U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

58–307PDF 2010

FULFILLING THE PROMISE OF PEACE:

HUMAN RIGHTS, PEACE AND RECONCILIATION

IN NORTHERN IRELAND AND BOSNIA

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL 

ORGANIZATIONS, HUMAN RIGHTS AND OVERSIGHT

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

SEPTEMBER 16, 2010

Serial No. 111–127

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California, Chairman 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BILL DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

DIANE E. WATSON, California 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

MICHAEL E. MCMAHON, New York 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

LYNN WOOLSEY, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

BARBARA LEE, California 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

JIM COSTA, California 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

RON KLEIN, Florida 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

RON PAUL, Texas 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

GUS BILIRAKIS, Florida 

RICHARD J. KESSLER, Staff Director 

YLEEM POBLETE, Republican Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS,

HUMAN RIGHTS AND OVERSIGHT

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri, Chairman 

BILL DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RON PAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Kurt D. Volker, Senior Fellow and Managing Director of 

the Center on Transatlantic Relations, Johns Hopkins University’s School 

of Advanced International Studies ..................................................................... 7

Mr. Daniel P. Serwer, Vice President, Centers of Innovation, U.S. Institute 

of Peace ................................................................................................................. 16

Ms. Ivana Howard, Program Officer Central & Eastern Europe, National 

Endowment for Democracy .................................................................................. 22

Ms. Aideen Gilmore, Deputy Director, Committee on the Administration of 

Justice ................................................................................................................... 33

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Russ Carnahan, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Missouri, and Chairman, Subcommittee on International Organizations, 

Human Rights and Oversight: Prepared statement .......................................... 3

The Honorable Kurt D. Volker: Prepared statement ............................................ 10

Mr. Daniel P. Serwer: Prepared statement ........................................................... 18

Ms. Ivana Howard: Prepared statement ................................................................ 25

Ms. Aideen Gilmore: Prepared statement ............................................................. 36

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 70

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 71

The Honorable Russ Carnahan: Material submitted for the record .................... 72

(1)

FULFILLING THE PROMISE OF PEACE: 

HUMAN RIGHTS, PEACE AND RECONCILIATION IN NORTHERN IRELAND AND BOSNIA 

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2010

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS,

HUMAN RIGHTS AND OVERSIGHT,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:35 a.m., in room 

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Russ Carnahan (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Good morning. I want to call to order the Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights and 

Oversight, for the committee hearing this morning, ‘‘Fulfilling the 

Promise of Peace: Human Rights, Peace and Reconciliation in 

Northern Ireland and Bosnia.’’

The chance to live in peace, free from violence, discrimination 

and oppression, intimidation and fear, is a fundamental human 

right. As a global leader, defending and supporting peace and 

human rights is an historic priority for the United States and reflects our deep belief in equality and rule of law. 

As Members of Congress we represent various communities, 

often hailing from diverse backgrounds. We understand keenly the 

importance of the U.S. role in promoting peace abroad. We also understand the solemn responsibility we all have to our citizens to 

help build a secure world and uphold our core values. 

Today the U.S. is deeply involved in helping to advance peace 

and reconciliation efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan where brave 

Americans, and our allies, are fighting insurgents and working 

with the local people to stabilize those countries. And this week, 

Secretary Hillary Clinton is meeting again with Israeli and Palestinian leaders in order to help negotiate an agreement that would 

lay the framework for a sustainable peace. 

In many other parts of the world, the U.S., along with our international partners, have engaged in many types of valuable peacebuilding, peacekeeping, and humanitarian work. This makes us 

stronger and safer at home as well. 

Back in St. Louis, my home city, neighbors look out for each 

other, and this strengthens our community. The U.S. also needs 

strong, safe neighbors where peace is stable and lasting and 

human rights are respected without question, so that we can focus 

instead on growing jobs and rebuilding our economies. 

2

Where the current critical efforts in which we are engaged weigh 

heavily on all of us in Congress, to deliver effective results we cannot and must not forget the communities we made to help bring 

about a lasting peace in protection of human rights in Northern 

Ireland and Bosnia. Both of these countries have come a long, long 

way from their darkest days of conflict, and in both the U.S. has 

played a major role in advancing peace-building and reconciliation. 

In Bosnia the U.S. was instrumental in brokering the Dayton 

Peace Accord in 1995 and has consistently been providing diplomatic financial and military resources toward the peace process. 

Aid to Bosnia since 1993 totals over $2 billion aimed at institution 

building, policing to fight organized crime and terrorism, an independent judiciary, and reconciliation efforts among other key programs. 

However, in the last 15 years Bosnia has outgrown the Dayton 

Accord that was intended to and effectively did establish a structure to bring about an end to the war. The task ahead for Bosnia 

is to reform its Constitution and government institutions and engage in a more serious nation-building effort in order to take its 

rightful place among democratic nations in key international and 

regional organizations such as the EU and NATO. 

With elections coming up in Bosnia in October, there is a real opportunity for the Bosnian people to take on this challenge. The role 

of the international community, and of the U.S. in particular, must 

evolve and mature and it must be the Bosnians themselves who 

lead the way. But the U.S. in coordination with the EU can continue to play an important role in supporting them. 

In Northern Ireland the Clinton, Bush, and now Obama administrations have been instrumental in procuring and then supporting 

the 1988 Good Friday Peace Agreement. Earlier this year, Secretary Clinton helped advance the agreement on devolution of policing and justice powers. In addition, the U.S. has provided approximately $500 million in aid to Northern Ireland since 1986, 

through the International Fund for Ireland, to support dialogue 

and reconciliation and social and economic development in the 

areas most affected by sectarian conflict. 

The nature of the relationship between the U.S. and Northern 

Ireland is evolving into one that is more focused on continuing to 

promote peace through economic development. Secretary Clinton’s 

appointment in 2009 of the first U.S. Special Economic Envoy to 

Northern Ireland reflects this principle. And as we know, strong 

markets abroad mean more opportunities to put American workers 

to work at home producing the quality goods and services people 

want. 

An integral part of this remains to be vigilant in supporting ongoing peace and reconciliation efforts in Northern Ireland, especially efforts aimed at building confidence within and among the 

communities and respect for Northern Ireland’s unique history. 

Growing up in Missouri I was always taught the value of my 

word. As Americans, we believe in seeing our commitments 

through. And our troops in the field, past and present, are a best 

example of this belief and commitment. 

We have committed money, resources, and time over many years 

in order to uphold these core values of peace, freedom, equality, deVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:41 Dec 08, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\IOHRO\091610\58307 HFA PsN: SHIRL
3

mocracy and human rights. We have a responsibility to our friends 

and our own citizens to ensure these efforts advance and endure. 

We must continue to help fulfill the promise of peace. 

I am very eager to hear from our witnesses today. I appreciate 

you being here. And I now want to recognize our ranking member, 

Representative Rohrabacher from California. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Carnahan follows:]


58307e-1.eps
4


58307e-2.eps
5

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for 

holding this hearing in which I expect to learn a great deal from 

the witnesses, and I am very grateful for you being here to share 

your knowledge with us. I am going to have to admit that my 

knowledge base on the Bosnia question as well as the Northern Ireland question is rather dated, and I am anxious to have you bring 

me up to date. 

Let me just note in general that I think the United States can 

be very proud of the role that we have played in my lifetime as people that are committed to peace and to freedom on this planet, and 

that we have played an active role in trying to attain those goals, 

those goals that come together, peace and freedom. 

It has been at great cost to the American people. The American 

people have spent billions upon billions of dollars promoting peace 

and freedom for other people in the world. We have also sacrificed 

tens of thousands of American lives for peace and freedom throughout the world. 

There was an old saying that the fastest drying liquid known to 

all of mankind are tears of gratitude. And quite often, I feel that 

the sacrifice made by our people is not deeply appreciated, even by 

our own people, much less by some of the people overseas. 

I personally go in my district to the Los Alamitos Reserve Center 

where many of the Reserve and National Guard units that go overseas to Iraq and Afghanistan leave from that location, and I always 

try to see them off and I always try to welcome them home. And 

I know the sacrifice those Americans are making. They have given 

everything. Their families are separated. I have three little kids at 

home and I see these people leaving their families for a year, and 

their little kids are coming to hug them good-bye and they don’t 

know if their daddy is coming home or mommy is coming home in 

this case. So we need to be very respectful and proud of what 

America does to help bring freedom and peace in this world. 

The question is, is where will we commit and how much money 

can we commit to in the future? I believe that our efforts throughout the world have drained our resources and that we are now vulnerable. And we have got to prioritize what we are going to do 

overseas or we will not be able to do anything overseas. It is the 

old adage that the person of the country that tries to do everything 

for everybody ends up not being able to do anything for anybody. 

In this case, we must look to our allies to play a much more significant role, especially in European areas, in that region of the 

world. I would have expected that in Bosnia and Northern Ireland 

and in Kosovo that the European Union and NATO, the European 

Union basically taking the lead, would have been able to take the 

lead in these areas. And I will be very interested in finding out 

how much lead our European allies took in these areas. 

So, Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this hearing. I plan to 

listen to the witnesses and upgrade my data, my mental database 

on this, and maybe learn some lessons about making the decisions 

that will help us in the decisions we have to make in the months 

and the years ahead. Thank you. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. I want to thank my friend, the ranking member. 

And now I will recognize Congressman Ellison from Michigan for 

5 minutes. 

6

Mr. ELLISON. That is Minnesota, but close enough. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Ouch. 

Mr. ELLISON. No problem. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. So noted. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Are you sure you don’t come from California? 

Mr. ELLISON. Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for 

this excellent hearing. It is very important that we be focusing on 

Northern Ireland and Bosnia at this time. Both our examples for 

the United States was able to play a supportive role in establishing 

peace and justice, although in both cases the people of Northern 

Ireland and Bosnia were the ones who really carried the heavy lifting for their own people. But more must and should be done to 

build on progress. 

And I look forward to hearing from the panel and the witnesses 

to help bring forth a better quality of life for the people of Northern 

Ireland and Bosnia. And I do have a number of questions, and I 

look forward to hearing the testimony of our witnesses. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you. I am going to run through some 

quick introductions. First, I want to start to my left, starting with 

Ambassador Kurt Volker. Ambassador Volker serves as the senior 

fellow and managing director of the Center of Transatlantic Relations at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies. He also serves as senior advisor at the Atlantic 

Council of the United States and is a member of its Strategic Advisory Group. Previously Ambassador Volker served as Ambassador 

and U.S. Permanent Representative on the Council of NATO. Prior 

to NATO, Ambassador Volker worked as principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian affairs. Ambassador 

Volker earned his bachelor’s degree from Temple University, his 

master’s in international relations from the Elliott School of International Affairs at George Washington University. 

Next we will hear from Daniel Serwer. He is the vice president 

of the Center of Innovation at the U.S. Institute of Peace. At the 

Institute he oversees work in rule of law, religion and peace-making in sustainable economies. He has worked on preventing interethnic sectarian conflict in Iraq as well as facilitating talks between Serbs and Albanians in the Balkans. He has also served as 

a U.S. Special Envoy and coordinator for the Bosnian Federation. 

During this time, Mr. Serwer worked with Croats and Muslims to 

negotiate the first agreements reached at the Dayton peace talks. 

Next we will hear from Ms. Ivana Howard. Ms. Howard serves 

as the program officer for Central and Eastern Europe at the National Endowment for Democracy. Through this role Ms. Howard 

manages the NED democracy assistance to six Balkan countries. 

Previously she has trained U.S. soldiers serving in the Balkans in 

language, politics, history and religion. Ms. Howard earned a master’s degree in public administration from Bowie State University 

in Germany; earned a master’s in democracy and human rights in 

southeastern Europe from the University of Sarajevo and University of Bologna. 

And finally we will hear from Ms. Aideen Gilmore. She is the 

Deputy Director of the Committee on the Administration of Justice, 

the CAJ, which is an NGO that works to ensure high standards in 

the administration of justice in Northern Ireland, particularly reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:41 Dec 08, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\IOHRO\091610\58307 HFA PsN: SHIRL
7

lating to international human rights law. Ms. Gilmore also worked 

to establish and now sits on the Board of Management of the 

Human Rights Consortium. The consortium is a coalition of over 

150 civil society organizations who are working for a strong and inclusive Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland. Ms. Gilmore earned a 

bachelor’s degree and master’s in administrative and legal studies 

from the University of Ulster at Jordanstown. 

Welcome to all of you. Thank you for being here today. 

I want to start with Ambassador Volker who has been kind 

enough to come today, even though he is squeezing us in before another appointment, so we are going to let him go first. Ambassador, 

we are going to recognize you for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE KURT D. VOLKER, SENIOR 

FELLOW AND MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE CENTER ON 

TRANSATLANTIC RELATIONS, JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY’S SCHOOL OF ADVANCED INTERNATIONAL STUDIES 

Mr. VOLKER. Thank you, Chairman Carnahan, Ranking Member 

Rohrabacher, distinguished members. Thank you for giving me this 

opportunity to testify today. I found the topic of this hearing very 

interesting because I had the chance in my career to work on both 

Northern Ireland and Bosnia, and I have never taken the time 

really to look at the lessons learned, and this is a good exercise. 

As a diplomat, both as Ambassador of NATO and as the Principal Deputy in European Affairs at the State Department, I 

worked on Northern Ireland and also on Bosnia. But actually I did 

my first tour working on Bosnia in 1993 when I was a special assistant to the Bosnia peace negotiator for the United States. So I 

followed these issues for some time. 

In the case of Northern Ireland, we see a successful peace agreement, a functioning executive and a promising future, though of 

course challenges remain. But in Bosnia and Herzegovina, although violence stopped nearly 15 years ago, we continue to see 

great challenges in governance and reconciliation. And in Bosnia 

and Herzegovina today, the future remains cloudy. And with these 

dramatically different results I think it is worth looking at some 

of the lessons learned. 

I am going to outline very quickly what I see as ten of the key 

similarities or differences between the two, so that we can see 

whether there are any lessons that we might apply in our work 

with Bosnia today. First and most obviously is the scale of the conflict itself. While the conflict in Northern Ireland was indeed terrible, it was not on the same scale as an all-out war in Bosnia in 

terms of numbers killed, in terms of the brutality, in terms of displaced persons. And that makes it harder in Bosnia to build reconciliation after that scale of conflict. 

Second, in Northern Ireland there was a palpable public fatigue 

with the divisions and with separatism in the province, and there 

emerged a public demand for change and reconciliation. This is 

only partially true in Bosnia today. And I think that there still remains a great deal of desire for separatism in parts of Bosnia. 

Third, Northern Ireland enjoyed a sustained period of economic 

improvement leading up to and extending beyond the Good Friday 

agreement. And I think that was critical because that gave the peoVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:41 Dec 08, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\IOHRO\091610\58307 HFA PsN: SHIRL
8

ple of Northern Ireland a stake in a prosperous functioning territory. In Bosnia we haven’t ever seen that level of economic development, and I think that is held back. So when we look to the future, 

I think an increased focus on what it will take to improve the economy, jobs, entrepreneurship is an important factor. 

Fourth is the role of the indigenous NGO community. In Northern Ireland, diverse groups ranging from educators to businessmen 

to human rights activists to social workers to former police officers 

all came together across religious lines to expose past abuses, build 

cooperation, and develop the structures of a more integrated society. While the NGO community in Bosnia-Herzegovina has grown 

and carries out vitally important work, it has yet to achieve a sufficiently broad-based impact as we had seen in Northern Ireland. 

And this, therefore, is another area where we can focus in helping 

to sustain and build these indigenous NGOs. 

Fifth is the positive political support and the facilitating role 

played by the two key governments in London and in Dublin. They 

helped create and advance a functioning Executive in Northern Ireland. By contrast, the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina have largely been 

caused by the actions of neighboring states. And while their later 

support for the peace process grew, reconciliation and unified governance has been slow to grow, with only tepid support from the 

neighbors which has been growing over time. It is better today, especially when you look at the government in Serbia and its policies, 

but it has not had that emphasis and sustaining support as we had 

in the U.K.—I am sorry, in Northern Ireland. 

Sixth is the quality of the governing agreements, the Good Friday agreement, and then the power-sharing that followed functions 

as executive power. The Dayton Accords were essential to stop the 

violence, and the constitutional arrangements that followed were 

necessary, but they have not proved to be effective as a governing 

mechanism. 

Seventh, the engagement of the U.S. in the international community was more consistent and sustained in Northern Ireland, and 

had a lot of ups and downs in Bosnia. 

Eighth, the role of the International Commission on Decommissioning in Northern Ireland was critical in giving the public confidence that the political institutions would work. And we have 

never quite put together a monopoly of force that is bringing the 

arms together, a single defense establishment, single leadership 

over the police establishment in Bosnia. 

Ninth, the international financial assistance provided was more 

effective in Northern Ireland, and that is largely because the conditions were more ripe for that to be used well. 

And then, tenth, I want to say specifically about the role of the 

United States. As both our chairman and the ranking member 

mentioned, the United States role was consistent, sustained, and 

important in Northern Ireland. In Bosnia. I would argue it has had 

its ups and downs. We largely stayed out in the early days; then 

we came in in a big way; then we pulled back again. We have tried 

to hand over to the European Union, and I think that a more consistent role of the United States is important. 

And to address two of the issues raised by the ranking member, 

on the one hand I believe there remains a high degree of appreciaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:41 Dec 08, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\IOHRO\091610\58307 HFA PsN: SHIRL
9

tion for the role of the United States in both Bosnia and in Northern Ireland. So I hear what you say about appreciating the sacrifices, and I believe there they do. 

The second is that the European Union and the United States 

working together has been the best model in Bosnia. The European 

Union alone has never been able to fully replicate what we have 

been able to do together, so I think the continued U.S. role is critical. 

I see I am out of time. So Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, I am 

delighted to answer any questions that follow, but I believe that 

points to some of the areas where we can change and focus in the 

future in Bosnia. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Volker follows:]

10


58307a-1.eps
11


58307a-2.eps
12


58307a-3.eps
13


58307a-4.eps
14


58307a-5.eps
15


58307a-6.eps
16

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you, Ambassador, for your insights, 

unique because of your time spent on both of these areas. 

Next I want to turn to Mr. Daniel Serwer. 

STATEMENT OF MR. DANIEL P. SERWER, VICE PRESIDENT, 

CENTERS OF INNOVATION, U.S. INSTITUTE OF PEACE 

Mr. SERWER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Carnahan, Mr. 

Rohrabacher, Mr. Ellison. I enormously appreciate your attention 

to this issue. The ideals you set forward in your opening remarks 

are ones I very strongly share. At the same time, I have to underline that I share Mr. Rohrabacher’s view that we need to identify 

clearly what it is the U.S. can do in this situation and not commit 

to too much. It is an economy-of-effort approach that I think is simply a necessity today. 

I am going to propose three things that really count today on 

which the U.S. should focus: The Constitution in Bosnia, the educational system, and the High Representative are the three issues 

I want to discuss. 

Constitutional reform, which I have advocated for a long time, is 

going to have to start with a small package, not a big comprehensive package. There are only two things that I think need to be 

done right away, even before the process of accession to the EU begins. One is to eliminate the discriminatory provisions in accordance with the decision of the European Court on Human Rights. 

All Bosnian parties seem agreed on this. We need to press them 

to get it done. 

The second is much more controversial. Bosnia needs a strong 

EU clause; that is, a clause in its Constitution that makes the government in Sarajevo responsible for negotiating EU membership. 

That EU clause in my view should also include a provision that 

there would be no entity veto for legislation required for EU accession. What does that mean? It means that neither entity, neither 

Federation nor Republika Srspka, would be able to exercise a provision of the Constitution that currently allows them to block legislation, and they have done it many, many times. But for legislation 

required for EU accession, I think they should give up that privilege. 

I want to emphasize that I agree with Ambassador Volker on the 

question of civil society in Bosnia. It needs more ‘‘oomph,’’ if I can 

use that technical term. My proposition is that immediately after 

the Bosnian elections in early October, the EU and U.S. should be 

financing a broad discussion of constitutional reform in Bosnia 

from the grass roots up, instead of trying to get constitutional reform only through the leadership, which is what we have tried several times in the past. 

On educational reform I think we need to reactivate the OSCE 

effort to end separate but equal education in Bosnia. All Bosnian 

schools should be appropriate for children of all groups. We know 

from our own history that you can’t have people taught in ‘‘separate but equal’’ schools, and you can’t have them taught things that 

encourage hatred of others. 

Let me turn finally to the question of the High Representative. 

I fear that the High Representative today, who is the ultimate authority for implementation of the Dayton agreements, cannot use 

17

the more or less dictatorial powers he has had to prevent serious 

Dayton violations. In particular, I regard the threat of holding 

referenda on any subject as a serious threat to the Dayton peace 

agreements. 

The Europeans have been talking about creating a super EU 

Special Representative. I think we should consider seriously going 

along with that proposition, provided the EU really makes this a 

powerful position with real tools of imposition at its disposal and 

the so-called Bonn powers, the dictatorial powers of the High Representative, in reserve in case they need to be used. They should 

be kept until the agreed conditions are in place. This kind of Super 

EU Representative would I think ensure European leadership, but 

should also incorporate American support. 

My proposition is that we help to staff the EU Special Representative as we have the International Civilian Office in Kosovo. There 

is nothing unusual about Americans working in European Union 

operations. We should do it again in Bosnia. I would include in that 

a strong American deputy to the EU Special Representative. 

Just to summarize quickly, the Dayton Constitution needs a few 

reforms right away, more later on. The education system needs to 

eliminate separate but equal. And the international community 

needs to fix its own structure so they are more unified, Europeanled, and strongly American-supported. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Serwer follows:]

18


58307c-1.eps
19


58307c-2.eps
20


58307c-3.eps
21


58307c-4.eps
22

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you. 

And now I want to turn to Ms. Ivana Howard, and will recognize 

you for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MS. IVANA HOWARD, PROGRAM OFFICER CENTRAL & EASTERN EUROPE, NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR DEMOCRACY 

Ms. HOWARD. Thank you Chairman Carnahan, Ranking Member 

Rohrabacher, and Mr. Ellison. I welcome the opportunity to be here 

today and speak to you about human rights, the peace process and 

reconciliation efforts in Bosnia and Herzegovina. And on behalf of 

the National Endowment for Democracy I would like to thank you 

for a continued support and commitment to the Balkans. 

I am very humbled to be in the company of these two gentlemen 

who have committed so much of their time and their life to Bosnia. 

I would just like to note that I would provide a brief summary of 

my remarks to the subcommittee and would hope that my longer 

written statement can be submitted for the record. 

It is estimated that over $15 billion in international aid has been 

spent in Bosnia over the last 15 years. Mr. Carnahan has hinted 

to the amount that the U.S. has spent, and approximately $1.5 billion of that has come from the Support for East European Democracy fund approved by U.S. Congress. And NED has also been a 

beneficiary of these funds. 

As we pause to reflect on the international engagement since the 

signing of the Dayton Peace Accords, it is without a doubt that the 

significant investment has produced notable results. And I would 

just like to point out a few because I think it is very important for 

the sake of appreciation as well. 

To date, Bosnia has really come a long way. And it remains, first 

of all and very importantly, the only postconflict country in modern 

history in which international intervention has secured lasting 

peace without a major incident of violence since 1995. Substantial 

state-building reforms were also achieved as was small but consistent progress in electoral processes, civil society, governance and 

judicial framework. Most notably, defense reform succeeded in unifying three completely separate and previously warring armies. 

But the most significant recognition of progress achieved over the 

last 15 years was the country’s election as a nonpermanent seat in 

the U.N. Security Council starting in January 2010. 

Here I would just like to note as a Bosnian American, there is 

great appreciation in the Bosnian community for all the efforts and 

the resources that the United States has put into Bosnia. I think 

I can speak on behalf of my fellow Bosnians when I say that, especially because I was in Bosnia in the early days of our action, following the signing of the Dayton Peace Accords, supporting the 

NATO peacekeeping mission as a freshly out-of-high-school interpreter. 

However, of course, concerns remain and a multitude of challenges are still here to fulfilling the promise of peace that was 

made with the signing of the Dayton Peace Accords. I am only 

going to emphasize a few because my colleagues have already spoken about the challenge of constitutional reform and the continued 

23

violation of human rights, or actually minority rights, in the Constitution. 

I would like to focus on reconciliation. Punishing those guilty of 

war crimes has been an essential element in consolidating peace in 

Bosnia. The work of the International Criminal Tribunal for the 

former Yugoslavia, known as the ICTY, has made a major contribution to rule of law, democratization and reconciliation. The ICTY 

has provided justice for war crimes victims and lent them a voice 

for the world to hear. 

That being said, there have been major shortcomings in the process of transitional justice. And above all, these include Serbia’s failure to arrest Ratko Mladic, a mastermind and chief executive of 

the Srebrenica genocide. Continued impunity from Mladic is a 

major impediment to the international community’s efforts for reconciliation in Bosnia. 

In addition, the limited capacity of the ICTY and the national 

courts to prosecute war criminals warrants alternative approaches 

to satisfying truth and justice for all victims. One such approach 

is offered by the Coalition for RECOM, a regional collision of 

NGOs, victims, associations and individuals, which advocates for 

the establishment of an official independent interstate commission 

which would investigate and disclose facts about war crimes and 

other serious violation of human rights, including the fate of the 

11,000 persons still missing in Bosnia. 

I would just like to note that two Presidents in the region, that 

of Croatia and of Serbia, have endorsed this initiative, and I do 

hope others are soon to follow. And to the extent that you can, I 

would like to encourage you to encourage other leaders to endorse 

the process. 

I am not going to elaborate on the issues that have already been 

mentioned, but I will just note why the constitutional reform is important for two reasons. The Constitution, as it currently is, not 

only denies equal representation to national minorities, but it also 

discourages hundreds of thousands of refugees and displaced persons from returning to their original place of residence where they 

would now be a minority. 

In addition, the system as it is created, which rewards political 

extremism, has not only helped to cement the position of ethnically 

defined political parties, but has also suppressed alternative voices 

from civic groups, moderate political parties and the media, which 

goes to some of the concerns that were raised about the civil society. The result of this is a vicious circle which creates a dysfunctional and a divided country which suffers a serious democracy deficit. At best, Bosnia will remain unable to meet the requirements 

of Euro-Atlantic integration, and, at worst, its weak institutions 

will render it vulnerable to political instability and even conflict. 

Now, this situation poses a considerable risk to the substantial 

investment that was made by the international community, including the United States. It is important to note that Bosnia is key 

to this regional stability and security. And another Bosnian implosion or even prolonged stagnation is sure to have a ripple effect 

throughout this still vulnerable region. 

In addition, Bosnia has served as a trail-blazer for subsequent 

interventions in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq. And a failure in 

24

Bosnia would seriously question the credibility of the more demanding peace-building processes and democratization efforts in 

places like the Middle East. 

In my written testimony I offer several recommendations; but 

here, for the sake of time, I am going to summarize them. And I 

will just maybe reiterate the point that was made by Mr. Serwer, 

is that the process of a constitutional reform in which the international community has a role to play should be domestically driven and facilitated by the international community only by offering 

expertise and incentives for change. 

Next, and to go to answering the ranking member’s question 

about the role of the EU, the U.S. and the EU must continue to 

share the burden of civilization democratization efforts in Bosnia. 

It is often said that Bosnia is a European problem by the virtue 

of geography. However, Bosnia’s particular set of problems has 

proven to be too complex to be resolved simply by the lure of EU 

membership. And the U.S., as was pointed out I believe by Ambassador Volker, still possesses unrivaled credibility in the region, and 

it remains as such, indispensable in forging a common international policy and providing the necessary political and technical 

support to its EU partner. 

And finally, again just addressing what was brought up, and that 

is the support to not just formal state institutions, but also to civil 

society organizations, independent media, and moderate political 

parties. Civil society is working for moderation, compromise, and 

dialogue and helping to mitigate political conflict. And strengthening moderate political parties and objective media can enlarge 

political space that is currently monopolized by the nationalist political elites. These democracy-building efforts are really indispensable and substantially contribute to political stability and durable 

peace in Bosnia. 

Mr. Chairman, distinguished members, I would just like to point 

out that, as was mentioned, on October 3rd Bosnia is holding its 

Presidential and Parliamentary election. Foreign diplomats often 

say it is up to the Bosnian people to elect the kind of leadership 

to lead them to a better future, but they too recognize that fear and 

uncertainty about the future strongly influence voters’ choices in 

favor of ethnically based parties. And consequently, as most observers will note, they don’t see potential for any substantial change to 

the political landscape in what will be the country’s tenth poll. 

I have to say I am optimistic about these elections, if for nothing 

then the fact that NED will have supported well over 30 NGOs, 

youth movements, media outlets, civic associations throughout Bosnia to educate citizens, boost voter turnout, hold politicians accountable for their performance and promote issues that unite—

and this is very important—unite different ethnic groups. It is 

these kinds of programs that NED and its grantees are supporting 

that seek to remove fear as a decisive factor in casting one’s vote. 

And I believe these programs will make a difference. 

I would like to just thank you once again for demonstrating the 

commitment that you have and I look forward to taking your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Howard follows:]

25


58307d-1.eps
26


58307d-2.eps
27


58307d-3.eps
28


58307d-4.eps
29


58307d-5.eps
30


58307d-6.eps
31


58307d-7.eps
32


58307d-8.eps
33

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you very much. 

And last but not least, Ms. Aideen Gilmore. I am going to recognize you for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MS. AIDEEN GILMORE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, 

COMMITTEE ON THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE 

Ms. GILMORE. Thank you, Mr. Chair, distinguished members of 

the committee. Let me begin by thanking you for the opportunity 

and privilege of testifying before you today. 

As has been pointed out, America has played an extremely important and influential role in the peace process in Northern Ireland, and that support has been greatly appreciated and invaluable. Today I would like to present a brief summary of my written 

testimony which I would also like entered into the record. The 

Good Friday Agreement puts human rights and equality center 

stage in peace-building efforts. And in many ways Northern Ireland 

provides a role model for elsewhere on how a deeply divided society 

and seemingly intractable conflict can be moved forward when 

human rights and equality are put at its heart. Much has been 

achieved in Northern Ireland in our peace process, and Northern 

Ireland is now a very different place. 

Recently, however, we have made the international headlines 

again for the wrong reasons. This summer we have seen renewed 

violence and public disorder on the streets. Bomb alerts are now almost a daily occurrence in Northern Ireland. At best, these result 

in disruption and inconvenience; at worst, they have led to injury, 

including of young children. There have also been targeted injuries 

to and killings of police officers and army personnel in recent 

years. 

Therefore, while a lot of progress has undoubtedly been made, 

CAJ would caution against the rhetoric of recent times that the 

devolution of policing and justice is the final peace of the jigsaw in 

terms of the implementation of our peace agreement, thus implying 

that the peace process is now complete. 

I seek to highlight in this short briefing that this is not necessarily the case, and urge continued vigilance and support for the 

protection of human rights and equality in Northern Ireland as a 

means of embedding and sustaining the peace. 

There are three key issues in particular I believe that need to be 

addressed. 

The first is ongoing inequalities and socioeconomic disadvantage 

in some of those areas that were most impacted by the conflict. The 

peace process has seen much investment and development, much 

of it coming from the United States. However, recent figures show 

that the historically poorest areas in Northern Ireland are in many 

cases no better off, and, in some cases, are relatively worse off than 

they were during the conflict. 

Inequality and deprivation is also apparent, with Catholic areas 

featuring disproportionately. Also of note is the extent to which the 

deprivation is concentrated in areas that bore the brunt of the conflict in terms of highest number of deaths and injuries. 

These statistics tell us two worrying things. The first is that the 

prosperity that has been experienced in Northern Ireland from the 

late 1990s has bypassed these poorest sections in our society. The 

34

second is that if the areas which experienced the worst levels of violence are not feeling the benefits of the peace process, at least in 

social and economic terms, this is not a recipe for long-term stability. Opportunities exist to do something about this. There has 

been much focus in recent times on economic investment in Northern Ireland. What has been missing and what is needed is accompanying analysis on how that investment can best be used to target 

social need. If the people in those disadvantaged communities do 

not feel the economic benefit of the peace process, they will feel left 

behind, and CAJ fears what the cost of that isolation could be. 

The second issue is the need to develop a mechanism to deal with 

our past. The publication of the Bloody Sunday report and the subsequent debate have made it clear that Northern Ireland’s past remains to be addressed. It has become clear that a line cannot be 

drawn under the past. Too many people have been affected by it 

and too many have unanswered questions. 

The approach taken to the past to date has been piecemeal and 

unsatisfactory, leaving many victims of the conflict from right 

across the community feeling left behind. Some mechanism will 

have to be developed to deal with our past if its horrors are not 

to undermine our future. The debate simply cannot be abandoned. 

Leadership is required by government, by political parties and by 

all of us in Northern Ireland to grasp the nettle of the past if we 

are truly to build a shared future. Your support in encouraging this 

leadership would be invaluable. 

The third and final issue is delivery on a specific Bill of Rights 

for Northern Ireland. The protection of human rights and the commitment to a Bill of Rights to reflect the particular circumstances 

of Northern Ireland were fundamental parts of the agreement and 

central to efforts of building a shared and peaceful future in Northern Ireland. Regular polling shows consistently high levels of support from the two main communities for a strong and inclusive Bill 

of Rights. 

In the history of our divided society, rarely have there been such 

high levels of agreement right across the community, and this is 

an opportunity that needs to be seized. The new U.K. Government 

has said that they will not legislate for a specific Bill of Rights for 

Northern Ireland, as required by the agreement; rather, they will 

consider incorporating additional rights for Northern Ireland within a section of a wider British Bill of Rights. 

We believe this approach is deeply problematic for two reasons. 

Firstly, it disregards the unique context of the Bill of Rights debate 

in Northern Ireland and instead wants to append it to a very different debate on a U.K.-wide Bill of Rights. Secondly, the agreement was directly concerned with protecting rights to reflect the 

principles of mutual respect for the identity and ethos of both main 

communities and parity of esteem. However, the U.K. Government 

approach of developing rights in a British context directly undermines this. It also ignores the fact that the very issue of nationality 

and identity is and always has been an issue of division and inequality in Northern Ireland. 

The Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs has clearly stated that the 

Irish Government is strongly of the view that a specific and substantial Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland is a central and crucial 

35

element of the agreement. Overall, the approach to be taken is seen 

by many as a retrograde step that risks undermining existing and 

hard-fought human rights and equality protections from our peace 

agreement. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, Northern Ireland is a very different place and that so much has been 

achieved cannot be questioned. The support and encouragement of 

America has been a crucial factor in getting us to where we are 

today. My plea to you today is to maintain your support to ensure 

that peace is maintained and sustained. In particular, ensure that 

investment is used in a way that will help address the deep-rooted 

inequality and deprivation in those communities still bearing the 

scars of the conflict. Encourage leadership from the political parties 

in Northern Ireland and the U.K. and Irish Governments to develop a holistic process to help us deal with our past; and to help 

move on from the past and build a shared and peaceful future 

highlight to the U.K. Government the importance of delivering on 

the agreement and embedding a strong and inclusive specific Bill 

of Rights for Northern Ireland. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify and I look forward 

to taking your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Gilmore follows:]

36


58307b-1.eps
37


58307b-2.eps
38


58307b-3.eps
39


58307b-4.eps
40


58307b-5.eps
41


58307b-6.eps
42


58307b-7.eps
43


58307b-8.eps
44


58307b-9.eps
45

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you, Ms. Gilmore. 

And I want to first inquire of Mr. Volker about your time. 

Mr. VOLKER. I think if I leave by 10:30 or 10:35 I should be fine. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Okay. I think we will maybe start with some 

questions for you to accommodate your time. And again thank you 

for squeezing this in this morning. 

Mr. VOLKER. Thank you for your consideration. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. I thought your overview in comparison to some 

of the similarities and differences were very well done. And I guess 

I wanted to really focus on your last point about the U.S. role, because I think it has been a concern, particularly with regard to 

Bosnia, that, as you described, there have been times when we 

have been all in and other times when it seems like that has been 

on the back burner, and how you think, especially at the end of 

these elections in October, you know, how we can reengage in a 

strong way from our perspective, but also with regard to the EU, 

and, really, regardless of how the elections turn out. 

Mr. VOLKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I began working on Bosnia in 1993, as I said. That was in the early days of the war. Beginning in the Clinton administration, we had a major effort to engage 

in the negotiating process. We didn’t back it up with force. We 

signed an agreement May 1st of 1993. Bosnian Serbs disregarded 

it, acted without it, the Parliament rejected it, and we did nothing. 

Two years later we had the massacre in Srebrenica and then we 

finally got in for real. 

And that is the kind of lesson that I took about U.S. engagement. 

You have to get in and you have to be steady. And I think that is 

a lesson, even looking ahead. We are not in that same situation 

now. It is not good in Bosnia, but I don’t see conflict on the horizon 

immediately. But in order to prevent that, we need to be engaging 

proactively. 

The EU is trying to reduce its presence in the near term. They 

have about 700 peacekeeping forces. They want to reduce that. 

They want to see the Office of the High Representative brought 

down and replace that with an EU High Representative. 

I think that we need to see more progress in Bosnia before we 

pull back. I think that the problem—I even thought that the S4 

handover to the EU was premature. We shouldn’t have done it 

when we did. 

We need to see a stronger civil society, as everyone here has 

mentioned. We need to see greater responsibility by the leading political parties for their own political framework. We need to see 

constitutional change so that we have an effective form of governance. 

So I would suggest that I think the United States and EU need 

to join together in the wake of elections to then put these things 

on the table and try to urge, encourage, press the parties to make 

progress in a number of areas so that we can get to the point 

where it doesn’t depend as much on the international community. 

But I am afraid that if we slide into just reducing our activities and 

our engagement, including the EU, without that kind of progress 

we are going to face greater dangers in the future that could be 

prevented. 

46

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you. And then just one follow-up with regard to Northern Ireland. 

With regard to the debate about the Bill of Rights and what the 

new British Government is doing, to Ms. Gilmore’s point about the 

unique circumstances of Northern Ireland and how to recognize 

that going forward. 

Mr. VOLKER. You know, in our country of course we have a Bill 

of Rights and we cherish it. It provides a clear statement of the 

rights of all individuals. I think two things are essential when you 

apply this idea of a Bill of Rights outside the United States in a 

territory like Northern Ireland. One of them is it needs to be clear 

that it is reinforcing equality and protections for all people in the 

province. If it is not seen that way, then it is not doing it is job. 

So I think we need to make sure that it is getting that sense of 

confidence. 

The second thing is that it needs to fit into a political context of 

what else has been going on. I mean, this is not the first step in 

a peace process in Northern Ireland. There has been a lot going on 

already. So we need to make sure that it is reinforcing what is 

there as well. 

And if I could add a third point, and I do believe this is what 

the British Government has tried to do, is to be as transparent and 

patient in the process as possible, so that you put proposals out, 

you allow for comments, you discuss them, you don’t rush them. 

And if it is not going to produce the desired results, then you don’t 

rush ahead, but you try to actually build that sense of confidence 

and protection in the communities that can help the province advance. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you very much. And I am going to recognize our ranking member, Mr. Rohrabacher.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And then we will go for a second round with 

the rest of the witnesses. 

Do we have military forces? We still have them in Kosovo, but 

are there U.S. military forces still active in Bosnia? 

Mr. VOLKER. There is a very small number. The EU has a lead 

military presence which is about 700. NATO has a headquarters in 

Bosnia and Herzegovina. And I spoke with someone yesterday; they 

said it was about 160. A fraction of that is U.S., so it is really very, 

very small. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Do we actually have people carrying guns in 

somewhat combat operation? 

Mr. VOLKER. No combat operations. The principal functions of 

the NATO headquarters are to provide assistance with defense reform for the Bosnian Government and also to provide protection of 

documents and materials that are useful for the ICTY evidence. 

That is being digitized, and a demand for a protection of those documents will diminish over time. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And what about how much is this—how 

much has Bosnia, this operation now, we have one witness who 

suggests it is $15 billion. Do you have a guesstimate as to from 

then—from start to now? 

Mr. VOLKER. I don’t. I know the USAID figure is about $1 billion 

in assistance. But of course military operations are vastly more expensive, and I don’t have a figure to offer for that. 

47

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Do we know how much the operation in 

terms of the limited military presence that you just described is 

costing the American people? 

Mr. VOLKER. I don’t have a figure on that either. But if you are—

as a guesstimate, you are looking at about 40 people with some 

logistical support that is coordinated through NATO. I can’t see 

that that is going to be costing very much, especially considering 

that they be deployed in Europe anyway. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. My guess, not very much is still in the millions. 

Mr. VOLKER. It may be, but it may also be millions that we 

would be spending somewhere else. It may not be incrementally 

above. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I can assure you with this Congress today, if 

it wasn’t being spent there, it would be spent somewhere else, but 

it doesn’t necessarily justify it. There seems to be a change in attitude in Serbia from being, in the worst days, perpetrators of horrendous crimes, especially in the Bosnia area, to now being—Serbia 

being led by people who really would like to have a peaceful democracy. And they have recently, I understand, their government has 

permitted the indictment of Serbian leaders who participated in 

crimes during that time period. 

How do you assess Serbia’s role at this point? 

Mr. VOLKER. I agree with you. I think that the recent arrests of 

paramilitary personnel who carried out atrocities in Kosovo is a 

very encouraging step. I think the Serbian Government has shown 

much greater interest in integration with Europe and coming to 

terms at least with the ethnic cleansing and the wars of the past, 

if not the issue of Kosovo independence. So I think that is very encouraging, and I think that is something that we should be supporting and encouraging to move ahead. 

If I may address two other thoughts. One of them is what you 

highlighted in your earlier question, was the military presence of 

the United States. And I don’t believe the military presence is the 

important factor right now. There is no conflict going on, and I 

think it is unlikely that new conflict will arise in any short order. 

What is necessary are the kinds of things that I think the other 

panelists and I discussed of support for civil society, constitutional 

reform, and getting the parties to take more of a lead in organizing 

better governance in Bosnia. The second thing——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And how much does that cost? 

Mr. VOLKER. That is diplomat engagement. It may provide some 

additional assistance. We had CDAC. I don’t have a figure to offer 

you as to what we are doing and where we need to go, but I think 

in the tens of millions of dollars is probably about what I would 

expect. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And what is the population of Bosnia? 

Mr. VOLKER. The population of Bosnia. 

Ms. HOWARD. There hasn’t been an official census since 1991, but 

the estimate is about 4.5 million. The previous population was 4.4. 

And it is very difficult to estimate at this point because the issue 

of census is very contentious. 

Mr. VOLKER. And if I could just add a final point. One of the 

things that has made the most difference in Central and Eastern 

48

Europe and the Balkans over the past two decades has been the 

vision of a Europe that is democratic, market-economic, and secure 

and integrated. That has helped Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic 

and so on. That vision still applies but has never been realized in 

the Balkans. 

And I think the European Union has become much more passive 

about this, and I think we have been passive about encouraging the 

European Union, NATO, others, to keep pressing that. I think that 

vision remains very powerful and is ultimately the way to see a 

prosperous region that doesn’t depend on external support. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Let me ask finally, my time is about up now 

as well, just one last question. The vision of having an envelopment 

by the European Union of this unsolved situation then becoming 

solved, how does the possibility of that compare to perhaps a vision 

that the peoples of the former Yugoslavia perhaps could find some 

sort of reconciliation and become part of an entity again of their 

own, rather than having to think of this as a greater European, 

you know, involvement to end that, but instead perhaps—because 

I understand the Croatians, for example, are in a very good relationship with the Serbians right now. 

And I remember years ago when I went to Croatia, when there 

was people slaughtering one another, and I couldn’t figure out how 

they could tell the difference what a Croatian was and what a Serbian was. How do you know who to aim your gun at? And I guess 

that is sort of true in Northern Ireland as well. 

But right now I understand that the Serbians and the Croatians 

are working together, and perhaps a vision of a greater cooperation—and of course we have noted the change of a—the wonderful 

change that we have seen in Serbia—what about the idea of a vision of these states working together as a solution, as compared to 

going to the EU? 

Mr. VOLKER. Sir, if I may, a great American poet wrote, ‘‘Good 

fences make good neighbors.’’ And I think that is what we are seeing. As long as they are independent and confident, then they can 

work together. And I don’t see any prospect of regional-only cooperation. I see the prospect of growing cooperation within the 

framework of being part of a mainstream of Europe. And I think 

that they do go hand in hand. 

The European Union has the ability to push for reforms and for 

progress, which the people and governments of the region may find 

difficult but be willing to do if they can be assured of access to that 

greater European family. That has always been the tradeoff. If it 

is just the countries in the region alone, they are going to act very 

independently because the worst atrocities in Europe since World 

War II took place there just 15 years ago, and that level of confidence isn’t going to be there without the European Union. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. Thank you. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you, Ambassador. And I am going to excuse you and honor your time, and again thank you. 

Mr. VOLKER. Mr. Chairman, thank you for having me. Ranking 

Member, thank you. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. I want to turn next to Ms. Gilmore and follow 

up and say I really think you hit the nail on the head in describing 

some of these very complicated issues in the span of 5 minutes. 

49

That is remarkable in itself. But I really want to get into some 

more detail about the issue of people feeling left behind, whether 

it is the disadvantaged communities, whether it is victims, and 

what are the most concrete steps that you think can be taken in 

order to address that. Because to me, when people don’t feel the 

benefits of that peace process clearly, it can lead to despair, to violence, and undoing so much of the good work that has come about. 

But I think we are missing the boat if we can’t focus and address 

the needs of some of those communities that are being left behind. 

So if you could address that, please. 

Ms. GILMORE. The life of socioeconomic deprivation in those communities that bore the brunt of the conflict and in which we are 

seeing renewed violence, in my mind could be quite easily addressed by implementing some of the measures either that we have 

in place or that were promised as part of the agreement. And even 

looking at it in sort of economic terms, the levels of investment 

that are coming into Northern Ireland need to be targeted. We 

have an antipoverty strategy, we have a statutory equality duty 

which requires all government policy to be assessed for its impact 

across a range of grounds. And in terms of the resources that are 

coming into Northern Ireland, or even the resources that we currently have, if those analyses were being properly carried out and 

properly targeted, then we should start to see some impact in these 

deprived communities. 

So we need to look at how we break the cycle of long-term unemployment, for example, and if new businesses and new job opportunities are coming into Belfast or coming into other parts of Northern Ireland, how we can start to offer employment opportunities in 

those areas where long-term unemployment is a problem. 

Likewise we need to just invest more in the social aspect of those 

communities. Many of them are sort of the very communities that 

experienced the brunt of the conflict and they haven’t seen the 

same level of regeneration and investment. We have a number of 

regeneration initiatives that have been proposed and master plans 

for redevelopment of some of these areas, and it is important that 

the communities themselves participate in discussions about what 

they want their communities to look like. 

The point has been raised about the importance of civil society 

and a strong civil society. And in Northern Ireland we actually do 

have a very strong civil society, but it is bringing a civil society 

voice and bringing those people into the room by giving them a say 

in how to improve their communities that is important. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. And what does that engagement look like now? 

Because I guess even if you have great engagement, if you don’t 

have follow-on results, I think that even adds to the despair. So 

how do you judge that level of engagement now in terms of what 

is going on? 

Ms. GILMORE. I think it has been problematic to some extent, because we have a model or method of consultation where communities are consulted about the kinds of change they would like to 

see in their areas. But you don’t see the results of that consultation 

coming through. There’s no follow-through. I think what is needed 

more is a model of participation, if you like, active community participation in decisions because, as you have sort of hinted at, the 

50

risk is that you build people’s expectations up, so you tell them 

they have a voice in their community. But if they don’t then see 

the follow-through, that results in even more disillusionment 

among those communities. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Okay. Thank you. 

I am going to yield to Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So how much have we spent in Northern Ireland? 

Ms. GILMORE. I think, Mr. Chair mentioned that it was $500 million. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. $500 million over a 10-year period. You 

know, I remember the frustration over the years with what was 

going on in Ireland, and I spent a lot of time and a lot of focus on 

it. As many Americans, I have a sort of a natural attachment to 

Ireland and the people of Ireland. My middle name is Tyrone. However, it is not from County Tyrone, I am afraid. I am afraid my 

mother named me after Dana Andrews and Tyrone Powers, who 

were the movie stars of the year that I was born. But I do enjoy 

the Irish culture and have studied the Irish culture. 

What I noted was the greatest—and correct me if I am wrong—

really, the greatest strides toward peace happened when women in 

Ireland put their foot down and worked together to try to create 

a peace there, and I believe that was back in the 1970s. Can we 

really make a difference from this level, or does it really have to 

come from within? And as I say, I believe these two women received Nobel Peace Prizes back in 1976, which they rightly deserved. 

Ms. GILMORE. I think both levels are needed. Both approaches 

are needed. It is very important to have the grassroots movement 

and participation in building constitutional reform, for example, in 

building peace. And I think, without question, the strong and vibrant civil society that existed in Northern Ireland, the likes of the 

women’s movements, human rights organizations, strong community associations really helped to maintain some sense of normality 

in a very violent conflict, and then were absolutely instrumental in 

helping to build the peace and help then maintain the peace. 

And in things like constitutional reform then and development of 

bills of rights and things, I think it is very important that you have 

that grassroots investment. But it is clear as well that you need 

the higher level of political intervention. I think that is very much 

the lesson in Northern Ireland in relation to, for example, specifically, the relationship with the United States, I think, the support 

that was given to the British and Irish Governments in their efforts to drive forward a peace process by the American administration and Congress was essential. 

But also, it was the influence that was exerted on our local political parties as well, and it is the support in driving them forward 

and making them aware that this wasn’t just about them, that 

there were people around the world who were interested in seeing 

peace delivered and peace sustained. So I think it has to be a combination of political leadership and fundamentally grassroots participation. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Let me ask a you specific question about, because we just had this Bloody Sunday report, et cetera, during the 

51

time of conflict, there has been really criminal behavior on the part 

of two parties, not just one. I mean, the British Government certainly stepped over the boundary, and there is no doubt about that. 

But there is also no doubt that the British Government was facing 

a group of people who were also stepping over the bounds of acceptable resistance. They were murdering innocent people in pubs and 

elsewhere with bombs, et cetera. 

Do you believe that we should be, now, the position should be, 

we finally put an end to this, and we should just have, forget the 

past, we should just, at this point, not forget the past, but just a 

general amnesty for people who are on both sides of this rotten conflict where people were doing bad things to innocent people? 

Ms. GILMORE. I think that was the hope when our agreement 

was reached and it is arguable that perhaps, it wouldn’t have been 

possible to reach agreement on how to deal with our past at the 

time our peace agreement was reached, and maybe that is why it 

wasn’t addressed. So the agreement sought to draw that line and 

say, the past has been terrible, let’s move on, build our future. 

But Northern Ireland has a very, very small society: 1.7 million 

people, very small, local close-knit communities, and lost over 3,500 

lives with tens of thousands injured. And in such a small geographic location with such small close-knit communities, everybody 

felt the impact of the conflict in some way, physically and mentally 

and emotionally. And for those people, the past is very much 

present, and the trauma that they went through is still very much 

part of their lives. 

And you can’t turn around to victims of conflict and say, you 

must forget about what has happened to you and move on to the 

future. People have questions that they want answered across all 

sides in terms of what happened to their loved ones and what happened to their families. And I think we are increasingly seeing the 

need to provide some answers to questions to give some people closure, because they are not going to invest in the future if they 

haven’t been able to deal with the past. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I think answering questions and bringing closure to people’s consciousness about their loved ones who are no 

longer with them is really an important factor. 

I think that necessarily establishing a concept of justice may or 

may not be. You know, in the Civil War of the United States, we 

had tremendous slaughter on both sides. And yet, I think President 

Lincoln’s, one of his most famous words were ‘‘charity for all and 

malice toward none.’’ Is that the right quote? And I think that is 

the way you end conflicts, is that eventually people understand 

that bad things are done on both sides. This isn’t necessarily a case 

like, in Bosnia, for example, where you actually had leaders deciding that they are going to systematically go out and slaughter people in order to terrorize the whole population. 

I think that—and you can correct me if I am wrong—that in the 

Northern Ireland situation, it was basically where you had people 

who are out of control and both in the constabulary area and both 

in the, I say private sector for lack of a better term, for what was 

going on among the IRA, so perhaps people need to be held accountable for what they do officially, and are—but perhaps people 

52

should be forgiven if they have lost control and the crimes are committed during conflicts. 

Ms. GILMORE. I think there are three key elements that any 

process to deal with the past should comprise. I think it has to be 

a mixture of truth, justice and then forgiveness and reconciliation. 

Not everybody in Northern Ireland wants justice. Some of them 

just want the truth about what happened. And you know, the reality is so much time has passed now. Key witnesses will be dying, 

and information is gone. So I think people realize that actually the 

reality of prosecutions is getting further and further away the further we get from our conflict. 

But I think the important thing is that you take a victim-centered approach so that whoever is engaging with the process to 

deal with the past, if they are a family who want justice, that they 

at least have an option of pursuing that route. If they are a family 

who just wants truth, that they have the option of pursuing that 

route if they want forgiveness, too. So it is providing the options 

and focusing on the people who have actually been impacted by the 

conflict. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Truth and justice. That is interesting. Thank 

you very much. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you. 

And I wanted to turn to our other witnesses, Mr. Serwer, and 

wanted to see if you would elaborate on actions that can and 

should be taken in Bosnia after the elections. You mentioned a bottom-up approach that the EU and the U.S. could help facilitate. 

Describe what you think that would look like in an ideal situation 

and how that would work well. And then I want to follow up with 

Ms. Howard on that as well. 

Mr. SERWER. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

I hope you won’t mind if I go back to two formalities I may have 

skipped when I first spoke. One is that I should have said these 

are my personal views, and the other is that I have a full text that 

I hope I can submit for the record. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Without objection. 

Mr. SERWER. Thank you. I think when it comes to constitutional 

reform, the two efforts that have been undertaken, one led by the 

U.S. Institute of Peace and another led by the State Department, 

have been entirely top-down. The people of Bosnia have been completely left out of the picture. 

My view is that the U.S. and EU should take relatively small 

amounts of money and sponsor throughout Bosnia town meetings 

for discussion of constitutional reform. In the meanwhile, the EU 

should lay out the criteria that the Bosnian constitution is going 

to have to meet. I don’t think we should lay out specific amendments to that Constitution as we have done twice in the past and 

failed twice in the past. 

The EU can tell the Bosnians, your Constitution is going to have 

to do this, it is going to have to do that. The court has already told 

them they have to get rid of the discriminatory provisions. That 

would be an adequate basis for town hall meetings all over Bosnia, 

and an effort to generate a truly grassroots discussion and grassroots pressure for constitutional reform, which has been completely 

lacking, except really in the Bosniak community and sometimes in 

53

the Croat community—where the grassroots effort is for a third entity, which in my view would not be the right direction. 

We do this kind of thing, in the U.S. all the time. It shouldn’t 

be hard to picture what kind of discussion we could generate in 

Bosnia. 

But I wanted to also comment, if you will allow me, on a couple 

of things Kurt said because I might differ a little bit. I am not completely encouraged by Belgrade’s current attitude, either on Bosnia 

or, in particular, on Kosovo. 

On Bosnia, the official position is a strong ‘‘one Bosnia’’ position. 

But, frankly, Belgrade is doing everything it can to support the efforts of Republika Srpska to continue to establish de facto autonomy and even independence. 

A second point I would like to disagree on a little bit. Kurt suggested that conflict was very unlikely. I think it is not imminent, 

but I think we would be making a grave mistake to ignore the possibility of resurgent conflict in Bosnia. In particular, the calling of 

a referendum on the High Rep powers or on the independence for 

Republika Srpska, in my view, would be viewed by the Bosniaks, 

and many Croats and Serbs who were loyal to the Sarajevo Government as well, as a casus belli. And I think we need to be sure 

that we can prevent the holding of the referendum in Republika 

Srpska alone, which is a territory ethnically cleansed and with a 

population that does not represent the views of those who lived 

there before the war. 

Finally, I would like to make the point that I think what we need 

is not so much U.S. re-engagement. I think the embassy thinks it 

has been engaged the whole time. The people in the High Rep’s Office think they have been engaged the whole time. But we have 

been engaged across too broad a front of issues, and you lose your 

focus when you engage on too many issues. 

Our embassy in Sarajevo has 9 political officers. This is a very 

large political section in an embassy of a country of 4.5 million people. I have proposed specifically that a third of those political officers be given over to the EU Special Representative if, in fact, we 

can have a super EUSR, one with real powers at his or her disposal. 

I also think that Europeans should start cutting their bilateral 

embassies there. There is a cacophony of international voices in Sarajevo. We need a unity of international voices in Sarajevo. And 

that doesn’t mean disengaging. That means unifying and sharpening our focus. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you. 

Ms. Howard, to my question that I presented to Mr. Serwer, in 

terms of how, what he described in terms of that bottom-up engagement, how you think that, as a practical matter, would work, 

and what kind of impact you think that would have compared to 

prior reform efforts. 

Ms. HOWARD. Speaking of unity of voices, it is always great to 

see someone who agrees so much with you, but then there is not 

much for me to add. But I will try definitely. 

I absolutely can agree that this has to be a bottom-up approach. 

I even said that in my testimony last year to the U.S. Helsinki 

Commission, that it has to be a domestically driven process. 

54

Previous processes, I think one of the reasons that have contributed to their failure has been that they have really been top-down 

and that they were only discussed with a handful of politicians, 

which not only then made them vulnerable to manipulation in public, because to this day quite a few Bosnians, citizens, don’t even 

know what is contained in those packages that were proposed to 

Bosnian political leaders to adopt this constitution. And so this is 

one problem. 

And the second problem is that often in these processes, the emphasis is placed on reaching a political deal and basically negotiating it down to the point of least common denominator and not so 

much focusing on what will make the country truly functional, a 

truly functional democracy, because to obtain long-term stability 

and prosperity, this it what we need to have, is a functional country. 

So, in terms of how does this look in the future, I mean, I can’t 

provide a recipe that would work because I think that really then 

maybe I wouldn’t be sitting here if this were so easily obtainable 

and possible. 

But I will agree with Mr. Serwer that the role of the international community should be in providing incentives, first of all, 

by tying some of these reform processes through the prospect, 

which has to be a tangible and achievable prospect, of EU and 

NATO membership. That is one. 

And second is to provide expertise, because, and this is the extent to which the international community should get involved, because to provide ready-made solutions is, like Mr. Serwer said, is 

really not desirable. 

I think that civil society has a great role to play in this process 

immediately following elections. I am certain that there will be an 

opportunity created and momentum for change. I am not talking 

about necessarily political change and the outcome of elections. I 

am just saying about an opportunity to change the way that the 

current system is working or actually not working. 

I can say specifically, for example, in the case of the National Endowment for Democracy, that we are working with some of the civil 

society organizations to open up this process, and something that 

very much looks like what Mr. Serwer is proposing, and that is a 

series of town hall meetings, consultations with civil society and 

the media and getting everybody involved and getting this to be an 

all-inclusive process, in which people can, not only be fully aware 

of what these packages contain and what these processes contain, 

but can also contribute to it, because after all, this is the only way 

that this new system, if it were to be devised, can have a popular 

legitimacy, which it doesn’t have currently because the international document fashioned in Dayton is, not only was it never 

subject to ratification by the Bosnian Parliament, but it remains to 

be only an English language original. It has never been translated 

into the languages spoken in the region. 

Just to one point, I don’t know if this has answered your questions or if I should elaborate more, but I would also touch on this 

issue of security. It is in my written testimony. I haven’t had a 

chance to mention it. I would also be very careful in dismissing a 

possibility of violence and conflict. I am certain that if it were to 

55

happen, which I am not predicting that it will, but if it were to 

happen, it would not be at the scale that we have seen in the early 

1990s. 

But we cannot just estimate that this is not a possibility or yes 

a possibility, because there has not really been a systematic attempt to assess what is the true security threat in Bosnia. There 

have been several major incidents of violence, not necessarily interethnic violence, but they could have had a potential to spread out. 

One of the most recent ones I would like to point out is the June 

2010 bombing of the police station in Bugojno, in which one police 

officer died and six were wounded. And this was the most serious 

and the largest security threat Bosnia has faced since the 1990s. 

It could very well spiral out of control. And as Ambassador Volker 

has pointed out, there are very few soldiers on the ground that 

would be able to contain this type of violence. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. One other thing I wanted to follow up on is the 

work reaching out to young people in Bosnia. I had a chance on my 

last visit to go to one of the local universities and talk with a very 

diverse group of students there. And they seemed very progressive 

and, you know, very concerned about their future. And I would just 

be really interested in your comments about where you think 

young people are to the extent of their involvement in these elections and to the extent you think they would be involved and engaged in some kind of a bottom-up process on reform. 

Ms. HOWARD. I have to say I am very optimistic but also very 

pessimistic. 

The reason for pessimism, let me start with bad news first, is 

something that also Mr. Serwer has touched upon, and that is the 

educational system, which is deeply divided, deeply segregated. 

And what it is producing is new generations of people who do not 

know each other. They don’t understand each other. They are 

taught to hate each other in some cases, or simply do not understand. 

I think it is unacceptable to have something as we have in Bosnia, well over 50 schools which are considered to be two schools 

under one roof, or as Mr. Serwer has mentioned, separate but 

equal type of system in which children of different ethnic backgrounds are being taught separately and are attending classes separately. I think, in the long term, this is going to produce generations that might not be able to live together. 

However, at the same time, I do have a lot of hope and optimism 

about the generations that are now coming of voting age and are 

university students, like you mentioned yourself, those that in 

some ways were touched by the war but, on the other hand, did 

not, perhaps, were not indoctrinated by some of this, the educational system that I have just described. 

Civil society has, many observers have said this, has engaged in 

pre-election processes to the extent it has never done before. I find 

it is very encouraging to see how innovative civil society, especially 

youth organizations, have been to try to emphasize accountability 

of politicians and try to basically stop them from hiding behind the 

curtain of territorial issues and ethnic issues, as they have done in 

2006. 

56

For example, I would just point out, you may find it interesting, 

that they have even borrowed from the United States’ experiences 

and have developed a Bosnian version of a Politifact Web site in 

which they are looking at the statements made by politicians back 

in 2006 and basically fact-checking them for consistency, for the 

level of—it has been a highly contested Web site among the parties, 

as is to be expected, which do not like to be so deeply scrutinized. 

But I do really believe that this is going to contribute to—as I mentioned in my testimony, NED has supported quite a few efforts to 

get out the vote. 

As in most countries in the region, youth apathy is at a very high 

level. Very few youth vote. We, of course, believe always that it is 

the youth that brings the voice of moderation, as you yourself said, 

and that increasing youth voter turnout would actually contribute 

in creating a more moderate political climate in Bosnia. And I am 

really hopeful about that. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you. I apologize. I am over my time. 

But I want to recognize the gentleman from Minnesota. 

Mr. ELLISON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And good morning. Thank you all for your very insightful and informative presentations. I had some lengthy conversation with 

members of my Bosnian community in Minnesota and then even in 

New York. I happened to be in New York, and they sat me down 

and talked for quite a long time. I took a lot of notes. 

Obviously, the questions that they asked me to ask you are going 

to be informed by their own experiences, but I did promise them 

that I would ask the experts. So, here are some of the questions 

they asked me to ask you, and I am just going to read them as they 

came to me. 

I recently met with a group of—well, that is my statement—i recently met with a group of Bosnian Americans. According to them, 

there were recent elections in which Bosnian Muslims won the 

elections but were later ruled invalid. Is there any truth to this 

statement, and can you tell me any more about it? Do you know 

anything about this? 

Ms. HOWARD. I can’t think of what this could be referring to because the latest election—Bosnia had a general election. Presidential and parliamentary were in 2006, and the local elections 

were in October 2008. I was in Bosnia at the time of the local elections, held now almost 2 years ago, and to my knowledge, I don’t 

remember them being contested. They have been ruled free and 

fair. The 2006 elections have been ruled free and fair by the OSCE 

with some small irregularities. 

The local elections were not observed by the internationals but 

have also been deemed to be free and fair. And I don’t know if 

there is something that I am missing, but to my knowledge, this 

seems to not be——

Mr. ELLISON. I appreciate you telling me that. That is the feedback I will share with them. But they also talked, described at 

length a situation where they had some parties that were contesting in the election, and that somehow the election authority invalidated one particular party that ended up with more votes. And 

this was, I think this was around the area of Sandzak. Are you familiar with this area? 

57

Ms. HOWARD. I can address that. I think I do—they were the 

elections for the National Minority Councils in Serbia which were 

held on June 6. And indeed, yes, those elections were contested. 

There were three, so to say, players or groups that were participating in these elections in the Sandzak area. Sandzak area is basically a part of southwest Serbia that is largely inhabited by a 

Bosniak community. And the group that has won the most seats 

in these elections has not been able to constitute the Minority 

Council as they were supposed to. 

There are various versions of why this happened, and it is a 

highly contested issue indeed. And I think in that case, I think the 

only thing that I would point out, it is an area in the Balkans right 

now that we should be closely watching, that an area for which we 

should encourage the Government of Serbia to approach a bit more 

constructively and provide the kind of support that the leaders and 

the civil society need over there. 

And in addition, I would also expect and hope that the religious 

leaders, especially the Islamic leaders in the region, would be encouraged to provide voices of moderation to those in Sandzak in 

order to resolve this issue and avoid any escalation of it. 

Mr. ELLISON. Is there anything the United States should or 

should not do? I mean, maybe we should just stay out of it. But 

do you have any advice for how we might approach it? 

Ms. HOWARD. Well, at this point, I think, just in terms of encouraging the voices of moderation and encouraging the Government of 

Serbia to approach this issue in a constructive manner and to basically negotiate with all the parties involved to make sure that this 

does not escalate to the point at which we do need to get involved 

in a way in which I think you mean. But at this point, I think only 

in diplomatic means, just encourage these. 

Mr. ELLISON. Okay. Thank you. That is very helpful. I appreciate 

your perspective. 

Another question they asked me is whether you all can share 

your views about the educational system. You have already touched 

on it quite a bit. Some of the people who I met with who are 

Bosniaks said that they were not allowed to learn about their heritage, their legacy. Could you address this issue? 

Mr. SERWER. Yes, there are parts of Bosnia in which that might 

well be true. There are other parts of Bosnia in which Serbs 

wouldn’t be able to learn about their heritage. This is a very difficult subject. It is not easy to fix a school system after war. 

But what many Bosnian children are being taught today is encouraging ethnic tension and strife. And what we really need to do 

is work for schools in which all Bosnians, of whatever ethnicity, 

will feel comfortable. 

USIP, my institute, has in fact sponsored a good deal of work on 

the history of recent developments in the Balkans. That work has 

been supported also by National Endowment for Democracy and 

The Balkan Trust. 

There are common narratives that can be taught. And if there 

aren’t common narratives, sometimes there are parallel narratives 

that can be taught. It is important to learn your own narrative and 

important to learn somebody else’s narrative. 

58

We can’t get at this problem bilaterally as the United States. The 

OSCE is responsible for the international efforts for education in 

Bosnia, and I think we should reactivate the OSCE and provide it 

with strong support to eliminate ‘‘separate but equal’’ and the 

teaching of narratives that can only encourage future conflict. 

Mr. ELLISON. Forgive my ignorance. I don’t know what OSCE 

stands for. 

Mr. SERWER. I am sorry. OSCE is the Organization for Security 

and Cooperation in Europe. It is the Helsinki Agreement organization, to speak in Cold War terms about it. 

Mr. ELLISON. Okay. That is fine. 

Ms. Howard. 

Ms. HOWARD. I would only add, because civil society was mentioned several times, that civil society is really trying very hard to 

provide, to supplement and address these deficiencies in the educational system by providing some other innovative methods. One 

of them is this approach to historic reconciliation by teaching common narratives or even providing multi perspective historic lessons. 

Another one is by, for example, using documentary films about 

human rights in schools. One NED grantee, for example, has used 

animation to devise a digital interactive map about what happened 

in Srebrenica day by day, which is now widely available online and 

in digital form to citizens not only in Bosnia but also Serbia. And 

this organization, Youth Initiative Human Rights, who is also 

grantee, I believe, of USIP, is now going around schools in Bosnia 

and Serbia as well to educate their peers on what happened. 

So, until there is a better educational system in place, formal 

educational system, civil society is really trying to do the best that 

they can to address some of these deficiencies. 

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chair, I have got two more questions. Do I 

have time to ask those? 

Mr. CARNAHAN. I think we are good on time. Go ahead. We 

missed you on some earlier rounds, so we will give you some extra. 

Mr. ELLISON. So, is there the political wherewithal to help supplement these better educational approaches that you all are proposing? Because my question is, I love your ideas, and I think they 

are good. But I guess my question is, they do require somebody to 

implement them, and do the people who have the power, are they 

willing to support these kinds of approaches? 

Mr. SERWER. Mr. Ellison, I am afraid the short answer to your 

question today is not the people currently in power. They have not 

been willing and have, in fact, built a system of separate but equal 

quite intentionally. I have some hope that the early October elections, October 3, will bring to power a government that has different attitudes on the constitutional and educational issues. 

I think a great deal depends on how the EU and the US treat 

these issues and what expectations we lay down for the Bosnians. 

If we are clear that separate but equal is not a way you get into 

the European Union; if we are clear that the entity veto process in 

the Bosnian constitution is not acceptable for a member of the European Union, the Bosnians will adjust to those expectations. 

In addition, frankly, there are some political parties more open 

to that adjustment than others. I hope to see more of them in 

59

power and fewer of those who have become really stalwart defenders of separation. 

Mr. ELLISON. Some of the people I talked to demonstrated a lot 

of confidence in the political party connected to Mr. Djindjic. Are 

you familiar with this? They felt that that political party was more 

open. Are they viable? I mean, do you agree with that assessment? 

Mr. SERWER. Mr. Djindjic’s party is a party in Serbia, not in Bosnia, and it has no clear equivalent in Bosnia. 

I think it is fair to say the Bosnian Serb population is right now 

heavily dominated by ethno-nationalist parties, which do not share 

the commitment to the EU and to democracy that Mr. Djindjic 

demonstrated. Even his own party in Serbia today, I would say, 

does not share entirely his vision, in particular on the subject of 

Kosovo. 

Mr. ELLISON. Okay. And my last question is, for these folks, and 

I, again, I talked to them in Minnesota and in New York, and as 

you know, there is a large Bosnian community in St. Louis and 

also in Chicago, and actually Bosnian Americans are really getting 

to be quite a political entity on their own. What role do you see for 

Bosnian Americans, or maybe the Bosnian diaspora, writ large, in 

helping to facilitate and improve quality of life in Bosnia? Because 

a lot of them have expressed interest; I mean, many of them, you 

know, their feet might be in New York, but their hearts are back 

there. So do you have any recommendation on what Bosnian community members, how they might make a positive contribution? 

Ms. HOWARD. Well, several. One is very simple, and if I can just 

say it so simply, send money. Because I will agree with Ms. Gilmore is that the economy is very important in bringing peace and 

stability. And at this point, in a so dysfunctional and divided country, it is very difficult to attract foreign direct investment. And Bosnia has really suffered economically because of its unstable political 

situation. So remittances for—from their families living abroad. 

And I would only just mention one large other community that 

we shouldn’t forget, and that is Atlanta, which I think also has a 

sizeable community there. 

But I do think that this is definitely one way of helping. The 

other way, and this is where things can be a bit sensitive sometimes with the diaspora, and they can play a very constructive role, 

but again, also play a very dangerous role in their rhetoric and 

these messages that are being sent back to their families and either supporting reconciliation, but also not necessarily providing a 

very constructive voice because we have, as we know, I think, in 

many diasporas, this is the case, diasporas can be a bit more radical sometimes than their counterparts living in the country and 

actually being directly touched by the situation. 

So, in that sense, the community here should remain engaged, 

both, like I said, financially, but also they should really continue 

to care, to encourage their representatives here in the United 

States to remain engaged and I think just be constructive and recognize that it is a very fragile situation there, and that their voices 

can contribute and should not, definitely, try to add to the fires of 

this nationalist rhetoric. 

Mr. ELLISON. I will let them know. 

60

And Ms. Gilmore, forgive me for not asking you many questions. 

I didn’t talk to my northern Irish community much in preparation 

for this meeting. But I learned a lot from what you shared with us 

and I thank you for it. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you. 

And I am going to use your question though to give to Ms. Gilmore later. But we may have another member joining us we will 

try to get in. 

We expect some votes on the floor coming up. But we are going 

to try to go to Mr. Rohrabacher next, and we may be hearing some 

bells going off soon, but we still have a few more minutes. 

Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. What language do they speak in Bosnia, and 

is it different than is spoken in Serbia and Croatia? Do the Bosnian 

Serbs and the other Bosnians speak a different language? 

Ms. HOWARD. It is a very tough question to answer. I have to 

say, before the falling apart of Yugoslavia, the language was called 

Serbo-Croatian, and these languages are considered to be dialects. 

But I think that today the most, how would I say it, broadly accepted answer to this question would be that there is a Bosnian 

Croatian and Serbian language. And the differences between these 

languages I always like to say are the same as differences between 

Irish English, British English, and American English. But I think 

that it is to understand if you understand the nuances and the historical background of what happened, it is fully understandable 

that each of the self-defining groups likes to have language as part 

of their identity. And regardless of what one might think of what 

the true differences between these languages are, we should really 

respect that desire by ethnic groups to have their own language. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Correct me if I am wrong. But it is really 

hard to tell someone from Northern Ireland and from southern Ireland by their accent. At least it is hard for me. I am down at the 

pub, and I can’t really tell who I should be telling what joke to on 

either side of me because I can’t tell which one’s from Northern Ireland and which one’s from southern Ireland. Isn’t that the case as 

well? I mean, there is not really much a difference there. 

Ms. HOWARD. Well, you can tell by dialect whether someone is 

from Serbia or Croatia. In Bosnia, it is much more difficult to say. 

There are some slight differences and nuances, but people have—

it all depends on where one went to school, for example. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, my guess is there is probably less distinction between those people than there is, in terms of their language, than there is between someone who comes from Mississippi 

and New York. And that is just a thought. And of course, I think 

the people of Mississippi did have a fight with the people of New 

York one time about 150 years ago, and it was pretty bad, and it 

was pretty tough. 

So, but when people speak the same language, it seems to me 

that opens up doors, especially with the Internet. And you were 

discussing how the Internet may be playing a positive role. If you 

have people speaking the same language who can confront each 

other over the Internet and confront ideas and also, not only confronting ideas, but view alternatives through the Internet that they 

61

couldn’t necessarily talk out among themselves, that offers some 

hope there. 

I am going to ask you some specific questions from my knowledge 

base here. Now, in Srebrenica, Bosnia, that is an area of Bosnia 

that this ethnic cleansing took place. That is correct? 

Ms. HOWARD. Srebrenica? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. Right. Srebrenica. Got it. I am getting 

the pronunciations here. In Srebrenica, what is the population of 

Srebrenica? 

Ms. HOWARD. I really don’t know at this point, I have to say, and 

it is also difficult to say what it was pre-war because what we have 

to understand is that Srebrenica was a protected enclave where 

refugees and displaced persons from other areas have all converged. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I remember the history, yes. 

Ms. HOWARD. So it is very difficult. I don’t know what the current population is. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, we know that thousands of people were 

slaughtered there, and that——

Ms. HOWARD. Close to 8,000. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. One of the great crimes against humanity 

happened there. 

But today, it is basically a Serbian area, but you mentioned this 

other area in Serbia that is Bosnian. What is the population of that 

area? 

Ms. HOWARD. I really would have——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. Is there some reason why the people 

who are Bosnians who want to be part of Bosnia but live in Serbia 

can’t be part of Bosnia, and the Serbians who want to be part of 

Serbia can’t be part of Serbia, rather than simply trying to create 

everybody who happens to live within a certain boundary has an 

education that eliminates their ethnic identification? 

Ms. HOWARD. Well, it is a very, of course, complicated issue. 

And I think one of the first things that comes to mind is that 

these areas are not ethnically pure. Even when we have a majority 

in a certain area, and this is an issue that I think in any discussion 

on territorial swap between Serbia and Kosovo always is brought 

up, is that these areas that would be attached or detached are simply not ethnically pure. And then there is the question of what 

happens to those who are not of the majority. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, the only question is whether or not the 

overwhelming number of people in a given area want to be or do 

not want to be part of a government. 

Now I will have to admit that what I am talking about is a theory of bringing peace that is not in vogue. And in fact, what is in 

vogue is more of the centralized approach; let’s get everybody in 

the EU. Let’s try to get—instead of having recognition of these ethnic differences, let’s try to go in to centralization rather than decentralization as a solution. 

And because, in Kosovo and in Serbia, there is also a situation 

where you have got a lot of people on the northern side of the river 

are all Serbs, but they have got to live in Kosovo, and there is a 

valley in Serbia that is made up almost all of Kosovars who would 

rather be in Kosovo. 

62

And why aren’t we pursuing the possibility of eliminating conflict 

by actually having trades in what you call sovereignty of a given 

territory because the people there don’t want to be part of that 

country? 

Mr. SERWER. Mr. Rohrabacher, maybe I can try an answer to this 

question. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Excuse me, if I may, I am going to ask you to 

make your answer as short as you can because we are short on 

time, and we want to have some time for Mr. Crowley. 

Mr. SERWER. Okay. The short answer is, you end up having to 

move very large numbers of people at very high expense and probably having to force people to move. 

And it would really be catastrophic for the region as a whole. If 

this process starts in one place, it will spread and unquestionably 

lead to violence. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, if you are not moving, you are part of 

a country you don’t want to be part of, as compared to trying to 

say that the vast majority of people of an area want to be part of 

another country. I mean, this is like, and I will have to tell you, 

when I have Indian representatives here, and I respect the Government of India, and I think the Indians should be our best friends. 

And I recognize the challenge that they have had in keeping their 

country together. But there is the people of Kashmir may not want 

to be part of India. 

And I would think the solution to a lot of these problems that 

we have been talking about is actually giving people in an area 

who represent the vast majority of opinion of a given area, give 

them a referendum and let them decide. And then that seems to 

be a way that you are going to calm people down, rather than you 

are saying it is going to make—it is going to create such a disruption of the status quo that violence will be more likely. I think it 

may be a disruption to the status quo that makes reconciliation 

and peaceful living much more likely. 

So we will see. I mean, that is just an idea to explore that I don’t 

think that people have actually looked at. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you. 

And next, I want to——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. By the way, Mr. Chairman, one last thought. 

That may go for Northern Ireland, too. It may say that there are 

counties in Northern Ireland that would like to be part of greater 

Ireland rather than part of Great Britain. Perhaps if there is a 

county there that votes that way, maybe they should be permitted 

to go in that direction, too. Just a thought. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. 

I want to recognize a member of our full committee for joining 

us on the subcommittee today, Joe Crowley from New York, who 

is also co-chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee on Irish Affairs. 

Welcome. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me thank you from the outset for holding this hearing today, 

both yourself and Mr. Rohrabacher, both friends of mine, and I am 

very pleased that they are both giving this attention that I think 

63

it deserves on all fronts, but particularly as it pertains to the North 

of Ireland and the progress of peace there. 

I am thrilled that we are having this hearing today on the peace 

process that was established earlier this year or furthered earlier 

this year through the Hillsborough Castle Agreement. 

It is no secret that the devolution of policing and justice was one 

of the most challenging pieces of the puzzle that has yet to be fully 

completed. And it is a tribute to all those who were involved, including, I believe, Secretary Clinton, that the agreement came to 

fruition. 

Most importantly, devolution of policing and justice represents a 

victory for all those who support the peace struggle for change and 

reconciliation in the north. 

I believe that an essential next step forward is to establish a 

strong and binding bill of rights for the North of Ireland as envisioned in the Good Friday Agreement and advanced by the Saint 

Andrew Agreement, a bill of rights particular to the circumstances 

of the north, and I would like to go into a little bit more of that, 

would help build on the peace process and ensure that a serious 

return to the past can be avoided. 

I wrote to then Prime Minister Gordon Brown earlier this year 

suggesting exactly this course of action. I believe that if leaders 

backtrack on the Good Friday Agreement’s promise of a bill of 

rights for the north, it will send the wrong signal to those who 

have worked so hard to bring an end to violence and create a future of peace. 

At the same time, we have more work to continue to do here in 

the U.S. It is essential for the United States to continue its commitment to the peace process, and I believe one aspect of that is 

by continued support for the International Fund for Ireland. This 

small targeted investment has been extremely helpful in creating 

on-the-ground conditions for peace, and I am glad that the Congress continues to stand by that fund. 

There has been a tendency in some quarters to believe that the 

conflict in the North of Ireland is over. And one only needs to look 

at the violence of this past summer to give pause to that belief. We 

must not waiver in our commitment toward a lasting peace for all 

the people of the North of Ireland. 

With that, I would just direct to Ms. Gilmore, this December 

10th will mark the second anniversary of the date that the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission gave its recommendations 

for a bill of rights for the north. This move was consistent with the 

Good Friday Agreement, as I mentioned before, and then proposed 

that the bill of rights for the north should include rights particular 

to the circumstances of the North of Ireland. 

Can you explain to us what those circumstances are and how 

having enumerated rights enshrined into a bill of rights addresses 

those concerns? If you can also enlighten us with what you believe 

are the reasons that the new British Government appears to be 

backtracking on the commitment to establishment of a bill of 

rights, and if that is so. And what role do you see the U.S. playing 

in this process? And what do you believe would be the result of not 

creating a specific bill of rights in the north? And is there strong 

64

support for that within a broad sector of the society of the North 

of Ireland? 

I also want to thank Father McManus as well as others who 

were here today applauding the efforts of this subcommittee today, 

and particularly yours, Mr. Carnahan, for having brought this 

hearing up today. Making reference, though, to the fact that there 

is so much embedded in the history between Ireland and Great 

Britain and I think as it pertains to the North of Ireland, we know 

the impact that the British Government had when it took some acknowledgment of its past mistakes pertaining to the Great Hunger. 

And I think that that was a watershed in terms of opening up a 

real full discussion and understanding of the problems. In that the 

Pope is now visiting the UK, it is bringing back a lot of the issues 

that I think fomented and really caused the divisions within Ireland. 

There is still the critical piece known as the Active Settlement 

of 1701, which really embedded within the British constitution 

much of the hatred that exists within the north today. And if you 

could address that. We are moving on one end, without addressing 

some more substantial or embedded pieces of the British constitution. If that is not addressed, is just moving toward a bill of rights 

enough, or do we need to address more issues within the British 

constitution itself? 

Ms. GILMORE. Thank you, Congressman Crowley. 

Thank you for your continued support and interest in Northern 

Ireland. It has been greatly appreciated. 

And to take each of your questions in turn quickly, the particular 

circumstances of Northern Ireland one could look at that very narrowly or one could look at it broadly. Narrowly, one could try to 

identify the very, very specific issues that divide us. Or one could 

look at it in terms of how the conflict has impacted Northern Ireland? What are the circumstances of Northern Ireland that could 

be related back to the conflict? 

And one then starts to look at issues of inequality and deprivation, of the huge impact on the mental health of the population of 

Northern Ireland, with 20 percent of people in Northern Ireland 

with a disability, many of whom acquired that disability through 

getting caught up in trouble in the conflict. 

So we believe that to take a very narrow approach and limit it 

to those very narrow things that would have divided people is actually going to be more divisive than by drawing us to the broader 

interpretation of the particular circumstances, and looking at the 

things that then could potentially unite people, where one would 

end up with a much more holistic bill of rights that everybody can 

identify with. 

In terms of the reasons why the United Kingdom is suggesting 

that the particular bill of rights for Northern Ireland, I would suggest that would be a very good question to ask the United Kingdom 

Government. We are very clear that what was required under the 

agreement was a particular bill of rights for Northern Ireland, and 

indeed, the Irish Government has made clear that a specific bill of 

rights for Northern Ireland is required, and it is not appropriate 

to deal with it within the UK context. I think that those are questions that need to be asked. 

65

The role of the U.S. now in terms of shoring up the support for 

a bill of rights, I think, the political support that has been shown 

by the U.S. over the years, both in supporting the governments and 

encouraging the political parties, and this links into your fifth 

question around support. 

There isn’t cross-party political support in Northern Ireland for 

a bill of rights, but there is very deep and widespread cross-community support. Polling shows upwards of 80 percent of people 

from right across communities in Northern Ireland support a bill 

of rights for Northern Ireland. 

It is so rare that we see such high levels of the agreement. So 

the cross-party support really belies the depth and breadth of discussions that have taken place across civil society and public. 

So I think, as has happened over the years, our political parties 

need to be brought along and coaxed. And I think the U.S. has 

played an extremely important role in doing that, and again, in 

supporting the Irish Government and putting pressure on the UK 

Government to deliver. 

In relation to the British constitutional issues, the Good Friday 

Agreement in some ways was Northern Ireland’s constitutional document, and it was our way of trying to deal with some of those constitutional issues. And really, I suppose that where things are 

going to go in relation to that matter is not something I am particularly qualified to speak about. I would say, though, that a Bill 

of Rights actually would play a very important role in terms of trying to constitutionalize some of the rights that would prevail 

whether one was part of the United Kingdom or whether one was 

part of the Republic of Ireland or whether one just sees oneself as 

Northern Irish, that sets out rights that apply in terms of your humanity. I think it is very important to protect those rights no matter what the constitutional settlement may be. So I hope that answers some of your questions. 

Mr. CROWLEY. It does. 

If I could, I know time is of the essence, but I think it is also 

important to doubt note that the Scots-Irish tradition here in the 

United States take great credit and rightfully so for the establishment of the bill of rights in this country. So it is no wonder to me 

that people, aside from party affiliation, people themselves within 

Northern Ireland understand the rights that they all have, divine 

rights as embedded in their own constitution. It is no surprise to 

me. 

So that is a very welcomed response to the question. I appreciate 

that very much. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing. And I 

agree, there is a greater role that we must continue to play, especially I believe hearing from the Scots-Irish tradition here in this 

country who helped establish our own bill of rights expressing that 

support for the people of Northern Ireland as well. So thank you. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you, Congressman Crowley. 

And I just want to wrap up real quickly a couple of things. And 

I promised I would follow up on Mr. Ellison’s question about the 

role of the Irish Americans here in terms of supporting the process, 

and obviously, they have been very engaged in different organizations and speaking out. 

66

And the other—I will hit these quickly—the response and engagement of the younger generation of people in Northern Ireland 

that may not have lived through some of the worst of the conflict, 

how they have engaged in this. And finally, really, the role of 

women that were so critical in bringing the Good Friday Agreements together and their ongoing role in these efforts. 

Ms. GILMORE. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Those are two very excellent questions. 

When I was listening to the answer in relation to young people 

in Bosnia, I was struck by some of the parallels because, of course, 

many young people in Northern Ireland did not live through our 

conflict. But what we are seeing with them is the transgenerational 

impact of the conflict. 

I think the government’s own statistics show that one in five 

young people will present with mental health problems by the time 

they are 18, and those are young people who have grown up in 

families that have been deeply impacted by the conflict. So while 

these young people may not have lived through the conflict, they 

are very much feeling it in their families and in their communities. 

And yet mental health resources are not targeted directly at those 

communities. 

I think it is interesting to note that in the recent violence and 

public disorder that we have seen, that many young people have 

been involved in it, and indeed, many young people have been injured. There were two young people quite seriously injured by plastic bullets being shot by the police during public disorder over the 

summer. 

I would just link that back to my earlier point on the need to invest in those communities and the need to invest particularly in 

young people because if they are feeling left behind and their communities are not addressed, one can see then how they would be 

open for persuasion and manipulation, for want of a better word, 

by those who would seek to stir up discontent and disorder on the 

streets. 

So I think if young people don’t feel listened to and don’t feel included and don’t feel part of the peace process, even though they 

weren’t part of the conflict, there is a danger that they will go back 

to conflict. And I think that is something we need to be very careful 

about. 

In relation to the role of women, the women’s sector is a very vibrant sector in Northern Ireland. I think what is probably most 

problematic in relation to women in Northern Ireland is the lack 

or the serious under representation of women in public life. And actually, our Good Friday Agreement particularly stipulated the inclusion of women in public life. And we, across the United Kingdom, have the lowest percentage and the lowest statistics of involvement of women in, for example, our local councils and in government. And in senior positions in our civil service and in the administration, there is a very serious under representation of 

women. So women are still very involved at civil society level, but 

they haven’t got through to the sort of higher levels. 

I believe the commitments that were made in the agreement in 

relation to increasing the participation of women in public life very 

much remain to be fulfilled. I think there is an onus on our assemVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:41 Dec 08, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\IOHRO\091610\58307 HFA PsN: SHIRL
67

bly and our executive and our elected politicians to take more active steps to increase the participation of women in society in 

Northern Ireland. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you all very much. 

I am afraid I am going to have to wrap it up. We have about 3 

minutes left on the clock, so I am going to have to walk quickly 

across the street. 

But just special thanks to our panel today. I think they really 

gave us some very keen insights into how we can stay focused and 

stay committed with the efforts and the progress that has been 

made, but also I think a very realistic view on some of the challenges that remain. 

Thank you very much. We are going to stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:38 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(69)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

70


58307n.eps
71


58307m.eps
72

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE RUSS CARNAHAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI, AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS, HUMAN RIGHTS AND OVERSIGHT


58307f-1.eps
73


58307f-2.eps
74


58307f-3.eps
75


58307g-1.eps
76


58307g-2.eps
77


58307g-3.eps
78


58307g-4.eps
79


58307g-5.eps
80


58307g-6.eps
81


58307g-7.eps
82


58307g-8.eps
83


58307h-1.eps
84


58307h-2.eps
85


58307h-3.eps
86


58307h-4.eps
87


58307h-5.eps
88


58307h-6.eps
89

Æ


58307h-7.eps