In interview with Mona Sewilam, chair of the Bosnia and Herzegovina tripartite presidency, , reviews the future and past of a country broken by, but now overcoming, ethnic divisions Mr President, you speak one language in Bosnia and Herzegovina. But the Bosniacs (Bosnian Muslims), Serbs and Croats give it different names. Why? This is one of the peculiarities of Bosnia and Herzegovina. I do not think that this matter is of great significance. We have a good understanding, but we have to respect everyone's right of choice. There are people who believe that this is of paramount importance. We speak one language and everyone gives it a name corresponding to one's own ethnicity. It is not a problem. The more peculiarities we have, the more diversity we shall have. And such diversity enriches the culture of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The case of Bosnia and Herzegovina is complicated. You are a young president -- born in 1964 -- facing many challenges. One legacy you would like to leave behind is that you are a president of all Bosnians, regardless of ethnicity and religion. Indeed. We still have a tripartite presidency. There are three members of the Presidential Council; each represents a certain ethnicity. I believe this is a temporary situation. I am currently the chairman of the Presidential Council. In my capacity as chairman, I do not represent a single ethnicity, but all Bosnians regardless of religion, ethnicity or any other affiliations. Some people think that I represent everyone and I am proud of this. To represent all the citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina is my political and moral duty. In this tripartite presidency, every eight months one member becomes chairman. How are decisions taken? It is a strange system. It was necessary to have it in the transitional stage in our country. The constitution regulates the decision-making process. There is ongoing cooperation amongst the three of us. Decisions pertaining to foreign policy and defence have to be made unanimously; the three of us must not disagree about such decisions. As for other issues, when there is difference of opinion we take a vote. Once again, I would like to say that the level of cooperation is good. I would like to stress that the tripartite presidency is a transitional stage. It was a necessity in order to ensure political unity in the country. But has unity been ensured? Sometimes when the three Presidential Council members appear together they make contradictory statements, which undermines Bosnia's claim to be a sovereign self-governing democracy. Let me compare this to a situation when we have a family consisting of a father, mother and son or daughter, each having his or her own opinion concerning many issues. So it is normal for us to have different opinions. But as I said earlier, we have a full consensus over the issues of foreign policy and defence. Having three presidents to represent one country was necessary to implement the 1995 Dayton Agreement after the end of the war. Now it is not necessary anymore. What comes to mind about the 1992-1995 war in Bosnia and Herzegovina are images of grave human rights violations and the destruction in 1993 of the "Stari Most", or the Old Bridge -- one of the symbols of the city of Mostar. What were the causes of such a violent conflict and what lessons may be learned? It was a classic war in the sense that the objective was to capture more land. I will be very frank with you; the war was imposed on us in Bosnia. As you know, we have two neighbouring countries. They agreed to expand their territories at the expense of Bosnia and Herzegovina. They wanted to destroy the country and partition it. As citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina, we had to confront them. Then the war broke out and lasted for four years. The two neighbouring countries were responsible for genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina. They committed heinous crimes. After those terrible crimes, we learned the lesson; we will never let this happen again. I do not understand why the international community and the United Nations did not stop that war, although they could have done. I wonder if they also learned lessons after such horrific crimes and will take the necessary measures to avoid repetition of such crimes. The 1995 General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina, or the Dayton Agreement, ended the war. But has it really worked? Has the threat of war disappeared, or is it still too early to tell? It is well known that the Dayton Agreement was a positive step. But it is not enough for establishing an effective state. Now the vast majority of the population in Bosnia and Herzegovina understand that the agreement has expired, or it is no longer effective. So we need to unite and cooperate to establish a new constitution for the country. For example, in the light of Dayton, we do not have effective state institutions that are completely independent and capable of establishing full cooperation with NATO and the European Union (EU). As for the clashes in Bosnia and Herzegovina, I am sure the war cannot break out again -- not only in Bosnia, but also in the Balkans as a whole. Bosnia and Herzegovina is an independent sovereign state and a member of the United Nations. Yet it looks like there is an informal trusteeship or "dual regime" in your country. The powers of the high representative in charge of overseeing the implementation of Dayton are more than your own. He or she has the capacity to dismiss the Bosnian president. How could that be? This is part of the Dayton Agreement. While signing the peace agreement, we placed a major part of the country's sovereignty in the hands of the so-called "international high representative". So he or she has major powers. This situation does not exist today in countries that enjoy full sovereignty and have real democracy, but we had to give the high representative such authorities so that he or she would help us reach political unity and reconciliation. It had to be done under such circumstances. In 1997, High Representative Carlos Westerndorp stated, "If you read Dayton very carefully... Annex 10 even gives me the possibility to interpret my own authorities and powers." Has the high representative ever abused his powers? Without doubt the high representatives have not abused their powers in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Naturally, they sometimes used their authority to change certain policies or amend specific laws. This had to be done to ensure a positive atmosphere for everyone on the national level. I would also stress that none of the international high representatives in Bosnia and Herzegovina has ever made a unilateral decision. There are important countries that are members of the Peace Implementation Council in Bosnia and Herzegovina. So the high representative never makes any decision without cooperation and consultations with all the members of the council. Be that as it may, high representatives have dismissed three Bosnian presidents. This is a fact. Once again, I would like to stress that the role played by the high representative is in our country's best interest. There were three cases in which he exercised the right to take decisions. I am not a judge, but he was right. The three Bosnia and Herzegovina presidents in those cases were facing serious criminal charges. The high representative has also the capacity to curtail or suspend any media network and programmes that contravene "either the spirit or letter" of the Dayton Agreement. The media had played a significant role in escalating ethnic violence in Bosnia. What is the role of the media today? One of my work principles is not to comment on what is published in the media. I believe there must be complete democracy and there must be no meddling with the media. This is what freedom is all about -- freedom of choice, freedom of expression. We differ in some things; we have different opinions. I believe this is a good thing. This way the truth will come out. Moreover, if the media publishes misleading or defamatory information about any individual, he or she can sue them. But the media must enjoy complete freedom. I read a lot of things in the press and I disagree with some opinions. But I have to respect freedom of expression. It appears that if transition in Bosnia ever takes place it will be from the Office of the High Representative (OHR) to the European Union, without engaging the Bosnian people. Do you agree? According to the country's constitution, the Presidential Council can replace the OHR representatives with representatives from the EU. But we will not make that decision because it is not in the country's best interest. It is not a wise political decision, specifically regarding promoting unity. Some trends in Bosnia and Herzegovina want to precipitate the replacement of OHR with EU representatives. I believe it is too early to make that replacement. First, we need to amend the constitution or establish a new constitution that will ensure political stability. Once this political stability is achieved, we can look into the role of EU representatives in our country. In that case, the role will be restricted to consultation. It is well known that the Dayton Agreement was the outcome of the efforts of many countries and not just the European Union alone. The United States played a role as well. We also have the Peace Implementation Council in Bosnia. Its members are not exclusively from the EU, but some are from the US. There are representatives of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference as well. So I want to say that a major part of the international community, and not merely a group of countries, is keen on maintaining stability in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It is also well known that this is related to our cooperation with the UN Security Council. Poverty is widespread throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina. Yet the country has 14 governments with 13 prime ministers. The autonomous region of Brèko has a government headed by a mayor and not a prime minister. How is this structure, the creation of Dayton, being financed? You are right. As I said before, the Dayton Agreement was good regarding bringing the war to an end. But when it comes to establishing a country, the agreement is seriously deficient. It has led to having a bizarre structure in our country. This huge administration eats up the country's financial resources and it is not in the interest of the citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina. At the present time, the agreement is ineffective. This is one important indicator that we should establish a new constitution. There is a lot of talk about the need for constitutional reform. Is the atmosphere conducive for the different Bosnian parties to come to the negotiating table without international intervention? Under current circumstances, and even with the help of the international community, it is still difficult for us to reach a consensus over establishing a strong and new constitution. Many of the parties that govern the country today have different opinions. So we will have to wait for one year. Next year -- specifically in October -- there will be general elections. Deliberations regarding a new constitution can begin after the elections. Are the Croats ready for that? Their voice might not be heard in the negotiations process because they are a minority. There is a small Croat population in the country, but this does not mean that they harbour any grudges against the other two ethnicities. Bosnia and Herzegovina's population is made up of three ethnicities. The number of each ethnic group is not important. Compared to the other two ethnicities, the Croats are especially keen to see to the establishment of a new constitution because this will ensure full equality with the other ethnicities in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Will the upcoming general elections in October 2010 see the election of one president instead of three? And with Muslims as a majority, will the new president be Muslim? This is possible. I am sure we will reach the point at which we can elect one president to head the entire country. This does not have to be done in a general election. The parliament of Bosnia and Herzegovina can elect such a president. I believe the best role model in this respect is Germany. The president of Germany does not have vast authority, but he represents the whole country. He stands for the moral bond uniting all citizens. The Bosniacs want a central state, the Serbs are for a federal state, and the Croats appear to favour cantons (they are a majority in three cantons at present). What will be the fate of Bosnia and Herzegovina if constitutional reform is agreed upon? There is a trend that focuses on the individual and another that emphasises the importance of ethnicity. I believe the solution is to reach a middle ground in the sense that we must protect the rights of each ethnicity and still make sure that every citizen obtains his or her rights regardless of ethnicity and religion. We had that model before the war. I believe the solution is to have a strong constitution that protects every citizen and still protects each ethnicity. Mr President, can Bosnia and Herzegovina really survive without a high representative or European special representative? Won't the war start again? As I said earlier, war cannot break out again, whether in Bosnia, southern Europe or the Balkans. This is out of the question. There will be political disputes between us, and this is normal, but they will not turn into armed conflict. Bosnia and Herzegovina has a longstanding history of surviving tough circumstances. The country is older than many European Union countries. As a state, it has experience in defending its sovereignty. I do not have any worries about Bosnia's future. I only hope that we will be able to reach a fast consensus. I am sure Bosnia will be a strong country in which every citizen enjoys full rights. But why is war impossible? There are internal and external factors. We went through four years of massacres and unspeakable horrors. The vast majority of Bosnia and Herzegovina's population has absolutely no intention of engaging in a new war. The same goes for the Balkans. Also, the European Union will never let such a war erupt again in any part of Europe. There are national, regional and continental reasons for this. The EU and NATO are keen to maintain peace and stability in all parts of the European continent. I am hopeful that in a short time my country will become a full member of the EU and NATO. The supervised transition to self-governing democracy was due in 1996, ending with the election of state bodies. Internationally ratified elections happened, but the transitional administration was prolonged and remains today. How do you explain that? The constitution has to be amended so Bosnia is able to govern itself. So far we need the high representative who boosts political understanding among us. Again, Dayton was good, but was not effective with regards to eradicating fear resulting from war and separation. I am sure we will establish a new constitution soon and it will ensure that all citizens attain their rights. Peace and justice are two faces of the same coin. How far has Bosnia and Herzegovina gone in addressing impunity? We want to ensure that everyone -- all ethnicities -- will be held on an equal footing regarding all rights and under any circumstances. I graduated from law school, and that is why I have been emphasising that we should ensure that law and order prevail, which is the only way to guarantee those rights. So after the horrific war we went through, we have to establish the best possible constitution that ensures the wellbeing of individuals and society, and agreement among us. Compromises have to be made to achieve full justice in our relations and ensure security, peace, progress and economic development. It is therefore of paramount importance to obtain full membership of NATO and the EU. Membership of NATO will guarantee Bosnia's security, and EU membership will ensure political and economic stability. We live in the Balkans region; we are not only fully committed to protecting our own security, but we are also committed to protecting the security of all the people who live there. We have been reiterating that the world has become a small global village; everyone is responsible for protecting his/her own security and that of others too. We may have to make agonising, but necessary, compromises in order to have a sound society. Once again, I would like to reiterate that the neighbours of Bosnia and Herzegovina are responsible for the unprecedented and horrific disaster that befell Bosnia and Herzegovina. It was caused by their expansionist policies and aggression against us. Do you remember any story from Bosnia and Herzegovina indicating how conflict was resolved non-violently and creatively? There are many examples, some come from wartime while others come from the post-war era. I shall give you an example from the post-war era. Today, we have a united army made up of the three parties that had earlier been at war. There are absolutely no problems or misunderstandings among the officers and soldiers of that army. On the contrary, there is confidence building and they share a sense of remorse over what happened. They have also realised that the war should have been avoided. Today, I always say that the united Bosnian army is a good part of Bosnian society. It is an excellent army, not only with regards to performing its duties inside Bosnia, but also while participating in any UN force anywhere in the world. Naturally, there were many tragic stories during the war imposed upon us. For example, there is a town called éepa, which lies in the east of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Its residents witnessed the worst acts of genocide. The population of éepa is a purely Muslim one. Before the war, there were two Serbian women teachers in a school in that area. They set a heroic and wonderful example in defending the students. When the aggressive Serbian army controlled the area, the teachers refused to go with the army, although they belonged to the same ethnicity. Instead, the teachers continued to live with their Muslim friends. We have many examples of that. Finally, I would like to say that the structure of Bosnian society might be described as the "heart of the world", the "mother of civilisation". This is the title given to Egypt as well. For instance, the EU is based on diversity and adherence to various cultures that enrich each other, along with various religions. It is well known that Bosnia and Herzegovina witnessed outstanding peaceful coexistence among diverse religions and ethnicities. Citizens enjoyed peaceful coexistence for several centuries --- genuine peaceful coexistence. All revelatory religions and cultures had continued to coexist peacefully for several centuries. This constitutes the strong foundation of a decent state that we will establish in the near future. For example, I am a Catholic, but I also hold Muslim, Orthodox and Jewish citizens in high regard. We lived throughout several centuries without intolerance and violence. One reason for the aggression against us was to destroy such charming diversity that even constitutes the foundation of the Non-Aligned Movement. Every individual should enjoy and should be guaranteed the right to freedom of religion. That was the reason why a war was waged on us, and it was also the reason why we succeeded in repelling the aggression. You have also been elected by a majority of Muslims as the Croat member of the tripartite presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina. How does this make you feel? It is very difficult to make a full survey of who voted for me and who did not, but I am proud that I have been elected by Bosnians regardless of ethnicity or religion. I believe this is a good and positive sign regarding developments in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and I am honoured by it. I would like to thank all the people who recognise this value. And I am sure that this will be our guiding principle in the future. The interviewer is senior international correspondent and alumni ambassador at the European University Centre for Peace Studies, Austria.
