VIEWPOINT FROM LONDON

ASHDOWN'S TITOIST SOLUTION FOR MOSTAR

by Brian Gallagher

The Croatian Herald, Australia No. 1002 - 13.02.04

 

Paddy Ashdown's solution to unify Mostar is unfair to the Croats. Indeed, it appears to owe much to Tito style politics - that of disadvantaging the Croats politically whilst making them pay for the 'privilege'. Ashdown has missed the opportunity of helping to answer the Croat question in Bosnia-Herzegovina and providing greater protection for citizens of all three groups. It means that the issue will have to be revisited again in the future.

The city of Mostar has been divided into a Croat West and Bosniak (Muslim) East since the war - although a number of Bosniaks do live in the West side. Under the Dayton Accords, High Representative Ashdown had responsibility for re-unifying the city of Mostar - and quite rightly he made clear his determination to do this. First the local politicians had the chance to present a solution to the problem.

The Croats, who now have a majority in Mostar were for the unification of the city, whilst the Bosniaks were against. This is a reversal of the position of only a few years ago - no doubt due to demographic changes in favour of the Croats. The two sides could not agree on the reunification of Mostar.

At the state level in BiH, all three nationalities are equal and have an effective veto - a vital safeguard for all three groups. At city level however, where the demographics vary all over the country, the majority rules. The Bosniaks are in the majority in Sarajevo and the Serbs in Banja Luka. They therefore run their respective towns.

Not unreasonably, the Croats considered that the same should apply to Mostar. It would then be the only significant town that they would control - although their majority is not overwhelming.

Ashdown's solution is effectively that neither Bosniaks nor Croats will be able to dominate. This may sound laudable, but unfortunately it means that Croats are discriminated against. Where Serbs and Bosniaks have a majority in any BiH town or city they control it, but this principle is denied to the Croats. In the only significant city where they have a majority they have to share power. What's more, because the Croats are more economically active they will effectively be paying most for the running of the city.

This is blatantly unfair. It is very much a solution reminiscent of Tito's Yugoslavia. The Croats were politically disadvantaged - the Serbs ran the show - but were expected to pay a disproportionately large share of the bill for the country. Does Ashdown want to be remembered as a poor man's Tito?

The decision will mean further problems developing between Croats and Bosniaks in the future. The Croats will demand proper representation, and this will become harder to deny them as time goes on. It will also lead to resentment elsewhere. Already, Croats in Zenica - where the Bosniaks rule - are demanding the Mostar solution be applied there.

I have personally supported Ashdown thus far in BiH. He was right to recognise the results of the general elections, he was right to save the Croat run firm Aluminij. But here he has made a mistake. Ashdown has justified his decision by saying he is simply applying the state level vetoes the three national groups enjoy to Mostar. This is disingenuous as it does not apply to any other town or city. It is inconsistent to have one system in Mostar and a different one for the rest of the country.

Had Ashdown used his extensive powers to apply his solution across BiH, it would have been different. Giving all three groups equal status in towns and cities has much to commend it; it would prevent one group dominating others and would certainly act as a motor for refugee return. Sarajevo could become a multi-ethnic city again, rather than being effectively a Bosniak one. However, he did not.

What Ashdown should have done was to allow the Croats to control Mostar via their majority but with essential proviso's such as ensuring some Bosniaks - and indeed Serbs - having a place in the governance of the city. I am sure the Croats would have agreed to such an arrangement - especially as it would protect them should the demographics change against them. What is more, Ashdown could have used such an example to pressure other towns and cities to follow suit. This would have given tremendous protection and security to all three groups. Sadly, Ashdown did not take this option.

Consequently, the Croat Question in BiH has simply become that much larger.

 

© Brian Gallagher

My 'Viewpoint from London' column appears fortnightly in the Australian 'Croatian Herald' and thereafter at www.croatiafocus.com

 

This article was subsequently reported in the BiH edition of Slobodna Dalmacija

The media round up on the website of the Office of the High Representative also covered the piece.