Write: Emir Hadžikadunić and Sead Turchalo
The secret meeting of Peter Marocca, the then High U.S. Official of the Middle Administration Donald Trump, with Milorad Dodik in 2018. He remained out of the focus of the Bosnian political public.
However, according to the research of the Premiest Magazine, that encounter caused serious indignation of the then American Ambassador to BiH, Maureen Cormack.
Her animosity towards this move was not just a reflex of consistent American politics towards the Balkans, but also a reflection of the deeper frustration due to the evident of the American foreign policy, in which traditional allies and geopolitical paradigms became less relevant.
Meeting with Milorad Dodik, which openly undermines the Dayton Peace Agreement, nurtures separatist aspirations and was already under American sanctions, was a symbol of the broader change in Washington’s approach to global crisis points. Today, Marocco is a high official of the American State Department and another USAID man, with an unusual mission that this institution, a key instrument of American global impact through development aid, systematically dismantles.
Its meteoric rise is not only a biographical curiosity but also a symptom of deep changes in American strategic thinking. The central vector of these changes in which we testify to the first weeks of the new administration and the White House is a redefinition of global threats: Russia is no longer a primary market of American geopolitical strategies, while Ukraine is increasingly facing the recognition of territorial losses and redefined reality of the country.
This development of events further deepens the internal fragmentation of the European continent, which was a key strategic partner a few weeks, and after the speech of the American Vice-President JD Vance at the Munich Security Conference, it is no longer, ie the liberal-democratic wing of Europe. Liberal European elites, insecure and dismissed, act paralyzed before the Owner’s right, while at the same time Russia’s political establishment and European sovereignty forces welcome new reality with enthusiasm.
Deconstruction of liberal order
An ideological framework that increasingly shapes this new order strongly reflects the geopolitical theories of the Russian philosopher Aleksandar Dugina. His doctrine “Eurasianism” is based on the claim that the unipolar, the liberal world is led by the United States on the edge of the breakdown. At the same time, a multipolar order is based on sovereign civilizational blocks (Russia, China, Islamic world, European Radical Desitica).
The deconstruction of the liberal order, in this framework, implies the rejection of universal principles of human rights and free markets, and the formation of an alternative system in which US domination would be reduced to a minimum.
Duginov soverenist approach seeks to redefine global relationships so that key forces, united with their antimodernist and anti-globalist attitudes, break the existing liberal institutions such as the EU and NATO. In doing so, the Alliance of Russia with European radical right-handed parties and Asian forces such as China and Iran plays a key role in the elimination of Anglo-American Hegemonism.
Although the Trump administration does not consciously operate in the ideological framework of Duginovo Eurasianism, certain aspects of its policy open space for the partial realization of Dugin’s concepts. Trump skepticism towards NATO, support for European radical right-handed movements, American insulationism and trade protectionism weak traditional alliances with Western European partners.
All these elements indirectly fit into the practical realization of the Dugin’s ideological framework.
The key difference between the Trump and Dugin vision lies in relation to China. While Dugin sees the Alliance of Moscow and Beijing as the foundation of the Eurasian future, Trump China is experiencing as the main rival and strives to create a global anti-women’s coalition. This shows that, despite certain matches, the American Strategy remains autonomous and does not fully fit into the Eurasian paradigm.
BiH in a world without a secure allies
In this new geopolitical context, Bosnia and Herzegovina faces the end of the Liberal interventionism and the arrival of the period in which international aid is no longer safe or unconditional. Traditional narratives of Bosnian foreign policy, supporting Western protection and intervention and narrative about “pro-European” are now facing serious constraints. The question that remains open is: What does it even mean to be “pro-European” at this time? Is Europe Giorgie Meloni, Viktor Orban, Robert Fica and their identity policy, sovereignism, antimydration and antiislamism? Or is it still the old Europe of freedom, equality, workers’ unions and human rights?
Is M. Dodik with his political realism policy, counting the transience of the US Ambassador M. Murphya and American Liberal and Interventionist Policy, looked on from most pro-Bosnian politicians?
What are the possibilities?
Does the piercing forces need to adapt to Trump administration and seek a way to redefine their relationships with Washington, even at the cost of compromise with new US Realpolitics?
Is he waiting for the reaction of the American institutional apparatus – courts, bureaucracy and the so-called. “Deep State” – Rational Strategy Hopes that post-Trump Americas will revise current trends?
Should the links need to be intensified with the European liberal block that is increasingly stronger in the opposition to the US administration, although I shows all deeper internal weaknesses?
Do Germany, France or Great Britain, as systemic European forces, assuming Europe remains on the margins of American interests, can, separately or together, offer any geopolitical mentoring BiH?
Can Bosnia and Herzegovina build alternative geopolitical alliances with regional forces like Turkey?
Should the diplomatic power of Saudi Arabia be used for Saudi-American diplomacy towards BiH from the past but also close relation to the administration of D. Trump and Royal Family?
Should I talk more openly with the official Belgrade and Zagreb, and seek regional solutions for regional problems?
Is it rationally to lead the politics of opportunistic balancing – “Merhaba Čaršio on all four sides” – or is the time to clearly define the long-term geopolitical orientation?
The answers to these issues are neither simple nor unambiguous, and neither Europe nor the pro-American Middle Eastern regimes may offer finished models.
But at this stage, the answers are neither crucial. The most important thing is clear formulations of the question. Because without them, there is no understanding of the new geopolitical reality in which Bosnia and Herzegovina must begin geopolitically think avoiding emotional storms and the Hir’s sentimental moralism that uncontrollably pulled on our socio-political reality.
Bosnia and Herzegovina is facing time in which it is no longer enough to rely on the outdated paradigms and expect geopolitical silnice to adapt to our interests. It is crucial as soon as possible to start serious consultations and strategic thinking, because the delaying of these talks does not only mean the loss of the initiative, but also the risk that decisions on our future will make another, without our participation. “
(Vijesti.ba)
