The President of Republika Srpska, Milorad Dodik, emphasized that Christian Schmidt’s decision to annul the conclusions of the National Assembly is not only legally problematic but also ethically questionable, as it strikes at the very core of human freedom – the right to opinion and stance.
- This intervention, presented as an act of preserving the constitutional order, fundamentally reflects a deep misunderstanding of the democratic process and the right to express opinions. Schmidt’s decision is not only legally problematic but also ethically questionable, as it strikes at the very core of human freedom – the right to opinion, the right to stance. Republika Srpska was established through the Dayton process, not by the High Representative, and certainly not Schmidt, who isn’t even legally recognized as such. As a party to the Dayton Agreement, our fundamental right is to have an opinion on all matters – states Dodik in his op-ed for Glas Srpske, which we present in full:
The conclusions of the National Assembly of Republika Srpska represent a form of political stance, a way for representatives of one people to articulate views and opinions on key issues related to the Dayton Agreement. The fact that Schmidt has failed to recognize this distinction is not only concerning but also humiliating. Has there ever been a case in modern Europe where the opinion of a contracting party is banned?
Democracy on fragile ground
Democracy is based on freedom of expression, the exchange of opinions, and argumentative dialogue. When one actor, whether domestic or international, decides to ban opinions, they violate the fundamental principles upon which modern society is built. The conclusions of the National Assembly are, even to the harshest critics, political views and assessments of the parties to the Dayton Agreement.
Schmidt’s blunder sends a dangerous message: in Bosnia and Herzegovina, opinions that do not align with the preferred political narratives can be banned. This sets a precedent that not only destabilizes the political landscape but also undermines the very idea of sovereignty and democracy. Ironically, such a policy echoes historical attempts by Germanic powers to impose their models of governance and values in this region. As history shows, these attempts failed – and they will fail again. With these actions, Schmidt not only undermines sovereignty but also seriously endangers the chances of building long-term trust among the peoples of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Schmidt against logic and law
How can one explain Christian Schmidt’s decision to intervene in this manner? The conclusions of the National Assembly, no matter how politically unacceptable they may be to some, represent the views of a party to the Dayton Agreement. They do not impose sanctions or enforce decisions. They are opinions. Banning opinions is not only politically unsustainable – it is logically absurd. With this intervention, Schmidt has demonstrated a lack of understanding of the essence of political communication, as well as the basic principles of human freedom.
An even greater absurdity is that the European Union, which prides itself on freedom of opinion and expression, remains silent in the face of such actions. If the EU truly stands for the rule of law, procedures, democracy, and sovereignty, it must make it clear that their primary interlocutors are the democratically elected representatives of the people, not illegal and illegitimate foreign officials who, in a midlife crisis, adopt authoritarian tendencies. The history of this region demands special attention and understanding because only by respecting local realities can sustainable peace and mutual trust be built.
A return to the branches of the past
Banning opinions takes people “back to the branches” – to a state where basic human functions are suspended. Republika Srpska is a political and constitutional reality, a contracting party, equal to the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and its people are not and will never be second-class citizens. Schmidt’s decision only deepens the sense of injustice and alienation among the peoples of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
If Christian Schmidt believes that Republika Srpska has no right to an opinion, what does that say about his view of the people living here? Does he see us as incapable of rational thinking, expressing opinions, or forming political stances? Or even worse, does he view us as beings deprived of that basic human trait – the ability to think?
Bosnia and Herzegovina deserves institutions that respect rights and opinions, not those that treat its people as second-class citizens. Schmidt’s decision is not just a mistake – it is an insult to anyone who considers themselves free and thoughtful. If we allow such decisions to pass without a response, the question is not whether we will lose our freedom – but whether we will even be considered human beings.
Republika Srpska has consistently expressed its views on the Dayton Agreement. Foreign powers have deliberately excluded and annulled every agreement between Republika Srpska and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, as the parties to the Dayton Agreement and process, installing themselves as a superior party and desecrating not only the Dayton Agreement but also violating international law, especially the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. And the Dayton Agreement is precisely that, at least according to the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) Opinion No. 337/2005 of June 10-11, 2005.
Or does anyone take this seriously?
According to this “unserious,” “disrespectful,” “irrelevant” Venice Commission, the Dayton Agreement and all its Annexes “must be regarded” as an international treaty. Their nature or interpretation is, therefore, governed by international law, particularly the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
Neither Schmidt, nor the United States, nor Britain signed the Dayton Agreement, and thus they are not contracting parties. They are mere usurpers, violators, and abusers of everything the Dayton Agreement represents.
Source: RTRS
