Almost nine years ago, just a few days before the UN Security Council vote on the British draft resolution regarding the genocide in Srebrenica on July 8, 2015, I wrote a piece that elicited a reaction from then-Prime Minister of Serbia, Aleksandar Vučić.

The beginning particularly irritated him: “Let us dream for just one minute that Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina jointly propose a resolution on the Srebrenica genocide. And that they do so in Belgrade and Sarajevo. Let’s assume that official Serbia finally acknowledges the crime that judicial institutions of the civilized world have repeatedly proven and ruled on. Let’s think for a second that this government of the Bosnian entity, Republika Srpska, recognizes what high military and political representatives of that RS government were responsible for according to those same final rulings. Let’s assume that Prime Minister Aleksandar Vučić utters that word when speaking about this horrific crime… Let’s imagine that he and Milorad Dodik humbly bow before the innocent victims and that, side by side with political representatives from BiH, they pay their respects and send a clear message to the civilized world that the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina is over. Then European, American, and British resolutions would be superfluous. In Potočari, Joe Biden, Bill Clinton, Ahmet Davutoglu, and Federica Mogherini would also be unnecessary… It would be enough for us to look towards a bright future together as neighbors, with learned lessons from the past. But let’s not deceive ourselves. Official Serbia lacks that strength. Its politics lacks that vision. Aleksandar Vučić lacks that courage. The war in Bosnia and Herzegovina is not yet over. That is why we need both Joe Biden and Bill Clinton, Ahmet Davutoglu, and Federica Mogherini in Srebrenica… And that is why we need resolutions from both the European Parliament and the US Congress as well as from the UN Security Council… We need an external factor to ensure that some delusional and frenzied nationalist does not take us back 20 years and transfer war from his mind into our villages and towns. We also need our own strength and wisdom to remain steadfast in defending judicial truth and a democratic and integral state.”

Diplomacy of BiH and Serbia in Direct Confrontation

Today, nearly nine years after Serbia’s Pyrrhic victory in the UN Security Council with Russian veto support, the Resolution on Srebrenica is once again relevant. This time member states are deciding democratically in the UN General Assembly without veto rights, but certainly along a fragile geopolitical dividing line. More dramatic than this is the diplomatic struggle between Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia for every possible vote on this heated world stage.

It is indicative that even nine years after the Russian veto, BiH authorities have not given up defending the judicial truth of the civilized world despite all possible denials and obstructions from the RS entity. For several months now, far from public view, Chairman of the Presidency of BiH Denis Bećirović has been working on a resolution. In recent days, along with Presidency member Željko Komšić, he has actively lobbied in New York at the highest levels of the UN, including with permanent representatives of member states.

The synergy from the Presidency of BiH through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to diplomatic and consular representations is noteworthy despite mutual animosities among some key participants. BiH Foreign Minister Elmedin Konaković recorded a video message; however, a few phone calls to undecided ministerial colleagues would have been more effective diplomatic communication.

According to this author’s knowledge, BiH ambassadors have clear instructions from headquarters on how to act in countries they cover resident or non-resident. Coordination between BiH’s Presidency and its Permanent Mission to the UN stands out particularly well. The engagement of head of BiH’s mission to the UN Zlatko Lagumdžija has proven to be spot-on for this role, including his predecessor Ambassador Sven Alkalaj.

Indirect recognition for D. Bećirović’s thorough and synchronized diplomatic action with Z. Lagumdžija was encapsulated in one sentence by A. Vučić: “The preparation of the draft resolution lasted six months in secret; no one in Serbia was informed about it.”

In his fight against recognizing Srebrenica genocide, Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić plays an active diplomatic role. Unlike BiH which preferred a multilateral approach, Vučić has leaned on bilateral lobbying.

In recent weeks he has had several direct or telephone conversations at high or top levels—including ministers and heads of state from China, Iran, Ghana, Egypt, Azerbaijan as well as some smaller countries with which Serbia has traditionally good relations. The number of meetings with ambassadors accredited in Serbia over recent weeks is telling.

Serbian ambassadors who received clear instructions from Serbia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs acted decisively especially in global south countries which generally hold indecisive stances—of which there are quite a few. Vučić recently announced forming a headquarters at Serbia’s mission to the UN and announced meetings with over 120 permanent representatives of states.

When it comes to verbal statements from either side there is noticeable greater diplomatic tact from Chairman Bećirović or Minister Konaković. They generally refer to international rulings, rule of law, coexistence or reconciliation. On the other hand, Serbian President threatens or publicly belittles BiH’s head of state showing more diplomatic nervousness than leadership or political strength he allegedly possesses.

He refers to Bećirović as “nobody,” “a plagiarist,” and “a liar.” Furthermore, his public statements reflect Garašanin’s vision which began his Draft by stating that “Serbia is small but must not remain so.” We are “alone,” emphasizes Vučić; we will oppose the United States “regarding this resolution with all our strength—small and insignificant—we will oppose.” However, Vučić omits direct support from Russia and other undemocratic third-world states which traditionally vote against collective West interests.

Comparative Advantages of Each Side

Unlike BiH which remains largely silent on this matter, Serbian President has been predicting outcomes for voting in the UN General Assembly for several weeks now. According to Vučić although Bosnia and Herzegovina’s victory will be Pyrrhic; Serbia will demonstrate its strength despite an impressive list of states sponsoring this resolution.

It can be assumed that Serbia with its 102 diplomatic-consular representations worldwide has better field information due to better coverage in global south countries where BiH does not have resident or non-resident access.

About one-third of BiH ambassadors will not even follow instructions from Sarajevo which represents another weakness. Thus it would not be unexpected if some states do not support the resolution or remain neutral. Many have already opposed Western positions due to what they perceive as unprincipled stances taken by it—including states with close ties to Russia or China. The statement by Iran’s ambassador in Belgrade is no exception; it may reflect current thinking among global south countries—non-aligned including some Muslim-majority countries. Iran will likely vote in favor of BiH according to recent indications.

There exists another substantive difference between Bosnia and Herzegovina’s approach compared to Serbia’s which may affect final voting outcomes. While BiH relies primarily on logic and arguments rooted in international law—coexistence—and reconciliation; Serbia reverts to heated international politics and geopolitics. BiH insists on a Resolution condemning genocide denial while glorifying war criminals… while member states are encouraged to uphold legally established facts to prevent revisionism and repetition of genocide.

Conversely, Serbia avoids acknowledging judicial truths recognized by civilized nations emphasizing political national or procedural reasons instead.

“This issue was unlawfully shifted from the UN Security Council to the UN General Assembly,” says Vučić. The Serbian President insists that sponsorship of this Resolution by collective West countries is essentially an attempt at cleansing their moral conscience for all unprincipled policies and actions from their past—including their unprincipled stances regarding collective punishment against Palestinian people in Gaza.

What Can BiH Improve at Photo Finish of Its Lobbying?

The focus of BiH’s diplomatic representatives on arguments rooted in international law or related multilateral approaches is understandable just as it was expected for Serbia to prioritize political interests through direct bilateral contacts.

However, upcoming voting in UN General Assembly is not merely a multilateral battle within international law’s domain; it has largely been won already through rulings at international courts like those from The Hague Tribunal for former Yugoslavia as well as International Court of Justice.

It is not even moral since international politics often operates more based on interest than morality; many heads of missions at UN General Assembly will not vote based on legal or moral arguments but will follow political directives from their home countries based primarily on national interests.

This means consultations at multilateral levels are insufficient for BiH; it is important also to focus on bilateral lobbying efforts. It is crucial to identify common interests between Bosnia and Herzegovina along with countries emerging from global south—non-aligned nations—some Muslim-majority nations—Latin American countries etc., which still maintain neutrality.

Minister Konaković could engage with his colleague from United Arab Emirates with whom he claims he has built close diplomatic relations; I highlight this country because Abu Dhabi currently appears indecisive according to all indications.

Ultimately diplomatic destinations yet undecided—of which there are at least one-third—are now most important; thus it would be vital for either Foreign Minister or Chairman of Presidency of BiH based on information provided by our diplomatic service or other sources—to conduct an additional round of phone consultations at ministerial level—heads-of-state level—to emphasize importance voting for this Resolution considering not only legal arguments but also mutual relations alongside interests between BiH and respective states.

Bosnia and Herzegovina is playing a significant diplomatic game—and this victory must be substantial.

Source: Radio Sarajevo