The resolution condemning Iran’s attack on the Gulf countries was adopted last night in the United Nations. Bosnia and Herzegovina was among the 135 countries that co-sponsored this resolution. However, the decision on co-sponsorship opened up the question of the functioning of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s foreign policy because the Ambassador of Bosnia and Herzegovina to the United Nations, Zlatko Lagumdžija, made that decision without the consent of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina, that is, on the basis of instructions from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Bosnia and Herzegovina. This raises the question of the functionality of our diplomacy.
What are the diplomatic positions of Bosnia and Herzegovina? The Chairman of the Presidency, Željko Komšić, made an announcement via Facebook about this sensitive, but above all, issue which is a kind of litmus test for major diplomatic guidelines. Among other things, he wrote:
“I must say that Ambassador Lagumdžija contacted me several times and that I also told him several times that I am against joining that resolution, that is, that I am against being co-sponsors of that resolution.”
In the meantime, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bosnia and Herzegovina Elmedin Konaković (NiP) also reacted, denying the allegations that Ambassador Lagumdžija acted on his own initiative and illegally.
“The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Bosnia and Herzegovina instructed to withdraw the resolution for several reasons – both essential and technical – so that Bosnia and Herzegovina would not end up in the same group with North Korea, Russia, China and others,” Konaković said.
This opens up another important question, which is how our diplomacy works, specifically – the relationship with very important issues in the UN.
“The usual practice is that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Bosnia and Herzegovina is the point of contact that forwards the positions of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina to the diplomatic missions. When such positions do not exist, the Ministry gives instructions. In nine out of ten cases, this is done in an established manner, especially bearing in mind our international obligations and the fact that we have undertaken to follow the positions of the European Union and coordinate foreign policy with them,” Konaković pointed out.
This time too, an urgent session on this issue was demanded, requested by the member of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina Željka Cvijanović, but it did not take place.
“After Cvijanović’s written request to hold an extraordinary session arrived, on March 11 at three o’clock in the afternoon, I acted as the Rules of Procedure dictated and scheduled the session within 24 hours. However, it was definitely too late to join the resolution, because the session of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina would have been held many hours after the statement in the United Nations Security Council. But such was Cvijanović’s request,” Komšić stated.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Bosnia and Herzegovina states that they previously submitted documentation to the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina and requested an urgent statement.
“The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Bosnia and Herzegovina sent a document and requested an immediate reaction. The members of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina could agree on a common position at the cabinet level or organize an emergency session in a shorter period of time, which is often done in emergency situations,” Konaković said.
This is how another saga of our diplomacy ended, which, apart from its dysfunctionality, perhaps also crystallized worldviews and views on geopolitical currents.
