REPUBLIKA SRPSKA DELEGATES BLOCK ADOPTION OF

UNCLAS SARAJEVO 000804 SENSITIVE SIPDIS EUR/SCE FOR HYLAND, FOOKS; NSC FOR HELGERSON E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PGOV PHUM PREF PREL BK SUBJECT: REPUBLIKA SRPSKA DELEGATES BLOCK ADOPTION OF BOSNIA,S RETURN STRATEGY ¶1. (SBU) SUMMARY: On June 18, 2009, the Republika Srpska (RS) delegates in the House of Peoples of the BiH Parliament (BiH HoP) rejected a proposed Revised Strategy for implementation of Annex VII (dealing with returns of displaced persons in Bosnia and Herzegovina) and returned it to the Council of Ministers (CoM) for refinement and adjustment. The delegates demanded that local integration and just compensation, or housing solutions for those who cannot or do not wish to return, be supported financially and treated equally with support for displaced returnees. In response, Bosniak parties, led by the Party of Democratic Action (SDA),threatened to withdraw their support for passing a Law on Census in the CoM and the State Parliament, something the "Prud Three" political leaders agreed to in November 2008. Mario Nenadic, Assistant Minister of Human Rights and Refugees (MinHRR) characterized the demand of Serb delegates as a dangerous political move that would certainly be a death blow to the already-fragile return process. Nenadic suggested the Parliamentary vote was a consequence of a long-term campaign by some inside the MinHRR working in the interest of Serb nationalist political leaders. END SUMMARY. RS Pushes for Integration -------------- ¶2. (SBU) On June 18, 2009, RS delegates from the Alliance of Independent Social Democrats (SNSD) and the Party of Democratic Progress (PDP) in the BIH HoP rejected the proposed Revised Strategy for implementation of Annex VII (the annex of the Dayton Peace Agreement that deals with the rights of displaced persons and refugees to return and repossess their property) in Bosnia, and returned the law to the Council of Ministers for "further refinement and adjustments." The Strategy is an improved version of the 2003 Return Strategy; it provides framework, mechanisms, and a range of recommendations for successful and sustainable completion of Bosnia's return process by 2014. The RS delegates' main criticism was directed at the Strategy's overwhelming support for return (though this is consistent with past strategies),while, in their view, it fails to equally treat the issue of local integration of displaced persons in the communities of displacement, a solution the RS delegates exclusively prefer. The delegates demanded housing solutions or just compensation for those families or individuals who do not wish or are unable to return to their prewar communities. Finally, they asked the CoM to propose a Law on a Fund for Just Compensation as a necessary legal basis for implementation of just compensation. Bosniak Parties Retaliate -------------- ¶3. (SBU) Rejection of the Strategy prompted fierce reactions by Bosniak politicians, especially Sulejman Tihic, the President of SDA, and Beriz Belkic, from the Party for Bosnia and Herzegovina (SBiH). Tihic said his party would, in response to RS rejection of the Return Strategy, block the adoption of the Law on Census in both the CoM and the Parliament. (Note: this Law must be passed if Bosnia and Herzegovina is to carry out a census in 2011. The last census was conducted in 1991. If not rectified soon, the lack of a current census will impede BiH on its EU path.) Tihic told the media that the adoption and implementation of Annex VII, the taking of a loan of KM 500 million from international banks to support returns, and the carrying out of a census in 2011 were all part of the same package, a political deal he negotiated with Covic and Dodik in Prud on November 8, 2008. Tihic said that if one element of this package agreement fails the whole package fails. Compensation for Integration not in Annex VII -------------- ¶4. (SBU) Mario Nenadic, Assistant Minister in the MinHRR and our longstanding contact, told the Embassy that the recent move of the RS delegates is a dangerous political maneuver. He sees it as a final stab at the already fragile and diminished return process in Bosnia. Nenadic explained that a provision of just compensation and support for local integration to all those who don't want to return to their prewar homes has no legal basis in Annex VII. He explained, however, that Annex VII does include (and the Strategy foresees) a plan of dealing with compensation issues only for those people who, for various reasons, cannot return to their prewar places of living and who haven,t been able to repossess their property. Since the property restitution process (referring to property illegally occupied or destroyed during the recent war) in Bosnia has been very successful, the number of individuals and families eligible for this kind of assistance would likely not be very high. However, the dimensions of this problem are not known at this moment. Nenadic emphasized that the Office of the High Representative also agrees with his interpretation. He said he is certain that, if a legal basis is created to equally support both local integration and return, returns in Bosnia would suffer grievously. Plotting from Inside the Ministry -------------- ¶5. (SBU) Nenadic told us that the rejection of the Strategy comes as no surprise to him. For quite some time now, Nenadic said, he has seen a clear division along ethnic lines in both the MinHRR and in the State Commission for Refugees, which allocates joint funding for returnees. The best illustration was a recent allocation of return funds for a project in Zvornik, through which local integration of people who have no intention of returning was supported. Also, recently several RS-based associations sent a petition with 10,000 signatures to the Ministry and the Parliament supporting the RS delegates' recommendations. The petition was allegedly coordinated by Dragomir Kovac, SNSD Secretary of the Ministry, and Mladjen Bozovic, Director of the Return Fund. The End Phase of Returns -------------- ¶6. (SBU) MinHRR claims 140,000 persons (approximately 45,000 families) still seek return to their prewar homes in Bosnia, based on information compiled from individuals and families who declared their interest in returning. The actual figure of those who wish to return, as opposed to just receive reconstruction assistance for returning, is certainly much lower. UNHCR reports more than 1 million of the 2.2 million people who had to flee their homes during the war have returned to their prewar homes. This figure is also highly debatable, as the statistics have been generated primarily on property repossessions, not on actual returns. NGO estimates of the actual number of returnees fluctuate between 30 and 60 percent of that figure, depending on the municipality. Provisional statistical figures on return have dropped during the past few years, in part due to slow, inefficient, and inadequate action of local authorities in supporting the process. Comment -------------- ¶7. (SBU) The story of actual returns in Bosnia is more or less complete. No matter how much more assistance is provided, a great new influx of returnees is highly unlikely. However, Bosnia should have the capacity and the mechanisms to assist those who wish to return, so that it can formally close this chapter by the end of year 2014. The Revised Strategy for implementation of Annex VII is (or was) a means of doing so. On the other hand, calls for the moral and legal equivalency of local integration which come from RS delegates contain a dangerous message that the results of ethnic cleansing are now being cemented and that non-return deserves equal attention and assistance as return. This would run counter to all the efforts and millions of dollars the international community has invested in returns over the years. Local integration is something the RS has been supporting for years, both politically and financially, in parallel with international support for actual returns. No one can or will stop the RS from continuing to do so in the years to come. However, blessing that process at the State level and enshrining it into the Strategy for implementation of Annex VII would open a Pandora's box. ENGLISH