ANALYSIS FOREIGN POLICY Washington acts exclusively in the interest of Belgrade and Zagreb, Biden has betrayed Bosnia

SARAJEVO, (Patria) - Why Washington found itself in cahoots with Belgrade is a question that arises in the analysis of US President Joe Biden's policy in the Western Balkans, published by the reputable political magazine Foreign Policy. It is emphasized that Sarajevo, Pristina, and Podgorica expected the United States and the European Union to finally see Serbia and President Aleksandar Vučić in their true light - as a Kremlin satellite state sowing discord in the region, but on the contrary, Washington has deepened its commitment to the Serbian president and turned its regional position towards Belgrade and its foreign policy priorities. The American Bosnian community could, the author believes, punish "Biden's betrayal of his turn towards Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Balkans" in the next presidential elections. However, he adds, this will be of little comfort to those left to the mercy of nationalist governments in Serbia and Croatia.

Of the series of predictions about the effects of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which began in February 2022, with one of the most pronounced in the Western Balkans as Europe's second major geopolitical frontier, there was hope that it would mark the final end of Western illusions about the possibility of reaching agreements with authoritarian and chauvinistic regimes, according to the introduction to the Foreign Policy magazine analysis dedicated to the role of the US administration under President Joe Biden in the Western Balkans, with an emphasis on Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, and Montenegro as, as stated, "hotspots".

"In Sarajevo, Pristina, and Podgorica, it was expected that the United States and the European Union would finally see Serbia and Aleksandar Vučić's regime for what they are: a Kremlin satellite state sowing discord through a network of regional intermediaries with the aim of spreading its own quasi-imperial machinations and, in coordination with Moscow, halting the aspirations of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, and Montenegro for NATO and EU membership. And as a result, consequences for Belgrade would finally follow," the analysis states, concluding that this did not happen, but rather the United States has even deepened its commitment to the Serbian president, while simultaneously redirecting its regional position towards Belgrade and its foreign policy priorities.

Washington's Cahoots with Belgrade

Referring to the recent meeting of American ambassadors and the President of Serbia in Belgrade, the text points out that the "mischief of the secessionist lieutenant of the entity president Milorad Dodik in Bosnia and Herzegovina" was discussed there, and that the "importance of supporting (Bosnia and Herzegovina's) sovereignty, territorial integrity, and multi-ethnic character and functional state-level institutions" was highlighted, but without the presence of any BiH official.

The article also analyzes the negotiations between Belgrade and Pristina, concluding that the United States is lenient towards Vučić, who does not respect the provisions of the recently reached agreement, but criticizes Kosovo for not adhering to the Brussels Agreement from 2013.

Furthermore, it is added, in Montenegro, the United States has appeared alongside Serbia as the "main foreign patron of a heterodox coalition of alleged reformers, whose most significant members include a bloc of Serbian nationalist and clerical parties that even Washington admits are directly on the Russian payroll".

"Why did Washington find itself in cahoots with Belgrade? It is not difficult to explain, but it is a policy that is completely contrary to the Biden administration's stance towards Ukraine. After the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Biden administration correctly recognized that the overall political and security situation in the Western Balkans had become unsustainable. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, and Montenegro were the most likely hotspots, and Moscow could easily choose any of them to create the proverbial second front in Europe – perhaps not in a kinetic sense, but certainly in a political one. As such, it was in the interest of the United States to quickly close the Western Balkans after two decades of leaving the administration of the region to Brussels – with disastrous results," the analysis states.

Biden's State Department, it is explained further, concluded that to achieve this goal, it needed partners who could fulfill promises, and in the Western Balkans, this generally means relying on the least pluralistic regimes. The stance of Majda Ruge, a senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, is also mentioned here, who noted that Western governments treat Belgrade as an indispensable player in the main issues facing the region.

"Whatever the issue, Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić is the first person they call. This is partly understandable: power in Serbia is concentrated in Vučić, who has amassed significant control for himself," Ruge adds.

The author of the text notes that this also means the instant rejection of Sarajevo, Pristina, and Podgorica, despite all three capitals being clearly pro-Western oriented, and Montenegro being a NATO member.

"This is because the policies of all three countries are too divided internally, largely due to the direct interference of external forces: Serbia, primarily, but also Croatia, at least in the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Clearly, the Biden administration believes that peace in the Balkans requires directing the interests of the strong over the weak, directing the interests of those most likely to cause instability over those who want to defend themselves," the author adds, explaining that this is a type of realpolitik calculation that has guided US policy in unstable regions for decades.

The results, it is emphasized, speak for themselves.

President Biden's Missteps in the Region

The author also recalls the words of analyst Daniel Server, who warned about the shortcomings of such a policy,

"They rely on Serbia as the key country in the region to bring stability, in cooperation with Croatia and Albania. But Serbia is a revisionist power. It wants to rule over all Serbs in the region. Croatia and Albania have lesser ambitions, but in the same direction: to control their compatriots in neighboring Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo," Server said.

However, the author of the analysis believes that the real problem is that even if the Biden administration were to reconsider its policy, it is unclear whether it would make a significant difference at this point.

"US President Joe Biden's missteps in the region have been so consequential that he may not be able to salvage his reputation among the communities most affected by his decisions, which are also the most pro-American populations in the region. This is particularly the case in Bosnia and Herzegovina, where Washington's authorial role in the brazen, illiberal, and partisan so-called "gerrymandering" by the Office of the High Representative, on behalf of the Croatian nationalist HDZ BiH and its partners, including Dodik's secessionist SNSD, has reduced trust in the United States to its lowest level since the war," it is emphasized, with a reminder of the recent decisions of High Representative Christian Schmidt and the US support for "democratically questionable constitutional changes in the BiH entity of the Federation".

"Any attempt to work towards sustainable, democratic, liberal reforms in Bosnia and Herzegovina and its constitution drafted by the US has vanished. Washington now acts exclusively in the interest of its commitments to Belgrade and Zagreb, and thus to the political interests of their Bosnian and regional proxies," the author concludes.

Finally, there is a reflection on the possible consequences of such a policy within the United States itself.

"In an unusual historical twist, if Biden's team regrets its stance on the Balkans, it will be, at least in the short term, due to electoral realities in the US. Small but electorally significant pockets of Bosnian Americans, for example, in states like Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, and Arizona, among others, are numerous enough to hand the next US presidential election to the Republican candidate. Since 2015, it is estimated that 10,000 Bosnians lived in the US state of Georgia, which Biden won by less than 12,000 votes in 2020. There is a similar number of Bosnians in North Carolina. In Michigan, which has a comparable number of Bosnian Americans in the state, Governor Gretchen Whitmer declared March 1st "Bosnian-American Day." The city of Phoenix alone in Arizona accepted some 7,000 Bosnian refugees during the 1990s and early 2000s, and the community has grown significantly since then. All these numbers are in addition to the approximately 50,000 to 70,000 Bosnian Americans living in the greater St. Louis area in Missouri alone."

The author believes that there is a palpable sense of "Biden's betrayal of his turn towards Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Balkans," and that Bosnians in the US do not even need to vote for Republicans to thwart Biden's chances of re-election, they just need to stay home.

However, even in that case, it will be of little comfort to the vulnerable populations in the region who have been left to the mercy of nationalist authorities in Serbia and Croatia, and the hope for the political West's commitment to defending democracy and the right of small nations to be free "has turned to ashes," the analysis concludes.