Former High Representative Valentin Inzko’s parting shot against Serbs, an illegal decree criminalizing the expression of certain opinions about the war in BiH, drew united outrage from BiH’s Serbs as well as strong condemnations from Serbia and Russia. But equally significant has been the chilly—and sometimes hostile—reception Inzko’s decree has received from other officials and observers in Western countries. It is hard to find any official or analyst—apart from Inzko’s Bosniak allies—who has expressed support for Inzko’s edict.
Indeed, not a single country has endorsed Inzko’s decree. In their statements following the decree, the European Union, the United States, Germany, and the United Kingdom all conspicuously refrained from endorsing the action.
In fact, the United States had publicly opposed the idea of a “genocide denial” law before Inzko decreed it; U.S. Special Envoy Matthew Palmer said in April that the United States opposed such a law because it conflicts with the right to free speech and “is not an especially valuable instrument.”
Croatian Foreign Minister Gordan Grlić Radman his week called the High Representative a “relic of the immediate post-war period” and “a manifestation of the lack of democracy in the political life of that country.” Referring to the so-called “Bonn powers” claimed by the High Representative, Grlić Radman said BiH “is not a place for experiment.”
Leading Western experts on BiH have denounced the decree for its violation of BiH citizens’ rights.
Former High Representative Carl Bildt wrote, “The outgoing High Representative in [BiH] has caused a profound political crisis. He will leave his position within days, so it will be up to others to try to pick up the pieces.”
Gerald Knaus, co-founder of the European Stability Initiative, tweeted, “In a [Council of Europe] member imposing ANY law by a foreign official like this should not be possible. It is against the [European Convention on Human Rights] & it is an irresponsible way for Valentin Inzko to leave [BiH].”
In one of Germany’s most prestigious newspapers, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, journalist Michael Martens wrote, “A quarter of a century after the end of the war, the continued existence of the OHR is . . . not only no longer useful, but even harmful.” Martens quoted the chairman of Transparency International Bosnia as saying, “An insoluble contradiction is that the High Representative should support the democratization of Bosnia, but as an official appointed from abroad, he himself has no democratic legitimacy.” Referring to German politician Christian Schmidt, who claims to have been appointed as the new High Representative, Martens asked, “[H]ow does a German explain to the citizens of a democratic state like Germany that he is taking on a function in another European country that is not subject to any democratic control?”
In the major Swiss newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Andreas Ernst similarly blasted Inzko’s decree, as well as the OHR’s lack of democratic legitimacy and transparency, saying that the decree is unenforceable and is “another reason why the office must be abolished.”
U.S. Naval War College Professor John R. Schindler, a former National Security Agency intelligence analyst and counterintelligence officer, tweeted, “The Bosnian Serbs were nowhere near strategic defeat in 1995 when the Dayton Accords were hashed out. So of course they don’t want to accept ‘victor’s justice’ administered by a colonial governor.”
Damir Marusic, Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council in Washington also criticized Inzko’s decree, writing, “Inzko has potentially created a political crisis that may be hard to tamp down.”
The full repercussions of the political crisis instigated by Inzko’s lawless decree are not yet clear, but the decree has again made manifest that the OHR does nothing to facilitate peace in BiH, but instead only provokes serious political tensions. By doing so, it has further weakened international support for the OHR and its fictitious dictatorial powers.
