The Case of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo in the 20th Century
Authors
Gramos Surkishi, BA, ILIRIA University, field of International Relations and Diplomacy. Following Master degree, field of International Relations and Diplomacy at the ILIRIA University.
Edmond Kumova, BA, European University of Tirana, field of International Relations. Following Master degree, field of LAW at ILIRIA University
First published on March, 2015
Abstract
The end of the twentieth century in history of international relations is characterized by the disintegration of Soviet Union and fragmentation of Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia unlike the Soviet Union in this approach its more special because due to the beginning of the 90’ the EU shows an activism toward states out of her borders, Security Council faced a clear contradiction with its members and NATO established a future role for its self. Requirements of the republics of the Yugoslavia for independence, which began with Slovenia and in one way ended with Montenegro, were not conducted peacefully. Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo in the end suffered most in the suppression of the Yugoslavia federation. Murders, rapes, ethnic cleansing and violations of human rights in all aspects, embargoes, ceasefire, paramilitary movements, NATOs military interventions and many other elements characterized consummation of the federate existence. This article focuses on the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina and on the case of Kosovo, which makes comparison between these two countries in the way that the firs movements began to demand independence, as was welcomed internationally, as Belgrade reacted, as the conflict developed, as conflict ended, what were the exception of Bosnian and Kosovar leaders in relation to international approaches like UN, EU and NATO. Have singularly focus Dayton agreement and that of the Rambouillet, to their resolutions, peace, as the final resolution conflict.
Introduction
The early 90’ of XX century found Southeast Europe in a new beginning of terrible events that were followed by mayor crisis since World War II. Former republics of Yugoslavia started with threats for war and secession which led to collapse of Federation of Yugoslavia. This led to conflicts that Europe didn’t face for a long time.
The rate of crimes in Yugoslavia astonished the world’s public opinion that was not able to respond. A lot thought that this was a situation which had to do with an ethnic hatred: was rather belated revenge of Serb patriots in name of victimization of past wars[1]. But, the war that started in Slovenia followed with the war of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina to conclude it process with Kosovo, showed an inverted cliché about past wars because everything was happening right now. It was cultural heritage of former Yugoslavia it that the world looked not the less than everything else.
Hypothesis
How occurred that the International community with its interventions in the Balkans and the agreements reached to Dayton and Rambolluillet (together with the Resolution 1244) founds still ethnic problems within Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo?
Are this problems because of divisions of powers that were forecast in Dayton and Rambouillet agreements together with 1244 United Nation resolution, with special statute for north of Bosnia and Herzegovina and north of Kosovo or so called BRCKO district in BiH, and Mitrovica Distrisct in Kosovo (statutes that are different from each other)?
It was the ability of international factor to gave a solution for conflict resolution in BiH and Kosovo, but it was an inability too, of international factor, to solve all ethnic problems in Bih and Kosovo.
I
Conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina
Conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina had important consequences on relations between Europe and Islamic countries. The conflict, in some cases, in Muslim world, was seen as a prove of European attitude toward Islam where the case of Bosnian Muslims was an anti European mobilization point for Islamic countries in 1990. The same was on Palestinian case of 1970 or Afghan case of 1980[2].
Regardless to this the anti European voices restricted relations between Europe and Islamic countries, but, however the Muslim world in mini conditions supported the Bosnians resistance. However the BiH survival made that BiH to be identified with laic Islam, like Turkey that was near democratic countries, and not like Iran that has an total different approach. This identification affected the Bosnian liberals to think for multi-ethnic society.
Immediately after the announcement of Slovenia independence and later of Croatian one on February 29 and March 1 in BiH was organized a referendum to announce the independence from Yugoslavia. From this referendum won the democratic alternative because the parliament of BiH on April 6 proclaimed the independence and separation from Yugoslavia. The new republic independence was recognized by all European Union members. Meanwhile Bosnia and Herzegovina was independent, within its territory started to born a new Serbian Bosnia “Srbska Republic” that declared its independence. In the other hand on April 22, 1992 Slobodan Miloshevic together with the fifth Montenegro president Predrag Bulatovic declared a new Yugoslavia including within it the independent Bosnia too[3]. On May 26, 1992 BiH was recognized by United Nation as an independent state and was accepted as a new member of UN. On June 8, 1992 the UN decided to sent peacekeeping troops in BiH called the Blue Helmets. We need to show that three months earlier the same troops was sent in Croatia too. Meantime all this things was happening in diplomatic plan, in reality in BiH were developing wild conflict with a lot of victims.
The first plane was ethnic cleansing and creation of new Serbian territories. In this conditions in the summer of 1992 in the United Nations was voted a new Security Council resolution, no.770, which required to all member states to sent in BiH military troops and humanitarian aids. However after this resolution there were and huge politic indifference where only the France sent some military units to ensure some corridors only for humanitarian aids. Despite the conflict started on Slovenia on 1991[4] and later in Croatia, in BiH before the winter 1992 the conflict was toughened producing uncountable victims. Because of this another Security Council resolution, no.787, imposed rough sanctions for Serbia in Adriatic sea and in Danube river on northern Serbia. But what really happened?
The Serbians in Bosnia have created their new little state led by former communist “Radovan Karadjic” and the helm of Serbian army was set a former Yugoslavian general “Ratko Mladic”. Now we have a mini parliament and a government. In the other side we have an independent Bosnia known internationally, led by a former political persecution during the time of communism “Alija Izetbegovic” a filo American intellectual writer “Haris Silajdzic” and “Miro Lazovic the head of BiH parliament. Despite some times there were conflicts between catholic Croatians and Muslim Bosnians, the Catholics were united with the Muslims.
The Srebrenica massacre brought accelerates of peace and the end of conflict. Terrified, international public opinion asked for NATO intervention and UN departure due to failure. NATO council in Brussels decided to bomb Serbians in Bosnia. The world diplomacy added in maximum all efforts to end the conflict. Hereafter the Americans are them who would take the leadership of international factor to gave a resolution of conflict. Slobodan Milosevic convinced or ordered Mladic and Karadjic to end the war and to accept the peace talks. Hence on October 5, 1995 Bill Clinton declared that truce was reached and soon there will be negotiations for peace in entire Balkan. These talks known also as Dayton Agreement were taken at Wright-Patterson Air Force military base in Dayton, Ohio. Practically this reached agreement ended the fourth year conflict in Balkan. The Dayton agreement was signed by three presidents: Slobodan Milosevic – Yugoslavia, Alija Izetbegovic - Bosnia and Herzegovina, Franjo Tudjman – Croatia. Furthermore the agreement was signed divided by Bosnian and Serbian representatives. But which was the main points of Dayton agreement that ended the war? Bosnia was clearly divided in two entities, the Croato-Bosnians and Serbo-Bosnians. The first entity was possessing 51% of territory and the second entity 49% of territory. In agreement the Eastern Slavonia[5] territory was also returned to Croatia, a territory that so far was into Serbian territory. The Dayton agreement consists from 12 annexes that are divided in articles for each annex.
Annex 1-A: Military Aspects
Annex 1-B: Regional Stabilization
Annex 2: Inter-Entity Boundary
Annex 3: Elections
Annex 4: Constitution
Annex 5: Arbitration
Annex 6: Human Rights
Annex 7: Refugees and Displaced Persons
Annex 8: Commission to Preserve National Monuments
Annex 9: Bosnia and Herzegovina Public Corporations
Annex 10: Civilian Implementation
Annex 11: International Police Task Force
Agreement on Initialing the General Framework Agreement[6]
As a conclusion of Dayton agreement, was reached that the federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina will be a multiethnic state were the entities lives in separated territories with self-governed rights totally depended by each other in internal plan. The co-governance will be only in federation matters in co-presidency by Bosnians, Serbians and Croatians. It was also foreseen a demilitarization and all territory of BiH was under the filter by SFOR, NATO military mission that also provide peace and domestic stability between all communities. It was also foreseen a United Nations administration over BiH governance that on 2003 will be placed in common administration with European Union. Federation would be a European democratic model state that would held democratic elections every four year. The intern constitution and the federal one would be elected by the people and as a political governance system was choose the presidential-parliamentary system, a system mixed by Italian and France systems. They decided to create military and police force that one day this two forces to be multiethnic.
The Dayton agreement had huge values because placed the peace after the four year bloody conflict that took with it 250.000 victims. It also gave a new perspective in International law by giving a right to United Nations and NATO to restrict state sovereignty and furthermore NATO now has a new role in international relations, changing the only mission that had it to counterbalance the Warszawa pact[7]. The Dayton agreement opened the road of International court of Justice to put justice after 14 years of heavy crimes in former Yugoslavia. Despite ended the conflict in BiH it gave an example of international intervention to political elites in Balkan too. The agreement and statehood history of BiH its not interesting only in political formation but it has also it impact in International public law too. There is a lot to be studied over the Dayton agreement from all levels of political, historical and diplomatic sciences.
II
Conflict of Kosovo and Rambouillet Agreement
Like the Serbs, Albanians use the history to reach their political goals in different ways. Serbians cannot release them self by the myth that Kosovo is a holy land for them that they lost it against ottoman empire in battle of Kosovo, 1389. In the other hand Albanians pretend that they are in this land since the ancient times and a lot before the VI century when the Serbs were displaced in these territories. But Albanians use the argument of being larger in numbers in Kosovo comparing with other entities[8]. Albanians and Serbs see them self as victims of maltreatment and injustice by each other. All this violations are used as an argument to intervene in Kosovo 1999 as a matter of “Human Rights”. During 80’ of XX century Serbs of Kosovo were discriminated in employment level, exposed to a different injustice and molestation from Albanians. In this case Serbs of Kosovo demanded protection from Belgrade. Then in response to this requires Slobodan Milosevic highlight:
“You have to stay here for your descendants and your ancestors…but, I m not saying that you must stay here serving and resisting to a situation that you are not happy. On the contrary! This need to be changed, together with all progressive fellows here, in Serbia and in Yugoslavia… Yugoslavia cannot exist without Kosovo! Yugoslavia neither Serbia won’t never give up by Kosovo”[9]
On January, 1999 the Yugoslavian army deployed a large number of troops in Kosovo. They placed important position along Macedonian border as a prepare to an eventual attack from NATO and in the same time blocked a lot of corridors that the Kosovo Liberal Army was furnished with arms. On January 15, 1999, the Yugoslav army attack a village called Recak and killed 45 civilians. Kosovo Verification Mission investigated the massacre reporting for illegal executions and mutilation toward unarmed civilians[10] . Chief of Kosovo Verification Mission ambassador William Walker visited the village by punishing the act and founding the name of army officers that were responsible for the massacre. Belgrade declared the ambassador as non-grata person. Foster by Recak massacre the so called contact group consist by France, Germany, Italy, Great Britain and USA invited governments of Belgrade and Albanians to join for an resolution in Rambouillet, France. The contact group showed in front of both sided the prepared agreement called Rambouillet Agreement. The agreement consisted of two frames, 9 chapters and articles for each frame and chapter:
Framework - Article I: Principles, Article II: Confidence-Building Measures
· Chapter I - Constitution
· Chapter II - Police and Civil Public Security
· Chapter III - Conduct and Supervision of Elections
· Chapter IV - Economic Issues
· Chapter V - Implementation I
· Chapter VI - The Ombudsman
· Chapter VII - Implementation II
· Chapter VIII - Amendment, Comprehensive Assessment, and Final Clauses[11]
After 72 days of NATO bombing against Yugoslavian forces in both territories in Kosovo and in Serbia, finally an agreement was reached, the Kumanovo Agreement in Macedonia. The agreement was between NATO and Yugoslavian army that ended the bombings and the conflict between Albanians and Serbians. Security and Council of the United Nation approved a resolution, no.1244, that gives a mission to international civil representation to administrate Kosovo
The main features of Resolution 1244 were to:
· Demand in particular that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia put an immediate and verifiable end to violence and repression in Kosovo;
· complete verifiable phased withdrawal from Kosovo of all military, police and paramilitary forces according to a rapid timetable, with which the deployment of the international security presence in Kosovo will be synchronized;
· Place Kosovo under interim UN administration (performed by the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo, UNMIK);
· Authorize a NATO-led peacekeeping force in Kosovo (currently performed by the Kosovo Force, KFOR);
· Allow for the return of an agreed number of Yugoslav and Serbian personnel to maintain a presence at Serbian Patrimonial sites and key border crossings;
· Direct UNMIK to establish provisional institutions of local self-government in Kosovo (PISG);
· Reaffirm the commitment of UN member states to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the other States of the region, as set out in the Helsinki Final Act and annex 2 of UNSCR 1244 (an annex that envisions, inter alia, a Kosovo status process);
· Require the UN to assure the safe and unimpeded return of all refugees and displaced persons to their homes in Kosovo and to ensure conditions for a peaceful and normal life for all inhabitants of the province;
· Require that the KLA and other armed Kosovo Albanian groups be demilitarized;
· Authorize the United Nations to facilitate a political process to determine Kosovo's future status. Kosovo's future status would take into consideration the Rambouillet Agreement which Serbia refused to sign in 1998, and which calls for the "will of the people of Kosovo" to be one of the guiding principles in defining Kosovo's status, another being the respective compliance of the disputing parties to the Agreement. The resolution reaffirms calls for "substantial autonomy and meaningful self-administration for Kosovo"[12]
Statute of the Brcko District of Bosnia and Herzegovina
· Chapter I : General Provisions
· Chapter II : Brcko District Residents
· Chapter III : Organization and Functions of the Brcko District
· Section A: General Provisions
· Section B: The Brcko District Assembly
· Section C: The Brcko District Government
· Chapter IV : District Police
· Chapter V : Courts and Prosecutor's Office
· Section A: District Courts
· Section B: Prosecutor's Office
· Section C: Appointment and Independence
· Chapter VI : Transitional Provisions[13]
Statute of Mitrovica of Republic of Kosovo
1. General provisions, such as: Implementation of responsibilities; Powers and authority of the Municipality; Direct participation of citizens in decision-making; Activities and manner of placement in public works; Municipal authorities and the Civil Service; The rights and duties of the members of the Municipal Assembly; Financial and property management of the Municipality; Conflicts of interest; Formal acts and official documents of the municipality; The principle of legality: Legal protection and complaints; Cooperation with other municipalities and nonprofit organizations and relations between the Central Government and the Municipality
2. Responsibilities and powers of the municipality, such as: Economics; Urban planning; Construction permits; Environmental protection; Property management; education; Health care, etc.
3. Forms of participation of citizens in decision-making, such as information campaigns; Organizing public meetings; Holding public hearings; Holding public hearings; Organizing advisory committees, etc.
4. Municipal bodies, which are: Municipal Assembly, which deals with legal acts and competencies; Assembly meetings; Appointment of the Head of MA; Conflicts of interest of members of the CC; The rights and duties of the members of the CC; Labor compensation of the members of the CC; Mandate and replacement of members of the CF; Standing Committees.
5. Municipal leadership - executive: Mayor; Responsibilities of the Mayor; Dismissal, removal and election of a new President of the Municipality; Conflicts of interest of the Mayor; Deputy Mayor; Deputy Mayor for communities.
6. Municipal Directors - Board of Directors: the Department of Administration and Personnel; Department of Health and Social Welfare; Department of Education; Department of Finance, Economy and Development; Directorate of Planning, Urbanism, Cadastre and Property; Department of Public Services and Infrastructure; Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection; Inspection Directorate; Protection and Rescue Directorate and the Directorate of Culture, Youth and Sports.
7. Municipal Civil Service.
8. Financial management: Municipal Budget; Revenues from the Ministry of Economy and Finance; Municipal own revenues; Revenues from donors; Revenue from enterprise and Municipal Budget.
9. Independent Financial Control.
10. The principle of legality, legal protection and complaints.
11. Property of the Municipality.
12. Cooperation with other municipalities and non-profit organizations.
13. Relations between the Central Government and the Municipality: The objectives of administrative supervision; Mutual Accountability and administrative oversight process; Types of administrative supervision; Procedure of supervision and review of legality; Supervision of the adequacy of the legal acts of the Municipality.
14. Final provisions - Entry into force of the Statute.
The city of Brcko it is a district with a special level of governance that is not part of BiH but neither Serbia. Brcko its governed only by local authorities of Brcko and international supervision. The city of Mitrovica its part of territory of Kosovo despite that Mitrovica has a special statute that is administrated by International Civil Representative and UNMIK.
Conclusion
Even after 14 years after the Dayton conference, an agreement that ended the conflict between Bosnians, Croatians and Serbs there are still domestic problems in BiH. BiH faces problems of political and ethnical nature despite the federal problems that are part of geopolitical powers that play on the separation of Sarajevo. BiH has a lot of border problems with Croatia and Serbia because of its geographic position and this is one of the problems why west Balkan has a lot of obstacles for European Union integration. Comparing to BiH, Kosovo it is a more problematic and complicated issue in international level. The problems that is facing Kosovo's EU integration and the Euro-Atlantic integration are: the strengthening of the rule of law, democratization of society, freedoms and human rights, in particular those of minorities, decentralization of local government, economy fragile her, and the establishment of good relations between Belgrade and Pristine. The main problem of Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo in the path towards the European Union is concerned with the significant lack of democratic traditions, as a result of totalitarian and authoritarian systems. Also, due to geopolitical structure, that Balkans had during the Cold War (2 + 2 + 2), which was able confusing during the war. Despite these two problems from a historical perspective, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo closer to the European Union, as is the European Union to them. Both these countries feel abandoned by the EU, while the EU is incomplete without integration (entry) in the European Union.
[1] Udivi?ki & Ridgeway, Ethnic obsession of Yugoslavia, page. 1.
[2] Jacques Rupnik, The Balkan Diary, page. 21
[3] Ibid, page 21
[4] Look : https://sq.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sllovenia - History of Slovenia
[5] Look : https://encarta.msn.com/map_701516577/Slavonia.html : Map of Slavonia
[6] Look: https://www.state.gov/www/regions/eur/bosnia/bosagree.html , Dayton Agreement
[7] https://sq.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traktati_i_Varshav%C3%ABs
[8] Ian King & Whit Mason, Peace with any condition – How the world failed in Kosovo, page. 43.
[9] Tim Judah, (Kosovo: War and Revenge), New Haven, 2000, page. 53.
[10] Kosovo Report, page 79
[11] https://www.alb-net.com/kcc/interim.htm
[12] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1244
[13] https://www.ohr.int/ohr-offices/brcko/default.asp?content_id=5367