Yes, a complicated beginning.
But how did this manifest in practice—if anything in history can be considered practical—over the last approximately two hundred years?
During the pro-Western rebellion of Bosnian Husein Kapetan Gradaščević in 1831, the chaotic events necessitated a choice between support from Vienna and Pest or remaining within the Ottoman Empire, agreeing to the planned reduction of Bosnian autonomy.
East or West
With the suppression of the rebellion, Husein Kapetan crossed the Sava into Austro-Hungarian territory, after which he was “convinced” to head to Belgrade, where he was received with high honors by local Muslims before being sent into exile in Istanbul. The pro-Western orientation failed. For a few more decades, they remained in “Eastern ties.”
With the arrival of Austro-Hungary in Bosnia about fifty years later and the occupation mandate from the Berlin Congress in 1878, there was again historical pressure for obligatory orientation: West or East, Vienna or Istanbul, Danube or Bosphorus.
Rebellions failed; the East withdrew; the Berlin mandate prevailed. Many emigrated; others accepted the new authority, which began organizing state administration, land registries, building roads and railways, and introducing a new architectural and ideological approach—the modernity of that era.
During the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, a treacherous and hypocritical division of Bosnia occurred: banovinas – a difficult situation where Bosniaks found themselves in impossible state-building circumstances. Through Spahe, there remained a slim possibility of seeking better survival conditions from Belgrade. Nevertheless, many chose to emigrate to Turkey. From this historical point onward, emigration would head towards the West.
During the non-aligned SFR Yugoslavia, things changed. Foreign and domestic policy became a space for equal participation of officials from Bosnia and Herzegovina, especially after the 1974 Constitution. Tito led foreign policy towards Non-Aligned nations, the Middle East, Maghreb, and Indochina while including elite cadres from Bosnia and Herzegovina in direct political action. This did not please many on either East or West.
The referendum on independence in 1992 brought a clear and firm decision: West – yes! Acclamation support was achieved through a clearly defined collective political consciousness about the real path and future belonging.
Facing a Paradox
Let’s return to the present. Again there is a demand for very complex orientation under intricate circumstances that touch upon principles and essence of statehood, people, democracy.
The question regarding Christian Schmidt is one of whether West or East. However, the question is more complex as it enters a zone of political and logical paradox. Schmidt insists on ethnicity to protect the alliance formed by the Washington Agreement. Does he have Washington’s support? Yes. A diabolical dilemma has been imposed—if you want to go West (EU and NATO), you must agree to ethnicity. If you are for a civic state in line with all key civic democratic judgments, you choose East.
Most Bosniak citizens want EU membership and a civic state. Schmidt and OHR believe that this is not possible at this time. Is Schmidt preventing such an approach from developing into a civic state because it might push the country towards the East?
Would the East support a civic state only if Bosniaks choose East?
Within the pro-Bosnian party spectrum, political parties advocating for a civic state are clearly outlined but so are those supporting EU membership and NATO.
Yes, these are the same parties; however, opting for the first option leads toward the East while those parties genuinely desire EU membership and NATO.
A Trap Set
Again choosing between West or East. The trap was set during intense lobbying that led to the formula: ethnicities in BiH and FBiH remain dominant; this aligns with the Washington Agreement along with all advantages such an alliance brings for both war and peace.
Our best friends in the West have been secretly convinced that a civic state means “pulling” BiH toward East despite that those most consistently advocating for a civic state solely wish to go West (sic!).
Our European friends have also been convinced that a civic state leads to the disappearance of “the most western ethnic element in BiH – Croats,” thus within this scenario Bosnia becomes a Bosniak-Serb issue or at a higher global level—a “Muslim-Orthodox matter.” Such an outcome triggers all red lights and ship sirens among our best friends and European allies.
The bureaucratic Western world has been offered an inverted image as proof; they were shown a negative developed film where things are reversed—the shades of darkness are actually light while visibly passable fields appear dark and gloomy…
The political and diplomatic struggle continues as the state moves through history. Is it possible to achieve a civic state and EU membership—this is now the question?
Schmidt knows what he is doing; it’s our move now. If we gain NATO membership, the problem is almost solved.
The author is a career diplomat from Bosnia and Herzegovina and currently serves as Bosnia and Herzegovina’s ambassador to India.
Source: Radio Sarajevo
