Heribert Scharrenbroich May
12, 2003
Perm. State Secr., (retired)
( Original document in German language )
THE CREATION OF A COMMISSION FOR TRUTH
AND RECONCILIATION IN BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA
Status in April 2003
A comprehensive political evaluation
on the basis of the discussions led by a
high-ranking delegation from the ASSOCIATION FOR TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION (ATR)
in Berlin (April 9 – 11, 2003) with Members of Parliament, top civil servants
and representatives of churches / religious communities on behest of the Konrad
Adenauer Foundation
1. In May 2001, the ATR submitted a draft bill for the creation of
a TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION
(TRC). The authorities in charge of Bosnia-Herzegovina – both on the
domestic and the international scale – have approved this project and pledged
their support (see. II, nos. 1 and 2).
The efforts of the
ATR in Bosnia-Herzegovina are currently focused on the attempt to make the Minister for Human Rights and Refugees in
the new government introduce the bill to Parliament.
According to the ATR
Chairman Jakob Finci, the minister in question, Mirsad Kebo, is basically
inclined to proceed. A close eye, meanwhile, has to be kept on the recovery of
the nationalist parties which have strengthened to the point where they are the
predominant force (again) in all three governments and Parliaments. This
development may still jeopardize the project and prevent its realization.
2. All representatives from Parliament,
government and Churches in Germany contacted by the ATR delegation on the occasion of its
Berlin visit expressed their warm support for this project. Both sides agreed in particular on the vital
importance of an institution which would enable the people of
Bosnia-Herzegovina to come to terms
with the events of the war, not least by giving them the opportunity of talking
about them (complaints, confessions, expressions of repentance and forgiveness)
– something which the International Court in The Hague for the countries of the
former Yugoslavia (ICTY) is not equipped to provide. It was also felt that such
a project might – provided it turns out to be successful – eventually serve as
a blueprint for the other countries of the former Yugoslavia.
3. The ATR is right to insist on the national dimension of the TRC
project. It must be ensured, they argue, that the project is perceived as
having organically grown out of the three ethnic communities rather than being
the brainchild of international institutions. The latter would threaten the
general acceptance of the project from the word go. This constrains and curtails any possibility to
influence the wording of the bill and the creation of the commission from the
outside.
If, on the other
hand, German and EU politicians were to use any encounter with their colleagues
from B-H to explicitly express and emphasize their appreciation of a speedy
submission, discussion and implementation of such a bill, this would
nevertheless be useful and welcome. If, on each such occasion, they were to
make inquiries about the most recent state of affairs and any progress made in
the matter, this would be a potentially highly valuable expression of support. The
same is true for discussions between Church representatives.
4. We are concerned that neither the new High Representative (HR), Paddy Ashdown, nor the new US Ambassador seem (at this stage) to
share their predecessors’ enthusiasm for the project. Jakob Finci is planning
to use his forthcoming meetings with both men to explore and dispel their
reservations.
5. Additional support for the project – from both independent experts and
politicians – may be generated by the possible creation of a Sarajevo-based Institute
for Reconciliation by the EU Council of Ministers on the occasion of their
meeting in June (at Thessalonica, Greece). - [The corresponding proposal has
been submitted on April 4 during a workshop in Thessalonica by the Chair of
Working Table I of the Stability Pact (SP), Elisabeth Rehn, with the support of
Special Coordinator Dr. Erhard Busek. The proposal will be discussed by the
next meeting of the SP Regional Table (May 26/27 at Dubrovnik). (For more
details, see www.stabilitypact.org
> In the Spotlight: ”Reconciling for the Future > Closing Remarks by Dr.
Busek + Recommendations for Civil Society).]
If the decision makers who are dealing with this proposal were to drop a timely hint to the
BH government that a discernibly constructive attitude towards the TRC project could have a positive impact on any pertinent decision in favour of Sarajevo, this might serve to stimulate the legislative enthusiasm for the bill. The existence of such an institute in Sarajevo would, on the other hand, prove to be of a potentially considerable value for the implementation of the TRC. This point was already made by Jakob Finci at the Thessalonica workshop.
6. Jakob Finci has clearly indicated that a future TRC would be able to count on the financial support of the EU and several Western European governments. As soon as the course of the Parliamentary deliberations indicates the impending success of the bill, more detailed needs – such as staff training and the creation of the TRC’s administrative structures – will have to be addressed. At the present stage of events, people are not sufficiently motivated to discuss these technical details – it would be unrealistic to expect otherwise.
II. Historical background
1. In 2001, a large number of NGOs from both
entities (especially
Helsinki and Human Rights Groups, religious communities) set up an ASSOCIATION
FOR TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION (ATR)
with the objective of legally establishing a national COMMISSION FOR TRUTH AND
RECONCILIATION (TRC). (For more
details, see the ATR home page under www.angelfire.com/bc2/kip
)
2. The draft bill was unanimously welcomed by the participants of a high level
conference organized by the ATR in close cooperation with the Konrad Adenauer
Foundation on May 12, 2001 in Sarajevo. - [The conference was attended by
representatives from a large number of domestic NGOs and two of the three
members of the State Presidency (Mr. Krizanovic and Mr. Belkic), the Minister
for Human Rights and Refugees (Mr. Zubak) and eminent representatives from both
entities; as well as – from the international community – by the Chief Judge of
the ICTY (Claude Jordan), the Senior Legal Advisor of the Chief Prosecutor
Carla Del Ponte (Gavin Ruxton), the Special Representative of the UN Secretary
General in B-H (retired General J. P. Klein), the First Deputy of the HR
(Ambassador Matthias Sonn), the EU representative (Ambassador Kretschmer), many
ambassadors from EU countries etc. The signatory of this report was also among
the attendants.]
The national
politicians pledged their support for the bill and promised to actively promote
it during the Parliamentary deliberations with a view to the eventual
establishment of the commission.
3. Nevertheless, the draft bill has
still not been introduced to Parliament. Bearing in mind the technicalities
of the BH constitution, it seems vital to have the government introduce the
bill.
This delay has largely been caused by the
following factors:
a)
The bill from
the summer of 2001 gave the Secretary General of the United Nations the power
to select the 7 members of the TRC out of a shortlist. Long and time-consuming
discussions with the office of the Secretary General failed to produce an
agreement. It was impossible to introduce the bill before the Secretary General
had arrived at a definite decision.
b)
Following this,
the Parliament could not agree on a possible modification of the election law.
c)
Once this
deadlock had been broken (by the intervention of the HR), the run-up to the
campaign for the election of new representatives for all government, entity and
cantonal/regional authorities made any further Parliamentary deliberation of
the draft bill impossible. Any progress had to wait until February 2003 when
the new Parliament had congregated and the new government had been formed.
III. The participants of the Berlin round of
discussions:
ASSOCIATION FOR
TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION (ATR):
Members of the
German Federal Parliament (Bundestag):
High-ranking
government officials (civil servants):
Representatives
from Churches and religious communities:
Other
participants
