A woman walks by street graffiti in downtown Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina. —Photo courtesy of Chris Leslie (Balkan Journey/Post-Conflict Research Center)
Three decades after the end of the devastating 1992-1995 war in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH), which included genocide and crimes against humanity, this multiethnic Balkan country is in the grips of an escalating political crisis. Despite the Dayton Peace Agreement (DPA) that brought an end to the war, political divisions continue to undermine BiH’s stability.
In this Q&A with the Simon-Skjodt Center, Velma Šarić, Founder and President of the Post-Conflict Research Center in Sarajevo, warns that without urgent international action, the risk of renewed violence and fragmentation of the state is growing.
What is the source of the most recent tensions in BiH?
At the heart of this division is Milorad Dodik, the Bosnian Serb leader, who has spearheaded a resurgence of separatist rhetoric and actions within Republika Srpska (RS), one of the two largely autonomous entities created by the Dayton Peace Agreement under a weak central government. Since 2021, Dodik and his allies—including the Republic of Serbia and Russia—have pushed policies that challenge the legitimacy of state institutions, using secessionist language and efforts aimed at weakening the central government.
In February 2025, the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina issued a first instance ruling against Dodik, convicting him of failing to implement decisions from the Office of the High Representative, the international institution created by the Dayton Agreement to oversee the implementation of the accords. Although the verdict is not final, it marks a significant legal challenge to Dodik’s defiance of state authority; if the ruling stands, he will face a year in prison and be barred from holding office for the next six years. In response, the National Assembly of Republika Srpska swiftly condemned the ruling, framing it as a politically motivated attack on RS. Lawmakers escalated their secessionist rhetoric and introduced new legislation to further disconnect RS from state institutions, particularly in the judicial and electoral sectors. These moves reflect Dodik’s long-standing strategy of de facto independence and have been used to rally political support by portraying him as a victim of international pressure.
What are the main risks of mass atrocity crimes in BiH? How significant is the risk of open conflict or large-scale, targeted violence against civilians?
In recent months, the RS government has intensified efforts to erode the authority of state-level institutions by passing legislation that openly challenges the jurisdiction of BiH’s Constitutional Court and other central bodies. The leadership is laying the groundwork for parallel governance structures that could facilitate formal secession—a move that would significantly destabilize the country and likely provoke violent confrontations, especially in ethnically mixed areas.
The judicial system is under acute strain. Political interference is widespread, and war crimes prosecutions have slowed to a near halt. Recent RS legislation targeting the Court of BiH and the Prosecutor’s Office only deepens the institutional crisis and pushes the country closer to collapse.
Perhaps most alarming is the normalization of genocide denial and nationalist rhetoric. The legacy of the 1995 Srebrenica genocide remains a deeply divisive issue, and denialism is now pervasive in RS and Serbia. Education systems, political elites, and media outlets continue to entrench ethno-nationalist narratives, driving communities further apart and creating fertile ground for hate-based violence.
This political volatility is compounded by economic insecurity. Endemic corruption, high unemployment, and youth brain drain are fraying the social fabric and diminishing societal resilience. The militarization of RS police forces—including training with Russian operatives—raises concerns about paramilitary formation, while hate crimes against Bosniak returnees to RS are on the rise.
In this context, the risk of mass atrocity crimes—particularly targeted violence against civilians—is serious. While full-scale war may not be imminent, the steady erosion of institutional safeguards combined with rising ethnic mobilization poses a grave threat to peace and stability. Without decisive international engagement, Bosnia and Herzegovina may find itself on the brink of a crisis with devastating human consequences.
How can international actors—including the US government—help mitigate potential conflict and prevent mass atrocities?
As Bosnia and Herzegovina faces escalating threats to its sovereignty and stability, the United States remains uniquely positioned to help prevent conflict and reinforce democratic institutions. Though US engagement has declined in recent years, a strategic and sustained presence could be a decisive factor in countering separatist threats and deterring mass atrocity crimes.
Since 2018, the US Treasury has sanctioned Dodik and key RS officials for corruption and anti-constitutional behavior, limiting their financial networks and sending a clear signal. High-level diplomatic engagement has also proven effective; for instance, Dodik softened his rhetoric following a visit from a senior US intelligence official.
These efforts must be deepened and broadened. Appointing a US ambassador to BiH that supports its unity and stability, restoring funding to civil society and independent media, and reinforcing anti-corruption and judicial reform initiatives would counter growing authoritarianism.
While US leadership is indispensable, coordinated action with European allies is vital. The EU, despite internal divisions, plays a crucial role in shaping BiH’s trajectory. The country’s EU accession path remains one of the strongest incentives for reform. To keep that path credible, the EU must uphold its enlargement promises and respond more forcefully to those undermining peace. Germany and Austria’s recent sanctions on Dodik and his allies are a positive step, but broader European resolve is needed. Closer NATO cooperation on security preparedness and expanded intelligence-sharing with BiH’s state institutions are also essential to prevent escalation. The EU-led military presence in BiH remains indispensable, though questions persist about its capacity to manage a major crisis.
What are some of the challenges faced by actors working on memorialization, transitional justice, and reconciliation in relation to the 1995 Srebrenica Genocide? What can the international community do to support these actors?
Civil society organizations (CSOs) working on transitional justice, peace education, and remembrance—such as the Western Balkans Coalition for Genocide and Mass Atrocity Crimes Prevention—face mounting political pressure and shrinking civic space.
The Srebrenica Genocide Memorial, located on RS territory, has long served as a pillar of truth-telling and education. It offers survivors, victims' families, and the public a place to reflect on the consequences of mass violence. But even this state institution has come under threat, temporarily closing due to security concerns—a stark reflection of the hostile climate for independent work in RS.
Further compounding the risks, RS President Milorad Dodik recently announced plans to publish a registry of so-called “enemies” of the entity—many expected to be individuals or organizations supported by US assistance. This tactic raises serious concerns about intimidation and retaliation against activists, journalists, and educators engaged in genocide remembrance and civic advocacy.
And yet, there is resilience. Despite years of divisive rhetoric, a large majority of BiH citizens remain proud of their citizenship—82% in the Federation and 66% in RS. This enduring civic identity, though fragile, represents a foundation for peace. Grassroots memorialization efforts can continue to honor civilian victims of all ethnicities, promoting inclusive narratives that resist ethno-nationalist divisions.
International support is now more critical than ever. The United States can play a leading role by expanding funding for civil society, peace education, and independent journalism. Sustained diplomatic pressure—including public condemnation of repressive laws and continued use of targeted sanctions—can help deter further erosion of civic space.
The international community should also back the adoption of a state-level law on memorialization—an initiative that could harmonize remembrance efforts and protect inclusive narratives across ethnic lines. Ensuring safe and independent spaces for memorialization is essential to reconciliation, mass atrocity prevention, and the long-term stability of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Western Balkan region.
Velma Šarić is a researcher, journalist, peacebuilding expert, and human rights defender from Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, with around 20 years of work experience. She is Founder and current President of the Post-Conflict Research Center in Sarajevo.
The opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the US Holocaust Memorial Museum.