Contesting, Co-opting, and Cooperating with Liberal Peacemaking

Contesting, Co-opting, and Cooperating with Liberal Peacemaking and Peacebuilding: Russia, China, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates in Bosnia and Herzegovina

The number of peace actors involved in conflicts globally are proliferating. Increasingly, non-Western actors are taking active roles in the mediation of peace agreements and in peacebuilding processes, often espousing their own theory of change. These theories may interact with existing logics of peacemaking and peacebuilding in a variety of ways, from reflecting elements of liberal peacebuilding practices to contesting them. While it is not new for mediation and peacebuilding roles to be taken on by states within the same region as the conflict locale, such as in Sudan and South Sudan where some of the most active mediators were neighbouring states, or where a power has specific long-standing interests, such as the European Union (EU) in Bosnia and Herzegovina, conflicts globally are experiencing the penetration of new actors who engage in activities that could be described, especially according to their own peace logics, as peacemaking or peacebuilding.

Bosnia and Herzegovina is an apt case to study how non-Western actors, especially those that overtly challenge the liberal international order, interact with a long-standing peace process that has been dominated by Western liberal actors, such as the EU and United States. As such, this blog introduces four papers assessing the roles of China, Russia, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in Bosnia’s peace landscape. The papers were published as part of the PeaceRep Global Fragmentation and Political Transitions project.

Russia and China and their engagement with the Dayton institutions

Mateja Peter and Kasia Houghton explore how Russia and China have engaged with the Dayton peace process over the last 24 years. Using a new dataset exploring these actors’ perceptions of the key Dayton institutions, most importantly the Office of the High Representative (OHR), the report shows that Russia and China have largely diverged in their perceptions of and approaches to key international institutions responsible for the implementation of the Dayton Peace Agreement in Bosnia and Herzegovina. However, both have experienced a negative trend towards some of the core Dayton institutions over time. Peter and Houghton show a preoccupation with certain institutions over others, with Russia placing a far greater emphasis on the institutions implementing civilian aspects of the Dayton Accords, and China underscoring the military ones. The report highlights how Russia’s perceptions of these institutions deteriorated as its global foreign policy became more assertive, with changing trends coinciding with key junctures such as Russia’s 2008 war with Georgia, Moscow’s invasion and annexation of Crimea in 2014, and its 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine. In China’s case, it was the unorthodox way the current High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina, Christian Schmidt, was appointed that spurred criticism of the institution. In contrast, China has been consistently positive about international military mission EUFOR overseeing Dayton implementation, unlike Russia’s recent attitude towards the same institution. However, the report draws a common theme of objection to liberal norms of intervention that endorse the invocation of Chapter VII of the UN Charter and the continued mandate of the OHR, citing state sovereignty and non-intervention in the internal affairs of other states as the normative basis of this approach.

China, a peacebuilder in its own way

Anastas Vangeli argues that while China does not frame its growing footprint in Bosnia and Herzegovina as peacebuilding, its growing relations with the country, which are predominantly economic, are geared towards fostering peace. Beijing hopes to foster peace through sustained economic development. To this end it has predominantly engaged in providing finance and investment in development projects since the Global Financial Crisis, with some concerns over fiscal prudence and governance. While China has tried to avoid being embroiled in political issues, its engagement with Bosnia and vision for its future differ with those of liberal actors in the West, having implications on the liberal peacebuilding agenda that has been underway in the country for nearly three decades. China’s foreign policy is guided by norms of non-interference in the internal affairs of other states and the sanctity of state sovereignty, which have manifested in the Dayton peace process as objection to the extension of the OHR’s mandate. This has had unintended consequences for the progress of the Dayton peace process and internal divisions in the country. Furthermore, Vangeli argues that Beijing has been unable to avoid being embroiled in the controversial Republika Srpska’s political agenda nor has it avoided backlash from Bosnia’s Muslim population for human rights violations in Xinjiang.

Turkey: between liberal and illiberal peacebuilding

Spyros Sofos maps Turkey’s engagement with Bosnia and the broader Western Balkan region since the signing of the Dayton Accords. The paper explores how Ankara’s developmental, cultural, humanitarian, and commercial activities with the country have impacted post-conflict transitions. Turkey’s relations with the Balkans date back to the Ottoman era. Historical ties with Balkan Muslims have proven to be a blessing and a challenge, particularly during periods of ethnic division and political instability. Nevertheless, Turkey has managed to leverage its ties towards peacebuilding processes. Sofos highlights that Turkey’s policies towards the region, especially Bosnia, are enmeshed in its relations with the EU and Russia. This complex context, as well as domestic concerns, precipitated a shift in Turkey’s Balkan policy from multilateralism to transactionalism, partially due to emerging competitive relations with the EU especially since Turkey’s pursuit of membership were stalled. Therefore, Turkish policy towards the region have, at times, undermined the regional interests of Western actors. This is particularly the case considering developing ties between Turkey and Russia, which has engaged in fragmenting the region for political gains. Sofos recommends the West engage with Turkey and strengthen multilateral efforts towards peace in Bosnia to limit the implementation of destabilising policies.

The UAE in the Western Balkans

Tena Prelec examines the UAE’s relations with Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, and Montenegro since 2010. While the UAE’s relations with the region were values-based in the 1990s, Abu Dhabi has recently adopted a more pragmatic approach to bilateral ties with the three countries. The motivation behind this shift is the UAE’s investment interests and desire to diversify its economy. Regional industries of particular interest to the UAE are in the defence, construction, agricultural, banking, and the aeronautic sectors. Due to this focus on economic engagement, the UAE’s political ties with the region are interconnected with its economic interests. The political aspects comprise geopolitical issues and personal ties involving local elites, with narratives surrounding these presenting them in a positive light. Nonetheless, the UAE’s engagement with the region have not been without controversies. Prelec highlights issues relating to opaque and inadequate tendering practices and procedures as well as the potential for money laundering and illicit money flows. Social movements have already cropped up in protest to certain deals, which have shaped local politics and grassroots activism.

Kasia A. Houghton is a member of PeaceRep’s Global Transitions research team at the University of St Andrews.

Explore PeaceRep’s Global Transitions research and publications here.