Ten years after Dayton, critics are increasingly calling for its elimination
s. sandberg | 04.01.2006 00:29 | Analysis
Critics are increasingly calling for an end to the Dayton Accords explaining that it was flawed from the outset having divided Bosnia into two hostile mini-states. The solution, they say for the Bosnia problem ,is the European Union.
Ten years after the Dayton Accords, some are calling for its end. They say that the Dayton agreement signed between the former Yugoslav republics of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia,and Serbia in November and December of 1995 was only a work in progress. True it was a success, they say, but only a partial one, and the time has come to eliminate its errors.
The Dayton agreement intiated an era of relative peace after the bloody Bosnian War of 1993-1995. This war was an indirect biproduct of the demise of the Soviet Union and the dismemberment of Yugoslavia. The agreement allowed the military forces involved in the conflict, Serb, Croat, and Muslim to trade their military power for poltical authority. To give the armed adversaries their own poltical authority, two rival and hostile entities were created: the Croat Bosniak Federation, and the Republika Srpska, joined together under the veneer of a unified Bosnian state. This constitutional arrangement with a weak central government with limited power of Bosnia’s rival militaries would have been dooomed from the outset if not for the massive civilan and military intervention of the international community.
The intervention has allowed for certain stability and relative calm. German and Australian tourists are flocking to Sarajevo, the capital of Bosnia-Herzogovina. Pubs with cheap beer are plentiful. Women with tight jeans are apparent. Bosnia-Herzogovina it would seem is quickly becoming part of Europe. Talks are underway in fact to put Bosnia-Herzogovina on the track to integration with Europe where it could rest comfortably and securely in the European bosom.
Behind the relative calm lingers, however, the fear that the war could erupt again. The ethnic and religious communities of Bosnia-Herzogovina are isolated and separated from each other. Schools of each community teach versions of history that are hostile to one another and diametrically opposed. Poverty is rampent and most people do not have even bank accounts. The Dayton Accords enshrines the poltical rights of each community with in the Bosnian state bandaid together by outside forces. The Muslims made more conscious of their religious heritage by generous donations of mosques by Iranians and Saudis are becoming devout. In a quasi state situation, there may be opportunity for terrorist and criminal penetration. Although Bosnia could be part of Europe so far it is not.
Some of those who call for an end to the Dayton framework criticize the creation of the Repubika Srpska, and the granting of group rights by the Dayton Accords. While it has allowed for millions of refugees to come home, they say, it has allowed for tens of thousands of junior war criminals to go unpunished. It allows for the retention of ethnic miltias. By requiring massive international military intervention in order to succeed, it has created a dependency. A better solution might have been to create a system that was based on individual rights even if that would have been less agreeable to those who participated in the negotiations. To end the international management of Bosnia-Herzogovina, Bosnia-Herzogovina must move from state to nation with a constitutional system of guaranteed indivual rights, and eventually into the European Union.
The implication of this is that the group rights of the Serbians in Bosnia-Herzogovina and Republika Srpska would be elminated., further weakening Serbian ruled truncated Yugoslavia. We can not forget that the Americans and Europeans still have outstanding issues with the Yugoslavians, especially with Kosovo, but also with Montenegro. This had led to the interesting situation that where as perviously the Serbians were opposed to the Dayton Accords, today they support it since it represents the status quo in which their group rights are protected.
Those who argue for creating a more unified Bosnia, like Bosnia’s Ambassador to Washington, Bisera Turkovic assert that it is possible to build a nation from the disparate ethnic groups of Bosnia-Herzogovina. They believe that the antecedents of the Bosnia nation go back a thousand years before outsiders invaded and imposed foreign religious and ethnic identities. According to them, it is possible to create a feeling among Bosnians of affection for the Bosnia nation which supercedes any other particular loyalty. The fact that the Yugoslav state failed means nothing, they explain, because Yugoslavia was an artificial creation.
It may very well be that massive international and American intervention is no longer necessary to guarantee the peace in Bosnia-Herzogovina. In 1995 at the time of the Dayton Accords, the Europeans did not consider Bosnia-Herzogovina, with its large Muslim population, to be part of Europe. Its problems were the responsibility of Nato and the United States. By 1999,however, the Europeans considered Bosnia-Herzogovina to be part of an expanding and evolving Europe towards Turkey and the Middle East. Its fate was not to be like Somalia, and other “Wiry Oriental Gentleman” areas of the world where the Americans focused on briefly and then departed in that it was fortunate to not be alone but part of a continent increasingly taking responsibility for its own security concerns. It was hoped the deep desire to join Europe will be a good enough reason for the various ethnic groups to bury the hatchet and develop a loyalty for a multiethinic Bosnia-Herzogovina and Europe. Yet as the recent riots by African and Arab immigrants and the votes against the European Union in France and in Holland indicate, Europeans may be not ready for a pan-European identity, let alone a trans-European identity that includes Turkey. It may be wiser in the long run to partition Bosnia-Herzogovina into different ethnic states, just as pundits are increasingly calling for in Iraq.
The Dayton agreement intiated an era of relative peace after the bloody Bosnian War of 1993-1995. This war was an indirect biproduct of the demise of the Soviet Union and the dismemberment of Yugoslavia. The agreement allowed the military forces involved in the conflict, Serb, Croat, and Muslim to trade their military power for poltical authority. To give the armed adversaries their own poltical authority, two rival and hostile entities were created: the Croat Bosniak Federation, and the Republika Srpska, joined together under the veneer of a unified Bosnian state. This constitutional arrangement with a weak central government with limited power of Bosnia’s rival militaries would have been dooomed from the outset if not for the massive civilan and military intervention of the international community.
The intervention has allowed for certain stability and relative calm. German and Australian tourists are flocking to Sarajevo, the capital of Bosnia-Herzogovina. Pubs with cheap beer are plentiful. Women with tight jeans are apparent. Bosnia-Herzogovina it would seem is quickly becoming part of Europe. Talks are underway in fact to put Bosnia-Herzogovina on the track to integration with Europe where it could rest comfortably and securely in the European bosom.
Behind the relative calm lingers, however, the fear that the war could erupt again. The ethnic and religious communities of Bosnia-Herzogovina are isolated and separated from each other. Schools of each community teach versions of history that are hostile to one another and diametrically opposed. Poverty is rampent and most people do not have even bank accounts. The Dayton Accords enshrines the poltical rights of each community with in the Bosnian state bandaid together by outside forces. The Muslims made more conscious of their religious heritage by generous donations of mosques by Iranians and Saudis are becoming devout. In a quasi state situation, there may be opportunity for terrorist and criminal penetration. Although Bosnia could be part of Europe so far it is not.
Some of those who call for an end to the Dayton framework criticize the creation of the Repubika Srpska, and the granting of group rights by the Dayton Accords. While it has allowed for millions of refugees to come home, they say, it has allowed for tens of thousands of junior war criminals to go unpunished. It allows for the retention of ethnic miltias. By requiring massive international military intervention in order to succeed, it has created a dependency. A better solution might have been to create a system that was based on individual rights even if that would have been less agreeable to those who participated in the negotiations. To end the international management of Bosnia-Herzogovina, Bosnia-Herzogovina must move from state to nation with a constitutional system of guaranteed indivual rights, and eventually into the European Union.
The implication of this is that the group rights of the Serbians in Bosnia-Herzogovina and Republika Srpska would be elminated., further weakening Serbian ruled truncated Yugoslavia. We can not forget that the Americans and Europeans still have outstanding issues with the Yugoslavians, especially with Kosovo, but also with Montenegro. This had led to the interesting situation that where as perviously the Serbians were opposed to the Dayton Accords, today they support it since it represents the status quo in which their group rights are protected.
Those who argue for creating a more unified Bosnia, like Bosnia’s Ambassador to Washington, Bisera Turkovic assert that it is possible to build a nation from the disparate ethnic groups of Bosnia-Herzogovina. They believe that the antecedents of the Bosnia nation go back a thousand years before outsiders invaded and imposed foreign religious and ethnic identities. According to them, it is possible to create a feeling among Bosnians of affection for the Bosnia nation which supercedes any other particular loyalty. The fact that the Yugoslav state failed means nothing, they explain, because Yugoslavia was an artificial creation.
It may very well be that massive international and American intervention is no longer necessary to guarantee the peace in Bosnia-Herzogovina. In 1995 at the time of the Dayton Accords, the Europeans did not consider Bosnia-Herzogovina, with its large Muslim population, to be part of Europe. Its problems were the responsibility of Nato and the United States. By 1999,however, the Europeans considered Bosnia-Herzogovina to be part of an expanding and evolving Europe towards Turkey and the Middle East. Its fate was not to be like Somalia, and other “Wiry Oriental Gentleman” areas of the world where the Americans focused on briefly and then departed in that it was fortunate to not be alone but part of a continent increasingly taking responsibility for its own security concerns. It was hoped the deep desire to join Europe will be a good enough reason for the various ethnic groups to bury the hatchet and develop a loyalty for a multiethinic Bosnia-Herzogovina and Europe. Yet as the recent riots by African and Arab immigrants and the votes against the European Union in France and in Holland indicate, Europeans may be not ready for a pan-European identity, let alone a trans-European identity that includes Turkey. It may be wiser in the long run to partition Bosnia-Herzogovina into different ethnic states, just as pundits are increasingly calling for in Iraq.
s. sandberg
e-mail:
sandberg1306@yahoo.com