Pinterest WhatsApp

Together with a group of scholars and policy experts, I recently drafted a letter addressed to the main international stakeholders working in Bosnia and Herzegovina to address worrying developments in the governance reform process. As corruption and clientelism worsens, foreign players must re-engage more fully. In the letter we ‘appeal to the European Union and the US, as well as foreign institutions of which they are members, to strengthen their commitment to the European future of BiH, to adopt a firm approach toward spoilers of the reform process and to jointly use their leverage potential in a coordinated manner’. You can read the letter below.



Twenty years after the signing of the Dayton Peace Agreement, the political, economic and social situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) has been steadily deteriorating, reaching alarming levels in the past year. The circumspect wording of the Progress Report issued on 10 November 2015 does scant justice to the gravity of the political and economic situation in the country. Referring to “room for improvement” and “early stages” of reform developments, the report misinterprets empty and unimplemented reform measures as “some progress”. Most importantly, BiH’s internal stability, which has been under continuous threat, is mentioned only in passing.

Preoccupied by global problems, the EU and US have gradually abandoned their legal and moral obligations to uphold the 1995 Dayton Agreement, and shown declining interest in the Office of the High Representative (OHR), and the EU peacekeeping force (EUFOR), which are the key mechanisms for ensuring the agreement’s civilian and military implementation. As a result, the Dayton constitution has become a plaything between the three dominant ethno-national elites, while BiH’s stability is at stake.

The most vocal challenge to BiH’s constitutional and territorial integrity remains the President of Republika Srpska (RS), Milorad Dodik, who is calling a referendum to challenge the authority of the state judiciary and the OHR. But Mr Dodik is not alone in his disrespect for state-level institutions. As many as 85 decisions of BiH’s Constitutional Court have been ignored and remain unimplemented by institutions at various administrative levels across the country. The operative functioning of the state has been undermined by power battles between political elites. While Bosnian Croat leaders pursue the creation of a separate Croat entity, Bosniak politicians insist on a centralized state unacceptable to many Bosnian Croat and Serb politicians.

To secure his grip on power in RS by perpetuating an environment of fear of violence, Mr Dodik is using the referendum as part of his campaign for the 2016 local elections. Depending on whether this first referendum takes place, and the international reaction towards it, there could be a second referendum – on RS independence – which Mr Dodik has been repeatedly announcing (most recently for 2018). Regardless of the implausibility of any international recognition of an independent RS, the mere organization of a referendum on RS independence would endanger BiH’s territorial integrity and almost certainly lead to new violence. This is why this first referendum needs to be taken seriously as a real threat to the country’s stability and the security of the region in general.

In view of the disconcerting developments in the past few months, we the undersigned academics and political analysts, appeal to the European Union and the US, as well as foreign institutions of which they are members, to strengthen their commitment to the European future of BiH, to adopt a firm approach toward spoilers of the reform process and to jointly use their leverage potential in a coordinated manner. We would also like to stress that until it is replaced by a system of political accountability, all actors in BiH must respect the Dayton framework as part of the international architecture.

The main driver of reform in BiH is the European Union with its conditionality powers. However, the United States should also be an active partner in the on-going reform process by tackling the existing patronage system, particularly – but not exclusively – through its financial and military influence in institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and NATO respectively.

We recognize and support the need for local ownership over BiH’s future, but we also believe that this local ownership can only be established and truly nurtured once Western countries help ensure a conducive environment for domestic actors in BiH advocating inclusive and sustainable efforts toward progress.

The current approach to reforms in BiH has proved flawed, as it has not yielded any durable results in the past ten years. Although widely welcomed, last year’s Germany-United Kingdom Initiative has not been translated into firmer international engagement and has so far produced modest results.

Because of the unsatisfactory progress of reforms and BiH’s alarming security situation, we wish to highlight three key priorities for international engagement.

Firstly, it must be recognised that the step-by-step approach to reforms is not working and needs to be replaced by a firmer one. Reforms are not embraced as part of a general democratic progress but as an exercise of ticking boxes. At the same time, many reforms are not implemented even after adoption. By allowing domestic elites to shelve reforms that are not in their interest, the EU and the US are perpetuating a system of corrupt and undemocratic practices. Western countries and international financial institutions must be ready to intensify political and diplomatic pressures, as well as financial, travel and other sanctions against those who obstruct the reform process.

Secondly, there needs to be an increased commitment to the implementation of the rule of law. There is a deepening frustration with the corrupt and inefficient justice sector, which cripples all other developments in the country. It is necessary to insist upon a professional, unbiased and independent judiciary; implementation and enforcement of law without political interference; and prosecution of corruption and economic crimes. Additionally, a reform of the corrupt public sector; a depoliticization of employment and the business climate; and an open enquiry in past privatizations can open doors for an economic reform and the establishment of a free market. Both the EU and the US have political and financial means to sanction corrupt judicial officials and political influence, which need to be put in place.

Thirdly, citizens of BiH must be placed at the centre of all political processes. The partners of the international community in the reform process in all relevant policy areas – especially agriculture, labour legislation, public services, and social security – are all segments of BiH society, not just local political elites. Negotiations about reforms behind closed doors are not conducive to the creation of a democratic political culture. Public outreach and inclusiveness of citizens must become part of the reform strategy towards BiH.

These reforms are all together aimed at squeezing patronage and corruption out of the system, reducing the power exerted by closed elites, and allowing the country and its politics, law and economy the chance to flourish. The EU and US each have their own and joint instruments: now they need the will and determination to use them.



Jessie Hronešová, Oxford University, United Kingdom

Srećko Latal, Balkan Insight and SOS, Bosnia and Herzegovina

Sir David Madden, former British diplomat, Oxford University, United Kingdom

Dr Adis Merdžanović, Oxford University, United Kingdom

Dr Othon Anastasakis, Oxford University, United Kingdom

Dr Ioannis Armakolas, University of Macedonia & Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy, Greece

Prof Richard Caplan, Oxford University, United Kingdom

Dr Catherine Baker, University of Hull, United Kingdom

Prof Florian Bieber, University of Graz, Austria

Prof Valerie Bunce, Cornell University, United States

Dr Aida Hozic, Associate Professor, University of Florida, United States

Tanya Domi, Adjunct Professor, Columbia University, United States

Prof Adam Fagan, Queen Mary University of London, United Kingdom

Dr Eric Gordy, University College London, United Kingdom

Jasmin Hasić, LUISS Guido Carli Rome, Italy

Prof R. Bruce Hitchner, Tufts University, United States

Dženeta Karabegović, University of Warwick, United Kingdom

Dr Soeren Keil, Canterbury Christ Church University, United Kingdom

Daniela Lai, Royal Holloway, University of London, United Kingdom

Dr James Lyon, University of Graz, Austria

Jasmin Mujanović, York University, Canada

Dr Lara J. Nettelfield, Royal Holloway, University of London, United Kingdom

Prof Kalypso Nicolaidis, Oxford University, United Kingdom

Miran Norderland, London School of Economics, United Kingdom

Dr Jelena Obradović-Wochnik, Aston University, United Kingdom

Jasmina Opardija-Susnjar, University of Fribourg, Switzerland

Sevan Pearson, Ludwig-Maximilians University, Germany

Srdjan Puhalo, independent political analyst, Bosnia and Herzegovina

Andras Riedlmayer, Harvard University, United States

Jonathan Scheele, University of Oxford, United Kingdom

Dr Nenad Stojanović, Princeton University, United States

Dr Jelena Subotić, Associate Professor, Georgia State University, United States

Dr Milada Anna Vachudova, Associate Professor, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, United States

The opinions contained in this letter are personal opinions of the signatories and do not represent the official position of the signatories’ institutions.



Previous post

Reconsidering public wealth

Next post

What explains Euroscepticism in the Conservative Party?