I thank all noble Lords who are participating today and acknowledge the considerable expertise and experience they bring to this debate. It is the dream team.
There are moments in international affairs when the distance between what Governments say and what they do becomes impossible to ignore. I believe we have reached such a moment with our policy on Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Government’s assessment last week identified instabilities in the western Balkans as
“strategic risks to the UK and our NATO allies … In Bosnia and Herzegovina … we have seen attempts to undermine the Dayton settlement that has maintained peace since the mid-1990s”.
These are serious conclusions and they deserve a serious response.
For over 30 years, the Dayton peace agreement sustained peace in Bosnia. It did so because it rested on strong local institutions and a broadly united international commitment to defend them and the sovereignty of the country. By 2010, the assumption was that the constitutional settlement had become sufficiently entrenched that European integration would drive reform, and the international consensus underpinning the post-Dayton order would endure.
Today, those assumptions can no longer be taken for granted. Bosnia and Herzegovina faces its most serious political crisis since 1995. What began as questions of constitutional authority have become questions of sovereignty. Backed by the Kremlin, the leadership of the Bosnian entity of Republika Srpska has embarked on a project of dismantling state institutions and eroding the country’s territorial integrity. The aspiration, stated with increasing openness, is the dissolution of the Bosnian state and the realisation of the project of greater Serbia, just as in 1992.
That would not merely destroy a country but destabilise an entire neighbourhood, pulling a thread that could unravel wider European security. The consequences for the people of Bosnia, of every ethnicity and community, would be devastating. The memories of the 1990s are sadly still alive. Let us be clear: this is not a project pursued in the interests of ordinary Bosnian Serb citizens, who are among the poorest in Europe. They deserve better than to be instrumentalised and used by a political elite who would sacrifice their futures and the futures of their children on the altar of nationalist ideology and personal ambition and gain.
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, on getting this brief debate. I pay tribute to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Peach, and Karen Pierce as envoys for the western Balkans. It was an imaginative appointment to make, and both have discharged the job with immense skill and results.
I want to make just two points in a very brief speech. First, we must, as a country and as a continent, stay engaged, interested and involved in the whole of the western Balkans region. After all, we have seen in the past how what happens in the western Balkans can all too easily spill over into the rest of the continent and into a wider calamity.
My second point is that in Europe we need to be collectively firm and decisive about the trouble being created by the leaders in Republika Srpska, a part of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and those in Belgrade who are encouraging their particular wrecking tactics. We need to do this confidently and boldly, and the EU needs to do it with us, to act to stop the mayhem that the irresponsibility in the region is promising. The western Balkans must not become an adventure playground for inside and outside malicious actors, as it so often has been in the past, to our collective detriment.
My Lords, I declare my interest as the former Prime Minister’s envoy to the western Balkan region. I join in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, on gaining this short debate. I very much align myself not just with the quality of her speech but with the content.
Of course, we can all be honest with ourselves in your Lordships’ House that when Dayton was created, nobody probably expected it as an agreement to be helping to run a country 30 years hence. But it is, and we must protect it. In the over three years that I had that role, I visited the region more than 100 times. When you stand or sit in Sarajevo, you feel the hand of history; you know what happened there. Many British soldiers lost their lives in gaining the Dayton accords and agreements, and we must also honour their memory.
The ethnic tension I saw in that role is very real; it is stoked by modern techniques and social media, and also age-old tensions. The noble Baroness, Lady Helic, is right to remind us that regional powers play both a role that is allegedly positive, in wanting to join the European Union, and then a role within the ethnic groups that is the opposite. The noble Lord, Lord Robertson, has made that clear. I strongly associate myself with his phrase that there is a real risk of spillover.
As I regularly reported from the region, Russian influence is cheap. It is not hard for Russia to establish influence, and worse, in and around Banja Luka, the capital of Republika Srpska. It is enabled for Russia so to do, and it does not miss an opportunity. There are sensitive issues here, not least the kinship and the myth of folk relationships through the Slavic brotherhood and the Orthodox Church—often myths but often exploited. So there are real dangers in the fragility that the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, has made clear.
The speaking time is three minutes, and the noble and gallant Lord is over his time. If he takes much longer, other noble Lords will not have their time to speak; it is a timed debate.
It is time for the UK to honour its reputation, which is very strong. We should retain our leadership role and our influence. We have done so for 30 years; now is not the time to stop.
My Lords, I join in the congratulations to my noble friend Lady Helic for securing the debate. Her deep knowledge of the issue derives from her personal experience and expertise. We are also fortunate to hear today from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Peach, who was our UK envoy to the western Balkans for some years, and from the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, who was Secretary-General of NATO. Their engagement with political leaders and international bodies to support Bosnia and Herzegovina’s sovereignty, territorial integrity and Euro-Atlantic integration was and remains vital.
A few years ago, when I was the Prime Minister’s Special Representative on Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict, I had a meeting in Banja Luka with the Prime Minister of Republika Srpska and the Prime Minister of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. I was reported as saying:
“I am pleased to witness this positive and constructive engagement of the two entities in addressing and solving issues and disputes and would like to see the implementation of the agreed Agenda for Reform without delay”.
Regrettably, what followed was the continuation of instability and concerns about security in the country, including reports of external influence by Russia and secessionist rhetoric in Republika Srpska.
My Lords, if you have ever seen a ballerina stationary en pointe, you will know that, unaided, she can hold the position for only a couple of seconds. It is simply too unstable. To sustain it for longer, she must be supported by others. This, it seems to me, is a fitting analogy for the political situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Without external support, it will collapse. We must understand that.
The question is what constitutes adequate support? That must depend on an analysis of the destabilising factors. There are two main issues, as we have already heard, and they are closely linked. The first is the centrifugal forces between the entities themselves, particularly those driven by Republika Srpska and Serbia. The second is the exploitation of those forces by malign external actors, principally Russia.
That leads us to some clear conclusions about the nature of the support required. The first is that it must be powerful and agile enough to deter those within Bosnia-Herzegovina from fatally undermining the current arrangements, while at the same time offering compelling incentives for good behaviour. This means a mix of hard and soft power employed in a responsive way to overmatch rapidly evolving attempts to destroy the Dayton settlement. It is up to all of us in western Europe to provide the tools, but they must be wielded by somebody sufficiently close to the action and to the various actors if they are to be used effectively. The High Representative is the key player in this regard, and any attempts to weaken, let alone abolish, the position must be strenuously resisted.
My Lords, I thank the Lord Speaker for giving me permission to speak sitting down. I am afraid that I am immobile at the moment. The expertise of the my noble friend Lady Helic in these matters is very well known. I share her concern, as do many of us, about the instability threatening Bosnia and Herzegovina and the efforts that are underway to challenge the constitutional order and dismantle the Dayton agreement.
Deterrence has been central to that achievement, particularly through NATO and EUFOR Operation Althea. However, greater clarity is needed on their respective roles. In that vein, I urge the Government to take three steps. First, will they clarify the relationship between NATO and Operation Althea, so that there is no ambiguity in the event of a serious challenge to Bosnia’s territorial integrity? Secondly, will the Government seek a third-party participation agreement to facilitate involvement in Operation Althea, which would signal a strong UK commitment to peace in the region, something of profound importance? Thirdly, will the Government lead efforts to secure a credible NATO guarantee of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s sovereignty to lay to rest once and for all the idea that Bosnia’s borders can be changed by force? We must act decisively, using all the assets—hard and soft, military and diplomatic—and demonstrate the political will required to uphold peace and stability in this region, which is so critical to our interests.
I join the chorus of congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, on bringing about this important debate. Bosnia and Herzegovina faces its gravest political turmoil since the Dayton accords, as the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Peach, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, amply highlighted. We are witnessing active threats to its territorial integrity, deliberate institutional paralysis and a genuine danger of renewed conflict.
As the outgoing high representative recently warned the UN Security Council, we face an ongoing crisis of political responsibility driven by Republika Srpska’s leadership’s deliberate attempts to deconstruct state-level institutions. Unbelievably, there are accounts of persistent genocide denial, 30 years after the war that our country and the then Labour Government played a pivotal part in resolving.
The current crisis is worsened by a fractured western policy. Western allies are divided over appointing a new high representative. Meanwhile, a dramatic shift in US policy has lifted sanctions on Milorad Dodik. In this vacuum, Russia and China are expanding their influence, exemplified by NATO partner Serbia actively buying Chinese missiles. Western policy must shift from reactive crisis management to a long-term strategy. The UK, as others have said, must lead the Euro-Atlantic response. The borders must not change. We need a credible NATO guarantee, alongside a strengthening of EUFOR Operation Althea, which currently sits at just 1,500 troops.
20 of 36 shown
The question today is whether the international framework that preserved peace for 30 years remains capable of responding effectively. Last week, the Peace Implementation Council, of which the United Kingdom is a founding member, met in Sarajevo to agree a successor to the outgoing high representative. It was unable to do so. That matters profoundly because the office of high representative remains the principal international mechanism for safeguarding the peace agreement.
At the moment of Bosnia’s most serious challenge in a generation, the states responsible for upholding the peace publicly demonstrated that they could not agree on the future leadership of its most important international institution. The United States, our closest ally, sought to install a preferred candidate, as though the high representative was a political appointment rather than an independent office. That is precisely the wrong approach. The high representative must be chosen on the basis of independence, credibility and unconditional readiness to uphold the Dayton peace accords impartially, not because they are acceptable to one capital or another, including this one. The office derives its authority from the Dayton agreement, not from the preference of any individual state.
This failure reflects broader and more troubling changes. Last year, the United States lifted sanctions on 48 Republika Srpska individuals and entities, the very people whom President Trump or his Administration described as having a corrupt, destabilising political agenda and enriching themselves and their associates at public expense, including denial of genocide. I do not speculate on the motives behind that decision. There are many views in Washington, but the significance extends well beyond the sanctions themselves. The United States appears to be taking a wrecking ball to the architecture of its own successful policy.
Britain cannot determine American policy, but neither can we treat these as inconsequential differences. They go to the very heart of European security. Nor can we ignore the broader regional and geopolitical picture. Regrettably, Serbia continues to provide political and material support to the Srpska leadership. China is actively converting its economic relationship with Belgrade into military co-operation, gaining strategic leverage in the heart of Europe. Even Croatia, a member of both NATO and the European Union, often meddles in Bosnia’s constitutional arrangements.
Above all, it is Russia that is working systematically to fracture Bosnia and the wider western Balkans as part of its sustained campaign to weaken Euro-Atlantic institutions. It is recruiting fighters to fight against Ukraine and using disinformation, not because it cares one iota about the citizens living there but because division is its instrument of power and control. I would not be shocked if, in the years ahead, a new wall were to divide Europe; it would run through Bosnia, a country almost entirely bordering EU and NATO member states. That is the strategic absurdity we are sleepwalking towards.
The Government have spoken at length about their commitment to deepen defence co-operation with the European Union and greater European responsibility. These are serious and welcome ambitions. We must be self-reliant. This will make us stronger and would respond to the Washington push, but ambitions require practical foundations.
EUFOR Operation Althea, working with NATO, remains the principal international military mission responsible for maintaining stability in Bosnia. Yet Britain left after Brexit. We currently lack the framework that would permit participation in that mission, should circumstances require. If instability in the western Balkans is genuinely a strategic interest of the United Kingdom, as the Government rightly say, and if stronger UK-EU defence co-operation is a genuine priority, the absence of such a framework is difficult to reconcile with either that risk assessment or those stated priorities.
I have several questions for the Minister. First, what specific actions—not statements but actions—will follow from the Government’s identification of the western Balkans as a strategic risk to the United Kingdom and our NATO allies? Secondly, do the Government regard the failure to agree the high representative as a serious sign of weakening international cohesion, and what are they actively doing to break the deadlock? Will the next PIC be held at ministerial level? Thirdly, does the United Kingdom have plans to negotiate a third-country participation agreement for EUFOR Operation Althea? If not, why not? Fourthly, do the Government believe the international framework protecting Bosnia and Herzegovina and its territorial integrity is as credible today as it was 10 or 20 years ago? If not, will they raise with NATO allies the case for a more explicit security guarantee?
Finally, Britain helped to end the war in Bosnia. British soldiers served there and some never came back. British diplomats helped shape the settlement. Bosnia is not a peripheral concern. It sits at the intersection of European security, transatlantic relations and the credibility of the international agreements upon which peace itself depends. The Government have correctly identified the risks. The question before us, which I hope the Minister will answer, is whether Britain’s response matches its own assessment. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Another, human element to this is also clear from my time as special envoy: far too many young and talented people from Bosnia and Herzegovina are leaving their country because of the actions of their own politicians. Many of them told me that. They have largely migrated to Europe and are forming their new lives there. They are not going back—they are not temporary—and that diminishes the strength in society.
I also strongly align myself with the thoughts around the European Union Force. It is for the European Union to determine how strong it must be for the situation, but it must have sufficient mandate, supported by a high representative, to enable it to sustain the territorial integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and not allow that territorial integrity to be hijacked by those who wish for some form of secession.
Although the war in the Balkans finished some 30 years ago, its devastating impact still deeply affects those who bore the brunt of that violence. For example, women were gang raped, and were sometimes forced to watch their very young daughters being raped too. They were often ostracised by their families when they became pregnant as a consequence of those rapes. Whether young or older today, they endure physical and mental damage, which they bear with dignity. It was a privilege to meet so many of them. I shall never forget them.
When the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, responded to a question from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, she said that the Government are
“protecting everything for this financial year in our humanitarian work”.—[Official Report, 3/4/26; col. 375.]
My question for today’s Minister is can he give a commitment that the UK will continue to allocate grants to NGOs, so that they can provide medical and psychological rehabilitation for the survivors of sexual violence in conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina?
The next conclusion is that this is not just about sustaining Dayton; this is a key part of our response to Russia’s attempts to undermine and threaten our security within Europe. It is not simply local Balkan business; it is of strategic importance to us within Europe more widely. We have to treat it accordingly and to counter Russia’s moves with strength and determination.
Going back to my initial analogy, our support has to be enduring and unwavering. A falling off of our commitment or a weakening of attention on our part could prove fatal, and this is where the greatest danger lies. It is easy to become wearied by such long-term commitments. They can be difficult to justify to domestic audiences with short attention spans and many concerns closer to home, but the alternative is the re-emergence of chaos and bloodshed in the Balkans, a return to ethnic cleansing and the kind of political upheaval that invariably damages our own prosperity as well as European security. We have shown that we are not good at getting people to face stark realities and the hard choices they entail. We must do far better, not least on this issue.
I believe that the UK Government, as others have said, must act on two immediate priorities. First, ahead of the October 2026 election, the UK must urgently negotiate a third-country participation agreement with the EU to deploy British troops directly into EUFOR. This is a critical opportunity to prove the UK-EU strategic capacity to act independently of the US. Secondly, I draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that the Government must urgently address indefensible foreign lobbying within our own borders. Under the foreign influence registration scheme, former British diplomats and political figures are actively paid by the Republika Srpska Government to lobby our own Ministers on behalf of an entity which leaders of the UK have explicitly sanctioned for destabilising the region. This is totally unacceptable. We must enforce accountability, strengthen our security posture and stand firmly with the sovereignty of Bosnia and Herzegovina.