Wednesday, February 27, 2008

#370 I SRPSKI RADIKALI TRAŽE REFERENDUM

REPUBLIKA BOSNA I HERCEGOVINA 17. januar 2006.
ONLINE GLASNIK NACIONALNOG KONGRESA REPUBLIKE BiH br. 370
http://republic-bosnia-herzegovina.com/ - web stranica osvježena 14. januara 2006.


1. AMERIČKA ADMINISTRACIJA NE STOJI IZA HAYSOVIH "REFORMI"
2. The State Department has never drafted any of the documents that formed the basis of the current negotiations
3. Internacionalno izdanje "Online Glasnika NKR BiH"
4. PREGLED IZJAVA POSLIJE PRVOG DANA PREGOVORA
5. Tihić: SDS više ne može ucjenjivati Državu Bosnu i Hercegovinu
6. I SRPSKI RADIKALI TRAŽE REFERENDUM
7. PREKINUTI PREGOVORE O USTAVNIM PROMJENAMA U BiH?



1. AMERIČKA ADMINISTRACIJA NE STOJI IZA HAYSOVIH "REFORMI"

Kao odgovor na "Internacionalno izdanje Online glasnika NKR BiH" br. 369, od 16. januara 2006, javio nam se Prof. Bruce Hitchner, rukovodilac projekta "Dejtonski mirovni sporazumi", (čitaj Haysov šef u projektu). Ovom prilikom prenosimo samo dvije ključne rečenice iz njegovog pisma, jer ih smatramo izuzetno značajnim za razumijevanje pregovora koji se odvijaju o ustavnoj reformi Bosne i Hercegovine. Prva rečenica glasi, citiram:

"Prva faza pregovora je pokrenuta JEDINO da bi se ojačala državna vlast, DJELOMIČNO slijedeći preporuke Venecijanske komisije."

Original na engleskom: The first phase of the negotiatons was undertaken with a view ONLY to strengthening the state government following in part the recommendations of the Venice Commission.

Upotrebljavajući riječ "djelomično" on sam priznaje da su odstupili od preporuka Venecijanske komisije. Nije li upravo tu razlog njihovog miješanja u proces koji je pokrenut preporukama Venecijanske komisije. Upravo zbog toga ih kritikujemo, jer to odstupanje je ključ svega, to je ono što vodi čitav proces u potpuno suprotno pravcu, ka legalizaciji genocidne RS.

Na ovu tvrdnju Prof. Hitchnera odmah je odgovorio Prof. Boyle citirajući izjavu Safeta Halilovića, koje su prenijele svjetske agencije iz "Oslobođenje" od 16. januara 2006., citiram:

Komentirajući izjavu američkog profesora internacionalnog prava Frensisa Bojla, koji je upozorio da reforme Donalda Hejsa znače rastakanje BiH, Halilović je kazao da “te ocjene nisu bez osnova”, te da upravo zbog toga neke stranke ne žele da prave dalje ustupke, koje bi podržavale težnju da suverenitet države treba da dolazi iz entiteta,

“Zato se i borimo za građanski model, koji je u skladu i sa odlukama Venecijanske komisije. A prijedlozi koji se sada pojavljuju su daleko ispod preporuka ove komisije”, kazao je Halilović. - Kraj citata iz "Oslobođenja".

Druga bitna Hitchnerova rečenica, KOJA DEFINITIVNO DOKAZUJE DA AMERIČKA ADMINISTRACIJE ("STATE DEPARTMENT") NE DIKTIRA PREGOVARAČIMA je, citiram:

"A što se tiče takozvanih dokumenata američke administracije, izjavljujem da administracija nije nikada, ponavljam, nikada dala nacrt ni jednog dokumenta koji bi predstavljao bazu sadašnjih pregovora. Dokumenti su bili pripremani isključivo na bazi diskusija koje su se odvijale sa svim političkim partijama uključenim u ovaj proces. Ne postoje dokumenti koji stavljaju u istu ravan RS sa BiH."

U originalu na engleskom: "As to the so-called State Department documents, the State Department has never, I repeat, never drafted any of the documents that formed the basis of the current negotiations. The documents were prepared entirely on the basis of discussions held with all of the political parties involved in those discussions. And there are no documents that place the RS on the same level as BiH."

Ovom izjavom je dokazano DA NE POSTOJI NIKAKAV ZVANIČNI PRITISAK AMERIČKE ADMINISTRACIJE. DONALD HAYS I AMERIČKI AMBASADOR U BiH Douglas McElhaney SU SAMO POSREDNICI U PREGOVORIMA, OVDJE SE KAŽE "HONEST BROKERS". Dakle, oni su po definiciji NEPRISTRANI, i imaju ulogu da saslušaju strane u pregovorima i da pokušaju naći formulu koja će zadovoljiti sve strane i KOJA BI MORALA BITI U SKLADU SA INTERNACIONALNIM ZAKONIMA AKO NEKA OD STRANA INSISTIRA NA TOME. Dakle, ako želimo povoljan ishod pregovora probosanski pregovarači bi morali insistirati na tome da je RS nastala agresijom i genocidom. Posrednici se moraju držati i svoga početnog okvira za pregovore, a to je PREPORUKA VENECIJANSKE KOMISIJE, ako bi naši pregovarači insistirali na tome.

BUDUĆI DA SU OVI PREGOVORI KRENULI U POTPUNO SUPROTNOM PRAVCU OD USPOSTAVLJANJA GRAĐANSKE DRŽAVE BIH U SKLADU SA PREPORUKAMA VENECIJANSKE KOMISIJE, TE DA SU SE SVELI NA LEGALIZACIJU ENTITETA, ZAHTIJEVAMO OD NAŠIH PREGOVARAČA DA PREKINU DALJE UČEŠĆE NA OVIM PREGOVORIMA.

Dr. Muhamed Borogovac

Za Nacionalni kongres Republike BiH



Slijedi kompletno pismo Prof. Hitchnera, a zatim "Internacionalno izdanje Glasnika NKR BiH", na koje je Prof. Hitchner reagovao.



2. The State Department has never drafted any of the documents that formed the basis of the current negotiations

Re: Constitutional Crisis in Bosnia-Herzegovina

To Whom It May Concern,

I wish to respond to the statements in this email.

Nothing could be further from the truth regarding the current constitutional reform process in Bosnia. The first phase of the negotiatons was undertaken with a view ONLY to strengthening the state government following in part the recommendations of the Venice Commission. All parties agreed that there would be no discussion of substate structures in this initial phase of the negotiations, but that future discussions, which would most likely begin after the October elections, would clearly address this issue fully and within an entirely new framework of ideas. It is equally mistaken for anyone to assert that a possible outcome of the negotiations would be the annexation of the RS by Serbia. All of the RS parties have committed themselves to a future within BiH. There is no possibility of the RS's secession from BiH.

As to the so-called State Department documents, the State Department has never, I repeat, never drafted any of the documents that formed the basis of the current negotiations. The documents were prepared entirely on the basis of discussions held with all of the political parties involved in those discussions. And there are no documents that place the RS on the same level as BiH.

I do not disagree with those who argue that the Dayton constitution is flawed and needs to be amended. The question has always been how best to do this. Some will say that ten years is plenty of time to draft a replacement for the old constitution, let alone to carry out a piecemeal reform of the Dayton constitution. But an equally powerful argument could be made that the current process has ONLY taken ten years—--less than half a generation since the end of the war, hardly enough time for full trust and reconciliation to have developed on all sides. Abandoning the Dayton constitution wholesale at this stage would
only have raised the level of fear and mistrust across the country and further eroded the existing structures of government as well as the reforms that have already been put into place since 1995. Whatever the outcome of the current phases of constitutional reform negotiations, the process has achieved two things: first, it has established a process of constitutional reform that will continue. Over the past eleven months, the political parties from across the spectrum have learned how to conduct a constructive dialogue among themselves regarding the Dayton constitution and the future of the country, and this will likely continue, with or without international intervention.
Second, the process has exposed clearly the differing political visions for Bosnia’s future. This is not a bad thing—what has been exposed is not politically insurmountable. It is possible, I believe, to pursue a
constitutional reform process that addresses fully and acceptably the interests of all the people of Bosnia. What is needed is fresh thinking on all the structures of government that does not abandon the progress made over the last decade but that transcends the current formulations for the future proposed by all sides of the political spectrum in the country.

The first step, however, is to achieve some consensus on the current package of reforms now on the table and to place those reforms into parliament as amendments for passage by March 2006. For better or worse, the people and political leaders of Bosnia have lived and worked within the limits of the Dayton constitution for a decade. They know its flaws and limited strengths. The road to a new constitution cannot take place in a political vacuum and in the absence of recent history; it can only emerge by first amending the weaknesses of the existing constitution. After that is completed, there must be a sustained effort—a second stage—to rethink and define a transcendent consensus of Bosnia’s future that will serve as the basis for continued negotiations. Over time, this will lead to a constitution that is truly one written by and for the citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Respectfully Submitted,

R. Bruce Hitchner
Professor and Chair
The Dayton Peace Accords Project
Member of the Secretariat,
Constitutional Working Group

No comments: