Bosnia and Herzegovina Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate

Lord Stirrup

Main Page: Lord Stirrup (Crossbench - Life peer)

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Lord Stirrup Excerpts
Thursday 11th June 2026

(1 month, 2 weeks ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Lord Stirrup Portrait Lord Stirrup (CB)
- View Speech - Hansard - -

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.