Did Sintra and Bonn Revise the Dayton Accords?

Warning to Saboteurs

AIM Banja Luka, 7 January, 1998

After the conference in Bonn, a part of the state and political leadership of the Republic of Srpska (RS) launched the thesis that the international community is revising the Dayton accords at the expense of the Serbs. Dissolved assembly of RS, at its session of 17 November 1997, voted in favour of the Declaration on equality and independence of RS. Only because of the contents of this Declaration, it should be dissolved. It speaks of "unpermissible revision of the Dayton accords", without stating any other example. It is stressed that pressure is exerted on RS and its state and political authorities to adopt unacceptable and detrimental solutions for RS. Which ones? Certain international representatives are accused of working on immersing RS in unitarian B&H. This thesis deserves broader political and legal elaboration.

The Bonn Declaration (the Conference was held on 9 and 10 December, 1997) confirmed "truthfulness to the general framework of the agreement on peace in B&H, decisions reached in London on 4 and 5 December 1997, and decisions reached in Sintra on 30 May, 1997." In this comprehensive document, clear stands and time limits are stated for implementation of the Dayton accords. After stating that "the Council (for Implementation of Peace) is deeply concerned that the Agreement is implemented slowly and with resistance", it is stressed "that such situation will not be tolerated". That is the reason why the intention of the High Representative is supported to reach ultimate solutions which will ensure implementation of the provisions of the peace contract in B&H and its entities, as well as joint institutions when he estimates that this is necessary. This is the most powerful and most specific provision of the Declaraction adopted in Bonn.

Slow or none at all discharge of obligations from the agreement refers to protection of human rights in B&H, prevention of the return of hundreds thousand refugees annd displaced persons to their prewar homes and obligations to amend property and housing laws which usurp the rights of the citizens.

The Declaration "expresses discontent with the authorities in B&H which are not meeting their obligations". Lack of responsibility in extradition of war criminals to the Hague tribunal is especially stressed.

In the part of the Declaration on constitutional and legal problems it is stressed that "the authorities in B&H have not made a significant step in implementation of key provisions of the Constitution of B&H, adoption of vital laws significant for prosperity of the people and the state. As concerning operation of the Presidency of B&H, the Council of Ministers and the Assembly, it warns against lasting, intentional absence from performing duties and failing to meet obligations, demands greater cooperativeness and calls the High Representative to take specific measures in order to initiate normal operation of the authorities.

"Concern is expressed because of the fact that many obligations taken in Sintra have not been met" in the Declaration, but also because the authorities in B&H have not adopted the laws on citizenship and passports in compliance with the obligations from Sintra, because discriminatory regimes of crossing the border between B&H and the Republic of Croatia are still in force, because parallel and para-constitutional authorities of the Federation of B&H still exist ("Herzeg-Bosnia" and the Republic of B&H). That is why the High Representative is invited to inform the Council about it all by 1 march, 1998.

As it can be seen, all these problems refer to the failure to implement the Dayton accords and they are not its supplement against the will of the signatories, as some conflicting parties claim. Any basically informed citizen can see that the parties in conflict are preventing implementation of the vital parts of the Dayton accords, especially constitution of the authorities of B&H, ensuring rights and freedoms and return of refugees.

Instead of discussions whether Sintra and Bonn brought revision of the Dayton accords, it should be considered why the signed accords are not implemented and who its opponents are.

The international community judged wrongly that it will oppose an alternative democratic course to the existing situation, having disregarded that nationalistic political regimes are not its partners but opponents. Its insisting on having the Dayton accords implemented by those who have signed it is an illusion the intrnational community does not seem to be able to get rid of. It is ignored that the accords were signed unwillingly by the signatories, that they had expected much more from the war and that these very accords had prevented them from getting it.

Those who made B&H a living hell were called to get the nations out of it. Nothing similar has ever happened in the history of mankind. History unambiguously confirmed that the movements, groups and individuals, who were bearers of reactionary and conservative forms of life could never become bearers of evolutionary, democratic and civilizational processes. Nor can the bearers of an ethnic and religious war, hatred and intolerance become bearers of any positive process, re-establishing of inter-ethnic confidence, joint life in B&H and Croatia. It is impossible to believe that the world community does not know this.

That is why the Dayton accords were stopped short at the very beginning. Besides, it is too declarative, understated, and it is very easy to find foundation in it for the failure to implement some of its parts. There is no solution for such a situation. That is why it is necessary to supplement it with norms what is to be done if the Dayton accords are not implemented. Such conclusions are found in the declarations from Sintra and Bonn, and they are definitely not a revision of the accords. Apart from it, the international community must turn to new partners for implementation of the Accords and seek them in alternative, democratic and opposition movements in B&H.

This alternative is inclined towards western-European civilization, and according to its attitude to this alternative it will be possible to tell whether the international community has serious intentions to improve the situation in B&H. This alternative is not concerned about the conclusions from Sintra, nor those from Bonn. That is why time has come for the international community to finally declare its stand and to stop criticizing the slow implementation of the accords, and renounce those who are putting spokes into its wheels.

Implementation of the accords will not succeed until the awareness of similarity of three nationalisms prevails in the international community. All the three nationalisms must be measured by equal criteria, since all three are essentially against the Dayton accords.

Dr Mico Carevic

(the author is a professor of constitutional law)