Ten years ago we negotiated for three weeks in a base in Ohio and despite all the difficulties, an agreement on Bosnia was signed in Dayton. The important thing is not to know how we did it, but why such agreement was not signed before. In 1995, Washington believed an agreement was necessary and this is what made it possible. It’s true that the military action in the autumn had an influence, but the decisive element was the political compromise.
Today, we have no achievements if compared with Dayton. We have realized that the process begun ten years ago is the model upon which the reconstruction of the post war States is based on. Nowadays, the country is pacified and a million displaced people have returned to their homes, but it’s necessary to maintain such efforts. When I left Sarajevo I made emphasis on the implementation of economic efforts. However, Bosnia has not joined yet the NATO Partnership for Peace Programme and the WTO. Unemployment exceeds 40%. At this moment, Croatia is negotiating its inclusion in the European Union; Serbia will join the EU once the Kosovo issue is solved. Bosnia must wake up.
Dayton was a success but the jury is still waiting to make a statement on Bosnia.

How to prevent declining States from being refuges for terrorists? How to turn them into functional democracies? How to effectively intervene in those countries? A decade of work in Bosnia has the answers to these questions.
Ten years ago, the situation in Bosnia could have turned it into a black hole, into a base for international terrorism and organized crime. But today, it’s a stable democracy with a flourishing economy willing to join the European Union and NATO’s Partnership for Peace Programme. Currently, Bosnia has an army of 12,000 men and sent troops to Iraq last June.
After Dayton, the leaders of Bosnian, Serb and Croatian nationalist parties tried to block the process to use the established system to favour themselves. This is the reason why two years after Dayton the international community strengthened the powers of the High Representative for Bosnia with the purpose of lifting the blockade, something that was successful. Today, Bosnia has a democratic system and a competent justice system. Bosnia is adapting its economy to join the European Union. . Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic are still wanted but I think they will soon be arrested.

Nationalist parties of all tendencies (Muslim SDA, Croatian HDZ and Serbian SDS) do their best to block any evolution for they fear the loss of power. The religious authorities usually support them. The authoritarian tradition of the State is still strong in Bosnia and those who favour change, the non nationalist parties and the still emergent civil society, have a hard time trying to make themselves heard.
Nationalism and corruption are tightly linked here. According to a Bosnian proverb, “if each country has a mafia, the mafia has its country in Bosnia” Trafficking women, children, arms or alcohol, everything can be bought here. The ruling nationalist parties are not that interested in changing this for they have their own network of corruption. According to Transparency International, the anti-corruption organization, about 37 million euros a year are diverted in the reconstruction field alone and according to the Europeans, the government loses some 600 million euros a year –more than the budget of the Muslim-Croatian Federation- due to frauds such as the declaration of false companies or companies held in the name of dead people!
Nowadays, there’s no democracy in Bosnia even at the constitutional level for the inhabitants of the country are not considered to be citizens but members of an ethnic community and this has an impact at the electoral level: thus, a Jew or a Buddhist can not legally run for the presidency. You have to be a representative of one of the three ethnic communities. Meanwhile, violations of Human Rights are still common.

With the imminent beginning of discussions about the accession to Europe, the EU has an instrument to progressively replace the powers of the High Representative. The numerous reforms and adjustments which are necessary to enter Europe will very soon blow up Dayton’s incomplete framework. That is a trump card we should exploit since experience tells us that the three Bosnian populations have at least a common vision: the accession to Europe.
The distribution of roles based on ethnic groups was necessary in a country where civil war had shattered the confidence among communities. By slowly restoring confidence in the police and administration, for example, the elimination of such measures could be considered. The Mravkovica-Sarajevo Agreement signed in 2002 is already a first step to re-establishing equal rights among Serbs, Bosnians and Croats.
Regarding the 10-years balance of Dayton and the critical economic situation faced by the country today, with an unemployment rate of 40%, it is necessary to remember the situation of the immediate post-war period: more than 200,000 people dead, more than 2 million refugees, and 90% of the economic infrastructure was destroyed. Furthermore, Bosnia was completely left without industry, since the old one was based upon iron and steel as well as upon armaments. It is a pity that the recipes of the neo-liberal dogma had been blindly implemented, privatizing at the most and opening markets to foreign investments. It would have been much more reasonable to go through a transition period and certain State protectionism which would have enabled the economy to recover.
In May 2002, I announced the imminent arrest of Karadzic and Mladic; the fact that they are not in jail yet is not only disappointing to me but it is also an obstacle to any normalization. As long as Karadzic and Mladic are considered heroes by part of the Serbian population, they are relatively safe. On the one hand, there is NATO failure, and on another hand, politicians lack of courage, contrary to Djindjic, who dared to hand over Milosevic to The Hague. The fact that there are still people with garlands singing the glory of those two criminals is an indication that we have failed in part to make people understand the details of this tragic conflict. But also it has to be seen as the expression of a protest in view of what is understood as a political impotence that has to be expressed. In Austria, Germany and also in our country, there are people who glorify an old cruel system because they are unable to find their place in the current one.

While the historians’ answer is still awaited as to whether Yugoslavia died of natural causes, whether it was killed, whether it committed suicide or whether others made it “commit suicide”, the anniversary of its long disintegration and agony will be celebrated in 2005.
In the geopolitics of anniversaries, we commemorate this year the beginning of two “protectorates”: Bosnia-Herzegovina, which dates back 10 years ago and the 6 years of the protectorate of Kosovo. The Dayton Agreements put an end to confrontations in Bosnia after several years of bloody commitments that, at certain moments, became bellum omnium contra omnes. Typical of a diplomatic agreement, and with elements of an international treaty, therefore totally atypical, there was also an attempt to impose a model of a constitutional system. As a result, a complex political-bureaucratic apparatus was established. Although some positive results were obtained, especially concerning the refugees (nearly 50% were able to settle down), the state apparatus was enormous, very onerous and often ineffective. In addition, according to most political analysts, it is undeniable that Bosnia still has today three populations ethnically divided and peacekeeping is also currently ensured by the presence of a contingent of troops from the European Union.
In Kosovo, during the last few months, several proposals have been put forward in order to find a definitive solution. After several years of clinging to the formula “first a standard, then a status” that resulted in the worst status quo in a region that is living in a sort of “media obscurity”, the first indications of a renewed international interest are beginning to appear. On October 24, after discussions in the Security Council, the UN decided to officially open negotiations to define the status of the province.
Many observers agreed that the economic and human rights situation is worse today than six years ago. On January 25 this year, the International Crisis Group, to which belong, among others, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Marti Ahtasaari, General Wesley Clark, George Soros and Emma Bonino, presented a document that envisages Kosovo’s independence. Another group, the International Commission on the Balkans, chaired by Giuliano Amato, and financed by four private foundations, presented a similar proposal in April.

Ten years after the signing of the Dayton Agreements, Bosnia does not hide its anguish and fear over an uncertain future; a fear that increasingly rises with the multiple U.S. attempts to impose a new constitution that has nothing to do with these agreements, with the pretext of establishing a political cohesion appropriate to domestic changes and the new balance of forces existing in the country.
These agreements, no matter how limited they might be, have obviously impacted the history of Bosnia and the region at large. They have put an end to a bloody ethnic war without avoiding locking the different communities, as enemies, in the same cell. What a solution to re-establish order and found a federation! These agreements, imposed by thousands of NATO soldiers and thousand of dollars, returned life to the State of Bosnia. They also made it possible for a million refugees, who had abandoned their shelters during the war, to come back.
Thus, ten years of negotiations and appointment of various constitutional officials in accordance with racial and cultural differences, the international community multiplies its efforts trying to convince the different actors to change the text of the Dayton. Agreements, a significant change that would allow the drafting of a new constitution to govern the country without excluding any community.
It would be necessary to create the proper conditions for cooperation among different representatives from the communities in Bosnia and those who are responsible in the international arena, such as the European Union or United Nations Organization. The sole objective of this cooperation is to found a State with only one president, a united government and a parliament that would represent all communities.

Ten years ago, U.S. diplomats brought together in Dayton representatives from the different religious communities of Yugoslavia. At that time, such representatives were called in to draft a constitution in order to find a solution to the “civil” war being waged in the country.
The enactors of the Dayton Agreements were able to put an end to the war in Bosnia, but failed to implement a plan to administrate the country. This would also justify the fact that Bosnia is still under the protectorate of the international community, which ensures safety in the territory through UN forces and which has appointed an administrative governor with full powers.
In Baghdad today, as happened in Dayton 10 years ago, the same conditions are required to resolve the problem. The three main communities, namely, the Sunni, the Shia and the Kurds have to decide upon their fate together. But, although the agreements among the Serbian communities have brought about a ceasefire in the country, they have not, however, established an independent government.
It is true there is a big difference between the behaviour of the constitutional operation in Baghdad today and that of Dayton 10 years ago. The difference that is quite clear has to do with the international community and its commitment to the two countries in question. Ten years ago, the priority for international leaders was to ensure stability and security in Bosnia before jumping on to the second stage, which was to draft the constitution of the country. Unfortunately, the actors of yesterday can no longer play the same role in Iraq today. And what is even worse, the United States, contrary to what happened in Bosnia, are forcing the implementation of a constitution in Iraq before resolving the issues of order and security. An imposed constitution that is based upon current negotiations could not only divide the country into three rival parts but also trigger a civil war worse than that existing in the country at the moment.
Dayton Agreements were a major step forward for U.S. diplomacy and its representative Richard Holbrooke. For his part, the current Ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, has faced a more complicated situation with just a few cards to play.

On November 17, the Guardian offered its apologies to Noam Chomsky and repaired the mistakes made concerning my work and that of Emma Brockes. However, despite the retractions, the impression persists that my work consists of denying the atrocities committed.
My book Fools’ Crusade: Yugoslavia, NATO, and Western Delusions, published in 2002, is a documented analysis about the historical and political context of the Yugoslavian disintegration wars. It insists on underestimated issues such as the German policy toward the minorities, Slovene politics, and the divisions between Muslim Bosnian politicians and Kosovo’s turbulent history. It was not my purpose to bring up what happened in Srebrenica, but to focus on how the media covered it. I studied the way the mass media approached this event to the detriment of others, how they have always used the highest figures in relation to the number of deaths without any official confirmation whatsoever and how they have played down a complex reality by multiplying the analogies with Hitler or the Holocaust. The media has replaced analysis with Manichaeism and excitement. Anything else that would not fit this interpretation would be stigmatized.
During this period, the European Left finally chose to reject nationalism and considered the Serbian the worst of all. Croatian and Albanian nationalisms were, in contrast, minimized. This ended in the NATO war against Serbia in violation of the law. However, such attacks on the law, as well as the US, pose a greater threat for the world than Serbian nationalism does.