Who and why is unfreezing the Commission on State Property from BiH's freezers

By Muharem Cero

---

An old rule says that if you want to do nothing, the best way is to form a commission. It is precisely with such an illusion that BiH institutions have approached the way of resolving the infamous "Dayton gap", determining the status and resolving state property of BiH.

Immediately after the fifth ratification of the succession agreement, which occurred in 2004 and the entry into force of this international agreement, which is in a way an integral part of the Dayton Peace Agreement, as early as 2005, the then High Representative Lord Paddy Ashdown imposed a law prohibiting the disposal of state property, and his successors Lajčak and Inzko resolved the whole matter by undertaking an initial inventory of state property.

The initial inventory was compiled and nothing further was done. Bosnian institutions formed the infamous commission on state property and gave it the mandate to adopt a whole set of laws, through which this "Dayton gap" should receive its constitutional interpretation.

A unilateral action followed from the smaller BiH entity, a law was passed declaring all state property on the territory of this entity as the property of Republika Srpska.

In essence, the first attempt at internal succession of Bosnia and Herzegovina along the inter-entity demarcation line occurred. By decisions of the Constitutional Court of BiH, this law was declared unconstitutional, and once again Bosnia and Herzegovina committed to adopting a law on the management and disposal of state property through state bodies, the BiH Parliament, as soon as possible.

Where then, and where now.

Political obstructions have lasted and continue to last, and the whole story has the character of deciphering the constitutional and legal nature of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The approach to resolving, as well as imposing perceptions of the constitutional structure of BiH, ranged from a state community, a community of states, a confederation, a loose federation, and so on.

Perceptions have achieved the effect of making it impossible to resolve this, in my opinion, most important issue for the existence and functionality of the state structure in BiH.

Despite the fact that the Commission on State Property was merely a directed joystick of the political views of the parties in power, it was not even capable of fulfilling its task. Its entire "work" was reduced to the possibility of exempting property under prohibition and its non-transparent allocation not only to municipalities, cantons, and entities, but predominantly to private individuals and privileged tycoon structures.

This practice was recognized quite late by the international community, and only about a year or more ago did the current High Representative Inzko freeze its work.

In the meantime, the Constitutional Court's decision on agricultural land followed. The whole story took a completely different turn. The portfolio of state property ceased to be houses, schools, and buildings built with the budget of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The ruling on agricultural land, quite rightly, recognized the portfolio of state property as public goods, which are not and cannot be the property of anyone other than the titular, the state.
For the first time, this serious story gives a completely different perspective on the constitutional nature of Bosnia and Herzegovina from the discourse of the Dayton Peace Agreement.

Recognizing the significantly new situation, the political options that have ruthlessly squandered the state portfolio, disempowering the actual owner, the state of BiH, in favor of sub-state administrative arrangements, are reacting by halting all institutional life in BiH for almost two years now.

However, from the perspective of a state community in the created institutional vacuum, Milorad Dodik, under the constitutional umbrella of special and parallel relations between RS and Serbia, announces that Republika Srpska is granting ownership of 1,234 hectares of state land to the investor, the Republic of Serbia, for the construction of an airport in Trebinje.

The land being transferred to the ownership of the Republic of Serbia is located in the areas of Hum, Taleža, and Cerovac in Trebinje. Hum is indeed property from the succession of the so-called military hangars. Cerovica and Talež are forest land categorized as scrub and state agricultural land.

Only an almost incidental reaction from the media, including Patria, signals that another, this time multi-million, unconstitutional and illegal usurpation and theft of state property is being prepared.

The only one who recognized the possible obstacles in this well-thought-out project is Milorad Dodik and his structures, so through his people in the Council of Ministers, he is proposing the revival of the Commission on State Property for tomorrow's session of this institution, with a deadline until the third month of next year.
Only the naive or those commercially tied to this intention can believe that the Commission will remain solely and exclusively mandated to prepare laws that would resolve the status of state property and be submitted to the BiH Parliament for adoption.

The entire intention is that the delegated individuals in the revived commission, by applying the exemption from the prohibition through the right of exemption, and acting on the predictable request of RS or the newly established company Aerodrom Trebinje, will adopt and approve that 12,340,000 hectares of state land be first registered to the sub-state constitutional arrangement of RS, and then consequently, through the Government of RS and the National Assembly, be allocated to the Republic of Serbia.

For now, we only have the silence of the OHR and the international community, who might be afraid to act only on decisions made, rather than intervening preventively.

The stance of the ministers in the Council of Ministers of BiH from the political structures of HDZ, SDA, and DF tomorrow will be much more significant and telling.

And so, the story of 5+2 is slowly closing, with the emptying of the state property portfolio through the more or less commission-based work of a body that had and has the sole task of adopting a set of laws that would regulate the management and disposal of state property. 

No matter how bitter this text may be, its intention is to be a warning. If the Council of Ministers unfreezes the work of the commission, and the OHR agrees to it, then let the Commission's mandate until the third month be limited solely to the obligation to adopt a set of laws on the management of confiscated property, and exclude the part that allows for the exemption of property under disposal prohibition, primarily public goods such as agricultural and forest land, as well as property from succession. This is not too great a test for the Deputy Chairpersons of the Council of Ministers, Turković and Bevanda. SIC!