I reviewed election results from October 2010, and I am now doubting whether enough Hrvatski in some central bosnian municipalities would vote for independence. I judged this by the numbers who voted HDZ, HDZ-1990, HSP and HSS. Even in Odzak in Posavina, a majority might not be achieved. Only 47%. In Zenica canton, Usora 77% though it is small, while Zepce is divided. Only 47% there. In central, Jajce (37%), Vitex (49%), Busovaca (45%). Definite areas are Kresevo (64%), and Dobretici (99%) though it is too far to join Herceg-Bosna. Kiseljak (50%), Novi Travnik (37%) and Gornji Vakuf (30%) also had sizable numbers, though not enough.

In Herzegovina-Neretva Canton: Ravno, Stolac, Neum, Capljina, Citluk and Prozor-Rama would all vote yes. While Mostar municipality would have to be divided with the south west part joining Herceg-Bosna.

And of course West Herzegovina Canton is Hrvatski and Canton 10 is half Hrvatski and half Srpski.

I used results from http://www.izbori.ba

I wanted to show another country that has non-contiguous regions and that is Belgium. Belgium is mentioned a lot here on the Croatian language forum as a country that seems to be in as bad a shape as the Bosnia and Herzegovina with regards to its ethnic communities and if there is a pan-Belgian political consciousness or not. I am not addressing any of that in this post.

I just want to show that the three areas for the Flemish, Germans, and Walloons are all made up of pieces that are not connected. The orange dot in the center is Brussels and I think that is a separate region but claimed by both the Flemish and Walloons.

As you can see from the map below the Dutch speaking Flemish (in yellow) have an enclave in the east of the country while the French Speaking Walloons (in red) have an enclave in the west of the country. The German community (blue) is made up of two areas in the East.

Usual agit prop from SDP puppet. I know he wants a solution, and no one on this forum really cares what he says, but mine is better let's let Croats decide what they want and let's also ensure that Croats elect their own people and not others...

Source: http://www.b92.net/eng/news/region-arti ... v_id=79873

Croat presidency member not in favor of Croat entity
Source: Tanjug

BANJA LUKA -- Croat member of the Bosnia-Herzegovina Presidency Željko Komšić has stated that creation of a Croat entity will not be a solution for Bosnia-Herzegovina.

He added that their own entity would not provide Croats equality in the entire territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Komšić said that a part of the people always remained some kind of minority in such situations.

“A special federal unit for Croats will not save the problem. A solution to the problem, not only for the Croats but for all other people, should in fact be looked for in the opposite direction, in the direction of equality in the entire territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina, regardless of who is the ethnic majority and who is minority,” he told Banja Luka-based daily Nezavisne novine.

Post-Dayton Bosnia-Herzegovina is organized into two entities - the Serb Republic (RS), and the Muslim-Croat Federation (FBiH), which is further divided into cantons.

Komšić pointed out that being a member of an ethnic majority or minority must not be a deciding factor when “we talk about equality or the people and individual citizens”.

Commenting on Bosnia-Herzegovina’s membership in NATO and the EU, he noted that the country was much closer to joining NATO than the EU.

“Those who oppose it are actually opposing an opportunity for us to physically, as individuals, live in a safe and peaceful environment, without fear of some new ‘Balkan conflicts’,” he explained.

“The stabilization brought by NATO is a precondition for further European integrations that we must use so we could improve functioning of the institutions in order to enable a better standard of living to the citizens of this country,” Komšić concluded.

This is example of false information and unexceptable solutions for Croats.
Every percentige in upper post is wrong!

Moderators can we make this a sticky topic?

http://www.cbismo.com/index.php?mod=vijest&vijest=1081


A MEMORANDUM TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF CROATIA
KIUM, 2012-09-24

On the occasion of the visit of the President of Croatia Ivo Josipović, to Mostar, its Cathedral and Diocesan Chancery on 15 April 2012, the local bishop presented the President with a memorandum which was published in the Official Bulletin of the Diocese of Mostar-Duvno, N.2/2012., pp. 177-179, and printed here in its entirety:

A Memorandum to the President of the Republic of Croatia

Dr. Ivo Josipović

Mostar, 15 April 2012


Mr. President,

We stand at this moment in the building of the Church institution which was first known as the Apostolic Vicariate of Herzegovina (1846 to 1881) and from then on as the Diocese of Mostar-Duvno. During this time period seven states came and went, while during the last war (1992-1995), this building was completely burned to the ground, yet the institution remains stable. Today however, I would not like to dwell on Church matters, but rather on some of the socio-political issues that particularly bother us, the post-Dayton Croats in Bosnia-Herzegovina (BiH). This is not to take away from the role of the Croatian representatives of BiH, but I only wish to present my opinion and an appeal, as the local Bishop of the Catholic Church in which the Croatian people comprise the majority.

Thank you for your visit and we are pleased that you are among those who, from the beginning of their presidential term of office, are trying to institutionalize the Croatian question in BiH. We would be pleased if you were to interpret these few suggestions as an aid to your efforts.

A key aspect of the "Croatian question in BiH" is the lack of political institutions and a system that allows Croats to be represented by people who have the support of the Croatian electorate. This is most often enabled through a variety of legal and electoral provisions that have been internationally imposed.

At the national level:

• In March 2001, the High Representative ousted the directly elected Croatian member of the Presidency for his role in the Croatian National Assembly and the Croat Self-Government, and appointed another in his place!

• Another High Representative in March 2005, replaced the directly elected Croatian member of the Presidency after the presentation of some charges against him, without even waiting for the final verdict!

• In the last presidential election, the total number of people who voted for the Croat member of the Presidency was slightly more than 556,000 votes, which is certainly more than the total number of Croats who have the right to vote throughout the state.

At the entity level:

• In October 2000, a month before elections, the OSCE changed the electoral method of selecting representatives to the House of Peoples of the Federation. The Croatian representatives in the House up till then were chosen only by the Croatian parliamentarians, while Bosniak Muslims chose their own in the county assemblies. After these changes, the delegates to the House of Representatives are elected by all the representatives.

• In the House of Representatives of the Federation Parliament, more than 2/3 of the representatives are Bosniaks, which allows them to out-vote others in every area.

• Serbs in Bosnia have their own entity, in which they are free to organize an independent tax system, education structure, system administration, police and other elements of a "state within a state".

• The current President of the Federation comes from a party in Parliament that has two representatives (out of a total of 98 parliamentarians), and he was elected to this post predominantly by the Bosniak representatives of the Social Democratic Party. This type of election was legalized by the High Representative’s imposed amendments to the Constitution of the Federation already in 2002, according to which candidates are no longer presented by individual nations, but rather by all the members of parliament.

• The same High Representative then imposed other amendments to the Constitution of the Federation. Up until that time, the Croats were guaranteed a third of government ministerial postings in the Government of the Federation, yet afterwards they were given 5 out of 17 positions of the Government.

• The provision according to which the Federation Government decisions affecting vital national interests are taken by consensus were revoked, thereby allowing for out-voting, which changed the process regarding the nomination and selection of the President and Vice-Presidents.

At the local level:

• The most dramatic example of the unfair system is provided by that of Mostar, the only larger city with a majority Croatian population. In 2004, the High Representative imposed a special statute for the city of Mostar. In the City Council comprised of 35 members, no national group can have a majority – even though Croats make up the majority of the city population. Therefore, a single Croatian electoral unit, which can have four times more voters than the Bosniaks, nonetheless has three representatives in the Council just as the latter group. The Council usually takes over a year to elect a mayor. This is an unfair system! The fact that of all the cities of BiH, only Mostar has this special statute, is an added injustice and discrimination against the Croats! The Constitutional Court declared the statute unconstitutional in part, and is now again seeking a special status. Why is it that the same electoral rules that exist in the other cities of BiH do not apply for Mostar? Or is it that the injustice here has to be definite!? And to whom have injustices ever brought happiness?

While they were in charge, the High Representatives through their forced decisions went decidedly against the legitimate aspirations of the Croats. Yet when they return to their homes, then they say that the Croatian self-government should be rehabilitated, that they neglected the Croats, the Croats in BiH must have their region, that they are concerned that the Croats are not included in the federal government and so on. All of them were told of the injustices while they were in charge here. However, they did not remove the injustices but only confirmed them. We have little need for such afterthoughts, "apologies" and recognition of "mistakes".

Bearing all this in mind, we can only reiterate the need for Croatian institutions of government and society, as enjoyed by the other national groups. Why are they banned for one nation while guaranteed for another nation? We're referring to the institutions:

• in which Croatian citizens will elect their own representatives at all levels and not have them voted in and imposed by others;

• where the legally and legitimately elected representatives will be able to make and enforce laws, and not have them made and imposed by foreign officials under someone's dictate;

• where we can organize schools and the education system according to Croatian curriculum, and not have it labelled as segregation;

• where we will resolve the issues of public television, radio and other media in the Croatian language, and not have our signals turned off or transmitters taken away (Erotel was turned off in 1999; SFOR interrupted the signal from the transmitter in 2000, and the transmitters were activated for the Federal TV; HTV of Mostar stopped work in 2008 while recently they lost their license to work; Radio Mostar stopped broadcasting in 2011 and Radio Herceg-Bosna, they say, is about to go off the air;

• where one will be able to establish a tax and fiscal system in which Croatian citizens will benefit from the Croatian taxpayers’ money, and not that various loans that we neither sought nor used be repaid through it;

• where a sustainable system of higher and lower education, health, culture and other layers of public life can be organized, and that these institutions not languish and piece together their budget day by day, without resolving their status and funding;

• where banks and other economic institutes will be able to operate freely and according to law, and not fear the seizure of private property, as occurred in April 2001 with the intrusion of tanks into the Hercegovačka Banka. Account holders to this day cannot claim all of their money;

• where voters will be able to express their civic and political will and know that it will be respected, and not that foreign ambassadors at the time of their departure point out to the Croatian citizens that we must "assimilate or emigrate!" Assimilate with whom and emigrate where?

Mr. President!

Will such a political system that we are talking about, with a majority Croatian population be called a self-government unit, entity, association of counties, a gathering of municipalities set within BiH, with territorial continuity or discontinuity - is all subject to reasonable agreement. Nothing hurts as much as an injustice, from whomever it originates. Yet the system in which we currently live in deserves this description: institutionalized injustice! Statutory injustice! Today the world screams out when a small child is inflicted by any injustice. And yet, here a whole national group is inflicted by injustices and all is well! It seems that those who are not providing us with institutions or are destroying what we have, want us to disappear from the region – and we are disappearing. It is crucial for our survival to have strong and equitable institutions. If with your authority you help us with this, perhaps the political arena will not give you any particular award today, but rest assured that the future and history will.

We wish you, Mr. President, God’s gifts of good health and success in the promotion of justice and true peace!

Ratko Perić, Bishop

I saw yet another article about Milorad Dodik advocating a Croatian entity. Nothing new. You can read it here: http://www.eurasiareview.com/23112012-s ... in-bosnia/

What I have been wondering over the past few days in light of the Gotovina-Markac appeal is what impact (if any on Bosnia and Herzegovina).

In theory if Oluja was not a joint criminal enterprise to wage genocide, but rather stop the creation of an ethnically pure greater Serbia, then can it be argued that the Dayton agreement rewarded greater Serbian nationalism and that now we have a foundation to revise Dayton for our benefit and maybe have some leverage to negotiate certain Croat territories back from the RS?

Thoughts?

The problem is that the ICTY has also decided that Tudjman and the Bosnian Croat leadership were part of a "Joint Criminal Enterprise" in Bosnia. Also, is it not the case that Bosnian Croat politicians are generally much more concerned with improving their position in the Federation than worrying about gaining territory from the RS? I would have thought that the best way for Bosnian Croats to achieve their own entity (if that is what they want) is to support the Serbs' desire for more independence for the RS in return for Serbs supporting a third entity. (Not that I am advocating this approach). On a similar subject, the ICTY said earlier this year that the Prlic verdict would be in November - clearly it has been delayed.

I have Usorizacija on my mind, and I wanted to make list in English of potential new Croatian municipalities in both the FBiH and RS or within the Croatian entity as discussed here on the forum. What I've tried to do for these next few posts is compile maps and information from discussions here on the forum. Most of these have been discussed in one form or another on the forum but I am adding some links to external sites as well that might have more information.

I used this map by Ceha to illustrate areas of Croatian interest in Bosnia and to illustrate the concept of discontinuity as it applies to the Croatian entity. I have made the argument for discontinuity previously on this thread and others have brought it up on the forum as well.

Obviously some of these are probably more realistic than others and its probably not hard to imagine why the authorities in Sarajevo and Banja Luka might be against the creation of these.

Ceha also gives us a key to understanding this map with a lot of detail. Great map and info Ceha! You have no idea how much I love this map!

Also I am not covering everything on Ceha's map just the big ones. I think this map does bring up interesting questions about what to do with these smaller areas.



1. Zavalje, Croats villages in Bihać municipality. Claimed as part of Croatia in the border talks (was Croatia until unilateral change in 1947, controlled by HVO during Bosnian war, HDZ suggested new municipality). 2. Ljubija, ex Croat municipality (abolished in the 60-ies,slightly different borders) planed as new municipality in the early stages of Bosnian war. 3. Sasina, planed as new municipality in the early stages of Bosnian war. 4. Ivanjska, ex Croat municipality (abolished in the 60-ies,slightly different borders) planed as new municipality in the early stages of Bosnian war. 5. Kotor Varoš, planed as new municipality in Bosnian war, claimed by Croatian community of Herzeg Bosna during the war, controled by Croat forces in the early stages of Bosnian war, planed as new municipalities in later stages of Geneva peace conference. 6. Gradiška, Croatian villages, planed as new municipality in the early stages of Bosnian war. 7. Derventa, old borders of municipality, during the war referendum was held in north Doboj villages. Croatian parties won first municipal elections, most of the territories was controlled by Croatian forces in early stages of Bosnian war. Changes of municipal borders discussed during Geneva peace conference, claimed by Croatian community of Herzeg Bosnia during the war. 8. Modriča, Croatian parties won first municipal elections, most of the territories was controlled by Croatian forces in early stages of Bosnian war. Discussions of municipal borders made during the Geneva peace conference, southern line shown is the line proposed in the Contact group peace plan claimed by Croatian community of Herzeg Bosnia during the war. 9. Šamac, Croatian parties won first municipal elections, most of the territories was controlled by Croatian forces in early stages of Bosnian war. Discussions of municipal borders made during the Geneva peace conference claimed by Croatian community of Herzeg Bosnia during the war. 10. Croatian villages in Prnjavor/Doboj brief Croatian control in early stages of Bosnian war. 11. Croatian villages near Usora, Croatian control in stages of Bosnian war, border discussed during Geneva peace conference. 12. Oštra Luka, Croatian village near Orašje, part of municipality in which Croatian parties won first municipal elections, controlled during the war by Croatian forces (most of the war, until the end), was part of Croatian municipality in every peace plan except last one) claimed by Croatian community of Herzeg Bosnia during the war. 13. Tramošnica, collection of Croatian villages in 1991. municipality of Gradačac and neighboring municipalities. Controlled by Croatian forces in early phases of Bosnian war, borders discussed during Geneva peace conference claimed by Croatian community of Herzeg Bosnia during the war. 14. Ravne-Brčko (part outside District of Brčko) , territories controlled by Croatian forces during Bosnian war, borders discussed during Geneva peace conference, Croatian parties planed new municipality in Federation. 15. Soli, Croatian villages around Tuzla. Croatian parties planed new municipality in Federation claimed by Croatian community of Herzeg Bosnia during the war. 16. Komušina, territories controlled by Croatian forces during Bosnian war, borders discussed during Geneva peace conference claimed by Croatian community of Herzeg Bosnia during the war. 17. Žepče, territories controlled by Croatian forces during Bosnian war, borders discussed during Geneva peace conference, municipal borders changed affter 1995, maximal Croatian claim not met claimed by Croatian community of Herzeg Bosnia during the war. 18. Vareš, territories controlled by Croatian forces during Bosnian war, borders discussed during Geneva peace conference. Croatian parties planed changed borders of municipality in Federation claimed by Croatian community of Herzeg Bosnia during the war. 19. Kraljeva Sutjeska, territories controlled by Croatian forces during Bosnian war, borders discussed during the war. Croatian parties planed new municipality in Federation. 20. Travnik, territories controlled by Croatian forces during Bosnian war, border changes discussed during the Geneva peace conference and after (by Washington agreement Travnik should have had the same status as Mostar) claimed by Croatian community of Herzeg Bosnia during the war. 21. Jajce, territories controlled by Croatian forces during Bosnian war, border changes discussed during the Geneva peace conference and after claimed by Croatian community of Herzeg Bosnia during the war. Croatian parties won first municipal elections. Border shows reunification of prewar Jajce municipality with Dobretići and few Croatian villages in Mrkonjić Grad (Matjaševo). 22. Novi Travnik, territories controlled by Croatian forces during Bosnian war, border changes discussed during the Geneva peace conference and after claimed by Croatian community of Herzeg Bosnia during the war. Croatian parties won first municipal elections. Borders shows enlargement of Novi Travnik by few Croatian villages in Fojnica and Bugojno municipalities. 23. Vitez, territories controlled by Croatian forces during Bosnian war, border changes discussed during the Geneva peace conference and after claimed by Croatian community of Herzeg Bosnia during the war. Croatian parties won first municipal elections. Border shows enlargement of Vitez by few Croatian villages in Zenica municipality. 24.Fojnica, controlled by Croatian forces during Bosnian war, border changes discussed during the Geneva peace conference and after claimed by Croatian community of Herzeg Bosnia during the war. Croatian parties won first municipal elections. 25. Kiseljak, controlled by Croatian forces during Bosnian war, border changes discussed during the Geneva peace conference and after claimed by Croatian community of Herzeg Bosnia during the war. Croatian parties won first municipal elections. Border shows enlargement of municipality by few Croatian villages in Visoko municipality. 26. Uskoplje, controlled by Croatian forces during Bosnian war, border changes discussed during the Geneva peace conference and after claimed by Croatian community of Herzeg Bosnia during the war. 27. Bugojno, controlled by Croatian forces during Bosnian war, border changes discussed during the Geneva peace conference and after claimed by Croatian community of Herzeg Bosnia during the war. Croatian parties won first municipal elections. 28. Konjic-Klis, controlled by Croatian forces during Bosnian war, border changes discussed during the Geneva peace conference and after claimed by Croatian community of Herzeg Bosnia during the war. 29. Dobretići, controlled by Croatian forces during Bosnian war, border changes discussed during the Geneva peace conference and after claimed by Croatian community of Herzeg Bosnia during the war. 30. Sv. Stjepan Križ, controlled by Croatian forces during stages of Bosnian war, border changes discussed during the Geneva peace conference and after claimed by Croatian community of Herzeg Bosnia during the war. Part of prewar Stolac municipality. 31. Croatian-Serbian border near Ravno, border changes discussed during the Geneva peace conference. Changes show inclusion of Croatian (and others) villages near the entity border. 32. Kupres, controlled by Croatian forces during stages of Bosnian war, border changes discussed during the Geneva peace conference and after claimed by Croatian community of Herzeg Bosnia during the war. Proposed enlargement would have given municipality Croatian majority due to Serbian enclave existing in the south of 1991 municipality. 33. Enlarged Livno, controlled by Croatian forces during Bosnian war, border changes discussed during the Geneva peace conference. Northern part (Grahovo municipality) was conquered by Croatian forces in 1995, had Croatian majority till 1998, and due to low population planed to include in Livno municipality. 34. Glamoč-Drvar. Areas conquered by Croatian forces in 1995. Strong Croatian presence in southern part of municipality, had Croatian majority till 1998, and due to low population planed to include in one municipality.

Source: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hrvat ... _u_BiH.png

So let's get started with the FBiH

The big two that we have discussed here on the forum are municipalities of Soli and Kraljeva Sutjeska - Vareš.

The municipality of Kraljeva Sutjeska - Vareš would create a large Croatia enclave to the north of Sarajevo. It would be comprised of the Croatian areas of Kakanj, Vareš, Olovo, Zavidovići, and Visoko. I believe the prewar Croatian population was about 20.000 in that area.

Map in detail:



Further discussion:
http://www.posavski-obzor.info/zanimlji ... eske-danas


The municipality of Soli would create a Croatian enclave around the city of Tuzla, and be formed from the municipality of Tuzla along with Croatian areas of the Lukavac, Živinice and Čelić municipalities.

Map in detail:



Further discussion:
http://www.posavski-obzor.info/komentari/opcina-soli


The Municipality of Stup would create a municipality within the city of Sarajevo: I have never seen a proposed map of it I assume it would take the area of Stup in Sarajevo and make it a municipality. Does anyone have a map or a rough idea of how it would look?

Furthur discussion:
http://www.aimpress.ch/dyn/pubs/archive ... bs-sar.htm


The creation of new municipalities in Travnik was agreed to in the Washington Agreement along with Mostar, but was never implemented. I believe the original agreement called for the establishment of 6 total municipalities in Travnik with 3 for Croatians.

Map in detail:



Further discussion:
politika/washingtonski-sporazum-t1314.html
politika/statut-za-travnik-t2578.html
http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washingtonski_sporazum


The area of Zavalje was a municipality up until it was removed from Croatia and became part of the Bihać municipality after World War II. So asking for a municipality of Zavalje is does not seem so strange. There is a historical precedent for it. I think the one argument against it would be population. Judging by the area, I think that a reformed Zavalje municipality would be bigger in terms of size than some new municipalities in FBiH like Doboj Jug, Doboj Istok, or Teočak.

I could not find anything that gave me a figure of how many square kilometers the current MZ Zavalje has. If anyone knows I would like to see how big a new municipality of Zavalje would be compared to other smaller municipalities.

Further discussion:
http://ubozavalje.blogspot.com/2012_09_19_archive.html

The RS

The municipality of Komušina would be formed from the municipality of Teslić. I believe there were around 10.000 Croats in Komušina before the war. It is the area labeled 1. on the map below.

Map:


Further discussion:
http://www.posavski-obzor.info/reportaze/komusina
http://mrsici.blog.siol.net/povijest/

Kotor Varoš

There were talks before the war about creating a predominantly Croatian municipality but I don’t have an external source for this. My guess is that it would have included Kotor Varoš and the Croatian villages around it.

Further discussion:
srednja-bosna/podru-ja-hrvatskog-interesa-t4958.html


Ljubija was a municipality until the 1960s when it was abolished. I believe most of the Croatian villages that comprised it now sit in the RS.

Municipality in the 1960’s



Demographic table from the municipality as it existed in the 1960s:



A map of a proposed new municipality:



Further discussion:
post550360.html



Ivanjska was also a municipality until the 1960s when it was abolished and became part of Banja Luka. This particular map and proposal includes villages in the Gradiška and in Laktaši municipalities. I could not find an original map of it. Does someone have one?

Map:


Further discussion:
banja-luka/hrvatska-op-ina-u-banja-luci-t4281.html


Posavina and Brčko District:

We have talked about creating a municipality around Modran (Derventa) that would incorporate parts of the old Derventa and Doboj municipalities. I thought I had a better map for this. I suppose one could create viable municipalities around Garevac (Modriča) and Tramošnica (Gradačac). This would be possible if the whole of Posavina were in the Croatian entity.

Map of Modran:



Ravne-Brčko and Gornje Ravne

While the fate of Brčko was being decided and during the war, a Croatian municipality did function around Brčko up until the arbitration that created the Brčko District. The original idea was to form one municipality that included parts of the Gradačac and Srebrenik municipalities as well as Brčko. Once Ravne-Brčko was created the eastern part would have been split off as a separate municipality called Gornje Ravne.

Map:


Further discussion:
http://www.dubrave.ba/html/dubrave/ravne_brcko.html
http://www.bhdani.com/arhiva/70/tekst670.htm

Nice work Stecak

Exclude all of the Bosniak villages and neigbourhoods. With the rest do as you wish, I couldn't care less. Every village that finds itself surrounded with villages that are dominantly of another ethnicity, should be granted territorial discontinuity, regardless of the distance from its nearest countrymen.

Good principle. Consistent, fair and puts people above territories.

One if.
If it is economically possible.
Othervise, no.

Ceha how do we define what it economically possible means? Would it be geographic size of the municipality, population, or resources?

I thought I would post the following about Belgium, which also refers to the comparison with Bosnia:

http://rgallivan.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02 ... lgium.html

Interesting article. The dissolution of Belgium is a non-starter, if for no other reason, then because they will never agree on who would retain Brussels.

Rory Interesting article.

I suppose if Belgium did break apart, my (weak) argument for Flanders and Wallonia to become part the Netherlands and France respectively would be, the with right people and the right circumstances anything is possible.

With regards to their identities I always imagined France to be "regional" despite its highly centralized structure so maybe the Walloon identity would be OK within France? I can't speak for the Netherlands I don't know if Dutch identity has a regional aspect. If it does maybe Flanders would be OK too.

If we were to tie this in with Bosnia and Croatia, I suppose IF BiH was dissolved or partitioned your problem would be integrating whatever parts joined Croatia within the Croatian legal and political system. I don't think the identity of BiH Croats would be in any danger. Croatians do have regional identities and Croatian nationalism takes that into account.

I think you are quite right about regional identity in France. I remember being struck by this driving around Savoy a few years ago. Savoy joined France in 1861.

No doubt if Wallonia joined France it would retain its own distinct identity as would parts of Bosnia if they joined Croatia. But the Bosnian Croats would not become Croats, because they are already Croat. If Wallonia joined France, the Walloons would become French and so lose something else in the process. Whether this and the Flemings' non-Dutch identity are worth preserving is up to the Belgians of course.

Tuzla has been in the news over the last few days over accusations that the SDP has violated the statute of Tuzla for its own political agenda. The SDP has expressed shock that (evil) Croat nationalists want to divide Tuzla and form a majority Croat municipality around Tuzla.

Strange as it may seem, Tuzla which has been traditionally seen as more liberal because the SDP has ruled it for the better part of 20 years, now reflects of the current situation in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the demands of the Croatian people in Bosnia and Herzegovina to an administrative unit or entity of their own.

I want to address the issues around the creation of the municipality of Soli as it reflects on the current political situation in the Federation.

1) Politicians are “shocked” that there is this request on the part of Croatians to create the municipality of Soli out of parts of the Tuzla, Lukavac, Živinice and Čelić municipalities.

Really? This initiative is not new. It has been around since the end of the war. For more details go to: politika/eu-imate-pravo-na-lokalnu-samoupravu-sdpbih-i-boss-hrvatima-tuzle-nemate-pravo-t10334.html. Anyone who follows this website has come across discussion on it. Heck, I mentioned it in this thread in February.

I think the real shock here is that the SDP, which has ruled Tuzla, and billed itself as more inclusive and an alternative to Sarajevo has failed to strip the Croatian people of their identity and turn them into “Bosnian Catholics” and they realize their failure.

I don’t think it is a big secret that the SDP has centralist tendencies and is trying to push itself as this unifier of a centralized Bosnia as a balance against Dodik and the Republika Srpska. Yet we come to the same point that I made on page 1 of this thread that Croats can help keep the centralizing tendencies of Sarajevo and separatist aspirations in Banja Luka in check.

How this plays out on a smaller scale like Tuzla will reflect the whole of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

2) We know that the non-Croatian parties in and around Tuzla are not crazy about the possibility of a majority Croatian district in the region, just like Sarajevo does not want to see a Croatian entity formed. Banja Luka does but they would rather Croats not ask for predominantly Croatian areas now in the RS.

Interestingly, the statute of the Tuzla Canton: http://www.vladatk.kim.ba/vlada/Dokumen ... upravi.htm has a provision that talks about the forming of new administrative units in the canton. The proposed Soli municipality meets the criteria set in this law but the real issue is that the municipalities that the new one is being created from has to approve the request for the new municipality.

If we bring this the Federal level, Sarajevo would have to agree to a Croatian entity. I think in both cases, with the centralizing tendencies of the SDP and its allies they will do everything in their power to keep Soli or a Croatian entity from being formed.

3) It’s not just about land. One of the things that “shocked” politicians about the proposal to create a the municipality of Soli is how much territory it would encompass of the Tuzla municipality and I’m sure politicians in the Lukavac, Živinice and Čelić municipalities would not like to see their municipalities get smaller either.

The short answer is to read about what I just wrote about centralizing tendencies. The last thing you want is to start losing control over certain areas especially in a major city like Tuzla, especially when you are trying to dominate one ethnic group like the Croats. So under the guise of multi-ethnicity you can say we tolerate everyone but at the same time marginalize outlying areas for the benefit of the municipal seat.

4) Usorizacija anyone? This brings me to reiterate my thoughts on the one anomalous municipality formed in the aftermath of Dayton and that is the predominantly Croatian municipality of Usora. You can read my full thoughts on why I think Usora is a special case here: english/unintended-consequences-in-bosnia-herzegovina-t5596.html but to sum it up, the municipality of Usora should not exist based on how new municipalities were created. On the other hand a precedent has been set that I think no one in Sarajevo wants to see recreated elsewhere, including Tuzla.

Usorizacija in general, allows for certain things to happen with the creation of a new municipality.

In the case of the municipality of Soli you would create a good sized municipality in the Tuzla basin and include villages from the Lukavac, Živinice and Čelić municipalities. Right now in the Tuzla Canton you have no majority Croat municipalities.

As in the case of Usora you would create a new political center in an area that might be otherwise marginalized. Sivša is now the political seat of the Usora municipality. Had things gone the other way it could have been a marginal village of the Doboj-Jug municipality. The villages that make up the municipality of Usora can now orient themselves to Sivša and focus their efforts on a smaller area.

The same would happen with Soli. My guess is that the seat of the municipality would be Husino (someone correct me if I am wrong). So instead of being a marginal village Husino would have a political status equivalent to Tuzla, Lukavac, etc. This new municipality would change how the local economy looks and how the infrastructure would be developed. I’m sure the last thing these centralizing forces would want to deal with is negotiating agreements with a new municipality that will have its own agenda in developing its communal infrastructure and roads.

As in Usora, the other result of the creation of a new municipality is that this new political entity would begin to shape the local culture. So in our proposed majority Croat municipality of Soli which would be the only such municipality in the Tuzla Canton, it would not also be a new political entity but a cultural one as well. The municipality could have digital media in Croatian. It could also be a base from which to reshape the Croatian cultural landscape of the Tuzla basin. Maybe the municipality invests in better equipment for Radio Soli, maybe helps create a Croatian language newspaper for the region, etc. This would be of a benefit to Croatians that find themselves outside the borders of this municipality.

The last point I want to make with Usorizacija is that in the case of both Usora and Soli is that their names are tied deeply into Bosnia’s past. That has ramifications to those who are trying to strip Croatians in BiH of their identity and turn them into “Bosnian Catholics”.

There is a reason why Usora is not called “Hrvatski Doboj” it was the name of a district in the middle ages. That district like the modern municipality was named after the Usora river, which to me seems more organic and ties the past and present. The name “Soli” is the pre-Ottoman name for Tuzla. What is interesting here is that you have people bringing Bosnia’s past into modern times. I would argue that since Usora exists and if Soli came into being it would further enrich Bosnia and Herzegovina.

I was just thinking what if say the municipality of Soli decided to name a street after Bishop Petar Zlojutrić? http://www.gradovrh.com/friar-petar-zlojutric/ You would honor someone from the area who might not otherwise be remembered by the current political elite.

5) An independent agenda? The municipality of Soli could get funding from, say the EU to pursue development projects independently of the surrounding municipalities. Thanks BBC for this thread: politika/novcem-eu-sagradili-vrti-e-centre-za-mlade-i-obnovili-rasvjetu-t10337.html

So to sum it all up, yes the creation of a majority Croatian municipality would change the political, economic and cultural landscape of the Tuzla basin, much like a larger Croatian entity in Bosnia and Herzegovina would as well. Which is why you have people against these initiatives because it undermines their centralizing tendencies.

I think that those forces that are trying to forcibly centralize the state are in fact fracturing it to a point where some radical measures will need to be taken to reorganize the state in order to keep it intact. In the larger scheme of things a municipality is probably a small price to pay to keep the state stabilized, but when you are obsessed in trying to dominate everything (goes for politicians in both entities) even that price is too high, and I think that’s where those forces might lose out in the long run.

Are there any links to recent news reports about Croats wanting to set up their own municipality in Tuzla? I think I may have heard something about Croats in zivinici on hrvatska kronika bih recently, but some links to news articles would be useful, even if they are in Croatian/Bosnian.

Rory this is a news clip from a few days ago:



This next piece of text was from a few day ago as well:

Source: http://www.radioslon.ba/index.php?optio ... i&Itemid=5


Finally you have a letter that was posted on the forum yesterday in response to this: politika/eu-imate-pravo-na-lokalnu-samoupravu-sdpbih-i-boss-hrvatima-tuzle-nemate-pravo-t10334.html

I am intrigued as to what organization this is.

This particular thread is calling for the creation of a Croatian administrative unit (or entity) within the borders of Bosnia and Herzegovina. This is a bad thing as far as people in Sarajevo are concerned.

If the creation of a Croatian entity is bad then what exactly is the RS? Last time I checked, the RS was not exactly ethnically inclusive either and as far as I can see Sarajevo is becoming less and less tolerant of others as well....

It's a combination of above mentioned things.
Municipality should have at least one thousand people's, and have connected (or at least connectable) area under it's jurisdiction. Resources are not important, but new municipality should have administrative buildings (or possibility to raise funds needed for creation of such buildings [school, kindergarden, town hall...]).
Size of the municipality shouldn't be so important, but it should probable have at least 30km-50 km2. Usora is the obvious example how should new munnicipalities should look like...