Bosnia becomes latest battleground in widening US-Europe divide
A growing US-European divide over the future of Bosnia and Herzegovina has emerged, centered on a dispute regarding a key administrative position, prompting the US to threaten to “reconsider” its involvement in international peacekeeping efforts.
The US embassy in Sarajevo made the threat after European nations rejected the US’s preferred candidate for the new High Representative for the international community. During a meeting this week in Sarajevo of the Peace Implementation Council (PIC) – a multinational group responsible for overseeing the implementation of the 1995 Dayton peace agreement – Washington supported an Italian diplomat, Antonio Zanardi Landi, while the UK, France, Germany, and most European nations backed France’s envoy to the Western Balkans, René Troccaz.
The Trump administration also argued for a reduction in the High Representative’s power to enforce the principles of the Dayton Agreement, which ended a war that cost 100,000 lives but has not significantly healed Bosnia’s ethnic divisions.
In a post on X, the US embassy in Sarajevo stated: “The United States takes note of the European failure to reach consensus around a European candidate and is disappointed these divisions prevented the PIC from fulfilling its task to elect a new High Representative. European indecisiveness, and the PIC’s abdication of its own duty toward [Bosnia and Herzegovina], is forcing the United States to reconsider our role in the current international presence in Bosnia and Herzegovina.”
The US no longer maintains a substantial military presence in Bosnia, where there is a small EU peacekeeping force, but it continues to play an influential role through the PIC and bilateral relations.
The PIC is expected to attempt again to achieve consensus on the High Representative position towards the end of the month, when compromise candidates may emerge.
One European official suggested that the region might benefit if the US reduced its role, amid growing suspicions about the Trump administration’s motives. Last year, it lifted sanctions on Milorad Dodik, the Moscow-backed Serb secession leader, following a reportedly multimillion-dollar lobbying campaign in Washington.
The US also pressured the outgoing High Representative, Christian Schmidt, to resign after he imposed punitive measures on Dodik for undermining the Dayton Agreement.
Meanwhile, Trump’s relatives and associates have increasingly pursued business interests in Bosnia, including a visit by the US president’s son, Donald Trump Jr, to the main Bosnian Serb town of Banja Luka in April as a guest of Dodik’s son.
Jasmin Mujanović, a Balkans political analyst and author of two books on Bosnia, said the Trump administration appeared to have miscalculated its influence over the Europeans in the PIC.
“The Americans seemed to think it was sort of irrelevant what the Europeans thought and assumed they were going to fall in line, and I think that was a misreading of the moment,” Mujanović said. “It does not seem like the US had consulted particularly widely with its allies in terms of selecting Mr. Landi.
“It raises the question in my mind why they are so insistent on Mr. Landi. We don’t know what understandings are between Landi and the Americans that make them so enthusiastic for him.”
Reports from the PIC meeting in Sarajevo on Wednesday and Thursday indicated that the US promoted Landi more enthusiastically than Italy itself.
Kurt Bassuener, a co-founder of the Berlin-based Democratization Policy Council think tank, said: “This isn’t just a personnel decision. This is a strategic decision and it has to be integrated with a regional strategy. It would seem that the American position is driven not only ideologically, but also by a business push. It seems like that’s job number one: get concessions, get contracts, and extract, extract, extract.”
Explore more:
Comments:
comments powered by Disqus
