BOSNIA: REPUBLIKA SRPSKA MOVES ON PROPERTY

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 SARAJEVO 001725 SIPDIS EUR/SCE FOR FOOKS, STINCHCOMB; NSC FOR HELGERSON; EUR/OHI FOR KENNEDY E.O. 12958: DECL: 10/26/2018 TAGS: PGOV PHUM PREF ECON PINR KJUS BK SUBJECT: BOSNIA: REPUBLIKA SRPSKA MOVES ON PROPERTY RESTITUTION AFTER TORPEDOING STATE-LEVEL AGREEMENT Classified By: Michael J. Murphy, for reasons 1.4 (b) and (d). ¶1. (C) SUMMARY: On November 4, the Republika Srpska National Assembly (RSNA) passed, on its first reading, a draft law on the restitution of property which would address outstanding property issues for victims of expropriation, nationalization, and forcible donation, including properties lost during the Holocaust. This follows on the failure of a state-level restitution law in the BiH House of Peoples in February at the hands of RS deputies. Member of Bosnia's religious community, including its Inter-Religious Council (IRC),remain committed to a state-level law. Jakob Finci, President of the Jewish Community, stressed to us the Jewish Community's opposition to the RS entity-level law, and its potential for discriminatory implementation. The law itself, a warmed-over version of the 2000 RS laws struck down by HiRep Wolfgang Petritsch, is both an attempt to gather power at the entity level and emblematic of Dodik's modus operandi when it comes to attacking the state and then justifying those attacks. END SUMMARY. Summer 2000: HiRep Annuls RS Restitution Laws -------------- ¶2. (SBU) On August 30, 2000, former HighRep Wolfgang Petritsch struck down three RS restitution laws, which were designed to address outstanding property issues for victims of expropriation, nationalization, and forcible donation, including properties lost during the Holocaust. In annulling the laws, Petritsch stated that they were "flawed both as to procedure and as to substance." This judgment was supported by the Peace Implementation Council on September 27, 2000. At the time, Petritsch noted that the wide scope of the laws were financially disastrous, and "the RS (had) no estimate how much compensation it may have been obliged to pay." He further stated that the RS had not undertaken measures to ensure claims would be handled without discrimination based on ethnicity, or to ensure that cases in which property records have been destroyed or lost would be handled correctly. State Moves to Tackle the Restitution Problem -------------- ¶3. (SBU) Subsequently, a state-level working group was formed to draft a Bosnia-wide law on restitution. Beginning in 2006, the working group was led by a Bosniak-Croat-Serb Troika, and chaired by Mustafa Begic, Director of the BiH Geodetic and Property Office in the Ministry of Justice. Based on the information and estimates provided by the Geodetic and Property office, the working group drafted a law that garnered broad support, including the members of the IRC and parliamentarians across the spectrum. The only issue that met with significant criticism was the decision to limit compensation for a single property to 150,000 KM (or about 100,000 USD). Given Bosnia's perpetual fiscal difficulties, however, and the scope of potential restitution, such a limit was considered necessary, and ultimately accepted, including by representatives of Bosnia's religious communities. After several readings, the law passed the House of Representatives, parliament's lower house, in early 2008 and was forwarded to the House of Peoples (HoP). Serbs Kill the State Law -------------- ¶4. (C) In February 2008, the Serb Caucus, led by delegates from Dodik's Alliance of Independent Social Democrats (SNSD), in the House of Peoples blocked the legislation (Note: To pass, legislation must have a majority of votes in the HoP with support from at least two members of each caucus -- Bosniak, Croat, and Serb. End Note.) In the end, all five members of the Serb caucus -- 3 SNSD, 1 PDP, and 1 SDS -- opposed the legislation. SNSD party spokesmen, at the time, claimed publicly they voted against because they were unhappy with the limit of 150,000 KM set on compensation for properties that could not be returned to their original owners. However, most observers believed that the SNSD-led opposition simply objected to addressing the restitution issue at the state-level. The Shoe Drops -------------- SARAJEVO 00001725 002 OF 002 ¶5. (C) On October 27, Dodik and RS Justice Minister Dzerard Selman announced that the RS National Assembly (RSNA) would consider an RS-only restitution law on November 4. Dodik's central claim for the necessity of an RS law on restitution was that "the right to property, being a core human right, has been left unaddressed by the state of BiH." Not surprisingly, Dodik chose not to note publicly that the reason the state-level draft law failed was voting by Serb deputies in the HoP in February 2008. (Comment: It is notable that the RS draft law was scheduled for consideration by the RSNA just days after the Council of Ministers adopted a decision to reestablish a working group on restitution in order to prepare a new draft law. End Comment.) The law was adopted in its first reading in the RSNA, which sets the stage for public comment prior to consideration for final passage. Flaws in the RS Law -------------- ¶6. (C) The new RS draft law is nearly identical to the legislation overturned by Petritsch in 2000. Observers note that the law would weaken the hand of claimants (as opposed to tenants) in property disputes. The RS draft law provides for "natural restitution" (return of property in question); restitution in kind (provision of alternative property); and financial restitution (though with a limit to be specified in subsequent regulation). Article 17 stipulates that apartments with occupants who enjoy tenancy rights would not be returned to a restitution beneficiary, but instead financial compensation would be offered. Further, article 18 states that "business facilities" would not be returned in kind if they represent "the basic means" of a company, and if return would endanger the existence of that business. Finally, Article 15 stipulates that immovable property being used by RS government institutions would not be returned in kind. These provisions, taken together, create a regime in which government and businesses in the RS (much of which is politically tied to Dodik) are largely immune from claims by previous owners. Religious Communities and OHR React -------------- ¶7. (C) In conversation with us, religious community representatives laid out their criteria for a future restitution law. The IRC's consensus position remains that any restitution should be done at the state-level, include both private and community property, with a primary goal of return of lost property whenever possible. The RS draft fails on all these counts. Jewish Community President Finci noted that OHR, having previously struck down problematic RS laws on restitution, should do so again. Failure by OHR to deal with this clear challenge, he felt, would suggest a total inability to confront the RS. The HighRep sent a letter to Dodik on November 3, which recalled the grounds Petritsch gave for annulment of the RS laws in 2000, and stated that those same issues remained a problem with the new RS draft law. In particular, Lajcak noted the lack of fiscal analysis, the short deadline for submitting property claims (one year from the date of the law's passage),and the limitation of compensation to citizens of successor states of the former Yugoslavia. Comment -------------- ¶8. (C) Dodik's claim that the RS is only stepping in on the restitution as a consequence of state-level inaction is pretty rich coming as it does after the Serbs in parliament, led by his party, blocked a state-level law that would have addressed the problem. The decision to float a law that represents a warmed-over version of the 2000 RS restitution laws struck down by OHR is bolder still. All Petritsch's misgivings ring true for today's draft law. The entire episode is illustrative of how Dodik and his allies use their positions in state-level institution to prevent the state from functioning or meeting its responsibilities to its constituents, and then turn around and use that to justify further attempts to attack the state and/or build up the RS at the state's expense. ENGLISH