THE AUTHOR’S PREFACE
On the one hand this book is the result of the continuation of my investigation and research into the place
and role of the Croatian Community of Herzeg-Bosnia (CCHB), later the Croatian Republic of Herzeg-
Bosnia (CRHB), in the totality of relations which emerged from the crisis in Bosnia and Herzegovina
(war, killings and destruction), and the process of gaining independence and international recognition for
Bosnia and Herzegovina on the ruins of the dissolution (disintegration) of the former Socialist Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY). On the other, it is also the result of investigating the place, role and
actual policy of the Republic of Croatia and its state leadership towards Bosnia and Herzegovina in those
circumstances. An additional motive for its writing arose after I had written my expert report “A
Constitutional Legal Analysis of the Establishment of the Croatian Community (Republic) of Herzeg-
Bosnia, Particularly from the Aspect of its Potential Independence, Separation and Incorporation into the
Republic of Croatia” (unpublished manuscript). All of my research for that work pointed to a deep
contradiction between the programmed perception of the division of Bosnia and Herzegovina, created and
accepted by the public on the one hand, and the actual place, role and actions both of the Croatian
Community (Croatian Republic) of Herzeg-Bosnia and of Croatian policy with regard to Bosnia and
Herzegovina, in particular with regard to the pursuit of its goal of achieving independence, territorial
sovereignty and international recognition in the implementation of the process of the dissolution
(disintegration) of the former common state, the SFRY. All of the results of my investigations and
research, all of the available references, legislation and other documents, as well as the actual (decisive)
actions of the politics of both the Republic of Croatia and the CC(CR)HB show that Bosnia and
Herzegovina would not only not have been internationally recognised as an autonomous and independent
state but its survival in general, and in particular within the borders which it had as the Socialist Republic
of Bosnia and Herzegovina within the former SFRY would undoubtedly have been questionable were it
not for the political support from the Republic of Croatia, and the Croat people within Bosnia and
Herzegovina, in carrying out a policy which aimed to bring about a free, independent and sovereign
Bosnia and Herzegovina of three constituent and equal peoples. However, those hard-to-deny facts have
not impressed themselves upon the perception as real or truthful, particularly among that section of
society which had at its disposal all the available means for “modelling” the perceived comprehension of
reality by the public. In that respect the perception that imposed itself on the public was that the Republic
of Croatia, its heads of state and military leadership led by Dr Franjo Tuđman, the President of the
Republic of Croatia, conducted a policy of aggression towards Bosnia and Herzegovina. Moreover, that
together with the Croatian leadership of the CCHB they participated in a joint criminal enterprise and
conducted a policy of dividing Bosnia and Herzegovina, separating part of its territory and incorporating
it into the Republic of Croatia in order to make real the idea of a Greater Croatia. The CCHB was to serve
as a means for achieving that aim. None of my investigations or research were able to find a real basis for
this kind of perception in legislation, other documents or the real political-legal decision-making and
actions of the Republic of Croatia and its state and military leadership. Quite the reverse, from the latter
arose a different truth which opposed the one which was created in the public and accepted as the
perception of the policy of dividing Bosnia and Herzegovina. Indeed, the real decisions and political
actions, as well as participation in defensive operations against the aggressor clearly demonstrate that the
Republic of Croatia, in cooperation with Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina, as one of its constituent
peoples, and the central government, supported the autonomy, independence and international recognition
of Bosnia and Herzegovina. That fact is not diminished but is additionally confirmed and strengthened by
the position of the Republic of Croatia (and its state leadership), as well as that of Croats in Bosnia and
Herzegovina, that internally Bosnia and Herzegovina should be structured as a decentralised social and
state community of three constituent and equal peoples on the territory of the whole of Bosnia and
Herzegovina, and that equal rights before the law for all citizens in exercising the full range of their
human (and minority) rights and basic freedoms without discrimination on any basis should be provided.
Furthermore, mere discussions on the division of Bosnia and Herzegovina as a possible way of solving
the Bosnian-Herzegovinian crisis have not been and cannot be a decisive basis for forming the hypothesis,
let alone potential accusations, about the division of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Simply due to the fact that
after they were held not only were no decisions made, nor were any actions of any kind with the aim of
implementing a policy of dividing Bosnia and Herzegovina undertaken, but the Republic of Croatia and
the Croat people in Bosnia and Herzegovina made decisions, promulgated acts and carried out activities
without which the autonomy, sovereignty and international recognition of Bosnia and Herzegovina could
not have been achieved. All of their relevant legislation, other decisions made, actions and measures
undertaken which were to lead to an autonomous, independent and internationally recognised Bosnia and
Herzegovina bear witness to this. In fact, investigating and researching, as well as writing this book I have
done my best to deal with the question of what is and where is the real truth. Is the truth the one that is
present in the public perception, or is the real and material truth suppressed (concealed) and hidden from
public view, regardless of the possible motives for such action? For that reason writing this book was a
kind of search for the truth, the real and material truth and not the one imposed on the public as a distorted
construct (perception) with no basis in real decisions and actions that could substantiate it as truthful and
reliable. In investigating and researching I tried to establish and/or at least contribute, however small that
contribution might be, to learning whether the perception that the Republic of Croatia took part in the
division of Bosnia and Herzegovina is true or whether the truth consists of a completely different Croatian
policy towards Bosnia and Herzegovina. In searching for the truth I tried to discover by which decisions
of a constitutional nature, by which regulations and other acts, acts-in-the-law and actions did the
Republic of Croatia on its own and/or in cooperation with the CCHB and vice versa conduct a policy of
dividing Bosnia and Herzegovina, for the purpose of separation (secession) of part of its territory and its
incorporation into Croatia. Or rather, if such documents, decisions and actions do not exist, what kind of
policy did the Republic of Croatia conduct and support in relation to Bosnia and Herzegovina, and from
which decisions, regulations and actions can this be not only gathered but indisputably confirmed? Then,
what was the Croatian Community of Herzeg-Bosnia according to its place and role in Bosnia and
Herzegovina, particularly with regard to the process of achieving independence and international
recognition all the way to the Washington and Dayton accords, including their effect on ending the war,
establishing peace and the internal structure of today’s Bosnia and Herzegovina? Writing this book I
discovered basically three different fundamental approaches to what Bosnia and Herzegovina should be
like after achieving independence following the breakup of the former SFRY. Each of these had its basis
in one of the three constituent peoples: the separatist as well as the unitarian one and the one advocating a
decentralised Bosnia and Herzegovina of three constituent and equal peoples. And it is about those
questions that I write in this book. However, I also encountered a lack of understanding as well as
misconceptions about the policy which the Republic of Croatia conducted in regard to Bosnia and
Herzegovina. This policy is, according to the stance I have taken arising from writing this book, related to
this failure to understand that the imperative of Croatian policy towards Bosnia and Herzegovina was to
defend its right to autonomy, independence and international recognition which it, as one of the former
constituent socialist republics, had following the breakup of the former SFRY. Defending that right the
Republic of Croatia at the same time demanded that very same right for itself and defended it internally
from Greater Serbian aggression, and internationally on the basis of international law, which as objective
law provided the legal basis for it to demand such a right from the international community as its
subjective right. This book deals with a complex issue. I have tried to deal with this issue in an
interdisciplinary manner, at least to the extent which my powers and my knowledge allowed me.
However, the dominant approach I used in dealing with all legal matters in its purview was
constitutionalist and sociopolitical. In that respect it could be sur mised that the book is intended for
jurists and political scientists. That is no doubt to a great extent correct. However, I have tried to write in
such a way as to depict constitutional and sociopolitical issues so that the book is approachable and
understandable not only to jurists and political scientists but also to everyone who is interested in these
questions. I chose this approach in writing this book because I consider that what I have learned and what
is demonstrated in it following the research I conducted is a contribution to learning the truth about the
crisis in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the role of Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and of the Republic
of Croatia, especially in solving it. If I have contributed anything here, all of the effort and time I have
invested in writing it make sense and are justified. The best judges of this will be its readers. This book
encompasses a time in which the Croatian social and government community was in an exceptionally
sensitive and politically fraught period. The crisis in Bosnia and Herzegovina arising from the process of
the country’s gaining independence and international recognition, from the war and stopping the war in it,
and the different concepts of its (re)structuring which were advocated and suggested at various junctures
by political-legal actors on both the internal and international level had their respective influence on that
political situation. I wrote this book in my so-called free time. In writing this book, very valuable support
was provided by my son Igor, a lawyer in Zagreb. He was of great help in compiling references and other
evidence, and even more helpful with his suggestions. I also would like to thank my younger son
Vladimir who contributed some of his valuable time to help sort the bibliographical evidence, legislation
and other documents into a sort of corpus which formed the subject of my investigations and research. I
would also like to thank everybody who encouraged and supported me to persevere with its writing. They
include, above all, my dear friends: Ivo Franolić, Zoran Luštica, Miro Raguž, Marinko Mikulić and
others. My colleague Ms Marija Hajnić deserves special thanks for being of invaluable assistance in all
administrative and technical matters in writing this work. However, I owe one person particular thanks,
and that is my wife Branka who always showed understanding towards me. When needed she was a tough
critic. I thank her for that. I dedicate this book to my sons Igor and Vladimir who are the irreplaceable joy
and purpose of my life.
Dr. Mato Arlović