In this environment, it can be risky to place all our hopes in the EU accession process as the best option to protect the territorial integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina, according to former US Ambassador to Bosnia and Herzegovina, Michael Murphy.
In his post on X, Murphy noted that next week the PIC Steering Board will meet to consider the future of the OHR and possibly appoint a new high representative.
“The key questions PIC Member States must ask themselves before making these decisions are: what is their main strategic interest in Bosnia and Herzegovina? Can the OHR with the Bonn Powers advance that interest? If so, who is most suitable for the position of high representative?” Murphy said.
He further stated that for thirty years, the US has identified the territorial integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina as its main strategic interest in the country. This reflects not only US values but also significant security interests. The reason is that, thirty years later, the US understands that challenges to the territorial integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina risk violence within the country and the Western Balkans.
Signals from the current administration suggest that this thirty-year period of bipartisan politics has ended. Instead, the administration has accepted “local ownership” alongside Mr. Dodik – a man who in recent years has suggested that Republika Srpska needs its own armed forces, questioned the territorial integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and emphasized that his goal is the dissolution of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Separately, calls to create a third entity are increasing, and a leading Bosniak ethno-nationalist has suggested creating a mega-canton within the Federation (which, by the way, sounds very much like support for a third entity). This is the crucial context for next week’s PIC discussion,” Murphy wrote.
According to him, for everyone else at the PIC table, there appears to be no ambiguity in their support for the territorial integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Despite this, there may be a certain misplaced faith in the power of EU accession to trigger reforms that transcend the internal political issues of Bosnia and Herzegovina and stabilize it in the long term. In my opinion, the evidence for this faith is limited. Regardless, currently in Bosnia and Herzegovina, one ethno-nationalist leader has threatened to abandon the EU accession process unless it proceeds on his terms, while another provides him with de facto political support, refuting claims that he and his party fully embrace the EU. In this environment, it can be risky to rely on the EU accession process as the primary means of protecting the territorial integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Murphy believes.
He emphasized that the OHR is not concerned with “nation building” or constructing anyone’s ideal of a “civic state” at the expense of the constituent peoples of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Its focus is on implementing and defending the Dayton Peace Agreement.
Among other things, this means protecting Bosnia and Herzegovina and its institutions, including those established by post-war governments, from attempts to undermine them. The OHR cannot do this with a withdrawn High Representative who lacks the support of the PIC to use their powers when necessary. If the PIC determines that this is no longer necessary or desirable, then the OHR is no longer needed. In that case, the countries at the PIC table will have to develop another credible strategy for protecting Bosnia and Herzegovina from those who seek to destroy it, Murphy concluded.
