At the same time, we should have no illusions about what is possible to be done from the outside. It has been accepted very controversially here. But I did it deliberately to provide for a start of the process of sobering up. We in the IC think that the first stage, physical reconstruction of the country, is much easier than the one at which we currently are. It is much easier, for instance, to rebuild a bridge than has a positive influence on the people's minds and hearts.
Physical infrastructure can be the basis for a society, but can never be the goal itself.
Thus, the success of the IC, in fact, depends on the people here. Moreover, I think an intellectual, scientific and political discussion on Dayton is necessary and welcome in the sense of pro et contra. However, I stand against political instrumentalisation of such discourse, especially when it comes from the nationalist parties. It is always about an effort to gain advantage or benefit for themselves or their respective ethnic groups. As long as there is no spirit of compromise, as long as they think of their respective ethnic groups without any regard to the other two which are as important elements of the Dayton Agreement, discussion on Dayton cannot be positive, nor can a change of it take place.