Recently, Ivan Bacak, a Croat member of the Bosnian Defense and Security Board, published a text on this website, Consultations, compromise and consensus, which proposes the "magic formula" for peace in Bosnia. In it, Ivan Bacak invites Bosnian Serb leadership for reform talks that will set the agenda for a post-Dayton Bosnia. That text was a basis and a rare opportunity to have a frank and a direct talk with a Bosnian Croat on a wide range of issues. Ivan Bacak then gracefully agreed for an interview.

The only way to expand human rights and control radical Islamic elements in Bosnia is through ethnic entities.

What is your view at the outcome of the talks on reforming the Dayton Accords?

To answer this question we should know positions of the Sides (all three Nations and the International Community) during negotiations or talks on reforming the Dayton Peace Accords. All sides agree on basic principles: this is too complicated, expensive and not efficient administration, with almost two hundred ministers (in cantons, entities, District Brcko and Council of Ministers), non-compatible with European standards.

It happened that in reforms of defense, police, intelligence services and in a process of transforming economy, International Community and Bosnian politicians used the same language and expressed the same views of the future self sustainable Bosnian state. This fact encouraged all those who dream about unitary, strongly centralized citizen- State with Bosnians as fundamental people.

President of Republic of Croatia Stipe Mesic said during the last session of the so called "Igman's initiative" (November, 2005, in Sarajevo) while talking about multinational Bosnia and Herzegovina: "This country passed through internal war which was initialized and supported from outside, from two neighboring countries, and from abroad". I quoted this to show the position of Croats in Bosnia, as the smallest and the weakest people, left and betrayed by official authorities from Croatia, and as an example of politician-servant who knows that Bosnia is multinational country and should be treated as such, but he talks what international ears like to hear.

Prime minister Sanader announced his visit to Bosnia and support of Croatian Government to the Croats in Bosnia in a way that he is going to appoint his official Representative for revision of Dayton Agreement. Media announced Croatian ex minister of foreign affairs Mate Granic, to be this Representative of Croatian Government.

Anyway, I think that the International Community would accept and support any rational proposal that will guarantee peace and prosperity for all. It's up to the domestic politicians to find the formula for coexistence of all three peoples that constitute Bosnia. It is important that we all agree and respect basic Bosnian Croat leaders including Catholic Bishops, Croatian ambassador and others.

At the assembly in Sarajevo in February of 2005 the idea of redrawing Bosnia into cantons that extinguishes ethnic entity system was supported by a wide segment of Bosnian Croat leaders including Catholic Bishops, Croatian ambassador and others. What is your view of this idea, reaffirmed recently by Anto Djapic to redraw internal borders of Bosnia into 4 cantons?

I have already mentioned Granic as possible representative of Croatian Government, and he is now advisor to Djapic and supporter or even maybe the author of this proposal. He and Djapic are trying to present this proposal as similar to the proposal of the Bishop Conference, and I think that Granic is responsible for such a frustrating position of Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina after the Dayton Agreement and it would be better for all of us if Sanader send him as an ambassador to the Brussels or Vatican for example. All those who propose something while forgetting the reality are not serious and responsible politicians. The Bishop Conference offered more basic principles than practical solutions, perhaps an ideal vision but with no future. Their position is different. Nobody expect them to be political experts.

Do you think that a separate Croat entity is, as Djapic says, unsustainable and too small?

I don't know how big or small it is because if we agree that there are entities, and I think that's reality, Croats should have their own entity and not repeat Dayton’s mistake. When I say Entity, I mean a federal Unit or you may call it Region or Canton. The essence is important, not the name. I think that between the municipal and state levels a third level of governance should exist that is based on national principles.

It doesn't necessarily mean continuous territory with majority of one nation. For example Zepce or Usora wouldn't be territorially "connected" with Croat federal unit but in a vertical line they would be part of it. I don't understand why in this case the International Community is afraid of a possibility of radical Islamic mini state at the European front door. In fact this is the only way to stop it and to control radical Islamic elements, and on the other side this discontinued territory for each nation is the best way to keep Bosnia whole out of parts.

Can Bosnia expand human rights through ethnic entities or must they be abolished?

In fact, the only way to expand human rights in Bosnia is through ethnic entities.

What is your view of Monsignor Peric's statement that Ashdown is a failure to Croats because he did not abolish ethnic entities?

I must say I never saw Peric's statement as you quoted. In his farewell letter to Ashdown bishop Peric, as I understood, was wondering why Ashdown didn't abolish entities in Bosnia, reminding him of the famous "napkin proof" against Tudjman. Bishop's letter was an irony that asked Ashdown about "history lectures" concerning usual efforts of IC to create new "Bosnian identity". He concluded his letter with these words: "I don' know if you're aware of disaster that Your High governance brought to this people". Ashdown was a failure for all three peoples and for all normal citizens of Bosnia.

Do you view the existence of the Bosnian Serb entity as a problem and if so, why?

It would be better if we all agreed on internal redefinition of the joint state before that terrible war broke out, but those who now want to talk about the future of Bosnia as if the war never happened seeking to create ex-Yugoslav "brotherhood and unity" political schemes are in fact the biggest enemies of Bosnia.

Bosnian Serbs can sacrifice, if necessary, the name Republika Srpska but they shouldn't lose its essence. Of course, they should show to Croats and Bosnians and others in RS that entities are not exclusive rights against others, those who are in minority. I also expect an open dialogue between leading Bosnian Croat and Serb politicians in a way I already explained in recent article "Magic formula for peace in Bosnia".

What is your conceptual vision of the Bosnian state?

More or less I answered this question. For detailed plan we need more than just an interview.

Why did the Bosnian Muslim President Tihic accuse your political party of siding with the Serbs during the recent talks?

I'm afraid that you misunderstood or maybe overviewed the fact that I was a member of Presidency of HDZBiH and now I represent in Federal Parliament Croatian bloc (HBBiH), party established a year and a half ago in Mostar. But I am interested in all happenings in the biggest and only well organized Croat party HDZBiH.

Tihic and SDA are partners with HDZ only when Bosnian Muslims need to show to the International Community that they are "modern" party ready for European integration. I do hope that HDZBiH will first of all overcome their internal struggles and confrontations, and then invite all or most Croat parties in a united coalition and finally start serious talks with Dodik and other relevant Bosnian Serb representatives. In that case Bosnian Muslims could be represented with SDP or any other party ready for compromises.

How do you view the recommendation made by the Muslim cleric that Silajdzic should become the new Bosnian president?

As someone pushes Granic as a Croat "savior", there are international lobbies pushing Silajdzic and reis Ceric is in this case only a spokesman of these American-Arabian lobbies. Silajdzic is Bosnia’s problem rather than its solution. Somehow I expect his comeback and Schwarz-Schilling and others from Europe would finally "discover" how Bosnian Muslims view the future of Europe.

What is the outcome after expulsions of your party's members Raguz and Merdzo? Is HDZ marginalized as Raguz says? What impact did Rajic-Zoric (etc) letter have on HDZ party structure?

I don't think HDZBiH is able to overcome this division without Sanader and HDZ from Zagreb. They unfortunately were burdened with their own problems and Sanader realized too late how important Bosnian Croats are in his future strategy towards Bosnia. Now he knows he shouldn't "copy" solutions from Zagreb and try to implement them in Mostar. HDZ is a brand and in that sense Raguz and Merdzo or anybody else means nothing. Let them candidate as independent individuals and if people choose them for the Parliament I'm ready to pay all of their costs in campaigning. "Promemoria" that was signed by most HDZ representatives in Parliaments was unsuccessful try to point out all the irregularities made by dr. D. Covic during last Party congress.

What is your reaction to Francis Boyle's recent statement that Hays is preparing the break up of Bosnia to compensate Serbia's loss of Kosovo?

N Boyle is "better Muslim than Mohamed himself". It is not the first time he defends Bosnia from Bosnians. After the death of late Rugova, I expect a repeating scenario from Croatia after Tudjman's death. Charismatic politicians are not born every day and usually with them also die their movement. Albanians will split in many fractions but in any case it won't influence restructuring of Bosnia. As monsignor Peric said on congressional hearing couple of years ago in Washington: "All we want to keep untouched B-H frame, but the life in the county should be balanced and harmonized."

How dire is the problem of the Jihadist presence in Bosnia? What do you view as possible solutions?

This question also requests to be treated as a case study but I'll try to answer it through my dialogue with general J. P.Klein six years ago in Sarajevo.

J. P.Klein was the Special Representative General Secretary of the UN Mission in Bosnia and I was deputy minister of Interior in the Federation Bosnia Government. He invited me to a restaurant "Cedar" in Sarajevo, owned by Bosnian Muslim war veteran Zulfikar Alispago, aka Zuka, who proved his courage and heroism mainly against Croatian civilians in Grabovica and Uzdol.

Minister Mohamed Zilic and Klein’s advisor Seredaryan accompanied us. That was my last chance to warn Klein about such groups of mujahedins in Bocinja. The Norwegian SFOR general was attacked by mujahedin with a sword and he was lucky, but about the "incident" one could read tomorrow only but few words in the daily newspaper Oslobodjenje. I didn't boycott this dinner with Zilic and Klein. I didn't even let them know I was informed about restaurant's owner, but I used the chance to ask Klein in front of Zilic what would have happened if a Serb or a Croat in Brcko or somewhere else attacked the SFOR commander. He didn't answer as he didn't answer why did he allow the process against Croats in the "Leutar case" on Sarajevo cantonal Court when he knew all about it. When I opposed him, he called me in an interview in Globus "nationalistic fool".

This dinner was a year before September 11, 2001!!!

After that terrible terrorist attack I expected a turn in the American approach to this problem in Bosnia and all over the world, but nothing changed. There is a diagnosis and the American authorities should find proper therapy for it. Otherwise we'll have Iraqoslavia in Bosnia and than it could be too late for Europe and for all of us.

Didn't I say enough, perhaps too much?