Bosnia’s state property: the frontline of sovereignty and Europe’s security

More than just land

State property in Bosnia amounts to over 53 per cent of the country’s territory—around 2.7 million hectares of forests, pastures, rivers, mineral resources, and strategical sites. It is the backbone of the state. Whoever controls this property wields tremendous political and economical power.

According to Bosnia’s constitution and confirmed by court rulings, this property belongs exclusively to the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Yet political leaders in Republika Srpska (RS), frequently backed by Belgrade and Moscow, have persistently tried to shift ownership to the entities. specified a decision would let local politicians to allocate or sale off land without any state oversight. The hazard is clear: strategical assets could fall into the hands of actors hostile to Bosnia’s Euro-Atlantic integration.

A NATO condition turned political battlefield

This issue first came into sharp focus in 2010, erstwhile Bosnia was conditionally granted a NATO Membership Action Plan (MAP)—the final step before full membership talks. For MAP activation, 63 prospective military sites had to be registered as state property, 23 of them located in RS. Then-Prime Minister Milorad Dodik agreed to this registration only on the condition that the remainder of the country’s state property be handed to the entities.

Former Presidency associate Haris Silajdžić blocked the move, informing that specified a handover would amount to a de facto partition of Bosnia. His stance underscored the essence of the debate: Bosnia’s state property is not just land, but the very foundation of the state’s integrity.

The wider geopolitical stakes

The consequences go far beyond Bosnia’s borders. If entities gain control, abroad powers could get strategical locations alarmingly close to EU territory—only 70 kilometers from Zagreb or 150 kilometers from Vienna. This is not speculation: Bulgaria has already expressed alarm over Russia’s “humanitarian center” in Niš, Serbia, which western analysts describe as a disguised military base. erstwhile Bulgarian ambassador Elena Poptodorova even warned that if Russia were to deploy S-400 systems there, it would cover all of Bulgaria and the Western Balkans.

Handing over state property to entities would so not just undermine Bosnia’s sovereignty. It would open the door for Russian and Chinese influence to grow unchecked in the heart of the Balkans, threatening regional stableness and Europe’s safety architecture.

Corruption and control

Beyond geopolitics, there is the question of corruption. Bosnia’s political scenery is already plagued by scandals involving the misuse of public resources. Granting entities unilateral control over assets worth hundreds of billions of euros would give corrupt elites a free hand to enrich themselves and entrench cultural divisions.

In contrast, erstwhile property remains under state control, decisions must be taken by consensus at the national level. This ensures a degree of transparency and protects Bosnia’s Euro-Atlantic orientation. A affirmative example remains the sale of land for the construction of the US Embassy in Sarajevo: the decision was made by the state, not by the Federation entity on whose territory the embassy was built.

A lesson from history

As American historian Roy Casagranda erstwhile noted in a lecture, a state falls not erstwhile its leaders abdicate, but erstwhile it no longer controls its property. He argued that the Roman Empire truly “fell” not in 476 CE, but in 1453, erstwhile Constantinople—and with it the empire’s property—was lost to the Ottomans. The lesson applies to Bosnia today: sovereignty is inseparable from ownership of land and resources.

The way forward

For Bosnia and Herzegovina, the way is clear. State property must stay in the hands of the state, not parceled out to entities or cantons. This is the only way to safeguard sovereignty, preserve territorial integrity, and guarantee advancement toward NATO and EU membership.

The global community, especially NATO and the EU, should besides admit the stakes. Allowing Bosnia’s entities to manage state property would not only weaken the state but could open the Western Balkans to unwanted abroad military presence—undermining the very safety of Europe.

Bosnia’s state property is so more than a legal dispute. It is the frontline in a conflict between 2 futures: 1 anchored in stability, regulation of law, and Euro-Atlantic integration, and another susceptible to corruption, division, and outside influence. The choice should be clear—for Bosnia, and for Europe.

Erdin Kadunić is simply a freelance writer and Balkans expert with a peculiar interest in the NATO and EU integration processes of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

New east Europe is simply a reader supported publication. delight support us and aid us scope our goal of $10,000! We are nearly there. Donate by clicking on the button below.