High Representative Schmidt’s Forthcoming Argument to the European Court of Human Rights
NB: Democratization Policy Council co-founder and senior associate Kurt Bassuener posted the text below in a tweet thread on October 1. The text below has been slightly revised to spell-out abbreviations, insert hyperlinks (including a few additional ones), clean up the occasional typo made in haste, and assemble into paragraphs.
Important statement by French Ambassador regarding High Representative Christian Schmidt’s push to address the European Court for Human Rights Grand Chamber on Kovačević case appeal. Our view (from 2023) at DPC on the potential of the ruling, in combination with the whole Sejdić-Finci caselaw, to enable a new alternative social contract, is linked here.
To my knowledge, nobody in the BiH political sphere/public space, has pursued developing a pan-BiH constituency for an alternative to the Dayton order. The rulings are not self-implementing. Building one would be highly time and labor intensive. But it’s the only way out of this evolutionary dead-end. Even if there were really enlightened and informed international strategic leadership to design an alternative governance system (hint: there ain’t), the last thing the country needs is another constitution without popular legitimacy.
Those who follow me ought to recognize that I despise the whole BiH (& regional) political class. Svi (“all of them”). But it’s not because they are uniquely benighted souls. They’re just uniquely empowered under Dayton. The house always wins. All compete to be chief rentiers (& their retinues). And aside from patronage, their most valuable tool is fear. Once upon a time, we in the “international community” defused it by ensuring they feared threatening or employing violence: it could be career ending or worse. Progress under Dayton, within limits, was feasible. Hence the palpable hope in 2005, when I hit the ground to work at OHR.
EU enlargement magic was supposed to solve the rest – and came w/ a theological gag reflex to enforcement tools (OHR, EUFOR). “Ownership” was the watchword. Guess what? It means that this peace carteleffectively owns the country and all its institutions, resources – and future. The West basically has accepted that, though they have divisions on how that should work, as Schmidt has demonstrated. The losers are basically everyone not in or w/ access to a black Audi.
Those who follow us at DPC know we were against the election law change long before it was imposed. And Schmidt is definitely the wrong person in that job. But so long as Dayton remains the bad old set of rules, there needs to be someone (preferably wise & honest) in that job. There also needs to be a credible military deterrent. We’ve been consistently vocal that this means a whole brigade, properly equipped & deployed, to deter local conflict entrepreneurs & the neighbors, who have capitalized on the free-range Dayton rules-free environment.
By all indications, Schmidt seems poised to argue that the ruling threatens the Dayton balance and the peace. The latter would be a stinging self-indictment of the international community, given that EUFOR is legally obligated to maintain a “safe & secure environment” under the Dayton Peace Agreement’s Annex 1A and the UNSC Chapter 7 mandate. The EU has watered-down its own interpretation to be 2nd responder, following local authorities (“Supporting the BiH authorities maintain a safe and secure environment”). Deterring local authorities – e.g. the Peace Cartel (along with Serbia and Croatia) is why EUFOR is here (and IFOR and SFOR before them)! This is a complete abdication of EU responsibility.
The most the West could do here/region is defuse the fear all these guys use so profitably. We will defend these borders & rules until there are genuine popular alternatives. We can do that forever. Then they can stop calling them “partner,” throwing money and validation at them. That’s not a solution, but it would give those who want something better here traction by disarming the regional cartel of its killer app: fear. The West prizes pacification over its proclaimed values. So the baseline is to “stabilize” things – and then cash in with mining deals, weapons sales, etc.
If I believed the people in BiH were genuinely represented by the political class, I’d eject. But I see so much evidence that they know they’re not. They’re manifestly disgusted. But resigned. Noone attempts to assemble them behind forward-looking alternatives across the lines the greedhead political class polices (or at least accepts & exploits). The IC of course would get indigestion at that (“destabilizing!,” clutch pearls), but it would put them on the spot.
As for now, I fear that the cynical self-justification for the West’s cynical approach(es) amounts to: the Balkans are naturally tribal. So let’s just manage them, ensure alignment, and make what we can out of it. I could go on, but I’ll leave it at this: I honestly sense that popular disgust, regionwide, with the whole menu (domestic and foreign) has never been higher. That sentiment embodies potential energy & solidarity, if given a positive, coherent direction. And that’s what keeps me (and all of us at DPC) at it.
Addendum: this was our regional ground-based read in early 2023. It’s worse now, but the trajectory was clear then: http://www.democratizationpolicy.org/gaslighting-democracy-in-the-western-balkans/