|
The Foreign Service Journal earlier this week
published my thoughts on how to reform the Dayton peace agreement
under which Bosnia and Herzegovina is currently governed, 25 years
after the war. I would like to see an end to the governance
structures derived directly from the warring parties–the so-called
entities, namely the Federation and its cantons as well as Republika
Srpska–and a redistribution of their authority to the “state”
(“national” in American lingo) government in Sarajevo to negotiate
and implement the obligations of European Union membership (the
acquis communautaire) and to the municipalities to deliver services
to citizens. I would also like to see increased judicial capacity to
protect individual rights and, though I don’t discuss it in the
Foreign Service Journal paper, reduction in the mechanisms for
exerting group rights.
This is pretty radical stuff. It would essentially
convert Bosnia and Herzegovina to a civic state based on respect for
the rights of individuals as citizens rather than a “multiethnic”
state based on the privileges of favored ethnic groups, aka
“constituent peoples.” Can it happen?
Yes, it can, but it would require an unusual
coincidence of commitments. You can’t expect the current leadership
to institute this kind of reform, which would quickly remove the
ethnic nationalist political parties they represent from power. The
impulse would have to come from the citizens in a popular movement,
encouraged and supported by the key internationals, namely the US,
UK, and Germany (spurring the EU to action). There have been
recurrent signs of the kind of popular discontent required in recent
years, but it has never coalesced into a movement with clear
country-wide goals to alter the constitution. The internationals
would need to starve the beast by dramatically reducing
international funding to the entities and cantons and objecting to
repression of popular discontent.
It is arguable that precisely the opposite
direction is more likely: an ethnic breakup of the state into Croat,
Bosniak, and Serb statelets, with accompanying violence and ethnic
cleansing. I wrote my piece last spring, when the prospect of ethnic
partition of Kosovo seemed possible, even likely, and I therefore
emphasized that as a possible trigger for breakup of Bosnia and
Herzegovina. That possibility has receded, not least because of the
realization that partition of Kosovo would indeed create problems in
Bosnia and elsewhere.
But there are still big risks of violence in
Bosnia and Herzegovina. The excessive arming of Republika Srpska’s
police by the Russians, Serbia’s willingness to support pan-Serbian
sentiment not only in Bosnia but also in Montenegro and Kosovo,
Milorad Dodik’s open advocacy of secession and denial of the 1990s
genocide, the growing cooperation between Croat and Serb
nationalists, and feelings of isolation and even desperation among
Bosniaks all point to possible instability or worse.
It is clear we won’t get through the next 25 years
with Dayton Bosnia. Whatever good it did in ending the war, Dayton
Bosnia cannot fulfill its citizens’ aspirations for integration into
the European Union. It would be far better to fix it as soon as we
can, rather than let current problems fester until violence erupts.
President-elect Biden wants to restore American leadership and
reassert democratic values. Bosnia and Herzegovina would be a good
place to start.
Dayton Bosnia is 25. It’s time to act like an
adult.
|
