Bosnia and Herzegovina: Adoption of a Presidential Statement on the 30th Anniversary of the Dayton Peace Agreement
This afternoon (29 December), the Security Council is expected to adopt a presidential statement marking the 30th anniversary of the General Framework Agreement for Peace (GFAP) in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH), also known as the Dayton Peace Agreement. Slovenia authored the draft presidential statement, which aims to acknowledge this milestone and the progress that BiH has achieved since the signing of the Agreement and its Annexes in 1995.
Background
The Dayton Peace Agreement created two entities within BiH: the predominantly Bosniak and Croat Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (FBiH) and the predominantly Serb Republika Srpska (RS). Linked by a rotating tripartite inter-ethnic presidency and a two-chamber legislative branch with equal representation by the three major ethnic groups (Bosniaks, Croats, and Serbs), the two entities also have their own executive and legislative branches.
The Dayton Peace Agreement also established the Office of the High Representative (OHR) and the NATO-led Implementation Force (IFOR) to oversee implementation of the agreement’s civilian and military aspects, respectively. IFOR was subsequently replaced by the NATO-led Stabilisation Force (SFOR) in 1996, which in turn was replaced by the European Union (EU)-led multidimensional stabilisation force (EUFOR ALTHEA) in 2004.
Negotiations on the Draft Presidential Statement
Slovenia circulated a zero draft of the presidential statement to Council members on 26 November and invited comments on the text. Comments and requests for modification were mostly submitted by the Council’s permanent members (China, France, Russia, the UK, and the US). After engaging in bilateral consultations with several Council members, Slovenia circulated a revised text on 4 December. Following an additional round of comments, Slovenia placed a second revised text under silence on 19 December. The draft presidential statement ultimately passed silence on 24 December after two extensions of the silence procedure.
In the agreed presidential statement, the Council reaffirms its “unwavering commitment to the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina within its internationally recognised borders”. The statement further stresses the importance of regional cooperation and good-neighbourly relations as key pillars of lasting peace and prosperity in the Western Balkans, welcoming ongoing regional efforts aimed at promoting dialogue, trust, and economic cooperation among the countries of the region.
The agreed presidential statement also emphasises the need to resolve differences through dialogue and consensus. While acknowledging the peace and stability that BiH has achieved over the past three decades, it calls on all leaders, at all levels of government, to refrain from divisive rhetoric or actions, avoid confrontation, respect the rule of law as well as uphold the Dayton Peace Agreement.
The negotiations on the draft presidential statement were apparently difficult. It seems that the main point of contention related to language proposed by the penholder in the zero draft that emphasised the Council’s unity in supporting BiH’s “regional aspirations as defined by its institutions”. Russia, in particular, opposed this text and requested amendments to the relevant paragraph, while other Council members, particularly the European members, supported this proposal. France, for its part, apparently also proposed including language that would have directly mentioned BiH’s European integration.
It seems that Russia strongly opposed the inclusion of language on BiH’s regional integration, viewing it as a red line during the negotiations and in its discussions with the penholder. In an apparent compromise, the penholder removed the reference to BiH’s regional aspirations, revising the text to instead “welcome efforts aimed at strengthening cooperation and good-neighbourly relations in the region”. The tensions on this issue reflect longstanding divisions in the Council related to BiH’s Euro-Atlantic integration and possible accession to NATO, particularly between Russia on the one hand and the US and European Council members on the other.
Another issue that required discussion was language in the zero draft that encouraged dialogue “among national authorities and international partners to advance necessary reforms and to ensure a gradual and orderly transition of the international presence”, in accordance with the Dayton Peace Agreement and its Annexes. The reference to dialogue among “national authorities and international partners” apparently raised concerns among several Council members about which actors in BiH, as well as which international partners, would participate in advancing these reforms and facilitating the transition of the international presence.
During the negotiations, it appears the UK requested including the qualifier “along with others” within the relevant paragraph to ensure the inclusion of minority ethnic groups and citizens who are referred to in the Constitution of BiH as “Others” in such efforts. (This is also in reference to the 2009 ruling of the European Court of Human Rights, which determined that the Constitution of BiH, with its provisions stipulating that only members of the country’s three main ethnic groups can hold the highest political offices, violates the right to free and fair elections and freedom from discrimination under the European Convention on Human Rights.) The US also apparently proposed the qualifier “supported by” regarding the reference to international partners. The UK and US’ suggestions were eventually incorporated into the agreed presidential statement.
Another contentious issue that apparently arose regarding this paragraph was disagreement concerning a Russian proposal to include the qualifier “legally elected representative of the three constituent peoples” to narrow the scope of actors referenced within the relevant paragraph. China seemed to share similar views. Several members, however, apparently opposed the inclusion of this language, arguing that it implicitly refers to the role of the OHR, which remains a divisive issue for the Council. The RS and Security Council members China and Russia do not recognise the legitimacy and authority of Christian Schmidt as the High Representative for BiH. Russia maintains that appointments to the position must be formally endorsed by a Security Council resolution, a position which several other Council members reject. Moreover, both China and Russia have repeatedly called for the closure of the OHR, accusing Schmidt of exacerbating tensions and harming the country’s stability.
It seems that these dynamics affected the negotiations on the draft text, which resulted in the final revision of the statement not incorporating Russia’s proposed language. To facilitate consensus among Council members, the penholder modified the relevant paragraph’s language and instead replaced it with text encouraging “dialogue among the three constituent peoples (along with Others) in Bosnia and Herzegovina and supported by international partners on shared priorities to ensure transition of the international presence”.
The agreed presidential statement will be the third product adopted by Security Council members this year concerning the BiH file. On 28 March, Council members adopted a press statement on recent developments in the country, in which they similarly emphasised the need for all political leaders to “avoid confrontational approaches” and refrain from “provocative, divisive rhetoric and actions”. The Council also adopted resolution 2795 of 31 October, which renewed the authorisation of EUFOR ALTHEA for an additional year.