Schmidt's cornering lies in Kupres: Yours for you, mine for me for the quiet disintegration of BiH!

By Muharem Cero for NAP

While the controversial issue of converting concession property (forests and forest land) is currently moving from the media spotlight to the constitutional-legal and political sphere, a new (perhaps even bigger) similar dilemma is unexpectedly emerging.

Namely, it was announced that in August last year (2023), a project for the conversion of forest land in the municipality of Kupres (Livno) began, and has already been completed, with the right of use (concession) in favor of the German company MFE (Magnesium for Europe) and its Bosnian subsidiary Dolomit d.o.o.

The large industrial complex that this company will build will consist of as many as 14 facilities. The total area of the plant facilities will be 20,432 m2. The plant will be located on land with an area of 7.3 hectares. The company has obtained a permit for the exploration of an area of approximately 47.5 hectares, which is directly adjacent to the 9.5 hectares for which Dolomit already holds mining rights.



The previous statements of the FBiH Government indicate that only three cantons in the Federation recognize forests and forest land as public property (state property owned by the state of BiH), while cantons with a so-called ethnic Croat majority recognize this public property as the ownership of municipalities and cantons, with an incomprehensible explanation of such a status given by Prime Minister Nermin Nikšić.

It is quite certain that the preceding unconstitutional behavior of cantons with a so-called Croat ethnic majority allows for and implies that the concession grantor of concession property owned by the state of BiH and under a disposal ban established by the OHR Law on Temporary Prohibition, proceeds without consent for conversion or, indeed, a stated protective measure.

It is not known, nor is it excluded, that the concession fee from such unconstitutional actions was and is considered original revenue for the cantons and municipalities carrying out such actions, and that the Federation budget, and especially the state as the owner, does not receive its due income from these fees.

Despite the lack of information, it can be stated for now that the 'Vareš case' is not just a dangerous precedent but an established practice of ethnic agreement on the control of the Federation's territory according to the model of Bosniak and Croat cantons.

This very model legalizes the 'third constituent' as well, and all three in the synergy of their actions render meaningless and quietly undermine the sovereignty, subjectivity, and state identity of the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina, nothing more than a quiet disintegration to the point of meaninglessness, whether we call it secession or dissolution.

Perhaps the announcement of these events is precisely the response to the OHR's, or rather Schmidt's, cornering regarding the constitutionality of converting forest land and excluding the owner, the state of BiH, from the entire process. There are certainly abundant elements for an obligation to submit these actions to constitutional review, waiting for the 'hand' of a dedicated patriot.