The United Nations Security Council will hold a session during its regular proceedings on October 30th to discuss the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It has been customary for such sessions to open with a report from the Office of the High Representative (OHR); however, Acting High Representative Louis Chrishock will not be in attendance. This has sparked debate: is this merely a procedural decision, or does it signal a shift in the international community’s approach toward Bosnia and Herzegovina?
A regular report on the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina is set to be presented to the UN Security Council members in six days. The discussion will focus on the political and security landscape within the country. This time, attention is directed not only at the content of the OHR report but also at the status of the High Representative—specifically the fact that Acting High Representative Louis Chrishock will not be present.
NIHAD ŽUNIĆ, Journalist
“It is not yet clear who will present his report. The OHR has publicly stated that the report will indeed be presented. We will soon see how this unfolds—whether there might be any gloating, particularly from Russia, which has long called for the OHR’s departure. Most importantly, we will be watching the remarks from the U.S. representative on the Security Council, which should provide insight into whether there has been any change in their stance toward Bosnia and Herzegovina.” According to our interviewee, it was already clear—given the departure of Christian Schmidt and the inability to reach an agreement between the U.S. and Brussels regarding the selection of a new High Representative—that the international community is taking an ever-diminishing interest in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
GORDANA KATANA, Journalist
“The U.S.—specifically the Donald Trump administration—plays a decisive role here, in my opinion. This is perhaps most evident not only in the lifting of sanctions against Milorad Dodik and the SNSD leadership, but also in the complete lack of interest shown by the acting official—who himself hails from the U.S.—regarding developments in Bosnia and Herzegovina.”
The debate concerning the status and role of the Office of the High Representative (OHR) is not new; however, it has resurfaced at a time of shifting international relations. A British politician, regarded as an expert on the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, suggests that the dispute over the appointment of a High Representative reveals a deeper issue regarding international oversight—one with no clearly defined end point.
CHRISTOPHER GEIDT, Member of the British House of Lords
“The solution is neither to withdraw tomorrow nor to maintain the OHR indefinitely. Instead, the existing mechanism should be utilized one last time to render itself obsolete: reconvene the Peace Implementation Council (PIC) at the ministerial level, limit its scope to a single objective, and empower an individual of sufficient standing—acceptable to both Washington and the Europeans—to negotiate the structure of Bosnia post-OHR and direct the ‘Bonn powers’ toward that ultimate goal.” IVANA MARIĆ, political analyst
“Domestic politicians must finally take responsibility and realize that they are the ones elected by the citizens; they must make decisions and be held accountable for them. Any state would prefer to have a High Representative to make difficult decisions. However, they do not have one, so they must do it themselves—though the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina is different. I believe the current arrangement is a transitional solution.”
Whether the Acting High Representative’s absence from the UN Security Council session is merely a matter of protocol or a sign of a shift in the international approach toward Bosnia and Herzegovina remains an open question for now. What is certain is that, without a clear agreement among key international stakeholders, there will be no change to the status of the OHR.
