Connect with us

Europe

Unrest in Bosnia

Slavisha Batko Milacic

Published

on

For Bosnia and Herzegovina many analysts will say that is artificial creation. That is why there is a saying for Bosnia: ”Where logic ends, Bosnia begins”. Anyway, the latest Bosniak initiative, has surprised many, because it strikes at the very basis of existence of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Recently, the Party for Democratic Action (SDA), the main Bosniak party in the country, announced that will initiate a legal procedure before the Constitututional Court to challenge the name of Bosnia`s Serb-dominated Republika Srpska.

”The previous practice of the Republika Srpska institutions showed that the entyty`s name was intensively and efficiently used to discriminate against the other two constituent peoples – Bosniaks and Croats, “ the SDA said. “Linking the name to only one people living in the multi-ethnic Bosnia and Herzegovina is contrary to the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights.” The strongest Bosniak national party, further said that the Constitutional Court made an earlier decision on the constituency of the people which stipulated that the entities must ensure full equality of all constituent peoples in their legal systems.

Reacting to calls for the Constitutional Court to review the legality of the name of Bosnia’s Serb-dominated Republika Srpska, the leader of ruling Republika Srpska party Alliance of Independent Social Democrats and current Chairman of Bosnia’s Tripartite Presidency, Milorad Dodik, strongly condemned the Party for Democratic Action initiative at a press conference the same day and called upon the SDS (second strongest Serb party) to support a decision on the “independence of the Republika Srpska” if the initiative is submitted to the Constitutional Court.

“Our authentic and original constitutional rights is for us to decide on our status. We will do that,” he said, dismissing earlier statements by the High Representative Valentin Inzko, named by the international community to oversee the civilian implementation of the Dayton Agreement, who said that Republika Srpska can not secede. ”He was put here to conduct repercussions against Republika Srpska. But this is a moment where there will be no calculations,” Dodik said. ”If you wanted to throw us, Republika Srpska, out of Bosnia and Herzegovina, you are doing best job possible. Finish it. I have nothing against it,” Dodik said, referring to the Party for Democratic Action.

This attack on Republika Srpska showed that Serbian politicians are united in its defense. The move drew condemnation from both the ruling Republika Srpska Alliance of Independent Social Democrats (SNSD), and Bosnian Serb opposition parties in the entity, such as the Serb Democratic Party (SDS) and the Party of Democratic Progress (PDP).

In one of the first reactions to the Bosniak Party for Democratic Action announcement, the Republika Srpska National Assembly Speaker Nedeljko Cubrilovic said this was a nothing but a provocation and that it represents an anti-Constitutional act.

”The SDA’s claims are disgusting and laughable at the same time because they are the ones who refuse to implement the Constitutional Court’s decision issued 12 years ago, stipulating that Serbs must be equally represented in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina,” Cubrilovic said. ”Initiating a Constitutional Court discussion on the name of the Republika Srpska would mark the end of the project called Bosnia and Herzegovina,” Cubrilovic noted.

The Office of the High Representative (OHR), top international institution overseesing the peace implementation in the country stated that the initiative to dispute the name of Bosnia’s Republika Srpska entity before the Constitutional Court amid the post-election government formation is “irresponsible and counterproductive.” Bosnia and Herzegovina consists of two entities, the OHR said, and the Peace Implementation Council continuosly expresses its commitment to basic structure of Bosnia and Herzegovina as an integral, sovereign state that consists of the two entities.

The international community’s High Representative was installed to oversee the civilian part of the implementation of the Dayton Peace Agreement, the peace threaty that ended the 1992-1995 Bosnian war. Its Peace Implementation Council (PIC) Steering Board, which is composed of foreign ambassadors in Bosnia, meets twice a year to assess the progress in the process.

Background

The statement of Bakir Izetbegovic, leader of the strongest Bosniak party SDA, who addressed the public saying that he is ready to consider abandoning the initiative to change the name of Republika Srpska, if in the next six months “the SNSD change its behavior”, and accept the further path of Bosnia and Herzegovina towards NATO, clearly shows who is standing behind this initiative. Even “Croatian” member of Bosnia and Herzegovina Presidency Željko Komšić – several days before Bakir Izetbegovic- conditioned the appointment of a mandate for the Council of Ministers (which currently belongs to the Serbs) by membership in the NATO. It should be added that this initiative of the Bosniaks comes shortly after the visit of Russian President Vladimir Putin to Serbia, where he met, among other things, with the leadership of Republika Srpska.

An interesting analysis of the events in Bosnia was published on January 13 in National Interest, American bimonthly international affairs magazine, by Sean Maguire and Ryan Scherba, with title: “The Bosnia Boondoggle: This is Why Sarajevo Can’t Join NATO”. In the analysis, among other things, is written: “If the United States is serious about backing NATO membership for Bosnia and Herzegovina, then it has to get serious about the failures of the Dayton Peace Accords and drop its support for them as Bosnia’s governance system. They may have ended Bosnia’s civil war in 1995, but they have become synonymous with stagnation, frustration, despair, poor governance and weak institutions. This not only hinders the joint U.S.-Bosnian aspirations to join NATO, but has stagnated Bosnia overall, enshrining ethnic divisions (and tensions) legally between Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims), Croats, and Serbs that have left Bosnia divided and ripe for geopolitical goals of Russia. The recent elections in October that delivered a hardline Serb-nationalist who is stridently anti-West and NATO to the Bosnian presidency are evidence of this, while serving as a wake-up call to Washington that it is time to re-engage in Bosnia.” In addition to the National Interest, from Turkey also arrived messages regarding Bosnia and Herzegovina future. During a meeting with Croatian President Kolinda Grabar Kitarovic, the President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan urged for the revision of the Dayton Agreement. Turkish President and Croatian President apparently agreed that this document, prepared in haste for only three weeks to stop the war, did not create the conditions for finding a stable solution for the future of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The Steering Board of the Peace Implementation Council (PIC), the international community representatives who oversee the implementation of the agreement that ended Bosnia’s war, said they recognize the concerns regarding discrimination of constituent peoples and citizens across the country as legitimate, but that the name “Republika Srpska” is enshrined in the Constitution. The PIC recalled that the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina recognizes that the country consists of two entites, the Bosniak-Croat shared Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Republika Srpska.

Challenging the name of the Republika Srpska entity before the Constitutional Court would be counterproductive and irresponsible, the Peace Implementation Council Steering Board stated while it also condemned recent rhetoric and actions that question the territorial integrity of Bosnia.

Russia refused to join the statement that foreign diplomats in Bosnia issued in response to the recent initiative to challenge the name of Republia Srpska before Bosnia’s Constitutional Court, the Russian Ambasador confirmed to journalists.

”Russia did not give consent for the PIC’s (Peace Implementation Council) joint statement because it is too general. It is everyone’s yet no one’s fault,” Petr Ivantsov told media after the meeting of ambassadors. The conclusions his colleagues passed has a broad meaning that speaks of mistakes of all political actors in Bosnia, said Russia’s diplomat, adding that the statement does not focus on current problems. According to Mr. Ivantsov, the SDA’s “threat” to dispute the Republika Srpska’s name at the Constitutional Court is “a serious mistake” and is not in line with the 1995 Dayton Peace Agreement.

Conclusion

The Bosniaks would never undertake such a radical move if they did not have the support in the first place of the West, and also Turkey. After undemocratic accession of Montenegro into NATO, and soon Macedonia, NATO directs its attention to Bosnia and Herzegovina. The main opponent of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s entry into NATO is Republika Srpska, whose Assembly passed a resolution on military neutrality.

The West makes it clear that it will not give up until all Balkan states become NATO members. The most important land and riparian transportation corridors between Western Europe and the Eastern Mediterranean, and between the Baltic and Aegean Seas, run through Serbia. Because of that, the main goal of the West is Serbia’s entry into NATO, which would also leave Russia without a strategic ally in the Balkans. The main obstacle to this is the “second Serbian state in the Balkans”, that is Republika Srpska. This is precisely why the Bosniaks are encouraged to strike on the basis of Dayton.

The structure of Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina plays a major role in the political life of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and it consists of three foreign judges, two Bosniaks, two Serbs and two Croats, which means in practice and it has been established so far – that three foreign and two Bosniak judges have majority, and they use it. So arbitrarily impose their decisions on all citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

If the initiative to abolish the name of Republika Srpska go to Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Serbs must show their determination, which is now announced by the most powerful Serb politician Milorad Dodik. A decision must be made to declare the independence of the Republika Srpska. Such a decision carries a risk of conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina, however, Republika Srpska has no other choice.

First published in our partner International Affairs

Slavisha Batko Milacic is an analyst at a Moscow journal "International Affairs", which is the official journal of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Slavisa Batko Milacic can be contacted at email: varjag5[at]outlook.com

Continue Reading
Comments

Europe

How our Europe will regain its strength

Ursula von der Leyen

Published

on

The last few weeks have turned our world upside down. It seems like a lifetime ago that we were going about our everyday business. But by now, some of you reading will have had symptoms, many of you will know someone who is sick and every single one of us are worried about our loved ones.

But what is unique about the situation we are in is that all of us are part of the solution: all of us as citizens, but also companies, cities, regions, nations and the whole world over. Yes, it is true: Europe was initially partly blindsided by an unknown enemy and a crisis of unprecedented scale and speed. This false start is still hurting us today.

But Europe is now standing tall together. And that is being driven by a surge of compassion across our Union. In the last weeks, we have seen retired doctors and nurses answer the call of duty and millions more volunteer to do anything they can to help. We have seen restaurants deliver food to exhausted medical staff, designer labels make hospital gowns and car makers turn into ventilator producers.

That solidarity is infectious – and it is at the heart of our Union. Thanks to that impulse the real Europe is back. The one that works together to do what none of us could do alone. The EU is now delivering and is working flat out every day to save every life we can, to protect livelihoods and kickstart our economies.

In the last weeks, we have taken measures which would have been unthinkable only recently. We have made our state aid rules more flexible than ever before so that businesses big and small can get the support they need. We have relaxed our budgetary rules more than ever before to allow national and EU spending to go quickly to those that need it. This has helped EU institutions and Member States put up €2.8 trillion to fight the crisis – the strongest response anywhere in the world.

And this week the European Union went one step further. We have proposed a new scheme called SURE to make sure that people can keep their jobs and their incomes, as well as ensure that businesses can stay afloat while we hibernate. The scheme will provide €100 billion to help governments make up the difference if your company has had to reduce your hours – and it can support the self-employed too. This will help those in need to pay their rent, bills or food and keep other businesses alive in the process.  

And to step up the fight to save lives, we have also decided to put every cent of the remaining money in this year’s budget into an emergency instrument to help secure vital medical equipment and scale up testing.

This reflects the fact that in this crisis there can be no half-measures. And that will be the case for years to come as we seek to lift our economy out of the crisis valley.  To do this, we will need massive investment in the form of a Marshall Plan for Europe. And at the heart of it should lie a powerful new EU budget. The advantages of this are obvious: the EU budget is a proven instrument of solidarity and modernisation.  And with its seven-year term, it creates certainty for investors and reliability for all parties involved.

But just as the world looks very different from the way it did just a few weeks ago – so must our budget. It must be there for the time when economies weakened by the current crisis will need to spark their engines and get our unique internal market going again.

The billions and trillions being spent today to avert a greater disaster are an investment in our future protection and they will bind generations. This is why the money in our next budget must be invested in a smart and sustainable manner. It must help preserve what is dear to us and renew the sense of belonging amongst Europe’s nations.

And crucially we need to invest strategically in our future, for example for innovative research, for digital infrastructure, for clean energy, for a smart circular economy, for transport systems of the future. A Marshall Plan of this nature will help build a more modern, sustainable and resilient Europe. This is the Union that I believe can emerge from this – just as it did after we every crisis in our history.

And this enormous effort, this new Europe, will need one thing more than any else: The people of Europe must want a common future where we stand up for each other.
What I see around Europe today shows the way and it fills me with pride. The future of Europe is the Polish doctors going to Italy. It is Czechs sending 10,000 masks to Spain and elsewhere. It is the airplanes that fly sick people from northern Italy to eastern Germany or the trains that bring people across borders to be treated in free intensive care beds. It is the Bulgarians who send protective equipment to Austrians, and Austrians who send masks to Italy. It is the first common European stock of medical equipment, or the respirators and test kits purchased together by almost every country, from Romania to Portugal, to be sent to Spain, Italy and elsewhere. The power and solidarity of this Union was also felt by thousands of Europeans who were stranded in Vietnam, South Africa or Argentina and were flown back home on a European ticket.

With each one of these acts of solidarity, Europe rises back up that little bit more. And I am in no doubt that before long Europe will be back up on its feet. Together.

This article was also published in several European media.

Continue Reading

Europe

Republic Of Cyprus: Ruling a Country Against Its Constitution

Published

on

The Green Line at Nicosia, Cyprus. Image credit: Julian Nyča / CC BY-SA, creativecommons.org

When you hear about Cyprus, one of the things that comes to mind is the word “conflict.” Then, its beautiful beaches, paradise-like nature, and warm island culture.

But you could not guess that this island nation, which is also part of the European Union, has been ruled against its constitution for more than half century. What if we also tell you that this fact is even forgotten by its own citizens? This is exactly what is going on.

Cypriots gained their independence in 1960, after living under the control of the United Kingdom for 82 years. However, this was not an end, but the beginning of the pains they will suffer, the nation that did not experience governing their own island for a very long time.

But during the period of British rule, something needed to change, for the sake of their “divide and rule” policy. Cypriots were a community that was living in great harmony in their remote and isolated island far from the mainland that can influence them easily.

But there was a community without a name. In Ottoman censuses, they were called just Muslims. In the books written by European travellers they were called Linobambaki, Cypriots who spuriously converted to Islam to save themselves from the Ottoman oppression. After World War I, with the death of Ottoman Empire and the birth of the Turkish state, Brits had already found an identity for this community of the descendants of Crypro-Christian Cypriots: Turkish Cypriots. But there was a problem and it was the fact that a big portion of this community spoke Greek. Then, the young Republic of Turkey lent a hand by sending Turkish teachers to the British-controlled Cyprus and the Turkification process began.

Until 1960, there were small gang fights between these two communities with the provocations of Turkey and Greece, but nothing serious happened. When the independence day came for Cyprus, the representatives of these two Cypriot communities were at the table. The Orthodox Archbishop Makarios representing Greek Cypriots and the extreme secular DoctorFazıl Küçük representing Turkish Cypriots. And they agreed on the constitution that is “still in force” today in the Republic of Cyprus. Let’s point out the main articles of the official Constitution of the Republic of Cyprus.

    • “Greek Cypriot President and Turkish Cypriot Vice President with veto right”

    • “Greek and Turkish as official languages”

    • “70 percent of the parliament, cabinet, government and law enforcement officers made from Greek Cypriots, and 30 percent from Turkish Cypriots”

    • “60 percent of its army made from Greek Cypriots and 40 percent of it Turkish Cypriots”

    • “Adoption of new national flag”

    • “The authorities and any public corporation or utility body of the republic are not allowed to fly any other flag than Republic of Cyprus flag, except holidays”

Now, have a wild guess about how many of these articles of the constitution are being violated by the Greek Cypriot community who seized the republic since 1963. The answer is all of them except for the “national flag” that they use, which was drawn by a Turkish Cypriot.

I know what you are thinking. How can a country that is part of the European Union, a symbol of democracy, get away with such activity? We must get into more history to see how.

Three years after the independence, the Greek Cypriot President of the republic, Archbishop Makarios unconstitutionally proposed his infamous thirteen points, which took away many rights from the Turkish Cypriots. This attempt made Turkish Cypriots leave the government.

Then, the rest of the unconstitutional activities of the Greek Cypriot administration followed, which includes establishment of Greek Cypriot-only army and adopting the national anthem of Greece as the anthem of the Republic of Cyprus.

The main aim for all these activities was achieving “enosis,” which is the idea of a union with Greece. But the Republic of Cyprus and its constitution were the biggest obstacle, since it was clearly based on the idea of an independent republic with equal ownership by Greek and Turkish Cypriots.

While all these events were happening, we cannot say that the Turkish Cypriot administration was innocent either. Like the Greek Cypriot administration, the Turkish Cypriot administration silenced people and groups who believed in the existence of Republic of Cyprus and who demanded more struggle to save the republic, instead of leaving it to the hands of the Greek Cypriots. The reason behind the decision of the Turkish Cypriot administration to not struggle for their rights effectively was their beliefs that the greed of Greek Cypriots would be a shortcut to achieve “taksim,” which is the idea of partition.

When we come to 1974, after painful events and internal struggles within each Cypriot community, a group of enosis-dreamer Greek Cypriots tried to overthrow the Greek Cypriot administration, which was not sharing the same enosis dream anymore, with a coup d’état backed by the Greek junta. With this event, Greek Cypriots gave Turkey a chance to intervene in the situation in Cyprus according to international agreements. And, as we all know, this intervention turned into an occupation, which has continued since then.

Today, what is on the table is a United Nations backed “federal solution” for the Cyprus problem. Despite the current status quo, the unconstitutionally Greek Cypriot-governed Republic of Cyprus continues its life with the constitution which was written in 1960. The main reason behind keeping the constitution is the Greek Cypriots’ desperate tactic of showing the world they are not the ones who broke the deal. But even the Greek Cypriot population is not aware or educated about their own constitution, since legislation continues like the country does not have one. Greek Cypriot people do not even have an idea of simple facts, such as that Turkish is an official language of the country or that their flag was designed by a Turkish Cypriot artist, İsmet Güney.

But all these seem to be changing. While crypto-Enosis desire and impossible federal solution talks continue, there are organisations like the Union of Cypriots (Ένωσις Κυπρίων / Kıbrıslılar Birliği) that advocate and promote that the only way to end this madness and occupation is restoring the constitutional order—the deal that was already made and a lot of pain and suffering that hit all Cypriots after it was broken. Failing to ease the pain with different dreams, maybe it is indeed the right choice for Cypriots to hold on what they have to delegitimize Turkey’s existence on the island. Because the speed of Turkish colonization of Cyprus tells us that Cypriots do not have much time left to save their homeland for good.

Continue Reading

Europe

A New Twist in the Spanish Approach to Politics in Venezuela: Podemos in the Spanish Government

Published

on

During the last pseudo-legislature in Spain, the position that had been maintained by the Spanish government towards Venezuela and its government was not too far from the quasi-common position that was established at the European level. After the entry of Podemos, a far-left party, into the Spanish government, the Spanish narrative towards the Latin American country and its leaders has taken a turn that calls into question the position of the Spanish government towards Venezuela.

The Special Relationship of Spain with Venezuela

Since 1845, the year the Treaty of Peace and Friendship was signed after the independence of the South American country, Spain and Venezuela have maintained bilateral ties and diplomatic relations. In fact, history has only one instance of no diplomatic relations existing between the two countries, specifically from 1945 to 1949. Despite suffering many serious crises during the Chavista period in face of a number of political disagreements that seriously endangered mutual understanding, the special relationship between the two countries has been maintained constantly.

After the Spanish Civil War and between 1969 and 1990, Venezuela, along with Argentina and Mexico, was the main destination for Spanish exiles and emigrants. Beyond migration, the Hispano-Venezuelan ties are transcendental in nature, both historically and socio-economically. Venezuela is home to more than 150,000 Spaniards; the Venezuelan community, in turn, is the fourth largest ethnic group in Spain. In 2017, exports from Spain to Venezuela amounted to 111 million euros and imports from Venezuela to Spain were worth 318 million euros; however, these figures are quite low compared to those of previous years, for example, in 2014, Spanish exports equaled 550 million euros and Venezuelan imports – 1,325 million euros.

Podemos in the Spanish Government

As a well-known Spanish journalist said, “Venezuela has been a thrown weapon since Podemos appeared on the Spanish political scene in 2014”. The relationship with the Latin American country for the political party led by Pablo Iglesias is not only a political issue, but also an ideological link. The core of the party has maintained close ties with the government of Hugo Chavez, including becoming advisers to the then Venezuelan president, and later to Nicolas Maduro; the party also has links with the rest of Bolivarian leaders, such as Evo Morales or Rafael Correa.

After the November 10 general elections in Spain, a coalition government consisting of the historic socialist party PSOE and the far-left party Podemos was created. This coalition marks a period of the greatest political instability in the history of Spanish democracy. The two parties and their leaders devised this joint government to break away from the ungovernability that the country has been facing for almost three years due to the lack of a stable and consolidated government. This is how Pablo Iglesias became the second Vice President of the Spanish government and his current partner Irene Montero – the Minister of Equality.

From “Delcygate” to Guaido

Two recent controversial diplomatic episodes have once again made Venezuela an urgent subject of the Spanish politics. On the one hand, the stopover of the Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodriguez at the Madrid Airport of Barajas, where she held a meeting with the Spanish Head of the Ministry of Transport. The Spanish authorities first denied the meeting and then clarified it with different versions, giving rise to a speculation about the case, cosnidering that the EU imposed individual sanctions that restricted Rodriguez from entering the Schengen Zone.

The second mistake of the Spanish Government, according to its critics, was not to receive Juan Guaido, who is recognized as an interim president by more than fifty countries, including Spain and Germany, at the highest official level on his European tour. Throughout his European tour, Guaido met with several heads of state, including Merkel, Macron, and Johnson. Many people deemed Sanchez’s gesture upon the Venezuelan leader’s arrival in the Spanish capital as a legitimt cause of outrage. In addition, when explaining, the Spanish president called Guaido an “opposition leader.” More and more voices have since accused the current Executive of having changed his position with respect to Venezuela by the influence of Podemos.

Spain Flies Alone

A turn at the helm in Madrid would be more than a national decision. The consequences for Venezuela of such a turn cannot be understated, because historically Europe has seen Latin America through the eyes of Spain, and Madrid has been in charge of relations with Latin America. Undoubtedly, Spain will lose a lot if its relationship with Venezuela continues to deteriorate. The human and socio-cultural ties between the two countries are obviously close, but just as relevant are the Spanish economic interests in this South American state, particularly in its oil companies.

Some European countries, such as Italy, did not recognize Guaido as the president-in-charge at the time – Rome still does not. A more neutral, less pro-Guaido Spain would mean aligning with the Italian position, which does not imply neglect, as the Italian diplomacy continues to work on finding solutions to the Venezuelan question through the Contact Group of European and Latin American countries.

What does this mean for the European approach to the crisis in Venezuela? From the point of view of capabilities, it can be said that Spain does not have as much weight as to change the Community’s foreign policy; however, because Spain is a traditional filter of relations between the European and the Latin American blocks and the Head of European Diplomacy Josep Borrell is Spanish, a possibility that the positions will be killed exists -“cooling,” therefore, cannot be ruled out.

Conclusions

As a victim of its own contradictions, the Spanish government has projected an image of chaos and confusion. It is evident that PSOE and Podemos have disparate positions regarding Venezuela, but it is necessary that the executive government adopt a coherent line of thinking, the continued absence of which deteriorates cohesion within the EU and complicates relationships with its international partners like the USA.

Sanchez defying Guaido is not so much a concession to the former’s Podemos partners in the government, but rather a symbol of the latter’s waning influence. Guaido has become an awkward figure, who failed to achieve his main objective of free elections. This is why Maduro is stronger today than a year ago.

Nonetheless, too much importance is being attached to the role Podemos really plays in the new Spanish government. Though its power is magnified, it has a minimum effect on foreign matters. When Sanchez came to power in alliance with another party that had more votes, that is PSOE, he assumed that he has no choice but to respect their decisions, whether he likes them or not. He has yet to distance himself from such conformism.

Meanwhile, the shadow of the Venezuelan crisis keeps flying over internal politics in Spain, especially over its progressive government, without facing any of the harshest opposition forces in the country’s democratic history. The truth is that a year after half the world placed its hopes in Guaido to find a way out of the humanitarian crisis and the political impasse in Venezuela, the opposition leader is making substantual efforts to prevent the passage of time from opening cracks in his political legitimacy. At this juncture, the whole international community needs to act as a mediator of negotiations between the Venezuelan Government and its opposition to get out of the ongoing stagnation.

From our partner RIAC

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Trending