Wake up: in the Balkans bad ideas never die
Six years ago I published a piece criticizing electoral reform proposals for the Federation 51% of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It was clear then and even clearer now that this reform would
- Disempower people who happen to live in parts of the Federation where their particular ethnicity doesn’t amount to more than 3% of their total in the country;
- Empower ethnically nationalist political parties, some of which oppose the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country.
The High Representative (responsible for interpreting the Dayton accords and making sure the country stays on target implementing them) is considering imposing these so-called “reforms.” The only justification for them is the ambition of European and American diplomats. They want to be able to say they’ve done something.
But what they want to do would be inimical not only to the peace agreement but also to US and European interests. It’s a bad idea promoted by local politicians determined to make it virtually impossible to remove themselves from power. It would also guarantee that Bosnia would remain dysfunctional and vulnerable to Russian mischief-making. Sooner or later, it would lead to secession of both a Croat and a Serb entity, undermining the Western position on Ukraine and creating a new radicalized Muslim state.
Politicians who want to choose their voters
The main proponent of these ideas is a Croat nationalist political party (HDZ) that aims to create a third, ethnically defined “entity” inside Bosnia, splitting the Federation. The HDZ wants to remove the representatives of Croats living in relatively small numbers in some cantons. That would shift the Croat electorate entirely to cantons in which the HDZ holds an overwhelming majority.
This “reform” would be a classic case of politicians choosing their voters rather than voters choosing their representatives. Getting rid of votes from Croats who coexist with their fellow-citizens would boost the nationalist monopoly. With enhanced representation it has been unable to win at the ballot box, the HDZ would be able to cooperate with one or another Serb nationalist party to ensure no real electoral reform in the Federation or any constitutional reform in the state.
Secession on the horizon
The HDZ would likely even go further. It could encourage the 49% of the country that is Republika Srpska to follow through on its many threats to secede. That would prompt the secession of the HDZ-dominated parts of the Federation, leaving one or two non-viable, rump Islamic states in central Bosnia. Avoiding this scenario was a major reason for NATO intervention in Bosnia during the 1990s. It is no more attractive now than it was then. Only radical Islamists would rejoice if it were realized. Most Bosniaks would feel abandoned and resentful, though some of their nationalists would also benefit.
The Russians would love it
A dysfuntional or partitioned Bosnia serves Russia’s interests well. Either makes NATO or EU membership impossible. Moscow has long supported secessionist rhetoric on the part of Republika Srpska. It also supports the Croat ambition for a third entity. The situation is in many ways analogous to that in Ukraine. Moscow opposes effective government in Kiev by supporting secessionists in Donbas as well as in Crimea (which Russia has annexed). “Reform” along the lines the High Representative is considering would bring glee to President Putin, who will quickly use it to justify the dismemberment of Ukraine.
Why would Washington and Brussels support this?
Politicians who want to choose their voters. Ethnonationalist separation the Russians would love. Stalling NATO and EU enlargement. Justifying the dismemberment of Ukraine. Why are the US and the EU, in principle opposed to all these things, allowing (perhaps even encouraging) such “reform.” In the Balkans bad ideas never die. The adults in Washington and Brussels need to wake up.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
3 thoughts on “Wake up: in the Balkans bad ideas never die”
Comments are closed.
RSS - Posts
Great analysis. I fear our foreign policy leaders are not up to the task. Blinken’s foreign policy accomplishments which include Libya, Syria, Russia (post Crimea) under Obama and presumably Afghanistan more recently make one question his ability to keep us ahead of Russia and China’s subversive activities. Even in Ukraine we are largely reactive. I hope I’m wrong.