Bosniak Politics: A Unit from International Diplomacy

The observation of presidential candidate and former Croatian Prime Minister Zoran Milanović is probably closest to the truth when it comes to interpreting the controversial statement that Croatian President Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović did or did not make about Bosnia and Herzegovina during her official trip to Israel. Thus, although Kitarović denied the statement that neighboring Bosnia and Herzegovina is a 'very unstable country' under the control of 'militant Islam that dominates in setting the agenda', published in the reputable Jerusalem Post, and the newspaper's editorial staff withdrew the part of the text relating to BiH, Milanović explains it like this: 'It is possible that it is authentic, and then when they saw that they offended the guest, they decided to soften it a bit, to look at it, to smooth it over. They should apologize to her, and she must be more careful about what she says and with whom she talks, because this is not a tent, these are state affairs'. 'It is inconceivable to me that after a closed meeting of two presidents, such things are published in the newspapers. That never happens,' said Milanović. Certainly, it is also strange that for Milanović, who could be the head of the Croatian state tomorrow, the primary issue is not that the president walks around the world and talks about BiH being a 'very unstable country' under the control of 'militant Islam that dominates in setting the agenda', but rather that for Milanović the problem is that this part of the conversation leaked to the public, but the right-wing narrative of the left in the Western Balkan countries can be the subject of another observation.

Be that as it may, even if we accept that President Grabar-Kitarović's statement about 'unstable BiH under the control of militant Islam' is not true, it does not change the essence of her previously established relationship with Bosnia and Herzegovina. On the contrary, if we exclude the war against Bosnia and Herzegovina in the nineties, which in itself is the worst that could have happened, and if we exclude the period when the well-intentioned Mesić and Josipović were in power in Croatia, the political concept of HDZ's policy towards Bosnia and Herzegovina has largely, to a greater or lesser extent, been continuous in acting on two levels - one level is when, most often for domestic consumption, HDZ leaders like the president or prime minister present Bosnia and Herzegovina as a 'friendly neighboring country they want to help', and the second level is to talk about BiH as an 'unstable country under the control of militant Islam', and that in very serious places, such as official visits to other countries.

Frankly, the statement that Bosnia and Herzegovina is an unstable country is not untrue, which is why President Kitarović's narrative received support from Milorad Dodik as well. On the contrary, it is evident that Bosnia and Herzegovina does not function as a strong state, it is not capable of protecting its territorial integrity and political sovereignty, its most important institutions, including its judiciary, are under strong political control... but Kitarović and Dodik failed to mention that they are among the key protagonists of Bosnia and Herzegovina's instability. All processes that would bring the country closer to the NATO alliance – which in the context of BiH primarily means peace for all its citizens – and BiH's path to the European Union are blocked precisely by SNSD, and for which Dodik has recently had firm support from the president of HDZ BiH, Dragan Čović, the younger brother of Zagreb's HDZ.

Dodik's and Grabar-Kitarović's policies towards Bosnia and Herzegovina, or those behind the policies they are merely spokespersons for, now have a new strategy – it is important to convince the great powers that Bosnian Muslims are a problem for the country and the region. Islamophobia, which according to the European Islamophobia Report is on the rise, has been a great help to them. Explaining what Grabar-Kitarović meant when she spoke about the influence of militant Islam in Bosnia and Herzegovina in Jerusalem, Dodik said: 'It is clear that not all Bosniaks/Muslims are terrorists, but it is also clear that all those who committed acts of terrorism in BiH are Muslims.' In this context, Dodik's policy of investing millions of convertible marks in Jewish lobbying firms, or Grabar-Kitarović's policy of choosing to visit Israel officially at the height of tensions between Israel and Iran to explain the 'connection of Bosnian Muslims with Iran', is not at all insignificant.

Bosniak politics currently has no concrete response to such a diplomatic offensive by Grabar-Kitarović from the left and Dodik from the right. Bosniak politics is burdened by incompetent people and internal and inter-party quarrels.

Former Member of the European Parliament Jasenko Selimović recognized that Bosnia and Herzegovina has many enemies and few friends and that it should focus on seeking friends rather than increasing tensions with people who work against BiH. For starters, Bosniak politics should first and foremost become more 'Bosniakized' and less 'ethnicized', and together with Sarajevo Jews, Bosnian Franciscans, Bosnian Croats, Serbs, and Others, start building a diplomatic network of friends around the world. Bosniaks, as the majority nation, are not only responsible within their ethnic group, but in a time of the fascization of the Western Balkans, if they want to preserve the country, they must strongly open up to well-intentioned neighbors from other religious and ethnic groups.

SDA presents itself as the great guardian of Bosnia and Herzegovina? How then did they allow representatives of fascism, politicians convicted of the most heinous crimes during the war in BiH, to have better diplomatic connections in the world today than the healthy, civic part of Bosnia and Herzegovina that has nothing to be ashamed of?