The Lead-Up to Elections (2 of 3)
ICG Bosnia Project, 22 September, 1996
THE LEAD-UP TO ELECTIONS
OSCE's Decision to Proceed with the Elections
- Decision to Proceed
On 25 June 1996, the OSCE Chairman-in-Office Flavio Cotti issued the long expected certification that "elections can be effective under current conditions in both Entities" 19 and gave the green light for it to take place on 14 September. He warned that if certain minimal prerequisites were not met during the remaining three months, the elections ought not take place as they would lead to further tensions and "pseudo-democratic legitimisation of extreme nationalist power structures." In particular Cotti noted the need to establish freedom of movement, freedom of expression and media, freedom of association, and, more generally, a politically neutral environment. 20 The most important prerequisite, in Cotti's view, was the elimination of "every single possibility of direct or indirect exertion of influence by indicted war criminals." Cotti acknowledged that, "after [the] years of war and suffering, perfectionism is out of place," but he stressed that "just the same: minimal prerequisite conditions must be met so that 'free, fair, and democratic elections' can take place," preconditions that he said plainly had then, "in spite of the small progress mentioned, not been fulfilled." 21
The OSCE Chairman-in-Office added, "we have scarcely three months separating us from the election day. This period must be employed in order to improve the framework conditions. This is absolutely imperative for us all. With this in mind, I appeal to all of the actors both in Bosnia and Herzegovina and abroad to observe their commitments to the fullest extent. I appeal to the international community and to the international organisations to persevere in their efforts for the implementation of the Peace Agreement with even more determination than before.... Improving the freedom of movement and establishing transportation links and telephone communications beyond the boundaries of the Entities, is an unalterable and concrete must. The same holds true for facilitating the factual return of the refugees and displaced persons, as well as for the realisation of media projects..., and for a generally enhanced freedom of the media." 22
However, despite his own warning that the prerequisite conditions did not exist in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Chairman-in-Office certified that the elections could be effective taking into consideration the "global context", and urged the Parties and the international community to redouble their efforts in the remaining months to meet at least minimum conditions.
Since June, not only have prerequisite conditions not improved, but in many respects they have deteriorated.
- Response to Arguments for Proceeding with the Elections
OSCE officials have offered the following reasons for holding the elections despite the inadequate conditions. In a report published on 13 August, the International Crisis Group argued that those reasons were not convincing, and offered the following analysis:
- The elections are not an end in themselves, but a step in the long process of reconciliation and democratisation, and an instrument for bringing stability to the region.
Elections held under the current conditions may in fact have the opposite effect. Instead of furthering reconciliation, the elections advance the likelihood of violence -- either when on election day a large number of voters cross the former confrontation lines that were hitherto hermetic, or when the time comes to install newly elected leaders to areas from where they have been cleansed. Instead of taking a step in the process of democratisation, the Parties, especially Republika Srpska and "Herzeg-Bosna," have manipulated the registration process and additionally suppressed freedom of expression and association. Thus the run-up to the elections has exacerbated not reduced instability. When voters are directed to vote according to the wishes of the ruling political parties, elections cannot be described as stabilising.
- Postponing the elections will not improve conditions.
This concern would be justified only if the international community continues to respond as indecisively as it has to date to violations of the DPA. However, ICG is proposing that the international community take resolute actions that would convince the Parties that certain minimum standards must be met before elections are put back on schedule.
- By not setting a firm date for the elections, the international community will heighten political uncertainty, increase the likelihood of political division, provide a stimulus to the forces of separation, and cause chaos and uncontrollable developments.
Holding the planned elections on September 14 under the present conditions will produce precisely these undesirable results - not only will the extreme nationalist parties be elected, but their hold on power and the territories they control will be legitimised by the OSCE as well as the international community and consolidated. The leaders of the SDS and HDZ have made no secret of their goals -- creating an independent, sovereign and exclusivist state in the case of the former, and creating a separate, exclusivist "Herzeg-Bosna" entity in the case of the latter. Both have also stated that their ultimate goal is unification with their respective "mother" countries. Though the status quo without elections may also provide such a stimulus, holding the elections now, before democratisation has been given a chance to heal the wounds of war, will only expedite the partition and remove a major incentive for the ruling parties to improve conditions: the eventual acquisition of legitimacy.
- Thanks to the poll a political opposition in conjunction with absentee, displaced voters will have a chance to start the "reconstruction of ethnically-mixed communities."
Because of the manipulations of the voter registration process in Republika Srpska and "Herzeg-Bosna" as well as the Bosnian voters living in "mother" countries, the exact opposite results have been achieved. Since most Bosnian Serbs displaced from the Federation territories have been forced to register to vote in Republika Srpska, and many Bosnian Croats forced to vote in "Herzeg-Bosna," it is not possible to discuss even symbolic reconstruction of ethnically-mixed communities.
- The parties themselves want to hold the elections.
The ruling parties urgently seek a democratic stamp and fear that time works against them. The opposition parties, who have been repeatedly disillusioned in the last four years by the international community's broken promises and half-hearted commitments, appreciate the sudden bout of international resolve to hold elections and fear it may be short-lived. As the date for the elections approaches, and as conditions deteriorate, a number of opposition parties are increasingly changing their view and threatening boycott.
- Inter-governmental organisations active in Bosnia recommend that elections take place as planned.
These inter-governmental organisations are without exception subject to the political imperatives of various governments around the world. When exerting pressure or giving the green light to proceed with the elections, these governments were more motivated by domestic political concerns -- their own electoral campaigns necessitate the staging of symbolic, tangible events that represent tangible achievement in foreign policy. In the same vein, for those countries that hope to withdraw or reduce their troop presence in Bosnia, the elections supply a useful exit benchmark. In fact many nations hold an underlying belief that partitioning Bosnia would be a simpler solution than the laborious facilitating of reintegration. This short-sighted partition approach will only guarantee another round of fighting in Bosnia, perhaps spawn further conflicts in the region, and, in the long run, cost the international community far more than extending IFOR's mandate for another year, implementing DPA more resolutely, and holding the elections shortly after the conditions in Bosnia have improved.
- Elections should take place while IFOR is still present in Bosnia, and, since the future of IFOR cannot be predicted, that means September.
IFOR, like OSCE, should tie its presence not to a calendar, but to concrete progress measured by the implementation of DPA.
- Elections will permit the creation of the State-level joint institutions foreseen in the DPA.
In the current politically charged environment, those joint institutions elected are bound to be paralysed by the diametrically opposed agendas of the Parties, which could precipitate the demise of Bosnia as a single country. The example of Mostar is an overwhelming argument.
- Elections will permit some opposition parties and leaders to be elected, thus reducing the three ruling parties' monopolistic grip on power.
This is a compelling argument, especially in the case of Bosniac controlled parts of the Federation. However in Republika Srpska, the strongest challenge to the ruling party will come from the Socialist Party of Republika Srpska -- which answers to Serbian President Milosevic and which can hardly be considered a healthier alternative to SDS, given the responsibility that Milosevic shoulders for the catastrophic events in former Yugoslavia.
- The preparations for elections are too far underway to turn back now.
In fact one major reason for postponing elections is that preparations lag so far behind. Virtually every one of OSCE's deadlines was postponed, and even then, huge logistic hurdles will have to be scaled in the next month to ensure the elections will be able to go ahead. If they do, thanks in part to the chaos inherent in an election on this scale and novelty (in a country where even the main towns have no constant power supply), in part to the enormous number of displaced and refugee voters, and in part to OSCE's slow start, voter registration figures are so low that huge numbers of Bosnian citizens will likely be disenfranchised.
Consequences of the 25 June Certification of Conditions for Elections
- Decrease of OSCE's Credibility and Leverage
OSCE was not responsible for creating the "free and fair" conditions for elections, but the organisation had great leverage-both as the body that would certify the elections and as the body empowered to penalise the parties that violated the election rules. The OSCE could have employed the leverage and sanctions to force concessions from the Parties and thus improve the circumstances in which elections were to be held. It did not do so effectively.
In theory, the OSCE was to decide whether to certify the holding of the elections on the basis of prevailing conditions in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The organisation was to gauge these conditions largely on the basis of its human rights reports on the ground. Yet, although these reports drew a picture of deteriorating conditions and although the OSCE Chairman-in-Office Cotti publicly conceded that conditions did not exist for free and fair elections, he concluded - was said above - that the poll should go ahead. By all accounts, this decision was not made independently either by Ambassador Frowick or Chairman-in-Office Cotti. It was made under heavy pressure from the governments of the "Contact Group" countries-the United States, United Kingdom, Russia, Germany and France, as well as Italy, which at the time held the presidency of the European Union.
In a string of public pronouncements, senior international statesmen and government spokesmen effectively pre-empted the certification decision and undermined the OSCE's authority. On 22 May, for instance, State Department spokesman Nicholas Burns informed reporters that the Bosnian elections would go ahead even if Bosnian Serb leader and indicted war criminal Radovan Karadzic remained in power saying: "The elections can go forward and will go forward with him [Karadzic] sitting in his bitter isolation in Pale." 23 Then on 4 June after a meeting in Berlin the Contact Group insisted that the Bosnian elections proceed on schedule. The meeting's chair Foreign Minister Klaus Kinkel said that: "This is of central importance for the implementation of the peace plan... This timetable must be adhered to." 24 And on 7 June Italian Foreign Minister Lamberto Dini stated: "The international community considers the holding of elections not later than 14 September to be essential for the peace process to go ahead." 25 In effect, these governments chose to stick to the time-frame spelled out in the DPA and to ignore the fact that the DPA's preconditions had not been fulfilled. And Chairman-in-Office Cotti was left to present the decision (see above) and Ambassador Frowick to implement it, irrespective of the prevailing conditions or, indeed, the consequences.
The decisive influence of foreign governments in the scheduling of the Bosnian elections was harmful not only because it did not take adequate account of the prevailing conditions, but also because it vastly undermined the authority and the leverage of the OSCE. It made it very difficult for the OSCE certification of conditions to be taken seriously and deprived the Parties of any incentive to improve the conditions. Once the Contact Group decided - and publicly announced - that elections would proceed, the international institutions on the ground (the OSCE and the Office of the High Representative) were obliged to shift tactics. Instead of pressuring the ruling parties to implement the DPA, they had to seduce them into co-operating with the electoral process. Since it was the local authorities, and not the OSCE, that were in fact to organise the ballot, the ruling parties were in a position to sabotage the elections by instructing the local electoral commissions to resign if ever they were dissatisfied. The precedent for an effective employment of this leverage had been set in Mostar in May when the Bosniac authorities withdrew from the local election commissions in order to secure concessions from the European Union Administration of Mostar (EUAM), thus delaying the vote there by one month. After this certification, therefore, the OSCE found itself at the mercy of the Parties.
- Deterioration of Conditions
The military aspects of DPA were implemented in the beginning of 1996 without major problems. Though the civilian aspects of the peace agreement were destined to be more problematic, early on it seemed possible that with concerted international pressure compliance would be forthcoming. In May nationalist leaders on all sides and especially those indicted for war crimes had begun to worry about their positions. Indicted Bosnian Croat General Tihomir Blaskic had given himself up to the International War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague on 1 April; Dusko Tadic, the first indicted war criminal in custody, was already on trial; and the Tribunal had decided to hear in absentia testimony against Radovan Karadzic and the Bosnian Serb military leader Ratko Mladic.
Once the ruling parties realised that elections would be rammed through irrespective of the prevailing conditions, however, they stopped even paying lip service to implementation, and conditions deteriorated rapidly. In mid-August, Ambassador Frowick himself sounded the alarm, stating: "In a number of communities, government officials have attempted to thwart the development of democratic conditions by discouraging or prohibiting freedom of movement, the return of refugees and displaced persons, freedom of expression and of the press, and freedom of association." Mentioning the municipalities of Capljina, Bugojno, Drvar, Sanski Most and Stolac in the Federation, and Doboj, Lopare, Prijedor, Teslic and Zvornik in Republika Srpska, Ambassador Frowick warned that "the OSCE reserved the right to invalidate electoral results, including the election of individual candidates, in those towns or municipalities where there is systematic interference with democratic freedoms, including freedom of movement, and gross manipulation of election procedures [until] 14 September, or in the immediate aftermath of the elections." 26
- Repatriation
Repatriation was guaranteed in the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 27 and described in the DPA as an "important objective of the settlement of the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina." 28 The Parties committed themselves to preventing activities that might "hinder or impede the safe and voluntary return of refugees and displaced persons," 29 and pledged themselves to creating the political, economic, and social conditions necessary for the start of returns. 30 With these commitments in mind, the Parties concluded that "by Election Day, the return of refugees should already be underway." 31 However, this did not take place. By mid-September, only 200,000 of more than 2.5 million refugees and internally displaced persons had returned, and principally to areas where the returnees belonged to the majority ethnic group. And even this is a misleading figure because the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) reports that close to 90,000 persons belonging to minority groups have been displaced since the signing of the DPA. Indeed, expulsions of the few remaining Bosniacs and Croats in Republika Srpska continued up to the election itself-with another wave of ethnic cleansing from Banja Luka taking place four days before the poll. 32
When refugees and internally displaced persons did return to territories controlled by one of the other nationalities, they were frequently subject to arbitrary police controls and detention, open discrimination, expulsions, and violence. In late August, for instance, Bosniacs who attempted to return to the town of Mahala (which had a pre-war Bosniac majority but which now lies within Republika Srpska) stoned the Bosnian Serb police who in turn opened fire, prompting IFOR intervention and the arrest of 47 Bosnian Serb policemen. 33 Even short assessment visits by groups of displaced persons across the inter-entity boundary line (IEBL) were prevented by mob violence or other threats - only four out of some 40 visits planned and organised by UNHCR have been successful. Individual initiatives were even more at risk. In a small sample of cases reported by the International Police Task Force (IPTF): on 28 July one Bosniac man who attempted to visit his former home near Doboj, Republika Srpska territory, was found in a ditch with his thumbs severed and ribs smashed - he died later; another Bosniac died of injuries from beatings in Banja Luka police custody; and, in early August, a Bosniac mob stoned a Serb attempting to return to his home in a suburb of Sarajevo. The local authorities usually tolerated these incidents, and in some cases actively participated in them.
- War Criminals Act with Impunity
As of mid-September, out of a total of 75 war criminals indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (Tribunal), only seven indictees had been arrested or had surrendered to the Tribunal in The Hague. The rest remained at large and, in most cases, their whereabouts in Republika Srpska, Yugoslavia, Croatia and Croat-controlled parts of the Federation are well known. Some of the accused are still exerting influence behind the scenes on their communities in a manner incompatible with the goals formulated in the DPA.
When OSCE Chairman-in-Office Cotti gave the green light to hold the elections, he said that the Parties' full co-operation with the Tribunal was a precondition for creating the necessary political conditions for free, fair, and democratic elections, and that "every single possibility of direct or indirect exertion of influence by indicted war criminals of the likes of Radovan Karadzic, must be hindered." Cotti went beyond merely calling for the removal of suspected war criminals from office; he said, "Co-operation with the Tribunal at The Hague must become a fact.... If no actions are undertaken right now against the indicted war criminals, it can be taken for granted that the elections will very quickly give way to developments diametrically opposed to those which they were expected to yield. There exists the most serious danger that they then degenerate into a pseudo-democratic legitimisation of extreme nationalist power structures and ethnic cleansing. Instead of the peaceful evolution in keeping with the Peace Agreement, the elections would lead to further dramatic tensions. Under no conditions whatsoever ... should we permit such a development to ensue." 34
- Absence of Politically Neutral Environment
The Parties to DPA agreed to "ensure that conditions exist for the organisation of free and fair elections, in particular a politically neutral environment". 35
It is difficult to imagine how the environment in Bosnia and Herzegovina could be characterised as "politically neutral" when refugees and internally displaced persons are unable to return to their homes, indicted war criminals remain at large, the IEBL and even the former Bosniac-Croat front-lines are still difficult and dangerous to cross, and only the ruling parties enjoy freedom of expression in most areas of the country.
During the election campaign, the ruling parties in fact went to great lengths to propagate fear and insecurity among voters. For example, on 15 June in the northern Bosnian town of Cazin near Bihac, former Prime Minister and current leader of the opposition Stranka za Bosnu I Hercegovinu (Party for Bosnia and Herzegovina or SBiH) Haris Silajdzic was struck on the head with a metal bar when supporters of the ruling Bosnian party SDA disrupted his rally. 36 On 2 August, another senior official of the same opposition party was again physically assaulted in Cazin. In late July in Brcko, explosives were found in the room where the opposition Socialisticka partija Republike Srpske (Socialist Party of Republika Srpska or SPRS) was scheduled to have a meeting. During the same week, an automobile used by an SPRS member was blown up in downtown Doboj. 37 Advertisements of the Croat Democratic Party (HDZ) informed Croat voters that the "survival of their nation" was at stake on 14 September. Republika Srpska television, for its part, announced that a vote against the Serb Democratic Party (SDS) would constitute a vote "against the Republika Srpska and the Serb people."
Perhaps the most graphic evidence of the climate in the country can be seen in the tactics used by the Bosnian Serb and Bosnian Croat authorities in voter registration (see below). Both groups manipulated the electoral rules to suit political ends and consolidate with the ballot that which they won with the bullet, to the extent that a new word "electoral engineering" entered the vocabulary.
- Freedom of Movement
The Parties to the DPA agreed to "ensure ... freedom of movement." 38 At the June implementation conference of the DPA they reaffirmed their belief that the right to move freely and without fear throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina was a cornerstone of elections. 39 In order to ensure that election preparations were conducted as smoothly as possible, the Parties committed themselves to facilitate the traffic of vehicles between the two entities, to ensure that local authorities cease confiscating identity documents issued by either entity, to re-establish telephone connections between the entities, and to allow all candidates and parties to engage in political activity and campaign freely and without obstruction in both entities. 40
Individuals who ventured into areas or entities not under the control of their own ethnic group were often threatened, subjected to violence, detained, or even murdered (see above, on individual ventures across the inter-entity boundary lines - IEBL). Despite bureaucratic obstacles concocted by authorities mainly in Republika Srpska, seven UNHCR sponsored bus-lines succeeded in ferrying displaced persons between the two entities. However, the buses were frequently stoned and passengers harassed, even detained. Because the license plates of private cars generally are different in the two entities as well as in the Croat-controlled areas of the Federation and are therefore a liability, individual visits could only take place by foot, bicycle, taxi, or foreign-plated car, to avoid harassment.
Campaign
- OSCE's Start-Up Problems
Unlike the United Nations or the European Commission, the OSCE, a newcomer to the inter-governmental organisations scene, does not have the institutional ability to hire staff directly or even borrow money for its operations. Instead, it is dependent on personnel seconded from and money donated by the member states. Since these states did not concentrate their energies on the OSCE or its Bosnia mission early on, the operation was severely under-staffed and under-funded during its first months. Thus in many ways, the logistics of the elections have exceeded the capacity of OSCE, a problem that has marred the whole elections' organisation.
Even when a full OSCE contingent had arrived in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the mission lacked sufficient personnel experienced in the fields of elections, human rights and information technology. Publication of provisional voting lists was delayed and it set the voter registration process back more than two months. Whereas the plan was to begin registration on 1 April, the process did not finally get underway until 10 June.
- Electoral Campaign
Campaigning effectively began the moment the DPA was signed since most parties and citizens assumed the election would take place within nine months of the 14 December signing. The official launch of the campaign came on 19 July. The OSCE used a 7.5 million DM fund to provide all political parties with the financial means to fund their electoral campaigns. Independent candidates were entitled to 11,250 DM; individual political parties received up to 375,000 DM depending on how many candidates they were fielding and what level; and coalitions a maximum of 600,000 DM.
With minimal inter-action between Republika Srpska, Bosniac-controlled Federation and Croat-controlled Federation territories, three very different election campaigns were fought across Bosnia and Herzegovina. Parties from Republika Srpska did not field any candidates in the Federation. Parties from the Federation, by contrast, did contest the elections in Republika Srpska. However, apart from television debates on TV Srpska, Federation-based parties made no attempt to campaign or to hold rallies within the Serb entity for security reasons and because most of their natural supporters, the Bosniacs and Croats from Republika Srpska, had been ethnically cleansed during the war or in its aftermath. Within the Federation the HDZ did campaign and hold rallies in Bosniac-controlled territory, especially in Sarajevo, where a small Croat electorate remains.
- War criminals
Though the international community managed after much pushing and scrambling to finally force the resignation of Radovan Karadzic from the presidency of the Republika Srpska as well as of the SDS, he remained an omnipresent campaign force. Towns in Republika Srpska were covered with his posters, SDS politicians introduced themselves on behalf of their "closest associate" and made frequent reference to Karadzic, and, as US Assistant Secretary of State John Kornblum stated, there was "evidence [Karadzic] could be participating in decisions." Ambassador Frowick put it even more poetically: "Karadzic is out of public life but he is still being mentioned in some speeches directly or indirectly - I asked that even the spirit of Karadzic be removed." 41 One example of Karadzic's lingering political influence is provided in a statement issued by the SDS on the occasion of Karadzic's resignation from the party presidency - "President Karadzic's view is that everyone must vote at the elections, and vote for the SDS, in order to prevent puppet and Bosniac parties from getting the one-third of the vote they need to drown the Republika Srpska in Bosnia and Herzegovina."
- Intimidation
Since the ruling nationalist parties, the SDS, HDZ and SDA, hold a vice-like grip over the economy and all aspects of society in the territory under their control, they are almost always exerting covert intimidation. They can easily generate mass turn-outs at their own election rallies. Due to the absence of inter-action between Serb, Croat and Bosniac-controlled territories, the electoral campaign was principally a battle between the ruling nationalist parties and their internal opposition. And the level of violence and intimidation in the campaign reflected the relative strength of the internal opposition - the stronger the internal opposition, the greater the intimidation of candidates.
Here is how it looked in the three entities:
- Republika Srpska
The principal opposition to the ruling SDS in Republika Srpska came from two five-party coalitions, the Savez za mir i progres (Union for Peace and Progress or SMP) containing the Socialisticka partija Republike Srpske (Socialist Party of Republika Srpska or SPRS) and the Demokratski patriotski blok (Democratic Patriotic Block or DPB). Both coalitions complained that their members faced harassment, intimidation and physical violence and that their meetings and rallies were systematically disrupted. 42 SPRS members, it seems, were especially targeted since that party is the best organised of the opposition and most closely linked to Belgrade and Slobodan Milosevic.
Several key SPRS members throughout Republika Srpska were dismissed from their jobs or threatened with dismissal in the course of the electoral campaign. These included Rade Pavlovic and Zdravko Stojic, the directors of the two biggest enterprises in the town of Teslic, Destilijacija and Kardial who were forced to resign in August after armed stand-offs at their homes and workplaces in which shots were fired. At about the same time, SPRS members in Priboj were threatened with unemployment if they did not switch their allegiance to the SDS; one member received a letter saying that his daughter would be raped unless he left the party; and four SPRS members in Dubica were dismissed. 43
Attempts by the SPRS to hold political meetings were often obstructed by the SDS-affiliated local authorities who refused to issue permits or to lease buildings. For example, on 9 August in Banja Luka, the SPRS was denied a permit to organise a rally, but went ahead anyway. During the week of 15 July the SPRS was unable to hold a rally in the village of Grbovica because the community building they planned to use was occupied by armed SDS members led by the municipal minister for Demobilised Soldiers. Moreover, both SMP and DPB rallies and meetings were violently and deliberately disrupted. Bomb threats were a common occurrence and on occasions, such as in the Brcko incident on 8 August (described above) when explosive devices were actually placed in meeting rooms. Moreover, at a SMP rally in Bijelina on 25 August a hand grenade was hurled into the crowd.
- Croat-Controlled Federation Territory
The atmosphere for the September elections in Croat-controlled, allegedly-defunct "Herzeg-Bosna", was foreshadowed during the Mostar poll in June. At that time, an opposition multinational coalition came forward under Jole Musa to challenge the nationalists. Many candidates standing on the Musa ticket had themselves been elected in the 1990 elections only to be ousted by hard-line nationalists during the war. These nationalists did not intend to relax their hold on power. In the week before the June vote, Musa was evicted from his office, and four of the Croat candidates in his coalition were so intimidated by threats that they dropped out. 44 As a result, the principal moderate Croat party, the Croat Peasant Party or HSS (Hrvatska seljacka stranka), did not dare to campaign in western Herzegovina. The only alternative to the HDZ that ran openly in west Mostar were the far-right parties, Hrvatska stranka prava (Croat Party of Right or HSP) and Hrvatska cista stranka prava (Croat Pure Party of Right or HCSP), which complained that they were unable to campaign properly because of HDZ intimidation.
Meanwhile, the evictions and beatings so characteristic of life in Mostar and to which the HDZ authorities turn a blind eye, continued unabated up to election day. Such incidents were not limited to Mostar. In the Livno area for example, during a one week period at the end of July there were five bombs explosions, several arsons, and shooting incidents. Also at the end of July, a Catholic church was bombed in Bugojno, possibly in retaliation for a mosque in Prozor which was set on fire the day before. 45
- Bosniac-Controlled Federation Territory
The level of intimidation and violence in Bosniac-controlled Federation territory was often worse than that in either Republika Srpska or in Croat-controlled Federation territory. The tone of the campaign was set early on by Edhem Bicakcic, a vice-president of the SDA, who threatened that the party would show no mercy to the opposition. 46 As the campaign evolved, it became clear that this was not an idle threat.
The most serious attack (described above) was that on Haris Silajdzic, president of the SBiH and candidate for Bosniac member of the Bosnian Presidency, who was badly beaten on 15 June during a rally in Cazin (northern Bosnia) by members of the SDA. Sadly it was not an isolated incident. Another senior figure in Silajdzic's party was beaten up in Cazin on 2 August. Earlier, on 26 May the UBSD (Union of Bosnian and Herzegovinian Social Democrats) representative Zoraid Mehicic was beaten up by masked police after a radio show in Tesanj. And on 3 August a group of unidentified males fired through the front door of the home of Ismet Subasic, UBSD representative in Maglaj, yelling that they "wouldn't allow the UBSD to divide Bosniacs, because as a nation they didn't need more than one party." 47
The worst excesses took place in Cazinska Krajina, that is the region around Bihac, Cazin and Velika Kladusa. In August, for example, the Bihac police seized 349 campaign posters and 5,000 leaflets belonging to the Zdruzena Lista (United List), the leading opposition coalition. The reason for the seizure - according to a receipt issued by the police - was that the paraphernalia was "against the ruling party". Opposition posters were systematically removed by the authorities, but when private individuals attempted to take down unwanted SDA posters from their own houses they were on several occasions arrested and taken for interrogation. Yet more menacingly, a bomb exploded outside the Cazin headquarters of the Socialisticka demokratska partija (Social-Democratic Party or SDP) on 20 August and several opposition politicians had grenades lobbed into their homes. In addition, former supporters of Fikret Abdic were detained and beaten by the police. 48
Elsewhere in Bosniac-controlled Federation territory, opposition rallies were occasionally disrupted by SDA supporters. For example, a Zdruzena Lista rally in Gradacac on 10 August was broken up by young men wearing SDA tee-shirts. And opposition supporters were threatened and even dismissed for their political views. The most blatant case of this occurred in Ilidza where the deputy mayor and three of his staff were sacked after they changed their political allegiance and joined Silajdzic's party. The deputy mayor was eventually reinstated.
- Media War - Absence of Freedom of Expression
In the course of more than three and a half years of war, what had formerly been an integrated Bosnian media split into three completely separate and mutually antagonistic media. As a result, three very distinct media battles were fought in the course of the election campaign in Republika Srpska, Bosniac-controlled Federation territory and Croat-controlled Federation territory.
One feature common to all three of these battles was the overwhelming influence of state television. An opinion poll in the Sarajevo monthly magazine Dani on the eve of the election indicated that 46.6 per cent of people in Bosniac-controlled Federation territory declared television as their principal source of information-far ahead of the second most influential medium, the daily newspaper Dnevni Avaz, which, according to the same poll, was the principal source of information for 7.54 per cent. 49 In Republika Srpska and Croat-controlled Federation territory the influence of state television was even more pervasive, since virtually no alternative medium exists in those parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina, although in the former constant power shortages often interrupt the TV and radio broadcasts.
As was mentioned above, the Provisional Election Commission drew up an Electoral Code of Conduct containing standards for the media and journalists. Moreover, the Media Experts Commission was set up to monitor compliance with these standards.
Both RTV Bosnia and Herzegovina (RTV B&H;) and RTV Srpska, adopted the PEC's rules of conduct with their own variations. Only HTV Mostar, the Croat broadcaster, refused to agree to the code.
According to the Institute of War & Peace Reporting's Media Monitoring Report,
"[t]he essence of both sets of rules [those of RTV B&H; and SRT] is to specify equal principles and equal access in the coverage of parties' and independent candidates' election activities... Both broadcasters also pledge not to affirm or support those political parties and candidates who denigrate their opponents in the election campaign, let alone use any form of violence or intimidation against other parties during their participation in programmes."
"Differences appear in the policies which will determine the conduct of the broadcasters. RTV B&H;'s programme policy is to take into account the 'fact that B&H; is a democratic, sovereign and politically and territorially independent state in which Bosniacs, Croats and Serbs are all constituent nations (together with others) and citizens.' SRT's policy, on the other hand, is to 'affirm the sovereignty and integrity of Republika Srpska, determined by the DPA'. SRT also declares that it 'will not present those political parties and factions whose programmes promote violent change of the constitutionally determined order of RS and threaten either its territorial integrity or the degree of independence which it has attained'." 50
- Republika Srpska Media
In Republika Srpska two of the most important candidates in the elections and leading figures in the ruling SDS also directed the key media. Momcilo Krajisnik, speaker in the Bosnian Serb parliament and candidate for Republika Srpska's representative in the three person Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina, chaired and still chairs the management board of RTV Srpska; and Velibor Ostojic, deputy premier and the fifth candidate on the SDS party list for the Bosnian parliament, controlled and still controls Radio Srpska. The consequences are predictable. Indeed, so offensive was the output of the official Bosnian Serb media that High Representative Carl Bildt accused them of putting out propaganda that "even Stalin would be ashamed of." 51
Because it had signed up to the OSCE code of conduct, RTV Srpska went through the motions of complying via nightly elections broadcasts which began on 8 July. Party representatives were given 10 minutes to present themselves and their platforms and then the bulk of the hour and a half program was devoted to a question and answer session in which the presenter both asked questions and relayed those of viewers, or at least acted as if he was doing just that. In practice, the programmes were little more than an attempt to smear all opposition to the SDS. As a result, aspiring politicians spent most of the allotted time defending themselves and their war records from accusations made by pre-selected and carefully rehearsed viewers. Moreover, when they complained about their treatment, the RTV Srpska editorial board issued a statement saying that the station was defending the national interest and Republika Srpska and concluding that:
"[Bosnian] Serb television will not allow certain parties and their leaders to attack, humiliate and hurt its journalists and editors with their groundless accusations. Political parties and coalitions which think that they will generate support from viewers through lies and still take part in the pre-election campaign, must expect to be pulled from the screen of [Bosnian] Serb television." 52
Ironically, since Serb parties refused invitations to appear on RTV B&H;, it was only on RTV Srpska that politicians from the Federation and Republika Srpska appeared together. The welcome for politicians from the Federation was invariably frosty and frequently descended into farce. When, for example, Mirsad Ceman, the SDA general-secretary appeared on RTV Srpska on 25 July he greeted the audience with "Good evening and makuz selam to all of those people for whom this means something." Ten minutes later, the programme was interrupted and Ceman disappeared from the screen. After 40 seconds the word "smetnje" (disturbance) appeared on the screen and 14 minutes later TV Srpska began broadcasting pop videos without any explanation. 53
TV Srpska's news output and especially the flagship early evening Novosti u 8 (which became Novosti u 7.30 in the course of the campaign) was even more partial. According to IWPR, "Novosti u 8 provides unreserved support to RS authorities. It fully upholds the policies, ideology and national euphoria propagated by the ruling SDS. Its relentlessly negative stance towards the Federation-and especially towards Bosniacs-aims to rule out any possibility of coexistence and reintegration." 54 Bosniacs were generally referred to in derogatory terms such as Balija or Muslim hordes, and reports from the Federation were regularly placed in the section Iz sveta (From Abroad), thereby suggesting that Republika Srpska was not part of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The election itself was effectively presented as a referendum on independent statehood and an opportunity for the people of Republika Srpska to demonstrate their faith in the SDS, its leaders and in particular the indicted war criminal Radovan Karadzic. Blanket coverage of rallies in support of Karadzic and fellow indictee General Ratko Mladic effectively signalled the beginning of serious electoral campaigning. And even after Karadzic had officially left the political scene and the OSCE vowed to ensure that he did not appear in the Bosnian Serb media, his personality and usually his posters remained a key element of all SDS rallies, most of them broadcast on TV. As election day approached, the main early evening news was postponed an hour and a half to make way for triumphalist SDS rallies.
The only beacons of light in the Republika Srpska media were Radio Krajina, an army-run radio station, and a handful of alternative newspapers, in particular Nezavisne Novine and Novi Prelom. Radio Krajina, which is run by Ratko Mladic's spokesman Milovan Milutinovic, was the "lone broadcaster to act as something other than a government transmission belt" 55 and consistently produced lively political phone-in debates featuring every party which wished to take part. Nezavisne Novine moved from being a fortnightly newspaper filled with scandals to a weekly in June and to a daily in August. The daily consisted essentially of informative agency news without commentaries. Meanwhile, Novi Prelom was bold enough to produce, for instance the week after Radovan Karadzic stepped down, a front cover with a split face - half Karadzic and half Biljana Plavsic. However, none of these alternative media had much influence beyond Banja Luka, and even then it was limited to the intellectual elite.
The role of Serbian television (RTS) was crucial in the campaign. While news originating in the Federation was invariably viewed as suspect by Bosnian Serbs in Republika Srpska, that coming from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) could not be tarnished to the same extent. As a result, RTS, whose signal covers nearly as much of Bosnia and Herzegovina as that of TV Srpska and is also viewed by Bosnian Serb refugees in Serbia, carried great weight. Moreover, its output often contrasted starkly with that of TV Srpska because Belgrade's preferred choice in the elections was clearly the Savez za mir i progres (Coalition for Peace and Progress) which contained the SPRS a close ally of Milosevic. Indeed, according to IWPR, "The nightly news programme Dnevnik follows the Socialists like the local football club."
- Media Battle in Croat-Controlled Federation Territory
The official Bosnian Croat media, which included HTV Mostar, HR Herzeg-Bosna and HR-Radio Postaja Mostar, never signed the PEC electoral Rules and Regulations and made no effort to open themselves up to the opposition during the election campaign and did it with complete impunity; no actions were ever taken by EASC or any other OSCE-run institutions. The result was an all-pervasive propaganda campaign equating "a vote for the ruling (nationalistic) party with support for nation and/or (para)state"-in other words "one-party television for a would-be one-party state". 56 As if this was not sufficient, Hrvatska Radio-Televizija, that is television from Croatia proper, whose signal covers most of Bosnia and Herzegovina, broadcast daily appeals to Bosnian Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina and abroad to vote for the ruling HDZ. According to IWPR, "in the world of Croatian Television, the HDZ is the indisputable representative of the Croat people." 57
- Media Battle in Bosniac-Controlled Federation Territory
The most free of the state-run media in Bosnia and Herzegovina was without doubt that in Bosniac-controlled Federation territory, even though the director of TV B&H;, Amila Omersoftic, was herself a candidate for the Stranka zena BiH (Women's Party of Bosnia and Herzegovina). According to IWPR, "TV B&H; has shown increasing professionalism ... The station not only allows opposition parties to take part in political programmes, it also gives them an opportunity to comment on the news. 58 Indeed, when TV B&H; failed to cover the Sarajevo campaign launch of the Zdruzena Lista (United List), on 6 August, the leading opposition coalition complained bitterly and their entire complaint was read out on the following day's news broadcast. RTV B&H;'s election-related broadcasts started on 15 July and ran every night up to the elections, giving all parties-including the HDZ-and all presidential candidates ample opportunity to introduce themselves to the electorate and present their platforms.
Journalists of RTV B&H;'s news programmes, however, in the good old communist tradition slavishly reported on the daily agendas of all key ministers, irrespective of the relative significance of their actions, thus favouring the ruling SDA. More alarmingly, however, RTV B&H; failed to report the full story on many occasions and, as the campaign came to a head, moved markedly closer to the SDA. 59
The picture was less healthy, however, in the local electronic media outside Sarajevo, especially in Tuzla and Cazinska Krajina, the area of northern Bosnia around Bihac, which were firmly under SDA control. The best illustration of the quality of the news of these hard-line SDA stations is that Radio Bihac chose not to report the attack on Haris Silajdzic in Cazin on the day itself. And a day later, when it briefly mentioned the event, it was the fourth item on what was otherwise a thin news day. 60
The print media in Bosniac-controlled Federation territory, which boasts three daily papers in Sarajevo, also generally performed well and professionally for most of the campaign. Largely funded from abroad and employing more experienced journalists than the electronic media, papers like the daily, Oslobodjenje, the fortnightly Slobodna Bosna and the monthly Dani consistently provided their readerships with informed and informative articles.
- Failure of International Media Initiatives to Have Impact
The most influential international media projects aimed at Bosnia and Herzegovina pre-date the DPA. These are the Serb, Croat and Bosnian language radio broadcasts of Voice of America, Deutsche Welle, BBC World Service, Radio France Internationale and Radio Free Europe. All these services offer an alternative to the three state-controlled media in Bosnia and Herzegovina and have built up audiences over many years.
More recent international attempts to influence the Bosnian media have thus far failed to make an impact or to address the fundamental problems. Instead of tackling the media within Republika Srpska or Croat-controlled Federation territory where the need was greater, the international community focused on Bosniac-controlled Federation territory. A Swiss-financed radio station, the Free Election Radio Network (FERN), began broadcasting on 15 July and ran until the elections. With a staff of 20, including stringers, it claimed to cover 81 per cent of Federation territory as well as 66 per cent of Republika Srpska. However, it broadcast out of Sarajevo and the full-time staff was concentrated in Bosniac-controlled Federation territory. Moreover, the Republika Srpska authorities banned FERN's broadcasts because it had not sought their permission. 61 As a result, FERN effectively only covered the part of the country where the media was already the most open and was not on the air long enough before the elections to build up an audience.
TV-IN, the $11 million television station sponsored by the Office of the High Representative that was supposed to span Bosnia and Herzegovina and provide an alternative to the state-controlled media, began broadcasting a very basic programme only on 7 September. Technically the project was very difficult to put together before the elections' deadline; politically, it proved even more problematic because of successive Bosnian government protests and obstructions. The station, which is based on a network of five existing, independent Bosniac stations, broadcasts from Sarajevo, but this location minimises its potential impact in Republika Srpska and Croat-controlled Federation territory. Moreover, the first week of broadcasting was characterised by massive in-fighting between its component parts, including a boycott of the network by one of its member stations, and consistently sloppy production. Worse still, the picture quality was too poor for most Bosnians to tune in and its outreach was limited.
Disenfranchisement of Refugees
Many Bosnian refugees were unable to vote in the elections through no fault of their own. This was in part a result of the complexity of the voter registration process and the fact that Bosnians are dispersed throughout the world. But it was also in part a result of the OSCE's own organisational problems and the tight time-frame within which it worked. According to the Embassy of Bosnia and Herzegovina in Vienna, 200,000 refugees in 54 countries had been disenfranchised because of these difficulties.
With refugees dispersed across 63 different countries, it was critical to begin registering voters as early as possible to ensure maximum participation. However, as mentioned in Section C1 above, because of severe under-funding of the OSCE's operations during the first six months and a critical lack of information technology experts, voter registration only began on 10 June. Worse still, an already tight time-frame was exacerbated by a decision to press ahead with municipal elections at the same time as the national elections-a decision that was not required by the DPA and one that was revoked later after it was already too late to prolong the registration period. 62
The initial decision to stage municipal elections at the same time made the logistical task much greater, since applications for absentee ballots had to be broken down into municipalities. As a result, the final deadline for voter registration abroad, which was itself extended several times, was 8 August - barely one month before the ballot. In the process out of an estimated 900,000 refugee voters, 63 only 641,000 had registered to vote. 64
Electoral Engineering
The DPA stipulates that "[a] citizen who no longer lives in the municipality in which he or she resided in 1991 shall, as a general rule, be expected to vote, in person or by absentee ballot, in that municipality," and continues, "Such a citizen may, however, apply... to cast his or her ballot elsewhere." However, DPA continues "[b]y Election Day, the return of refugees should already be underway, thus allowing many to participate in person...." 65
It is clear that most displaced Bosnians were expected by the international community to be voting in the municipalities in which they were living in 1991 in order to start the process of reintegration. Voting elsewhere was to be the exception. Under the electoral rules and regulations drawn up by the Provisional Election Commission (PEC), displaced persons wishing to vote not where they lived in 1991 but in the municipality in which they were currently living or in a different municipality in which they intended to live, had to fill out a so-called form P-2, apply to the PEC and then vote in person on the day.
- In-Country Voter Registration
Displaced Bosniacs and Croats now living in the Federation generally registered to vote in the municipalities in which they were living in 1991 by absentee ballot (187,414) and many others expressed their intention to travel on the voting day to their former homes and cast the ballot personally. Only 59,473 asked to vote where they currently lived. For displaced Serbs from the Federation now living in Republika Srpska the numbers were almost perfectly reversed: 78,196 wanted to vote by absentee ballots and 241,741 chose to vote in their current place of residence. ICG analysts operating as international observers on election day visited the northern town of Derventa in Republika Srpska and found that many of the absentee voters were in fact casting their ballots for another town (Srpski Petrovac) within Republika Srpska. The OSCE has apparently been unaware of this vast inside-entity absentee vote intention and had not prepared enough ballots for Srpski Petrovac (envelopes printed for Bosanski Petrovac were stuffed with Drventa ballots). This may explain the high figure of 28.5% invalid votes in Drventa (10,126 of a total of 25,466). 66
Had these displaced Serbs chosen of their own free will to switch their vote from their previous homes in the Federation to their new place of residence in Republika Srpska, this might have been acceptable. However, the Bosnian Serb authorities systematically pressured them into registering to vote in Republika Srpska and not in the municipalities in which they were living in 1991. In the former front-line town of Doboj, for example, the official SDS-controlled Commission for Refugees and Displaced Persons decreed that displaced persons would only receive housing, humanitarian aid, and other benefits on presentation of a special certificate which they could acquire by showing voter registration form P-2. 67 These tactics were subsequently extended to many other regions of Republika Srpska. 68 As a result, what was supposed to be the exception in practice became the rule, distorting the spirit if not the letter of the DPA.
OSCE Co-ordinator for International Monitoring Ed van Thijn described the voter registration as "fraud", saying: "It is not fraud in favour of a political candidate but it is fraud in favour of solving territorial problems." And he concluded: "It's very sinister. Displaced persons ... are moved around against their will in order to fulfil all sorts of political aims. I think it's a serious violation of human rights." 69
Soren Jessen-Petersen, UNHCR special envoy for Former Yugoslavia, agreed: "In some cases, the authorities threatened to withhold humanitarian aid to coerce voters to opt for Registration Form [P-2]. Many received registration forms which already indicated the location at which they were to vote. We know only of cases of people who had the courage to report them. The real scale of the problem, however, may be much greater." And he warned: "Results of the registration for the September elections herald a dismal future for multi-ethnicity in Bosnia and Herzegovina.... [T]he tactics used in the campaign will produce hard-line winners and xenophobic nationalists committed to the maintenance of hostile homogenous statelets.... Unless all refugees and displaced people are allowed to vote freely on election day and unless the results of the elections are fully enforced, the winners once again will be those who waged the war and the losers will be their victims, i.e. refugees and displaced peoples." 70
- Voter Registration Abroad
The results of voter registration abroad or more specifically the registration of Bosnian Serb refugees currently living in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) were the "widespread abuse of rules and regulations" which persuaded Ambassador Frowick to postpone municipal elections. 71 In the words of one official in the Office of the High Representative who prefers not to be named, "Because the Americans were so determined to hold elections, the Serbs could have succeeded in carrying out a huge amount of manipulation, but the scale of manipulation of refugees in Yugoslavia was so massive that we had to react."
In total, 123,007 Bosnian Serb refugees in FRY registered via form P-2 to vote in person on the day of the election in municipalities across Republika Srpska in which they supposedly intended to live. This included 31,278 in Brcko, 19,746 in Srebrenica, 12,365 in Zvornik, 11,362 in Doboj, 8,595 in Foca, 5,878 in Prijedor, and 3,159 in Modrica. 72 In practical terms, all formerly Bosniac-majority municipalities were strategically stacked with Serb refugee votes.
The Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia monitored voter registration there and took testimonies from refugees who fled from areas of Bosnia and Herzegovina that are now under the control of the Federation. It concluded that: "The whole [voter registration] process is being carried out along most precise instructions. The aim is that fewest possible refugees register for the list of BH Federation. Local authorities at the registration polls in municipalities have skilfully avoided giving any explanations to refugees, as they are bound to do by the rules of the procedure." 73
Specifically, officials of all three governmental entities (Republika Srpska, FRY and the Republic of Serbia) discouraged and prevented refugees from registering to vote in their home areas (either in person or in absentia) and directed them to register to vote in person in areas of Republika Srpska that used to have Bosniac majorities. The Helsinki Committee obtained testimony from refugees from Drvar, now in the Federation, who attempted to register to vote in absentia or in person in their home town. Serb election officials tried to persuade the Drvar refugees to register to vote in Srebrenica, Brcko, Zvornik and other Serb-held districts where Serbs comprised a minority of the population before the war. In the case of the refugees in Serbia, few were informed that they had any possibility to vote in Federation territory or to choose an intended place of residence in RS; they were simply handed form P-2s with polling stations already chosen for them. At a polling centre in one Belgrade suburb voters coming to register were told: "All those from the Federation can vote in one of the offered places in Republika Srpska." Some refugees were told that they would get new houses if they voted for the SDS. 74
OSCE's Responses
- Election Appeals Sub-Commission
The Election Appeals Sub-Commission (EASC) is (as stated above) the one organ within the OSCE which could effectively ensure compliance with the DPA and the PEC Rules and Regulations during the electoral campaign and election day. As of 13 September, the EASC had issued 53 judgements and seven advisory opinions since its first meeting on 2 July. Significantly, 27 of these decisions were published during the last two weeks of the electoral campaign, thus minimising the deterrent effect they could have otherwise had. Of the 53 decisions 33 were dismissals of complaints, two were interim judgements on complaints in need of further investigation, four were limited to warnings of future action or censoring of local officials, one judgement ordered the OSCE to correct registration errors for 13 voters, and 13 decisions resorted to punitive action. Seven of those punitive decisions were made against SDA or Bosniac officials, including against members of LECs, five were entered against SDS or Bosnian Serb officials, including against a member of an LEC, and one was against HDZ and a Bosnian Croat member of an LEC.
Only in three decisions did the EASC use the most potent sanction available in its mandate-the removal of candidates from party lists for violations of the PEC Rules and Regulations. On 11 July, the EASC found that SDA was responsible for a physical attack on opposition candidate Haris Silajdzic and removed the first seven names on the SDA party list for municipal elections in Cazin. In a second such decision on 15 August, the EASC found HDZ responsible for the unauthorised removal of voter registration forms from the registration centre in Mostar and ordered the immediate removal of one HDZ candidate's name from the party list for the Neretva Canton. In a third decision on 3 September, SDA was again found responsible for disrupting an opposition political rally and one of its candidates for municipal election was removed from the party list.
Another sanction available in the EASC arsenal is fines. In five cases the EASC penalised the three ruling parties: the SDA was assessed penalties of US $25,000 (DM 37,500) and 15,000 (DM 22,500) in two separate cases; the SDS was fined 25% of its entitlement of campaign funds from the OSCE in a first case, and $50,000 (DM 75,000) in a second case; and the HDZ was fined $10,000 (DM 15,000).
Other penalties were also included in EASC's 13 punitive decisions, with multiple penalties assessed in most cases: in three cases the violators were censored; in two cases involving voter registration fraud or irregularities, the registration was repeated; in six cases party officials or candidates were ordered to broadcast public apologies or statements promising that the particular violation would not be repeated; in seven cases, those responsible were warned that the EASC would take stronger action if the violations were repeated; and in one case offensive posters were ordered removed.
The EASC was reluctant to resort to serious sanctions despite the considerable powers available to it. This is best illustrated by three decisions and opinions that involved one of the most egregious violations of the DPA: the SDS advocacy of secession, an open threat to the territorial integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Throughout the electoral campaign, the SDS and other Bosnian Serb parties and candidates had asserted that they would not permit the drowning of Republika Srpska in a Muslim state, and that their only goal was to confirm with the ballot what they had won during the war, working toward the unification of all Serbs in one state. On 8 August, the OSCE Mission issued a press statement noting "with mounting concern statements from the Republika Srpska arrogating to this Entity the right to assert sovereignty as an independent State." 75 Yet such statements continued, as the SDS ignored the OSCE appeal to adhere to the spirit and the letter of DPA. Finally in a 6 September Advisory Opinion, the EASC declared: public statements that undermine or deny the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina constitute serious violations of the DPA; candidates who have made such statements must retract them and declare their commitment to uphold the DPA should they be elected to public office; parties must distance themselves from such statements and must discipline any member who makes such statements; and candidates or parties who make or tolerate such statements will be penalised. 76
At an SDS campaign rally on 8 September, party candidates and leaders again made statements denying the territorial integrity of Bosnia, and asserting that if the SDS retained power it will quickly lead the Republika Srpska to independence and union with Serbia. In a decision published on 10 September, the EASC responded to several complaints about the SDS statements, and found that the "tenor and content of the SDS campaign is in breach of the General Framework agreement and the Rules and Regulations of the PEC." Accordingly, the EASC ordered the SDS to pay a civil penalty of US $50,000 (DM 75,000), ordered SDS candidates and officials to refrain from any such further statements, and put SDS on notice that if its candidates continue to make such statements, "they can expect to have their candidacies for public office terminated" and that "they will be removed from the list." 77
The very next day on 11 September and again in the following days, SDS leaders including Biljana Plavsic, President of Republika Srpska after Karadzic's stepping down, delivered inflammatory statements at SDS campaign rallies in Banja Luka and elsewhere. Plavsic said "all nations have their goals, ... our ultimate aim is to have a unified Serb state in the Balkans." 78 In a third opinion addressing the same issue in less than one week, the EASC concluded that "[I]t is hardly idle speculation to suppose that the oratory of today, which flouts the international community as dangerously as it challenges the constitutional foundation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, could lead to violence in the near future. If the SDS is allowed to make these statements with impunity, after having received such a clear warning of the consequences, the unmistakable message that is sent to SDS supporters throughout Republika Srpska, is that they can act in accordance with these statements, with equal impunity." Yet despite the "clear warning" in the 10 September decision that SDS leaders or candidates who continue to make such statements "will be removed from the list", the EASC merely ordered Biljana Plavsic to make an apology on Srpska Television and issued another warning that if the apology comes late or is distorted "three of the first five candidates will be removed from the SDS Party list." 79
A second illustration of EASC's restraint is its decision on a complaint filed against the SDS for displaying throughout Republika Srpska campaign posters with the photograph of indicted war criminal and fugitive Radovan Karadzic. In a decision published on 10 September, the EASC concluded that the display of such posters "represent a serious breach of the Rules and Regulations of the [PEC];" it ordered the SDS to broadcast and publish a statement addressed to its members ordering the removal of the posters and to prevent the appearance of Karadzic posters in its rallies; and it promised that the EASC will take no further action if the SDS "complies with its undertaking in an appropriate manner." However, the EASC also admitted that "the enforcement powers of the Sub-Commission do not extend to private individuals." Exploiting this loophole, the SDS failed to remove similar placards with the photograph of Karadzic, displayed no doubt by "private individuals" over whom the EASC had no jurisdiction. During the following days, the SDS was not alone flouting the prohibition on pictures of indicted war criminals on campaign posters; the HDZ was also displaying pictures of Dario Kordic during a campaign rally in Vitez. 80 The EASC decision ordered the SDS to remove "all posters of Radovan Karadzic which are on display inside or in the immediate vicinity of polling stations" (this was 48 hours before the vote and the rule allowing no posters whatsoever in or near polling stations entered into effect), and threatened otherwise to remove SDS candidates from the party list for the National Assembly of Republika Srpska. 81
All those decisions came late in the campaign, when they already had no deterrent effect on possible violations. Moreover, by not using its mandate to sanction offenders more resolutely, even in cases when the violations could lead to serious conflict and threaten the whole fabric of the DPA, the EASC has encouraged some of the Parties to escalate the extreme nationalist rhetoric and to flaunt their immunity. Furthermore, the EASC's failure to follow up on its own warnings that candidates will be removed from the party lists if serious breaches of DPA and the PEC Rules and Regulations were repeated, makes a mockery of the international community's effort in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
- Media Experts Commission
The Media Experts Commission (MEC) has been even less effective than the EASC. Mirza Hajric, representative of the Bosnian government in the MEC, resigned on 8 September citing his frustration with the ineffectiveness of the commission. In his resignation letter to Ambassador Frowick he wrote: "Though the MEC received a mandate from the PEC, the most powerful body within the OSCE, and has all necessary facilities to do its job, I consider that the results of its work and that of its five regional commissions is well below an acceptable minimum." 82
The MEC held nineteen meetings between 3 May and 5 September 1996. The first ten meetings addressed mainly technical issues - including definitions and terminology - and very few complaints. Also, the MEC used the better part of the first 10 meetings to reach a decision on the issuance of press accreditation. 83 The MEC addressed some 30 complaints, for most of which it asked for additional explanations. In the few cases in which the MEC decided to take action, it merely required apologies and referred a few others to the PEC for further action.
The first substantive ruling was made by the MEC in July. After a complaint was lodged on the basis of the independent Media Monitoring Report regarding an offensive statement made in June on Srpska Radio and TV (SRT) by its editor in chief, on July 11 the MEC decided to order the SRT editor in chief to apologise "to people whom he qualified as 'good for nothing ... who are ready to surrender practically the whole [Republika Srpska] state to Alija Izetbegovic's hands...'." 84 In a follow up decision on the same case the MEC added that "should [the editor in chief] not abide by this decision, further measures will be taken against SRT." 85 The apology was finally delivered on SRT on 27 August.
In a complaint regarding press accreditation in Republika Srpska, local police denied entry to a Finnish journalist who had IFOR press credentials. After considering the complaint for four weeks, the MEC recommended that the official responsible for the incident be censored by the Republika Srpska authorities so that "in the future he will not be in a position to hinder journalistic work on the territory of RS". 86 However, harassment of journalists in Republika Srpska continued unabated. 87
When the MEC referred cases to the PEC with a recommendation for further action, they were equally ineffective. In a case in which Croatian TV (HRT) had broadcast HDZ political material, the MEC decided that the case involved the clear interference of one country in the electoral process of another in direct contravention to the DPA and the PEC Rules and Regulations. The MEC referred the case to the PEC with a recommendation that the "PEC draw the attention of HRT on the matter." 88 In a case in which the Republika Srpska authorities did not allow FERN Radio to broadcast from its territory, the MEC referred the case to the PEC with a "recommendation to the PEC that Republika Srpska be ordered to immediately grant the appropriate permit to Radio FERN or to take any appropriate action as deemed necessary." 89 Republika Srpska eventually complied with the PEC order.
The MEC's ineffectiveness is best illustrated in another case involving RTV Srpska. Despite several appeals and admonitions from the MEC, as of 5 September, SRT had refused to properly broadcast voter education material as required by the OSCE. One week before the elections, the MEC once again ordered SRT to broadcast the OSCE Voter Education material. 90 SRT finally complied with the MEC order during the last week of the campaign.
| |
