EDIN URJAN KUKAVICA Shall we start from the beginning

By Edin Urjan Kukavica

---

Shall we first start from the beginning and (re)translate – but this time as it is written – the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina (The General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina) initialed in Dayton on November 21, 1995, and signed in Paris on December 14, 1995, or at least its Annex IV... and finally ratify it in some assembly or parliament, and only then discuss changes, amendments, and additions to the Election Law and all other laws? Perhaps it wouldn't be a bad idea to (for the first time) consult serious translators for the translation, with the help of linguists and experts in legal terminology, and finally definitively determine what the Dayton Agreement considers a state, citizenship, civil rights... what is a nation, nationality, and what does the slogan constituent people(s) really mean, and who signed all of this and in what capacity.

Perhaps then we would read the Preamble of the Agreement as it is written; namely, that: The Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Croatia, and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (“The Parties”), recognizing the need for a comprehensive solution to end the tragic conflict in the region, wishing to contribute to this goal and promote lasting peace and stability, reaffirming their commitment to the agreed fundamental principles (...) and ceasefire agreements (...) with the obligation to implement the agreement reached strictly and consequently (...) In fact, that the conflict was regional(!), that the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Croatia, and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (on behalf of the RS) are co-signatories(!) of the peace agreement as PARTIES to the conflict(!), that neither Croatia nor Serbia are in any way or manner blameless guarantors that Bosniaks, Serbs, and Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina will not start killing each other again, but rather that Croatia and Serbia will stop attacking Bosnia and Herzegovina... among other things, precisely because all of this is stated both explicitly and implicitly in the rest of the text.

For example: Article I: The Parties shall conduct their relations in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, as well as the Final Act of Helsinki and other documents of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. In particular, the Parties shall fully respect each other's sovereign equality, shall settle disputes by peaceful means, and shall refrain from any action, threat or use of force or otherwise, against the territorial integrity or political independence of BiH... Then, Article II: The Parties welcome and support the agreements reached concerning the military aspects of the peace settlement and the aspects of regional stabilization, as set forth in the Agreements... The Parties shall fully respect and promote the fulfillment of the obligations undertaken (...), and shall fully fulfill their oblig(at)ions... then in Article III: The Parties shall fully respect and promote the fulfillment of the undertaken oblig(at)ions. Then Article IV: The Parties welcome and approve the electoral program for BiH as set forth (...). The Parties shall fully respect and promote the fulfillment of this program... And so on, believe it or not, until the end of the Agreement: The Parties undertake “to fully respect and promote the fulfillment of the obligations undertaken therein” where it is stated (at the end) in Article XI that the Agreement shall enter into force upon signature and that the Agreement was DONE at Paris, on December 14, 1995, in the BOSNIAN(!), Croatian, English, and Serbian languages, each text being equally authentic. The signatures of the representatives of the PARTIES, the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Croatia, and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and the WITNESSES follow: the EU Special Negotiator, the French Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America.

Furthermore, the same applies to Annex IV, better known as the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In a correct translation – ask serious translators – the term constituent as a noun, in short, means: an essential part: a component, element, organic constituents of plants, animals, and microorganisms; a structural unit of a defined syntactic, semantic, or phonological category consisting of one or more linguistic items (such as words, morphemes, or features) and that can occur as a component of a larger construction, and as an adjective, constituent is used to describe that which serves to form, compose, or make up a unit or whole: component parts. 

Therefore: The Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, whose official name shall henceforth be “Bosnia and Herzegovina,” continues its legal existence under international law as a state, with its internal structure modified as provided herein and its present internationally recognized borders. It shall remain a member state of the United Nations and may as Bosnia and Herzegovina retain or seek membership in organizations within the United Nations system and other international organizations (Article I: Bosnia and Herzegovina, 7. Continuation), “(...) shall consist of two entities, the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Republika Srpska (hereinafter the “Entities”) (9. Composition), in which constituent peoples (along with Others), and citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina in fact, are the peoples (constituent parts) who (together with others) and the citizens of BiH make up the whole.

From this and from Article I, Paragraph 13a, which in the original reads: All citizens of either Entity are thereby citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina... means in translation: THEREFORE, ALL CITIZENS OF BOTH ENTITIES ARE CITIZENS OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA! Or, the Oxford Dictionary and Encyclopedia Britannica, distinguishing between civil rights and citizenship within the term citizenship state that citizenship is: “...the relationship between an individual and a state to which the individual owes allegiance and in return for which the individual is entitled to the state's protection; it implies a status of freedom with accompanying responsibilities. Generally, full political rights, including the right to vote and hold public office, are based on citizenship. The usual responsibilities of citizenship are allegiance, taxation, and military service. Citizenship is the most privileged form of nationality. This broader term denotes various relationships between an individual and a state that do not necessarily confer political rights but do imply other privileges, especially protection abroad. The term as used in international law denotes all persons whom a state has the right to protect.” ...and therefore, these prerogatives cannot be held by the entities in any way.

There is more... it is impossible to write everything in one text. However, this much is enough to begin by asking ourselves who needed such a translation and why, a translation that is, for more than several reasons, inconsistent, imprecise, and ultimately incorrect(!)? Who commissioned such a translation of the Agreement and for what reasons? But no... perhaps someone might think to ask why no one here (in former Yugoslavia) ever declared war on anyone(?!) and how that affects the definition of the nature of the conflict in the region?
On the other hand, perhaps it is better this way: the Dayton Agreement is considered “holy scripture,” a bad translation is considered dogma, and a situation where any riff-raff can establish a reserve police force and arm it, declare their own “republic” in their own tax haven or paradise... countless human rights violations, insistence on collective rather than individual identities, disrespect for sovereignty and denial of the rule of law... absence of any sense of security, uncertainty, hopelessness, disorientation, living on the brink of public conflict and continuous fear, is declared democracy instead of being called by its true name: fascism!

It is astonishing how the most obvious things, which incidentally change the entire picture from the ground up, do not occur to any of the invited parties. Of course, it is easier and cheaper to consistently protect the identity of one's own ideological backside, to boast of integrity and condemn the inconsistent, than to bear the fate of the state. Just like that, patriotically!