University o f Gdańsk, Department o f Regional Development Geography, POLAND
No. 12
INTEGRATION OF THE SOUTHERN DALMATIA THE CASE STUDY OF THE HERZEGOVINA-
-NERETVA CANTON
1. INTRODUCTION
T he m ain aim o f this p aper is to p resen t th e co n seq u en ces o f th e accessio n o f the R epublic o f C ro atia on 1 Ju ly 2013 to th e E uropean U nion, ta k in g into acco u n t the g eographical location o f th e c o untry. C ro atia is a country w ith o u t territorial integrity, w hich stem s from th e fact th at the sou th ern p a rt o f th e to u rist region o f D alm atia is sep ara ted from th e n orthern p art by th e territo ry o f B osnia and H erzeg o v in a or, m ore sp ecifically , th e H erzeg o v in a-N eretv a canton. T h is in turn is a co n se q u en ce o f certain historical events. In 1699, th e R epublic o f R agusa ceded a narrow strip o f coast to T u rk ish d o m in atio n . T his area fo u n d itse lf w ithin the bord ers o f B osnia and H erzeg o v in a after th e D ayton A g reem en t in 1995. D espite th e ab o litio n o f th e visa req u irem e n t for citizen s o f th e E u ro pean U nion in 2006, the p roblem o f c ro ssin g the b o rd er p ersists. D espite th e ex p an sio n o f border cro ssin g s, to u rists m ay ex p erien ce p ro b le m s w ith m ore accu rate ch eck s w hen c ro ssin g to B osnia and H erzeg o v in a on th eir w ay to D ubrovnik. Prior to EU accessio n , c ro ssin g th e C ro a tian -B o sn ian b o rd er only req u ired p resen tin g a p assp o rt or ID card. Since 1 Ju ly 20 1 3 , d ocum ents en titlin g trav elers to cross th e bo rd er m ust be scanned, w hich extends th e p ro cess o f border checks. H ow ever, the E U 's position in th is case is q u ite clear. F irst o f all, an ag reem en t betw een C ro atia and B osnia and H erzeg o v in a has to be m ade on a m utually satisfacto ry solution.
At th e m om ent, th ere are som e po ten tial so lu tio n s to th e problem . T h ey include:
- co n stru ctio n o f b ridges co n n ectin g the m ain p art o f C ro atia w ith D u
b ro v n ik using the n eig h b o rin g islands;
REGION
REGIONALISM!
- co n stru ctio n o f a tra n sp o rt co rrid o r in th e form o f a fly o v er o v er th e te rri
tory o f B osnia and H erzegovina;
- co n stru ctio n o f a tunnel under th e to w n o f N eum .
All o f th e se initiatives w ere effec tiv ely b lo ck ed by th e g o v ern m en t in S a ra je v o before C ro atia jo in e d th e EU. H ow ever, one o f th e c o n d itio n s o f C ro atia accessio n w as th e p ro m ise th a t th e p ro b lem w o u ld be so lv ed w ithin th e next few years.
2. HISTORICAL BASIS
For cen tu ries, th e area o f th e H e rzeg o v in a-N eretv a C an to n , p a rticu larly th e port o f N eum , w as an area o f c o n ten tio n b etw een d ifferen t co u n tries. S in ce th e b eg in n in g o f th e ten th cen tu ry , th e can to n w as u nder th e ru le o f C ro atia. T his did not prev en t V enice’s atte m p t to ab o lish the trib u te for the kingdom o f D alm atia and C ro atia paid in e x ch a n g e for th e free sh ip p in g on th e C ro a tia n A driatic Sea.
T he situ atio n ch an g ed after 997, w hen a civil w ar broke out betw een th e sons o f D rżislav, th e first king o f C ro atia an d D alm atia. V enice in terfered an d seized islands and to w n s a lo n g th e A d riatic co ast, b reak in g th em a p art w hich in ag reem en t w ith the B y zan tin e em p ero r. C ro atian au th o rity over this territo ry w as re-estab lish ed by S tep h en I. D ue to his g o o d relatio n s w ith th e B yzantium , it co n trib u te d to th e c o llap se o f so u th ern Italy. N o rm a n s to o k th e A p en n in e p eninsula, w h ich h ad a sig n ifican t im pact on in tern atio n al relatio n s on the A driatic co a st for d ecad es to com e. By 1390, B osnian ban S tephen T v rtk o 1 c o n q u ered th e entire C ro a tia south o f V eleb it and assu m ed th e title o f th e ‘K ing o f C ro a tia and D alm atia, an d R a
š
ka and P rim o rsk a ’. L ad islau s o f N ap les in terfered to w in th e H un g arian crow n to gain in flu en ce in B osnia and C ro atia. He landed w ith his tro o p s in 1403 in Z a d a r and w as cro w n ed as a k in g there.
H ow ever, w hen he realise d th a t he w ould not be ab le to get th e H un g arian throne, he d ecid ed to b etra y th e faithful C ro ats by sellin g cities such as N ovi- grad, V rana and Z a d a r to V enice, alo n g w ith his alleg ed rig h t to D alm atia. At th e sam e tim e, in 1420 th e V enetians to o k control o f alm o st th e en tire te rrito ry o f th e A driatic coast. T h e can to n w as ruled by th e R ep u b lic o f V enice, th e O tto m an E m pire, and th e K ingdom o f C ro atia and D alm atia.
T h ro u g h th e ex p a n siv e p o licy o f th e O tto m an E m pire, B osnia fell in 1463, fo llo w ed by H erze g o v in a in 1482. T his w as cau sed by th e lack o f d esire to d efend ag ain st the invasion and th e rela tiv ely g rea ter fear for the p ap acy th an for th e T u rk ish invasion.
A n o th er o p p o rtu n ity to ta k e control o f to d ay 's H e rzeg o v in a cam e w ith th e election in H un g ary and C ro atia. T hro u g h d isag reem en ts betw een th e H u n g a
rians and C ro ats in 1527, a civil w ar b ro k e out, w h ich w as used by B osnians to invade other parts o f C roatia.
T he orig in s o f th e d iv isio n o f th e coastal a rea w h ich is now co n sid ered C ro a tian dates b ack to 1699, w hen th e T reaty o f K arlo w itz w as sig n ed (P a v li
č
ev ić 2 0 0 4 , p. 19 4 ). T he R epublic o f R a g u sa 1 ceded p a rt o f th eir territo ry (to d ay 's N eum ) to th e O tto m an E m pire. T his w as d o n e to en su re th e ir ow n secu rity from p o ssib le attack s from th e R ep u b lic o f V enice.T his area finally sp lit from th e O tto m an E m p ire on 5 O cto b er 1908 w ith th e an n ex atio n o f B osnia and H erzeg o v in a by th e A u stro -H u n g arian Em pire. T his situation w as cau sed by th e e co n o m ic o v e re x p lo itatio n o f th e local p o p u latio n . In 1875, an u p risin g eru p ted in H erzeg o v in a and in a few m onths sp read to B osnia. In a relativ ely sh o rt tim e, th e u p risin g fo u n d su p p o rt in th e P rincipality o f M o n ten eg ro and th e P rin cip ality o f S erb ia. T he A u stro -H u n g arian E m p ire w ith th e su p p o rt o f th e G erm a n E m p ire to o k th e p o litical initiative. O n A pril 24, 1877, th e arm y o f th e R ussian E m pire invaded th e te rrito ry o f B ulgaria. O n M arch 3, 1878 a peace treaty in S an S tefan o w as signed. U nder th e term s o f this treaty, B osnia and H erzeg o v in a g ain ed au to n o m y w ith in th e O tto m an E m pire.
T his led to th e em p o w e rm en t o f th e R ussian E m pire in th e B alkans, w hich in turn sparked o p p o sitio n from o th er E uropean em pires. A p eace co n feren ce w as o rg an ised in B erlin. T h e te rrito ry o f B osnia and H erzeg o v in a fo u n d itse lf u nder arm ed o ccu p atio n o f th e A u stro -H u n g a rian E m pire. At th e end o f 1878, the C ro atian S abor petitio n ed th e em p ero r for th e an n ex atio n o f B osnia and H erzeg o v in a by C ro atia. H ungary p ro tested and th e p etitio n w as rejected. By 1908, the final a n n ex atio n o f B osnia and H erzeg o v in a by A u stria-H u n g ary to o k place.
A fter th e F irst W orld W ar, th e territo ries o f C ro atia and H erzeg o v in a w ere u nited as a single co u n try for th e first tim e sin ce the 14th century. O n O cto b er 26, 1918, the S ta te o f S lovenes, C roats and Serbs w as created, w hich on D ecem b er 1, 1918 tran sfo rm ed into th e K in g d o m o f S erb s, C ro ats and S lo v en es (K in g d o m o f SH S). It included th e K ingdom o f S erb ia, th e K ingdom o f M on ten eg ro , B osnia and H erzeg o v in a under A u stro -H u n g arian rule, th e D uchy o f C arn io la, the so u th ern p art o f th e K ingdom o f H u ngary, the H u n g arian K ingdom o f C ro a tia- -S lav o n ia and th e A u strian K ingdom o f D alm atia (G iz a 1994, p. 97). As a result o f P u n i
š
R ač
ić
's a ttac k on m em b ers o f th e C ro atian P easant Party on June, 201 Republic o f Dubrovnik.
1928 (B en so n 2004, p. 63), A lex a n d er 1 K arad zo rd zev ić , K ing o f S H S , d ecided on 6 Ja n u a ry 1929 to su sp en d the co n stitu tio n and d isso lv e all p olitical parties in th e K ingdom o f SH S. O n O cto b er 3, 1929 th e n am e o f co u n try w as ch an g ed to the K ingdom o f Y u g o slav ia (G iza 1994, p. 112). A fter th e defeat o f th e K in g dom o f Y u g o slav ia in th e w ar ag ain st th e T h ird R eich, th e In d ep en d en t S tate o f C ro atia (T ra w c zy ń sk a 2009, p. 153) w as created on A pril 10, 1941, w hich jo in e d th e T rip a rtite Pact.
As a result o f fu rth er m ilitary o p eratio n s and activ ities o f th e N atio n al L ibe
ration A rm y and P artisan D etach m en ts o f Y u g o slav ia, th e S o cialist R epublic o f B osnia and H erzeg o v in a w as fo rm ed on N o v e m b e r 25, 1943 and, o w in g to th e C on stitu tio n , b ecam e th e federal rep u b lic o f th e Y u g o slav ia on Ja n u ary 31, 1946 as p art o f the S ocialist Federal R epublic o f Y u g o slav ia (F elc zak and W asilew sk i
1985, p. 497).
3. SOCIAL BASIS - ETHNIC GROUPS
In 1961, 18 y ears after its fo rm atio n , th e te rrito ry o f th e P eople's R epublic o f B osnia and H erzeg o v in a w as largely in h ab ited by S erb ian p o p u latio n . It acco u n te d for alm o st 4 2 .9 % o f th e p o p u latio n o f th e republic. M uslim p o p u la tion acco u n te d for 2 5 .7 % and C ro atian s a c co u n ted fo r 2 1 .7 % . H ow ever, the in h ab itan ts o f B osnia and H erzeg o v in a p ro fessin g Islam co u ld not defin e th eir n atio n alities. T his situ atio n b eg an to ch an g e in th e 1960s. In th e cen su s o f 1961 th e p o ssib ility o f self-d eterm in atio n as a 'M u s lim in th e ethnic s e n s e ’ w as allow ed. In th e 1971 cen su s, th e ex p ressio n ‘M uslim in th e n ational s e n s e ’ w as in cluded for th e first tim e. A n n o u n cem en t o f national identity cau se d co n tro v ersy a m o n g inhabitants o f th e co u n try in term s o f nam ing. In S ep tem b er 1993, th e g o v ern m e n t decided to rep lac e th e term ‘M u slim ’ w ith ‘B o
š
n ja k ’ (T an ask o - vic, 1995, pp. 4 5 -5 2 ).B etw een 1961 and 1991, the sh are o f th e M uslim p o p u latio n increased from 2 5 .7 % to 4 3 .5 % , w hile th e S erb ian d ecreased from 4 2 .9 % to 3 1 .4 % and, d esp ite a nom inal in crease in th e n u m b er o f resid en ts d e sc rib in g th em selv es as C roats, th e ir sh a re fell dow n from 2 1 .7 % to 17.3% . T h e d iffic u lty w ith B osnia and H erz e g o v in a w as b a sed on th e lo catio n o f v ario u s e th n ic g ro u p s. D ifferen t g roups lived in the sa m e places or clo se to each other. T h ese w ere m o stly groups o f S erb s and M uslim s, w hich ex p lain s th e fact th at fig h ts eru p ted m o st often b etw een th e tw o. In co n trast, the p o p u latio n o f B o sn ian C ro ats rem ain ed co n cen tra ted near the b o rd er w ith C ro atia, m ainly in th e area in q u estio n (Fig. 1). It sho u ld be n oted that th e re are no recen t data on th e eth n ic affiliatio n o f th e
p o p u latio n o f B osnia and H erzeg o v in a. T his is cau sed by th e lack o f ag reem en t on th e census, w h ich o rig in ally w as to be held in 20 1 1 . H ow ever, as a result o f the b o y co tt o f B osnia and H e rzeg o v in a's g o v e rn m e n t by B osnian S erbs, the census w as delay ed by tw o years. B osnian S erbs sou g h t to include q u estio n s co n c e rn in g ethnic origin in th e census. At th e sam e tim e, C ro atian and B osnian M uslim s w ere stro n g ly o p p o sed to th a t idea. As a result o f th e ag reem en t, qu estio n s o f eth n icity w ere in clu d ed as v o lu n tary in th e 2013 census. H ow ever, th e lack o f c o m p u lsio n to an sw e r all q u estio n s resu lted in th e inability to obtain in fo rm atio n ab o u t th e cu rren t ethnic stru ctu re o f th e country.
Fig. 1. Croatian minority in Herzegovina-Neretva canton in 1991 Source: own elaboration
A cco rd in g to u n o fficial d ata on th e eth n ic stru ctu re o f th e canton, m ore th an 51% o f th e p o p u latio n d eclare th em selv es as C roatians. At th e sam e tim e, w hen w e an a ly se th e natio n al stru ctu re based on the 2011 C ro atian census for the S p lit-D alm atia C o u n ty , w hich d irectly b o rd ers w ith th e canton, w e can see th a t the p e rc en ta g e o f M uslim p o p u la tio n in th e various m un icip alities rarely exceeds 0.5% , w ith th e h ig h est co n c en tratio n in th e m u n icip ality o f P od g o ra w ith 1.63%
o f th e total p o p u latio n . O verall, B osnians are ju s t 0 .3 1 % o f th e p o p u latio n in th e county.
Such ethnic stru c tu re o f th e can to n show s in th e ed u catio n system p rev ailin g in B o sn ia and H erzeg o v in a. E ducation is m an ag ed by canton, city or school- -level local au th o rities. C u rren t ed u catio n system is in d isa rray in term s o f th e cu rricu lu m . S o m e tim es tw o schools w ith d ifferen t cu rricu la, B osnian and C ro a tian, occu p y th e sam e b u ild in g . T his is m ostly reflected in h istory classes. T his system w as intro d u ced in 1997 as a te m p o rary solution and w as to b e ch an g ed by th e end o f 1998. H ow ever, co n tin u o u s d istru st betw een n ations and a strong need to p re se rv e th e cu ltu ral d ifferen ces have led to a situ atio n in w hich th a t system has p rev ailed until today. In 2012, a h earin g w as held in th e co u rt in M o star co n cern in g th e d iscrim in atio n o f stu d en ts based on th e ir n ational and relig io u s b ack g ro u n d s by a p p lic atio n o f d ifferen t req u irem en ts at schools in S tolac an d
Č
apljina. T h e c o u rt o rd ered th e sch o o ls to m erg e B osnian and C ro atian classes into a single m u ltin atio n al class. H ow ever, th e decision w as not ex ecu ted an d th e stu d en ts c o n tin u e to learn in se p arate schools, even th o u g h th ey are often in th e sam e bu ild in g . A cco rd in g to official so u rces, th ere are 34 such educational in stitu tio n s in B osnia and H erzeg o v in a, m ost o f th em in H erzego- vin a -N e re tv a canton.D esp ite internal d iv isio n s in B osnia and H erzeg o v in a, C ro atia is one o f th e m ost ard en t su p p o rte rs o f th e co u n try 's in teg ratio n w ith th e EU and th e in te g ra tion o f th e w h o le D alm atia. C ro atia p ro p o sed th a t th e EU m ove aw ay from th e trad itio n al fo rm o f th e a ccessio n n eg o tiatio n s and th e p rep aratio n p ro cess in the case o f B osnia and H erze g o v in a. U nder th ese new rules, th e accessio n c riteria w o u ld not be red u ced for a can d id ated co u n try , but th e EU w o u ld h ave to ch an g e certain activ ities. C u rren tly , n eg o tiatio n s can n o t start until all internal p ro b lem s are solved. C ro atia p ro p o ses th at such problem s b e solved d u rin g th e p rocess.
B ut to b e ab le to start ta lk in g ab o u t in tegration, B osnia and H erzeg o v in a w o u ld need to get th e ca n d id ate statu s. A cco rd in g to C ro atia, th e p ro cess w o u ld b e ab le to start in O c to b er 20 1 4 , fo llo w in g th e electio n s in B osnia and H erzeg o v in a.
4. THE ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES
H igh level o f u n e m p lo y m en t is a m ajor pro b lem in B osnia and H erzeg o v in a, as w ell as the H e rc e g o v in a-N ere tv a canton. A cc o rd in g to v arious estim ates and d e p e n d in g on th e re c o g n itio n o f th e inform al econom y, it am o u n ts to betw een 35 and 45 % o f th e total w o rk in g -a g e p o p u latio n . T he situ atio n is even w o rse am o n g
y o u n g people. As m any as 5 2 .2 7 % o f p eo p le aged b etw een 16 and 24 y ears are unem ployed. T h e em p lo y m en t levels in the can to n are sim ilarly poor. In 20 1 2 , it am o u n ted to 4 0 .8 3 % o f u n e m p lo y m en t for th e general p o p u latio n and 7 4 .5 2 % for 16 to 2 4 -y ear-o ld s (Zaposlenost... 2013, p. 53 and 115).
Such a high rate o f u n e m p lo y m en t and th e alm o st effo rtless ab ility to obtain by a p a ssp o rt o f th e R epublic o f C ro a tia has led m any o f B osnian C ro ats to seek em p lo y m en t o u tsid e o f B osnia and H erzegovina. M an y o f them a re leaving for n e ig h b o u rin g C ro atia w here, d esp ite th e eco n o m ic crisis, th ey can find a jo b m uch m o re easily. At th e sam e tim e, after C ro atia jo in e d th e EU , citizen s o f B osnia and H erzeg o v in a h o ld in g C ro atian p a ssp o rts h ave a b etter ch an ce o f w o rk in g in th e EU. M any M em b er S tates a n n o u n ced th a t they p lan n ed to end all w o rk -related restrictio n s for C roats. B osnian C ro a ts fin d in g em p lo y m en t in C ro atia affects th e g row th o f u n em p lo y m en t in th e area, and is th u s fro w n ed upon by local p o p u latio n .
T he need to pass th ro u g h th e to w n o f N eum , w hich divides C ro atia into tw o parts, is an ad ditional restrictio n for the p o p u latio n o f th e R ep u b lic o f C ro atia in the S o u th ern p art o f D alm atia. A fter C ro atia jo in e d th e EU , its b o rd er has b ecom es th e external b o rd er o f th e U nion. R elated reg u latio n s re q u ire all p a sse n gers to be co n tro lled an d d iv id ed into tra n sit p a sse n g e rs w h o are EU citizen s and others. For this p u rp o se th e b o rd er cro ssin g has been ex p an d ed in both d irectio n s from N eum . T his resu lted in a red u ctio n o f travel tim e w ith a sim u ltan e o u s in crease in the level o f control.
A t th e sam e tim e, th is fea tu re o f th e te rrito ry o f C ro atia is o ne o f th e o b sta cles to it jo in in g th e S ch en g en zone. C o n seq u en tly , alm o st sin ce th e end o f th e w ar, the g o v e rn m e n t in Z a g reb has been w o rk in g to assu re territo rial integrity th ro u g h d ifferen t m eans.
5. DEVELOPMENT PATH
C ro atia's accessio n to the EU on July 1 had m any im plications for the d ev el
opm ent o f th e w h o le region. As w as th e case w ith th e co u n tries jo in in g th e EU in 20 0 4 , th e re w as an initial sh a rp increase in th e num b er o f to u rists. T he o p p o rtu n ity to use EU funds is an add itio n al b en efit o f m em b ersh ip . M oney o b ta in ed in this w ay can be used for th e d e v e lo p m en t o f to u rist in frastru ctu re and resto ratio n o f m o n u m en ts. T h e new p o ssib ilities asso ciated w ith increased in v estm en t attra ctiv en ess w ill help dev elo p ac co m m o d a tio n facilities. E n v iro n m ent w ill also be im proved. T his will be p o ssib le th ro u g h th e in tro d u ctio n o f a sig n ifican t n u m b er o f EU d irectiv es related to th is subject. In th e long term ,
tran sp o rt a c c e ssib ility sh o u ld also be im proved. T h e co u n try w ill also be ab le to ac q u ire funds to co m p lete th e p ro jected m o to rw ay n etw o rk and a ttract m ore low - cost airlines. In the long term , this sh o u ld also lead to in creased tourism . This w ill hap p en th ro u g h th e accessio n o f C ro atia to th e S ch en g en zone. H ow ever, this d ep en d s on th e territo rial integrity o f th e country. C ro atia has been c o n sid erin g a few so lu tio n s in this regard.
U n fo rtu n ately , th e C ro atia jo in in g th e EU m ay h av e som e n eg ativ e effects.
T he first one, q u ite v isib le to th e citizens, are in ten sified checks at b o rd er cro ssin g s w ith B osnia and H erzeg o v in a on th e w ay to D u brovnik. T he E U ’s p o sition is q u ite clear on that. First o f all, the co u n tries have to agree on a m u tu ally satisfacto ry solution.
T he first idea to p ro v id e territo rial in teg rity w as p ro p o sed by th e g o v ern m en t in Z agreb. It inv o lv ed b u y in g b ack or ex ch a n g in g th e n arro w strip o f land w ith th e to w n o f N e u m on th e A driatic from B osnia and H erzeg o v in a. T he g o v ern m en t in S arajev o rejected th a t idea arg u in g th at the B osnian N eu m is a w indow on th e w o rld and a location fo r a fu tu re co m m ercial port.
In 1997, the first plan em erg ed to so lv e th e co n flict th at involved b u ild in g a bridge co n n e c tin g th e P elje
š
ac p en in su la w ith Klek. T his idea w as rejecte d by B osnia and H erzeg o v in a, w ho a rg u ed th at this w o u ld restrict th e access to N eum . T h e idea w as also p ro tested by e n v iro n m en talists, w ho arg u ed th at this w o u ld m ean sev ere en v iro n m en tal d eg rad atio n .Ideas for so lv in g th e p roblem also inclu d ed a p ro p o sal o f b u ild in g a tunnel under th e city or an extra territo rial m o to rw ay fly o v er over N eu m to c o n n ect tw o parts o f C ro atia. H ow ever, th ese idea inv o lv ed sig n ifican t fin an cial o u tlay and w ere not su p p o rted by Sarajevo. T he idea retu rn ed after Ju ly 1, 2013. T he g o v ern m en t in Z a g reb h o p ed fo r fin an cial su p p o rt from EU funds. H ow ever, the E uropean C o m m issio n has categ o rically rejected th e plan, arg u in g th at they w o u ld not release such a large am o u n t for an in v estm en t th at w o u ld be c o n structed o u tsid e th e EU.
C o n sid erin g th e current g eo p o litical an d eco n o m ic situ atio n in C ro atia, the only p o ssib ility is th e co n stru ctio n o f th e bridge. M any social gro u p s arg u e about th e actual eco n o m ic v iab ility o f th e in v estm en t an d subm it th e ir calcu latio n s reg ard in g other p o ssib ilities, but th ese do not include th e co st o f red em p tio n o f land for investm ent, nor th e legal p ro b lem s arisin g from co n stru ctio n w orks in an o th er country.
H ow ever, n one o f th e se so lu tio n s will lead to th e actu al in teg ratio n o f th e region o f D alm atia. T h ey w ill instead resu lt in lo n g er and d eeper d ifferen ces betw een C ro atian and H erzeg o v in ian p arts o f D alm atia. T h e lack o f w illin g n ess is v isib le b etw een th e co u n tries w h ich w ere, until recently, a single state.
6. CONCLUSIONS
T h e p o litical situ a tio n o f th e R e p u b lic o f R ag u sa in th e late 17th ce n tu ry forced it to d o n a te a sm all p art o f c o a stlin e to T urkey. It w as a m ethod o f p ro v id in g p ro te ctio n and in d ep e n d en ce o f th e co u n try in th e face o f an invasion o f th e R epublic o f V enice. H ow ever, this event p ro v e d to be a key for to d ay 's dism em b erm en t o f C ro atia into tw o areas, despite th e tim e th a t passed.
I f w e a n aly se th e situ atio n in sou th ern D alm atia, it is not hard to see th a t th e full integration o f th e reg io n w ill not be p o ssib le w ith in the next decade, p erh a p s even longer. T h e situ atio n th a t prevails in B osnia and H erzeg o v in a is not c o n d u civ e to d eep en in g th e co o p e ratio n b etw een th e reg io n s sin ce th e w ar. T he youth have been ta u g h t different, often co n flictin g , ap p ro ach es to th e events o f the first h a lf o f th e 1990s. U nder th e D ayton A g reem en t, th e territo ry o f B osnia and H erzeg o v in a has b eco m e a sm aller v ersion o f Y u g o slav ia from th e early 1990s. A n tag o n ism s and m istru st are still aliv e am o n g its in habitants. T his situ a tion is effectiv ely used by th e p o litician s, w h o se p ro g ram s are based largely on n ationalism s. It also has a direct im p act on relatio n s w ith its n eig h b o u rs, both Serbia and C ro atia. A ny atte m p ts at reach in g an ag re e m e n t b etw een B osnia and H erzegovina and C ro atia reg ard in g th e territo rial in teg ratio n o f C ro a tia have alw ays been seen as an attack on the integrity o f B o sn ia and H erzeg o v in a and a betrayal o f th e national idea.
On th e other hand, the in teg ratio n o f C ro a tia by an y o f the so lu tio n s pro p o sed above m ay lead to fu rth er m arg in alisatio n o f B osnia an d H erzeg o v in a in th e eyes o f p o tential to u rists and investors. C o n sid erin g th e c u rren t level o f u n em p lo y m ent, this situ atio n co u ld lead to internal co n flicts in B osnia and H erzeg o v in a with m utual blam e for the failure.
O ne a rg u m en t for th e integration o f th e reg io n is C ro atia's p o sitio n on th e m atter. T hey a re th e m ost ardent su p p o rter o f in teg ratin g B osnia and H erze
govina into th e EU. W e should, h o w ev er, ta k e th eir su p p o rt w ith a grain o f salt and really co n sid er if it is on ly a political m ove re lated to the investm ent th ey have been p lan n in g sin ce th e m id -1 9 9 0 s or a tru e striv in g for in teg ratio n o f th e w hole region.
A ck now ledgm en t and recognition
This article presents some results obtained as part o f research project no. 538-G120- -B565-14.
REFERENCES
BENSON, L., 2004, Jugosławia. Historia w zarysie, Wydawnictwo UJ, Kraków.
FELCZAK, W. and WASILEWSKI, T., 1985, Historia Jugosławii, Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, Wrocław.
GIZA, A., 1994, Narodziny i rozpad Jugosławii, Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego, Szczecin.
PAVLI
Č
EVIĆ , D., 2004, Historia Chorwacji, Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM, Poznań.TANASKOVIĆ, D., 1995, Sprzeczności neobośniactwa, Sprawy Narodowościowe, 4 (2), pp. 45- 16.
TRAWCZYŃSKA, M., 2009, Geneza i konsekwencje konfliktu w Bośni i Hercegowinie w latach 1992-1995, [in:] Sadowski M., Szymaniec P. and Bojek E. (eds.), Wro
cławskie Zeszyty Erazmiańskie, Zeszyty Studenckie II, Katedra Doktryn Politycznych i Prawnych WPAiE UWr, Wrocław, pp. 150-163.
Zaposlenost, nezaposlenost i plaće u Federaciji Bosne i Hercegovine 2012, 2013, Institute for Statistics o f FB&H, Sarajewo.
