Daytonski sporazum je BiH donio “luđačku košulju”/The Dayton Agreement has brought to Bosnia and Herzegovina a “straitjacket”

1429081446Incijativa “Građanke za ustavne promjene” prenosi kako međunarodni zvaničnici gledaju na Dejtonski sporazim i njegove kočnice, 20 godina nakon njegovog donošenja.  Berlinski Tageszeitung (taz) se u svome članku osvrće na sastanak G20 u Turskoj napominjući da je time učinjen početak za pregovarački proces u Siriji, ali da je još daleko “jedna uspješna mirovna konferencija kao ona prije 20 godina u Daytonu, a kojom je okončan rat u BiH”. Osvrćući se na zemlje sudionice u toj konferenciji 1995. u Daytonu, taz piše da je za uspjeh bilo važno da ta izaslanstva pregovaraju izolirano u daytonskoj vojnoj bazi.

“Vojnu bazu nisu smjeli napustiti sve dok nije postignut dogovor. Kad se dignuo dim 21. studenog 1995., tada su uspjeli. Sporazum iz Daytona je okončao rat u Bosni i Hercegovini. Kao prvi korak je zajamčen prijekid vatre. Zatim su međunarodne trupe pod vodstvom NATO-a trebale ući u BiH i razdvojiti ratne strane, što se i dogodilo prijelazom s 1995. na 1996. godinu. U rat uključene vojske su demobilizirane. Stvorena je međunarodna politička struktura, Office of the High Representative (OHR – Ured visokog predstavnika) čiji je zadatak bio da nadzire primjenu sporazuma u upravlja obnovom zemlje”, podsjeća taz.

Dayton je stvorio “nepokretan ustav” za BiH

List u svezi s tim piše da bi vojni dio Daytonskog sporazuma mogao biti uzor za djelovanje u Siriji: “Kad oružje utihne međunarodne trupe bi mogle ući u zemlju i demobilizirati vojske. S obzirom na, u usporedbi s BiH, još kompleksniju konstelaciju u Siriji to sada, doduše, zvuči iluzorno, ali je to tako bilo i za vrijeme rata u BiH. Tko je 1994. godine još mogao zamisliti da bi se rat mogao okončati već naredne godine? Uspostava jedne međunarodne organizacije koja bi nadzirala mirovni sporazum bi mogla biti od pomoći i u Siriji. Ali upravo s civilnom primjenom Daytonskog sporazuma su u Bosni i Hercegovini napravljene velike greške koje ni u kojem slučaju ne bi trebalo ponoviti. Tako su izbori u BiH prerano organizirani.

Christian Schwarz-SchillingAmerikanci nisu htjeli poslušati Schwarz-Schillinga

Upozoravajući glasovi poput onog tadašnjeg UN-ovog specijalnog izaslanika Christiana Schwarz-Schillinga su ignorirani od strane Sjedinjenih Američkih Država zato što je predsjednik Bill Clinton vojni angažman SAD-a htio opravdati etabliranjem ‘demokracije’ u BiH. Schwarz-Schilling je tražio da se, kao što je to bio slučaj u Njemačkoj nakon Drugog svjetskog rata, pričeka nekoliko godina s izborima, dok se ne razviju nove političke snage i stranke. A kad se tijekom sastanka G20 u turskom gradu Antalya u tamo postavljenom ‘planu za Siriju’ opet traže brzi izbori, čini se primjetnim rukopis Washingtona.”

Taz se dalje osvrće na dodatne “greške” Daytonskog sporazuma ističući da je njime stvoren “nepokretan ustav koji djeluje poput luđačke košulje”. List također piše da je Daytonski sporazum “cementirao teritorijalna područja vlasti za nacionalističke snage koje su vodile rat, a koja do danas važe. I više od toga, u toj novoj strukturi su priznati rezultati etničkih čišćenja koja su pokidala jedno multinacionalno i multireligijsko društvo koje je stoljećima raslo. No, najteže od svega je što ustav te zemlje ne raspolaže mehanizmom za vlastitu reformu. Bosna i Hercegovina sama po sebi ne može promijeniti ustav. Vladajuće ‘klape’ to i ne žele. Status quo je njima dobar. I 20 godina nakon Daytona međunarodne vlasti ne žele ništa mijenjati po pitanju ustava. Takozvana stabilnost se više cijeni nego demokratski razvoj zemlje. Međunarodna zajednica je sa svojim do danas postojećim institucijama poput OHR-a, predstavništva OESS-a i ureda EU-a čak pomogla da na etnički-religijskom temelju razdvoji narode u BiH. Lekcija iz Bosne i Hercegovine glasi: jedan novi ustav za Siriju mora biti sposoban za reformiranje samog sebe. Za uspostavu slobodnih medija i novih stranaka je potrebno vremena. Jedna prijelazna vlada s međunarodnim sudioništvom koja bi stvorila uvjete za uspostavu javne uprave i demokratizaciju zemlje bi bio barem u Bosni i Hercegovini bolji model.”

Cijeli članak možete pročitati: www.dw.com

————————————————————-

The Initiative “Women Citizens for Constitutional Reform” reported on how international officials view the Dayton Agreement and its breakers 20 years after its assignment. Berlin’s  Tageszeitung (taz) in his article refers to the G20 meeting in Turkey, noting  that it was made the first step of the negotiating process in Syria, but that is still far away from “another successful peace conference as it was one 20 years ago in Dayton which ended the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina “. Referring to the countries participating in the conference in 1995 in Dayton, taz writes that it was important that the delegations negotiating isolated in the Dayton’s military base.

“They were not allowed to leave military base until they agreed. When the smoke lifted on 21 November 1995, then they managed. Dayton Agreement ended the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. As a first step it guaranteed the ceasefire. Then the international troops led by NATO should enter BiH and separated war sides, which happend from 1995 to 1996. The war involved armies were demobilized. It was created an international political structure, the Office of the High Representative (OHR – Office of the High Representative), whose task was to monitor the implementation of agreement in managing the reconstruction of the country,” recalls taz.

Dayton created a “stagnant constitution” for Bosnia and Herzegovina

The news paper says that the military part of the Dayton Agreement could be a model for action in Syria: “When guns silent international troops could enter the country and demobilize the army. Considering that, in comparison with Bosnia and Herzegovina, more complex constellation is in Syria now, though, sounds illusory, but that is what happened during the war in Bosnia. Who in 1994 could still imagine that the war could end as early as next year? The establishment of an international organization that would oversee a peace deal could be of help in Syria. But precisely with the civil application of the Dayton Agreement in Bosnia and Herzegovina were made big mistakes that in no case should not be repeated. For example, the elections were organized too early.

Americans did not want to listen to Schwarz-Schilling

The warning voices like the former UN special envoy Christian Schwarz-Schilling are ignored by the United States because President Bill Clinton thought that military engagement of the United States would justify the establishment of the ‘democracy’ in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Schwarz-Schilling asked that, as was the case in Germany after World War II, wait a few years for the elections, while the country develops new political forces and parties. And when during the G20 meeting in the Turkish city of Antalya was set a ‘plan for Syria’ which again seeking quick elections, it seems noticeable manuscript of Washington.”

Taz further comments on the additional “mistake” of the Dayton Agreement emphasizing that it created “stagnant constitution that acts like a straitjacket.” The paper also writes that the Dayton Agreement “cemented geographical areas of government for nationalist forces that led to the war, which to this date are valid. More than that, in this new structure, is recognized the results of ethnic cleansing which tore a multinational and multi-religious society, that for centuries grew. But hardest of all is that the country's constitution does not provide a mechanism for their own reform. Bosnia and Herzegovina itself cannot change the constitution. The ruling ‘political groups’ do not want it. The status quo is good to them. And 20 years after Dayton the international authorities do not want to change anything in terms of the constitution. The so-called stability is more appreciated than the democratic development of the country. The international community has with its existing institutions such as the OHR, the representative of the OSCE and the EU office even helped on the ethnic-religious basis to separate peoples in BiH. The lesson from Bosnia and Herzegovina reads as follows: a new constitution for Syria must be capable of reforming itself. For the establishment of a free media and new parties it is needed time. A transitional government with international complicity that would create conditions for the establishment of public administration and democratization of the country would be at least in Bosnia and Herzegovina a better model.”
The entire article can be read on: http://www.dw.com

Advertisements