Schmidt in Strasbourg: He is not even consistent in his favouring of the ethnic principle and veto!

Written by: Prof. Dr. Vahidin Preljević

The news that Christian Schmidt, the German politician and High Representative of the international community in Bosnia and Herzegovina, will go to Strasbourg to present his opinion before the ECHR, in the capacity of a "friend of the court", on the Kovačević case has sparked a wave of indignation. Although in his response to the media about why he is going to Strasbourg, Schmidt gave vague answers, suggesting that the court asked him to come as the "supreme authority" for the implementation of the civilian part of the Dayton Peace Agreement, it turned out that he, in all likelihood, "self-invited" with the intention of interfering in this court process.

Kovačević won a judgment in the first instance in the proceedings against Bosnia and Herzegovina, or, more correctly, against its discriminatory electoral system, which prevents him from participating in elections in accordance with generally accepted European standards. The court, let us recall, established in that judgment that an unacceptable "ethnocracy" prevails in BiH – actually confirming what we all have known for a long time: that in this country there is an absolute dominance of the ethnic over the civic principle.

Already after Kovačević's appeal, and especially after the judgment in his favour, in the media close to the HDZ, and in part of the Sarajevo media and the commentator-analytical milieu inclined towards the Troika, a real campaign against Kovačević began, which, among other things, took on chauvinistic proportions: Kovačević's blood cells were counted, his "nationality" was checked; attempts were also made to politically disqualify him. Shameful – although not surprising – was the attempt by the HDZ's Minister of Justice to determine the ethnic affiliation of Slaven Kovačević, as if the Nazi racial laws from the era of the NDH were still in force in Bosnia and Herzegovina. No better illustration was needed for the justification of Kovačević's appeal and the court judgment than that racist campaign and the actions of the Minister of Justice, the highest institution of the executive branch which should oversee the rule of law and human rights.

In this campaign against Kovačević and his judgment, probably as the last joker, Christian Schmidt himself got involved, completely revealing himself as an ardent advocate of ethnocracy, which was already clear after his interventions on election night in 2022, confirming the already widely held thesis that he actually acts as a lobbyist for Croatian politics in Bosnia and Herzegovina, more precisely in the Federation of BiH.

Because, as shown by his unprecedented suspension of the constitution in 2023, which enabled the formation of the Federal Government, Schmidt is not even consistent in his favouring of the ethnic principle and veto. The primacy of the ethnic veto in the FBiH, judging by Schmidt's interpretation, apparently applies only to the Croatian component (i.e., the HDZ), and does not apply to the Bosniak one.

Using the ethnic veto, the HDZ blocked the establishment of the previous Federal Government for four years, and when the Bosniak Vice President of the FBiH dared to use that same ethnic veto, Schmidt, in a colonialist manner, colloquially speaking, simply multiplied it by zero.

Many rightly point out that such an ethnocracy, already discriminatory, anti-democratic and anti-civilisational in itself, now with the help of the OHR, is taking on the contours of apartheid, in which the rule of a privileged minority over the majority is permanently and systemically installed. On a broader level, these actions of Schmidt point to a political project according to which BiH should be turned into a colonial condominium of Serbia (which would control the RS entity) and Croatia (which would manage the FBiH through the HDZ).

To mask such a policy, and in accordance with the "subversive technique of power", i.e., the rhetorical "inversion into the opposite", which culturologist Sylvia Sasse recently described in her book (Verkehrungen ins Gegenteil, Berlin 2023), Schmidt in his media appearances cliché-ishly repeats that he is the guardian of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the state, while at the same time doing the opposite on the ground, obviously handing over Bosnian-Herzegovinian sovereignty to neighbouring countries. This register of "misdirection" also includes occasional public confrontations with Milorad Dodik and some other public performances that should create sympathy in the "patriotic" part of the public. To be fair, this is a method also used by domestic populists, not just Christian Schmidt.

However, let us return in the end to the role of the OHR in the Kovačević case. Judging by his actions so far, there is not much room for doubt that in his appearance before the court in Strasbourg he will try to contribute to overturning the judgment in favour of Kovačević, in an effort to save the selective ethnocracy that he, with the help of the Troika parties, is establishing in BiH. According to media reports, the OHR has even engaged a reputable and extremely expensive law firm from Great Britain for this purpose. If this is true, it is unclear whether such costs are covered from the OHR budget or whether Schmidt found other sources of funding (e.g., in Croatia).

Be that as it may, as a complete hypocrisy, brought to its perfection, the fact remains that an international institution which nominally has the task of, among other things, helping the Euro-Atlantic integration of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the adoption of European values, principles and standards, or whatever those platitudes are, spends the funds of European taxpayers to lobby against those same values and standards.

One more note: it is obvious that an important element in Schmidt's strategy to overturn the "Kovačević judgment" is the warning (and perhaps a threat) that the implementation of this judgment will supposedly "destabilise the country", that Dodik will use the space for secession, and the HDZ will cause some "unrest in the south" and start the renewal of Herceg-Bosna. This too falls into the rhetoric of inversion, i.e., switching the arguments, because things are exactly the opposite: the discriminatory electoral system itself, which favours ethnocracy, and Schmidt's contribution to the evolution of even such a grotesque ethnocracy into apartheid, are the sources of permanent destabilisation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, not the Kovačević judgment. And finally: why does Schmidt only warn about the possible destructive revolt of the HDZ due to the judgment, while obviously considering irrelevant the eventual rebellion of the discriminated civic majority both in the FBiH entity and at the level of the entire Bosnia and Herzegovina. The opinion and mood of that majority apparently play no role in his calculations.