Confusing Agreement under Wigemark's Patronage

The document signed by the presidents of SNSD, SDA and HDZ Milorad Dodik, Bakir Izetbegović and Dragan Čović on the principles on which they should establish a government in Bosnia and Herzegovina by the beginning of September, ten months after the elections held in October last year, is by no means an agreement that will bring the three ethno-national policies closer in the divided Bosnia and Herzegovina and bring long-awaited stability to the citizens. On the contrary, some of the points from the Agreement are interpreted by each side in a way that suits the ears of their voters, such as Bosnia and Herzegovina's NATO path, amendments to the Election Law, or the issue of the further role of the OHR in the country. Although they signed the same document, Dodik tells his voters that the Agreement means abandoning Bosnia and Herzegovina's approach to the NATO alliance, while for Izetbegović this path is only slowed down, but unquestionable. 

The confusing Agreement was signed under the patronage of the Head of the European Union Delegation to Bosnia and Herzegovina, and he already on the same day provided additional arguments to critics who believe that part of the international community representatives in Bosnia and Herzegovina in recent years have not worked to help solve problems in the country, but have participated in maintaining a state of frozen conflict, which suits national leaders, at the expense of reforms and launching the country's economy? 

The US Embassy in Sarajevo requested on Wednesday that the signatories of the Agreement further clarify how the new authorities will interpret the early submission of Bosnia and Herzegovina's National Action Plan (ANP) - one of the steps towards BiH's approach to the Alliance - to which the country committed itself several years earlier. 

Also, one of the key paragraphs vaguely mentioned in the Agreement is the one relating to the future of the OHR in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Milorad Dodik, a member of the BiH Presidency, is demanding the urgent closure of the Office of the High Representative in BiH, the interpreter of the Dayton Peace Agreement that stopped the war in the country in 1995, but the Agreement signed at the beginning of the week does not state whether the authorities plan to fulfill the so-called 5+2 Agenda before the closure of the OHR. Namely, before abolishing the international tutelage over Bosnia and Herzegovina, it is necessary to implement a program that includes: 1) An acceptable and sustainable solution to the issue of property distribution between the state and other levels of government; 2) An acceptable and sustainable solution for military property; 3) Full implementation of the Final Decision for Brčko; 4) Fiscal sustainability; 5) The establishment of the rule of law (demonstrated through the adoption of the National War Crimes Strategy, the adoption of the Law on Foreigners and Asylum, and the adoption of the National Strategy for Justice Sector Reform). In addition to these goals, the Steering Board of the Peace Implementation Council also set two conditions to be met before closing the OHR: Signing of the SAA and a Positive assessment of the situation in BiH by the Steering Board of the Peace Implementation Council based on full respect for the Dayton Peace Agreement. To date, almost nothing from the 5+2 Agenda has been fully implemented.

Particularly interesting is item 1 of the 5+2 Agenda "An acceptable and sustainable solution to the issue of property distribution between the state and other levels of government." The OHR imposed in 2005 a Law on the Prohibition of Disposal of State Property of Bosnia and Herzegovina until the authorities adopt a state law that would define the competencies and manner of managing the property of Bosnia and Herzegovina, such as forests, waters or agricultural land. The authorities in the BiH entity Republika Srpska have in the meantime adopted a law by which they unilaterally excluded part of the forests from Bosnia and Herzegovina and registered them as entity property, while at the same time no one from the other part of BiH, the Federation of BiH, filed an appeal against such a move by Milorad Dodik and his authorities. In the same way, the RS entity is trying to appropriate agricultural land from Bosnia and Herzegovina. If it were agreed that the OHR leaves BiH, and that the land remains the property of Republika Srpska, instead of being returned to the ownership of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and to the entities, as administrative units within the country, only for use, this would mean that Republika Srpska, in addition to the judicial, legislative and executive powers it already has, would also receive a fourth prerogative of the state, although both RS and FBiH are recognized in Dayton only as entities within the country, while the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina is above these entities.

Such a dismantling of Bosnia and Herzegovina under the patronage of some highly positioned representatives of the international community inevitably pushes the citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina into new conflicts.

The Head of the European Union Delegation to BiH, Lars-Gunnar Wigemark, has previously been the subject of criticism due to his private ties with the president of HDZ BiH, Dragan Čović - and at a time when some Western embassies in Sarajevo, such as the US Embassy, the German or British Embassy, were very seriously criticizing Čović for the political blockade of Bosnia and Herzegovina.