Por David Chandler, profesor de international relations en Westminster University y editor de Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding. Su último libro es Empire in Denial: The Politics of Statebuilding (THE GUARDIAN, 20/11/07):
Simon Tisdall suggests that Serbia and Russia are creating a crisis in Bosnia in order to strengthen their hand in the delicate negotiations over Kosovo’s future status (World Briefing: Bosnian nightmare returns to haunt EU, November 13). According to Tisdall, “Belgrade has opened a dangerous new front” and “egged on” Bosnian Serb troublemakers. More ominously, he implies that Russia is calling the shots.In fact, the political crisis in Bosnia could be seen as the product of foreign machinations, but not the actions of the Serbs and Russians. Widespread protests, the resignation of prime minister Nikola Spiric earlier this month and the threat of further ministerial resignations have been a response to arbitrary and high-handed interventions in the political process by the EU and international high representative, Miroslav Lajcak.
Last month I gave a presentation to the Bosnian parliament, with the UK ambassador Matthew Rycroft, on the path to the EU; the clear response from parliamentarians was a frustration with the lack of respect and autonomy accorded to elected representatives by the international community. Twelve years after the Bosnian conflict was apparently resolved with the Dayton agreement, the international high representative still runs Bosnia as if it was a feudal fiefdom. He has the power to impose legislation and dismiss elected politicians without any right of appeal.
Tisdall states merely that Lajcak “publicly fell out with Bosnian Serb leaders over proposed reforms”. He tells us that Serbian and Russian political leaders are claiming that the international community is in danger of destabilising Bosnia, and that the high representative is “in danger of exceeding his powers” - the clear assumption is that these claims are not true.
But the constitutional crisis was instigated by Lajcak’s attempt to impose major changes on Bosnian state institutions, radically altering the framework of the Dayton peace agreement, without consulting either politicians or the public. These new measures would mean that decisions made by governing institutions no longer require support from all three of Bosnia’s segmented ethnic communities (Bosnian Muslims, Croats and Serbs). Effectively, state institutions would no longer have to take into account the opinions of Serb representatives of the Republika Srpska entity.
The high representative presented this controversial change as merely a bureaucratic technicality, an administrative measure designed to facilitate “good governance” in the tiny state, denouncing Bosnian Serb concerns as “overemotional, irresponsible and insufficiently rational”.
Lajcak has come under entirely legitimate criticism, both inside and outside Bosnia, for his authoritarian stance. The Serbian government, a Dayton signatory, is entirely within its rights to argue against the unilateral imposition of major changes to the agreement, as is the Russian government. There is no conspiracy to create problems for the EU; unfortunately the EU’s high-handed actions in Bosnia have been quite sufficient to create this crisis.
Simon Tisdall suggests that Serbia and Russia are creating a crisis in Bosnia in order to strengthen their hand in the delicate negotiations over Kosovo’s future status (World Briefing: Bosnian nightmare returns to haunt EU, November 13). According to Tisdall, “Belgrade has opened a dangerous new front” and “egged on” Bosnian Serb troublemakers. More ominously, he implies that Russia is calling the shots.In fact, the political crisis in Bosnia could be seen as the product of foreign machinations, but not the actions of the Serbs and Russians. Widespread protests, the resignation of prime minister Nikola Spiric earlier this month and the threat of further ministerial resignations have been a response to arbitrary and high-handed interventions in the political process by the EU and international high representative, Miroslav Lajcak.
Last month I gave a presentation to the Bosnian parliament, with the UK ambassador Matthew Rycroft, on the path to the EU; the clear response from parliamentarians was a frustration with the lack of respect and autonomy accorded to elected representatives by the international community. Twelve years after the Bosnian conflict was apparently resolved with the Dayton agreement, the international high representative still runs Bosnia as if it was a feudal fiefdom. He has the power to impose legislation and dismiss elected politicians without any right of appeal.
Tisdall states merely that Lajcak “publicly fell out with Bosnian Serb leaders over proposed reforms”. He tells us that Serbian and Russian political leaders are claiming that the international community is in danger of destabilising Bosnia, and that the high representative is “in danger of exceeding his powers” - the clear assumption is that these claims are not true.
But the constitutional crisis was instigated by Lajcak’s attempt to impose major changes on Bosnian state institutions, radically altering the framework of the Dayton peace agreement, without consulting either politicians or the public. These new measures would mean that decisions made by governing institutions no longer require support from all three of Bosnia’s segmented ethnic communities (Bosnian Muslims, Croats and Serbs). Effectively, state institutions would no longer have to take into account the opinions of Serb representatives of the Republika Srpska entity.
The high representative presented this controversial change as merely a bureaucratic technicality, an administrative measure designed to facilitate “good governance” in the tiny state, denouncing Bosnian Serb concerns as “overemotional, irresponsible and insufficiently rational”.
Lajcak has come under entirely legitimate criticism, both inside and outside Bosnia, for his authoritarian stance. The Serbian government, a Dayton signatory, is entirely within its rights to argue against the unilateral imposition of major changes to the agreement, as is the Russian government. There is no conspiracy to create problems for the EU; unfortunately the EU’s high-handed actions in Bosnia have been quite sufficient to create this crisis.
No hay comentarios.:
Publicar un comentario