Theory of dediscoursification and implementation of Dayton peace as continuation of the state of war

Draen Pehar

Dediscoursification

Over the last few years I have developed a theory of dediscoursification as one of the major

causes of armed conflict.1 Key premise of the theory may be put in the words by a hero from a

Canadian writer, Margaret Atwoods novel: war is what happens when language fails.

Theory of dediscoursification explains in detail what exactly happens when language fails,

that is, when some political actors gradually come to realization that, to their shared problems

or political conflict, they are unlikely to find a joint solution in the medium of language, or

that their ens loquens is likely to be replaced with ens belli. The theory aims to elucidate the

ways in which something tragically harmful is happening with language in the condition when

some individuals use it in an insufficiently rational and considerate, and most importantly in

an insufficiently moral, way.

Hence, when you have at least two actors who hold prima facie irreconcilable views of some

key issues they consider of critical importance to themselves and their relationship, the two

may try to bridge the difference through negotiations, i.e. through the use of language in

accordance with some shared, commonly accepted standards. However, if the two do not use

language in accordance with such standards, the phenomenon of dediscoursification will take

place, which means that they will cease to believe in the possibility of coming to an

agreement within the medium of language, by negotiating. A special kind of silence will

descend over such actors, one that indicates not only that the two have no further word to say

to one another, but also that one actor started viewing another as a fundamentally immoral

user of language: as one who uses it in such a way that the use demonstrates his or her non-

sociability and general impenetrability to the negotiating effort. Typically, one actor starts

characterizing another as a liar, or as a speaker generally disinclined to offer sound and

initially plausible argument, or as incoherent, or often also as a promise-breaker. Whenever

such a characterization is given, we know nearly for certain that the users of language will be,

at worst, inclined to jump at each others throats, or at best, take a significant and enduring

distance from each other. In other words, even in the best case scenario, after

dediscoursificiation takes its toll in a social relationship, the relationship ceases to be, that is,

the actors are no longer capable of forming a coherent whole, an association.

One of the key theses of the theory of dediscoursification reads as follows: such arriving at a

conclusion concerning a discourse of ones at least potential partner can be, and often is, fully

based on rational grounds. In other words, one who characterizes another actor as a

dediscoursifier, as a party who uses language in the way that annihilates language itself,

which opens the door to the use of non-discursive means as a tool of political conflict

resolution, can be fully right in two senses: the dediscoursifier violates some intersubjectively

valid standards of the use of discourse, and, secondly, his or her violation reaches the point at

which one who qualifies him or her as a dediscoursifier cannot escape his own conclusion

despite his best intentions. I deem this to be an acceptable idea simply due to the fact that the

description of a speaker as a liar, or as a promise-breaker, can be both rational and well-

founded, and can also be intersubjetively valid in the sense that all rational users of language

are likely to agree with such a description. However, we should also bear in mind that

dediscoursification is in some societies generated as a cultural pattern; it is promoted through

some stereotypes triggered in some critical moments: for instance, in some societies one

who aims to resolve political problems or conflicts by negotiating is valued less than those

who respond to the fact of conflict by some violent response: as, for example, those who dare

to fight physically for the right that they claim.2 I will here put such kind of propagation of

dediscoursification aside I think it is much less interesting than the case in which

dediscoursification takes place through a series of experiences with an actual partner to an

actual communicative process.

Hence, for a start, we should memorize that dediscoursification is a process triggered by some

violations of some discursive values that, within a society, have the status of both discursive

and moral values: for instance, truth, rational and coherent argumentation, and fulfillment of

promise, without which language obviously would not make sense nor serve as a key means

of the securing of cooperation within a group.3 Implementation of such values reminds us of

the fact that language is indeed a foundational, or Ur-, institution to any community, and that

all other institutions depend on this basic one. There is no way for a functional institution to

be staffed by liars or by those who often utter contradictions or by promise-breakers. The

institutions that are so staffed disintegrate rapidly. The violation of discursive values as also

moral ones lead unavoidably to the conclusion on principled non-sociability of some actors,

which then leads to the conclusion that one is unable to arrive in partnership with such actors

at an agreement concerning some issues that are of vital importance to a political conflict; this

is, as the theory points out, a truly grave and dangerous situation: the other is taken as

somebody over which we cannot exert a verbal influence, and as somebody who does not

want to exert such influence over us. To this the process of dehumanization will soon follow

as well simply because a human being defines him- or herself primarily as a being endowed

with logos, a capacity of reasoned use of discourse; to which a tension, insecurity, distrust,

uncertainty then follow automatically in such a condition a noise of bumble bee is all one

need to trigger the avalanche of violence, metaphorically speaking.

Obviously, the theory of dediscoursification is set on premises of discourse-ethics. There are

many advocates of such ethical perspective, which is in contemporary setting normally related

to the work of Karl Otto Apel and Jrgen Habermas.4 However, it is important to have in

mind that the tradition of discourse-ethics is much older than Apel or Habermas. I personally

find some advocates of discourse-ethics who are more practice-oriented, and who standard

philosophical or historical presentations do not include, much more inspiring and informative

than either Apel or Habermas: for instance, a classical Greek rhetorician and theorist of

language, Isocrates, or his follower from the era of Second Sophistic, Publius Aelius

Aristides, and certainly George Orwell and Hannah Arendt among modern analysts.5 Looking

from the angle of political theory, the theory of dediscoursification leans primarily on two

theoretical approaches: first, generally, in the sense of its conceptualization of the state of war,

the theory draws on Hobbes and Clausewitz who both insist that war is a continuation of

politics by other means. Secondly, and more specifically, the theory draws on republican

political theory that theorizes the notion of liberty in light of the master-slave relationship as a

relationship of primarily discursive character, and also as a relationship that involves

continuation of the state of war through the period of an apparent peace (typically, a master

treats his slave as the spoils of war).6 Finally, from an epistemological-methodological point

of view, the theory of dediscoursification adheres to the principles of methodological

individualism whenever we address the issue of dediscoursifying, we have to address some

specific individuals as concrete users of language within a specific social-political context.7 It

is undeniable that a whole bunch of people suffers from an armed conflict, but we should not

forget that, to a large extent, war is an effect of a flawed way in which some individuals use,

and relate to, their own language primarily.

From the angle of empirical relevance of the theory of dediscoursification, I deem it well-

grounded and supported by many examples from political history. The frequency with which

some political actors assume a meta-lingual perspective concerning some other actors

language, in the periods preceding the outbreak of war, is high; in other words, in the periods

preceding the start of armed violence, some actors explicitly describe the other actors

language as fundamentally flawed and irreparable: Egyptian president Nasser in 1968

emphasized that the force of arms is the only language Israel understands; similarly to

Nasser, prior to the outbreak of war with Sparta in 5th century BC, Athenian statesman

Pericles concluded that they [Spartans] prefer war to negotiation as a means of settling the

issue of complaints [about the Athenian way of interpreting of a clause of Thirty Year

Peace], while the British Prime minister Chamberlains declaration of war against Germany

in 1939 contains the following words: The situation in which no word given by Germanys

ruler could be trusted, and no people or country could feel itself safe had become

intolerable.8 The theory of dediscoursification is capable of providing a detailed and

persuasive explanation of the ways through which the said political actors drew the

conclusions embodied in the above propositions, and also through which some other political

actors drew similar conclusions in similar situations (for instance, Miloevi at the time of the

collapse of Rambouillet negotiations, or Frederick Douglass in the aftermath of notorious

Dred Scott ruling by the US Supreme Court, which was one of the major causes of

American Civil War).

To the readers from Balkans, or to those who are keenly interested in political relations within

the region, the most interesting question may be put as follows: how is it with the process of

dediscoursifying in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH), especially prior to the outbreak of 1992-

1995 armed violence, and perhaps even today?

Izetbegovi and implementation of Dayton peace agreement

At the time I started formulating the theory of dediscoursification, Alija Izetbegovi seemed

to me to be able to serve as a highly pertinent and illustrative example. 9 There is no doubt that

Izetbegovi through 1991-1992 acted upon his political interlocutors as a dediscoursifier he

was demotivating them in the sense of producing in them the loss of belief in the possibility of

arriving at a negotiated formula or compromise, a long term solution to BiH problems, in

communicative partnership with him. Izetbegovis discourse is filled with the examples of

violation of all key values of moral-discursive matrix of language: for instance, we find many

contradictory statements concerning essential issues and aspects of BiH politics; the statement

on civil, ethnically unmarked BiH in parallel with the statement on BiH-Moslems as a

foundational, and even majority, people to BiH who can claim some special rights over the

state; or the expression of the wish to accept the condition of war with the aim of defending

Bosnias full sovereignty in the sense of an undivided rule; but also the expression of

readiness to arrange the relations within BiH in accordance with both Serb and Croat interests.

Ultimate effect of such contradictions is easy to predict: your interlocutor ceases to ascribe

some meaningful content to your statements because they cancel each other out, which then

generates in your interlocutor the belief that, to you, language is neither an essential nor a

binding medium. Furthermore, on a number of occasions Izetbegovi indicated that he did not

at all subscribe to the view of inherent power of argumentation or exchange of reasons as a

part of political discourse: he interrupted negotiations with the Serb representatives at the

most critical point in time because, in his view, the distance between negotiating positions

implied that there could be no agreement, and also that negotiating per se did not make sense.

He has not thought for a second that the offering of political reasons, and a joint assessment of

such reasons aiming at a kind of compromise, was the only discourse-friendly strategy in the

given conditions, and more importantly that it was the only strategy that could have prevented

war from erupting.

However, as a dediscoursifier, Izetbegovi most clearly acted so upon the others through his

treatment of constitutional-institutional frame that was in force in 1992 (The constitution of

Socialist Republic of BiH prior to declaration of independence in 1992), and also through his

attitude to the agreements he endorsed or signed in February and March 1992 that could have

prevented the war. In the former sense Izetbegovic of course was not the only culpable party

as he was supported by the BiH Croat representatives: their walk towards BiH independence

through referendum was joint one, and also their violation of the BiH Constitution then in

force was shared too. According to the constitution then in force, any alteration of territorial-

constitutional status of the Socialist Republic of BiH required two-third majority of the

constituent peoples. However the referendum outcome failed to reach such a majority. This

means that, in fact, the BiH independence referendum did not succeed, and, given the results

of the referendum, Izetbegovi together with the Bosniak and Croat political representatives

had no right to declare independence. As they in fact declared it, they have violated the

constitution then in force, which means that they have broken a collective promise that was

supposed to be binding on all the peoples and citizens of BiH. Dediscoursification is a

predictable effect of such a strategy: one cannot trust the person who fails to fulfill his or her

promises simply because the failure to fulfill them indicates that, to the promise-breaker,

language is not sufficiently binding; hence the language of all future promises, that all

agreements normally involve, is unlikely to be sufficiently binding too, which necessarily has

an adverse effect of ones will to negotiate with a promise-breaker, given the fact that all

negotiations are ultimately about the making of promises.

As to the second aspect of Izetbegovis loose attitude to the agreements he signed, or to

which he was implicitly committed, this was demonstrated unmistakably through his

notorious reneging on two agreements: Cutilheiros plan accepted in Lisbon a few days

before the referendum, and the agreement on general principles accepted and initialed in

Sarajevo in March 1992. Again Izetbegovi acted in his role of a dediscoursifier: he reneged

on the promises he made in a very critical situation in which such promises to all carried an

utmost significance. To his political adversaries, for instance the representatives of the Serb

people, this could have had only one impact: due to Izetbegovis fundamental unreliability as

a negotiator, hence as a user of language, they had to form increasingly the expectation that a

war was forthcoming, which involved planning for an actual use of armed force. Additionally,

one can today very successfully defend the view that, while Izetbegovi was reneging on the

said agreements, US Administration lent him their support and made his decision in favor of

the war much easier; they have spotted an easily swayable actor who, due to his lack of faith

in his own, internal political discourse, can be guided to this or that direction depending on a

prevailing need. However, it is also interesting to note that, by the very end of Dayton

negotiations, both American and European mediators remained uncertain as to Izetbegovis

readiness to sign the peace agreement.10 Dediscoursifiers act upon all users of language

equally: as the persons whose language can never be taken, or relied on, with confidence.

Today, of course, we are aware of the option Izetbegovi ultimately chose at Dayton. He

opted for a peace in the sense of a peace treaty that was set on relatively clear premises and

signed with a specific understanding two strong entities, one loose central government, and,

of equal importance, representation of BiH constituent peoples through entities in the

following way: BiH Federation as a shared Bosniak-Croat entity, and RS as an entity to

represent primarily the Serb people in BiH.11 Additionally, Dayton Constitution has endowed

the entities with the right to establish special parallel relations with the neighboring states in

accordance with the division of powers between the entity and the central level of

government. Based on this provision, Republic of Croatia and the BiH Federation had such a

special relationship, which was abrogated by Croatia on its road to the EU; a special parallel

relations agreement between Republika Srpska and the Republic of Serbia remains in force.

I deem the theory of dediscoursification as an important theoretical frame not only for the

purpose of elucidating the dynamics of relationship within the period that precedes the

outbreak of armed conflict; the theory is of a sufficient strength and relevance to be applied to

the periods that seem to be the periods of a post-war political peace. Hence, here we may

immediately pose an interesting question: is the process of implementation of the Dayton

framework for peace one of rediscoursifying, or is it perhaps of such a character that it too can

be couched in terms of the theory of dediscoursification? In other words, assuming that the

framework for peace embodies a collective promise, which implies primarily the commitment

to be guided and bound by ones own words under their agreed meanings, and also the

capacity of rational argumentation in the condition of interpretive conflict, are we in position

today to claim reasonably that the promise was fulfilled to a sufficient extent? Or, have some

actors, by violating their own promise and thereby dediscoursifying their political partners, in

fact showed the will to initiate a new round of armed conflict? In other words, have some

actors, by relating to the language of the peace agreement in a harmful and discourse-

unfriendly way, diminished in the others the will to resolve further political issues by

negotiating, and thereby produced in the others both the kind of silence and the sense of

dehumanization that, under suitable conditions, inescapably lead to an outbreak of armed

violence?

There is no doubt that Alija Izetbegovi considered the period of post-Dayton peace as a

continuation of armed conflict by other means. To him the peace agreement meant but a

frame that ought to be used as a tool to continue the war by verbal means including both legal

and diplomatic channels. This can be documented easily by his public statements. One of his

key theses concerning the Dayton Constitution reads that the constitution contains an

inaudible but dangerous war of provisions;12 this means that, as Izetbegovi views it, war

through one medium is simply replaced with a war through a different medium. One group of

provisions takes one to one direction, as e.g. Bosniak-Muslim armed force did during the war,

and another group takes one to a different direction, as e.g. Serb armed force did. The

directions are opposed and irreconcilable; hence the only important question for Izetbegovi

may be put as follows: which group of provisions is likely to prevail at the expense of the

other?

What we need to emphasize here emphatically is peculiarity of such a view: it is a strange and

disturbing kind of legal-political hermeneutics within the confines of which the state of war

cannot be distinguished from the state of peace. Language is not a medium that serves to

stabilize relations or to contribute to an actual conflict resolution by, say, a compromise. It is a

destabilizing factor, a medium in which the war continues, and which prevents arrival at a

shared position or definition of compromise. Such an image of language affects ones view of

a peace agreement in the sense that it undermines or blocks two factors without which an

actual peace implementation process cannot be envisaged: first, the factor of legal

interpretation as a rational process that, on the premise of the agreement taken in its entirety,

establishes the most solid and persuasive reasons in support of an interpretation that could be

binding on all; secondly, the factor of a meaningful compromise that can effectively

determine the contents of a collective promise to which the parties could effectively adhere

in Izetbegovis view, there are only particular or individual perceptions of such a promise

that generate a conflict over the meaning of the promise, and that therefore effectively

undermine the notion of commitment to the compromise.

Had Izetbegovis musings remained in the realm of theory, no serious political consequence

would have followed; however, Izetbegovi has also made his views operative in the sense of

a demand with a legal force and effect. Some serious political effects have then taken place of

which political destabilization of the BiH state, that marks the period from year 2000 till

today, is the most disturbing one. How has such post-Dayton destabilization of relations been

effected?

First of all, we need to have in mind an important fact: in early 1994 Izetbegovi adopted

Washington agreement on BiH Federation with a specific understanding in mind BiH

Federation is an entity constituted jointly by two constituent peoples, BiH Croats and BiH

Bosniaks. As Izetbegovi at a BiH Presidency session from 1994 emphasized, the Serb people

are not constituent to the BiH Federation because that would means that Serbs get a half of

power within the whole of BiH, and one third in the BiH Federation.13 Such Izetbegovis

attitude remained, of course, unchanged at the date of his signature to the Dayton Framework

for Peace, and continued unabated after the signature, in the period of the beginnings of

implementation of the Dayton accords. One can undoubtedly recognize such an understanding

in the structure of the Dayton constitution: the fact of separate entity-based constitutionality of

the constituent peoples of BiH, of Croats and Bosniaks within the Federation and Serbs in the

Republika Srpska (RS), is translated into adequate institutional forms; for instance, two

members of the BiH Presidency (Croat and Bosniak) are elected from the territory of the

Federation, whereas one member (Serb) from the territory of the RS; similar forms dictate

the method of electing of the BiH House of Peoples representatives; additionally, the fact of

separate entity-based constitutionality is a source of the rationale for the right of establishment

of special parallel relations between the entities and the neighboring states.

However, in 1998 Izetbegovi changed his view to the opposite direction. He submitted an

appeal to the BiH Constitutional Court that contains the request to delete, or put out of force,

exactly the provisions to which he signed in the period from 1994 till 1995. By reading

carefully his appeal, one can quickly and unmistakably realize that Izetbegovi now aims at

devaluation of the key provisions of the Dayton Constitution for BiH: for instance, the

provision on constitutionality of the peoples as entity-mediated; the provision on parallel

special relations between entities and the neighboring states; the provision on the powers of

entities in the area of civilian command authority over the armed force; and even the

provision on official languages to be used by constituent peoples within entities.14 Izetbegovi

founds his appeal on a simple idea: preambular provision on BiH constituent peoples needs to

be interpreted as implying equal constitutionality throughout the BiH territory, which implies

transformation of BiH entities into multiethnic units. Of course, the appeal is a kind of a

symbolical projection, or a piece of symbolical struggle Izetbegovi is fully aware of the

fact that the Bosniak and Croat population of RS is significantly reduced in size, which

implies that actual consumption of the right of constitutionality (throughout the BiH territory)

is bound to be of a very limited, actually negligible, character.

Such Izetbegovis reasoning could have been then, as it could be now, easily defeated on the

basis of the text of Dayton Constitution as it was initially, originally understood and signed in

the course of Dayton negotiations: all the peoples of BiH are indeed equally constituent

throughout the BiH, but BiH under Dayton means only a certain level of power;

additionally, all the peoples indeed implement their status of constituent peoples throughout

the BiH, but such implementation takes place through explicitly defined institutions and in the

areas of government that Dayton Constitution explicitly refers to. Primary constitutionality of

the peoples pertains to them through the entities simply because the representatives of specific

peoples as peoples have constituted some specific units of BiH as a federal constitutional

arrangement, but the three peoples have not constituted jointly both units. The Serb people

representatives, as Izetbegovi already emphasized, have not constituted the BiH Federation,

hence their primary constitution-making role cannot be implemented through the bodies of the

BiH Federation. Constituent peoples have given their explicit consent to establishment of

specific entities, but then secondarily, also to establishment of BiH as a central level of

government in accordance with the list of powers of the state, which is again entity-mediated

in the sense that it preserves the fact of representation of the entities at the central level the

fact that BiH is a federation makes such arrangements easy to understand.15

Altogether, this means that Izetbegovi again acts as a dediscoursifying agent in the period

after adoption of the Dayton peace package, both through his public political acting and

through his appeal to the BiH Constitutional Court. He in fact conveys the following message:

the language of the peace agreement is binding on me, but not in the sense in which it is

binding on other actors. My promise is understood by me in my own way; if the others have

taken the promise to mean something else, this is their own problem. My only commitment is

to achieve through the language of the peace agreement those goals that I set as my own prior

to, and during, the war. I do not discuss such issues with my political adversaries; I simply

fight for such goals, this time through the appeal to the BiH Constitutional Court.

Long-term effects of such a view had not yet been clearly recognized. Izetbegovis appeal

has produced a symbolical revolution in BiH, not in a positive sense of the word, and has

undermined the very fundamentals of post-Dayton BiH. The appeal has in fact clearly

signaled that one key party to the peace treaty in fact reneged on the compromise; the party

has transformed the compromise-related elements of the treaty into a means to recover and

resume the process of implementing of its war-time aims. In a theoretical sense, this is an

extremely important phenomenon: the phenomenon clearly indicates that the state of peace to

a large extent depends on an actors attitude to language: if the actor did not endorse some

standards of discourse, some discursive values, as a part of his or her political communication

or an effort to act upon his or her political partners and interlocutors (which involves

primarily the standard of promise-fulfillment under a prior joint understanding of the promise,

or under an understanding that is jointly determined through the most persuasive reasons of

interpretation), alienation, cessation of communication, and consequent destabilization of

relations are normal and predictable effects.

However, one should not dismiss an important fact. In his dediscoursifying Izetbegovi does

not act alone. In fact the strongest actors of international community lend their support to

Izetbegovis movement towards the dissolution of a sophisticated Dayton compromise. How,

and more importantly, why has such a support been given, and what are its actual

consequences?

International community

How did key actors of international community take part in Izetbegovis project of

dediscoursification in the course of an apparent implementation of the Dayton peace plan?

Most importantly, BiH Constitutional Court has on 1 July 2000 responded positively to

Izetbegovis appeal. One should have in this regard two crucial things in mind: BiH

Constitutional Court has not accepted all the parts of Izetbegovis appeal, but it has accepted

the key one, to change the definition of entities into multiethnic units and to divorce the

concept of constituent peoples from the two-entity Dayton structure, which immediately

implied the demand that some key provisions of the entity constitutions be annulled.16

Secondly, a majority of Constitutional Court benches have indeed supported Izetbegovis

appeal, but it was a narrow one: the Constitutional Court vote was along the lines of ethnic

separation; the two Bosniak judges were for it, the four Croat and Serb were against it, while

the balance was tilted in favor of Izetbegovis appeal thanks to the vote of three international

judges who sided with Bosniak ones in this matter. Here, at a small arena, we see continuation

of war by other means, we see ethnic polarization, and we see a victory that was imposed by a

foreign quasi-mediator/arbitrator.

What explains such an attitude of international jurists who have in this case simply acted as an

extended hand of some influential international actors, the USA and UK primarily? It is not

difficult to propose an answer to such a question; the international actors, including USA

primarily, did not take the Dayton compromise seriously either. They took it simply as a

pretext to continue the war in BiH by other means. In addition to the acting of Bosnian post-

Dayton dictator, i.e. High Representative, whose very acting generates dediscoursification,17

the key factors in this regard are to be found in the views of some key international actors

who have either openly and directly supported Izetbegovi or endorsed a view of the Dayton

peace agreement that indirectly supported Izetbegovis symbolical undermining of the

fundamental structure of the Dayton agreement.

For instance, when, in parallel to the July 2000 ruling by BiH Constitutional Court, the chief

architect of Dayton openly stated that the recognition of RS, under such a name, was a

mistake, one can immediately sense that the affair meant or involved a kind of collusion, or

connection. Here I will remind the reader of the facts that elucidate such collusion in

unambiguous terms. In order to place such facts within a single conceptual frame, first I refer

to a brief paragraph from an article by James Adams that was recently published at

Transconflict and also a forum of American NGO Building Peace:

According to diplomats I interviewed in Bosnia the current highly dysfunctional and

discriminatory ethno-political constitution and governmental structure, as instituted by the

Dayton Accords to stop the war, was assumed at the time to be transitional by the original

international negotiators. However, it was not officially designated as such due to a

compromise with Serbian hardliners who preferred the Dayton-sanctioned post-war territorial

status quo and segregated political arrangements. Therefore, no plan or timeline was set in

place to officially facilitate a transitional process to a viable non-ethnic based constitution and

governance structure. The Dayton ethno-political constitution defaulted to expedited fear-

based ethno-political elections that only served to entrench hardline obstructionists in power

and institutionalize structural violence.18

What does this paragraph in Adams actually tell us? First of all, it embodies a perspective on

Dayton that is fully in accord with the Bosniak-Muslim political elite, including Alija

Izetbegovi. Such a perspective cannot be discerned in the words of the Russian Federation

representatives, or of many other representatives of EU nations, and especially it cannot be

discerned in the words of RS representatives. Secondly, the paragraph single-handedly

projects the key problem in one party to the BiH in other words, it defines the RS itself as a

problem, not as a constitutional category or as a part of the structure that defined a

compromise and thus brought the armed conflict in BiH to a close. Thirdly, the paragraph in

fact nearly explicitly claims that the key mediators or international actors (have in mind that,

within this context, we deal primarily with the US representatives and diplomats) did not take

seriously the Dayton Constitution for BiH. They took it as something that is about to be soon

dissolved. Additionally, this means that the Constitution currently in force is nearly explicitly

designated as a means of deception of Serb hard-liners. The Constitution was envisaged as

something that should have motivated such hard-liners to a form of cooperation, but it was

meant to play only a transitional role. Adams fails to explain how such a motivation could

endure through the period of a radical alteration of the constitutional frame, and personally I

am inclined to treat this part of the story simply as an expression of surreal American

optimism. Fourthly, and finally, we need to notice that such a characterization of the Dayton

agreement imposes on one a very uncomfortable intellectual dilemma: designation of a peace

frame as transient and temporary implies some perspective on a frame that should replace the

current one; however, such a perspective ought to be sufficiently realistic in the sense that it

should be sufficiently supported and deemed legitimate by the key local actors of BiH

politics; the dilemma is in the fact that the latter criterion contradicts the very designation of a

peace frame as transitional and temporary. Additionally, if one designates a peace frame as

transient just like that, and if one enjoys the status of a super-power and also of one of the

chief sponsors of the frame, then it is very likely that all local parties to the frame will

understand this as a signal that they need not adhere to the provisions of the peace, or that

they could view the peace frame as but a short-lived mirage. Here is where one enters the

field of dediscoursifying again, i.e. where one becomes a dediscoursifying agent.

Within the global conceptual frame thus explained, a large number of statements by some key

planners and implementers of the US policy in Bosnia can be understood with no effort at all.

Similarly to Izetbegovi, James OBrien, chief US legal advisor at the time of drafting of the

Dayton constitution, frames the Dayton constitution in terms of a war of provisions: he

names one group of provisions as backward looking, hence regressive, and another group as

forward looking, hence progressive and preferable provisions.19 That is why implementation

of Dayton peace can be framed simply as a process of putting of some provisions out of force,

or of diminishing their legal strength and impact, which unfortunately also implies

undermining a compromise. In addition OBrien openly conceded that, within the process of

Dayton implementation, vagueness and ambiguity of some provisions was amply exploited by

international actors.20 Former chief US mediator for the BiH Federation, Daniel Serwer, in a

private communication, conveyed to me that he tended to characterize the Dayton

Constitution in the same fashion as Izetbegovi, as an assembly of contradictory stipulations.

Furthermore, at least three high representatives, Ashdown, Petritsch, and Inzko, gave some

key statements that can be elucidated only within the aforementioned conceptual frame:

Ashdown stated that his job as a high representative was to gradually dismantle the Dayton

structures in order to create efficient state-institutions.21 In other words, one high

representative openly tells us that, in the style of American foreign policy and Izetbegovis

attitude to the Dayton Constitution, he in fact undermined the Dayton agreement and treated it

as a pretext to create something that the parties to the agreement have not jointly sanctioned in

late 1995. That is why Ashdown, after setting in place the armed force of BiH, moved the

process of undermining of Dayton accords in the direction of establishment of BiH police

force (which is not foreseen by the Dayton constitution), but was, fortunately, countered and

stopped at least temporarily. Austrian Ambassador Petritsch was one who, through his

amendments (signed suitably as he was departing from BiH), transformed the BiH

Constitutional Court July 2000 decision into institutional reality of BiH entities (of course,

one needs to have in mind that his amendments provide only one of several possible

interpretations of the July 2000 decision), and thus set the institutional conditions for the

process of un-constituting of BiH Croats; also, we need not forget Petritschs frequent

characterization of Dayton Constitution as a straitjacket for BiH peoples and citizens.22

More recently, in April 2011 another Austrian high representative, Inzko issued a famous

statement to the effect that BiH needs to be preserved in order to avoid posthumous award-

giving to Miloevi and Karadi. Again, we see a high representative who attributed the key

problems of BiH to the Serb party, to the Serb aggressors and rapists of Bosnia, which fully

coincides with Izetbegovis both war- and post-war policy. Finally, American Vice-president

Biden, in his May 2009 speech before the BiH Parliament, demonstrated that, when it comes

to the Dayton peace accords, he was interested in two basic things only: We [USA] are your

project; this means that the ideal of BiH politics has been pre-defined BiH politics need

simply to follow the American ideal leadership as determined by the USA alone; secondly, as

Biden emphasized, todays majority may tomorrow become a minority this clearly

indicates that Biden was not at all concerned with the notion of constituent peoples, and, more

importantly, was taking the basic constitutional constraints of Dayton not as really

constraining or binding on the parties, but as relative and fluid elements that may soon change

their position or weight within a loose constitutional frame.

Summarily then, one can clearly recognize the fact that the key actors of international

community buttressed Izetbegovis post-Dayton acting, or perhaps, more precisely, treated

Izetbegovi as a medium through which constitutional constraints of Dayton can be weakened

to pave the road towards a post-Dayton era in which ethno-politics will cease to matter.

Their own and Izetbegovis attitude to the Dayton framework for peace are

indistinguishable: they both deem the framework as a fig-leaf to impose an arbitrary

interpretation (sanctioned by the figure of High Representative), or, euphemistically speaking,

a creative revision, which, from the perspective of two constituent peoples of BiH, amounts

simply to violation of a collective promise. Again, a predictable effect has followed: key

actors of BiH politics are faced with the process of dediscoursification, of gradual suppression

of the belief in the role and significance of language in international, or inter-group, relations,

which is bound to lead to an increased readiness to tackle political conflicts and problems by

non-discursive means.

This means that, nearly twenty years after adoption of the Dayton agreement, political

situation in BiH is essentially similar to one in early 1992; again, language is marked as a

factor that makes no difference in politics; again, key institutional frame is made practically

meaningless; again the key actors sense mutual alienation due to the loss of trust produced by

a non-committal attitude to ones own word-promise, and to language in general. The

situation is strikingly similar to the situation Cicero accounted in his famous passage from De

Officiis: Spartan king Cleomenes signed with his neighbors a truce that should have lasted for

thirty days (triginta dierum); however, a few days later he started raiding the fields of his

neighbors, but did so over night Cleomenes justified his misdeed by emphasizing that the

truce refers to days, not to nights. Cicero brings forward this example as an illustration of an

important legal saying: summum ius summa iniuria, i.e. a maximally stretched law involves a

maximal injustice, and adds that such overstretching of law is performed through a malitiosa

interpretatio iuris, a malicious legal interpretation.23 Within the context of the political

relations in post-Dayton BiH, a pertinent question may be put as follows: how far has such

overstretching of law in BiH gone, what has exactly motivated it, and can this condition be

amended?

Conclusion

The first part of the question can be answered easily. The overstretching of law in BiH has not

yet reached a maximum degree. Also, it is unrealistic to expect that the legal overstretching

through a malicious and imposed legal interpretation can be further continued. For instance, it

is nearly impossible to envisage a situation in which one takes one step further in direction of

a further un-constituting of BiH Serbs through a direct assault on the RS by legal and

diplomatic means (for instance, by demanding that the name RS be modified and its ethnic

attribute removed). Hence, and especially judging from some recent statement by relevant

commentators, analysts, and even actors, it seems that the continuation of war in BiH by non-

violent means has come to an impasse. However, interestingly, nobody seems to be satisfied

by the degree of change actually effected. Actually, it seems that many actors are less satisfied

today than in 1996 or 1997, which seems somewhat bizarre.

As to the issue of motivation, which is actually the key question, I do not think that I am able

to give an unequivocal and straightforward response. What has actually, in reality, motivated

the key players, such as US and UK, and a part of the EU, to disturb the subtle compromise

reached in Dayton, and to side with one party to the BiH political conflict? What has

motivated the former to thus produce great expectations in the latter, and also to discourage

and alienate the other parties in BiH both from the peace process and the BiH constitutional

frame as actually implemented? In other words, why dediscoursification when it is least

needed? Some hypothetical answers can be formulated, but I am not certain about specific

weight of each of the factors I will now point to.

It is possible that, as I noted earlier (in my essay on some disconcerting aspects of American

foreign policy towards Bosnia-Herzegovina), that the US presents itself primarily as a

protector of Bosniak-Muslim component because such an image enables them to neutralize

the bad image of America as anti-Muslim force (Iraq, Syria, Libya, Israel-Palestine, Iran

etc.). Secondly, it is possible that foreign actors intend to preserve BiH in the state of low-

level but non-armed conflict, which enables them to intervene as they wish and, more

importantly, to test their mutual relations on a mini-model. Thirdly, it is possible that the

complication and destabilization of relations in BiH is motivated simply by a colonial

sympathy for dramatization: once you decide to assume the status of a colonizer in a country,

which international community did through the figure of high representative, you cannot

simply say to the local actors the following: guys, here is the peace agreement; you simply

read and implement it; should you disagree on some detail, you need to negotiate and

continue negotiating until you reach an agreement. As a colonizer you need some kind of

drama, an internal tension in your colonial house to create impression that there is something

worth fighting for. For instance, you fight for the ideal of multi-ethnicity, or the ideal of

punishing the aggressor, or the ideal of correcting the injustice caused by the war, or the ideal

of overcoming the backward ethno-politics, or something similar.

Fourthly, it is quite possible that the colonizers got carried away in their business of state-

making. As entities connote some division and separation, state-making should connote

reintegration, the overcoming of divisions, and conflict-resolution. Some nave people have

perhaps thought that state-making, which in the context of Dayton actually means

expansion of the central powers of the government, can be presented as universally

acceptable and as bringing order into a complex community, which ought to be accepted by

all. Why should not the peoples cooperate at the state level, and, once they do so, why should

they need entities? In other words, here we see a nave kind of motivation we envisage a

foreign mediator as a peace-maker with the role of state-maker who is confident about his role

regardless of the responses such a role produces locally, within the ethnic communities of

BiH.

Fifthly, one should not forget financial motivation and the influence of very local factors.

First, international officials in BiH are well paid, and for this one needs to create the

impression that one has indeed been very busy, that one is engaged in some matters that are of

critical importance for BiH. For such a purpose, what can be better than the impression that

the BiH is still beset by a war over key political issues? One should, for instance, have in

mind that, for year 2013/14, which was a very low point in terms of international engagement,

and payment, in BiH, the OHR budget amounted to more than 7 million Euro, with the EU

providing more than a half of the funding. That money, however, is simply paying the salaries

of international officials and their local assistants, but is then also spent by the local actors

including the local landlords, hotel-owners etc. Additionally, the state which is every so often

endangered by a serious political conflict tends to get poorer every day, which however

improves the chance of foreign investors or buyers to buy some sectors of the impoverished

economy at a lower price. Now, as to the influence of local factors and elites, have in mind

that the institutions of international community are mainly located in Sarajevo; hence it is

much easier for the advocates of Bosniak unitary politics, or for some kind of anti-Dayton and

anti-ethnic intellectual elite, than for intellectual elite in Mostar or Banja Luka, to influence

those institutions.

Whatever ones response to the issue of motivation, one thing is strikingly clear: BiH politics

in post-Dayton period is to a large extent a politics of continuation of war by other means, and

for such a continuation the international actors are indeed chiefly responsible. The politics

looks like a perfect embodiment of Foucaults dictum that, in certain contexts, one needs to

invert the famous dictum by Clausewitz to the effect that war is continuation of politics by

other means. We saw that, in this regard, the international representatives exploited

Izetbegovis generally non-binding attitude to language, and in particular to a peace

agreement. It is again advisable to emphasize both Izetbegovis and OBriens

characterization of Dayton Constitution as a contradiction writ large: in a purely discursive

sense, such a characterization has two key effects first, it implies that Dayton Constitution is

binding neither on Izetbegovi nor on OBrien since a contradiction can bind none;

secondly, such a characterization makes the job of interpretation of the constitution

extremely easy, but also unavoidably irrational; as to the latter, the job is bound to be

irrational since a contradictory proposition entails all propositions and no proposition at the

same time; and the job is made extremely easy because, to Izetbegovi and OBrien, it can be

reduced to an arbitrary selection of a single proposition from the contradictory pair

conveniently to Izetbegovi and OBrien, it is a proposition that reflects the interest of

Izetbegovi (and OBrien) and excludes the interests of the other parties; however, one also

needs to have firmly in mind that the proposition coincides with Izetbegovis key war-time

aim, a fully sovereign and indivisible BiH in which individual, and not collective, rights play

the key constitutional role. Hence, it is clear that such a constitutional hermeneutics,

supported also by high representatives to BiH, in fact reproduces the state of war within the

medium of an apparent implementation of Dayton framework for peace.

Lastly, can the situation be amended? Is it possible to secure a transition from a discourse-

unfriendly politics (1991-2014) to a politics that respects discursive values and demonstrates a

higher degree of civilization by, for instance, fulfillment of the promise in the way that

satisfies all the parties who jointly gave it? In principle, the answer to this question is in the

positive. However, one should not forget that in the meantime, in the course of Dayton

implementation thus far, some damage was inflicted, and that one should repair the damage in

order to create a stable basis for the politics of rediscoursification. Besides, some actors ought

to assume responsibility for such a damage which, in our case, cannot be attributed solely to

the hard-liners or ethno-political elite, or whatever name one chooses for those local

baddies.

Reasoning in such a direction, BiH actually needs a much deeper change than one that would

be effected by a new constitution; also, I am very uncertain as to the following issue: has in

BiH remained a minimum amount of trust that is required for implementation of any

constitution? Therefore, for now, perhaps we should all welcome the possibility of rewinding

the time back to late 1995, the period of arrival at original Dayton formula for BiH, with the

international community giving the promise that no high representative would come to help

BiH as it was done in late 1997. However, this kind of scenario is of a low likelihood despite

its fairness and a maximum benefit to BiH. It is much more likely that we will continue to

vegetate politically in the state of post-Dayton war, in a fluid and to all an uncertain context,

which to a large extent simply reflects both the character of pre-modern communities and

immoral Realpolitik of major powers. Actual profit, which is in a postmodern world the only

value that matters, must have already been distributed among some privileged actors; the

post-Dayton war in BiH, in this kind of perspective, serves as a useful veil that protects those

actors from both public scrutiny and an annoying interference by the bodies of the state.

1 See Pehar (2011, 81-89), (2012), (2013); for some early response, see Matteucci (2012) and Chamberlain (2013); in my previous work I used the word 'dediscoursation;' following a sensible suggestion by Philip Pettit, the term is now changed to 'dediscoursification.' 2 Also we need to remember that some nations are inclined to characterize themselves as nations 'that in the times of peace lose the gains made in the times of war;' we find such a cultural stereotype in diverse nations, for which see (2013, 14). 3 More precisely, in Pehar (2013) I advocate the view that such discursive values can be reduced to four foundamental ones: 'meaning', 'truth', 'reason', and 'promising.' 4 Apel (1973), Habermas (1983); also Kettner (2006) 5 Orwell (1961), Arendt (1972)6 For the principles of republican political theory, see, for example, Pettit (1999) and Bobbio, Viroli (2003) 7 Those who are interested in the perspective of methodological individualism should consult primarily the work by Jon Elster. 8 For the sources, see Pehar (2013, 3).9 Here, and in the next few paragraphs, I simply draw on Pehar (2011). 10 See Holbrooke (1999, 224, 271, 302) 11 Holbrooke (1999, 96-7) 12 Izetbegovi (1998, 192) 13 The quote and context in Kosti (2013, 28) 14 See http://www.ohr.int/ohr-dept/legal/const/pdf/Djelomicna-odluka-3.pdf (accessed on 30 October 2014) 2014) 15 See Pehar (2014a) 16 See http://www.ohr.int/ohr-dept/legal/const/pdf/Djelomicna-odluka-3.pdf (accessed on 30 October 2014) 17 See Pehar (2014b) 18 Adams, James, Bosnia Stabilization Stalled in Negative Peace (Transconflict, 27 October 2014), http://www.transconflict.com/2014/10/bosnia-stabilization-stalled-negative-peace-270/ (accessed on 30 October 2014) 19 Kosti (2011, 109-112) 20 O'Brien (2010, 348) 21 Interview to Dnevni Avaz (Sarajevo, 16 May 2009) 22 It is interesting to note that Petritsch applied Marxist doctrine of 'withering away of the state' to the process of gradualdisempowerment of High Representative, for which see Kosti (2013, 38, note 16); this demonstrates complete politicalignorance of the person who once played the dominant role in BiH politics. 23 See Cicero (1921, I33); it is important to have in mind that Cleomenes can be presented as one of the first practitioners of 'postmodernist philosophy' in the area of practical hermeneutics of peace agreements; postmodernist philosophy views meanings as fluid, unstable and open to a never-ending process of interpretation, and it also teaches that there is no truth, but only different perspectives, and that, due to what postmodernists present as principal incommensurability of criteria, the strength of competing reasons can never be fully determined. I deem postmodernismsimply as an assembly of incoherent and self-defeating propositions; however, one needs to have in mind that the intellectual trend has exerted enormous (and harmful) influence over many areas of contemporary both social and political life. For an eloquent critique of postmodernism, with which I to a large extent agree, see Gellner (1992).

References

Apel, Karl Otto (1973), Transformation der Philosophie (Band 2), Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp

Arendt, Hannah (1972), Lying in politics, in: H. Arendt, Crises of the Republic, New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., pp. 3-47

Bobbio, Norberto, Viroli, Maurizio (2003), The Idea of the Republic, Cambridge: Polity Press, translated by Allan Cameron

Cicero (1921), De Officiis, London, New York: Heinemann and Macmillan

Chamberlain, Jo (2013), War and de-discoursation: a research frame A linguists response, Archbishop Desmond Tutu Centre for War and Peace Studies Liverpool Hope University, Working paper series no. 2: http://tutu.hope.ac.uk/research/workingpaperseries/ (accessed on 30 October 2014)

Gellner, Ernest (1992), Postmodernism, Reason and Religion, London and New York: Routledge

Habermas, Jrgen (1983), Moralbewusststein und kommunikatives Handeln, Frankfurt: Suhrkamp

Holbrooke, Richard (1999), To End a War, New York: The Modern Library, revised edition

Izetbegovi, Alija (1998), Govori, intervjui, izjave i pisma 1997, Sarajevo: DES

Kettner, Matthias (2006), Discourse ethics, in: Christoph Rehmann-Sutter, Marcus Dwell, Dietmar Mieth (eds.): Bioethics in Cultural Contexts. Reflections on Methods and Finitude. (Berlin: Springer), pp. 299-318

Kosti, Roland (2011), Education through regulation? External intervention in domestic politics in post-Dayton Bosnia and Herzegovina, in: Fjelde H., Hglund K. (ur.), Building Peace, Creating Conflict? Conflictual Dimension of Local and International Peacebuilding, Nordic Academic Press, pp. 105-129

_____ (2013), 'American nation-building abroad: exceptional powers, broken promises, and the making of 'Bosnia'', in: Eriksson, M., Kosti R.. (2013), Mediation and Liberal Peacebuilding: Peace from the Ashes of War?, London and New York: Routledge, pp. 22-39

Matteucci, Aldo (2012), De-discoursation and metaphors, DiploFoundation blog 24 August, http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/de-discoursation-and-metaphors (accessed on 30 October 2014)

O'Brien, J. C. (2010), 'The Dayton constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina,' in: L. E. Miller (ed.),Framing the State in Times of Transition, Washington: United States Institute of Peace Press, pp. 332-349

Orwell, George (1961), Politics and the English language, in: K. W. Hunt, P. Stoakes (ed.) Our Living Language, (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company), pp. 18-29

Pehar, D. (2011), Alija Izetbegovi i rat u Bosni i Hercegovini Alija Izetbegovi and the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina (bilingual edition), Mostar: HKD Napredak

_____ (2012), War, diplomacy, and dediscoursation, DiploFoundation blog 20 August, http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/war-diplomacy-and-dediscoursation (accessed on 30 October 2014)

_____ (2013), War and de-discoursation: a research frame, Archbishop Desmond Tutu Centre for War and Peace Studies Liverpool Hope University; Working paper series no.2: http://tutu.hope.ac.uk/research/workingpaperseries/ (accessed on 30 October 2014)

_____ (2014a), 'Multiethnic reflections on an unjustifiably suppressed and repeatedly violated Dayton agreement' (IDPI Mostar), http://www.en.idpi.ba/multiethnic-reflections/ (accessed on 30 October 2014)

_____ (2014b), 'Why has Bonn-powered High Representative never been a sign of progress for Bosnia-Herzegovina: four reflections' (IDPI Mostar), http://www.en.idpi.ba/high-representative/ (accessed on 30 October 2014)

Pettit, Philip (1999), Republicanism, Oxford: Oxford University Press