March 30, 2025.
Bosnia and Herzegovina, a culturally rich and diverse country, has long struggled with the complexities brought by its multi-ethnic makeup and opposing political factions. Unearthed by the breakup of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, ethnic tensions in Bosnia and the entirety of former Yugoslavia erupted, creating various armed conflicts. Today, tensions still exist primarily within Bosnia, which remains politically and ethnically split into two entities: the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, predominantly Bosnian Muslims otherwise known as Bosnaiks, and the Republika Srpska, inhabited predominantly by Bosnian Serbs. While the Dayton Agreement ended the Bosnian War in 1995, it also formalized the division of the country into two political entities, resulting in a weak, fragmented, and corrupt central government. This institutional separation continues to fuel ethnic tensions and political instability, with many still holding animosity due to the war. Understanding the ethnic makeup and history of conflict amongst Bosniaks, Croats, and Serbs is vital to gaining deeper insight into Republika Srpska’s separatist tendencies and close ties with Serbia and Russia. Recognizing these historical and ethnic dynamics is essential for anticipating future intra and interstate conflicts, as Bosnia’s unresolved divisions and external influences threaten to destabilize the region once again.
Bosnia and Herzegovina is inhabited by three major ethnic groups, all of which identify with a different nationality and religion. 50 percent of the population are Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslim), 31 percent are Serbs (Christian Orthodox), and 15 percent are Croats (Catholics). For centuries these groups have lived together, with their divide being shaped by the rule of the Ottomans and the Austro-Hungarians. Under the strong and authoritarian rule of longtime Yugoslav president Josip Broz Tito, nationalist groups were often suppressed, but many held onto their ethnic background and identified with the greater Yugoslavia. However, when Tito died in 1980 a power vacuum was created, leading many members of parliament to focus on the needs of their own republics instead of Yugoslavia as a whole, exacerbating a sense of national identity in the Yugoslav republics of Slovenia, Croatia, and Bosnia. In the 1980s various non-armed conflicts arose between ethnic groups, such as in the Serbian autonomous region of Kosovo, where many were ethnic Albanians and didn’t identify with Serbia. By the 1990s the anti-communist sentiment which had struck the Eastern Bloc and then the Soviet Union had spread to Yugoslavia. Respect for the central authority soon became confined to Serbia, Montenegro, and ethnic Serbs living in other republics. By the late 1980s devout communist Slobodan Milošević, President of Serbia and then Yugoslavia, had begun his reign over the region, arising amongst popular support for anti-independence beliefs and restrictions of power in Kosovo and Vojvodina. Milošević would become a key player in the Yugoslav wars and later be charged for war crimes.
In June of 1991 Croatia and Slovenia both declared independence from Yugoslavia. Immediately following independence violence between the new states and the Yugoslav People’s Army quickly erupted. In 1992 the Yugoslav People’s Army, most commonly called the JNA, discontinued its fighting. However, many ethnic Serbs continued to fight against the government and were supported by Yugoslavia. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, and although it was still a part of Yugoslavia, elections were being held amongst the three ethnic groups, with each group putting forward a candidate. The tripartite government originally consisted of Alija Izetbegović (Bosniak), Radovan Karadžić (Serb), and Stjepan Kljuić (Croat). However, Alija Izetbegović soon assumed the presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina. While the Bosniak and Croat leaders pushed for independence, Radovan and his followers rejected it. By 1991 the three major groups had begun forming their own autonomous regions within the republic. When the independence referendum was held, Radovan called on all Serbs to not participate and reject the appeal, the vote passed with 99.7 percent of Bosnians voting for independence. On April 6, 1992, Bosnia officially declared itself independent from Yugoslavia, being recognized the next day as a legitimate sovereign country by the United States and the European Union.
Immediately following Bosnian independence, Bosnian Serb paramilitary groups began arming themselves and taking up defensive positions in territory dominated by ethnic Serbs, eventually Bosniaks and Croats did the same. The Bosnian Serbs then began surrounding various settlements and laying siege to Bosnian cities with help from the JNA. The capital city of Bosnia and Herzegovina: Sarajevo, was initially seized by the JNA and then the army of Republika Srpska, constantly being bombarded by artillery and sniper fire. The siege of Sarajevo was the longest siege of a capital city in modern history, lasting from 1992 to 1996. On the other hand, the Bosnian war is marked by a much darker legacy: ethnic cleansing. Carried out by mainly Bosnian Serbs, Bosnaiks were systematically targeted through mass executions, forced deportations, and sexual violence, with the goal of eradicating the nationality. The most notorious example of this is when 8,000 Bosniak men and boys were rounded up by Serb forces and executed in July of 1995. This became known as the Srebrenica massacre and is the worst act of genocide in Europe since WWII. In 1993 the conflict became much more complicated when Bosnian Croats, supported by Croatia, sought to establish their own entity, leading to a brutal three-sided conflict between all three nationalities. According to the Sarajevo based Research and Documentation Center, 101,000 people were declared either killed or missing during the Bosnian War. Furthermore, many actors such as Slobodan Milošević and Radovan Karadžić were arrested and trailed for war crimes.
The Dayton Agreement, brokered by the United States in 1995, ended the Bosnian War. However, in my opinion the foundation of the agreement is entirely flawed, as instead of fostering unity, it institutionalizes Bosnia’s ethnic divisions, further dividing the country and making it prone to future conflict. The Dayton Agreement created an incredibly complex political system which consists of three presidency positions, one executive position given to a foreign citizen, and two autonomous entities. Bosnia and Herzegovina currently has three presidents, one for each nationality. Furthermore, a high representative from a foreign state has overarching political power and is to oversee the Dayton Agreement. Following the agreement, the country was split into the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which is mainly made up of Bosniaks and Croats, and the Republika Srpska, mainly Serb. Each of these separate republics have their own presidents, which means that in total Bosnia has six different executive office holders. While the Dayton Agreement stopped widescale bloodshed, it cemented ethnic fragmentation, failing to address the underlying issues which continue to play a role in domestic politics. Due to the highly decentralized, unstable, and corrupt, federal government, as well as the division amongst the two autonomous republics, the future of Bosnia remains uncertain, with tensions resurfacing in recent months.
By understanding the root causes and the actions that led to the Bosnian war it is possible to take preventive measures to prevent conflict on a similar scale. However, due to the institutionalized ethnic division, entrenched by the agreement, achieving long-lasting peace is much harder as the environment remains prone to future ethnic conflict and rising nationalist sentiment.
One Serb nationalist, president of Republika Srpska Milorad Dodik, has long threatened to break away from Bosnia and Herzegovina. Dodik has often displayed separatist actions, many of them being empty threats. However, recently he has taken a more hardline approach, receiving a one-year prison sentence and six-year ban on public office as a consequence. Dodik has long clashed with and accused the high representative, Christian Schmidt of attempting to undermine the autonomy of Bosnian Serbs. He has also threatened the republics succession on multiple occasions, leading to sanctions against him by the U.S and the U.K. While many of his claims can at best be labeled as political bluff, he has recently undertaken legitimate efforts to undermine the authority of Schmidt and other state-level institutions in Republika Srpska. For example, in 2023, Dodik adopted a law that stated that the decisions of the high representative would not be published in the republic’s constitution or be implemented. Shortly after Schmidt vetoed the law, but Dodik ignored his actions and signed a decree, putting it into effect. Following his sentencing Dodik’s separatist threats lost their legitimacy, as Dodik does not hold the domestic power potential to succeed by force. However, it is political divisions and conflicts like these that if continued, threaten the long-term stability of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Due to Republika Srpska being dominated by Bosnian Serbs, it’s no secret that they and Dodik hold close ties with Serbia, openly opposing the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the EU. Dodik and the republic as a whole share nationalist ideology with Serbia. Therefore, Serbian president Aleksandar Vučić has often provided political and economic support to Dodik’s leadership, with both leaders promoting Serbian nationalism and viewing Republika Srpksa as a “Serb state.” Belgrade has long been a supporter of Republika Srpska, both during the war and in present day. In 2022 Serbia announced 100 million Euros in aid to the republic, further strengthening their economic bond. Both entities have also upped their collaboration with the creation of the Belgrade-Banja Luka highway, aiming to integrate the two economies. Today Serbia remains Republika Srpska’s largest trading partner, making the republic reliant on Serbia. Furthermore, while Bosnia and Herzegovina is officially neutral, Republika Srpska maintains close ties with Serbia’s military, to which the republics police forces have often trained with Serbia’s military. Republika Srpska and more so Dodik, maintains close ties with Russia, to which he has voiced support for Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and refused to algin Bosnia with sanctions against Russia. Similar to Serbia, Russia also maintains economic ties with Republika Srpska, supplying large amounts of energy and various investments in the republic’s infrastructure.
Due to rising nationalism, ethnic divide, animosity left over from the war, political instability, corruption, and a weak and complex central government, Bosnia remains a fragile and volatile state prone to future conflict. By analyzing the factors which led to the beginning of the Bosnian War through a constructivist theory of international relations, its possible to spot patterns and events similar to those of the early 1990s. Through this, politicians must know when and how to avert political crisis and future conflict. However, it is evident that the increasing divide amongst the two autonomous republics will make any cooperation in the future very difficult. Therefore, it is vital to monitor the actions of Bosnia’s various ethnopolitical parties. While it is not likely that another armed conflict will arise in Bosnia in the near future, I strongly believe Bosnia is destined to fail decades down the line of the Dayton Agreement is not ratified, which is a shame because even amidst the chaos, Bosnia remains one of the most beautiful and culturally rich states in Europe, with spectacular architecture people, cuisine, music, and nature. There are multiple possibilities for the future of Bosnia, the most obvious being that no large-scale changes will be made and turmoil will only increase amongst the two autonomous republics. In a more extreme but not impossible scenario, Serbia may take a more hardline approach to Bosnia, seeking to aid in Republika Srpska’s succession from Bosnia and Herzegovina. Similar to the events which followed the breakup of Yugoslavia, Bosnian Serbs may once again take up arms and create paramilitary groups to resist central authority, likely being supported by Serbia or Russia. On the other hand, tensions amongst Bosnaiks and Croats may build up as Croats have increasingly moved to gain more recognition within the country’s governments. However, I hope that the Dayton Agreement will soon be ratified, leading to greater unity and a more stable political system within the country. While it is hard to determine the future of domestic politics in Bosnia, understanding the underlying complexities and dynamics of Bosnia’s ethnic makeup is essential for anticipating and preventing future intra and interstate conflicts amongst the three major ethnic groups and other Balkan states. As of now I have a trip planned for Bosnia and Croatia in the summer of 2026, to which I hope to explore the beautiful countries and the ethnic divisions and political turmoil firsthand.
Sources:
Bosnian War | Overview, Combatants, Death Toll, & War Crimes | Britannica
Washington Should Stop Defending Bosnia’s Biased Constitution
Leave a Reply