NOTHING FOR FREE

Reconstruction of B&H

AIM Sarajevo, 11 December, 1996

Everything that the civilian part of the Dayton accords stands for and which could not be effectuated so far neither by political pressures nor by the presence of 60 thousand NATO soldiers in B&H, is expected to be accomplished by using resources for reconstruction as a means of pressure.

One of the results of the recent London conference on B&H is a clear and unambiguous message of the international community to political leaders in B&H that the quantity of resources of the international community invested in reconstruction directly depends on realization of the taken obligations. In this way, money intended for reconstruction appears as the strongest trump card of the international community, about which a consensus was reached by all the leading world powers.

That is the reason why partial results accomplished so far in collecting the promised resources for reconstruction of B&H and their effective application in the context of the global political situation in B&H cannot be said to be unexpected. Obeying of the provisions and deadlines of the military part of the Dayton accords and carrying out of the elections in B&H are practically the only things which have been implemented out of the whole package. Freedom of movement in whole of B&H, return of refugees, arrest of war criminals, formation of joint institutions are only a part of the obligations which should have been effectuated a long time ago.

It should be said political factors have even up till now dictated the rate of reconstruction in B&H, with the only difference that there was no wish to admit it publicly. September elections were the first condition, so it should not surprise that the real inflow of money started only in September. The need to build an adequate organization structure is one of the reasons for the delay of reconstruction, but could not have been decisive in any case.

When on the eve of London conference a stalemate position occurred concerning establishment of the Council of Ministers of B&H, because both parties - the Federation and the Republica Srpska - obstinately persisted on their positions, "suddenly" inflow of donors' money slowed down, and there were even threats of certain large donors that they might withdraw from the whole business.

Among authorizations of the High Representative of the international community in B&H is his right to interrupt the inflow of resources for those who do not obey provisions of the peace accords. For this purpose, Carl Bildt's office formed the Economic Task Force which consists of representatives of the EU, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, IMG and the World Bank. They were practically entrusted with the entire process of reconstruction.

In view of the height of investments for reconstruction of B&H of 5.1 billion dollars, it would be an illusion to expect that the donors were motivated only by the wish to unselfishly help the war-devastated country. Each of the donors has more or less tried to draw benefit for himself in various ways. Most frequently, the "clutch" was reflected in the fact that each country tried to procure as many ventures for its enterprises as possible, or commodities were expected to be directly ordered from them and then sent to B&H. Of course, in both cases, the aim was the same - to keep the money at home, without having to pay much attention to prices.

The European Union allocated the promised resources from its joint cash-box in Brussels, so it is not at all surprising that individual countries-members of the EU are doing their best to get as many orders as possible for their firms. Inside the EU serious misunderstandings occurred. France was not at all satisfied believing that French enterprises were getting too few orders which are paid for from the joint cash-box of the EU. Demanding a larger portion for itself, France threatened by withdrawing from the joint financing of reconstruction of B&H. In order to make up and reach a compromise, the Europeans needed a "time-out". The scandal with the fertilizers donated by the EU in the Federal Ministry of Agriculture served as a perfect immediate cause.

The Dayton accords were primarily a reflection of the compromise among leading European and world powers and their interests which were refracted through B&H. Reality of the existence of different aims is clearly demonstrated through the process of reconstruction as well. At the moment, American interests are represented by the World Bank and directly through activities of the USAID. The English and the French are trying to pursue their policies through the presence of the EU, with Germany as the counter-balance, whose policy is much closer to that of the USA than of their European neighbours. In view of its own unenviable economic situation, Russia is in no position to compete with them, which is directly reflected on its influence on the manner in which money for reconstruction will be used.

Those who are extremely dissatisfied with such division of roles are the Islamic countries which have given about 15 per cent of the total sum for reconstruction. Regardless of the amount of the resources which they are donating, their influence on defining the policy towards B&H by Western donors does not correspond to the given amount of money. That is why these countries showed readiness to turn more to bilateral aspects of offering assistance to B&H instead of fusing with the other donor countries.

The ratio according to which money for reconstruction was divided so far with the symbolic two per cent going to the Republic of Srpska shows best that it is not realistic to rely on compassion of donors. The current authorities in Republic of Srpska are not ready to give up their fundamental principles which start from ethnically pure territories where there can be no people of other nationality and creed. For them there is no dilemma between 1.4 billion dollars planned for them and the idea of ethnic purity. Money is ephemeral and the idea is eternal - "one nation, one party, one leader" remains as their guiding principle. At the same time, the message sent to the people is that they (the people) will much rather eat grass than knuckle under blackmail. Nothing is being said about the leaders and their diet, and it is questionable whether the people agree to what they are offered. Confidence offered in the elections is interpreted by the authorities in Republic of Srpska as absolute consent of the people to all their moves. Refusal of the international aid preserves the status quo between the subjects and the authorities in RS. It is much easier to rule the poor and people on the verge of existence than economically independent individuals, and besides it is quite convenient to have close at hand someone who can be blamed for all failures and mistakes - the international community and the general anti-Serb conspiracy.

At the same time, in the Federation of B&H winners in the elections are slowly becoming aware that reconstruction does not mean just getting money for free, but that it is necessary to "do one's homework" in order to get money, and indeed present the accounts for all that money spent. That is why interruption of the inflow of money hurts the federal B&H the most where the first although still humble indications of ecobnomic revival are felt. One can expect that in the future money for reconstruction will be a reward for everything done in implementation of the Dayton provisions, and equally punishment for avoiding these obligations. In any case, results of "high" policy will be felt by ordinary citizens in whole of B&H.

DRAZEN SIMIC