What if Bosnian politicians said 'either property will be returned to BiH or we are abandoning Dayton'?

By: Rasim Belko

The double aggression on Bosnia and Herzegovina was not carried out because the cartographers of evil in Belgrade and Zagreb liked the tourist potential of our country, but because of its territory. A significant part of that territory was occupied by aggression, UZP, and genocide, and sealed by the peace agreement in Dayton. Not permanently, but until the time when the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina will be returned to its titular owner - the state - by peaceful means!

However, the resolution of the issue of ownership of the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina and its riches, all that we call state property, has largely led us into a situation that could continue what Dayton stopped.

The state is the owner of the territory, because without territory there is no state. And that is clear and known to everyone. The international implementers of peace know it, those who inherited the occupier's policy know it, and those who call themselves the pro-Bosnian political spectrum probably know it too.

It is clear that the war was waged because of state property, and the war could be continued because of state property. The international factor in Bosnia and Herzegovina, by all accounts, traded that state property, postponing its resolution as a kind of grace period for anti-state structures, which was a concession for some other processes.

And then the separatists realized that this issue could not be postponed forever, that it would one day come to the negotiating table, and therefore, about ten years ago, they drew a line - no negotiations on state property, and we will not negotiate about it!

The leader of Serbian separatists in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Milorad Dodik, recently reiterated this stance and sent a clear message to everyone - if such a decision is imposed, a decision on the independence of Republika Srpska will follow. There is no doubt, this is a war trumpet, which immediately revives images from the time of aggression.

However, the messages of separatist Dodik resonate much less than the messages of the High Representative Christian Schmidt, who is increasingly seeking Solomon-like, fictitiously compromise solutions for state property. And any solution regarding state property that would grant ownership rights to any of the lower administrative arrangements is de facto and de jure the division of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

True, Schmidt is sending us a message through the German press about some joint agency that would control that property, but that is just another fog they want to shroud us in until the division of BiH is complete.

The reaction of the pro-Bosnian bloc is clear - state property is only state property, lower levels have the right to use it. And all parliamentary parties of the pro-Bosnian spectrum have clearly stated this by signing a joint statement on state property.

So, in the game, we have a separatist who knows that there is no secession without territory, the international community that would make deals between completely opposing sides, and the pro-Bosnian spectrum. If Dodik says he will not negotiate, if Schmidt wanders in an attempt to compromise, the question is what would happen if the pro-Bosnian political factor said either the property will be state-owned or we are leaving Dayton.

It is clear to everyone that this is a difficult decision that carries uncertainty, but it is far easier to act that way than to cede territory to an entity that needs it as the last piece to complete the mosaic of statehood.

The fact is that Dodik has already destroyed the foundations of the peace agreement, but also completely shaken the constitutional and legal order of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which consequently leads to the conclusion that he will not wait long to initiate dissolution.

What could be the click for Dodik's separatist trigger is any decision by Schmidt, so the question is whether pro-Bosnian forces should wait for such a development or go with the strategy of dismantling the peace agreement before that.

And that dismantling would imply a return to the Constitution of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which does not recognize entities, which in fact, by its activation, resolves the issue of state property and removes even the slightest possibility of peaceful dissolution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

In that case, the only unanswered question is what the reaction of the international community would be. Would that international community, as in the nineties, side with the separatists, or would it finally understand that a internationally recognized state has a right to its own.

The pro-Bosnian political spectrum should therefore pay less attention to what Schmidt says, and more to creating a strategy for getting out of the straitjacket and preparing the ground for leaving Dayton.

Because, Dayton has sufficiently dismantled the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and any further reliance on the international community and their deceitful policy is a path to disappearance.

That path can be avoided, the only question is whether there is the courage and strength for a step that can completely change the fateful course of Bosnia and Herzegovina.