Predsjednik Republike Hrvatske, gosp. Stjepan Mesic, u Sarajevu je 7. studenoga sudjelovao na 11. zasjedanju Igmanske inicijative
Cjelovit tekst govora Predsjednika na hrvatskom i engleskom jeziku...
GOVOR PREDSJEDNIKA REPUBLIKE HRVATSKE STJEPANA MESICA
Igmanska inicijativa, 11. zasjedanje
Sarajevo, 07.11.2005.
Dragi prijatelji iz Igmanske inicijative, gospodine clanu Predsjedništva Bosne i Hercegovine, gospodine predsjednice Srbije i Crne Gore,
cijenjeni gosti i uzvanici, gospode i gospodo,
U pravom trenutku postavili ste na dnevni red pravu temu: Dayton – deset godina poslije. Tema je to koja zanima, koja mora zanimati ne samo ljude u Bosni i Hercegovini, nego i u susjednim zemljama i u široj regiji, a – naravno – ona s razlogom privlaci i pozornost medunarodne zajednice.
Kao predsjednik Republike Hrvatske, zemlje – susjeda, imam svakako što reci o navedenoj temi, ali u isto vrijeme moram se cuvati iskušenja da kažem bilo što, što bi se moglo tumaciti kao miješanje u unutarnje stvari druge suverene države. Zato cete, nadam se, razumjeti i prihvatiti možda malo neobican pristup za koji sam se opredijelio.
Govorit cu naime konkretno o onome što je bilo, a nacelan pristup rezervirao sam za glasno razmišljanje o tome što bi i kako moglo i trebalo biti.
Reci cu, dakle, najprije što se u Bosni i Hercegovini dogodilo prije deset godina, a potom cu s vama podijeliti svoja razmišljanja o mogucem ustroju zemlje, bilo koje zemlje, cije stanovništvo cine pripadnici više konstitutivnih naroda i koja traži nacin kako da, poslije rata i unutarnjih sukoba, nade put što bi je iz svojevrsnog medunarodnog protektorata doveo do pune i istinske samostalnosti – u miru i stabilnosti.
Daytonski sporazum postignut prije punog desetljeca bio je rezultat prilika u kojima je ostvaren, ali i odraz odnosa snaga na terenu, te stupnja utjecaja i zainteresiranosti pojedinih kljucnih cimbenika svjetske scene.
Bio je kompromis, pa vec i stoga nije bio idealno rješenje, ali jest bio – naglašavam: u tadašnjim prilikama – jedino moguce rješenje. Njegovi arhitekti imali su na umu prije svega da prekinu rat u Bosni i Hercegovini i u tome je kontekstu Daytonski sporazum doista puni uspjeh. On je prekinuo rat.
S druge strane, Dayton je položio temelje za ono što je u meduvremenu postalo poznato kao Daytonski ustroj Bosne i Hercegovine, a što se – na žalost – nije pokazalo dovoljnom osnovom za uspostavljanje cvrstog mira i trajne stabilnosti. A to je opet posljedica cinjenice da je Dayton, da bi uspostavio mir, naprosto priznao i prihvatio neke posljedice rata, da je neke od ratom ostvarenih ciljeva pretvorio u cinjenice svakodnevnog života. Tako smo došli do jedinstvene situacije u kojoj kljucni protagonisti agresivnog rata u BiH sjede u Haagu, bivaju osudeni pred Haškim sudom, dok ovdje, na terenu, iz dana u dan živi i preživljava ono što je ostvareno ratom zbog kojega odgovaraju.
No, rekao sam vec: Daytonski je sporazum bio kompromis, bio je odraz odnosa snaga medu kljucnim igracima, te pokazatelj volje medunarodnih cimbenika da se dublje angažiraju u razrješavanju ratnoga sukoba što ga mnogi od njih nisu razumjeli, barem ne na vrijeme, da bi sprijecili njegovo širenje.
Dayton je imao viziju prekidanja rata, ali nije imao viziju uspostavljanja trajnog mira i stabilnosti i to je njegova najveca slabost. Naime, ono što ima privid vizije buduceg razvoja, pocivalo je na prihvacanju ratnih presizanja, odnosno gubitaka, a time i na staklenim nogama.
Upitajmo se: kakve su u današnjim prilikama, sada, šanse da Bosna i Hercegovina krene putem unutarnje stabilnosti, ukoliko se medunarodna zajednica, pri cemu mislim i na vojne snage, povuce? Bojim se da svi znamo odgovor na to pitanje i da stoga nikome ni ovdje, a ni u regiji, ne pada na pamet da traži povlacenje stranih vojnika iz Bosne i Hercegovine. No, može li to biti buducnost ove zemlje? Siguran sam da ne može. Stoga danas, deset godine poslije Daytona treba smoci snage i poštenja i priznati: Daytonski sporazum, takav kakav jest, dao je svoje.
Sada treba ici dalje. Ne, nemojte me pogrešno shvatiti. Ja ne govorim o odbacivanju Daytona. On je osnova i on to mora ostati, jer njime je, podsjecam još jednom, prekinut rat. Ali, danas Dayton treba nadogradivati, treba ga prilagodavati zahtjevima trenutka i razdoblja što je pred nama. Ako je prije deset godina zahtjev trenutka bio da se prekine rat, onda je aktualni zahtjev trenutka da se postave temelji stabilne, istinski demokratske Bosne i Hercegovine koja ce preuzeti svoju ulogu u pretvaranju jugoistocne Europe u podrucje mira i sigurnosti i koja ce imati legitimitet za ostvarivanje svoje želje da postane clanicom Europske unije.
Toliko – konkretno, a možda je vec i to bilo malo previše. Ipak, mislim da imam dužnost otvoreno govoriti, upravo kao predsjednik zemlje – susjeda, ali i kao predsjednik zemlje u kojoj žive Hrvati. Dodatno, smatram da imam ne samo pravo, nego i dužnost otvoreno govoriti kao politicar koji je svojedobno, upravo zbog politike svoje zemlje prema Bosni i Hercegovini, napustio pozicije u vlasti i prešao u oporbu. Bio sam tada za jedinstvenu, suverenu državu Bosnu i Hercegovinu, za takvu Bosnu i Hercegovinu sam i danas.
A sada da postavimo stvari u okvire teoretskog razmatranja. Pozabavimo se zemljom, svejedno kako se zove i gdje je, koju cine tri konstitutivna naroda. Rijec je, dakle, ne o manjinama, nego o autohtonom stanovništvu, o narodima koji imaju svojstvo konstitutivnosti na cijelom državnom podrucju, mada je ono trenutno podijeljeno na nacionalno-etnickoj osnovi. Ta je zemlja prošla kroz unutrašnji rat koji je bio potican i potpomognut izvana, iz dviju susjednih zemalja, ali i iz svijeta.
U ratu provedena su prisilna pomicanja stanovništva, stvarane su umjetne gotovo jednonacionalne teritorijalne cjeline i u trenutku prekidanja rata, a taj je prekid nametnula medunarodna zajednica, od tih su cjelina stvoreni tzv. entiteti kojima su u prvome trenutku dane takve ovlasti i takav status da su se ponašali kao države u državi. Unutarnji mir i stabilnost održavaju u toj zemlji strane vojne postrojbe, ovlasti centralnih organa i institucija male su, a kao vrhovni arbitar u prakticno svakoj se situaciji može pojaviti i pojavljuje se Visoki predstavnik medunarodne zajednice koji, objektivno gledano, ima status protektora, da ne upotrijebim neki jaci izraz.
I tako ta zemlja živi iz godine u godinu. Polako, gotovo stidljivo, pocinju se provoditi odredene unutarnje reforme, odumire koncept triju vojski u jednoj državi, uspostavlja se, odnosno nastoji se uspostaviti nadzor nad financijskim sredstvima koja dolaze izvana, ukljucujuci i iz susjednih zemalja, stvaraju se jedinstvena carina i policija. Ali, postoji medunarodni ugovor koji je realitete ostvarene ratom priznao kao cinjenice i on sve više postaje zaprekom za bilo kakve dublje reforme. što dalje?
Cini mi se da u situaciji kada takva zemlja ne samo da nastoji, nego mora prevladati duboku podjelu, ukljucujuci onu izazvanu ratom, izlaz nije ni u kakvim novim podjelama, najmanje u podjelama na nacionalnoj osnovi. Mislim da bi u prvome redu trebalo forsirati što je više moguce povratak izbjeglih i prognanih, i to ne bilo kamo, nego tamo gdje su živjeli prije rata. Na taj bi se nacin sastav državnog stanovništva izmijenio do te mjere da bi bilo kakve, pa cak i administrativne podjele, što bi pocivale na nacionalno-etnickom kljucu postale besmislene. Zapravo, za njih ne bi bilo nikakve osnove.
Kljuc statusa pripadnika konstitutivnih naroda je u punoj ravnopravnosti i jednakopravnosti, ali ne u njihovoj getoizaciji.
Umjesto zatvaranja – potpuno otvaranje.
Drugim rijecima, ja u takvoj državi rješenje vidim u uspostavljanju gradanskog društva u kojemu je unutarnja organizacija države iskljucivo administrativne prirode i u kojoj nitko ne ostvaruje bilo kakva prava na osnovi nacionalne pripadnosti, nego iskljucivo na osnovi gradanske ravnopravnosti. Ta ravnopravnost, naravno, ukljucuje i ono što bismo uvjetno mogli nazvati pravom na nacionalne posebnosti, kao što su upotreba vlastitog jezika i pisma.
U takvoj državi, da bi imala solidne osnove za stabilan život i razvoj, mora se radikalno raskrstiti s hipotekama prošlosti, pri cemu u prvome redu mislim da se mora smoci hrabrost, ponajprije unutar tri nacionalna korpusa, za suocavanje s istinom o nedavnoj prošlosti i da mora postojati politicka volja da se pocinitelje ratnih zlocina kazni.
I to sve pocinitelje svih ratnih zlocina, pri cemu nacionalnost ni pocinitelja, ni žrtava ne smije igrati nikakvu ulogu. Kažnjava se zlocin, odnosno zlocinac.
Dalje, mora se forsirati klima naglašene tolerancije, treba suzbijati pokušaje zatvaranja i ne samo nuditi, nego upravo agresivno promovirati, s osloncem na mladu populaciju, modele suživota u razlicitosti. Dakle, govorim o potrebi jacanja - tako gdje još postoji, odnosno ponovnog uspostavljanja - tamo gdje je više nema, multikulturalnosti, multireligioznosti i multietnicnosti.
Govorim o jedinstvu razlicitosti, o necemu što je obilježje ujedinjene Europe u koju se naša zamišljena zemlja želi ukljuciti.
Napokon, kada je provedena unutarnja reorganizacija na naznacenim osnovama, valja dati potrebne ovlasti organima centralne države – parlamentu, predsjedniku i vladi, uz status lokalne uprave i samouprave primjeren europskim standardima. Oružane snage bit ce iskljucivo defanzivno organizirane, granice ce cuvati granicna policija koja ce biti pod ingerencijom centralne vlade, dok ce policija na terenu biti u funkciji administrativnih jedinica na koje ce zemlja biti podijeljena.
Našoj zamišljenoj zemlji treba pomoci na nacin da je se maksimalno integrira, kroz mrežu bilateralnih odnosa, politickih, gospodarskih i drugih - najprije u regiju u kojoj je smještena, a potom u ujedinjenu Europu. Moguce pojave radikalizma bilo koje boje i provenijencije treba suzbijati jacanjem demokratskih institucija i promicanjem ideje demokracije i, ponavljam još jednom, pune tolerancije u kojoj ce svacija sloboda ici sve do granice preko koje bi ugrožavala slobodu drugoga.
Je li sve to moguce u uvjetima koje sam na pocetku naveo i uz postojanje medunarodnoga ugovora koji se, ma kako da je pozitivan bio u trenutku kada je sklapan, danas javlja u ulozi zapreke za poželjnu evoluciju?
Mislim da je moguce.
Treba, naravno, i dalje racunati na podršku medunarodne zajednice, jer bez nje teško da bi se u našoj zamišljenoj zemlji u postojecim okolnostima išta moglo napraviti. Samo, sada ta podrška mora biti usmjerena ne na držanje postojeceg stanja u dubokoj zamrznutosti, nego njegovog evolutivnog mijenjanja.
Treba napraviti precizan redoslijed dogadaja, ustanoviti red kojim ce se postupno i sustavno provoditi dobro promišljene reforme, treba provesti kampanju – da je tako nazovem – prosvjecivanja koja ce i posljednjem gradaninu objasniti što se radi i zašto. I, napokon, treba jasno definirati krajnji cilj – jacanje i stabiliziranje vlastite države i njezin ulazak u Europsku uniju, uz precizno definiranje onoga što se time dobiva.
A poruka koja sve to mora pratiti je ova: ratom se ništa ne dobiva, niti se na rezultatima rata može graditi buducnost u miru, treba graditi državu koja ce biti država svih svojih gradana, otvorena prema susjedima, demokratska i tolerantna, državu s kojom ce biti moguce uci u ujedinjenu Europu.
Eto, to su moja razmišljanja o mogucem razvojnom putu zamišljene države koja, priznajem, u mnogim tockama ima slicnosti s Bosnom i Hercegovinom. Bude li bilo tko smatrao da neke od mojih ideja mogu biti primjenjive i ovdje, u posve konkretnim prilikama i u ovoj konkretnoj državi, bit ce mi drago. Iznio sam ih, budite uvjereni, kao iskreni prijatelj Bosne i Hercegovine, kao uvjereni pobornik njezinog održanja i jacanja i kao politicar koji dobro zna da bez stabilne i demokratski organizirane Bosne i Hercegovine nema stabilnosti ni u regiji u kojoj živimo.
Hvala.
Address of the President of the Republic of Croatia
Igman Initiative
Sarajevo, 7 November 2005
Dear friends of the Igman Initiative,
Mr. Member of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Mr. President of Serbia and Montenegro,
Distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen,
You have chosen the right issue at the right time for your agenda: Dayton ten years after. This is an issue which interests and must interest not only the people in Bosnia and Herzegovina, but also the people in neighbouring countries and the greater region. And, of course, it attracts with reason the attention of the international community.
As the President of the Republic of Croatia, of a neighbouring country, I could certainly say a lot about the issue at hand. At the same time, I must resist the temptation of saying something that might be interpreted as interfering in internal affairs of another sovereign country. Therefore, I hope that you will understand and accept my somewhat unusual approach.
To wit, I shall specifically discuss past events and reserve my principled approach for a verbal consideration of what and how things could and should be done.
Let me deal first with what happened in Bosnia and Herzegovina ten years ago. I shall then share with you my thinking about the possible structure of the country - of any country - whose population includes members of several constituent peoples and which seeks, after the war and internal conflicts, a way out of a peculiar international protectorate towards full and true independence - in peace and stability.
The Dayton Agreement, signed ten years ago, was the outcome of the circumstances in which it was concluded but also the reflection of the power balance on the ground and of the degree of influence and interest shown by specific key factors on the international scene.
The Agreement was a compromise and hence not an ideal solution, but it was - let me stress - the only possible solution at the time. The goal which its architects had in mind was how to stop the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and in that respect the Dayton Agreement was truly a great success. It stopped the war.
On the other hand, the Agreement laid the foundations of what became known as the Dayton structure of government in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which, unfortunately, has not turned out to be a sufficient groundwork for the establishment of steady peace and durable stability. And that, in its turn, was the consequence of the fact that the Agreement, in order to establish peace, simply recognized and accepted certain upshots of the war and turned some of the war gains into facts of life. This has led to a unique situation in which the major protagonists of the aggressive war in Bosnia and Herzegovina are being indicted and sentenced by the Hague Tribunal while the results of the war for which they are being held accountable still survive on the ground.
But the Dayton Agreement was a compromise, as I have said; it reflected the power balance among the different players and the willingness of international factors to engage more energetically in the resolution of the conflict which many of them did not understand, at least not in time to prevent its spillover.
The vision expressed by the Agreement was focused on putting an end to the war, but not on establishing durable peace and stability, and that is its major shortcoming. In other words, the ostensible vision of future development was based on the acceptance of war gains and losses, and therefore precarious.
Let us ask ourselves: what are the current chances of progress towards internal stability if the international community should withdraw from Bosnia and Herzegovina - and I have in mind the withdrawal of military forces as well? I am afraid that we know the answer to that question and that, therefore, nobody thinks of demanding the withdrawal of foreign troops from Bosnia and Herzegovina, either in this country or in the region. But can that be the future of this country? I am certain it cannot. Because of that, we must find the strength and the honesty to admit, ten years after: the Dayton Agreement, such as it is, has served its purpose.
The time has come to move on. But do not get me wrong. I am not talking about rejecting the Agreement. It is and it must remain the groundwork because it put an end to the war. However, today it should be upgraded, adapted to current and future requirements. If the situation ten years ago called for stopping the war, the current conditions calls for laying the foundations of a stable, truly democratic Bosnia and Herzegovina which will assume its own role in the transformation of Southeast Europe into an area of peace and security and secure its legitimate pursuit of membership in the European Union.
So much about specifics, although I may have dwelt on them too much. Yet, I consider it my duty to talk candidly, as befits the president of a neighbouring country but also as the president of the country which is the home of the Croats. Moreover, I think that I do not only have the right but also the duty to speak as a politician who resigned from his post and joined the opposition precisely because of the policy of his country towards Bosnia and Herzegovina. At the time I advocated the unified, sovereign state of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and I continue to advocate it.
Let us now turn to theoretical consideration. Let us consider a country, whatever its name or location, with three constituent peoples. These are not minorities but indigenous populations, peoples having a constituent capacity throughout the state although it is currently divided on an ethnic basis. The country experienced an internal war fomented and supported from the outside, from two neighbouring countries but also from the world.
The war involved forceful resettlement of the population and it created artificial, almost mono-ethnic territorial units. As the war came to an end and peace was imposed by the international community, so-called entities were created out of these units; at first they were given powers and a status which allowed them to behave like states within a state. Internal peace and stability in this country are maintained by foreign troops, the powers of central government bodies and institutions are small, and the ultimate arbiter in practically any situation is the High Representative of the international community who, objectively speaking, has the status of a protector, not to use a stronger term.
This country has been living like that year by year. Some internal reforms are being enforced slowly, almost shyly, the concept of three armies in a single state is dying away, control of financial resources coming from abroad, including two neighbouring countries, is being enforced or at least attempted, a single customs and police force is being created. But there is an international agreement, which has recognized the war gains as facts and which is increasingly thwarting every deeper reform. What next?
In my opinion, in a situation where such a country is trying and must overcome profound division, including the one caused by war, the way out is not in any new divisions, least of all in ethnic divisions. First and foremost, the return of refugees and displaced persons should be enhanced - not just to any place but to their original homes. This would change the composition of the population to an extent where any divisions, including administrative ones, on ethnic grounds would become meaningless and utterly unfounded.
The key to the status of the members of the constituent peoples lies in their complete equality, but not in their ghettoization.
This implies complete opening up rather than pariochialism.
As I see it, the solution in the state under consideration is to be found in the establishment of a civil society in which the internal organization of the state is purely of an administrative nature and in which nobody would claim his or her rights on the basic of ethnic background but exclusively on the basis of civil equality. Of course, such equality includes what we might conditionally call the right to specific ethnic features such as one's own language and script.
In order to have a sound foundation for stable life and development, such a state must radically leave past liabilities behind. In this regard, I think, the courage must be mustered, first and foremost within the three ethnic communities, to face the truth about the recent past. There must also be political will to punish the perpetrators of war crimes.
I mean all perpetrators of war crimes, and the ethnic background of specific perpetrators or of their victims should play absolutely no role. It is the crime and the criminal that must be punished.
Moreover, the climate of tolerance must be enhanced; every parochialism must be prevented, and models of coexistence in diversity not only offered but aggressively promoted through reliance on the young population. I am talking about a multicultural, multireligious and multiethnic environment: about its reinforcement where it is still present and about its re-establishment where there is none.
I am talking about unity in diversity, about the hallmark of united Europe which our imagined country wants to join.
Finally, after the implementation of internal reorganization along the suggested lines, the required powers should be given to the central bodies of the state - the parliament, the president and the government - along with the status of local government and self-government complying with European standards. The armed forces of the country shall be organized exclusively along defensive lines; the borders shall be watched by border policy under the authority of central government, and the police on the ground shall be geared to the requirements of the administrative units into which the country will be divided.
Our imagined country must be given help, through a network of political, economic and other bilateral relations, in promoting its maximum integration, first of all in its own region and then in united Europe. Possible radical phenomena of any colour or provenance should be prevented by strengthening democratic institutions and promoting the idea of democracy as well as, let me reiterate, by a spirit of comprehensive tolerance in which the freedom of one person shall never cross the boundary where it would jeopardize the freedom of others.
Is all that possible in the conditions I listed at the outset and considering the existence of an international agreement which is currently in the way of desirable evolution, however positive that agreement may have been when it was concluded?
I think it is possible.
Of course, the support of the international community is still required. Without it, any effort would hardly be possible in our imagined country under the present circumstances. However, such support must be focused on evolutive change rather than on freezing the current state of affairs.
This requires a precise sequence of events, an order for the gradual and systematic implementation of meaningful reforms. The process will also requires an enlightenment campaign, let us call it that way, through which every and each citizen will be explained what is being done and why. Finally, the ultimate goal must be clearly defined, and that is the strengthening and stabilization of the state and its entry in the European Union, with an accurate definition of the advantages.
And the underlying messages should be: nothing is gained by war, and a future in peace cannot be built on war gains. The state to be built must be a state of all its citizens, open towards its neighbours, democratic and tolerant, a state which will be able to enter united Europe.
These have been my considerations about the possible development of an imaginary state which, I admit, bears a lot of resemblance to Bosnia and Herzegovina. I shall be pleased if anybody agrees that some of my ideas could be applicable here, in very specific conditions and in this specific state. I have presented them, trust me, as a sincere friend of Bosnia and Herzegovina, as a convinced advocate of its survival and strengthening, as a politician well aware that no stability is possible in our region without a stable and democratically organized Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Priopćenja
