Print
Region: Balkans, Europe
Type: Articles
Rate this article
(no votes)
 (0 votes)
Share this article
Alina Yablokova

MA in International Studies and Diplomacy, Political Risk Analyst

On July 11, 2015 the world remembered victims of the Srebrenica massacre, the most gruesome manslaughter of the 1992-1995 Bosnian war, which took place exactly twenty years ago. About 8,000 male Bosnian Muslims, also referred to as Bosniaks, of fighting age perished in Srebrenica forests as Bosnian Serbs murdered them just over a few days after the town’s fall. This mass killing became the most murderous single incident in Europe since the Second World War.

On July 11, 2015 the world remembered victims of the Srebrenica massacre, the most gruesome manslaughter of the 1992-1995 Bosnian war, which took place exactly twenty years ago. About 8,000 male Bosnian Muslims, also referred to as Bosniaks, of fighting age perished in Srebrenica forests as Bosnian Serbs murdered them just over a few days after the town’s fall. This mass killing became the most murderous single incident in Europe since the Second World War.

Although modern Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) is unlikely to slip into another ethnic conflict, the degree of distrust and mutual intolerance among its three main subgroups (Bosnian Serbs, Bosniaks and Croats), which are the three “constituency” people, remains elevated. For instance, Serbia’s Prime Minister, Aleksandar Vucic, was attacked at the memorial ceremony in Srebrenica on July 11 2015. The crowd hurled stones at the politician, shouting “Allahu Akbar”, in an apparent manifestation of resentment against Serbia’s support of Bosnian Serbs in the 1990s war and now.

Thus, in the spotlight of worldwide commemorations, the Bosnia’s persistent ethnic tensions that are embedded in the country’s fragmented political system were once again exposed. Resultantly, economic and social policy-making is significantly impaired. Bosnia’s development and the country’s EU accession reforms are inevitably hampered by institutional inefficiency. Since ethnic question is at the heart of the Bosnian impasse and constitutional reforms are unlikely in the foreseeable future, only a genuine reconciliation among Bosnia’s people and its institutionalisation can bring about political stability, sustainable economic growth and strong international performance.

Dayton Agreement and BiH constitutional deficiencies

The Bosnian war ended in a ceasefire after NATO conducted airstrikes against the positions of Bosnian Serbs a month after the Srebrenica massacre. Then, the United States, the EU and Russia brought Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic, Croatian President Franjo Tudjman, Bosnian President Alija Izetbegovic, as well as representatives of the Bosnian Serbs and Croats to the negotiation table. Resultantly, Dayton Peace Accord was settled.

There is a lack of political will on part of Bosnia’s leadership to design and implement reforms necessary for the country’s advance towards eventual EU membership.


AFP / Dimitar Dilkoff
Serbia’s Prime Minister, Aleksandar Vucic, was
attacked at the memorial ceremony in
Srebrenica on July 11 2015

What the mediators had to address was the ethnic schism that fundamentally engendered the conflict. Instead they institutionalised it. Indeed, Bosnia now consists of two entities with a wide-ranging autonomy and a strong ethnic demarcation. The Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina (FBiH) is mostly populated by Bosniaks and Croats, and the Republika Srpska (RS) is predominantly inhabited by Bosnian Serbs. There is also the multi-ethnic town of Brcko. The FBiH is further divided into cantons that have a substantial degree of autonomy in security and education areas. The central government is weak and mainly responsible for foreign policy, monetary policy, trade and customs.

State-level decisions are taken by a simple majority but can be easily blocked by any of the three majority ethnic groups if deemed as contrary to its interests. The system agreed upon at Dayton therefore produced a political environment in which nationalisms are translated onto the political arena at state level. The extent of government dysfunctionality grounded in identity conflict was exposed in 2010, when contradictions between Bosniak and Croat leaders escalated to the point where it was no longer possible to elect a legitimate entity president and two vice presidents. As a result, the appointment of prime minister and cabinet were postponed together with the adoption of the budget.

Thus, the International Crisis Group appropriately summarised the pressure of the unresolved identity question in BiH and the subsequent stalemate in one of its recent reports:

Bosnians ask the questions that preceded the 1992-1995 war: shall it be one country, two, or even three; if one country, shall it have one, two or three constituent entities, and how shall it be governed?

The EU Integration

Since ethnic question is at the heart of the Bosnian impasse and constitutional reforms are unlikely in the foreseeable future, only a genuine reconciliation among Bosnia’s people and its institutionalisation can bring about political stability, sustainable economic growth and strong international performance.

Negotiation on a Stabilisation and Association Agreement (SAA) between the EU and BiH commenced in late 2005. In 2008 the sides have signed the document, however, it is not before June 1, 2015 that it entered into force. The main obstacle to the implementation of the agreement was again rooted in ethnic division within Bosnia’s society. BiH failed to enforce the 2009 Sejdic-Finci ruling of the European Court of Human Rights. In this case, two Bosnian citizens, Roma Dervo Sejdic and Jewish Jakob Finci, were prohibited from running for presidency, as they were not self-identifying with any of the “constituency” people. The European Commission declared that constitutional changes to accommodate the Sejdic-Finci ruling should be the “final” task before the SAA could come into effect.

One would thus think that the prospect of a European future could potentially stimulate reforms in BiH to eliminate deeply entrenched ethnic division, as the country would have to comply with the EU demands. However, there are two factors that evidence this is a fallacy. Firstly, the EU is inconsistent in its approach to handling its European neighbours. In Sejdic-Finci case the EU initially insisted on removing the existing “discriminatory” provision from BiH constitution. The EU nonetheless eventually gave up its demands and instead asked for a declaration of Bosnia’s commitment to the problem with neither deadline nor penalty provision for non-implementation. Similarly, in late 2013 the EU was prepared to sign the Association Agreement with Ukraine even though its condition that Yulia Tymoshenko be released from jail was not met. It becomes apparent that the EU is primarily guided by political considerations and that it often overlooks the negligence of conditions it sets. Resultantly, the EU appears weak, excessively compliant and leaders of aspiring states are incentivised to free ride. Precisely this took place in BiH case.

REUTERS/Stoyan Nenov
Theodor Meron, President of the International
Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia,
arrives to attend a ceremony marking the 20th
anniversary of the Srebrenica massacre

Secondly, there is a lack of political will on part of Bosnia’s leadership to design and implement reforms necessary for the country’s advance towards eventual EU membership. BiH is considered to be one of the most corruption-prone states in Europe with high poverty and unemployment rates. Official unemployment stood at 43.6 percent in 2014. However, a significant proportion of workforce is engaged in grey economy. Indeed, the World Bank measured the actual unemployment at 27.5 percent the same year, thus, giving an illustration of the proportion of labour involved in parallel economy. There is a strong belief among well-informed individuals from diplomatic missions and international financial institutions that government officials benefit from a complex, informal system of patronage and corruption at the expense of the Bosnian economy. If EU required that reforms are implemented, allowing for foreign capital to enter Bosnia’s market, the patronage networks would be weakened and the governing elite would lose power over the economy.

Therefore, the prospect of the near-future Bosnia’s EU membership is not only improbable, but is also met with reluctance by political leaders. Therefore, although the EU has been engaging with BiH for a decade and presented strong incentives, it was unable to contribute to much-needed constitutional reforms in the country through the SAA negotiation. As it is becoming apparent that the ethnicity- political structure is likely to remain unchanged in the foreseeable future, the EU and the international community should, in the first place, attempt to address Bosnia’s tensions along identity lines.

Reconciliation efforts

www.dr.dk
Naser Oric, a former Bosniak military officer, who
is responsible for deaths of thousands Bosnian
Serbs, was only sentenced to two years in prison
and was released shortly after the trial

On the run up to the twentieth anniversary of the Srebrenica massacre, the United Kingdom proposed a draft resolution in, what it calls, an attempt to “appeal for justice for all and reconciliation”. However, Russia vetoed the document in a UN Security Council vote on grounds of it being divisive and contradictory to the council’s dedication to maintaining peace and security. In addition to Russia’s own long-standing insistence that all parties of the Bosnian conflict and not only Bosnian Serbs be judged equally, the move was also motivated by the appeal of Serbian and RS leaders. In fact, the resolution focused solely on Srebrenica massacre and the blame attributable to Bosnian Serbs. Additionally, the first draft contained 35 mentions of “genocide” and solely three references to “reconciliation”.

The Russian leadership primarily referred to a possible negative impact on inter-ethnic and inter-religious relations in BiH and across Western Baltics. Indeed, as previously mentioned, the region remains divided along ethnic lines. Wounds of the twenty-year-old war have not yet healed. The guilt discourse and attempts to disproportionately allocate blame could endanger the fragile stability that reigns in the Balkans. For instance, every August 5 Croatia celebrates Victory and Homeland Thanksgiving Day. On that day back in 1995 the Croatian Army in the Operation Storm took the city of Knin, bringing an end to the self-proclaimed Republic of Serbian Krajina. More than 1,000 civilian ethnic Serbs fell victims to this military assault and another 200,000 were displaced. This incident demonstrates that there are always two sides to a coin.

The EU nonetheless eventually gave up its demands and instead asked for a declaration of Bosnia’s commitment to the problem with neither deadline nor penalty provision for non-implementation.

Although nobody should deny the fact that war crimes were committed in Srebrenica, it should be acknowledged that about 3,500 Bosnian Serb civilians became victims of similar criminal actions. To pave the way to reconciliation, justice needs to take place and every individual responsible for war crimes should be trialed accordingly. Up to date, both the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia in 2004 and the International Court of Justice in 2007 proclaimed that the massacre at Srebrenica was an act of genocide. At the same time, Naser Oric, a former Bosniak military officer, who is responsible for deaths of thousands Bosnian Serbs, was only sentenced to two years in prison and was released shortly after the trial. The killings he is responsible for were never widely condemned.

The prospect of the near-future Bosnia’s EU membership is not only improbable, but is also met with reluctance by political leaders.

Justice for some and lack of such for others is likely to deepen ethnic tensions and mutual antagonism. However, there is still a possibility to treat both sides fairly and guide people of BiH to reconciliation. In June, Oric was again arrested on Serbia warrant, giving Bosnian Serbs fresh hope for a due process. Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic, both Bosnian Serbs and main figures behind the Srebrenica mass killing of Bosniaks, are also undergoing trial in Hague.

Clearly, reconciliation will not be reached solely by punishing the perpetrators of the 1990s Bosnian war. Moreover, trials are likely to be received with popular hostility, because the prosecuted individuals are considered heroes among their people. However, only a fair judgment, which the world has so far failed to bring about, can pave the way to peaceful coexistence of Bosnian people and political integrity of the country in the longer term.

Rate this article
(no votes)
 (0 votes)
Share this article

Poll conducted

  1. In your opinion, what are the US long-term goals for Russia?
    U.S. wants to establish partnership relations with Russia on condition that it meets the U.S. requirements  
     33 (31%)
    U.S. wants to deter Russia’s military and political activity  
     30 (28%)
    U.S. wants to dissolve Russia  
     24 (22%)
    U.S. wants to establish alliance relations with Russia under the US conditions to rival China  
     21 (19%)
For business
For researchers
For students