NATO Should Replace OHR as Guarantor of Bosnias Stability …

That said, simply closing the OHR in the absence any compensatory institutional replacement would be a catastrophic strategic mistake which would likely leading to Bosnias dissolution driven by malign actors opposed to its survival as a unified and functional state in the Western Balkans.

For this reason, the closure of the OHR can only occur in tandem with its replacement by a stable institution capable of providing genuine stability and security for Bosnia and thus the necessary domestic conditions for political progress and reform; a task which only NATO can perform and this despite the many policy challenges currently facing the alliance.

Before going further, we must acknowledge that there is presently no political consensus within Bosnia to join the Atlantic alliance, and that NATO would not welcome a new candidate less than fully committed to its values, responsibilities, and commitments. A Bosnia ambivalent about its commitment inside NATO would pose a substantial security and operational risk to the alliances in-country mission.

Surmounting this political and diplomatic hurdle involves, a priori, addressing the more fundamental question: why would NATO membership advance political unity and reform in Bosnia any more effectively than the long-standing but now waning Dayton intervention?

In contrast to the OHR, the presence of the Atlantic alliance in Bosnia would function as a credible and permanent post-Dayton safeguard against the threat of renewed violence, secession, and war. Even for those in Bosnia who ostensibly or otherwise oppose it, NATO would create the much needed cover for Bosnian political leaders to undertake something which they must inevitably do sooner or later: take full responsibility for the future of the country without either depending on or resisting the OHR.

Looking further into the future, NATOs presence in Bosnias security would also serve as an institutional bridge for the EU which the OHR could not to articulate and implement a new enlargement strategy for Bosnia and the Western Balkans.

There are those who argue, not unreasonably, that it would be unwise to pursue NATO membership for Bosnia without including Serbia and Kosovo in the mix. A regional approach to NATO membership would certainly be efficacious for a number of reasons, not least because it would eliminate unwelcome interstate competition over the timing of future entry into membership. However, NATO accession process has historically been conducted on a state-by-state basis, reflecting the different needs and requirements of each aspirant. This is unlikely to change. Pursuing Bosnian membership in NATO should therefore not be delayed or put on hold for the laudable but more difficult objective of simultaneous entry into NATO of all three Western Balkan states.

So, how and in what way would a shift from OHR to NATO be achieved, and over what time frame? The first and most obvious step would be the completion of the Bosnian Membership Action Plan, the MAP. However, concurrent with this process, there would also be a need for a negotiated agreement between the OHR (and potentially the PIC Steering Board) and representatives of the government of Bosnia on the final status of decisions, legislation and other actions taken by the OHR since 1996. I take the view that the clock cannot be turned back and that many, if not almost all, OHR actions since Dayton under review should remain in place. Ideally, the entire process should take place within a timetable of no more than five years after the 2020 elections in Bosnia.

Dwight Eisenhower, the first Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, believed that, for every obstacle there is a solution. Persistence is the key. The greatest mistake is giving up! Almost a quarter-century after Dayton, the time has come for the leaders and people of Bosnia and the International Community, led by the United States and European Union, to undertake a robust, new process to close the Dayton chapter and set Bosnia, once and for all, on a new post-Dayton path toward political stability, security, and prosperity. The simultaneous negotiated closure of the OHR and entry into NATO membership for Bosnia would provide, I believe, the most important first step to that end.

R. Bruce Hitchner was a member of the negotiating team that assisted the Bosnian political parties in negotiating the April Package of Constitutional Reforms in 2005-6. He is currently Professor of Classical Studies and International Relations at Tufts University in Massachusetts (USA) and the former Chairman of the Dayton Peace Accords Project.

The opinions expressed in the Comment section are those of the authors only and do not necessarily reflect the views of BIRN.

View original post here:
NATO Should Replace OHR as Guarantor of Bosnias Stability ...