bosnia report
New Series No: 27-28 January - May 2002
 
Response
by Bosnia Report

We certainly agree that accuracy of reporting is important for ‘the development of B-H as a modern European state’. However, we cannot accept the validity of the specific arguments deployed above:

 

1. the marginal role played by the Constitutional Commissions since their establishment, and the fact that even compromise constitutional changes had eventually to be imposed by High Representative Petritsch in both entities, merely give added force to our characterization of the OHR decision not to proceed to full implementation of the Constitutional Court ruling;

2. the facts speak for themselves - the contested tendering process was voided on 2 August 2001 by the Telecommunications Regulatory Agency, whose director was subsequently replaced;

3. the ownership structure of ‘Aluminij’ Mostar remains contested, the Federation authorities are still seeking revision of changes made during and after the war, the virtually mono-ethnic structure of the present workforce remains unaltered (see the devastating dossier published in Dani (Sarajevo), 21 September 2001, including interview by Senad Pecanin with ‘Aluminij’ director Mijo Brajkovic and other officers of the firm): the non-coercive OHR policy reaffirmed above simply amounts to accepting the fait accompli, against the interests of both the original workforce and a plural Bosnia-Herzegovina.

contents
contents

   Table of contents

  Latest issue

  Archive

  Search

  Support the Institute

  Subscriptions

 
home | about us | publications | events | news | Library | contact | bosnia | search | bosnia report | credits