peacefare.net

High hopes for Biden in Bosnia and Herzegovina

Ismet Fatih Čančar gave this interview, originally published in Politicki.ba:

Q: Why are US presidential elections important for Bosnia and Herzegovina?
With the fall of the Berlin Wall and the defeat of the Soviet Union, the global order was marked by American hegemony, which gained its greatest momentum during the 1990s. A good part of those nineties was marked by the issue of Bosnia and Herzegovina, first through aggression against our country, and then in the post-Dayton period. The United States has historically been involved in these processes. First, they stopped the war through the Dayton Peace Agreement. In the post-Dayton period, a new process of “state-building” began, which has not yet been completed.

The upcoming US presidential election is an opportunity to continue this process for several reasons. First due to the fact that the Democratic presidential candidate Joseph Biden is one of the last active politicians in the United States who has a personal connection and experience with Bosnia and Herzegovina. Secondly, as early as in 1993, Biden has correctly identified, in his speech on “Face the Nation,” war criminals in Bosnia, clearly warned about genocide, and then, as he is today, was a strong advocate of a more proactive American role in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Biden’s vision of Bosnia and Herzegovina was too ambitious and too radical for the Clinton administration. For our country, that vision is far-sighted and far-reaching. It is still the same vision that Biden wholeheartedly defended behind the speaker podium of the Senate. Back then he explained it as a national interest and a moral obligation of the United States in the post-Dayton framework. Biden reaffirmed that vision in his recently published program. The founding idea of this program is to building a civil state based on the experiences of a multicultural and multiethnic democratic society.

And that is why the presidential elections in the United States are an opportunity for a turning point in Bosnia and Herzegovina, where we have been witnessing a general deterioration of conditions, both political, economic and social, for some period now.

Q: Biden has announced his vision which he intends to pursue when it comes to Bosnia and Herzegovina. What is good and what is bad in that document?

Biden’s vision that has been published is substantially positive. In any case, it is good that such document has come to life. This is perhaps the first concrete signal in the last decade of bureaucratic autopilot by both the US and the EU that the very top of the US leadership is putting the issue of Bosnia and Herzegovina on the agenda, as well as the Balkans which have seen increased instability, growing appetite for redrawing borders, an increasing number of right-wing populist movements.

This document, of course, has its own political context. It is an expression of Biden’s own election campaign; promoting democracy as the most effective social order, but also restoring the credibility of American leadership in the world as a reliable partner that can constructively and successfully solve extremely complicated problems. The character of the Bosnian state – a sui generis state – is such that cosmetic changes cannot help this country, but which rather requires serious structural reforms, which first imply the reform of the Dayton Constitution, and then a strong step forward towards NATO and EU membership. Biden’s vision recognizes a more efficient approach and its engagement means including Bosnia and Herzegovina in the Atlantic Pact, protecting Bosnia from foreign malignant influences such as Russia and China, and preserving Bosnia and Herzegovina’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

The document itself would have had a much stronger appeal if it happened in some normal circumstances, when no political career is being auctioned and in the midst of the presidential campaign. Hence, there is some doubt as to how high Bosnia and Herzegovina will be on the list of American politics even after the presidential election.

However, there is one dimension that is rarely talked about. Biden’s document testifies that in the American heterogeneous society, the Bosnian community has become visible, for whose interest are fighting both sides of the political spectrum, the Democrats and the Republicans. I appreciate that this is a positive phenomenon. These are our great national resources and opportunities that exist in interstate relations, which we do not know how to use. Or at least not yet.

Q: What if Trump wins?

No need to dramatize. We already have four years of experience of Trump’s mandate behind us. Nothing radical has happened in the region, although attempts have been made from all directions to push through a new, much more dangerous and insidious plan to redraw the borders and exchange territories between Kosovo and Serbia; a plan which would have very bad consequences for Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Under Trump’s mandate, US leadership in the world has weakened significantly. The image of democracy has been destroyed through the constant undermining of the basic principles of multilateralism, disregard for human rights, and the encouragement of autocrats and nationalist movements. In addition, the importance of the alliance and the historical partnership between the US and the EU has been weakened. The so-called “soft power” has been undermined and an unprecedented level of polarization is caused in all fields.

Regardless of the outcome, Bosnia and Herzegovina needs to continue its work to improve the security framework for all its citizens and peoples, through the joint work of all relevant institutions and international partners. It is certain that Bosnia and Herzegovina will have the support of the US administration in this process.

Q: All polling shows that Biden is the winner and the next resident of the White House. What preparatory work should Bosnia and Herzegovina do?

First of all, we should wait for the election results. All polling showed Hilary Clinton’s victory in 2016 and we received a surprise instead.

However, it is true that our country has a unique opportunity to capitalize on this moment that could come from the Biden administration. Pro-Bosnian patriotic forces should take the initiative, in terms of creating a program and a roadmap for the radical changes identified in Biden’s document.

One should not be deceived that Bosnia and Herzegovina will so easily and so quickly position itself within the priorities of American foreign policy. From our side, it is necessary to purposefully engage all our resources that are available in American academic and business circles. This also requires a sophisticated diplomatic way of involving our traditional friends and partners in the project. A mitigating circumstance for achieving these goals is that Biden was personally and heavily involved in the Bosnian case and that his political influence and image in the world were partly built on it.

All this together requires the creation of a diplomatic orchestra that could meet these demanding tasks.

It is important to note that the foundations already exist. Through the actions of the US Embassy so far (previous and current Ambassadors) we could sense the possible development of the political concept of reforms. A civil democratic state, modeled on the example of dozens of modern European states, is the only possible solution in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the Western Balkans. Bosnia and Herzegovina must uncompromisingly insist on such principles.

Q: Trump has two special envoys for the Balkans. Does Biden need (at least) one? Is the Embassy enough?

The fact is that the outcome and effectiveness of a program or initiative does not largely depend on how many actors are involved. Especially in this case, efficiency is based on commitment, determination, and strength of material, political and diplomatic support put into the project.

During his visits, Special Envoy Matthew Palmer has on several occasions expressed a clear position on the indivisibility of Bosnia and Herzegovina, US support for our country’s Euro-Atlantic path, and the continuation and development of the partnership between Bosnia and Herzegovina and the United States. The goal is to raise this relationship to a higher level.

I still think that the two envoys for the small Balkans are a little too much. If we go back to the history of the 1990s and compare it with the mission of Holbrooke and the Clinton administration, who managed to create the Dayton Peace Agreement in a relatively short time, but in much more difficult war conditions, we can conclude that quantity is not crucial in these processes.

In addition, the question of both the Peace Implementation Council and its role in all of this arises. We are witnesses that the mandate of the High Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina has been derogated for a long time and that it is at a very low level. Perhaps it would be more economical, politically profitable for the US administration to focus on the function of the High Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina instead of creating new initiatives. I am deeply convinced that resolving the Bosnian issue opens the way for the complete integration of the Balkans into the Western currents of the advanced democratic world.

Q: Given that Biden will work closely with the EU, how much will that prevent him from implementing this plan for Bosnia and Herzegovina?

It is clear that Biden has identified the EU as a necessary partner in this process, with a desire for the Western bloc to act in a coordinated manner. At the same time, I think that will be the biggest challenge for Biden. How to successfully bring partners together in a Europe that, although there has been increased rhetoric about European independence, suffers from even larger internal lines of division. There is also the United Kingdom, which, as the most loyal partner in the transatlantic alliance, is looking for its place in the post-Brexit space and I believe that they can play a very important role in key processes in Bosnia and Herzegovina together with the United States.

Under the Obama administration, transatlantic ties have been successful or very successful through a number of joint programs in Europe. With the arrival of Biden, the caliber of people who would return to leading foreign policy positions would be consistent with that alliance. The US and the EU need each other, and the current experience of the Trump administration is an exception. To Democrats, this is proof of the value of the alliance. Hence, we can expect that Biden will work on renewing that alliance, but also on restoring American leadership on the European continent. This means reaffirming NATO’s role as the most effective security umbrella in the world, a closer relationship with Brussels for a coordinated approach, a tougher stance towards Russia and further investment in democratic processes in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The EU-led “structural dialogue” in Bosnia has shown all the shortcomings in its actions. American leadership is therefore a necessary corrective factor.

In addition, it is important to point out that the main motivator of US cooperation with the EU is not Cold War nostalgia, but rather the understanding in Washington that – America alone – is a weak America, and that in a more competitive world we face, Europeans are still the most important American allies.

All this is a complex process. I appreciate that in the efforts to implement fundamental reforms and build lasting peace and prosperity in Bosnia and Herzegovina, partnership and close cooperation between the United States and the EU is desirable for the realization of this project.