Former High Representatives to Bosnia and Herzegovina, Carl Bildt and Wolfgang Petritsch, commented on the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina in an op-ed for the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) and sent a message to Europe.
The article, titled “Abolish the High Representative,” conveyed Bildt’s and Petritsch’s position on why the Office of the High Representative should be abolished and how this should be done.
“The OHR Was Envisioned as Temporary, but Remained a Permanent Institution”
At the beginning of the op-ed, the former High Representatives note that Christian Schmidt’s resignation not only raised “the question of his successor” but also forced Europe to confront an “uncomfortable geopolitical reality.”
“Thirty years after the Dayton Peace Agreement, Bosnia and Herzegovina remains trapped in political limbo. It is formally a sovereign country, but in fact remains under international supervision. The institution of the High Representative of the international community is an ad hoc body that has, to a large extent, successfully overseen the reconstruction of the war-torn country. Without US-EU engagement – in which, alongside the EU as the main funder, Russia, Japan, and Canada also participated through the Peace Implementation Council – the implementation of the Dayton Peace Agreement after 1995 would hardly have been possible,” they stated to FAZ.
Bildt and Petritsch further stated that the OHR was originally envisioned as a temporary institution but became a permanent one.
“For a long time, this civil institution, which over the years has lost influence and legitimacy, has appeared to local politicians as either an enemy or a safety net, freeing them from the obligation that democratic societies have, which includes being responsible for finding sustainable political compromises,” they claimed.
Therefore, they argue, it would be a mistake to reflexively appoint a new High Representative. Instead, the international community must ask itself “whether such a move truly fosters stability and independence, or merely preserves a managed stagnation.”
“Additionally, the geopolitical situation has fundamentally changed. While the long journey toward Brussels is losing its appeal in the Western Balkan countries, the international consensus on the future of Bosnia has long been shattered. For years, Russia has openly rejected the role of the High Representative with special powers and has long since become a regional disruptive factor,” they pointed out in this text.
However, as the former High Representatives to Bosnia and Herzegovina further write, a shift in the stance of the US is now noticeable as well.
Now, however, a distinctly transactional approach to the Balkans is also emerging in Washington. The recent visit by Trump’s son, who is very active in business, to the capital of the Bosnia and Herzegovina entity Republika Srpska must be seen as an attempt to establish yet another suspicious business relationship. Similar processes are already unfolding in Serbia and Albania, with clear disregard for European rules and laws. Under such circumstances, a successor to the departing High Representative would hardly have greater legitimacy than his predecessors,” Bildt and Petritsch stated.
Europe Needs a New Strategic Approach in Bosnia and Herzegovina
That is why, as they emphasized, the key question is which reforms are bringing Bosnia and Herzegovina closer to the European Union, not who Schmidt’s successor is.
“Because it is incompatible for Bosnia and Herzegovina to remain under a prolonged form of international governance, with no prospect of full sovereignty or personal responsibility, while at the same time stepping onto the path toward the European Union. Based on a detailed analysis of the 30-year state-building process, Europe needs a new strategic beginning in Bosnia and Herzegovina,” it is stated.
Bildt and Petritsch believe the new beginning should be based on two elements.
“The first element is correcting the dysfunctional government system, while the other is abolishing special international supervision. This reform agenda must be closely linked to gradual integration into European structures. It is not about a radical overhaul of the Dayton system, but rather realistic adjustments: more efficient decision-making structures, clearer competences, and limiting the continuous options for blockade,” the text states.
They say that abolishing the OHR must be closely linked to Bosnia and Herzegovina’s accession to EU membership. “The conditions that Schmidt and his predecessors have unsuccessfully demanded for years, including the state property issue, could be transferred into the corresponding chapters of the accession agreement. This would finally and unequivocally put an end to the never-ending discussion on whether Bosnia and Herzegovina even belongs to Europe,” they emphasized.
In conclusion, the former high representatives in Bosnia and Herzegovina reflected on what the country’s future should look like after the OHR.
“Embedded in a credible European perspective, the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina would thus become part of a dynamic political project. This would mark a transition from international supervision to European integration. Christian Schmidt’s withdrawal therefore represents a long-awaited opportunity to fundamentally rethink international policy toward Bosnia and Herzegovina from a European perspective. Bosnia and Herzegovina does not need an endlessly prolonged international administration. What the country needs is a credible European future,” Carl Bildt and Wolfgang Petritsch wrote for FAZ, Klix.ba writes.