Bosnia’s political leaders, as well certain foreign actors, are trying to keep the country in a perpetual state of instability without central oversight, while efforts to achieve certain goals that were not achieved in the 1990s are ongoing in the country, senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, Majda Ruge, UK House of Lords member, Baroness Arminka Helic and BiH House of Representatives member, Damir Arnaut, said at a UK Foreign Affairs Committee discussion on Bosnia.

Baroness Helic warned that certain goals that were not fulfilled during the war of the 1990s “are now being picked up again and being taken forward through different means” and that there is an attempt to achieve “independence from Bosnia and Herzegovina” and a potential confederation agreement with neighbouring Serbia.

Ruge stressed that “instability comes from political leaders, not people” in BiH and that “the tensions that many continue to see as inter-ethnic and between groups are steered and controlled by political actors with very immediate agendas.”

She cited the results of a 2019 poll among BiH citizens who were asked what they perceive as the biggest threat to security, noting that “32 percent said organised crime and only 17 percent said ethnic conflict.”

While she noted that there are ethnic divisions in the country, she stressed that political leaders decided to amplify them in the past 15 years.

She said that what is behind these agendas is “a policy of keeping Bosnia dysfunctional, and keeping it a consequence-free environment.”

Ruge said that political leaders, such as BiH tripartite Presidency member Milorad Dodik, want to have “full freedom of action” within Bosnia’s Republika Srpska (RS) entity and the country s a whole, and remove any risk “to their autocratic rule.”

“The biggest problem is that the Constitution, as it is formulated, does not have incentives for cooperation and reaching out to other communities,” she said, adding that there is a purposeful agenda of “keeping the groups as separate as possible” and any oversight on the state level “interferes with this agenda.”

BiH MP Damir Arnaut said that Bosnia “has been caught in this vicious cycle of corruption and nationalism.”

“One has been used to perpetuate the other and vice-versa,” he said, arguing that corrupt political leaders have abused the issue of ethnicity to further their corrupt activities and to protect their ill-gotten gains.”

He said that Dodik is “most responsible for elevating state-capture” in Bosnia to a new level.

He noted that the most recent sanctions the United States introduced against BiH officials have focused on corruption and should be broadened to include additional actors on the ground, but should also be imposed by more countries – the United Kingdom in particular, as well as individual European Union countries if the EU is unable to speak with one voice on the issue.

Arnaut said that the ethnic territorial arrangements set up in the Dayton Peace Agreement “have been conducive to the spread of corruption, gradual state capture and the growing influence of political parties at the expense of state institutions.”

“Such arrangements award nationalist rhetoric and focus on ethnic teams and discourage cross-ethnic appeal. They discourage parties from talking about economic and rule of law policies and moderation. In order to reverse this trend, reforms should take advantage of the opportunities presented by the European Court rulings to erode those arrangements rather than to strengthen these ethno-territorial arrangements,” he stressed.

According to Helic, Bosnia has not only been under pressure from both regional countries that interfered in its matters, but has also in the last 10 years become “an interesting subject to countries like China and Russia.”

The reason why Bosnia became interesting is that it is a country that is easily kept in what she described as “the twilight zone” – a state of perpetual instability that can be easily maintained, manipulated and used as leverage on the international scene.

She said that the interests of Bosnia’s neighbouring countries, particularly Serbia, encouraged Bosnia’s Republika Srpska entity in regard to its secessionist efforts.

She said that Russia has abused its power to hinder Bosnia’s Euro-Atlantic integration.

“A surprising player in the region has been Hungary, which has become sort of a partner in this destabilizing process of Bosnia, by supporting the secessionists,” she said, adding that the same goes for Slovenia and to some degree Croatia.

Ruge said that the above-mentioned actors, Russia and EU members Hungary and Croatia have “a very good division of labour” when it comes to this agenda.

“While Russia can use its veto in the UN Security Council, Hungary and Croatia can use their power at the table in the EU to drive the EU agenda on Bosnia, and that is done in many different ways, but also to block the EU’s agency in terms of effective foreign policy approach and, more specifically, EU’s ability to follow suit on sanctions that were already twice imposed against Milorad Dodik and his enablers,” she said.

She argued that Hungary has “demonstrated its commitment to partnership with like-minded illiberal leaders from the Western Balkans when it offered asylum to Nikola Gruevski, the former Prime Minister from North Macedonia,” she said.

“And precisely that level of solidarity has been given to Milorad Dodik,” she added, calling him a “deeply corrupt” political leader who abuses his power.

She also noted that Orban publicly supported Dodik’s efforts, promised economic investment for the RS and announced that Hungary would block attempts to impose EU sanctions against the Bosnian Serb political leader.

As for Croatia, Ruge argued that the country is not an objective observer as it likes to present itself.

She said that both Serbia and Croatia are supporting a tactic according to which they officially support Bosnia’s sovereignty, but in reality support their policies “seeking to further fragment Bosnia and ethnicise the decision-making system.” Croatia’s efforts are most visible on the issue of electoral law reform in Bosnia, she said.

Arnaut warned that “Russia’s activities are on the rise” in Bosnia and that this is easily noticeable.

He argued that the pattern Russia seems to follow is in line with the “subversive activities” it has undertaken in North Macedonia and Montenegro in previous years.

“Russia’s aim is preventing further NATO and EU integration or reversing such processes where they are already taking place,” he said.

Arnaut, however, warned about the influence of some other countries as well – particularly China’s “increasing efforts in the direction of spreading its economic influence in Bosnia’s energy, telecommunications and infrastructure sectors.”

He argued that western powers should invest in those political forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina which are not ready to give up control of strategic resources to companies from countries that do not share western values.

He said that the willingness of Bosnia’s neighbouring countries to work with Russia, particularly EU member Croatia, to “perpetuate and strengthen territorial arrangements in Bosnia, is really unconscionable.”

Ruge, Helic and Arnaut all argued that western powers should align their policies towards Bosnia and that NATO and EU presence should be strengthened on the ground in order to provide a deterrent force that would be able to respond to any possible scenario.

“We need to show resolve and unity that we have in a way regarding the crisis in Ukraine. This is something that has unfortunately been missing in Bosnia. There is disagreement within the EU and the EU is finding itself almost in paranoia on Bosnia and how to deal with it, while some actors inside of it are using this indecisiveness to act in a negative way and actually operate on the playbook that has been written in Kremlin rather than in Brussels,” Helic said.

She argued that “the easiest way of averting a disaster in Bosnia is making sure that the issue of borders and secession is taken off the table” and that this can only be done if there is a safe and secure environment,” secured by a deterrent force on the ground.