Bosnia is one of the most beautiful countries in Europe,
filled with dense forests and stunning mountains.
However, it's also a country in deep difficulties.
A quarter of a century after a landmark peace agreement brought its brutal war to an end,
it remains deeply divided.
With an unwieldy and dysfunctional political system,
there have been repeated calls for fundamental changes - including the
abolition of Republika Srpska, one of the country's two territorial entities.
But is this really the solution?
Hello and welcome to Banja Luka, the second largest city in Bosnia and Herzegovina and
the main city of Republika Srpska, one of the country's two constituent entities.
If you're new to the channel, my name is James Ker-Lindsay and here I take an informed look
at international relations, conflict, security and statehood.
Peace agreements rarely, if ever, leave everyone happy.
Usually they're a compromise that the sides can accept, rather than want or like.
But while many will eventually become durable settlements that
allow a country to rebuild and regain a semblance of normality,
in some cases the terms of an agreement can become a lingering source of resentment and instability.
One of the best examples in modern international relations is Bosnia-Herzegovina.
In 1995, a peace deal was reached that brought the fractured country
back together after a bitter war.
But the price was a complex political system built
around an oddly imbalanced territorial arrangement.
However, a quarter century later that agreement seems to be at breaking point.
Repeated calls for reform have been
rejected and there are warnings that the country may now return to conflict.
But what's the way out of it?
For many, the answer hinges on Republika Srpska - the Bosnian
Serb entity that now forms half the country.
Bosnia and Herzegovina lies in southeast Europe, sharing borders with Croatia,
Montenegro and Serbia.
At 51,000 square kilometers, or 20 000 square miles,
it's the 125th largest but 193 members of the United Nations.
Its population of around 3.4 million is divided between three main groups.
The largest are the Bosniaks.
Once known as Bosnian Muslims, they make up around half the country's inhabitants.
Next are the Bosnian Serbs at around 30 percent, followed by the Bosnian Croats at 15 percent.
The remaining three percent or so
include Albanians, Roma, Jews and other minority communities.
Although Bosnia has a truly fascinating history sitting at the meeting point between Orthodox
and Catholic Christianity and Islam, our story really begins with the disintegration
of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia at the start of the 1990s.
In March 1992, and following the lead of three other federal republics - Croatia, Slovenia
and Macedonia - Bosnia and Herzegovina declared independence, joining the UN just months later.
However, this was rejected by the country's Serbs.
With the support of neighbouring Serbia, the largest of Yugoslavia's republics,
they unilaterally broke away - forming their own separatist state, Republika Srpska.
In the period that followed, Bosnia collapsed into a bitter and brutal
three-way war as the Bosnian Croats also declared their independence.
However, in early 1994 the first steps to peace were taken when the Bosnian Croats and the
Bosnian Muslims were persuaded to form a joint entity in the west and centre of the country:
the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina .
Made up of 10 cantons, or federal units, each had considerable self-government.
Meanwhile, the war with the Bosnian Serbs would continue for another year and a half
until the massacre of 8,000 Bosniak men and boys by Bosnian Serb forces around Srebrenica
forced the United States and its European partners to intervene and organise peace talks.
On 14 December 1995, the leaders of Bosnia, Croatia and Serbia
signed the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Better known as the Dayton Accords, this saw Republika Srpska,
which now consisted of 49 percent of Bosnia's territory,
give up its claim to independence and reintegrate into the state alongside the federation.
[MUSIC]
Under the agreement, almost all day-to-day issues were handled by the entities.
The weak central government dealt with only a few key areas,
such as foreign policy, immigration and customs.
Moreover, the structure of the central government
was also designed to reflect the power of the entities.
The country's joint presidency was made up of two members - a Bosniak
and a Croat - from the Federation and a Serb from Republika Srpska.
And the Council of Ministers was also divided on a two-to-one ratio
between the Federation and Republika Srpska.
At first, it seemed as if the country was recovering with signs of reconciliation
and reintegration - including the creation of a single military.
However, after about a decade serious problems emerged as the country's
political structures entrenching ethnic identity came to be seen as discriminatory.
As attempts at reform failed, positions hardened and the country became increasingly dysfunctional.
For their part, Bosnian Serb nationalist leaders began talking openly about breaking away to form
an independent state or even uniting with Serbia - both options banned under the peace deal.
Meanwhile, the Bosnian Croats began to call for their own entity
similar to Republika Srpska - a position that's increasingly supported by neighbouring Croatia.
In contrast, the Bosniaks saw the problems as a product of excessive decentralisation
that had led to what's been called a 'federation within a federation'.
Steadfastly rejecting calls for a new Croatian entity, many Bosniaks now began
to openly talk of abolishing Republika Srpska, or RS as it's widely known.
But is this really the answer?
To many Bosniaks, and indeed some outside observers,
the case for getting rid of Republika Srpska is clear.
Leaving aside the problematic origins of the entity,
which many openly call the product of genocide, they point out the ever more
difficult relationship between RS and the central government.
They also note that the Bosnian Serb leadership
is dominated by nationalists who reject the very existence of the Bosnian state.
Indeed, the Bosnian Serb member of the presidency, Milorad Dodik, a former
president of Republika Srpska, continually threatens to hold a vote on breaking away.
Failing this, there seems to be a concerted effort by Bosnian
Serb leaders to make the country as dysfunctional as they possibly can.
On top of this, many Bosniaks will point out that there are worrying signs
that Serb nationalism is alive and well.
Indeed, across many Bosnian Serb towns and villages one can see graffiti
hero worshiping the entity's wartime leaders - many of whom were convicted of war crimes.
Moreover, there's been a growing move to deny the atrocities committed during the conflict,
including Srebrenica.
As they see it, Bosniaks believe
that RS entrenches the nationalism of the past and is holding the country back.
Of course, Bosnian Serbs paint a very different picture.
As they see it, Republika Srpska is a legitimate entity underwritten by international treaties;
but it's now an entity that's been increasingly challenged by the Bosniaks,
who've always wanted a reason to abolish it.
Indeed, they'll point out that Bosniaks are
just as imbued with exclusionary nationalism as their own leaders.
And while many Bosnian Serbs acknowledge that the leadership talks about secession,
most know that this is unrealistic.
Any attempt to break away would fail.
Instead, many ordinary Bosnian Serbs know that the threat to breakaway is
in fact being used by the likes of Dodik and others for their own political ends.
On top of this, while it might be tempting to think that all Bosnian Serbs look to
Serbia as some sort of motherland, in fact the picture is far more complex than that.
While they certainly see themselves as Serbs, Bosnia is their homeland, - not Serbia.
In private, many acknowledge that if they did join Serbia
they would merely become a provincial backwater.
As for the veneration of war criminals, many will point out that this is really something
that's held on to by a relatively small section of nationalists.
It certainly doesn't mean that the wider community wants to see a return to conflict.
As one person put it, the war was recent enough for most people to know that a return to fighting
certainly isn't the answer.
So, is abolishing RS the answer?
First of all, it's clear that Bosnia does in fact need reform.
This is a country where the system of governance has been
judged to be contrary to basic human rights.
Not only that, but the inability to introduce reforms is affecting the lives of ordinary people.
It's a country that feels like it's stagnating.
Perhaps most importantly, this failure to reform is preventing Bosnia from pursuing EU membership,
which in turn will be an important driver for change.
But, again, could this be remedied by getting rid of RS?
In truth, the answer would seem to be no - or at least not for the foreseeable future.
As difficult as it is for many Bosniaks to hear,
RS - as an entity - isn't the problem that many present it as being.
There are many countries with highly devolved political entities.
In fact, if we're to be completely honest,
RS is more functional as a single entity than the Federation, made up of its various units.
More to the point, there's simply no feasible way
for it to happen - and certainly not without a return to conflict.
Even if the Bosnian Serbs don't want more war,
they're simply not going to give up territorial control.
And there's no international support for such an idea.
Foreign diplomats are quick to point out that RS is here to stay.
But we also need to recognise that the way the RS has evolved - as
an ethno-national entity - entrenches many of the problems that Bosnia faces.
It provides an important lightning rod for nationalist politicians
on both sides - or all sides - to energize their communities.
And this becomes a destabilizing vicious circle.
As Bosnian Serbs talk about breaking away, Bosniaks respond by getting rid of RS,
which in turn reinforces the Bosnian Serb message that secession has got to be their way out.
And so on, and so forth.
In this sense, one gets the real feeling that abolishing
RS isn't the panacea that many seem to think it is.
Instead, the very first step towards any fundamental reform
must be focused on moving away from the nationalist leaders talking points.
To do this, Bosniaks and Bosnian Serbs need to come to terms with two key principles:
that Bosnia-Herzegovina is a single indivisible state that's here to stay
and that RS is an entity that makes up that state.
In other words, Bosnian Serbs need to stop questioning the territorial integrity of
the Bosnian state and Bosniaks need to stop questioning the legitimacy of Republika Srpska.
Perhaps then, the country may get to a situation where the sides truly trust each other enough
that a more fundamental change can eventually be realized.
But, even then, it will inevitably have to be built on compromise.
The question is what sort of compromise rearrangements
the sides would be willing to accept - and what sort of arrangements they'd be willing to accept
that this time would build the foundations for a sustainable future state of Bosnia-Herzegovina.