Amb. Muhamed Sacirbey: The challenge to Us
on December 1st, 2010

“If You are Willing Together, Then it is Yours and Ours. If You want to Divide, then it is Only Ours.”

Bosnia & Herzegovina is in need of a clear vision of how to approach the future. The above formulation is intended to distinguish those who perceive the country opportunistically to be divided in comparison to those who understand its real potential, a whole where the sum is much greater than the parts we see today. When I put forth this formulation on “FACETV” with Senad Hadzifejzovic, I had thought through the simplicity of the words to complement the complexity of BiH’s current multiple political divides. Nonetheless, almost immediately some had heard terms that were not spoken by me. This later inclination reflects the reflex and mindset that denies BiH the opportunity to move forward.


The initial headline from this formulation was recast into if “Serbs and Croats want to divide BiH, then it is ours.” Despite the fact that I had never spoken the labels “Serb” or “Croat,” my statement was almost immediately redefined into an ethnic challenge. This reformulation of my message first frustrated me. It was not only less elegant, but a reversal of obligations and then choices. However, upon further reflection, I have seen it as an opportunity to further reinforce my original theme.

My statement was not a dare to any ethnic group in BiH. It could only be a challenge to all of BiH’s people as groups and also individual citizens. While Bosniaks may feel that BiH is perceived by them differently, (and perhaps more dearly), from the way that it is seen by some or most Serb or even Croat political leaders, Bosniak leaders must also take care not to encourage the dis-integrative tendencies. The “you” in my statement is directed at all, regardless of ethnicity or religion, as is “ours.” (After all, there are many committed Bosnian & Herzegovinians that do not fit or perhaps do not see themselves in the context of any ethnic/religious group or designated “constitutative peoples.”)

Thus, the above statement is a call to inclusiveness, first. Further, it is a challenge to “us” to launch the message and strategy toward inclusiveness. Undoubtedly, in terms of “us,’ the greatest weight of demographics and recent history may be seen to fall upon the “Bosniaks,” but even this “us” is neither necessarily defined by nor exclusive to ethnicity. Also, “Bosnian (Herzegovinian) Serbs” as well as “Bosnian (Herzegovinian) Croats” have to be cautious not to define their own belonging exclusively on basis of ethnic identity and thus effectively promote self-exclusion from BiH. A century earlier, the terms Bosnian Orthodox Christians and Bosnian Catholics were much more the norm, (at least when applied in writings employing the local languages and English as I discovered during my research on my university thesis work on “Bosnian & Herzegovina, 1878-1914”). Outweighed emphasis on the “Serb” or for that matter “Croat” label and thus association with the nationality of neighboring states may not be seen much differently than the attempt by some to diminish the belonging of “Bosniaks” or “Bosnian Muslims” to BiH and to Europe by simply re-labeling them as “Turks.” BiH has existed as both a country and defined people through the two Yugoslavias, and within the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires having enjoyed status as kingdom and regional power before all of these. Its people have been referred to as “Bosnians,” “Bosniaks,” “Herzegovinians” or some immediate variation thereof for a millennium, regardless whether at such time they were more Muslim, Catholic, Orthodox, Jewish or some more unique religious identity. The religious belonging of Bosnians was largely independent of the Ottomans and/or other neighbors, and throughout its history it was anything but monolithic.

The call to inclusiveness having been launched and efforts toward implementation sincerely put into practice, only then can there be a judgment of who is “we” and “you.” Unilateral definitions neither will succeed nor can be considered a sincere effort at inclusion. However, efforts at self-exclusion can have a decisive impact in determining who is not part of the “we” and to whom “our” unabridged, undivided Bosnia & Herzegovina belongs.

Senad Hadzifejzovic and his team, (led by Asim Beslija), recognized the mis-impression almost immediately to their credit and the transcript of my interview was promptly corrected to reflect my actual words. (I had also used the same formulation and challenge to all of us in BiH’s largest daily, “Dnevni Avaz” in an interview with Faruk Jele on 11 November, 2010: (“Ako hocemo za-jedno, onda je sve vase i nase. Ako necete zajedno, onda je sve nase.”)

I’m not certain though how many other headlines went out with the incorrect challenge: “If the Serbs and Croats want to divide BiH, then it is ours!” To what extent this headline only confirmed a more persistent and growing flaw in the mindset of too many Bosnian/Herzegovinians to see most if not all issues in terms of ethnic agendas and stereotypical suspicions. While I’m not even responsible for the “error” of the recasting of my words through much of BiH media, it is my obligation to nonetheless make certain that my words are correctly heard/read. More importantly, as I stated previously, it is an opportunity to try to deliver a more open mindset toward inclusion and one that is more self-reliant than dependent on the international powers and their representatives within BiH.

Besides an embellished emphasis on ethnic politics, BiH has also suffered the consequences of relying too much upon the altruism of others. During the same interview when Senad Hadzifejzovic asked what advice I could offer for BiH’s future, I employed another metaphor: “BiH is like a young 16 year old girl, beautiful and bright, but finds herself out on the street, in trouble and need of help. Many people are offering her some form of assistance, including some middle-aged men who invite her to spend the cold night at their home. “

It is not that we should immediately assume bad intentions, but one cannot presume solely altruistic motives nor be certain what if any other agenda may exist even if there is food and a warm bed waiting. The moral of the story is to be as self-reliant and mature in order that you may be best able to judge the partnerships/relationships as well as assistance offered by others.

Muhamed Sacirbey