Baroness Helic
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the political and security situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Baroness Helic (Con)
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.
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.
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab)
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.
Lord Peach (CB)
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.
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.
Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)
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.
Lord Peach (CB)
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.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
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.
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?
Lord Stirrup (CB)
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.
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.
Lord Soames of Fletching (Con)
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.
Baroness Gill (Lab)
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.
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.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, on this day last week, the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, spoke powerfully in the debate on genocide and atrocity crimes, pledging support for my Genocide Determination Bill, which will be debated on 17 July. Today, as we recall the horrific depredations of the Bosnian genocide and the massacre at Srebrenica, she has eloquently taken us to the current and urgent situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
In the context of Putin’s seizure of sovereign territory and illegal attempts to change borders by force, this must surely constitute the most dangerous moment since Dayton. Given Russia’s interference in domestic affairs across so many countries, we need far greater NATO unity in our response and we need to hear more American voices joining ours in insisting that Bosnia’s borders must be guaranteed.
The Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect spells out the risks, including weakness of state structures and institutions, civic space under threat, hate speech, incitement and targeting of specific groups. Republika Srpska has intensified its efforts to erode and undermine the authority of the formal state Government and state-level institutions, including enacting legislation openly challenging the jurisdiction of the constitutional court and other central bodies. Recent trends in nationalist rhetoric, leading to the normalisation of denial of the Srebrenica genocide and narratives exacerbating ethno-nationalist tensions, create a fertile ground for hate-based violence. What are we doing to help strengthen state-level institutions, including by capacity building and monitoring, to accelerate the expeditious prosecution of war crimes without further delays and to support efforts to counter hateful narratives and genocide denialism?
There are new challenges. The Global Centre points to how
“Digital technologies, particularly the rise of generative AI, have accelerated the spread of narratives that weaponise societal grievances, undermine trust in democratic institutions and erode electoral integrity”.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights, which I have the honour to chair, is currently looking at AI and human rights. It is alarming to see how AI could be used to contribute to atrocity crimes or exacerbate the risks thereof.
Can the Minister please tell us when the last joint analysis of conflict and stability was undertaken by the FCDO in Bosnia and how we have used its findings? Can he spell out the role of the FCDO atrocity prevention unit? Following the Bosnian genocide, the 1948 convention on the crime of genocide—given to us by Raphael Lemkin, who gave us the word “genocide”, meaning the cutting of the human family—with its duties to prevent, protect and punish, requires signatories, of which we are one, to look for predictive early warning signs and risk factors. Are we doing that?
We urgently need to agitate for a new high representative, expose the role of corrupt deals and lobbying, uphold sanctions and never forget the consequences when we last looked away. The world’s attention deficit and the temptation for international juggernauts to move on simply will not do.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, during my time as Minister it was my humbling honour to serve for seven years as leading the UK’s Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict initiative, picking up the baton from my noble friend Lady Anelay and continuing the valuable work of my noble friend Lord Hague. In thanking my noble friend Lady Helic for tabling this debate, I note her powerful advocacy on this issue.
I had the opportunity of visiting Bosnia several times. Each time I went to Sarajevo. I was taken by a city that bore the scars of war. In Srebrenica, the shadow of the genocide of 8,000 young Bosnian men and boys is real, through the simple tombstones around the green fields and the poignancy of the Mothers of Srebrenica. Like my noble friend Lady Anelay, I sat with survivors of sexual violence—women of extraordinary courage whose lives were torn apart by a weapon of war designed to strip them of their dignity, identity and humanity, yet they continue to speak.
Their testimonies were our inspiration, to ensure that we as a Government did our part to see rape and sexual violence as a deliberate tactic of war and a crime under international law. We worked alongside survivors, activists, prosecutors and religious leaders to ensure that the voices of survivors were heard, evidence was preserved and perpetrators understood that the passage of time would not erase their crimes. I ask the Government to reconfirm, as my noble friend did, that they are committed not only in words but through actions and money in support of survivors.
As we have heard, 30 years after Dayton, survivors are still seeking justice. Barriers are faced. Political leaders such as Milorad Dodik must be stopped. The previous Government put sanctions on him, but we need to do more. His repeated attacks on the constitutional order of Bosnia-Herzegovina, efforts to weaken state institutions, inflammatory language and nationalist rhetoric do not merely create political instability but undermine reconciliation and undermine justice for survivors. There can be no reconciliation without truth. There can be no durable peace without accountability. There can be no future for Bosnia if political leaders like him continue to undermine the institutions.
I say to the Minister specifically that we need to work together with partners—including, importantly, the United States, which has lifted sanctions on Mr Dodik—to ensure that we do not undermine the institutions. We need to re-enforce these sanctions and ensure the sovereignty of Bosnia-Herzegovina is retained. We need to do it not just for the survivors but because it is a collective responsibility for us all.
Baroness Goudie (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, for securing this important debate. Her continued leadership on Bosnia and Herzegovina, genocide prevention and the defence of the women, peace and security agenda around the world is of the utmost importance given the state of the world today and the number of conflicts that we hear about daily. Discussions such as the one before us today show our commitment to ensuring that the lessons of Bosnia are never treated as mere history. We have a continued responsibility to the legacy of the people of Bosnia who lost their lives and to the families and communities who are still living with the consequences of the 1992-95 war.
What happened in Bosnia-Herzegovina matters deeply to Europe. More than 100,000 lives were lost. In July 1995, between 7,000 and 8,000 Muslim men and boys were murdered at Srebrenica and Žepa, in an atrocious event that was rightly recognised as genocide. This trauma has left enduring scars. We must reject genocide denial, further division and political intimidation where it shows its head, especially in a space where remembrance and accountability are so important—not just for the women, children and families who live with the deep consequences of the war but for the status of international law and its capacity to protect the vulnerable.
The Government continue to support Bosnia-Herzegovina’s sovereignty and the Dayton peace agreement, which I welcome gladly. I also welcome our continued support for the Office of the High Representative in the face of international challenges that threaten its stability. As outgoing High Representative Christian Schmidt assessed, the situation in Bosnia is “stable but fragile”. Obstructions to the court and state institutions threaten this stability and reduce the confidence of the Bosnian people in the country’s future and security.
For me, women, peace and security must be central to our conversations on Bosnia, given the terrible use of sexual violence as a weapon of war in the very recent past. An estimated 20,000 women and girls were subjected to sexual violence during the conflict. This proves that, to rebuild a safe and inclusive society, women must be at the centre of Bosnia’s future. Women currently make up only 19% of the members of the lower chamber of the parliamentary assembly. This is not simply a question of representation; it is a question of democracy. Inclusive institutions are stronger institutions. Women peacebuilders, society leaders and human rights defenders are often the first to see the warning signs of division, fear and exclusion.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, it is easy to forget how close the Yugoslav succession crises came, during the 1990s, to destroying or at least severely damaging both the UN and NATO, not to speak of the appalling death toll culminating in the genocide of Srebrenica; and to forget how those crises ended the golden era when, following the reversal of Saddam Hussein’s aggression against Kuwait, it looked as though the international community was really going to live up to the precepts of the UN charter. We should not forget those events, and we owe a debt to the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, for reminding us that, now, even the second-best outcome to the Bosnian war—the compromises reached at Dayton—are under severe threat, and that even the much solider outcome to the Kosovo crisis is not yet safely consolidated.
Both these settlements are at some risk: both are challenged by Serbian separatist movements in Bosnia and Kosovo encouraged by the authorities in Belgrade, albeit surreptitiously. The success of either would be highly welcome to Vladimir Putin, who would see their progress as a counterpart to his own aggression against Ukraine.
What is to be done to prevent these risks progressing? First, in Bosnia, the UK needs to give the firmest support to press ahead with the appointment of an international representative with proper powers, whose task will be to resist the attempts of Republika Srpska to destroy or render inoperable the provisions of the Dayton agreements. Are we doing that? Are we considering making a peacekeeping contribution to the EU’s deployment in Bosnia—Operation Althea—which surely fits well, does it not, with the Government’s commitment to strengthening the European pillar of our defence?
The long-term solutions to both Bosnia and Kosovo must surely lie in the accession of both of them, as well as that of Serbia, to the EU. Unfortunately, due to Brexit, we have no say or influence over those decisions, but we need to realise that the success or failure of those membership applications will affect our own security, just as the turmoil in the Balkans did in the 1990s—a realisation at which we arrived all too slowly during the period when I was Britain’s Permanent Representative at the UN .
One thing we could do is to increase our co-operation with all the countries of the western Balkans in combating international crime, which plagues both them and us. Can the Minister tell the House what we are doing now in that respect and what we are planning to do in the future?
Baroness Mobarik (Con)
My Lords, many voices were raised during the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the 1990s, but it was only after Srebrenica that the world took action. I visited Bosnia shortly after the Dayton peace agreement was signed and I encountered a country traumatised by four years of war, devastated communities, immense human suffering and the enduring scars of ethnic hatred and violence. For me, it illustrated that conflicts rarely emerge without warning. Too often, we fail to act when tensions are building and respond only when events have reached an unacceptable pitch and action can no longer be avoided.
I believe we should recognise the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina today for what it is: a grave political and constitutional crisis. I do not suggest that the country stands on the brink of war; however, a number of developments should concern us. Secessionist rhetoric continues to challenge the territorial integrity of the state; genocide denial persists, despite the fact that the genocide at Srebrenica was established by international courts and must never be rewritten or diminished; there are disagreements surrounding the appointment of a new high representative, whose independence and impartiality are fundamental to the Dayton framework; and, at the same time, we see increasing Russian influence in the region, closer Serbian defence ties with China and a significant shift in US policy towards figures associated with secessionist ambitions.
Taken individually, each of these developments may appear manageable; taken together, they suggest a weakening of the international consensus that has underpinned peace since 1995. If we are serious about atrocity prevention, we must recognise warning signs before they become crises. Having seen Bosnia in the aftermath of war, I believe we have a responsibility to ensure that the principles of Dayton remain firmly protected and that emerging risks are addressed before circumstances deteriorate further.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I warmly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, for securing this important debate and for her consistent work in keeping our attention on Bosnia and Herzegovina, and I congratulate her on her excellent speech. I think the House is speaking with a united voice.
Just as things are looking a bit brighter elsewhere in eastern and south-eastern Europe—in Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, Armenia and especially Hungary, with the removal of Viktor Orbán, a key protector of Dodik—the western Balkans remains vulnerable to secessionist and destabilising risks, stoked by Serbia, Russia and China, and an area of threat to European, including UK, strategic and security interests.
When my late noble friend Lord Ashdown—Paddy—helped raise the alarm during the Bosnian war, people said, “Why are you bothering with this remote country?” Of course, he later became high representative, but he understood our own strategic interest in that country.
Sadly, we do not see much help coming nowadays from the United States, whose stance towards Russia and Ukraine seems driven as much by the commercial interests of the Trump family and coterie as by America’s real security interests.
I want to ask the Minister about two former ambassadors: Charles Crawford, who was once UK ambassador to Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Sir Dominick Chilcott, former ambassador to Ireland and to Turkey, who have both registered under FIRS as lobbyists for Republika Srpska, whose leading players, including Dodik—even if he is no longer technically in office—and his associates are rightly under UK sanctions. Is there really nothing in the rules about former senior FCDO staff to stop this activity, which I regard as dishonourable?
As others have asked, I would like to hear where we have got to regarding UK forces’ participation in EUFOR’s Operation Althea, which would be a practical demonstration of our security partnership with the EU.
Lastly, how much aid money are we giving to Bosnia and Herzegovina to support, for example, an independent press, which is under a great deal of strain, human rights defenders, survivors of sexual violence, and civic society in general? I have looked online at the Western Balkans Freedom and Resilience Programme, but I am afraid I was unable to decipher the project’s recipients and amounts. I imagine this programme has been cut, as these Benches have consistently deplored; in Bosnia and Herzegovina, that would be particularly counterproductive. Can the Minister enumerate the sums for us?
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, this has been a very timely debate, and I congratulate my noble friend Lady Helic on securing time for it. She showed in her powerful opening speech her immense knowledge and appreciation for the region, and I think the House benefited from that.
We have heard a number of other excellent speeches, particularly from the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Peach and Lord Stirrup, the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, and my noble friend Lady Anelay. I thought the analogy of the ballerina on pointe was particularly apt—we all need to be supporting that benighted region.
Regarding the International Relations and Defence Committee’s 2024 report on the western Balkans, the chair, my noble friend Lord Ashton of Hyde, said:
“It is in the UK’s interest to promote peace, prosperity, and stability in the Western Balkans”.
He went on to argue that the UK must
“review its approach to the region in light of the disturbing escalation of violence in northern Kosovo and secessionist rhetoric from the Republika Srpska leadership in Bosnia and Herzegovina”.
It is of course sad that he is no longer a Member of your Lordships’ House and cannot contribute to our debate today, but Lord Ashton was in fact right.
We know that we cannot play a full role on the international stage without the necessary defence capabilities, but the Government have clearly failed on that. The House will be aware that the Defence Secretary resigned during the previous debate. In his letter to the Prime Minister, he wrote that
“you have been unable, and the Treasury has been unwilling, to commit the resources that the nation needs to defend the country”.
That must have been of great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson. I bet that even he is shocked at the chaos that his excellent defence review has unleashed in the Government.
On Bosnia specifically, the previous Government, as my noble friend Lord Ahmad reminded us, sanctioned Milorad Dodik. This Government are right to build on that work by maintaining the sanctions regime, and I would be interested in the Minister’s comments on how they will take that forward. Sadly, as a number of other noble Lords observed, the United States chose to discontinue its sanctions regime in October 2025. Can the Minister say what discussions Ministers in the FCDO had with their counterparts on that? The recently elected Siniša Karan is a known associate of Milorad Dodik. What is the Government’s view on that fact and the influence that Dodik may wield informally as a result?
Many noble Lords have commented on the malign influence of Russia in the region as it attempts to shore up its support. Pleasingly, Moscow has recently suffered a number of setbacks in its influence campaigns. We should all work together to make sure that Bosnia and Herzegovina is the latest setback for its influence campaigns.
Republika Srpska has been seeking to undermine the memory of the Srebrenica massacre. Will the Minister reassure the House that His Majesty’s Government will continue Srebrenica education and memorialisation efforts in future?
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, for securing this debate, and I appreciate the discussions that we have had in advance of it. Not only has she secured this debate but she has kept the western Balkans, particularly Bosnia, front of mind for all of us, and we are deeply in her debt for that.
I thank all noble Lords for their contribution to this important and rich debate; I am painfully aware that I am in very distinguished company. Inevitably on these occasions, you do not have enough time to namecheck everyone, as I am sure noble Lords understand, but I will try to do so where I can. There are some specific points that I will try to address, but I fear I will not be able to do justice to them, so I will read Hansard carefully and write to all the participants in the debate about those points.
As a number of noble Lords have said, for over 30 years the Dayton peace agreement has underpinned peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina. That framework continues to provide the basis for stability. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Peach, said, we would have been surprised to imagine that it was still the framework after 30 years, but it is. It is the best framework, and it is the one to which the Government remain committed. However, stability cannot be taken for granted. I want to make some remarks about destabilisation, as indeed a number of noble Lords have already done.
Over the past two years, Bosnia and Herzegovina has experienced political crisis and sustained deadlock, characterised by challenges to state institutions, divisive rhetoric and an obstruction of political process. Tensions are rising again ahead of October elections with secessionist rhetoric, Islamophobia, ethnically divisive narratives and continued institutional blockages. A number of your Lordships have referenced all those points and we all acknowledge the seriousness of the situation. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, drew our attention to that.
We remain deeply concerned by the actions and rhetoric of the Republika Srpska, which a number of noble Lords have referenced, and its leadership, but we are also concerned by proposals for constitutional fragmentation, including calls for a so-called third entity, which risks destabilisation. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Peach, my noble friend Lord Robertson, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and, I think, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, used the word spillover. We are very bothered about that.
Let me be completely clear with your Lordships’ House: the United Kingdom is committed to the sovereignty, territorial integrity and constitutional order of Bosnia and Herzegovina. As I have said, we support Dayton as the foundation for peace and stability; I do not want to leave any doubts in your Lordships’ minds about that. We are working closely with international partners through the Peace Implementation Council, and we will continue to pursue the 5+2 agenda.
Let me say a few words about the high representative, which a number of noble Lords have mentioned. Dayton mandates a high representative to uphold its civilian aspects and safeguard the constitutional order—the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, reminded us of Lord Ashdown’s role in all this. In parallel, EUFOR upholds military aspects. The UN Security Council has affirmed the role of both, and the view of the UK Government remains that they are entirely indispensable.
We support the high representative. We want to see someone of independence and integrity—if I can use the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Helic—including, where necessary, the ability to use the Bonn powers as a safeguard to protect state institutions and ensure the peace settlement is respected. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, reinforced, as did the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, the importance of the high representative, and I entirely agree. That is a central plank and I am sorry that we have not got to the point of an appointment yet. We could have had a slightly different debate if we had, but it is good to have it anyway. Nevertheless, we recognise the urgent need for a smooth transition, and we are hoping, as the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, will know, for something by 30 June.
We will continue to actively engage partners in Europe and across the Peace Implementation Council to ensure rapid agreement on a successor high representative who has the right credentials with all the communities in Bosnia and is fully empowered by the Bonn powers to carry out their mandate effectively, in the interests of everyone in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Completion of the 5+2 agenda, as I have said, remains essential before the office of the high representative can close. We do not want to see any timeline set for it; that mandate must continue. Those conditions are a benchmark for a Bosnia and Herzegovina that is irreversibly secure, stable and sovereign. We are not there yet.
The noble and gallant Lord put his finger, as always, on exactly the key question: what then is adequate support? I want to set out for your Lordships what the UK Government are doing. Your Lordships may not agree that it is adequate—I suspect they will not, at least in part—but it is important that I set it out clearly. We are taking practical steps to support stability, resilience and reform. We are building on our leadership of the Berlin process last year, which I hope is reassurance and testament to the UK’s continued commitment to Bosnia and Herzegovina. That is the first thing I would like to say.
The second matter, which several noble Lords have pointed to, is the appointment of Dame Karen Pierce as the special envoy in March 2025. My noble friend Lord Robertson mentioned it in succession to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Peach, and I pay tribute to his distinguished work. We are stepping up our efforts to tackle violence against women and girls in Bosnia. The noble Baronesses, Lady Goudie and Lady Anelay, and the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, all mention the importance of this, including through work on preventing sexual violence in conflict and championing survivor-centred approaches, accountability and regional co-operation. We are delighted that Bosnia and Herzegovina is part of both the international alliance for preventing sexual violence in conflict, and a new coalition to tackle violence against women and girls, launched by the Foreign Secretary at the Global Partnerships Conference.
The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, asked me about our commitment to Srebrenica. I must say that Srebrenica was one of the most soul-searing experiences of recent years, and the Government are absolutely committed to making sure that it is remembered in the appropriate way; I want to make that clear. We welcome progress on rolling out election technology to reduce fraud, and we are also supporting programmes to build institutional resilience and, importantly, as a number of noble Lords have mentioned, counter disinformation from hostile actors.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, asked me about how much we are spending. We are committing £37 million to work in the region of the western Balkans over the next three years. When I write to the noble Baroness, I will be happy to give additional details about how that is made up. Russia continues to seek to undermine stability, challenge Dayton, undermine the legitimacy of the High Representative and exploit divisions. We are taking actions to challenge destabilising actors in Bosnia and Herzegovina itself, including through our sanctions programme, and to uphold the country’s integrity.
Other noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Ahmad and Lord Callanan, asked me about where we are on sanctions, and I am happy to make that clear. The UK has imposed sanctions on individuals undermining Bosnia and Herzegovina’s constitutional order, including Milorad Dodik and his allies. We continue to co-ordinate sanctions activities with our international partners to maximise collective impact, though we may not always agree on precise designations nor take identical action.
I have two minutes left, but I will do my best. As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, encouraged us to do, we are seeking to tackle the long-term structural drivers of instability, and we are concerned about atrocity crimes. I say sorry to the noble Lord, Lord Alton: it is always very unsatisfactory to give these one-line answers on complicated problems, but he will appreciate my problem and I promise to write in more detail.
Last but not least, I will directly address the question that I have been asked by several of your Lordships about defence and security co-operation. The UK has provided over £2 million in defence and security assistance since 2021. This includes military training and education and support for defence reform, helping to strengthen the capacity of the Bosnia and Herzegovina armed forces. We have a lot of experience in this area, as noble Lords know, and interoperability with NATO. We continue to support the EUFOR peacekeeping mission, as the noble Lords, Lord Soames and Lord Hannay, asked us to do, including by acting to safeguard its annual renewal by the UN Security Council. We remain very committed to that, and we remain in close contact with our EU, NATO and other partners regarding the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The UK is a major contributor to NATO’s strategic reserve forces covering the western Balkans; we have 600 troops on the ground. I am not seeking to deny the fact that noble Lords would like us to do more, and a number have mentioned the questions around the third-party participation agreement. But that is where we are for the moment.
Finally, I reassure your Lordships that Bosnia and Herzegovina is not a peripheral concern. The months ahead will be really significant and the United Kingdom remains a committed partner. We will, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, asked, stay engaged.