Former High Representative Valentin Inzko issued a dramatic warning to the Peace Implementation Council (PIC) ahead of a two-day session where a new High Representative will be elected.
Inzko’s letter, at times very dramatic and warning for all members of the PIC, is published by Sarajevo Times in its entirety:
“Measure three times, cut once, says the old proverb. That was the first thing that came to my mind when I recently read media articles about how the future of the OHR and the Bonn powers is once again a subject of debate.
Therefore, I appeal to everyone who is currently considering the future of the OHR: before abolishing the instruments that have preserved peace and stability in this suffering country for three decades, carefully consider the consequences of their premature abolition. Measure it five times!
The OHR, the Bonn powers and the international security presence were not established as permanent features of the political life of Bosnia and Herzegovina. They were established as protective mechanisms until domestic institutions are fully capable of resolving disputes within the constitutional framework, without endangering peace and stability.
Therefore, the real question is not whether these instruments should one day disappear. The question is whether the conditions have really been met for their abolition.
Since I left the post of High Representative almost five years ago, I have been aware refrained from publicly commenting on events in Bosnia and Herzegovina. I did not want to interfere in the work of my successor, nor in the work of the Peace Implementation Council.
Nevertheless, today I feel a human, moral and political obligation to speak out, in the light of increasingly frequent claims that the OHR is an obstacle to the European future of Bosnia and Herzegovina or that its presence prevents domestic political actors from reaching an agreement.
My twelve-year experience as a high representative leads me to the opposite conclusion. The High Representative has never been an obstacle on Bosnia and Herzegovina’s path towards the EU. On the contrary, if he was asked to do so, he could even accelerate the European path.
What some political actors oppose is not only the presence of the high representative, but the fact that he can ultimately use the Bonn powers to remove permanent blockages in state institutions. Basically, such politicians are not afraid of international representatives, but of the rule of law. That is the essence!
I responsibly claim that throughout my mandate, domestic political leaders were given numerous opportunities to reach a compromise and take responsibility into their own hands. I consistently advocated domestic solutions – I was guided by this principle in my work.
Unfortunately, agreement cannot be reached if you are constantly faced with ultimatums or secessionist politics.
Unfortunately, many important issues remained unresolved, not because there was not enough time for dialogue, but because there was a lack of willingness for dialogue. Some issues were negotiated for years without any result. About others – serious conversations never even started.
The absence of a universally acceptable text for the national anthem is just one sad example: even today there is no anthem text, only the melody. Why is it impossible to agree on a text that only describes natural beauty?
Let’s take the example of the common European emergency phone number – 112, introduced by the European Union in 1991. The introduction of this number in Bosnia and Herzegovina was delayed for years because some political actors in the Republika Srpska portrayed it as a symbol of unitarism.
A similar illustration is the six separate attempts to pass legislation banning genocide denial, downplaying war crimes, and glorifying convicted war criminals, all of which failed. Such examples show that certain issues were continuously blocked, not because it was impossible to reach a compromise, but because there was no political will.
Personally, I have always preferred agreements between domestic actors, and the Peace Implementation Council has consistently insisted that the use of Bonn powers should only be a measure of last resort. This was the principle of action during most of my twelve-year mandate.
However, in the final weeks of my mandate, I used the Bonn powers to ban the glorification of war criminals and the denial of genocide. I made this decision because I was firmly convinced that the systematic denial of crimes and the rehabilitation of convicted war criminals were dangerous seeds from which future conflict would emerge. After several years of unsuccessful attempts to solve the problem through domestic institutions, I concluded that it would be irresponsible to remain passive.
In addition to political reasons, there was also a personal reason: my conscience would not allow me to end my mandate without taking this step.
However, agreement on numerous issues was not possible. There was not even a framework for discussions on certain topics. The existing budgets were adopted at the last moment, at the end of December. Or some topics were immediately deleted from the agenda.
Today we have one issue that illustrates that challenge particularly clearly, and that is state assets. The very idea that a state can exist and function without state property is contrary to logic and international practice.
For years, key political actors did not want to start a serious debate on this issue. If someone refuses to discuss state property at all, as the former president of the RS Milorad Dodik did for years, then it is crystal clear that an agreement on state property cannot be reached in BiH, nor can a domestic law be adopted to resolve this very demanding issue.
However, without a comprehensive and legal solution to this issue, one of the central requirements for a sustainable solution based on the Constitution remains unfulfilled. If dialogue on such an essential issue is refused, it is difficult to claim that domestic mechanisms can find a solution on their own.
It is also clear that some political actors, such as Mr. Dodik and his partners, are seeking the dismissal of the high representative and the abolition of the Bonn powers not because the challenges have been resolved but because these mechanisms represent the last effective protection measures against policies aimed at weakening the state.
Their goal is to remove these protective measures and bring Bosnia and Herzegovina to a state of non-functionality and, ultimately, to disintegration.
It is also clear that such a process could not take place without serious consequences. No responsible observer can claim that the repeal of the Dayton framework would go peacefully or without the risk of creating extreme instability and conflict, and even war.
The direction in which recent lobbying efforts are heading is also indicative. It was stated that these initiatives aim to remove the key international protection measures that are embedded in the foundations of the Dayton framework, namely the Office of the High Representative, the Bonn powers and the presence of international security forces represented by EUFOR.
The consulting contract with the Canadian firm also contains an explicitly stated goal: “Our ultimate goal is the independence of Republika Srpska from Bosnia and Herzegovina.”
When viewed as a whole, these proposals would significantly weaken the mechanisms that helped preserve the stability and constitutional order of Bosnia and Herzegovina, while simultaneously promoting political goals that are fundamentally incompatible with the spirit and letter of the Dayton Peace Agreement, such as an “independent Republika Srpska”.
I consider it indicative that some political leaders spend a lot of time discussing the weakening of the OHR, while showing that they are far less interested in strengthening the rule of law, which remains one of the most significant unresolved challenges and a prerequisite for the European future of BiH.
Therefore, at this time, I feel obliged to address you publicly. I ask all those who are involved in making decisions regarding the future of Bosnia and Herzegovina to weigh their decisions with the utmost care. Once certain safeguards are removed and certain lines are crossed, the consequences can be irreversible. History teaches us that it is always easier to preserve peace than to rebuild it once it has been lost.
I wonder and once again I ask the question out loud: Will the international community reward the secessionist project thirty years after the enormous efforts invested in building peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina?
After so many achievements that once seemed impossible: the establishment of a unified Armed Forces and Ministry of Defense from three former armies after the war, the introduction of common travel documents, uniform license plates, the formation of the State Border Police and many other institutions that strengthened BiH and brought it closer to European standards.
Would such a decision send a message to the world that the three constituent nations of Bosnia and Herzegovina, together with all its citizens, are not capable of living together in this beautiful country? My answer is unequivocal: they can, and they live.
During the twelve years of my mandate as High Representative, I saw countless examples of coexistence, cooperation, friendship, mutual respect and what people in Bosnia and Herzegovina proudly call neighborhood – the spirit of good neighborly relations – among ordinary people throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina.
If we accept the idea that different peoples cannot successfully live together within one country, what does that tell us about the future of multi-ethnic Europe? What does this tell us about a country like the United States of America, which was built by generations of people who came from all over the world and who, with joint forces, built a common future?
Secession would have implications that would go far beyond Bosnia and Herzegovina. It would lead to the risk of creating a perception that ethnic cleansing, war crimes, and even genocide can ultimately achieve political goals. It would also suggest that those who sought to achieve such goals through violence ultimately won.
In other words, personalities like Karadžić and Mladić would appear as winners in the eyes of some, while the victims, especially the mothers of Srebrenica, and even humanity as a whole, would be losers. Such a conclusion would be morally wrong, historically dangerous and fundamentally incompatible with the values on which the post-war peace agreement was built.
Moreover, will the international community now reward a political leader who for fifteen years refused a serious discussion on the issue of state property?
The leader who turned this key constitutional issue into a lobbying project, without revealing to potential investors, including American ones, that the issue is still unresolved? Such an approach not only undermines efforts to reach a sustainable solution, but also risks misleading those considering investing based on assumptions that are legally and politically unfounded.
Therefore, I respectfully invite the Peace Implementation Council and its members to examine the facts with the utmost care and responsibility before making decisions that may have irreparable consequences. Bosnia and Herzegovina, which was once considered one of the most significant achievements of the international community in building peace, should not be exposed to unnecessary risk.
Preserve the instruments that have protected peace and stability for three decades. Use them judiciously and only when necessary, but keep them available. Even if the Bonn powers are rarely used, their very existence remains an important guarantee against challenging the constitutional order. Without effective instruments, the Office of the High Representative risks becoming almost a mere observer of the events it was established to prevent. Valentin Inzko.”
