Although the history of forcibly removing the highest freely elected officials and stripping senior officials and public servants of the Republic of Srpska of their basic personal and political rights by certain High Representatives, as well as the practice of derogating the entity’s constitutional competencies, has spanned twenty-eight years, the anticipated issuance of a first-instance verdict against the current president of the Republic of Srpska, Milorad Dodik, could become a pivotal event for the Republic of Srpska, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the broader Balkan region.
A LONG HISTORY OF “OHAERISM”
Considering that a guilty verdict against Milorad Dodik would result in his immediate removal from the position of President of the Republic of Srpska (in addition to a prison sentence ranging from six months to five years), and given the aforementioned long-standing unlawful practice of persecuting Serbian political representatives by High Representatives in Bosnia and Herzegovina, one might question how such a removal, in its legal and political consequences for the Republic of Srpska, would differ from the unlawful dismissal of Nikola Poplašen from the presidency of Srpska by High Representative Carlos Westendorp in 1999. This comparison is particularly significant because Poplašen was dismissed by the High Representative for refusing to appoint Milorad Dodik as Prime Minister.
As demonstrated in a recent article by prominent legal expert from the Republic of Srpska, Milan Blagojević (available here), the history of “Ohaerism” (derived from the Office of the High Representative – OHR) is excessively long. It refers to the unlawful governance of High Representatives in Bosnia and Herzegovina, through which the Collective West has been exercising colonial control over a United Nations member state for the past 30 years.
Equally long is the history of “cooperation” by numerous officials of the Republic of Srpska who, under colonial conditions, accepted the unlawful dictates of the High Representatives, thus granting them the necessary legal form through their consent.
A CASE DIFFERENT FROM ALL OTHERS
One legal fact, as well as one obvious political fact, sets the judicial prosecution of Milorad Dodik apart from many previous cases of the forced removal of high-ranking officials of the Republic of Srpska by the High Representatives.
Specifically, the President of the Republic of Srpska, Milorad Dodik, and the former director of the Official Gazette of the Republic of Srpska, Miloš Lukić, are being tried based on amendments to the Criminal Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which were unlawfully enacted by Christian Schmidt. Dodik is accused of committing the criminal offense of failing to implement decisions of the High Representative because, as President of the Republic of Srpska, he signed a decree bringing into force the Law on the Non-Application of Decisions of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Law on the Publication of Laws and Other Regulations of the Republic of Srpska, through which the Republic of Srpska refused to publish future decisions of the High Representative.
It is important to note that these laws were adopted by the National Assembly of the Republic of Srpska, and the President of the Republic was constitutionally obligated to sign them. Lukić is accused of publishing the aforementioned decrees and laws in the Official Gazette.
THE COMMISSIONER OF THE OCCUPYING REGIME
Although the legislative activity of the Office of the High Representative (OHR) in Bosnia and Herzegovina has no basis in the text of the Dayton Peace Agreement, and the lack of basic democratic legitimacy in the exercise of legislative power by the High Representative is the most convincing evidence of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s colonial character, High Representatives have in the past succeeded in imposing certain laws on the Republic of Srpska, whose institutions have acquiesced to this unlawful practice.
However, the current case differs from previous ones because the “legislator” Christian Schmidt is an illegitimate “High Representative” since he was not appointed in the same manner as all previous High Representatives for Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Embassy of the Russian Federation in Bosnia and Herzegovina clearly and timely pointed this out, stating that Schmidt’s appointment was the first time the Steering Board of the Peace Implementation Council failed to reach consensus. More importantly, from a legal perspective, Schmidt’s appointment was not confirmed by the United Nations Security Council.
Consensus within the Steering Board of the Peace Implementation Council, followed by approval from the UN Security Council, were essential guarantees that “the High Representative could use the full range of his powers” (see here) as stipulated in Annex X of the Dayton Peace Agreement. Without these powers, the High Representative ceases to be a legal overseer of the civilian aspects of the Dayton Agreement and instead becomes a commissioner of an occupying regime.
RESISTANCE TO UNLAWFUL VIOLENCE
This position taken by Russia regarding the “High Representative” Schmidt is shared by another permanent member of the UN Security Council—China. From this perspective, Schmidt’s appointment is not only unlawful but also politically represents an example of the unilateral dictate that the Collective West employed during its previous attempt to establish a unipolar global order.
This leads to the second fundamental, albeit political rather than legal, difference between the current judicial prosecution of the President of the Republic of Srpska, Milorad Dodik, and previous prosecutions of Srpska’s officials by other High Representatives. Previous prosecutions and the imposition of laws by High Representatives took place during a period of global hegemony by the Collective West, which—despite the evident personal weaknesses of Serbian politicians in the Republic of Srpska—objectively reduced the possibility of resisting the unlawful violence of “Ohaerism.”
SCHMIDT – A SYMBOL OF THE FAILURE OF PREVIOUS U.S. POLICY
Today, as we witness the evident collapse of the globalist project of unipolarity, it would be politically unjustifiable and nationally harmful for the institutions of the Republic of Srpska and its citizens not to unanimously resist the policy of “Ohaerism” imposed by the illegitimate “High Representative” as a legacy of the unipolar world. Since Schmidt, lacking legal legitimacy, previously derived his political power solely from the support of former U.S. Ambassador Murphy, Murphy’s departure and the changes in the White House provide additional reasons for the Republic of Srpska to politically oppose the now weakened Bavarian official.
Given that the security of the Balkans in the 19th and 20th centuries depended on the stability of its geographic center—Bosnia and Herzegovina—and that the security of Europe, and even parts of Eurasia, depended on the situation in the Balkans, the authorities of the Republic of Srpska should link the issue of the illegitimate “High Representative” Christian Schmidt to the broader question of establishing security on the European continent after the collapse of the Western military intervention in Ukraine, within the framework of negotiations between Russia and the United States.
Christian Schmidt fully embodies the policies of the American “deep state” and its European colonial structures, from which Trump and his administration are clearly distancing themselves. More precisely, Christian Schmidt symbolizes the failure of previous U.S. policies and their unnecessary aggression toward the Russian Federation, which brought the world to the brink of World War III, primarily through the disregard of Moscow’s vital geopolitical interests.
ON THE TABLE OF RUSSIAN-AMERICAN NEGOTIATIONS
Given the potential risks that Europe faces from its historical “powder keg,” the voting down of Russia’s representative in the Steering Board of the Peace Implementation Council during Schmidt’s selection, and the simultaneous deliberate bypassing of the United Nations Security Council, serve as important evidence of the disregard for Russia’s vital interests. Therefore, this issue should be included in the Russian-American negotiating agenda.
If abolishing the institution of the High Representative is perhaps premature in the initial phase of restoring trust between Russia and the United States, then appointing a new, legitimate High Representative, selected in the same manner as all those before Schmidt, would be the best proof that mutual trust—linked with the reciprocal recognition of geopolitical interests—has been restored in a geographical area where Europe’s security depends.
In lobbying to place the issue of the illegitimate “High Representative” Schmidt on the agenda of Russian-American negotiations, Serbia should assist the Republic of Srpska. Unfortunately, the situation in Serbia suggests that the chances of this happening are slim.
For the foreign policy efforts to remove the colonial administrator Schmidt from Bosnia and Herzegovina to succeed, it is essential that the leadership of the Republic of Srpska demonstrates a firm determination to refuse to implement the verdicts of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina as long as the “High Representative” Schmidt remains in the country. Additionally, unified support from the citizens of the Republic of Srpska for such a policy is crucial.
PREVENT SIPA FROM OPERATING
In lobbying to bring the issue of the illegal “High Representative” Schmidt to the table in Russian-American negotiations, Republika Srpska should primarily receive assistance from Serbia. Protecting the institution of the President of Republika Srpska and Milorad Dodik personally from the unlawful prosecution by the Court of BiH—based on an illegal act imposed by an illegitimate “High Representative”—is an obligation of the Serbian government. This obligation arises from the fact that Serbia is a guarantor of the Dayton Peace Agreement, but also from Article 13 of the Serbian Constitution, which directly mandates all state institutions to protect the rights of Serbs abroad.
For foreign policy efforts aimed at removing the colonial administrator, Bavarian Schmidt, from BiH to be successful, there must first be a high level of agreement and determination within the leadership of Republika Srpska. This includes the decision not to enforce any legally binding conviction by the Court of BiH against Milorad Dodik and, in this regard, to prevent the operation of the State Investigation and Protection Agency (SIPA) on the territory of Republika Srpska.
SOVEREIGNTY PROVEN ON THE POLITICAL FIELD
Consequently, for an individual case to gain a general legal framework, it is necessary to adopt a Law on the Non-Implementation of Decisions of the Court and Prosecutor’s Office of BiH on the territory of Republika Srpska—similar to the already adopted Law on the Non-Implementation of Decisions of the Constitutional Court of BiH. This law should remain in effect until the Steering Board of the Peace Implementation Council (PIC) and the UN Security Council officially appoint a new High Representative.
The Court and the Prosecutor’s Office of BiH have effectively become instruments for enforcing the arbitrary rule of the illegitimate “High Representative” Schmidt. The question of the legal validity of such acts under a colonial “legal” order—one that has long departed from the framework established by the Dayton Agreement—is of secondary importance. What truly matters is whether Republika Srpska is prepared to defend its sovereignty. Sovereignty is not merely a legal concept but a matter of political power, proven through political action.
RETURNING TO THE 1995 FOUNDATIONS
Challenging the legitimacy of the so-called “High Representative” Schmidt, alongside the Court and Prosecutor’s Office of BiH, as mere instruments of OHR-imposed rule, is crucial for internationalizing the issue of restoring BiH’s governance to its original Dayton framework. The Court and Prosecutor’s Office of BiH were established outside and in violation of the Dayton Agreement, with the clear goal of transforming BiH from a confederation into a federation. Domestic and foreign actors alike must be constantly reminded that BiH will disintegrate if it does not return to its 1995 status—i.e., the structure outlined in the Dayton Constitution.
Since the signing of the Dayton Agreement, there has been a continuous process of derogating Republika Srpska’s constitutional position. However, there have never been more favorable international circumstances to halt and reverse this process. Whether this historic turning point is reached—and whether the defense of Republika Srpska’s highest official ultimately brings lasting political benefits to the entity itself—depends on the maturity and courage of Serbian political leaders and the foresight of the people of Republika Srpska.
