Ganić: The Dayton Agreement brought peace, but two key elements were conceived incorrectly

(Patria) - Member of the wartime Presidency of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (RBiH) Ejup Ganić stated on the occasion of Bosnia and Herzegovina Statehood Day that we should celebrate this state holiday with satisfaction, and remember all those who defended the sovereignty and integrity of the country.

- We defended this country, it is sovereign and internationally recognized on the world map. All those who feel patriotic will celebrate November 25th with satisfaction.

There are also those who imagined a different situation with the breakup of Yugoslavia, they had other wishes. However, this is a country older than its neighboring countries, which has endured.

We cannot force everyone to celebrate, to commemorate; some infections from the domain of aggression still linger. However, we should approach this date with satisfaction and remember all those who defended the sovereignty and integrity of this country during the years of aggression - Ganić stated.

He also recalled November 21, 1995, when the Dayton Peace Agreement was initialed. According to him, this agreement is difficult to criticize because it brought peace and was supposed to create an opportunity for the country to develop further.

He pointed out two key elements that, according to him, were conceived incorrectly by Dayton.

- Unfortunately, the entire program, as formulated through various annexes, did not explicitly ensure the return of the displaced.

Despite all the instruments it provided for, a very small number of people returned to their homes from which they were displaced. This is also a great victory for the aggressors, who carried out ethnic cleansing and disenfranchised a large number of our citizens.

The Dayton Agreement should have had a clause stating that if more than fifty percent of the displaced did not return to their homes within three or four years, the parties would sit down and change the arrangement to seek another solution by abolishing the entities, and then move to a different internal organization of the state that would be more efficient and just. This is the first major mistake in that agreement - Ganić believes.

He also raised an objection to another provision - given that Dayton enabled the blocking of state institutions, such as the House of Peoples of the BiH Parliament.

- The second major mistake is that Dayton has, in a way, set back Parliament, leaving the House of Peoples where there are five representatives from each of the three constituent peoples, and that in this House of Peoples, decisions should be made by a majority vote, while consensus should be sought only when it comes to vital national interests.

Therefore, key national interests on which there can be no outvoting should have been defined. Unfortunately, this was not done in such a way that the House of Peoples became a marketplace, blocking whatever anyone wants, whenever anyone wants.

No matter how well Parliament works, the House of Representatives can stop everything in a way, without good reason in the House of Peoples. This is a major deficiency and a big mistake - Ganić points out.

He emphasizes that he expected concrete steps from those who can make them, in order to correct the shortcomings.

- What I expected was for the high representatives to change these things, primarily by abolishing the House of Peoples or reformulating its role and explicitly defining areas where consensus is needed.

The second issue concerns refugees; it is a great historical mistake, a deception, an injustice, because the displaced did not return. So, when we talk about Dayton, we emphasize the good side that it stopped the war and aggression, but it did not create a foundation for a functional state - he said.

He stated that together with the international community, we need to fix and change this, in order to align with European standards and laws.