Bosnia At A Crossroads: Biden’s Legacy And The Path Forward

🔯In 1994, Joe Biden’s visit to the besieged Bosnia, as a senator, seemingly appalled at the atrocities unleashed by the Serbian troops on unarmed Bosnians, made him most popular among Bosnians than those who later orchestrated the Dayton peace agreement in 1995. He emerged as a key player, with an unparalleled admiration among Bosnians, especially for his commitment to addressing the complex political and humanitarian crisis of the country. Biden’s bid to save the country from the catastrophe of ethnically charged violence is perhaps what became his legacy in Bosnia.

🦹His major contribution was getting the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and the United States to intervene for peace to stop the human-made catastrophe, engineered by the Serb authorities. However, despite his advocacy, he could not prevent the country from descending into war, which then culminated into the worst form of ethnic-cleansing, genocide, mass-destruction, and large-scale forced displacement of its non-Serb population.

🍌Nonetheless, Biden’s diplomatic efforts paved the way to the Dayton peace agreement, opened the road for international intervention, and led the country towards democratisation for its long-term stabilisation. 

Also Read | ♛Bosnia-Herzegovina: Haunted By Srebrenica, Divided By Ethnicity 

꧃Biden’s frequent visits to Balkans, both as senator and later as vice president, coupled with his commitment to multilateralism and his advocacy for Bosnia, made him one among a few US politicians with such a comprehensive understanding of Balkan politics. Moreover, his championing of the Muslim cause raised significant expectations among the Bosnian people, who felt that the new president in office would be meticulously involved in the country ever then before, and at least would address its impending political crisis. 

Biden's Betrayal of Trust 

🌜Thirty years ago, Biden’s lashing at the opposition for not lifting the UN-imposed arms embargo—which significantly curtailed Bosnia’s ability to defend itself—brought some serious policies into consideration for the beleaguered Bosnians. It includes the Self-defence Act of 1995, which advocated for Bosnia’s right to protect itself, and a resolution to commemorate the Srebrenica genocide, ensuring that the atrocities would not fade into obscurity. These initiatives underscore two critical aspects: first, his realistic approach to address sensitive international issue, and second, his unwavering support for the sovereignty and security of a newly independent Balkan country.  

ওMuch against this, the former senator and the outgoing president of the United States, Joe Biden, has come under extensive criticism for doing nothing substantial for Bosnia in recent years. His approach has been characterised by what critics perceived as negligence and silence bordering on complicity in the face of ongoing challenges in the region. This sudden change from his earlier stance—when he vociferously pointed at the West’s failure to safeguard innocent Muslims—is also regarded by many as a betrayal of trust by the president. Rather than preserving close ties with Bosnia that he once championed, the Biden administration distanced itself, signalling a surprising shift in U.S. foreign policy. In fact, Biden adopted a conciliatory approach towards Serbia, a country responsible for political instability in the region. 

🀅The ensuing disillusionment has shocked Bosnians who had placed their profound trust in Biden, particularly following the turbulent years of Donald Trump’s first tenure of presidency. Although the Biden administration had all the tools that are required to drive successful political and economic transformations in Bosnia, he chose to betray his own legacy. This possibly came due to a shift in the international order, which has also shifted the focus of global leaders. As several observers have underscored, the world is in the ‘transitional phase vis-à-vis the liberal international order. This shift has brought profound changes in the foreign policies of major powers, raising concerns for weaker countries. 

🔥Additionally, Washington’s departure from its commitments to safeguard human rights, the rule of law, and democracy has raised serious questions on previous and forthcoming (Trump) administrations. And it also comes as a surprise that, despite supporting early reforms, significant military, political, and financial investments, and the appointment of special High Representative, for envisioning the US-authored Dayton agreement in Bosnia, Washington has sidelined Bosnia while deepening its commitments to Belgrade. On the one hand, the region continues to demand significant attention due to growing hardline nationalists and their secessionist movements sweeping across its territory. On the other hand, Washington appears least interested to engage in Bosnia’s deep political and security problems, such as ethnic tensions and erosion of democracy. 

𒁃Above all, West’s inability to view the Western Balkans through a broader lens—beyond aid, humanitarianism, and the promotion of democracy—has left many analysts stunned, partly because of its failure to effectively manage the “carrots and sticks” policies to handle its crisis. The downside of this narrow approach might push the region back into renewed conflict or even brutal war, triggering the domino effect. Under such conditions, radical Serbo-nationalism and right-wing populism are emerging as tight competitors to democracy. To a certain degree it might complicate efforts by the US and the European Union to contend with Russia and China and other actors taking inroads into the region. 

EU’s Hesitation 

𝔍In the face of global challenges, such as environmental, technological, political, economic, and security, the US finds itself the recipient of every demand and is called upon in every crisis. Whereas the European Union and its member countries have shown limited willingness to actively intervene in conflict, be it in a strategically significant region on their periphery.

꧃Although, EU works with other countries and international organisations to promote its values and interests on the global stage, its inability to address predicaments in its own periphery, without Washington’s assistance, underscores its limitations as a ‘global actor.’ As a matter of fact, it also exposes EU’s selective engagement, particularly in the Balkans, a region fraught with knotty disputes that the EU prefers not to inherit. 

ꦿIn Western Balkans, countries like Serbia receive significant attention from the EU, despite it defying EU’s call to normalise its relations with Kosovo (to usher regional cooperation) and align with the EU to impose sanctions on Russia over the war in Ukraine. Even though Serbia is seeking EU membership, its president, Aleksander Vučić, has openly accused the EU of brutally meddling in the internal affairs of Balkan states. Belgrade is also responsible for carrying out coordinated attacks with Moscow, inside Bosnia, especially through its ‘satellite statelet’ of Republika Srpska. 

🤪We also see Bosnia still stuck in the waiting room for EU’s accession, whereas Serbia is ahead in the process despite its sluggish and frivolous performance in fundamental reform areas, suggested by the EU. This impartial approach has engendered a sense of disappointment among the majority of Bosnians. The prospects of EU and NATO membership is essential for bringing economic and political equilibrium to the region which is grappling with a multitude of internal and external threats, sponsored by Russia through its regional proxy groups, and is broadly perceived as Europe’s next potential geopolitical battleground. Although the entire Balkan region is referred as the ‘powder keg of Europe’, but it should not be perceived as the EU’s backyard but rather its courtyard imbued with considerable strategic importance. 

ౠIf the EU aims to restore the trust in its leadership and halt the spread of illiberal politics that is sweeping across the entire Europe, the Western Balkans presents an ideal area, requiring a diligent and impartial approach. Essentially, the EU and US must work together to transform the region into a sustainable democracy by not offering quick fixes but by expediting the accession process of Bosnia simultaneously into NATO and EU. Such a move would perhaps save the region succumbing to Russian and Serbian nationalistic aspirations and their historical territorial claims over Bosnia. Likewise, Bosnia must not merely rely on EU’s accession as a primary financial incentive, as Serbian stablitocrats often do. Instead, it must remain steadfast in pursuing overarching goals of democratic consolidation. Should Euro-American alliance weaken under the Trump administration, Bosnia is likely to face greater instability, both politically and economically. Moreover, the vacuum left behind by the EU and US in this already hostile region would be filled by extremist forces, rolling back years of progress achieved under various peacebuilding missions. 

(Ambreen Yousuf is a researcher based in New Delhi, with specialisation in Western Balkans)