Amir Kliko, doctor of historical sciences, talks about the strengthening of NATO since its inception, the aspirations of our country, solutions for the Balkans and the relationship between Bosniaks and Croats.
Bearing in mind the political crisis in the country, how far is Bosnia and Herzegovina from NATO membership today? Would the threats to the country that we hear almost every day be possible if our country was in the Alliance?
- I think we are not that far from NATO, because it has been present in BiH for 30 years, where its command is also located. The current political situation affects that, however, the matter still depends on NATO's interest, when the issue will definitely end. We are almost in NATO. It should be kept in mind that BiH, Serbia and Kosovo are the only countries in the Balkans that are not members and they are an enclave in the wider environment of NATO and EU member states, a hermetically sealed space.
Enticing area
All countries in the surrounding area are members of NATO, and this provides additional security for NATO, that there is no rush and that full membership is conditioned by some important steps such as the economy, the organization of the state, the suppression of bribery and corruption. NATO's interest in Bosnia and Herzegovina was demonstrated in the 90s, even though the Bosniaks were not satisfied with their intervention, and the Serbs were angry, because NATO was fighting in Bosnia and Herzegovina when it bombed Serbian positions at the end of the war.
How far has NATO itself progressed since its establishment as an explicitly military pact, what does it represent today and are the best indicators of the benefits of joining the Alliance the results of the newest members?
- I would not agree that NATO is explicitly a military organization, it is, like any other military alliance, primarily political, because it is formed by the leaders of certain countries for the purpose of protecting some of their interests both in their own countries and in the world. The army is an extended arm of politics and every military alliance is a consequence of political action.
The first purpose of NATO was to unite the countries of Western Europe, 12 of them, led by the USA, to unite the military potential in opposing possible Soviet aggression. They say that wars are not won by armies, but by dedicated industry, and this was proven in the First and Second World Wars. With the collapse of the Warsaw Pact in 1990, given the nature of NATO's continuation, it would have been expected that it would have died, however, that did not happen. In fact, it became an even stronger and more powerful institution in military, political and economic terms. And to make things interesting, after 1990, it expanded considerably to include many countries that previously formed the Warsaw Pact. The world's largest investors, capitalists, are from the countries that form the backbone of NATO, those that formed it. To them, Eastern and Southeastern Europe is a very tempting area to make quick, good money, but they rarely venture into it. Foreign investors are also present in Bosnia and Herzegovina, but significantly less than when Bosnia and Herzegovina joins NATO.
What challenges do we face when it comes to NATO integration and are we ready to go through a series of economic reforms, because even 80 percent of what NATO requires of us is not related to the army, but to the judiciary, the economy...?
- Doing business in the economy depends on the state structure, that is, the policy that is in power. The West operates in regulated countries, where the law is respected. We are witnessing that in BiH, somewhere to a lesser extent, but also to a greater extent, it is not done that way. NATO wants a normal Western economy to be established here. NATO wants a stable state from its administration, which will implement laws harmonized with Western European norms, a stable market, the way their businessmen work. The key to all problems in BiH is the real interest of the West, that is, the countries that make up NATO. They can lead to order as they influenced the beginning, course and character of the war, but also its end, more precisely the order in BiH that they established.
What do you foresee as a solution for the Balkans? How long can Serbia remain neutral, and Russia and China create problems in BiH itself?
- I don't think that Russia and China are creating a problem in Bosnia and Herzegovina, that is done by big-state politicians from Serbia, and then from Croatia, who include international diplomacy to help realize their goals, and in this particular case they are turning to Russia and China. The Bosniak response is that they are trying to include Turkey in an identical way. Of course, Russia and China recognize some of their influences, they will not get involved just for the love of Belgrade and Dodik, they probably found some interest, considering the NATO environment of Bosnia and Herzegovina. I think they are at least twenty or more years late with that influence.
And as far as the best solution for the Balkans is concerned, it is joining the EU and NATO, with the fact that Western countries must force the leadership of BiH to really start respecting the law, to create a state and enable investments. It is not a problem for Dodik to stop at the end, I believe that there are a hundred more Dodik behind him who would continue where he stops.
You published the book "War in Central Bosnia during the aggression against RBiH", in which you describe Croatia's relationship with BiH, as well as the armed conflict of the HVO with the RBiH Army. How do you view the relationship between official Zagreb and our country today?
- The relations between Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia, as a country, are relatively young, but the relations between Croats and Bosniaks in our country last several centuries longer. If we exclude some incidents and events recorded in history, we can say that these relations have always been at an enviable level. BiH and Croatia had a dual relationship from 1990 to 1996, where there was mutual assistance, and that cooperation gave good results, especially during the war. At the same time, Franjo Tuđman's policy towards Bosnia and Herzegovina was conducted with the aim of dividing it. There is a big difference between Serbia and Croatia versus Bosnia and Herzegovina, even during the time marked by the Hague Tribunal as the time of Herceg-Bosnia's joint criminal enterprise against Bosnia and Herzegovina from January 1993 to March 1994, there was strong and strong opposition among Croats and in Croatia to Tuđman's policies. Such a thing did not exist in Serbia and its politics according to the policies of Slobodan Milošević, nor was there such a strong resistance from Bosnia and Herzegovina. Serbs according to the policy as it was in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Croats. Even in HDZ BiH itself, there was strong opposition to the policy of dividing BiH.
I think that the Bosniak side has also missed a lot in the past 20 years in promoting better cooperation with Croatia. In the attempt to implement Tuđman's policy in Bosnia and Herzegovina, many damages, material and human, were suffered by BiH. Croats, especially in central Bosnia, than Bosniaks, because they died as soldiers. That's why I say that Milanović's playing around in some false attempt to implement the same policy is actually putting him in danger and the same risks that Tuđman brought Bosnia and Herzegovina into. Croats in the 90s.
Until the representatives of the Croatian people in BiH institutions to be declaratively in favor of our country's membership in the EU and NATO, while doing everything to create new divisions within the country?
- Bh. Croats do not have an independent policy and in that sense they are not an autonomous and independent political nation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. They have been implementing politics from Croatia since the beginning of the 90s, and this is one of the biggest problems in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Croats. Stjepan Kljuić, Markešić, Brković, Lasić, Komšić and all others are no less Croats than everyone else, but they are also Croats who are trying to create BiH. Croatian politics. They opposed the political subjugation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Croat interests Franjo Tuđman and the state leadership of Croatia at that time. That resistance, it seems to me, still exists today.
Safe frame
I don't know if Milanović thinks he has Tudjman's political strength to say what he doesn't, but I don't think he has it. I believe that in the Croatian academic community, HDZ, there are significant friends of BiH and that BiH should turn more towards that Croatia. Representatives of the Croatian people publicly support BiH's Euro-Atlantic integration and its entry into NATO for the reason that they do not want to be labeled as their opponents in front of the international community. While Croatia is protected by its membership in NATO and the EU, these structures simultaneously threaten the security of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Croats by encouraging their political leadership to obstruct and slow down the integration of Bosnia and Herzegovina into the same safe framework. Those political forces outside Bosnia and Herzegovina that control the Croatian and Serbian political leaders in Bosnia and Herzegovina should help Bosnia and Herzegovina to successfully join all Euro-Atlantic integrations if they want real benefits and security for Bosnia and Herzegovina. Serbs and Croats, because the EU and NATO are the most reliable guarantors of peace and economic progress for everyone, not just Bosniaks.
Source: Oslobodjenje.ba