AMERICA IS CHANGING ITS POLICY IN BOSNIA: No more sanctions for Serbs, no more tutors, the three peoples will have to reach agreements!

The speech by Ambassador Dorothy Shea in the UN Security Council marks a historic shift — Washington no longer wants to engage in “nation-building.”

It is spoken softly, but the message is clear: the era of American interventionism in Bosnia and Herzegovina is over. The address by U.S. Ambassador to the UN Dorothy Shea before the Security Council was diplomatically courteous, but politically a turning point. When the highest American representative at the UN says that “the United States is no longer pursuing a policy of nation-building” and that “solutions must come from within, from local actors, representatives of the three constituent peoples” — that is not just a change in rhetoric. It is the announcement of the end of an era.

American era

After the signing of the Dayton Agreement in 1995, the United States was the key architect of the new Bosnia and Herzegovina. Washington, under the Clinton doctrine of liberal interventionism, assumed the role not only of peace guarantor, but also of creator of a new social order.

The Americans then believed that democracy could be constructed like a building — with a plan, donations, and Bonn Powers.

In the name of “state functionality,” pressure was exerted both on Bosnia and on its politicians: competencies were transferred from the entities to the state, central institutions were strengthened, courts, agencies, ministries established.

Every new reform carried the prefix “with the support of the international community.”

The peak of that project was the attempt known as the April Package in 2006, when the U.S. and its allies tried, through constitutional amendments, to redefine the political architecture of BiH. The failure of that package — most influenced by Haris Silajdžić — marked the beginning of the end of the illusion that Bosnia would become an American protectorate functioning according to the model of Western democracies. Already during the Barack Obama administration, U.S. interventionism in the internal affairs of Bosnia and Herzegovina became far less significant, only to be suddenly revived again with the arrival of Joe Biden.

Former and still last U.S. Ambassador to BiH Michael Murphy took active interference in political processes to new heights. From openly pressuring political leaders to publicly supporting state prosecutors working on the Novalić case or “pro-European” coalitions and post-election combinations — the U.S. Embassy often played the role of arbiter, and sometimes even of chief political engineer.

But that approach no longer has support in Washington itself. With the shift in America’s geopolitical paradigm under the Trump administration, U.S. policy is transitioning from global liberal interventionism to the realpolitik of national interests.

FIND OUT MORE:

BLUMBERG TVRDI: Rio Tinto obustavio projekat eksploatacije litijuma u dolini reke Jadar!

Return to Dayton

Trump’s concept of foreign policy sees no purpose in endless attempts to “fix” Balkan states. The focus is on what Shea clearly emphasizes: stability, local solutions, and national sovereignties. In short — America will no longer be concerned with reforming Bosnia and Herzegovina, but only with maintaining its peace.

That is precisely why Shea, in her speech, welcomes the “positive moves by the National Assembly of RS” and explains the lifting of sanctions as a “de-escalation measure.” This is a diplomatic way of saying: Washington will no longer be the judge that punishes the disobedient, but an observer that rewards stability.

For pro-Bosnian parties, this is a sobering realization: there will no longer be ambassadors who forcibly balance relations, impose solutions, create policies, and run the state in their place. Nor will the “civic concept” many of them advocate have the sympathy of the world’s leading power (the mention of agreements among representatives of the three constituent peoples is a clear message).

But perhaps it is also an opportunity. Without an external tutor, Bosnian politicians will finally have to sit down and agree.

American interventionism helped greatly in building institutions, but ultimately did not produce a functional state. It brought lasting dependency, political infantilism, and the habit of resolving key issues in embassies rather than institutions.

If the end of that era is what Dorothy Shea is announcing, then it is, paradoxically, perhaps the beginning of a new — Bosnian era of responsibility. Without illusions, without tutors, and without excuses.

Recognition of Dayton

In a broader context, this fits perfectly into the post-Cold War transition of American policy. From the “end of history” in the 1990s, through the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, to today’s multipolar world, the U.S. has abandoned attempts to create nations by decree. For Bosnia and Herzegovina, this means a return to its real framework — the Dayton Constitution, which recognizes three constituent peoples and a complex structure of compromise, which, of course, many will not welcome.