Farewell alarm of the penultimate High Representative: Bosnia is in danger!

For NAP by: Prof. Dr. Hazim Bašić, member of the Presidency of Krug 99

The media appearances and statements made by High Representative H. E. C. Schmidt for several foreign and domestic media outlets were not ordinary farewell conversations of an official, but a political signal of concern for the future of Bosnia and Herzegovina. His observations of the situation in the country are also a kind of criticism of Western countries, which today lack a unified strategy towards our country.

The weight of Schmidt's appearances lies in the fact that he is not only speaking as an administrator of a peace agreement, but as a political actor who warns that the relationship of geopolitical forces towards the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina is changing.

Pressures on the structure of the Dayton Peace Agreement

One of Schmidt's most important statements is probably the one in which he says: 'I felt that the pressure was not only increasing on me, but also on the Dayton structures'. With this, he announced that the fight is not against individual decisions of the OHR, or against him as a personal solution, but against the concept of post-Dayton Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Schmidt is actually suggesting that certain geopolitical and regional centers of power want to redefine the very architecture of BiH, but without formally dismantling the Dayton Agreement. He described the overall political-diplomatic-lobbying constellation that led him to decide to leave his position earlier, briefly and clearly: 'the wiser one yields'.

Also, through his statements, he regularly emphasized some key parts of his recent report to the UN Security Council: the warning about undermining institutions and the secessionist rhetoric of the former entity president, the advocacy for a third entity, the joint blockade initiative of SNSD-HDZ, the spread of Islamophobia, insults and demonization of Bosniaks as preparation for secession, etc. These destabilizing policies have been intensified in the vacuum created after the war in Ukraine exhausted the West's focus, the Balkans have once again become a secondary issue, and the EU is trying to restore internal unity.

OHR as collateral damage of a divided West

In the first years after the war, the OHR was an instrument of clear and unified Western policy towards Bosnia and Herzegovina. Today, on the eve of his departure, Schmidt warns us that such a unified view no longer exists. The cause for this situation can be found in several parallel processes: the political rift between the EU and the US in the security domain, the policy of certain EU member states to prioritize 'stability' over democracy, and the growth of Russian influence through the policy of permanent destabilization and institutional blockade.

The interview comes at a time when the Trump administration has abandoned liberal democracy, while the word 'stability' is used more often in European circles, and democratization and human rights are spoken of less and less. In the Bosnian context, 'stability' means accepting a paralyzed state and crisis as the new normal.

When Schmidt warns that the closure of the OHR would also call into question the mandate of EUFOR, as both are part of the integral Dayton Agreement, he is actually saying that the cessation of international supervision would undoubtedly open up the issue of security threats. A direct criticism of EU policy is also directed, which has tolerated institutional blockades for years in the name of 'stability'. The policy of appeasement has produced greater instability.

Schmidt avoids directly naming the countries and political actors behind the pressure for his departure, but it is evident that part of the geopolitical conflicts of major powers is now being waged through Bosnia and Herzegovina. In this context, BiH is becoming a space for measuring strength between the US and Russia, while the EU is still standing aside.

Schmidt's farewell alarms

Schmidt leaves behind a divided international community and a Bosnia and Herzegovina in which Dayton solutions are once again being questioned through institutional exhaustion. Therefore, his statements should be read as a warning that the future of BiH will no longer depend solely on internal political conflicts, but on whether the West will have a unified stance on the intensity of the use of the Bonn Powers, or even on the preservation of Bosnia and Herzegovina on Dayton foundations.

Schmidt's formulation about pressure on 'Dayton structures' is alarming. He implicitly states that the goal is not necessarily to destroy Bosnia and Herzegovina, but to transform it into a space that will not have the capacity for independent political consolidation. This is essentially a model of 'controlled state weakness' in which the state is permanently politically limited. The state will continue to be recognized and have territorial integrity (more as a geographical concept), institutions will formally function, but real political power will be transferred to ethnic and parallel decision-making centers. Preparatory work for precisely such a 'new state' of affairs, but in the energy sector, has already been done in the context of the 'project' of the so-called Southern Gas Interconnection. Hence the noticeable American interest in appointing a new High Representative, who, if he supports such trends, would certainly be the last. And behind such a last High Representative, the new 'new state' would be an introduction to a Palestinianization.

The most important implicit message of all the High Representative's appearances can be summarized in a unified stance: Bosnia and Herzegovina is no longer just a problem of internal political blockades, but a potential point of serious geopolitical destabilization of the Balkans. Schmidt warns that secessionist projects have not been extinguished, they are further connected and strengthened by intensive lobbying, international actors have opposing interests, the EU is passive, while hate speech is growing. And the Dayton institutional framework is becoming increasingly weak under the pressure of new geopolitical interests. A unified response from internal state-building political forces to each of the listed challenges is still awaited.