This intervention, presented as an act of preserving the constitutional order, in its essence reflects a deep misunderstanding of the nature of the democratic process and the right to express an opinion. Schmidt’s decision is not only legally problematic, but also ethically questionable, because it strikes at the very core of human freedom – the right to an opinion, the right to an attitude. The RS was created in the Dayton process, and it is not a high representative, and especially Schmidt, who is not even that. As a party to the Dayton Agreement, our basic right is to have a position on all issues.
The NSRS conclusions are a form of political stance, the way in which representatives of a nation articulate positions and opinions on the key issues of the Dayton Agreement. That Schmdit failed to recognize this distinction is not only troubling, but humiliating. Has modern Europe ever seen a situation in which the position of the contracting party is prohibited?
Democracy on glass legs
Democracy rests on freedom of expression, exchange of opinions and reasoned dialogue. When one actor, be it domestic or international, decides to ban opinion, it violates the basic principles on which modern society is based. The conclusions of the NSRS are, even according to the harshest critics, political views and assessments – of the contracting parties of the Dayton Agreement.
Schmidt’s rant sends a dangerous message: in Bosnia and Herzegovina, opinions that do not conform to preferred political narratives can be banned.
This is a precedent that not only destabilizes the political scene, but also undermines the very idea of sovereignty and democracy. Ironically, this kind of policy is reminiscent of the historical attempts of the Germanic powers to impose their own management models and values on these areas. As history testifies, those attempts failed – and they will not succeed now. With these actions, Schmidt not only undermines sovereignty, but seriously threatens the chances of building long-term trust between different peoples in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Schmidt vs. Logic and Law
How to explain the fact that Christian Schmidt decided to intervene in this way? The conclusions of the NSRS, no matter how politically unacceptable they may be to some, are the views of a party to the Dayton Agreement. They do not impose sanctions or impose decisions. They are attitudes. Banning opinion is not only politically unsustainable – it is logically absurd. In his intervention, Schmidt showed that he does not understand the essence of political communication, but also the basic postulates of human freedom.
It is even more absurd that the European Union, which prides itself on freedom of thought and expression, remains silent in the face of such moves. If the EU really rests on the rule of law, procedures, democracy and sovereignty, it must make it clear that the number one address for them is the democratically elected representatives of the people, and not illegal and illegitimate representatives from abroad who acquire authoritarian tendencies in the midlife crisis. The history of this area requires special attention and understanding, because only with respect for local realities is it possible to build sustainable peace and mutual trust.
A return to the branches of the past
Prohibition of thought returns people “to the branch” – to a state where basic human functions are suspended. The RS is a political and constitutional reality, a contracting party, just like the FBiH, and its people are not and will never be a second-class people. Schmidt’s decision only deepens the feeling of injustice and alienation among the peoples of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
If Christian Schmidt believes that the RS has no right to a position, what does that really say about his view of the people who live here? Does he consider us incapable of rational thinking, of expressing opinions, of adopting political positions? Or, even worse, does he see us as beings devoid of that basic human trait – opinion?
Bosnia and Herzegovina deserves institutions that will respect rights and opinions, not those that will treat them as second class people. Schmidt’s decision is not only a mistake – it is an insult to anyone who considers himself a free and thinking person. If we allow such decisions to go unanswered, the question is not whether we will lose our freedom – but whether we will be considered human at all.
The RS continuously expressed its views on the Dayton Agreement. Foreigners very deliberately excluded and annulled any agreement between the RS and FBiH, as a party to the Dayton Agreement and the process, and installed themselves as a superior party, desecrating not only the Dayton Agreement but also destroying international law, especially the Vienna Convention on the Law of International Treaties. And the Dayton Agreement is exactly that, at least according to the opinion of the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) number 337/2005 of 10/11. June 2005.
Or who else takes it seriously?
According to that “frivolous”, “disrespectful”, “nothing” Venice Commission, the Dayton Agreement and all its Annexes “must be considered” an international treaty. Their character or interpretation is, therefore, guided by international law, and especially by the Vienna Convention on the Law of International Treaties.
Neither Schmidt nor America nor Britain signed the Dayton Agreement and therefore are not contracting parties. They are just usurpers, violators, bullies in all that is the Dayton Agreement.
Author’s text by Milorad Dodik
(Glas Srpska)
