic than let’s say Poland or Romania. Tito’s Yugoslavia was seen as more open and progressive. Regardless, look at where Slovenia is now, and it was also part of the former Yugoslavia. It is at the head of the class of more recent EU entrants.

Perhaps some might whisper that Bosnia-Herzegovina is behind because it has a predominantly Muslim population. Even if one is to give any weight to such prejudice, then how to explain Albania’s momentum from one of the most impoverished as well as Stalinist? Even Kosovo could overtake Bosnia.

Perhaps Bosnia is behind because it was in an extended conflict. However, Croatia was also part of an even longer conflict that also was effectively ended in Dayton in 1995. The only difference is the nature of the peace or more accurately the concession to ethnic cleansing and to those who both committed it and now safeguard the fruits of such. That appears to be the decisive result of U.S. and EU intervention, more accurately administration, in post conflict Bosnia-Herzegovina and the current difference between Bosnia and almost any other former communist state, whether Slovenia or Lithuania, or for that matter Rwanda.

SA: Why Bosnia should not be blamed that it is not progressing politically as fast as it would want to? You personally signed the Dayton Peace Accords, so you bear the responsibility for that as well.

MS: The current Bosnian political environment is as much or more a reflection of the unhealthy environment of the Dayton Constitution and its international administration as it is of internal inability or unwillingness to move forward. As for my role, I absolutely take responsibility, and although I believe it was the right thing back then to accept Dayton and stop the killing, that agreement, or more accurately, its current application has become counterproductive. For that reason, I have withdrawn my signature from Dayton. And, I have also suffered other consequences. Nonetheless, it is objectively the right thing to do now. My intentions were transparent and upright in Dayton then, as they are now in working to move to something more positive than Dayton.

SA: If the Dayton Peace Accords were bad, why does the U.S. refuse to change it?

MS: The status quo is easier than the political, diplomatic capital needed to change the current situation. As one very high international official told me in confidence, the U.S. officials seem particularly intent on preventing anyone or anything from “rocking the boat.” Even if the boat has a leak, now the emphasis appears to be not to embarrass anyone by the reality, the current consequences of Dayton.

SA: Does Hillary have any motive to reengage in Bosnia?

MS: Perhaps I give some too much credit, but I do not see Hillary Clinton as having the same ghosts to suppress or legacy to promote as others like Dick Holbrooke. Regardless, it would be an embarrassment to Mrs. Clinton if the one international project that she promoted deteriorates to a failed state.

SA: Christopher Hitchens has placed much higher blame on Hillary for the failures of the Clinton Administration in Bosnia and for her “lies” regarding the alleged sniper fire when she landed in Tuzla in 1996. According to Hitchens, she was much responsible for dissuading the Clinton Administration from intervening in Bosnia early during the war and saving hundreds of thousands of lives. You appear to take her off the hook?

MS: I only speak of her direct accountability, and she had no formal position to make decisions or execute policy when she was the First Lady. Her moral accountability may be different, as is her responsibility going into the future. Others had direct political responsibility and may now be held accountable by the U.S. Congress in the confirmation process.

SA: I guess, you are talking about Richard Holbrooke?

MS: Actually it appears that Richard Holbrooke will be able to avoid the confirmation hearing, by being named as a special envoy rather than being nominated to a formal post, let’s say within the State Department.

SA: Once upon a time, like a year ago, Holbrooke was a certain candidate for the next Secretary of State. But now, he is not even being mentioned as a possible Assistant Secretary. What happened?

MS: There are certainly those who are aware that Holbrooke has skeletons buried in Bosnia, and too much digging could prove bad for Holbrooke and at least embarrassing to some others.

I have been on the record for a long time that Holbrooke had made a “deal” with Karadzic for his non-arrest, had made a “deal” with Milosevic and Mladic as well as Karadzic that resulted in the betrayal of Srebrenica. It may have been Holbrooke’s initiative, or he may have just played a part, but it is not likely that he had the sole role, at least without the knowledge of others. I have relayed this on numerous occasions for well over a decade. I also wrote about it at the European Courier, if you remember.

SA: Holbrooke is expected to become a special envoy for Southeast Asia, Afghanistan, Pakistan or perhaps Iran. How do you think he will perform? The Democrats were denied the Nobel Peace Prize for their involvement in the Bosnian crisis. Is the international community going to rehabilitate itself and give Holbrooke another chance?

MS: I wish Ambassador Holbrooke the best in what I’m certain will be a formidable challenge. After all, as an American, and world citizen, I also hope for the best.

SA: Are there no skeletons in Holbrooke’s Bosnia closet that could come out in his next diplomatic assignment? For example, you have been on the record that Holbrooke tried to persuade you, as well as the Bosnian President, Alija Izetbegovic, and then Foreign Minister, Haris Silajdzic, to accept weapons from Iran despite the U.N. arms embargo.

MS: The conversation actually took place in the basement of the United Nations during the General Assembly session in 1994. Holbrooke was trying to persuade us not to press with our supporters in the U.S. Congress the unilateral lifting of the arms embargo on Bosnia’s Army – the Dole-Lieberman Bill. I’m paraphrasing, but this is almost exact what Richard instructed us: “Do not urge the lifting of the arms embargo before the Congress. It could cause us problems with our allies including Britain, France and Russia. Instead, we will let you get the weapons you need from anywhere, including Iran.” The last enticement, “including Iran,” particularly was memorable.

SA: Could this not though prove embarrassing, perhaps contradictory to his task in dealing with the Iranians or others who might have had a role in supporting Bosnia covertly or otherwise during the war?

MS: Yes. It could be even more troubling though if he was called before the U.S. Congress to testify on this point, as he already has given contradictory testimony a dozen years earlier. Perhaps another reason why not to nominate Holbrooke, at least to office requiring Senate confirmation.

Still, most Bosnians-Herzegovinians are glad to see Holbrooke move his portfolio to another region. I have spoken regarding my evidence and reservations with respect to Holbrooke’s actions in Bosnia for more than a decade. Even in Dayton, I urged a fundamentally better, more lasting as well as principled solution. Most international and Washington political players though have a fear of Holbrooke’s real and perceived influence. Holbrooke has always been a good self promoter, and the perception of power frequently has translated into real influence.

As even most Washington insiders will note, Holbrooke is most concerned about Bosnia in shielding his legacy of Dayton. As one of the highest international officials in Bosnia told me recently: “Holbrooke does not want to change Dayton since he thinks that the Accord is already perfect.” Perhaps in Southeast Asia Holbrooke will find his Nobel Peace Prize, and many local and probably most international officials will be pleased to see him search for his prize in someone else’s backyard.

SA: This seems to be mostly about legacies and ghosts?

MS: “The past is not dead. In fact it is not even the past!” I think that is what the great U.S. novelist once said. And it perhaps tells a lot about the ghosts of Bosnia. It is not just about the ghosts of the victims.

Beyond ghosts, though, there are other regional and global political agendas being played out in Bosnia, and most of these have been going on under a false façade of keeping the boat from rocking legacies or political aspirations. For example, Russia has quietly expanded its influence in the region beyond that which existed even under Tito. In particular, in the Republika Srpska, a part of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Russia has allied itself with apologists or even rejectionists of the genocide who are intent in thwarting from within Bosnia’s entry into Euro-Atlantic institutions, particularly NATO. How ironic that the former Yugoslav region which had distanced itself most from Moscow during the Cold War, would now under the U.S. and EU watch end up as an outpost of a resurgent Russian imperialism.

This is not just about threats, or ghosts, but also opportunities needed now. Instead of looking to find in Bosnia threats of Islamic radicalism, why has Bosnia not been strengthened and empowered to project a positive vision of a pluralistic, democratic, reintegrated and open state as a model? Bosnia has already contributed to allied efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as a range of UN peacekeeping missions. It is not just about avoiding a failed state so as not to embarrass some in Washington or for that matter Brussels but rather realizing the potential that is unique to a progressive Bosnia-Herzegovina.