Legal expert Ognjen Tadić has analyzed recent statements by Christian Schmidt concerning Bosnia and Herzegovina, including his warnings of a forthcoming “decisive confrontation,” in an opinion article.
We publish his article in full:
Christian Schmidt is once again talking about BiH. Once again, he is issuing warnings, threatening a “decisive confrontation” and announcing what he believes should happen in BiH over the coming year.
Reporting on the key messages from Schmidt’s interview with German radio station Deutschlandfunk following the recent elections in BiH, the Klix news portal wrote that Schmidt attributed Milorad Dodik’s and SNSD’s renewed electoral victories to the failed tactics of the opposition in Republika Srpska, despite expectations that electoral reforms would make manipulation more difficult.
According to Schmidt, any analysis should examine not only the popularity of the winners but also whether the opposition offered a genuine alternative.
“Unfortunately, we must conclude that the opposition, particularly with its leading candidate Draško Stanivuković, the mayor of Banja Luka, failed to offer a real alternative,” Schmidt stated.
Responding to the central question of whether BiH was closer to disintegration following the elections, Schmidt offered a prediction about the coming period.
“I fear that next year we will see Dodik’s attempts to split and divide the country. That is why I am already looking for European Union instruments and ways to respond. This is where the decisive confrontation will take place. At that point, the response must be clear, firm and unequivocal. This cannot continue!” Schmidt declared.
(Klix, “Schmidt announces confrontation: Next year we face Dodik’s attempts to divide BiH; we are seeking instruments to respond,” October 7, 2026.)
All of this might have been merely another political opinion expressed by a former German official were it not for a much more serious question surrounding Schmidt: who will be held accountable for the consequences of his policies in BiH, and apparently for some of his future activities as well?
Schmidt was and remains an instrument
Christian Schmidt was never a neutral observer of political developments in BiH. His activities were marked by political conflicts, imposed decisions, interventions in the domestic legal order and persistent questions about the nature and limits of his arbitrary exercise of power.
In his attempt to usurp the position of High Representative for BiH, Schmidt became an instrument for violating international law, disregarding the United Nations Charter and undermining the Dayton Peace Agreement.
Through his actions and so-called decisions, which he signed while presenting himself as High Representative, he repeatedly attacked the constitutional orders of BiH, the Federation of BiH and Republika Srpska.
He continuously violated the fundamental human and civil rights of people in BiH, particularly those who opposed him and sought to protect the international legal order and the constitutional arrangements of BiH, the Federation of BiH and Republika Srpska from his actions.
His arbitrary conduct went so far that, through certain decisions, he usurped not only the position of High Representative but also the legislative, executive and judicial powers of BiH, the Federation of BiH and Republika Srpska.
Throughout this period, Schmidt was perceived in Republika Srpska and among some people in the Federation of BiH as an instrument of policies that increasingly interfered with BiH’s internal constitutional order.
He was also regarded as evidence that the international protectorate had evolved into a mechanism for unlawfully altering the internal constitutional relationship established by Dayton, without the consent of the parties or the UN Security Council.
Schmidt was driven out of BiH after spending nearly five years attempting to usurp the position of High Representative.
Although expelled, he clearly has no intention of abandoning his efforts to create further problems in BiH, acting as an instrument of German foreign policy toward the country.
His continued activities from the comfort and security of his home in Germany demonstrate that his departure alone must not close the most important question: who will be held accountable for the political, legal and institutional damage caused by the policies he represented?
This question can no longer be swept under the carpet with references to the “international community.”
The international community is not an abstraction. Behind decisions stand states, governments, diplomats, embassies and individual politicians. In Schmidt’s case, the trail of responsibility leads primarily to Berlin.
Germany directed Schmidt’s actions and continues to do so
Germany nominated Schmidt for the position of High Representative in 2021. Official confirmation of this exists from the German Foreign Ministry.
The UN Security Council never adopted a resolution explicitly confirming Schmidt’s appointment. Russian and Chinese representatives openly argued at the time that his appointment lacked Security Council approval.
Therefore, Germany’s dispute with the Dayton Peace Agreement, an international treaty, is not imaginary. It is real.
It has existed from the beginning, at the highest level of the United Nations system, and was subsequently transferred to BiH.
The German Embassy in BiH confirmed its support for Schmidt even when domestic authorities attempted to determine whether his presence in the country had any legal basis whatsoever.
Following President Donald Trump’s election victory, although not solely because of that outcome but also because of all the problems Schmidt had created in BiH in the meantime, the United States found a way to end that episode and distance itself from much of Schmidt’s unlawful and undemocratic conduct.
This was done despite Germany’s opposition and the openly expressed dissatisfaction of its representatives in BiH.
That dissatisfaction continued even after Schmidt’s expulsion, taking the form of obstruction of proposals for a new High Representative submitted by the United States.
Dayton is not the private property of any Western government, including Germany.
The Dayton Peace Agreement is an international treaty. Its rules cannot depend on who happens to be politically stronger in Washington, Berlin or London.
That is precisely why accountability must not end with Christian Schmidt or his domestic political allies: the Troika parties in the Federation of BiH and the opposition in Republika Srpska, whom the constituent peoples have already punished at the ballot box.
The real subject of accountability should be Germany.
The German state was the political sponsor of Schmidt’s candidacy and remained the driving force behind his anti-Dayton and unlawful conduct in BiH.
There is extensive evidence of this.
What should be done?
BiH, Republika Srpska and the Federation of BiH should insist on a comprehensive legal examination of Schmidt’s mandate: who appointed him, under which legal instrument, with what powers and subject to what limitations.
The question of an international review of decisions resulting from the unlawful abuse of the so-called Bonn Powers must be raised, with the aim of establishing their lack of legal foundation and the extent of political overreach.
Mechanisms for holding individual German officials accountable for designing, supporting or implementing the disputed policies should be considered.
The issue of compensation must also be addressed wherever direct material damage resulting from unlawful decisions can be demonstrated, particularly damage to public budgets and to citizens whose human and civil rights were violated.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, a mechanism must be established to prevent Germany from unilaterally turning BiH’s internal affairs into an arena for pursuing its own geopolitical objectives in the future.
Departure must not be the end of the story
BiH must clearly demonstrate that it wants to stop being a laboratory in which major powers experiment with constitutional arrangements, sanctions, imposed laws and political pressure, only to return home when their geopolitical interests change.
If all that remains after everything is the conclusion that a false High Representative completed his mandate without facing any consequences, the message to future powerful figures will be simple: in BiH, you can change the rules, institutions and political relationships, and when your mandate ends, simply pack your bags and leave.
If, at the same time, the state most responsible for his conduct escapes accountability, the message to powerful countries will be even more alarming: do whatever you want, because no one can hold you accountable.
These two messages would demonstrate that BiH is not, and cannot function as, a state, more loudly, clearly and convincingly than any advocate of BiH’s dissolution, however extreme.
Those who are concerned about BiH’s future should be thinking about that, rather than the ramblings of a frustrated former usurper who has been expelled from the country.
Source: RTRS
