On June 8, 2024, the first-ever “All-Serbian Assembly” was held in Belgrade, the capital of Serbia. In addition to the President of the Republic of Serbia and the Patriarch of the Serbian Orthodox Church, guests of honor at the assembly included a delegation from a part of neighboring Bosnia and Herzegovina (hereafter “Bosnia”) called Republika Srpska, a region whose population largely identifies as “Serb.”

Under the slogan “One nation, one assembly,” the aim of this gathering was said to be to mutually recognize the “unity of all Serbs,” to deepen bonds, and to declare to the world that Serbs, wherever they live, are proud to be Serbs.

Bosnia is often said to be facing a crisis of potential fragmentation in recent years, where cross-border identities and domestic and international politics are intricately intertwined. What lies behind this?

Scenes from the “All-Serbian Assembly” (Photo: Slobodan Miljević / srbija.gov.rs [CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 RS])

Bosnia’s political system and identities

Bosnia lies on the Balkan Peninsula in Southeastern Europe, bordered by Croatia to the west and north, Serbia to the east, and Montenegro to the south. Bosnia’s administration and interethnic relations are complex; based on ethnic and religious identities, the country is divided into two regions (entities): “Republika Srpska” and the “Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.” These entities are connected through a state-level parliament, but they enjoy high independence from the central government in areas such as legislation and administration, and each has its own president.

By entity, 81% of the population of Republika Srpska identifies as Serb (adherents of the Serbian Orthodox Church). Meanwhile, in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 70% identify as “Bosniaks” (Bosnian Muslims) and 22% as “Croats” (adherents of the Catholic Church). At the national level, Bosnia has presidents representing each of the Serb, Bosniak, and Croat peoples, and national politics operates within the complex relationships among these three identity groups.

While these distinct identities exist, Bosnia constitutes a single country, and one might assume its citizens also share an identity as “Bosnians.” However, among the Serb population, there has been a particularly notable recent trend in which identification as “Serb” is stronger than a civic identification as “Bosnian.” Milorad Dodik, who serves as the President of Republika Srpska, has in recent years frequently spoken about the possibility of Republika Srpska separating from Bosnia. He continues to emphasize that Serbs in Republika Srpska are Serbs first and foremost, above any other identity.

A country born out of “ethnic conflict”: Bosnia and Herzegovina

The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was a socialist state composed of six republics (Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro, and Macedonia). It successfully avoided Soviet dominance during the Cold War and maintained a neutral stance.

In 1991, Yugoslavia’s population by identity consisted of approximately 36% Serbs, 19.7% Croats, 8.9% Muslims (now called Bosniaks), 7.8% Slovenes, 7.7% Albanians, 5.9% Macedonians, 5.4% Yugoslavs, 2.5% Montenegrins, and about 2% Hungarians, according to this breakdown.

With the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the collapse of communism, Yugoslavia faced economic difficulties after 1989. Nationalism, calls for independence, and demands for greater republic autonomy within Yugoslavia emerged across its republics, and relations among the six republics began to fray. In 1990, non-communist parties won elections in Croatia and Slovenia. When the Croatian government subsequently demanded greater autonomy and rights from the Yugoslav parliament, Serbs living in Croatia grew increasingly dissatisfied.

In 1991, when Slovenia and Croatia declared independence, Serbs who opposed independence clashed with Croats who sought it. Serbian President Slobodan Milošević, who had come to wield enormous power in Serbia, sent the Yugoslav People’s Army to assist the Serbs, and the newly independent Slovenia and Croatia descended into conflict. In Slovenia, the Yugoslav People’s Army abandoned its assault and withdrew after just ten days, but in Croatia the conflict dragged on in areas with large Serb populations. Macedonia later also declared independence.

With Croatia, Slovenia, and Macedonia declaring independence, it was anticipated that Bosnia and Herzegovina would follow suit. Of Bosnia’s population at the time, Bosniaks accounted for 43% and Croats 17%, while Serbs made up 31%; the Serbs, like those in Croatia, strongly opposed independence. In 1992, Serb politicians and others established a self-proclaimed autonomous entity called the “Serb Republic” in regions of Bosnia with especially large Serb populations. They declared that by separating from Bosnia and uniting with Serbia and Montenegro, all Serbs could be brought together in the same state. Bosnian Serbs boycotted the 1992 referendum on Bosnian independence, but 98% of those who voted (Bosniaks and Croats) supported independence from Yugoslavia, and on March 3, 1992, Bosnian President Alija Izetbegović officially declared independence.

This triggered fierce armed clashes across Bosnia among Serbs, Bosniaks, and Croats, who until recently had lived alongside each other, and by mid-April 1992 the entire country was engulfed in conflict. In addition to fighting between Serb and Bosniak forces, war also broke out between Bosniak and Croat forces, which had initially allied against the Serbs. The Bosnian war continued for the next three and a half years.

Sarajevo, the capital of Bosnia. A building bearing the scars of the conflict (Photo: Michał Huniewicz / Wikimedia [CC BY 2.0])

One notable feature of this conflict was the widespread practice of so-called “ethnic cleansing” (ethnic cleansing). Across Bosnia, people of other ethnicities were forcibly displaced or killed in order to carve out areas inhabited by Serbs, Bosniaks, and Croats respectively, effectively partitioning Bosnia. As a result, by the end of the war, more than two million people had been displaced and numerous mass killings had occurred.

In response to the war in Bosnia, the United Nations sent a peacekeeping force (the UNPROFOR) numbering in the tens of thousands. The UN Security Council also designated six safe areas in Bosnia, primarily to protect Bosniak civilians from Serb attacks, and prohibited incursions by armed forces. However, in 1995, Serb forces entered the town of Srebrenica, which had been designated a UN safe area with peacekeepers deployed, and more than 8,000 Bosniaks, predominantly men, were killed.

Foreign powers were also involved in the Bosnian war. Mediated by the United States, fighting between Croat and Bosniak forces ended in 1994, and their alliance was reconstituted. As Serb forces pressed their offensive, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) also intervened, launching airstrikes against Serb forces. Eventually, it became difficult for Serb forces to continue fighting, opening the way to new talks. Negotiations mediated by the United States began in November 1995 in Dayton, Ohio. Delegations from Bosnia, Croatia, and Yugoslavia (which by then consisted only of Serbia and Montenegro) participated. The peace agreement, named the Dayton Accords after the site of the negotiations, settled the terms to end the war in Bosnia.

The complex administrative divisions set by the Dayton Accords

The Dayton Accords ended the war and established Bosnia’s territorial-administrative divisions and political system. The Serb-majority Republika Srpska, the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina where Bosniaks and Croats form majorities, and the Brčko District (a jointly administered area of the aforementioned entities) became three constituent units (two entities and one district) of a single state called Bosnia and Herzegovina. Bosnia’s constitution contains no reference to secession by any entity.

Before the war, there were no regions in Bosnia where a single ethnicity held a privileged position; all Yugoslav peoples were treated similarly nationwide and subject to the same laws. In other words, there was no designated “Serb zone” in Bosnia. However, by drawing and recognizing the borders of Republika Srpska through the Dayton Accords, some argue that the existence of a “Serb territory” was in effect legitimized. As for the administrative system set by Dayton, while the two entities jointly govern in some areas through the central parliament, each also retains significant autonomy, with competencies reserved to each entity alone—making for a highly complex arrangement. Consequently, some hold the view that Bosnia lacks unity as a state.

The goal of the Dayton Accords was to stop further bloodshed by ending the war as quickly as possible. Still, a strong desire for autonomy is said to persist among many Serbs in Bosnia. On the other hand, most Bosniaks and Croats are believed to oppose the breakup of Bosnia.

Is Bosnia a sovereign state?

Although a peace agreement was reached, concerns remained over whether the three peoples would be fairly represented in Bosnia’s politics and policymaking. Therefore, an external mechanism was deemed necessary to manage Bosnian politics and ensure smooth governance. To supervise the implementation of the democratization and other peace-process provisions set out in the Dayton Accords, it was decided to establish an international body with ultimate responsibility under Dayton: the High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Office of the High Representative. Its mandate includes “overseeing the implementation of the peace agreement,” “coordinating the activities of civilian organizations,” and “conflict resolution.”

However, in 1997 the powers of the High Representative were further expanded, granting the officeholder extensive authority in Bosnian politics—so-called “Bonn Powers.” For example, if either or both representatives of Republika Srpska and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina refuse or are deemed unable to make decisions, the High Representative holds executive authority to decide in their stead. The High Representative’s powers extend broadly to “imposing or annulling laws, dismissing and appointing public officials including presidents and ministers, regulating the media, setting education curricula, returning housing to refugees and displaced persons,” and have even been likened to a “trusteeship experiment.”

The High Representative argues that the role is to prevent acts that violate both entities’ constitutions or obstruct implementation of the Dayton Accords, and to act as a security guarantor fostering democratization, peace, and interethnic coexistence. Yet, despite such sweeping authority, Bosnians have no say in the selection of the High Representative.

High Representative Schmidt (third from right) and Michael Murphy, U.S. Ambassador to Bosnia (second from right) (Photo: Miłosz Pieńkowski / Wikimedia [CC BY 3.0 PL])

Amid these circumstances, Christian Schmidt, who took office as High Representative in 2021, has drawn particular criticism. Since taking office he has on several occasions actively blocked laws and resolutions passed by parliament, becoming a particular thorn in the side of the Republika Srpska authorities.

For example, the parliament passed a resolution to refuse to implement rulings of Bosnia’s Constitutional Court within Republika Srpska’s administration. A law was also adopted asserting that rivers, forests, and other such assets in Republika Srpska are not owned by Bosnia but are the full property of the entity; this too was annulled by the High Representative. Republika Srpska further passed a decision not to recognize decisions or laws issued by the High Representative, which Schmidt also invalidated.

Schmidt argues that these laws all violate the Dayton Accords, and he warned Republika Srpska that it must comply with his decisions. He has also introduced significant changes to Bosnia’s election law, substantially intervening in its elections.

However, Republika Srpska politicians reject the authority of the High Representative, including Schmidt himself. Thus, a sharp confrontation can be seen between Republika Srpska and the High Representative.

A prominent figure in Republika Srpska: President Milorad Dodik

President Dodik of Republika Srpska (2010–2018, 2022–present) has expressed dissatisfaction with the treatment of Serbs in Bosnia and the status of Republika Srpska, frequently attracting attention in Bosnian media. He opposes American and other foreign interference in Bosnia’s politics, administration, and legal system. He continually criticizes U.S. Ambassador to Bosnia Michael Murphy and argues that Bosnia’s future should not be decided by the United States but by the people who live there. He has also made numerous statements regarding Bosniaks and Muslims. He maintains the view that Serbs in Bosnia are in a precarious position because Bosniaks are allegedly seeking to destroy Republika Srpska and turn Bosnia into an Islamic state, with the cooperation of foreign powers.

Milorad Dodik, President of Republika Srpska (Photo: Izbor za bolji zivot Boris Tadic / Flickr [CC BY 2.0])

One development that has further exacerbated Serb–Bosniak tensions is the United Nations General Assembly’s May 2024 resolution establishing a remembrance day for the Srebrenica genocide. After the war, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia was established in The Hague to prosecute war crimes. Radovan Karadžić, President of Republika Srpska during the war, and Ratko Mladić, Chief of Staff of the Serb Republic Army at the time of the Srebrenica killings, were indicted for war crimes. Slobodan Milošević, then President of Serbia, who sent reinforcements from Serbia into Bosnia, was also indicted on charges including genocide during the Bosnian war, including the Srebrenica massacre. All three were found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment.

However, many Bosnian Serbs and Serbs at large voiced objections regarding this case. Questions were raised about the number of people killed in Srebrenica and whether the incident should be called genocide, among other issues, provoking anger among Bosniaks.

Although the UN resolution designating the Srebrenica remembrance day contains no mention that the perpetrators were “Serbs,” some question the decision to draft and push for adoption of a resolution on such a sensitive issue that could destabilize interethnic relations in Bosnia. Indeed, in response to the resolution, President Dodik expressed his displeasure, saying, “We will not live in the same country with those who say the Serbian people are genocidal,” and, “Srebrenica was not genocide or anything of the sort—just a mistake.”

President Dodik’s attitude and statements have drawn criticism from the leadership of the Federation, and hostility between Serbs and Bosniaks continues to intensify.

President Dodik kissing the flag of Republika Srpska (Photo: Ministry of Defence of Republic of Serbia / Wikimedia [CC BY-SA 3.0])

Relations between Serbia and Republika Srpska

As President Dodik argues, because they are the same “Serb” people, Serbia and Republika Srpska have maintained close ties from the time of the Bosnian war to the present. During the war, reinforcements were sent from Serbia to support the Bosnian Serb rebellion, and during the Dayton negotiations that decided Bosnia’s structure, Serbian President Milošević represented the Bosnian Serb side. Republika Srpska also opposes Kosovo’s independence—the most important issue for Serbia—and backs Serbia’s position. In 2010, Serbia and Republika Srpska concluded an “agreement on special parallel relations.” This relationship is also reflected in Republika Srpska’s alignment with Serbia’s foreign policy.

Serbia has in recent years sought to join the European Union (EU). However, it also has deep ethnic, religious, and political ties with Russia, striking a delicate balance between East and West—a situation that became apparent when Serbia rejected imposing EU sanctions on Russia at the outset of the war in Ukraine. Public support for Russia has grown within Serbia, and several pro-Russia demonstrations have been held. In line with this trend in Serbia, President Dodik of Republika Srpska has also devoted efforts to deepening ties with Russia.

Serbia’s stance toward Republika Srpska’s actions suggests it does not favor separation out of fear of renewed conflict. President Aleksandar Vučić of Serbia has conveyed to President Dodik his hope to “drop plans for secession” and “not to call up an army,” and has reportedly promised Western countries that he will strive to maintain order in the Balkans. President Dodik has responded positively. At the All-Serbian Assembly, President Vučić also stated to the delegation from Republika Srpska: “What you do is up to you, but please keep in mind that all of us need peace above all.”

Where is Bosnia headed?

In March 2024, Bosnia began accession talks with the EU, taking steady steps toward EU membership. However, many of the administrative and legal reforms demanded of Bosnia as conditions for membership have faced the difficulty that the representatives of the three peoples cannot reach agreement. U.S. Ambassador Murphy in Bosnia has also criticized President Dodik’s actions and statements as major obstacles on the path to EU membership.

The United States and Western European countries, which have championed and pursued Bosnia’s unity through the Dayton Accords, do not want Bosnia to break apart. Serbia, too, wishes to avoid a renewed conflict given the events of the 1990s.

The boundary of Republika Srpska within Bosnia (Photo: William John Gauthier / Flickr [CC BY-SA 2.0])

President Dodik says that having Bosnia’s Serb population live in a state “only for Serbs” is, for now, merely a dream, but he appears determined to continue advocating separation. According to Dodik, Bosniaks do not sufficiently respect the will of Serbs and, in cooperation with outside powers including the High Representative, are acting in violation of the Dayton Accords. Therefore, from Republika Srpska’s perspective, while it would prefer to preserve Bosnia’s unity, if that is not possible, then so be it (i.e., independence is possible)—a position he has stated.

President Dodik has said as many as 40 times over the past 15 years that he wants to hold a referendum on the independence of Republika Srpska. However, no concrete schedule has been presented. Reports also cite statements that while negotiated separation would take time, it is indeed intended to happen eventually. He has further stated that if Donald Trump becomes U.S. president again, Republika Srpska will declare independence.

The BBC analyzes that President Dodik knows the independence he dreams of for Republika Srpska is impossible. According to this analysis, even if an independence declaration were made, the EU’s reaction would be harsh and sanctions highly likely. The Bosnian constitution does not grant entities the right to secede, so those who declare independence could be arrested. The same analysis also states that Republika Srpska’s finances are in dire straits and that “the state would go bankrupt as soon as the next day because it cannot service its debts.” Dodik may not intend to act, but by declaring independence to threaten or cause problems for domestic forces and those intervening in Bosnia, he may be hoping that Republika Srpska will be allowed to do as it pleases.

What will President Dodik do next? Will it end with promises to prepare for a referendum or a peaceful separation without doing anything? Or will he actually take action? We will continue to watch closely.

Writer: Sonja Viktorija Anić

Graphics: Mayuko Hanafusa, Ayane Ishida

Follow @GNV_tweets