This paper provides an overview of the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the international intervention in ending the conflict. It begins by tracing the origins of the conflict from the referendum of 29 February and 1 March of 1992 to the Srebrenica massacres. The failure by the international community to restore peace through the Lisbon and Vance-Owen peace plans through Srebrenica to finally Dayton has led to the question: Why would the international intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina be considered less successful?
In answering this question the paper has used four hypothesis of; poor timing, incoherent approach, poor understanding of the conflict situation by the international community and the product of the intervention in the Dayton Peace Agreement and its implication on governance and prospects on EU accession. The paper after thorough discussion of the intervention along the four lines of hypothesis has concluded that the poor timing which goes with the mandate affected the intervention negatively, the lack of coherent approach led to continued commitment of atrocities with poor understanding of the conflict situation informing the division of the country into ethnic lines from Lisbon through to Dayton hence less successful.
Table of Contents
Introduction
The Fault-lines of Intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina
Timing of the intervention
Proper Understanding of the Conflict Background
Incoherent Approach
Dayton Agreement as the product of the Intervention
Conclusion
Research Objectives and Core Themes
This paper evaluates the efficacy of international intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina, questioning why these efforts are often perceived as less successful. It analyzes organizational and practical weaknesses, specifically focusing on the intervention's timing, the international community's understanding of the conflict, the lack of a coherent approach, and the structural implications of the Dayton Peace Agreement.
- Analysis of the four main hypotheses regarding intervention failure (timing, coherence, understanding, and the Dayton Agreement).
- Examination of the geopolitical and ethnic complexities during the disintegration of the former Yugoslavia.
- Critique of the Dayton Peace Agreement's impact on governance and ethnic division.
- Investigation into how international policies hindered Bosnia and Herzegovina's prospects for EU accession.
- Assessment of the role played by NATO and UNPROFOR during the conflict and peace-building processes.
Excerpt from the Book
Proper Understanding of the Conflict Background
The need for actors to have a proper understanding of conflict situation is very vital for a successful international intervention in a conflict situation. This is so because ill-information on the part of the international intervener has an effect on the negotiations which find their way to peace resolutions. This was the case in BH when the international community conceived the conflict in Yugoslavia as that based on ‘ancient hatred’ and was unavoidable informing their skewed tilt in favor of ethnic solutions (Brisson, 2017). The ‘ancient hatred’ conceptualization is opined to have been fueled by the media outlets in the West which presented Bosnian Serbs as resentful since losing Kosovo in 1389 hating also Bosnian Croats from the Second World War (Schwartz, 1999). This argument gives a blind eye to the inter-ethnic co-existence before the periods pointed to have led to resentment thereby, pointing to skewed interpretation of history. The international interveners with this biased notion, proposed peace agreements in ethno-nationality terms to a conflict which could have not just been on ethnic basis (Woodward, 1995).
In similar vein, part of the international interveners over-emphasized the peaceful co-existence in the Balkans especially in Bosnia where Orthodox, Jews, Muslims and Catholics lived peacefully for a ‘multicultural heaven’ where different cultures could arise and flourish (Hromadžić, 2015). However, even those who subscribed to this logic did not go deep to find what other causes would have contributed to this conflict. Problems of this kind of misunderstanding began featuring in the Lisbon Agreement which haphazardly divided the country into ethno-nationality grounds avoiding the intermingling and intermarriage which had been practiced over the years. It is reported that in one quarter of the 109 municipalities there was no ethnic majority with 54 municipalities having 25-50 percent of people belonging to different ethnic groups other than the majority (Moore, 2013). This actually contributed to the failure of the Lisbon agreement. The Vance-Owen Plan similarly envisioned BH decentralized along the ethno-nationality with provinces as the center of most government activities.
Summary of Chapters
Introduction: Outlines the historical context of the Bosnian conflict and the conceptual framework for analyzing international intervention, including the primary research question.
The Fault-lines of Intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina: Introduces the four central hypotheses (timing, coherence, understanding, and the Dayton product) that serve as the foundation for the critical analysis.
Timing of the intervention: Examines how the delayed deployment of peacekeepers and the lack of mandate flexibility undermined the international community's ability to prevent atrocities.
Proper Understanding of the Conflict Background: Critiques the over-simplification of the conflict as 'ancient ethnic hatred,' which led to flawed, ethno-centric peace agreements.
Incoherent Approach: Analyzes the lack of unity among international actors and the operational deadlock between the UN and NATO that facilitated the Srebrenica massacre.
Dayton Agreement as the product of the Intervention: Evaluates the structural legacy of the Dayton Agreement, arguing that it institutionalized ethnic divisions and hindered effective democratic reform.
Conclusion: Synthesizes the findings, concluding that preventable tragedies and a rigid, unreformable post-conflict system render the intervention less successful.
Keywords
International intervention, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Dayton Agreement, Srebrenica, UNPROFOR, ethnic division, conflict resolution, ancient hatred, humanitarian aid, political stalemate, EU accession, peacekeeping, governance, Balkans, NATO.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental focus of this research paper?
The paper provides a critical assessment of the international intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina, analyzing why, despite ending the physical violence, the intervention is often considered a failed or less successful exercise.
What are the primary thematic areas covered in the analysis?
The core themes include the impact of poor timing in intervention, the lack of a coherent strategy among international actors, the influence of historical misconceptions on peace agreements, and the structural governance problems caused by the Dayton Agreement.
What is the central research question guiding the study?
The research is driven by the question: "Why would the international intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina be considered less successful?"
Which scientific methods are employed to analyze the intervention?
The author uses a qualitative case study approach, testing four specific hypotheses—poor timing, incoherent approach, poor conflict understanding, and a flawed final product (the Dayton Agreement)—against historical evidence.
What does the main body of the paper specifically address?
It details the failures of various peace plans, the operational difficulties of UN and NATO forces, the consequences of misidentifying the conflict as 'ancient ethnic hatred,' and the long-term governance issues stemming from the Dayton peace framework.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
Key terms include international intervention, Dayton Agreement, ethnic division, Srebrenica, peacekeeping, and political reform in post-conflict states.
How did the concept of 'ancient hatred' affect the peace process?
The author argues that framing the conflict as 'ancient ethnic hatred' allowed international actors to adopt simplistic, ethnic-based solutions, which ignored the reality of inter-ethnic co-existence and ultimately institutionalized deep societal divisions.
What conclusion does the author reach regarding the Dayton Agreement?
The author concludes that while the agreement successfully ended physical fighting, it created a rigid, unreformable political system that prioritizes ethnic interests over individual rights, thereby hindering the country's development and EU membership prospects.
- Quote paper
- Development and International Relations Calvince Omondi Barack (Author), 2018, International Intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Why would the international intervention be considered less successful?, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/412671
