Scars of war remain ten years after

By Andrew Beatty

Date: 14/07/05

It is not easy to forget the past in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The violence of the 1992-95 war still scars the capital, Sarajevo, with bullet holes pock-marking almost every wall and building. The mountains surrounding the city, although beautiful, serve as a permanent reminder of the 44-month siege because it was from there that Serb artillery bombarded the city.

History is perhaps more difficult to forget this year. 2005 is a year of commemorations and anniversaries for Bosnia and Herzegovina. Last week the world remembered the genocide of thousands of Bosnian Muslim men and boys that took place ten years ago in Srebrenica and Potocari. November will see the tenth anniversary of the signing of the 1995 Dayton peace accords, which established the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and which paved the way for peace.

Like the evidence of war, evidence of the Dayton accords is not hard to find.

The complex political structures set up under Dayton and the 1994 Washington agreement are still plain to see. The republic is a forced marriage of the Bosnian Muslim and Croat dominated Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Serbian dominated Republika Srpska, which snakes around the country's north and east like a figure seven.

All three entities have their own constitution and, if that were not enough, the federation has ten cantons, which in turn have their own constitutions. Dayton also established the Office of the High Representative, a United Nations and EU appointee, who oversees the running of the republic and who has the power to hire and fire ministers.

The EU's current high representative to the country, Paddy Ashdown, will step down later this year, marking another milestone.

But for Bosnian and other European commentators, the Dayton accords and the powers of high representatives are increasingly being remembered not as the founding document and as means of bringing about peace, but as an external imposition which exacerbates the ethnic tensions and cripples decision-making.

"Dayton has consolidated the nationalist parties in Bosnia and Herzegovina," former UN special envoy José Maria Mendiluce said at a recent conference organised by the European Greens in Sarajevo.

Critics, like Mendiluce, say that the Dayton agreement has institutionalised ethnic boundaries, benefiting nationalist parties, relieving local politicians of responsibility and stalling decision-making.

Evidence of the power of these nationalist parties is not hard to find.

Efforts to create a nationwide police force and negotiations with the EU on an association and stabilisation agreement, which would be the first step towards full EU membership, are currently being blocked by Serb nationalists.

According to Marijana Grandits, a professor of human rights and former Austrian parliamentarian, it is now time for a rethink.

"The population of Bosnia were never asked what kind of Bosnia they want," she said, proposing a no-holds barred discussion on the future of the country.

"Even if the positions are extreme, with some calling for [Republika Srpska] to be part of Serbia, we have to start the debate, nothing should be off the table."

But the Dayton accords have set extremely high standards for amending the text of the agreement, with a two- thirds majority needed to change the country's constitution.

For many the answer lies in EU membership, which all parties claim to support.

But with the EU engaged in debates about its future and its boundaries, people are increasingly asking what comes between Dayton and the EU.

Analysis feature on the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina ten years after the conclusion of the 1995 Dayton Agreement.

• Primary Source

EEAS: Countries: Bosnia and Herzegovina http://eeas.europa.eu/bosnia_and_herzegovina/index_en.htm

---