Bosnian Serb leader Milorad Dodik's new laws spark major political crisis
The Bosnian Serb leader enacted laws to ban state-level security and judicial bodies in one part of the country's territory, following his controversial sentencing last Wednesday.
ADVERTISEMENT
The president of Bosnia and Herzegovina's Serb-majority entity of the Republika Srpska (RS), Milorad Dodik, has introduced new laws meant to ban the operation of state-level security and judicial institutions in what comprises about half of the Western Balkan country's territory.
The acts, which were previously adopted by the RS' National Assembly, came in response to the first-instance verdict by the state-level Court of BiH against Dodik issued last Wednesday, causing a major political crisis in the EU membership hopeful.
The Sarajevo-based court sentenced the Bosnian Serb leader to one year in prison and barred him from politics for six years for going against the decisions of the international community's peace envoy, German diplomat Christian Schmidt, which constitutes a criminal act. The verdict is not final, and Dodik can appeal it.
In Bosnia, the High Representative acts as the chief arbiter in high-profile disputes and the key figure overseeing the implementation of the Dayton Agreement, signed in 1995 to stop the war in the country.
The agreement brought about the end of the war between the country's three main ethnic groups — Bosniaks, Serbs and Croats — that began in 1992 during the dissolution of the former Yugoslavia, deemed as the bloodiest conflict on European soil since World War II.
The peace deal, parts of which act as the country's constitution, split the country into two main administrative units, or entities: the Serb-majority RS and the Bosniak-Croat Federation of BiH (FBiH), partially overseen by an umbrella state-level government.
Meant to appease the former belligerents, it created a complicated system of checks and balances, said to be the world's most complex democracy.
On Thursday, Dodik — who has rejected the verdict as instigated by Bosniaks, as well as High Representative Schmidt's legitimacy — asked the Bosnian citizens for calm, blaming Bosniak politicians for what he said was warmongering and 'revenge against the Serbs'.
'They believe that they should eliminate in the political sense every Serb who does not correspond to their political projections,' Dodik added.
Neighbouring Serbia's President Aleksandar Vučić said he had insisted Dodik go to the capital for talks after the verdict, but there was no response 'apart from a barrage of insults'.
'I have always considered that any conversation is better, more beneficial and more important than any display of strength, power and force,' Vučić emphasised.
Meanwhile, one of the members of the three-way Bosnian Presidency, Denis Bećirović, said that he has filed a request with the country's Constitutional Court over the constitutionality of the latest set of laws.
Apart from Bećirović, the speakers of the state-level Parliamentary Assembly's two chambers, Denis Zvizdić and Kemal Ademović, stated they would do the same.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Euronews
a day ago
- Euronews
European leaders hope to sway Trump on Ukraine during virtual meeting
European leaders will on Wednesday use a virtual meeting with Donald Trump to try to ensure the US president truly understands what is at stake for the continent before he meets Vladimir Putin later this week, but experts are doubtful they will succeed. Trump and his vice-president, JD Vance, will join a meeting convened by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz in the early afternoon (central European time) that will also include Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and the leaders of Finland, France, Italy, Poland, the UK, the NATO Secretary-General and the chiefs of the European Commission and Council. Merz, France's Emmanuel Macron and British premier Keir Starmer will then chair a meeting of the so-called coalition of the willing, scheduled to start at around 16:30 CET, according to media reports. "We welcome the efforts of President Trump to reach peace for Ukraine, a peace that is just and lasting and respects sovereignty and territorial integrity. And in this sense, we are working with Ukraine to make sure that this is kept in mind in the meeting on Friday," a spokesperson for the European Commission told reporters on Tuesday. "What we're doing now is reiterating our views on what a just and lasting peace for Ukraine should be and that any decision on Ukraine can be taken with Ukraine at the table," Arianna Podestà added. Europe seen by Trump and Putin 'as largely irrelevant' Zelenskyy is not expected to attend the summit to be held in Alaska on 15 August between the US and Russian presidents. Trump told reporters on Monday that "out of respect I'll call him first" after the talks wrap up. The announcement last week that a summit would be held has led to a flurry of diplomatic contact in Europe over fears Ukraine and the wider continent's interests will be trampled on in a bid for a quick deal. EU leaders - bar Hungary - reiterated in a joint statement on Tuesday that no deal can be made without Ukraine at the table. They also wrote that "international borders must not be changed by force", thereby rejecting Putin's ceasefire proposal to trade the Ukrainian territories of Donetsk and Luhansk. "Unable to bring much to the negotiations, European leaders have been relegated to the margins with the EU seen by Trump and Putin as largely irrelevant," Dr Neil Melvin, Director of International Security at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), told Euronews. "European leaders are able to inform Trump of their ideas, and the US will brief them on the summit outcomes, but Europe is in the position that the Ukraine conflict outcomes are being negotiated over its head and the continent's leadership is essentially an observer," he added. The call with Trump and Vance is a last-ditch attempt before the summit to get that point across before the Arctic meet-up. Trump treating peace deal like a 'real estate transaction' One of the central issues for Europeans, Ian Bond told Euronews, is that Trump appears to be treating a possible peace deal in Ukraine "like a real estate transaction". "He does not understand that some of the territory in the east of Ukraine that Putin covets would be vital to Ukraine's defence when (and it is 'when' not 'if') Russia resumes its aggression and tries to take more Ukrainian territory," the deputy director of the Centre for European Reform (CER) added. Additionally, recent comments by Trump "showed that he still blames Zelenskyy for the war, even though Russia was the aggressor." Vance's participation is also "significant", Majda Ruge, a senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) told Euronews, "because his position is further away from the one Europeans are hoping to get President Trump to agree to". The US vice-president told Fox News on Sunday that the US is "done with the funding of the Ukraine war business. We want to bring about a peaceful settlement to this thing". He also said that any deal was "not going to make anybody super happy" and called on Europe "to step up and take a bigger role in this thing, and if you care so much about this conflict you should be willing to play a more direct and a more substantial way in funding this war yourself". The EU and its member states are the biggest contributors to Ukraine's defence through their financial, humanitarian and military assistance to the war-torn country since the beginning of Russia's full-scale invasion in late February 2022. "The US Vice-President is keen to improve US relations with Russia and sees a need for compromise with Russian President Putin. He is therefore more likely to push for a position that involves greater concessions from Ukraine than what President Zelenskyy or the European leaders would like to see," Ruge added. Can European leaders sway Trump? The European leaders present in the meeting with Trump will then brief their counterparts involved in the so-called coalition of the willing. The group, led by France and the UK, was formed back in March following the initial thawing of relations between Washington and Moscow to discuss the security guarantees Europe could offer in the event of a peace deal. This will be their seventh meeting. They have so far agreed to the creation of a 'Multinational Force Ukraine' following reconnaissance visits to Ukraine by military chiefs and to "bolster Ukraine's ability to return to peace and stability", and to the establishment of a headquarters in Paris. "So far, the coalition of the willing has not been particularly willing to act. Its focus has been on preparing to support a peace settlement that was never likely as long as Putin's war aims were unchanged," Bond opined. "But what Ukraine needs at present is a coalition willing to help it before the cessation of hostilities – to put enough pressure on Russian forces that Putin is incentivised to stop fighting and make concessions. There is no sign of such a coalition at present," he added. The grouping itself, Dr Melvin said, "is a sign that the main institutions of the Euro-Atlantic community are now unable to deliver the political and security solutions that Europe needs" due to the fact that the EU and NATO run primarily on consensus. Whether Europe's efforts to rally Trump to their cause are fruitful will likely only be observed in Alaska on Friday. Their exchange will have been successful if Trump "stands up to Putin in Alaska, strengthens Zelenskyy's position militarily, and joins the Europeans in increasing sanctions pressure on Russia," Bond said, cautioning however that "it seems unlikely that the meeting will achieve any of those outcomes" given recent comments from US officials. "Maybe the best we can hope for is that Putin over-reaches so that even Trump finds it impossible to accept his proposals," he added.
Euronews
2 days ago
- Euronews
Can the EU be a climate leader and boost its economic competitiveness?
At the heart of the debate, in focus on this episode of EU Decoded, is whether the 27-country bloc can afford to retain its leadership in climate policy while remaining an economic powerhouse. Through its Climate Law, the EU pledged to become climate neutral by mid-century, with an intermediate target of a 55% reduction in greenhouse emissions compared to 1990 level by 2030. The review to the landmark piece of legislation spearheaded by the EU's executive in July plans to set a 2040 target. The review also includes a proposal to allow EU countries to participate in the international carbon market to offset some of their pollution. "So basically, an EU member state could pay a third country outside the EU to reduce its greenhouse emissions," Euronews reporter Gregoire Lory told the programme. "NGOs are saying this is nonsense because it runs against scientific opinion." It also allows for other forms of flexibilities. "One is the carbon removal, could be nature-based, or industrial technologies. And on this point, NGOs are saying that these industrial technologies' removers are not developed enough to be scaled up," Lory said. Another one is "flexibility between sectors, so sectors ahead on their reductions, could compensate those lagging behind." 'We can't solve the climate crisis alone' A attempt to fast-track the review through the European Parliament was however rejected. "The far right blocked it together with the (centre-right group) EPP," Greens MEP Lena Schilling (Austria) told Euronews. "Now we, together with the social democrats and the liberals, need to get EPP on board and that's what we are trying to do, to work together constructively and do another report, other amendments." But lawmakers are not the only ones divided. French President Emmanuel Macron had called in June for the Commission to delay its proposal, arguing more time is needed to reach a European compromise that would not hamper the bloc's flagging global competitiveness. For Schilling, Macron's stance "really messes with the next COP negotiations" which will take place in Brazil in November. "We are always saying we can't solve the climate crisis alone in Europe. We need China. We need the US. We need other countries. We need India. And then at the same time, right before we are announcing our NDCs (National Determined Contribution) trying to bail out. And that's just irresponsible and extremely, extremely dangerous," she added. But the fight against climate change seemed to have slipped down the list of priorities for the Commission. In its proposal last month for a €2 trillion budget for the 2028-2034 period, the focus was squarely on competitiveness and security and defence. Journalist: Alice Tidey and Isabel Marques da Silva Content production: Pilar Montero López Video production: Zacharia Vigneron Graphism: Loredana Dumitru Editorial coordination: Ana Lázaro Bosch and Jeremy Fleming-Jones
Euronews
2 days ago
- Euronews
Trump's election paved way for Israeli attacks on Iran
Israel had been planning a full-scale invasion of Iran for many years, but the re-election of Donald Trump coincided with a series of critical events paving the way to the direct attack in June this year, four current and former Israeli intelligence sources told Euronews in separate interviews. Israeli intelligence sources, speaking on condition of anonymity due to security concerns, told Euronews that Mossad agents had identified key strategic factors and political conditions enabling them to prepare for and initiate the attack on Iran. Among these, they cited the intensification of the proxy war, the election of US President Donald Trump, and the momentum of nuclear negotiations with Western powers. On 13 June, Israel launched multiple land and air strikes on Iran, killing senior Iranian military leaders, nuclear scientists and politicians, and damaging or destroying Iranian air defences and nuclear military facilities. Iran retaliated with missile and drone strikes on Israeli cities and military sites, aided by Iran-allied Houthis in Yemen. The US defended Israel from these attacks and, on the ninth day, bombed three Iranian nuclear sites. Iran then struck a US base in Qatar. On 24 June, under US pressure, Israel and Iran agreed to a ceasefire. Both sides claimed victory following the ceasefire. Israel and the US asserted that they significantly degraded Iran's missile and nuclear programs, while Iranian authorities denied these claims. Independent assessments are currently limited due to the secrecy surrounding Iran's nuclear program. Diplomacy open but eroding Israel and the US said that the attack had been in the planning for many years, in parallel with diplomatic engagement with Iran. 'Israel has never hidden the fact that it wants to destroy the Iranian nuclear program, and it has never hidden the fact it was also willing to allow it to be resolved diplomatically, as long as the diplomatic solution prevents Iran not only from enriching uranium, but from ever getting the capacity to pose an existential threat to the state of Israel,' a first Israeli intelligence source told Euronews. Diplomatic engagements were not bringing any tangible results, the sources said, while tensions between the US and Iran grew following Donald Trump's first presidency in the US from 2016-2020. In 2018, Trump withdrew the US from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA), which had limited Iran's nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. Following the US re-imposition of sanctions, Iran began ignoring the deal's nuclear restrictions in 2019. Key proxy war events In the meantime, the proxy war between Israel and Iran was progressively escalating. 'I think the pivotal moment was in April 2024, when Iran launched missiles directly from its own territory at Israel. Until then, Iran had primarily relied on proxies to attack Israel, while Israel carried out covert operations inside Iran with plausible deniability, aiming to prevent escalation into full-scale war,' the first intelligence source said. In April 2024, Iran launched missiles at Israel in retaliation for an Israeli strike on its consulate in Syria that killed Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Zahedi. He was the highest-ranking Iranian military official killed since the Iranian General Qassem Suleimani's assassination in 2020 by the US Trump administration. Suleimani was the 'architect' of Iran's proxy war in the Middle East. 'I think Israel had to wait from April 2024. It needed time to gather all the intelligence and planning it needed in order to feel confident that, already in the first two or three days of the war, we would be in a position where we had complete control over the situation, minimal casualties at home, and complete control of Iranian airspace, with the ability to attack whenever and wherever we want to,' the source added. Trump re-election Donald Trump's second election as US president was another key pivotal moment and was welcomed by all the four sources. 'The original plan was to attack in October 2024. That was after the second direct missile attack by Iran on Israel following Israel's assassination of Hezbollah's leader Hassan Nasrallah in Lebanon in September,' the first intelligence sources said, but the attack was delayed to wait for the US elections in November. 'I think it was very important for Israel that Trump should win those elections. Once Trump was elected, he put the main emphasis on reaching a hostage deal,' said the second source, referring to the Hamas-Israel conflict. 'Once the hostage deal was signed around March 2025, Israel was again in a position to attack Iran. But the US and Iran entered into negotiations, to try bringing a peaceful solution to the issue of Iran's enrichment and nuclear program,' the first source added. US-Iran negotiations In March, the US and Iran began indirect negotiations on the Iranian nuclear program. The negotiations did not bring an agreement, although counterparts described them as 'constructive'. 'Trump gave 60 days to those negotiations. The day after, Israel attacked Iran. I think that obviously was coordinated with the US administration,' all the current and former Israeli intelligence sources told Euronews. Washington has never publicly stated that Israel's first attack on Iran was coordinated. However, following the US strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said at a press conference on June 23 that the operation had been planned for many years. 'When we attacked, we were at the end of the 60-day period of negotiations. I think it was very clear to Trump at this stage that the Iranians were not willing to forego enrichment on Iranian soil, even though the negotiations did bring up some interesting solutions to that. For example, some sort of international enrichment agency that would allocate enriched uranium at civilian levels to all countries in the region interested in it,' the first intelligence source said. 'Trump realised Iran was engaging in negotiations merely to buy time, with no real intent to reach a resolution. The talks served as a decoy, giving Iran the impression it wouldn't be attacked, especially amid widespread press reports that Israel was on the verge of striking,' the first source added. The current situation While Iran claimed victory and celebrated its resilience towards Israel's invasion, Israeli intelligence sources said that Tehran's regime has been left weakened following the attack. 'Israel has emerged from several conflicts in a stronger strategic position in the region, but in a more difficult political position with its Western partners, except perhaps Washington. We're at a very delicate moment in which both Israel and Iran have little to gain by pushing further right now,' Ian Lesser, fellow and adviser to the German Marshall Fund's president, told Euronews. 'Iran has fewer options now. One option is to return to negotiations. Another is to turn to its traditional methods of responding, which rely on proxies and non-traditional actions, including terrorism. There is also the possibility that, if Iran maintains some ability to develop nuclear weapons, it may see this as another path. But I don't think anyone will let them do that. There may be disagreements about Israeli strategy and policy, but overall, Israel and its Western partners are not willing to tolerate a nuclearised Iran,' the expert added. If the war had gone further, Israel would have probably attacked gas and oil installations, a fourth former Israeli intelligence source told Euronews. However, after the ceasefire, negotiations have resumed at diplomatic level. On 25 July, diplomats from Iran met counterparts from Germany, the UK, and France in Istanbul for talks, the first since Israel's mid-June attack on Iran, amid warnings that these European countries might trigger a 'snapback' of UN sanctions on Tehran. The second intelligence source said that following the conflict, Israel would maintain control over Iranian airspace, in order to 'destroy anything that even suggests that the Iranians are preparing to rebuild any of the capabilities that we have destroyed'.
