Foreign Policy Without a State: Čović Before the Cameras, Bosnia and Herzegovina Without a Word!

By: Amina Čorbo-Zećo

How Croatia views its relationship with Bosnia and Herzegovina is often witnessed during various 'invasions' by officials from that country into BiH, as well as the organization of various meetings where Croatia's desires become crystal clear.

Today, the President of the Croatian National Assembly (HNS), Dragan Čović, demonstrated his ability for ceremonial political gatherings, which can be very dangerous! He met with the Deputy Prime Ministers of the Government of the Republic of Croatia, Ministers Butković and Bačić.

Also present at the meeting with him, 'so marginalized,' were Member of the House of Representatives of the Parliamentary Assembly of BiH Darijana Filipović, Minister of Transport and Communications in the Government of the Federation of BiH Andrijana Katić, State Secretary of the Central State Office for Croats outside the Republic of Croatia Zvonko
Milas, Mayor of Mostar Mario Kordić, and Director of JP HT Eronet d.o.o. Goran Kraljević.

The topic: “further infrastructural connectivity” and “economic progress.” At first glance – significant and promising. At second glance – it shows how much HNS often substitutes rituals for real politics, and to the detriment of the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The problem lies in the very essence; HNS is not a state institution. It cannot negotiate or conclude agreements on behalf of BiH, nor does it conduct national foreign policy. And that is precisely what is implicitly suggested in such meetings. President Čović, although a 'legitimate political representative' of Croats in BiH, acts at these gatherings as if he is conducting foreign policy, coordinating “strategic projects” and infrastructural initiatives, while the state institutions of BiH remain on the sidelines.

It is even more problematic that all this happens under the guise of rhetoric about “economic development and spatial planning,” while those responsible for such policies and projects remain silent.

In reality, real infrastructure, state coordination, and balanced development for all citizens of BiH remain stagnant. New roads and projects here do not solve systemic problems; they become symbols of political influence and media visibility. Čović and HNS thus strengthen their own political profile, while citizens, both Croats and members of other ethnic groups, remain in the shadow of these “initiatives.”

These meetings are not new; although presented as partnership-based and strategic, they actually confirm a parallel political line that can confuse international partners and create the impression that an autonomous Croatian foreign policy exists in BiH. This is dangerous because it replaces the state's responsibility for coordinating and developing strategic projects.

Rituals and PR meetings are not a substitute for state institutions, and diplomatic and infrastructural projects cannot be conducted outside the framework of the state. HNS can play an important role in representing the interests of Croats in BiH, but conducting foreign policy, and doing so on behalf of the entire state, is not its jurisdiction.

This practice harms both BiH's credibility and Croats themselves, because instead of an institutional solution, we get symbolic meetings and political rhetoric without real effect, or the goal is something else entirely, which is not publicly announced! It seems to be the latter!