The “General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina”, or more generally the Dayton Peace Agreement (DPA), which ended the bloody and atrocious war in Bosnia and Herzegovina between 1992 and 1995, has undoubtedly provided an environment of peace since the day it has been signed. However, the developments in Bosnia and Herzegovina since the day it has been signed show that although the DPA stopped the immediate conflict dimension and provided an environment of peace at that time, it could not fully resolve the problems between the societies that were party to the war, but on the contrary, made it dull. Perhaps the biggest reason for this is the ethnic and religious origin of the conflicts that occurs in the region. Thus, this agreement remained far from getting to the root of the problem; on the contrary, it left Bosnia with a heterogeneous social structure and a complex political system.
Bosnia in the Grip of Nationalism
Bosnia and Herzegovina has hosted various wars and conflicts throughout its history. One of the biggest reasons behind these conflicts is nationalism. In particular, Bosnia and Herzegovina, which was influenced by the goals of the Croatian and Serbian nationalists, was exposed to a constant state of instability between these two sides. The declaration of independence of Croatia and Slovenia in 1991, which is one of the most important developments that triggered the disintegration of Yugoslavia, also mobilised Bosnia. Later on, Bosnia and Herzegovina declared independence in 1992. Although the European Community (EC) and the United Nations (UN) recognised this independence at that time[1], Serbian nationalists, who acted with the goal of the “Greater Serbia” project, rejected this independence and launched an attack on Bosnia and Herzegovina. Between 1992 and 1995, Bosnia and Herzegovina witnessed bloody conflicts and humanitarian plights. And so, albeit a little late, a ceasefire was achieved with the effect of international intervention, and two different agreements were signed that ended the war between the parties. The first of these is the Washington Agreement, signed between Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia on March 1, 1994. Herewith, the conflict between Bosnian Croats and Bosniaks came to an end, while the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (FBiH- Federacija Bosne i Hercegovine) to be formed by the two peoples (Bosniaks and Croats), was established. [2] The second was the Dayton Peace Agreement, officially named The General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina, on November 21, 1995, especially with the initiatives of the United States of America (US) was initialled by the President of Bosnia and Herzegovina Alija Izetbegovic, President of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Slobodan Milosevic and President of Croatia Franjo Tudjman. Then, on December 14, 1995, the parties in Paris signed it, and the Bosnian War ended. [3] As stated above, throughout history, Bosnia and Herzegovina has been tried to be shared between two nations, namely Serbs and Croats. On that note, it is noteworthy that these neighbouring countries are among the signatories of the agreement that ended this bloody war.
Dayton Peace from Past to Present
Before addressing the problems of the Dayton Peace Agreement in general, it is noteworthy to briefly mention the positive developments that it brought with it. To start with, the DPA opened the door to a peaceful environment by ending the war. In a war where the neighbour killed his neighbour, it made the parties live together once again, and no matter what, this peace has come to this day. However, as it will be mentioned later, the complex political system brought by the DPA and the divided structure within itself dragged Bosnia and Herzegovina from crisis to crisis. Before addressing the problems of the Dayton Peace Agreement in general, it is noteworthy briefly to mention the positive developments that it brought with it. To start with, the DPA opened the door to a peace environment by ending the war. In a war where the neighbour killed his neighbour, it made the parties live together once again, and no matter what, this peace has come to this day. However, as it will be mentioned later, the complex political system brought by the DPA and the divided structure within itself dragged Bosnia and Herzegovina from crisis to crisis.
According to DPA, the country consists of two entities, FBiH, which constitutes 51% of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Republika Srpska (RS), which constitutes 48%.[4] In addition, there is the Brcko region, which constitutes 1% of the country’s territory and has an autonomous government, executive and judicial organs, and an autonomous police organisation that is not affiliated with any entity. In this context, DPA has introduced a system in this structure in order to ensure the cooperation of the founding peoples that make up the state in a country with this structure and to ensure the distribution of power. Also among these, the RS has a more unitary structure, whereas the FBiH is divided into ten cantons. Each of these ten cantons has its own separate executive, judicial and legislative bodies. In addition, the Office of the High Representative (OHR), established by the Peace Implementation Council, was established within the country with comprehensive powers to oversee the implementation of this system and the maintenance of the peace environment.[5]
As one can see, the country has been divided within itself from the very beginning. At the point reached today, the RS acts like a separate state. Administrators are elected according to different ethnic structures in different cantons, which slows down the decision-making mechanisms. In addition to that, the rotary presidency system introduced by DPA blocks the decision-making mechanisms. According to this system, the Presidency represents all three ethnic groups, each elected for four years and serving alternately in eight-month terms. The fact that each president acts by protecting the interests of his or her ethnic group prevents many reforms from being made within the country. At this point, one should mention one of the problems that the DPA cannot solve. As stated above, that is, it is perhaps the most complex political system in the world, introduced by the DPA.
Another outstanding problem is nationalism, perhaps the most significant problem in this sense, because even after the war, it continues to be effective. In this context, the education system in the country is also important. Because Bosnians see their historiography, Croats, and Serbs see their own historiography, and all of this takes place in the same school. In other words, a supra-identity has not been established in Bosnia, and it is very difficult to create it in this way. In addition, perhaps the most important factor is that the political parties were established based on nationalism, and the policies they implement and the rhetoric they use to create a tense setting within the country and threaten its integrity. Then, the fact that the parties do not agree on a union makes things even more difficult.[6]
Moreover, the ongoing debate on whether Bosnia and Herzegovina is a sovereign country further complicates the current situation. As mentioned above, the High Representative, who has an active position in the country, has the authority to intervene and take decisions in various situations. This in itself is the most important indicator of the existing instability in the country.
Within this scope, recent events have once again confirmed this. Recently, RS leader Milorad Dodik’s increased separatist rhetoric and his demands for the establishment of an autonomous structure, including Bosnian Croat administrators, created a tense atmosphere. Recently, the steps of the currently active High Representative, Christian Schmidt, to amend the Election Law shortly before the elections that will take place on October 2, cause an even more tense setting shortly before the country’s general elections.
Protests took place in front of the OHR building upon the invitation of many parties and organisations led by Bosniaks, claiming that Schmidt would regulate the Election Law in favor of the Croats and against the Bosniaks.[7] Although, according to Schmidt’s statement, even if the changes that will take place are “technical” changes, the fact that he calls for parties to compromise for political changes in his statement and that he will intervene in political changes if they fail to reach an agreement may enable a new crisis in the country.[8] Because it seems unlikely that parties will be able to reach a compromise in a period when nationalist and separatist discourses increase and just on the eve of the general elections. Because Bakir Izetbegovic, the leader of the Democratic Action Party (SDA), one of the most active parties among the Bosniaks, made a statement by referring to the number of people gathered to the power of the army while the protests were going on, and it was perceived as “warmongering” by other party leaders, Schmidt and even some countries, this induced the existing situation to reach a different dimension.[9] In view of the fact that it is unsettling that an influential politician like Izetbegovic makes such statements while representing the Bosniaks. In this context, one can expect that party leaders will turn to nationalism and engage in vote-gathering campaigns for the upcoming elections, which may make the situation even worse.
At this stage today, Bosnia and Herzegovina will witness a more complicated election than it has ever seen since the DPA, and especially the ever-increasing nationalism, separatist rhetoric, and missteps of politicians, do not promise a comfortable election. Even though it is difficult to discuss the steps to be taken towards the Election Law and the results of the upcoming general elections at this point, one may say that Bosnia and Herzegovina will host crises again in the current situation. Especially in this fragile period of the Russia-Ukraine crisis, any crisis that may arise in Bosnia may have much more serious outcomes than expected.
[1] J.R. Crampton, The Balkans Since The Second World War, Pearson Education Limited, Harlow 2002, s. 255.
[2] Noel Malcolm, Bosnia: A Short History, Pan Books, 2016, s.256.
[3] Osman Karatay, Bosna Hersek Barış Süreci – Dayton Barış Antlaşması Eki ile-, Karam Yayınları, Ankara 2002, s. 17-18.
[4] Necmettin Alkan, “Dayton Sonrasında Bosna Hersek”, Bilgehan A. Gökdağ, Osman Karatay ed., Balkanlar El Kitabı, II. Cilt, Akçağ Yayınları, Ankara 2017, s. 206.
[5] Türbedar, a.g.m., s. 434-435.
[6] Ibid.
[7] “Danas protesti ispred OHR-a: “Nije vrijeme da šutimo i čekamo”, N1 Info, https://ba.n1info.com/vijesti/danas-protesti-ispred-ohr-a-nije-vrijeme-da-sutimo-i-cekamo/ , (Date of Accession: 29.07.2022.).
[8] “Schmidt nametnuo tehničke izmjene Izbornog zakona”, Al Jazeera Balkans, https://balkans.aljazeera.net/videos/2022/7/27/schmidt-nametnuo-tehnicke-izmjene-izbornog-zakona, (Date of Accession: 29.07.2022.).
[9] “Izetbegović pojasnio svoju izjavu o “prebrojavanju”, N1 Info, https://ba.n1info.com/vijesti/bakir-izetbegovic-pojasnio-svoju-izjavu-o-prebrojavanju/ , (Date of Accession: 29.07.2022.).
