Bosnia Has to Fly With Two Wings

Immediately after all this happened Silajdzic spoke to VREME on his disagreements with the SDA, degradation in parliament, Serb and Croat concepts, on attempts to divide Mostar and Sarajevo.

VREME: What chance is there for a united, sovereign Bosnia-Herzegovina?

SILAJDZIC: "Possibly the coming generations will be filled with hatred and revenge. Hate can limit entire generations and make them incapable of living with others. That can raise nation against nation, as was the case with the Greater Serbia project. We know its tragic results: 200,000 dead in Bosnia.

I hope the war is over although there is no real peace yet. I hope the defence project will be successfully concluded, that we returned from Dayton with an integral, sovereign Bosnia-Herzegovina, our common homeland."

You mentioned the Greater Serbia concept but your statement on the greater Croat concept also drew various reactions. Leading Zagreb daily "Vesnik" placed it in the context of breaking up the federation. Will you explain the statement?

"I stand by what I said. If you travel from Croatia towards Mostar you'll see there's no difference from uniforms, flags, insignia to money. That seems like a Greater Croatia. It's time to talk about that because we can't solve anything if we keep quiet. We have to confront the facts in the Federation to make the federation. There can be only one state in Bosnia and neighboring states begin and end where Bosnia begins and ends."

Your position depends greatly on global understanding on whether Bosnia is a state or not. Are there any personal clashes?

"Perhaps I have been too loud in terms of a sovereign, united, democratic Bosnia. In Dayton there were open attempts to remove me from political life. Personal differences have always existed and always will that is not disputable. What is disputable is how those opinions are resolved: democratically or not? In the context of the federation concept, we agreed in Washington that it is a federation of cantons and I stand behind that. I oppose a federation of national territories because If we had wanted that we could have immediately reached agreement with the regime in Belgrade and stayed on the 20 or so percent the Bosnian army now controls. This is Bosnia-Herzegovina and everyone who lives her and all our neighbors should know that. The process of reintegrating Bosnia can't take place if we in the federation have differing concepts. Everyone will say: "We want the Federation", but the problem is that we talk a lot and do very little. It's time for the people who aren't prepared to do their job for whatever reason to resign."

Most people don't understand the essence of the dispute. They think five or six ministries, what's the difference?

"That question was raised in Dayton and it was very serious. I can say that even Milosevic agreed that there should be six ministries. We discussed that a lot. The American proposal was 12 ministries if I remember right. But, when we got back the HDZ proposed just three ministries. Naturally, we in the government couldn't agree to that because we know that's too few. I don't hide the fact that I want the central bodies to be strong while the other side wants them to be weak. And you have two concepts.

Our version is six ministries, the other version is five plus one minister without portfolio. This is a difference of the understanding of democracy. That law does not reflect the will of the people. Finally, it is important because that act and that law supports the trend of weakening the central bodies. We have to have institutions to secure the sovereignty and integrity of Bosnia.

The Americans came to Sarajevo with the opinion that we don't need a parliament, that we should have three presidents who will decide about everything in Bosnia. What kind of state is that? I said we want our state to be like any other and they said the proposal came from our people. I explained that that is a covert division of Bosnia and we got full Western support."

Bosnia was caught between the Serb stick and the Croat gallows during the war. Was there a moment when you had to turn to the other side since throughout the war negotiations between Zagreb and Belgrade have been ongoing but at the expense of Bosnia?

"You negotiate during war but the problem is an emotional barrier which is hard to break. You should look into the eyes of Srebrenica women who are waiting for their sons, fathers. It's very hard to talk to people who produced that misery. People in this job have to overcome the emotional barrier and balance relations on all sides. That is state interest. You're right when you say that and I think perhaps there wee mistakes on my side. Maybe I could have done more but we went to negotiate with those people, with the same people in Belgrade who drew up the plans and the ones who watched us from Trebevic and it didn't help. The fact is that Bosnia has to fly with two wings. It's a bird with wings and has to use them both."

Are there any indications that parliamentary groups will initiate changes in the disputed law?

"The people who pressured parliament in all this are probably the ones who see an opportunity to get rid of me. I doubt anything will change, but everything is possible.

Look at what's happening with the election of a Mayor in Zagreb, it's all similar to this. That is a democratic process that says - there is no absolute power. Why am I speaking of this? Because we in Bosnia won't have true democratic processes and true peace until true democratic processes take place in neighboring countries. I think the case of the Zagreb Mayor is a democratic process and I'm happy.

I'm sure that will happen in Serbia and Montenegro sooner or later. When that happens we can finally say peace has come to the region and we can cooperate. The problem isn't getting five billion dollars from someone, which is very good, for reconstruction. We have to reconstruct society. We have to be sure that expansionist ideas ended centuries ago. This is a rebellion against civilization. I wonder if we have really finished with these rebellions, if we'll erect a Chinese wall or cooperate."

How would you organize Sarajevo to primarily keep it as the symbol of the Bosnian capitol without making it a border outpost in future?

By expanding it. Sarajevo has been limited to a small area with a lot of people who are not just from Sarajevo. I advocate the idea of making a canton with Gorazde. If we don't do that Gorazde will remain cut off and the corridor linking it to Sarajevo would be an emigration corridor. That's not what we wanted. Sarajevo is the natural center of the canton and I think that's the solution."

What would you say to the Serbs to keep them in Sarajevo?

"First, the people who are forcing them to leave their homes want to prove that they were right, that only an ethnically divided Bosnia is possible. On the other hand, we can now say whatever you want. Words are cheap. I can say what I want no and tomorrow I can say I didn't mean it. So I won't say anything. I'd just say that our credibility is what we are: these authorities have a problem, we're not all united but our credibility is in our past. We should be trusted because at the worst possible time we showed on the ground that we can be trusted. We didn't destroy churches, we didn't rape, kill civilians. That's why the Orthodox church in Sarajevo is standing, that's why this government restored the church in New Sarajevo, that's why the Mosque in Bosanska Krupa was destroyed along with the Catholic church.

I am a Moslem. A member of the Islamic religious community and that doesn't change. To me the only important thing is that someone won't come around to change that. I won't ask an Orthodox Serb, who is an Orthodox Bosnian and has as much right to a homeland as I do, to change his religion. That's why religion is separated from the state.