Although the conditions imposed for membership will remain, it seems ultimately propitious for the goal of stability and peace in the region to advance these two countries into this first stage of an overall NATO security framework. Such a move would further reinforce all democratic, reform minded actors and give them a sense of finally departing from the barren land of non-involvement in collective security arrangements.

 

Notwithstanding arguments to the contrary, Croatia for example was bought forward, on its merits, as a full candidate for membership in the EU with a remaining outstanding obligation to the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY). The same could be replicated here. — take these two countries (BiH And SaM) into Partnership for Peace, and you will reinforce and accelerate democratic and reform dynamics in the armed and security forces, and strengthen regional security frameworks which will add a strong buttress to overall European stability.

 

The outstanding obligations would then be fulfilled equally, in parallel to integrated reform dynamics, and within an existing NATO Security framework.

 

It should be noted that in the past two months there has a been a sudden surge in compliance with obligations to the ICTY. To date several indictees from Republika Srpska and Serbia and Montenegro reached the Hague Tribunal, others have been announced to be going. All of this allows a glimmer of hope that the end of the outstanding indictees required to go to the ICTY is in sight. Clearly until all, and in particular Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic are in the Hague, this obligation will not be fulfilled.

 

 

As the histories of the past dissipate and as the scars of conflict slowly recede, the vision of integration takes precedence. The attraction that the model of membership creates and the historical accession of ten new members states into the EU and the NATO accession last year, all provoke a pulling effect, or at least one in which no one wants to be left behind.

 

It is time now in 2005 for the EU in particular to make good on its June 2003 Thessaloniki declaration by preparing to bring in the five countries of the Western Balkans, of which Bosnia and Hercegovina  is one. The EU with its new Commission, under Jose Manuel Barroso’s leadership, has made a significant institutional rearrangement — the Western Balkans file has been moved to the brief of the European Commissioner for enlargement (Olli Rehn, from Finland). The enlargement file consists, at this moment, of the Western Balkans and Turkey.

 

As it prepares its next long term (2007–2013) budget the EU has prepared a new instrument IPA (Instrument of Pre-Accession). It is my strong conviction, as that of other specialists of the region, that the greater public good would benefit from equalizing candidates and non-candidates in this IPA; or even more boldly preparing to give candidate status to all countries in the next two years – provided of course that these countries comply and fulfill the prerequisite Copenhagen criteria. By giving them candidate status, or “a date for a date” to begin negotiations would create a highly (already in the case of Turkey, Romania and Bulgaria witnessed) motivating moment (Gerald Knaus, Mark Cox) which mobilizes all resources of society toward democratic reform. A strong incentive is injected which allows for the “soft” transformative power of the EU (Mark Leonard) to begin its work, this in turn creates a positive domino effect.

 

A new bold strategy of enlargement, building on existing best practices is called for. This wholesale approach would counter the frequent piecemeal approaches that have not taken into consideration the need to understand the region in its complexity and mutuality.

 

Clearly, the principle of each country moving at its own speed toward integration and according to its own merits stands immutable. No country can delay the accession process of another. It is the positive competition fostered by the “transformative power of Europe” that can promote and accelerate these processes in the each country.

 

 

These aforementioned proposals to speed up integration processes are spelled out expressly because of the unfinished business in the Balkans and thus also in Bosnia and Hercegovina. The region is, I would submit, closer to success than to failure, although possible failure, or backsliding is never too distant. That is the reason for urgency and not complacency.

 

Bosnia and Hercegovina was in the eye of the storm of the 1990s wars. It faces a tremendously difficult legacy of those years, but also that legacy common to all post-communist countries. It also, as other transitional countries, is prone to a disillusionment with the democratic process, and with politics tout court. The experience of instrumental, manipulative politics from the communist era has left a legacy of distrust and disbelief in the possibility of a redignified, rational politics. The concomitant distrust in state institutions and administration is often pervasive.

 

And yet post-war reconstruction with all its “Lessons (not) learned”, and much squandered resources has put the country back on its feet. Ten years of peace have allowed for a series of democratic elections and peaceful changes. Yes, the political parties that were present at the beginning of the conflict are still in power today, yet it would be an exaggeration to say they have not undergone a transformation. Has it been sufficient? Surely not. More needs to be done in the sphere of political society.

 

The overall relinquishing of tensions in the Dayton triangle, the multiplication of links and relationships,  and the regular exchange/visits of high-ranking business exchange, all are progressively laying the foundations for more lasting solutions, i.e ultimately membership in NATO and the EU.

 

The normalization of relations between Croatia and Serbia and Montenegro has been crucial also for the future of Bosnia and Hercegovina. The Dayton Accords and the constitution stipulated in Annex 4 are the basis from which future functional solutions will be sought. The two entities: the Federation of Bosnia and Hercegovina and Republika Srpska and the central governmental institutions have had to confront the harsh realities of economic and social challenges. It is these pressing issues that are defining much of the agenda. Governments are pressed to deliver to their citizens. In situations of high unemployment and lack of outlook, this becomes all the more arduous.

 

It is most indicative that the Council of Europe, based in Strasbourg, in its Resolution 1384 (2004) has forcefully underlined that the constitution formulated in the Dayton Annex 4 is “the result of a political compromise achieved in light of ending the war, (but) that it cannot ensure the long term efficient functioning of the state, and that thus it must be reformed, as soon as there is the achievement of national reconciliation and the full establishment of mutual confidence”.  It is only through the full accord and agreement of the domestic actors that change toward greater functionality can be achieved on a firm basis.

 

The Office of the High Representative, additionally strengthened by the Bonn powers in 1997, signifies the strong influence of the international community in the executive, legislative and judicial branches of power (or its possibility to intervene at any time and override the domestic actors), while Bosnia is at the same time a sovereign state. The role of international actors in a variety of other institutions speaks to the fully undefined character of the state. The societal and reform dynamic is knocking at the door asking for a more efficacious and efficient system, which is compatible with EU democratic and governance standards, while clearly keeping by the specificities of the state and society.

 

Bosnia and Hercegovina, its elected leaders and citizens are faced with the arduous task of defining the way forward. This tenth year is one in which the fledgling democratic process has to be reinvigorated, through a broad-based debate in the public sphere where priorities will be fleshed out to demand to take things into their own hands. Obviously, in agreement with international actors it is time, in the words of Immanuel Kant “to exist from self-inflicted immaturity” (applicable to all post-communist countries) and start defining the agenda of the future.

 

Taking responsibility is a task also incumbent upon the international community to know when is the right moment to start “letting go”. There is a need for effective governments, states and administrations to create economic prosperity. The devastation of state capacities has had negative effects on consolidation, and much remains to be done in that regard. Thus a policy creating a strong constituency for reform, bringing together political parties, civil society and economic actors ready to take over responsibilities and the hard work of change is warranted for.

 

These processes must be conducted with care and caution.

 

The forecasted opening of talks on the final status of Kosovo later this year also require a partaking of all stakeholders within a process which will channel the proposed options and lead to a consensual decision.

 

There are those in Bosnia and Hercegovina who fear that abrupt solutions in Kosovo could be potentially destabilizing. That is, again, why it is important to impress the overall European Union framework and strategy within which ultimately all the unfinished business will  find its resolution and completion. There is no solution to the unfinished business outside of the EU and NATO. It is within a Europe whole and free that the Balkans will finally loose their “powder keg” label.

 

Machiavelli argued, Mr. Chairman, that political life has in it both Fortuna and Necessita. Maybe the fortune of the moment is that the region of the Balkans and the EU have now the ingredients ready to make virtue out of necessity.

 

This requires still continued support and attention of the international community. Success is not so far removed. For this reason a well structured process bringing together key domestic and international stakeholders, with the peer support of the neighbors can help deliver the result.