IFIMES*
The NATO Parliamentary Assembly, a transatlantic forum bringing together 269 parliamentarians from the Alliance’s 32 member states, held a NATO Conference in Dayton from 23 to 26 May 2025 to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the signing of the Dayton Peace Agreement, which brought an end to the 1992–1995 war in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Landau – the star of the Dayton gathering
The thirtieth anniversary of the Dayton Peace Agreement[2] was marked by a series of thematic panels and other events. For the first time since 2003, the NATO Parliamentary Assembly took place in the United States. Key topics included Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, the situation in the Middle East, the future of the NATO Alliance, and the political situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Dayton Dialogue, focusing on peace and security in the Balkans, was the central panel of the event.
The address delivered by US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau drew the most attention. Speaking on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the Dayton Peace Agreement, he stated: “We in the Trump Administration are willing to provide our good offices to improve conditions, but only if our involvement is wanted and warranted. I know that this hasn’t always been the spirit in which American officials have approached foreign policy. But in this regard, as in many others, the Trump Administration is willing to try a different approach, and I’m proud to represent this new thinking.”[3]
“What does this mean for Bosnia-Herzegovina? It means that we’re willing to listen to, and to work with, all affected parties. Agreements must be firm to hold; but you must be flexible to adjust to changing times.”
Landau was clear: “The United States is not offering unlimited means for undefined, uncertain, or unrealistic ends. This basic point is lost on too many advocates for remaking foreign societies along utopian lines. We’re not interested in imposing a vision of a society that reflects the preferences of distant bureaucrats and narrow activists. The United States can be a willing partner with considerable political capital. We can work hard; but we will work only with those committed to a practical realism for their own countries.”[4]
Representatives from the region interpreted Deputy US Secretary of State Landau’s speech in different ways. The most accurate interpretation came from NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, who, speaking at the NATO Parliamentary Assembly in Dayton, said: “I will be tough on Bosnia and Herzegovina. I have no friends or enemies among the three members of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina. But we must take a tough stance with them. You cannot export your problems to the rest of the Balkans, to Europe, or the NATO Alliance. They must take responsibility for their own country. And when some of them object to the fact that the High Representative is still there, or that the Dayton Agreement is still in place, it is not because you or I like it that way, but because they are not governing their own country. Of course, we will help them, you will help, we will all help. EUFOR is there, KFOR is in Kosovo. We are all guarantors of peace. We cannot accept any disintegration of the country. That is unacceptable to NATO and to anyone else.”[5]
The messages of Christopher Landau and Mark Rutte exposed the political spin in what Balkan delegations relayed to their home countries, affirming that the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Bosnia and Herzegovina are beyond question.
Why did the “pro-Bosnian” delegation fail to present a unified strategy?
There had been an expectation that Bosnia and Herzegovina – or at least the pro-Bosnian members of its delegation – would present a coordinated strategy based on the achievements of the international community, rooted in the Dayton Peace Agreement. Certain international actors had encouraged them to put forward two key agenda points: urgent NATO accession and the legacy of international courts as a foundation for resolving the crisis. This would have included a request for conditional NATO membership, based on a range of positive indicators, as well as the implementation of judgments from UN and European courts in addressing the crisis in BiH. North Macedonia and Montenegro joined NATO in the wake of so-called coups d’état, and the attempted coup in BiH, led by Milorad Dodik (SNSD) and pro-Russian politicians, presented an ideal opportunity to publicly call for urgent and conditional NATO membership for BiH. Regrettably, that opportunity was missed – and it may come at a very high cost for BiH. Failing to call for BiH’s urgent NATO accession at such a high-level gathering and such an occasion, with the eyes of the world on Dayton and the United States, reveals a lack of organisation, responsibility, and state-building awareness. Implementing the legacy of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) as a foundation for addressing the crisis in BiH would have sent a clear signal to the international community about the relevance of international judicial findings and rulings issued since the signing of the Dayton Peace Agreement. Two joint criminal enterprises and two international armed conflicts involving Serbia and Croatia, along with the rulings of the ECHR, could have served as a foundation for building a civic state. However, none of this was pursued. On top of that, High Representative Christian Schmidt (CSU/EPP) once again “stabbed civic BiH in the back”, declaring during a panel discussion: “It is very difficult to explain how Bosnia and Herzegovina functions to people outside the Western Balkans. If we do not take into account its multi-ethnic structure and do not expect it to become a civic state, we will not be successful in the long run. We have to respect the special situation Bosnia and Herzegovina is in,” said the High Representative in BiH. With this statement in Dayton, Schmidt echoed the arguments of the unauthorised agents of Bosnia and Herzegovina before the ECHR, who represented the interests of Republika Srpska and HDZ, as well as the views expressed by ECHR judges in their dissenting opinions in the “Sejdić-Finci” case and other similar proceedings. Both the agents and the dissenting judges attempted to relativise human rights—an effort that ultimately failed to convince the majority in any chamber not to support the applicants from BiH. On the contrary, the majority pointed to the discriminatory provisions in the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina. This German right-winger is now promoting those same discriminatory views and is once again attempting to influence the ECHR judges to overturn the first-instance decision in the case of “Slaven Kovačević v. Bosnia and Herzegovina.” This was Schmidt’s Islamophobic outburst, in which he presumed to question the jurisprudence of the ECHR on the very anniversary of the Dayton Agreement—where the Court holds a special status under Annex IV of the Agreement. It is hard to say who deserves the title of ‘scandal monger’ more: Schmidt, or the faceless EU Special Representative in BiH, Luigi Soreca.
NATO Parliamentary Assembly adopts declaration stressing the need to strengthen defence capabilities
In the newly adopted declaration, the NATO Parliamentary Assembly underscored the importance of stability and peace in the Western Balkans and voiced serious concern over recent legislative initiatives in the Republika Srpska entity of BiH, which threaten to undermine the country’s constitutional order, sovereignty, and territorial and functional integrity, as well as the Dayton Peace Agreement.
Serbia proposed an amendment seeking to remove references to Republika Srpska, but the motion was rejected. Dodik and pro-Russian politicians, led by Željka Cvijanović (SNSD), went to great lengths to portray Milorad Dodik as a defender of the Dayton Peace Agreement — a claim that was met with derision by the diplomatic corps.
US Congressman and Head of the US Delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly Michael R. Turner and NATO Parliamentary Assembly President Marcos Perestrello issued a joint statement addressing the current situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, warning of destabilising factors and emphasising: “Complex challenges remain. Bosnia and Herzegovina is at a critical juncture. We are deeply concerned about the separatist rhetoric and actions coming from the Republika Srpska that threaten the sovereignty, territorial integrity and constitutional order of the country. We welcome the strong and united position of the leaders of the United States of America and Europe in unequivocally condemning this dangerous and destabilising behaviour. Their clear determination to resist such actions and to prevent the emergence of a security vacuum in the region is urgent and commendable.”[6]
Dayton conclusions aligned with the Franco-German “non-paper”
Titled “Responding to attacks by Republika Srpska on the constitutional order of Bosnia and Herzegovina,” the Franco-German non-paper has been presented to the other EU member states.
A sustainable resolution to the crisis will require, above all, the full reintegration of Republika Srpska into the constitutional framework of Bosnia and Herzegovina, a renewed commitment by Bosnian Serbs to the proper functioning of state institutions, and their renewed willingness to undertake all relevant steps outlined in the European Commission’s recommendation[7] of 12 October 2022 for advancing the country’s EU accession process.
The immediate goal of the “non-paper” is the repeal of unconstitutional laws and the withdrawal of the new draft constitution. All avenues to achieve this goal should be considered, with priority given to: 1. financial support; 2. sanctions; 3. enlargement; 4. contacts with RS officials.
Analysts believe that the international community should focus its attention on Bosnia and Herzegovina’s neighbours and their policies towards the country, treating their conduct as a litmus test for the credibility and acceptability of their broader policies in international forums.
General Wesley Clark draws parallels between Putin and Milošević
Speaking in Dayton, General Wesley Clark, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe, likened Russian President Vladimir Putin to Slobodan Milošević. Meanwhile, Croatian delegates aggressively and insidiously promoted the idea of a third entity, the dismantling of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the role of NGOs in the process.
General Clark drew a comparison between Russian President Vladimir Putin and former Serbian President Slobodan Milošević, asking: “How could [Putin] think he could prevail?” He continued: “The same way Slobodan Milošević thought he could pull the wool over Europe’s eyes in 1992, with his small army overwhelming Bosnia. He didn’t get away with it. With your leadership and commitment, Mr. Putin won’t get away with it either.”[8]
Croatian Prime Minister Andrej Plenković (HDZ) and other Croatian representatives made scandalous and aggressive efforts to win over American officials in a bid to secure support for the dismantling of Bosnia and Herzegovina, often resorting to false claims.
Several NGO representatives successfully pushed back against both pro-Russian politicians and Croatian pressure, further underscoring the lack of coordination and strategic focus within the Bosnian delegation in Dayton.
Slovenia’s important role in resolving the political and security crisis in BiH
Since Prime Minister Robert Golob (GS) came to power, the Republic of Slovenia has launched a series of initiatives aimed at bringing Bosnia and Herzegovina closer to EU membership. One of the key outcomes of these efforts was the granting of EU candidate status to BiH. In April, Slovenia, as a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council, called for an emergency session focused specifically on the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
It is estimated that a significant portion of the assets belonging to Milorad Dodik, his close party associates, and affiliated oligarchs has been stashed in Slovenia. Should Slovenia impose sanctions and seize those assets, it could accelerate the resolution of the crisis in BiH by undermining trust within this political-criminal cartel. There are growing expectations that Slovenia will follow the example of other EU countries and impose sanctions on Dodik, whose rhetoric and actions now pose a serious threat to regional stability and BiH’s EU integration. Meanwhile, Dodik has already leveraged his influence and capital to position himself as a political actor within Slovenia as well.
Dragan Čović has no right to obstruct Bosnia and Herzegovina’s EU path
The Council of Ministers is close to forming a new parliamentary majority, which in practice already exists. Nevertheless, HDZ BiH, led by Dragan Čović, is intent on keeping SNSD and Milorad Dodik in power at all costs. SNSD is blocking the establishment of the new majority by denying quorum—simply by not showing up at the session of the House of Peoples.
In the House of Peoples of the BiH Parliamentary Assembly, nine out of fifteen delegates support the dismissal of Speaker Nikola Špirić (SNSD). Yet even five or six months after the new majority was formed, the delegates have not had the chance to vote on the motion to remove him.
The quorum rules need to be amended so that a quorum is constituted by the participation of at least two delegates from each national caucus. This would put an end to obstruction tactics.
Analysts maintain that Dragan Čović and HDZ have no legitimate grounds to block Bosnia and Herzegovina’s path to the EU by disregarding the new parliamentary majority and shielding Milorad Dodik and the SNSD. The new majority would allow BiH’s EU integration process to be unblocked and pave the way for a range of reforms. A final ruling by the Court of BiH on Dodik’s appeal is expected soon. If the first-instance verdict is upheld, he will be barred from political activity, and the Central Election Commission is expected to revoke his mandate as President of Republika Srpska. This would inevitably lead to the formation of a new parliamentary majority and government in the National Assembly of Republika Srpska. Dodik would then find himself in a position similar to that of former North Macedonian Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski (VMRO-DPMNE), and Bosnia and Herzegovina—alongside Serbia—would move forward decisively on its path to EU and NATO integration.
/Argumentum.al
