Search for Embezzlers of Foreign Donations

THE MEDIA THE MAIN CULPRIT

AIM SARAJEVO, 20 April, 1998

If it turns out that the Bosnian-Herzegovinian political circles have embezzled (and as matters stand now - they certainly have) funds from foreign donations, credits and budgets, all the blame will be pinned to none other than the media, i.e. those investigating possible improprieties! At least that much could be concluded after a long discussion at the most recent session of the Chamber of Deputies of the Federal Parliament. Namely, after the President of the Parliamentary Commission for investigating the unauthorised use of donations, credits and budget funds, Stanko Sliskovic, said what he had to say, in other words, after he read his report without naming names, because as he said, he would do that when "things come to court and the police", the debate took quite a different direction - had Commission members during their stay in London said what "The Times" claimed and why?

Let us clarify this - as one Sarajevo daily carried, the London daily "The Times" published a text by its diplomatic editor, Michael Binyon, in which he claimed that members of the Commission's delegation had stated that over 360 thousand pounds (close to 600 million dollars) of international aid was embezzled in Bosnia and Herzegovina. These were donations from the USA, European Union, United Nations, while "dozens of millions of dollars sent to B&H for reconstruction, construction and development have disappeared in the pockets of Government officials, mobsters and criminals", said the text. The author further claimed that Mr. Sliskovic, the President of the Commission, personally said that the Government officials asked them to inform London that everything was OK and that there was no corruption, but that the Commission refused to obey. The text also emphasized that according to the Commission's claim there were no true financial calculations nor records of where the money went, and that this was impossible to stop although it was common knowledge who took the money from financial assistance to Bosnia and Herzegovina. In his text Binyon stated that members of the Commission informed their London hosts about the smuggling that went on between the entities and criminal activities which couldn't be stopped "as interests of too many people were involved".

Upon his return from London, Sliskovic claimed that the text was a surprise for all Commission members who visited London and that he couldn't help feeling that this was a construction on the part of the author of the text in question who made it using parts of his interviews with the Commission members, adding that no one used the words "theft" or "threat of mortal danger", which the text mentioned in connection with their activities.

However, even the figures in Commission's report Sliskovic read to deputies of the Federal Parliament could not revert the discussion from the media problem to the subject at issue. Among other things, the report said: "Credit Board allocated 50,008,000 DEM to 13 banks for 151 loans granted to various enterprises. Out of this amount, 47,696,000 DEM are the TAC funds, and the remainder was re-invested for the repayment of outstanding credit installments and interest payments on granted credits. The remaining 43 million DEM were used to assist the B&H Federation funds and institutions which was transparently presented in the information of the Finance Minister submitted to the Government on November 19, 1997. At the moment there is 1,806,805 DEM left within this credit line...

The Commission draws attention of the Deputies of Parliament to the practice of brushing over problems which relevant individuals, bodies and institutions have pointed to as forms of abuse, harmful behaviour, tax and customs evasion and other unauthorised forms of spending donation, budget and credit resources. We shall mention only some - Moonlite, Lijanovics, Energopetrol, Ina B&H, Commodity Reserves Directorate, etc." This same report mentioned a Japanese donation for the water supply systems of Gorazde, Sarajevo and Zelcic because of which the Public Prosecutor's Office in the Gorazde Canton instituted an investigation regarding the controversial 6,750,000 USD. However, the Chamber of Deputies never found out who and why gave incorrect data to the Gorazde authorities about this donation and the rechanneling of these resources.

However, apart from the discussion on what the media publish and and how they do it, nothing in the submitted report of the Commission impressed deputies of the Federal Parliament. Some deputies were so thorough in their discussions that they analysed in detail the printing of daily papers, authors, editorial policy-makers and censorship. The deputies' "dissection" of the London article went so far that skeptics even hinted at a possibility that the Times' journalist was "bribed to write an article which would discredit the Commission". During six-hour parliamentary debate, occasionally taking the floor members of the Commission (which is composed of representatives of all parliamentary parties) were the only ones who tried to speak about the work and findings of the Commission, but in vain. Finally, after an embarrassing and shameful discussion, a conclusion was reached that the Commission enjoyed the Parliament's full support, but had to conclude its work by April 30. The question is what could the Commission possibly find out in these 15 days what it had not discovered so far!?

It should be clarified here why did the deputies, naturally from the ruling parties, insist on the story about the media thereby getting off the point and sidetracking the discussion about the Commission's findings. Namely, immediately upon the return of the Commission's delegation from London, ensued a reaction of the Party of Democratic Action whereby it accused "Sliskovic of going to London to work against the state" At the mentioned Assembly session, the SDA deputies insisted that the entire debate on the work and information of the Commission be postponed for the following day because the same moment this item of the agenda came up the Bosnian-Herzegovinian Television stopped its live broadcast of the parliamentary session.

Why did the SDA insist on giving the public an opportunity to directly follow the debate on possible financial improprieties in the use of donated and loaned resources and after that sidetracked the discussion? At the same time, at the SDA Press Conference, a day after the session of the Chamber of Deputies and first information on the work of the Commission, the spokesmen of the party, Ismet Grbo, commented that "the figure mentioned by the Western press regarding the unauthorised use of donations in B&H is higher that the amounted that could ever be realized". In other words, the spokesman or the party he works for, knows much more than the Commission appointed by the Parliament, and to which it should convey these findings.

In a number of interviews the President of the Commission claimed that the Commission had a constant inflow of information, but that they were rather "transparent", i.e. useless. One of the Commission members stated that the search for evidence on fraudulent handling of donation funds was equal to "catching feathers from a pillow thrown out of the window into the wind".

The Commission learned of all possible malversations and irregularities from the public, both local and international, but also from deputies' questions. The President of the Presidency himself once received Sliskovic in connection with the Commission's work and, according to him, told him that he kept no records of the funds and that all data should be in the National Bank, with the Governor Kasim Omisevic. On the other hand, according to Sliskovic, Omisevic laconically replied to his repeated inquiries with a letter stating that "everything is in perfect order with the donations that went through the National Bank, which is also the opinion of numerous international experts who monitored the use of donated funds", thereby refusing the Commission any insight in his work. Recently Sliskovic spoke about how the Commission requested reports from various institutions, which they were supposed to submit to Parliament by their very character. In other words, nothing out of the ordinary. But, to no avail. Logically, as ordered by those whom the disclosure of these embezzlements could bring harm - to put it mildly.

It should be also mentioned that immediately upon the return from London Stanko Sliskovic was relieved from his duty of acting President of the Croatian Peasants' Party (HSS), and according to the opinion of some opposition political groups, precisely with the intention of being discredited both in the HSS and as the President of the Commission. Some members of the opposition and political analysts went so far as to call Ivo Komsic, who was behind Sliskovic's replacement, a permanent SDA satellite. The reason for removing Sliskovic, i.e. divesting him of his high party function, was to weaken his political and parliamentary positions, and consequently, his position in the Commission. Edo Arnautovic, an independent candidate for the Federation Parliament commented this with the following words: "Since he came too close to the truth about who was stealing and how, Sliskovic had to be shown as an incompetent person and, if at all possible, proclaimed a thief which would put an end to the work of the Commission".

According to Sliskovic, the Commission was in no position to verify what the local media wrote, for example, about the former Minister of Defence in the Government of the B&H Federation, Hasan Cengic, building an airport in Visoko and how he obtained the money for that. Or where some until-recent high officials found the money to buy numerous buildings around Sarajevo, well-functioning factories all over B&H, as well as a mine in Konjic (which was very rich before the war and is now closed because its deposits have allegedly been depleted). For the Commission the source of such information are the mentioned questions of the deputies at all parliamentary levels, but as a rule, they remain unanswered.

It is interesting that Izudin Kesetovic, a member of the Commission from the SDA, never once joined in the discussion, although he participated in its deliberations and was in the delegation that paid a visit to London. Obviously, Kesetovic found himself in a rather unenviable position - he is a member of the Commission, but thanks to the SDA also a deputy to the Parliament, and consequently a member of the mentioned Commission. Some Commission members have concluding that for him to speak in any capacity would mean to cut the bough he was standing on.

At the same time, it is a fact that all members of the Commission stated their opinion unanimously and stood behind every word written in the information which Sliskovic, as President of the Commission, had submitted to the Parliament. They were also unanimous when they spoke about the text in "The Times" because, according to them, no one mentioned the words "theft" or "mortal danger", but all of them spoke about difficulties in the work of the Commission, obstruction of its activities and uncooperativeness of certain institutions. However, Parliamentarians were not moved by the mentioning of scandals created by some officials and hushed up by the others, after which everything is the same old story.

Only the President of the Federal Parliament asked Nijaz Skenderagic (SDP), a resigned member of the Commission, not to fly off at a tangent when he asked whether anyone alive knew how much the B&H Federation was indebted - 3.2 or 4.6 billion dollars, because both amounts were mentioned alternatively. For Enver Kresa (SDA), President of the Chamber, the question as to why there was no central computer with a team in charge of keeping the data about all donations or loans received, was "missing of the point"! Because for representatives of the ruling party unauthorised use of donations and parties guilty of such conduct were not the subject of that session. They were obviously well informed of that. The issue was who dared write about that and why.

Rubina CENGIC

(AIM, Sarajevo)