U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT TO REVIEW BOSNIA POLICY - March 2, 2009

Here is another interview with Mr. Muhamed Sacirbey, a former Bosnian official, which is a continuation of his previous interview from January in which he criticized the Dayton Peace Accords as an unworkable treaty. Mr. Sacirbey offers his comments and perspective on recent developments in Clinton’s State Department and a possibility that the Bosnia policy will be re-examined by the new Administration.

* * *

 
EuropeanCourier.org: We heard of this month's meeting between BiH Presidency Member Haris Silajdzic and former President Bill Clinton, coincidentally Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's husband. Does this

signal a new U.S. policy toward BiH?
  
Muhamed Sacirbey: Nothing of great substance may ultimately change, but it does signal at least a review at the highest level. No doubt that President Clinton wanted to leave the impression that Bosnia-Herzegovina would be a higher priority in this Administration or at least State Department and no longer left to whims of mere bureaucrats, regardless

of their presumed authority among the local leaders in BiH.
  
Is this a change in U.S. policy?

MS: At least in appearance, yes. As I indicated we have to see the substantive results. Regardless, it should be noted that President Clinton met with President Silajdzic after some State Department officials had

spent years trying to deny him access and even isolate him.
 
You know President Clinton personally. He even appears to have a relationship with you or at least he has noted a high regard for you. Is President Clinton speaking here, acting on behalf of his wife or himself?
  
MS: Perhaps both. Certainly former President Bill Clinton is not a current official. However, the reliance of this new Administration upon special envoys is already significant, including former Senator George Mitchell for the Middle East and former State Department Under Secretary Dick Holbrooke for South Asia.
 
Nonetheless, Bill Clinton is neither official nor appointed envoy. However, he can advise the new Secretary of State and...
  
And there is the factor that both Hillary and Bill have linked their political legacy to Bosnia.
  
MS: Yes, and they are starting to understand that the reality is much substantively different than the advertisement. Failure in BiH is bad for America and the Clinton brand name.
   
You speak of the difference between reality and projected image. What is the reality of the Dayton Accords for BiH?
 
MS: Dayton did not deliver any greater rights to BiH and its citizens than already existed under international law:

- BiH, as a sovereign state and member of the United Nations was already entitled to be free of aggression and infringement upon its territorial integrity and sovereignty.

- BiH citizens are entitled under international law to be free from the threat of assault and genocide.

- BiH refugees and displaced persons under international law are entitled to return to their homes, and without threat to their security.

- All citizens, by relevant European, international as well as democratic standards, are entitled to exercise their rights to vote, hold office and enjoy the benefits of citizenship without discrimination regarding their ethnicity, race or religion.  

The Dayton Accords did not need to serve the function of confirming such rights as to insure the practical application of such.   Ending the war, all Bosnians are thankful. US and NATO troops did not have to come to BiH to insure the peace, but then the Government of BiH should never have been denied to defend itself through a legally, politically and ethically flawed arms embargo. From that point there was an obligation by the US, NATO and for that matter other UN Security Council and Contact Group members to stop the genocide and aggression. It did not come from the Dayton Accords. And, Slobodan Milosevic was bound by international law before he ever signed the Dayton Accords.   The Dayton Accords did presumably establish the methodology of effecting such already existing rights of the state and its citizens. Unfortunately, after more than 13 years it is evident that the Dayton Accords have failed in this overriding mandate, purpose. Perhaps some elements within BiH are still owing to the Dayton Accords, but BiH as a state is not obliged in its sovereignty, territorial integrity, standing of its citizens or otherwise to the Dayton Accords. 
 
And what do the Dayton Accords owe to BiH?
  
MS: More accurately, what are obligations of the other signatories of the Dayton Accords to BiH and its citizens. There is a long list of explicit and implicit obligations, but then there are the essential elements which are determinative if the Accords are successful and still have legitimacy based upon the mutuality of the commitments.
  
The most critical elements still unsatisfied relate to functionality, the return of refugees and displaced persons and the equality of all citizens throughout the territory of the country. Overwhelmingly, the present and past authorities of Republika Srpska have not only failed, but actively undermined most of these commitments.
  
Of course, during the Dayton Accords we, I understood that these were not self executing provisions. That is why we sought the active role and commitments from the Dayton/Paris Accord guarantors in implementation. This includes the US, the UN and others, but....
    
Has the international obligation been respected?
  
MS: It has not been applied at least on the ground, and I do believe that this failure and lack of will has caused some within the international community to minimize their obligation, or more accurately redefine.
  
The OHR, (Office of the High Representative), the representative of all the international signatories and those obligated by the Dayton Accords, was empowered to insure implementation in the best interests of the state of BiH and its people. Unfortunately, as frequently can happen with bureaucracies, the OHR may at times have its own institutional agenda or of those other states that grant its resources and/or personnel. Perhaps they have lost sight of their purpose. An objective analysis though reveals that significant, decisive segments of the Dayton Accords have not been honored.
  
Who is to blame?

MS: The initial failure is overwhelmingly with the current and past leadership of the so-called Republika Srpska. However, that was not in 1995 and not now unexpected. Repuiblika Srpska was born with a purpose contrary to international legality, ethnic cleansing, and to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of BiH. It was hatched as much outside, in Milosevic's Serbia, as within BiH. The guarantors of the Dayton Accords knew of their obligation to enforce the Accords consistent with the interests of BiH, its people and relevant international standards. They, and thus ultimately the Dayton Accords have failed.
  
Perhaps this all should have been obvious in Dayton in 1995; however then there was a choice between continuing killing and a flawed peace. Certainly I felt that there was a gun, the gun of genocide held to BiH, more literally to the heads of BiH citizens who were being killed, besieged, starved and worn down. However, with the end of actual fighting and the presumed commitment of at least the democratic powers, it was both the right and wise choice to give peace a chance.
 
Was though Dayton doomed from the beginning?
  
MS: Perhaps, and at that moment I calculated that the promoters of the

Dayton Accords, such as Dick Holbrooke, and Carl Bildt, the would be first

OHR, would be committed to promoting progressive values within BiH's political development as to help bring the country into the Euro-Atlantic

family. Then, I did not know that they had acquiesced in the betrayal of Srebrenica and in effect had made deals with Milosevic and his cronies to

satisfy their demands to agree to Dayton. That was personally and as the representative of BiH a rude awakening.
   
Milosevic's participation in Dayton was predicated on the BiH representatives being compelled to accept the consequences of genocide on the ground. And, if

this is not enough of a factor delegitimizing the Dayton Accords, the betrayal

of Srebrenica and deal making with the perpetrators of and acquiescence to genocide embarrasses as well as further undermines the legality of the Dayton Accords.
  
Ultimately, the Dayton Accords fail because they failed in their primary purpose toward BiH and its citizens.
   
What becomes of Bosnia & Herzegovina without the Dayton Accords? What is to become of Republika Srpska? Does it have any hold upon the Dayton Accords?

MS: BiH is not dependent for its sovereignty or territorial integrity upon the Dayton Accords. Republika Srpska is dependent upon BiH for its international standing. Republika Srpska neither has legal standing nor certainly a valid basis to claim under the Dayton Accords. Simply stated, Republika Srpska has neither lived up to its commitments nor does it have a legitimate pedigree instead. It continues to be a product of its genetic code: still committed to ethnic delineation accomplished through genocide, and undermining BiH's reintegration and functionality.
   
What is then the Constitutional and institutional framework for BiH, if Dayton is not valid?
  
MS: In legal terms, you revert back to the previous framework. As a matter of reality though all the three major peoples of BiH and the "others" will have to come together to discuss and reach arrangement on the Constitutional and institutional framework. However, it will not be based on a failed and politically, legally and ethically flawed Dayton Accords. Rather, the standards of an open, democratic and functioning state with a place waiting in the Euro-Atlantic family.

And what if the Bosnian Serbs, the Belgrade Serbian regime or maybe the Putin Russian regime does not see the same future for BiH?
   
MS: Of course that is possible or even probable. Here we come back to the role of the US and the Clinton State Department. Perhaps in the recent past some have been willing to cede BiH to a Moscow veto or even sphere. Perhaps in order to avoid overt political confrontation over BiH with Moscow, some were just OK to allow chaos to define the situation. Ignoring the fundamental problem that Dayton has become the obstacle rather than solution has not worked for a long enough time. However, ultimately BiH will belong to those who understand their loyalty to belong to the state that gives all of its peoples standing through its sovereignty and indivisible territorial integrity. BiH will be valued as a strategic partner only to the extent that it is recognized for and allowed to realize its potential.
  
What is the role of Clinton here?
  
MS: Hillary or Bill recognize that it has both potential costs, as well as benefits, in terms of the past and future. At least BiH will now be on a higher priority list and of some rather rather smarter and more empowered factors.
   
You know Bill Clinton relatively well and apparently he knows you, but how much does Bill or for that matter Hillary know BiH?  

MS: Bill has an amazing memory and an intellectual capacity to match. He also has charisma matched by few. When he speaks with you, he gives you the sense of unique importance rather than dealing with you as a subordinate in status. Some have defined this as his seductive talent and undoubtedly it can lead many to overestimate their influence upon his thinking and policy. Nonetheless, he has a developing understanding of the broader and narrower issues with respect to BiH and the region.   Whether Dayton is ultimately perceived as an opportunity lost, it is also hepful to have a review of the situation that is both experienced and hopefully objective. For many, including Dick Holbrooke, it was difficult to be objective because of the skeletons buried and how they have come to privatize the Dayton Accords, both in terms of legacy and politics. We can only anticipate that Hillary as well as Bill are capable to see beyond.   And from the Bosnian perspective, it is also useful to have participants in the discussion who have experienced the mistakes, the betrayal and can face to face hold their US and European counterparts accountable for such as well as being capable of objectively reviewing their own role and assuming responsibility. It strikes me that in the US, European and BiH political forum, old mistakes are being repeated by relatively new players. We can only hope that the experience represented by Bill Clinton or Dr. Silajdzic, will not allow the same mistakes or betrayals to be repeated.      

Any do you believe that Bill Clinton, Dr. Silajdzic or the other policy makers have learned from the past?  

MS: Cannot speak for others, but my purpose in writing is to provide this insight from my own experience and help the discussion move forward rather than be stuck in a vicious cycle.      

It appears you are speaking as an insider at the meeting. Do you have fist hand information of the details of the conversation?

MS: We all have some insight, but this is only the beginning.