JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN UNION AFFAIRS debate -
Wednesday, 28 Mar 2012

Situation in Western Balkans: Discussion with EU Special Representative

Chairman

The first item on our agenda today is issues facing the western Balkans region. I am delighted to welcome to the meeting Ambassador Peter Sorensen, the European Union's special representative and head of the EU delegation to Bosnia and Herzegovina. He is a native of Denmark and was appointed to his current post in September 2011. He previously served as head of the EU delegation in Skopje, in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. We look forward to hearing his views, not only on developments in Bosnia and Herzegovina but also on the other countries in the region.

Before I ask the ambassador to make his opening remarks, I remind members of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a manner that they can be readily identified. By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they are to give the committee. If they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in relation to a particular matter and they continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege. With that in mind I invite the ambassador to make his opening remarks.

Mr. Peter Sorensen

I thank the Chairman for inviting me to attend the meeting. It is a great pleasure to be here, as well as a privilege and an honour. I will start by paying tribute to Ireland's dedication to and focus on the western Balkans, particularly Bosnia. From my more than 16 years in the region I have fond memories of the Irish Presidency in which it led the European Union monitoring mission under Ambassador Mac Unfraidh and Mr. Noel Kilkenny. That was how I started in this business and why my career took this path. I am very grateful for that.

Being a Balkans person, I very much appreciate Ireland's clear stance in terms of getting to grips with the issue of war criminals. Arresting Ratko Mladic was one of the key issues in reconciliation. It brought the process forward and I am grateful for the stance Ireland took in this case. I also pay tribute to Ireland's significant contribution both in Kosovo, where I also served, and in Bosnia Herzegovina and in particular its contribution of soldiers to EUFOR. It is very valuable. It is a small force and any contribution carries great weight. Given Ireland's size, it punches well above its weight in that respect and I give my thanks for that.

Next week we commemorate the 20th anniversary of the start of the war in Bosnia. War correspondents from all over the world will return and share their memories about the days they worked there. Bosnia will be back in the world media in that respect not only as a country with a dark past but, I hope, also as a country with a bright future. Since those days in 1992 one shall not and must not forget that over 100,000 people lost their lives and almost 2 million people had to leave their homes. These events had an impact on trust and relationships which continues to the situation we have today. Bosnia was destroyed as a result of almost four years of war. We are working today to try to move beyond that destruction. We can see from articles such as that which appeared in the Financial Times last weekend that memories are being revived. We must deal with Bosnia today, without forgetting the past. This is a very important point.

As my friend Paddy Ashdown mentioned in his discussion with the committee in January, Bosnia has come a long way since those days in the early 1990s. A majority of the refugees have returned, there is no ethnic violence and the economy is very slowly improving. To be frank, Bosnia resembles a number of the other countries in the western Balkans with similar problems and similar advantages. It is easy to be gloomy about Bosnia but there is also reason to look forward. That is what I suggest we do. The European Union with its key partners has played an important role in the history of Bosnia. Since the end of 1995 it has provided more than €2 billion in assistance to help rebuild infrastructure and, to the extent it could, to assist with political normalisation. We have focused on the arrest of war criminals, supported the judiciary and the reform of political institutions and public administration. We have tried to focus on reconciliation and regional co-operation. The question, as always, is whether we have done enough and whether we can do more. We are focusing on that.

As Paddy Ashdown said in January, it is clear we did not always get it right in the western Balkans. The history of the western Balkans war was a history of getting it wrong in the beginning, adjusting our intervention, getting a little more right but still not enough and so forth. It has been a learning process for the European Union. Some have gone so far as to say that we are where we are today with the development of the European External Action Service, EEAS, because of the experiences we had in the Balkans. Nevertheless, we came in at the beginning with a transition tool, trying to fix the situation that emerged following a war. This transition and reform tool was not necessarily the best one and we have trimmed our sails. Bosnia and all other parts of the region have moved forward and as time has passed our tools have started to have a greater compatibility with the situation on the ground. Without saying we have got it absolutely right at present, I will say we have come a long way from where we were and we are on the right footing on at least some of the issues.

We see that in the movement of the region. The enlargement process has worked. I have had other opportunities in Dublin to speak with people interested in the region and I have stated on those occasions that the biggest tool or card we have is the prospect of eventual membership. This trumps anything, be it money or political interference or help or whatever one wishes to call it. The prospect of eventual membership is the driving force. We will see Croatia become a member next year and we hope Montenegro, Serbia and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia will start negotiations soon. This is proof that the enlargement process is working. That is 2012, not 1995, and that is the big difference. People are using phrases such as the pull of Brussels rather than the push of Dayton but I believe a combination of the two, which is where we are now, is a good mix and works very well. In time it should be the pull of Brussels that is the determining factor.

Enlargement, or the philosophy behind it, also works in Bosnia-Herzegovina. We saw that with the visa liberalisation. Once there is a very concrete offer about assistance and things to achieve, the people will demand the right from the politicians and the politicians will do the right things. This is a big development from the war days. We actually have normal political reactions in the population and in the political elite.

With regard to the European Union, in the last year we trimmed our sails to where we are today. I will dwell on that for a moment. We reaffirmed our strategy. We made it clear to Bosnia-Herzegovina, and there were conclusions from the Council, that its path is the stabilisation and association agreement and after that it is eventually an application when it can make a credible one. Before it does that, however, it must fulfil three things - two laws and adjusting its constitution so it is in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights, ECHR. This clear policy was responded to in kind, in so far as after years - it was months after the election in 2010 but in effect it is after years - the political leadership in Bosnia-Herzegovina actually started talking to each other directly rather than through the media. These talks started in earnest in September and resulted on 28 December last year in a deal about coalition building.

In the following January, February and now March they have started to implement the political deal by finally putting a government in place at the state level and starting to address the outstanding issues that exist for Bosnia-Herzegovina in order to move them forward. They have looked at the budget and fiscal situation and have started to address the compatibility of the constitution with the ECHR. They have started working on an EU co-ordination mechanism which is necessary for it to be able to be the partner for us. That is necessary in order to have the European integration process brought forward. Together with the EU, they have started looking at the judiciary through a so-called structured dialogue on the judiciary, a very essential part of dealing with the past and of ensuring there is a judicial system in Bosnia-Herzegovina that can withstand the pressure of eventually being a member of the EU and also to deliver fair and clear justice to the people of Bosnia-Herzegovina. It is clear that these things have come about because there is a clear EU agenda in the new Government.

The first visit of President Izetbegovic, who has just taken over the rotating presidency, was to Brussels and the first visit of the chairman of the council of ministers was to Brussels. The messages coming out of there were very clear, namely, they want to progress Bosnia-Herzegovina on the European path, and to do it in 2012. For that, the authorities clearly need to meet the conditionalities and adjust the constitution, and they are working on it now. If they do so, we should be able to activate the stabilisation and association agreement, which has been ratified by all member states but is awaiting formal procedures. Without an adjustment of the constitution we would have a violation of the ECHR, and for that we would need to stop the stabilisation and association agreement immediately after putting it into force, so we are waiting for this to happen. If they do so, their declared intention is to work hard and focus on being ready to hand in a credible application. The President said in Brussels that he wished to do so at the end of June, but we will see if there is enough time. The most important thing is that, first of all, they know what needs to be done and, second, that they try to focus their activities to fulfil this.

After my first seven months in office, I am glad to say that the EU agenda is, at least in declaratory terms, slowly getting back to the agenda of the politicians. Having said that, Bosnia has a history and is a place where many things can happen. There are many things to be overcome and, in addition, weapons are easily accessed there. This is a historical issue for the region and there could be problematic incidents.

Every time elections are held in the region it generates excitement. Municipal elections are planned for October this year. The interesting thing for us is to see whether they will keep the EU on top of their political agenda or whether the municipal election process will take over with the EU perspective being put on the back burner. I am not sure that will happen. There is a good chance that the politicians will remain focused on moving forward. I am optimistic about that because if one looks at the opinion polls, well over 70% of the population want European Union membership. They want it because they see it as a forward movement towards investment. They understand that such investment is necessary for job creation in a place where the unemployment rate is extremely high. More importantly, when the region moves forward, so does Bosnia. We came to this conclusion before and can see it clearly. We do not have fresh polling figures but we are convinced that the movement towards EU membership by Serbia will have an impact on the sentiment in Bosnia-Herzegovina. We are quite convinced that this is the way it is going to be.

It is important to be prudent when it comes to Bosnia-Herzegovina. We feel we are now on the right track in terms of starting the process of getting a forward-looking perspective into the political thinking. There are a number of challenges to keeping this matter in focus, including the region's history and the extremely difficult administrative structure that has emerged from the 1995 peace agreement. In addition, the country has a very fragmented political picture and there is also the economic challenge of having two or three markets in Bosnia-Herzegovina, rather than one.

In September 2011, we adjusted our own presence there. The enhanced EU presence now entails the Office of the Special Representative as well as the head of the EU delegation. In addition to that, we have the reconfigured EU police mission that will be a component in the Office of the EU Special Representative. We also have EUFOR on the ground with its executive mandate whose issues I will dwell on for a second. As this is a place with a history, it is important to examine the structures we put in place in 1995 to handle the situation there. There is EUFOR's executive mandate and that of the Office of the High Representative. There have been some discussions about that and I know that the joint committee's discussion in January focused on it. As a field person, I am always in favour of maintaining existing mandates. If one does not need them, one can park them somewhere, but they should be kept handy so one can take them out again if necessary. Those executive mandates are there, together with our own mandates laid down in connection with the restrictive powers vested in the special representative and myself. Together they combine a good package of tools to be used. Discussions are ongoing in various fora, including the EU and the peace implementation council. As a practitioner, I always favour sticking to the mandates as long as one has them, if one is not forced to relinquish them.

I thank the joint committee for the invitation to appear before it. I look forward to working with the Irish EU Presidency next year. It could be a very good year for Bosnia-Herzegovina if the politicians are able to keep up the momentum they have generated in earnest, not only over the past six months but also in the last two and a half months. I thank the joint committee for its attention and I will be happy to answer any questions that members may have.

Chairman

I thank the ambassador very much. A number of Deputies and Senators have signalled their intention to speak. I call Deputy Timmy Dooley.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

I thank Ambassador Sorensen for his presentation. As he knows, this committee has had an ongoing interest in the activities and work of the EU and others in the region. We have heard different presentations and are quite concerned by the state of affairs there. There is some concern that the EU conditions might be seen to be flexible, particularly as the EU seems to be demanding only a credible effort in implementing the European Court of Human Rights' Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia-Herzegovina ruling, which relates to the participation by people from minority communities in standing for election to the presidency. That has been a matter of concern to some, so perhaps the ambassador could comment on it.

Quite a number of Bosnians are living in my constituency having arrived here under a previous programme. I have regular dialogue with them. They are concerned about the Office of the High Representative which they see as an integral part of the Bosnian constitutional order. They would say that fundamental changes to that system, flawed though they might be, are not visible on the horizon. Does Ambassador Sorensen see a contradiction in the drive by other EU members to close down that particular office? The Bosnians to whom I referred would see that as leaving a lack of capacity to enforce the Dayton agreement without an international high representative or some kind of military deterrent force empowered under chapter 7 of the UN Security Council's charter.

Ambassador Sorensen will be aware that earlier this month the European Parliament passed a resolution calling for comprehensive constitutional reforms so that Bosnia would be compliant with other European Union principles, including democratic standards, human rights and the rule of law. It is hard to see that happening considering that the ruling I mentioned at the outset does not seem to be on the agenda any time soon. Perhaps Ambassador Sorensen could comment on those points.

Deputy Colm Keaveney

I thank Ambassador Sorensen for his presentation. I welcome his recent commitment in the context of the resolution on Bosnia where he effectively outlined the type of actions that would be necessary to deal with a prompt response in the event of a security situation in the region. I would be grateful if the ambassador could elaborate on that point.

I have carefully noted what he said about the EU's narrative. From what he has said, I am learning that things are fine and that the EU membership process will be the ultimate incentive for stabilisation within the region. That is a very optimistic view and I hope it is correct. EU policy has been dependent on this method for some time. We have placated and appeased many forces that should not have been appeased in the first instance. Chief among those is the President of the Republic of Srpska, Mr. Milorad Dodik. Lady Ashton met Mr. Dodik on occasions when he sabre-rattled on issues within the region. The emphasis of the political engagement should be with the State and not with the separate entities of the BiH.

I have concerns about the weak state of the judiciary within the region. It is seen as a hollowed out situation. I am concerned about judicial power with regard to the processing of war crimes. I would like Mr. Sorensen to comment on this. We have come on a peculiar journey. There remains a number of people who did dreadful things in a war situation and are active in existing local administrations. The Muslim population feel, at best, intimidated and are, I understand, subjected to parades and insults relating to war atrocities. Can the European Union representative do something in this regard? We appear to be appeasing the troublemakers while vulnerable groups within societies claim that legacy issues, as a consequence of the wars, resonate very strongly among their communities.

I welcome the strategy. Under the circumstances, it is a good strategy. Croatia and Serbia are candidates for EU enlargement. Bosnia is not. Is there not a perception that the prize of access is given to the victors of war? I do not like the politics of leaving people behind. I would like Mr. Sorensen to comment on this with regard to EU plans, in light of the fact that more than 100,000 lives were lost in this process. All of the benefits associated with EU membership appear to be afforded to those who played a key role in the conflict. The European Union, despite Mr. Sorensen's optimism, needs to be careful about the message it sends out with regard to whom it may leave behind. We are hearing from various NGOs and other organisations that the Muslim communities that remain there are feeling intimidated by the elements that were, allegedly, active in the persecution of Muslims and remain within the civil administration. My concern will continue to exist when Ireland holds the Presidency of the European Union. It is a concern we would have to take up with our Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if action is not taken promptly on the internal level playing field and bringing everyone along in a process of conciliation and reconciliation. No one can be left behind, in light of the tragic legacy of what has taken place in the Balkans.

Senator Jim Walsh

I welcome Mr. Sorensen and I welcome some of his comments. In particular, I welcome the fact that the EU intervened effectively regarding the unconstitutional referendum proposed by Mr. Milorad Dodik. What would Mr. Sorensen say about the secessionist sentiments expressed by Mr. Dodik? Does Mr. Sorensen accept that one of the main objectives of the EU should be to maintain the integrity of the Bosnian state and prevent it breaking up?

Mr. Sorensen made a comment that set off some alarm bells with me. He spoke of the pull of Brussels which should eventually be the dominant influence. The EU was effectively impotent in 1992 when this issue was of great concern across the world and we had to depend on the US to intervene and bring the crisis to a close. I am concerned that we might now feel everything is settled. From visiting that country and from others who are expert in the field, my information is that there is still considerable unrest and quite a degree of criminality there. Much remains to be done politically and to unite the various ethnic groups. I am concerned that the EU might take a position that would undermine the Dayton agreement rather than support it, and with what the consequences of that might be. Did Mr. Sorensen say the dynamic of application for EU membership is sufficient to overcome all of these issues and difficulties? I would question that and ask him to expand a little on that.

What level of co-operation is there between Mr. Sorensen's office and that of the High Representative, Lady Ashton? If the Office of the High Representative were closed does he think the EU would be in a position to enforce the UN resolutions, particularly Chapter Vll of the UN Charter, with regard to Bosnia, and where would we be from a military point of view? There are implications in following that policy. I would like to hear some outline of that.

When Mr. Paddy Ashdown addressed the joint committee recently he expressed a concern, which would be shared by many people here, that Lady Ashton's meeting Mr. Dodik, perhaps giving some sustenance to his intention to cede Srpska from the state of Bosnia-Herzegovina, was not a good signal and might have been unwise. What is Mr. Sorensen's opinion in that regard? This is a sensitive area. If we get thing wrong with regard to that state, what does Mr. Sorensen assess the risks of contagion in the rest of the region to be?

Mr. Peter Sorensen

On the issue of the meeting with the political leaders in Bosnia, including the entity leaders and particularly the President of the Republic of Srpska, one needs to meet everybody and talk to everybody. The way the Dayton accords constructed Bosnia and Herzegovina places the majority of power with the entities and the state is a chapeau on the two entities. That is not, necessarily, where we will see Bosnia. It is not, necessarily, where it will be in the end. Since the Dayton accords, we have seen the state level has been enhanced with structures that were not there in the first place. The state level was enhanced with those structures because they were necessary to run the place as a country. I commend those involved, including Paddy Ashdown who was very good in making sure we actually got a functioning entity running in that respect. However, when it comes to the concrete issue of meeting, in this respect, the President of Republika Srpska, I would have done exactly the same. I refer to a situation when one is deploying diplomacy. In that respect I accept that one cannot compare the EU in 1992 and 2012. We are operating in a completely different way after Lisbon but also because things have moved on, especially in the Balkans. The EU is a completely different player than it was even when I arrived in 1995. At that time the independent member states played a much greater role than they do today. Today, we are acting as a unified entity. I do not say that because of my position, I would be the same had I been ambassador for Denmark in Bosnia-Herzegovina. It would have the EU ambassador running it on behalf of the rest of us. That is the way it is in the Balkans. There is a big difference between 1992 and today. I would have done the same. One needs to talk to those who are troublemakers and get them to understand that what they were about to do was not smart. That was done and it worked. We would do it again if we had to and so we should.

I do not think it will ever happen again, and if it did, it would be a bluff. I do not believe in the secessionist position. I do not believe there is anywhere to go if one declares independence with 1 million people and no economy. There is an element of bluff but that does not mean the situation should not be taken seriously and that we should not react to it because the mere threat of secessionist rhetoric could threaten territorial integrity, the constitutional order and security. It is for us to always find a balance and to decide at what point enough is enough in terms of such statements and when we need to react.

In reply to the question on security, there is always a balance and we must figure out to what extent it is political bluff and to what extent it is real. At some stage the benign political bluff can become part of the security picture and then one must react to it. We are not there yet but we are monitoring the situation.

I will address the question of co-operation with the Office of the High Representative, OHR. The mandate I was given in the conclusions that emerged in 2011 are clear. My task is in paragraph 4 and the support task is outlined in paragraph 5. My task is to go in, get the new agenda on the table, get it upfront and support the political leaders there to start looking forward. I am equipped, as is the US, with the powers to look backwards and to support the Dayton peace agreement and the Office of the High Representative, which I do. How we are doing it on the ground is very important. When it comes to this sort of thing it all boils down to personalities. I am fortunate to have a very good relationship with the High Representative, Valentin Inzko. We are personal friends. That is also the case with his deputy, Roderick Moore. That helps a lot in terms of co-ordinating our systems on a weekly basis; my political side with their political side and my legal side with their legal side. The co-operation in that respect is as it should be, namely, brilliant.

When it comes to the questions about the judiciary and the concerns about hollowing it out and war crimes, I fully agree that this is one of the things that we should look into and keep an eye on. That is what we are doing with the structured dialogue. There is a misconception on what the structured dialogue was about. Some people see it as an appeasement and a reaction to a threat of secession. We see it as something completely different, namely, to bring about a comprehensive review of the judicial structure, which is one of the most important things that has to happen for Bosnia-Herzegovina. We have kick-started it and cheated a little bit because this is the process that would have started with the stabilisation and association agreement, SAA, entering into force. Otherwise, as we did not have the SAA entered into force we had to invent a new tool which became the structured dialogue. What we are doing is looking at making sure there is a judiciary in place that can deliver justice to everybody no matter where they live in Bosnia-Herzegovina. That is the key issue.

War crimes are a concern for us as well. At the moment we are programming some of our assistance this year. We are looking into ways to deploy some of our financial assistance because it also boils down to money, not only political will, and interest in dealing with this.

I do not like the policy of leaving something behind. I do not believe in it and I do not believe it will happen. The whole policy that we have put forward for Bosnia-Herzegovina is to make sure that once the political leaders realise that they might be left behind, that they are not needed, that they do not need to do so because we are there to assist them not do it. However, we should also note that as was the case with the recent liberalisation, there must be a recognition on the political side that the place needs to move forward. Once that recognition is there in the population and among the politicians, they will do the right things and move with the region.

I understand the comment about the fact that now Croatia will become a member of the EU, Serbia has started moving as well. I am quite convinced that the politicians in Bosnia-Herzegovina will do the right thing and move Bosnia forward. However, there are some things they need to do that only they can do. It cannot be done by the OHR or by me, nor should it. It should be done by the political leaders. That is what they are elected for by the people and that is why they are in positions to do so.

On the issue of comprehensive constitutional reform, we have had two attempts, as the committee is probably aware, in the April package of 2006 and the so-called Butmir process in 2008. Both attempts at constitutional reform were done with the heart in the right place and had the right intentions but the problem was that they came from the outside. The policy that we are executing now, namely, that we are making sure that the responsibility sits firmly with the political leaders, basically comes from the experience of 2006 and 2008. Had this been the case in 1995 we would have made the constitutional reform without a problem. Like the April package we would have put it through and it would have been accepted. Today, getting things such as constitutional reform through without having the political lead buying into it is not likely to be very successful or, rather, it will not happen. Therefore, what we are looking for is that it is clear that the constitutional set-up that is there is very cumbersome and difficult. At the same time one will also hear people say that one cannot touch the Dayton agreement because then one is distorting the compromise that was reached in 1995. However, the constitution comes out of the Dayton agreement so as soon as one talks about constitutional reform we start to revisit things that were done in 1995 to stop the war. As a technician, lawyer and bureaucrat, it is clear that there must be some change. It is clear that this is a cumbersome set-up and that it will be difficult for Bosnia-Herzegovina to pay for this in the future. It is also clear that some issues arise in terms of decision making that could be better. We believe, as we have seen in other enlargement processes, that once one gets through the system whereby one starts the enlargement process one starts screening and taking the place apart in terms of whether one is ready to face the challenges involved in becoming an EU member. In that way one creates a realisation in the country among the politicians that they need to change one, two, three or four things. We believe that when the constitutional change comes it will be driven by such a realisation. It can be, as with Sejdic and Finci, a verdict from the European Court of Human Rights which involves difficult obligation. Alternatively it can change by the realisation that we believe comes with the stabilisation and association agreement and later with the application process, namely, that we will go through it chapter by chapter and then at the end of the day we will see a different constitutional set-up in Bosnia-Herzegovina. I believe that personally but I will not be there.

Chairman

Mr. Sorensen mentioned that 70% of the population is in favour of EU membership. Is that uniform across ethnic groups and entities?

Mr. Peter Sorensen

It is. The figure of 70% is based on my own poll. It is not one I bought from someone else.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

I like the ambassador's polling.

Mr. Peter Sorensen

I like my own polling. I trust it because I know the questions that have been posed. I speak from a position of strength on this one. It is not a case of guessing what questions were asked.

From the 70% I have shaved off even the smallest doubters. If we take those who say they want the EU but they do not believe in it then the figure is higher. That category also exists and that is the case for the rest of the region as well. They also have those sort of things. The 70% is predominantly spread evenly except there is a little less enthusiasm in Republika Srpska. Some analysts believe we will see a change in this now that Serbia has started moving forward. I believe the analysts are right and that we will see the effect of this because there is a strong sentiment in the whole region that when one moves, the other needs to move as well. That is the explanation of the 70% figure.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

I welcome Mr. Sorenson to our meeting. I winced somewhat when he described himself as a bureaucrat because it appears sometimes that the two greatest pejorative terms we can use are "politician" and "bureaucrat". Of course, both of us are working hard to do what we believe are the right things in difficult situations.

I have a real interest in many of the topics Mr. Sorenson raises. I remember very clearly in the 1990s people arriving into our country who were fleeing the violence and terror that was rife in the region in which he is now working. One of the proudest aspects of our country during that period is the way we responded to that issue, took in people who needed to be looked after and gave them a home. I am lucky enough to know some of those people now, many years later. In this committee, in its last incarnation during the last Dáil and Seanad term, I met many people who were from Bosnia and Herzegovina and the surrounding countries. They spoke very powerfully about their perspectives and what was happening at that time, which then informed the stances of the committee in regard to this region and a number of issues there.

I am conscious of the fact I have never visited Bosnia and Herzegovina or neighbouring countries, which is something I would very much like to do. We have discussed within this committee that we would fix this, given the genuine interest we have.

To consider what we have gone through in the economic sphere and draw an analogy with the eurozone debt crisis, one of the lessons we have learned is that if a country is looking to join the eurozone and cannot meet the criteria for joining it, it does not matter how much we pretend it does meet the criteria because the consequences will catch up on us eventually. These consequences can be huge, and I make that comment as much in regard to Ireland as other countries. It does not matter how much we believe a country is meeting the criteria and how much we want it to meet them, if it does not, that simple reality will eventually catch up on us and will capsize what we are trying to do.

As I hear the testimony Mr. Sorenson has given and in light of the other contributions we have had on this subject recently, it appears strongly to me that the point of maximum influence one has is in the period just before a country joins the European Union. It does not matter what any of us say. Once a country is inside the eurozone or inside the European Union, our credibility and influence for implementing change begins to drain almost immediately. It takes a return to a crisis point before that credibility builds up again.

With regard to the language I hear from Mr. Sorenson and his colleagues who have spoken to us, they talk about entities with regard to Bosnia and Herzegovina and about the concerns people have had on the role of the judiciary, the rights of minority groups and the feelings people have regarding their security within the region. It troubles me to ask whether we are really on the path towards stabilisation, as we all hope. I say this as one who, unfortunately, has never visited the region but as a citizen of a country that has a real interest in trying to do the right thing, and as a member of the Dáil and this committee who wants to make sure we do the right thing.

When I hear Mr. Sorenson and others talk about the need to negotiate with entities and political elites to convince them of the need to do the different things he is talking about, I ask whether we are really at the point we believe we are at, namely, a point from which we are going to make progress towards stabilisation and eventual membership of the European Union. While I hope we are, my inner voice, from all I have heard, leads me to think we are not, and that there are still steps that need to be taken and changes that need to be made.

I say all this in the context of the point made by Senator Walsh, namely, the last time Europe got to this crisis point, America had to come in to make tough decisions and supply military force within that region. It appears this will not be the case again in future and that the only people who will play a role in terms of resolving the difficulties that exist are the institutions of Europe and the people within that region. If we cannot provide the credible deterrence and mechanisms to allow a situation to evolve, then nobody else will.

I differ strongly with the point made by Deputy Keaveney that we do not want to get ourselves to a point where the membership of the European Union appears to be sitting with some people who were the victors and others who were the losers. I look at it very differently. Fundamentally, we need to have a principle-based mechanism for countries getting into the European Union. With regard to the eurozone in the past, we have not faced up to that issue, with vast consequences. I am troubled that, despite our wanting things to be a certain way, they might not be that way. It is very much my hope that I am proved wrong and that, during the year, my colleagues and I might have an opportunity to visit the country and region in which Mr. Sorenson is working to see the great work he is doing and, hopefully, see it lead through to the positive resolution we all hope for.

Deputy Patrick Nulty

I thank the Chairman for allowing me to table questions. I welcome Mr. Sorenson and thank him for coming to our Parliament to discuss these most critical issues. As he is aware, there is a sizeable Bosnian community in Ireland. It is very important that he leaves this meeting knowing that the community in Ireland has grave and fundamental concerns about the direction their country is moving in. At a minimal level, they are expressing grave disquiet to public representatives about the political direction of Bosnia and Herzegovina at present.

In that context, I will ask Mr. Sorenson specific questions. In his contribution, he stated that he felt some of the comments from political leaders, for example, Mr. Dodik, are largely rhetorical and perhaps game-playing in terms of his attitude to secession. However, Mr. Dodik has said consistently on several occasions that he favours the peaceful dissolution of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Does Mr. Sorenson believe that, if Mr. Dodik was to have his way, this could ever happen in a peaceful way? It is my view it could not. Is it important that we use our influence to make clear we will not allow that type of rhetoric to gain any traction within the political sphere both internationally and domestically.

We have heard much talk about the Bosnian political elite and leadership. However, there is a very strong view among the Bosnians I speak to that political corruption is still rampant and there is a huge democratic deficit in the accountability of political leaders to the people they serve. There are protocols available to the EU special representative, such as visa bans, freezing of assets, or putting a halt on EU funding facilities to address a variety of transgressions by Bosnian politicians. How do these mechanisms work in practice? What threshold must be reached before employing these tools? What is considered acceptable behaviour?

There is a viewpoint that no consensus exists among the major international players on the response to the Bosnian crisis. Would Mr. Sorensenaccept there is a difference of emphasis or approach among members states on how the EU should deal with Bosnia? Does that impede his day-to-day work as the European Union special representative in Bosnia-Herzegovina?

The ruling parties in Bosnia-Herzegovina have agreed on a fiscal framework for budgets from 2012 to 2014, which very much limits the budgets of central state level institutions for the next three years. Would Mr. Sorensen accept that the budget secures the proper functioning of state level institutions to create and fulfil EU access conditions, because that is a seminal point?

Chairman

A wide range of questions have been raised, but may I add one more? Will Mr. Sorensen give an update on whether the rights of minorities, such as the Roma, are being protected and improved on?

Mr. Peter Sorensen

Let me immediately go to the principle-based relationship. Some commentators have suggested we are moving to a phase of the exercise that is non-principle based, which I must shoot down as completely untrue. For the first time we are creating a principle-based relationship with Bosnia-Herzegovina, whereby we have set out key issues, some of which are very clear and must be fulfilled, but others must comply with EU best practice.

What countries, including Bosnia-Herzegovina, have to live up to is to be able to fulfil the criteria laid out for EU enlargement, to be able to withstand the political and economic pressures of enlargement. We now operate a formula, as the EU process progresses. We are moving from handling the post-war situation to starting to look at menus of what needs to be done in order to get the country ready for accession. In that respect, Bosnia-Herzegovina is a far distance from meeting the accession requirements. They have many years to wait. The philosophy is that this is the beginning of a long process. The political elite who hold power know that they may not be the leaders who will take the country into the EU. That may have an impact on the interest of some leaders, but those with a vision for the country acknowledge that it might not happen in their time, but that they should still take the first step.

I very much appreciate the comments about the principle-based relationship. That is exactly what we are trying to build on. Initially the EU was concerned about human rights and ensuring that what had been established in 1995 was being upheld. We now have a menu of principles that we want countries to accept.

May I extend an invitation to members to visit Sarajevo as I would be very happy to host a delegation from Ireland?

I am very encouraged by the comments of members who are in contact with people from Bosnia-Herzegovina who live here. I met with one such group this morning. It was very telling to meet a group with their own history and their own interest and I was very encouraged by our conversation because having talked to people from Bosnia-Herzegovina who have taken up residence outside the country, they also want to see the measures that we propose put in place and the country moving forward. They do not want the EU to forget the past or what happened during that period, but they want to see the EU assist Bosnia-Herzegovina to make progress. In that context their grievances were related to political life. It is important that the individual finds a response to his or her observations in the political landscape. The worst experience is to belong to a group but nobody speaks on one's behalf. It is 20 years since the old regime was brought down and the multiparty system was introduced. It is very important that the development of the political system continues and for that we need the inspiration and input of people who may reside outside Bosnia-Herzegovina as well as those who live there but wish to find alternatives. One needs to see one's representatives in the system.

I cannot comment on the political structures, and I do not intend to do so, but it is very important to have political involvement. When it comes to the question of corruption, we must return to the principle-based relationship. The EU asks the political elite to look at this issue. Under the interim agreement that is in force, an anti-corruption agency needs to be established. It is one thing to establish and fund an agency, which is back to the budget, but another question is whether the agency has the political backing to operate. That is one of the key items on our menu that we are watching, not only in Bosnia-Herzegovina but in the entire region. It is especially important in a region that is making the transition from war, where the main employer is the state, that the anti-corruption measures function very well.

In response to the question on the visa bans and the freezing of assets, one cannot testify as to the threshold in a situation like this, one needs to see the concrete situation and the evidence on the ground and apply the criteria, which are set out clearly. I am not the person who applies the visa ban or the asset freeze, but I make a suggestion to the High Representative who then takes it to the Council and then the member states decide on the matter. That is the process. It is not a cumbersome mechanism and things can happen very quickly. It has happened very quickly when the situation demanded a quick response. I would only make such a suggestion when there is a threat to the constitutional order, secession, security problems and territorial integrity, again on the secession side. It is very clear when we would use the powers and that is the way it is set up.

On the issue of the fiscal framework, I have not seen the budget yet and that is not from lack of trying. The budget is agreed in principle and we must wait to see the budget fleshed out on the various entities and then I can cast my opinion. I look forward to seeing the budget, but there may be cause for concern about it. We must give the political leaders the chance to flesh it out and incorporate the various commitments. It is very clear, especially in light of Croatia acceding to membership and the number of commitments that Bosnia-Herzegovinaalready has made, that there are a number of agencies and activities that need to be funded and the envelope to fund them from is very small. There will be competition between the various priorities and it will be a political balancing act for the politicians.

The issue of minority rights, in particular the rights of the Roma, is a regional challenge. My office is currently expending a great deal of energy and resources in the context of providing assistance, where possible. When it comes to members of the Roma community, basically the issue comes down to access to documents. The latter provide one with opportunities in respect of obtaining an education, gaining a residence or living quarters and accessing health care, etc. One needs documentation for all of these things. The challenge, without oversimplifying the position, is to ensure that there is access on the part of Romas and members of other minority groups to their documents and that they can actually obtain those documents. This will give the authorities the opportunity to respond to the needs that exist. There is room for a little work on both sides. I accept that a challenge exists. The policies have been put in place. I will not state that implementation in respect of these policies is lacking - particularly as people are aware of them - but this is one of many priorities with which the authorities are grappling in the context of achieving the correct response.

I was asked whether a secession could occur peacefully. I do not think this could happen. It is not that I am belittling the threat. The threat exists and when people say they are going to do something, one must take them seriously. If a secession is to occur, there must be recognition at the other end. I do not see such recognition coming about, at least not easily. Experience from the region shows what happens when recognition is not immediately forthcoming upon independence being declared. That also resonates with the political leadership in Bosnia-Herzegovina. For those of us who are living there and working in respect of this matter, we accept that this is a problem. In terms of recognition being forthcoming, I am very doubtful. We need to ensure that the use of rhetoric in this regard will not create a problem in itself, not because secession will not happen but rather as a result of the fact that it will begin to distort the situation within the country and create insecurities, etc.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

I thank Mr. Sorensen for his response. I accept his point to the effect that it is not a question of Bosnia-Herzegovina applying for membership tomorrow. As he stated, the journey it is on will take years to complete. There are many countries in the European Union which are flourishing democracies with successful economies and which, in the 1960s and 1970s, were run by military forces, monarchies, etc. We are concerned here with another country seeking to make that journey. Mr. Sorensen picked up on my point with regard to a principle-based approach. I am of the view that he should continue to be steadfast in his application of that approach. When, even for good reasons, one deviates from such an approach, it has a tendency to catch up on one in the end. I thank Mr. Sorensen for his presentation and for his contribution to this discussion.

Chairman

On behalf of the members of the committee and everyone else in attendance, I thank Mr. Sorensen for his presentation and for engaging so thoroughly and comprehensively with us. We all recognise that he has a challenging role to play in difficult circumstances. It is vital that he succeed in his work and we wish him the very best. It was good to receive his update on matters in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

We have been made aware of some of the positive moves in the region on the part of civil society. The University of Sarajevo lost its book collection during the war 20 years ago and the students there are involved in a project to replenish the shelves in the university's library. They have asked us to request that Mr. Sorensen meet them in order to discuss how the European Union might assist them in their efforts. I thank Mr. Sorensen for his attendance.

The joint committee went into private session at 11.15 a.m. and adjourned at 11.25 a.m. sine die.