Survival: Global Politics and Strategy, vol. 52, no. 1, February–March 2010, pp. 97–110
Order a copy of the issue here
<First 500 words>
Today in Sarajevo there is disturbing talk of an unravelling of the Dayton Accords that ended the bloody civil war there 14 years ago. Nearly 100,000 people were killed in that war, which pitted Muslims against Serbs against Croats, and saw Europe’s nastiest massacres since the Second World War. Since 1995, Bosnia has been at peace, but the main political parties continue to fight over the basic issues that started the war almost two decades ago. Concern over the general political situation has increased as nationalist rhetoric has raised the spectre of a re-division of the country and an ensuing descent into violence. Some in Sarajevo even evoke the possibility of ‘European Gazas’ emerging in some parts of the county, where there are hints that unemployed Muslim youth may be coming under the influence of a radical, foreign brand of Wahhabist Islam.
The international community has invested over $15 billion and 14 years of effort to ensure that fighting does not break out again in Bosnia. Washington and European capitals are naturally eager to leave the region given the many demands on their resources elsewhere in the world. Many European leaders, moreover, are eager to see the United States withdraw so that responsibility for Bosnia can be handed over to the European Union. This is a sentiment that the United States should support in principle, especially given the manifold challenges it faces elsewhere, but if a withdrawal risks a return to war, then it is clearly too soon.
Indeed, another Bosnian implosion would be a disaster, not only for Bosnia, but for the Balkans, Europe and the United States. The decision to leave must thus be based on a clear-headed assessment of the chances of renewed violence. If they are real, the international community and the United States must stay fully engaged, and the Office of the High Representative (OHR), the main instrument of that engagement over the last 12 years, needs to be kept open and possibly even strengthened. If the danger is imagined, it is time to pack up and get out.
Paths back to war
The most likely path back to war begins with a decision by Bosnian Serb Prime Minister Milorad Dodik to act on his threat to hold a referendum on independence for the Republika Srpska. The Dayton Accords created two ‘entities’ within the Bosnian state, one for Bosnian Serbs and one shared by Croats and Bosnian Muslims, or ‘Bosniaks’ as they are usually called. Dodik has been prime minister of the Bosnian Serb entity, the Republika Srpska, since 2006. Once a moderate and favourite of the international community, Dodik discovered the electoral power of nationalism a few years ago. He has now repeatedly threatened to hold a referendum on independence from Sarajevo, most recently in response to what he claimed were efforts by the United States to ‘impose’ a new constitution on Bosnia during the so-called ‘Butmir’ process that took place in autumn 2009. Dodik’s rhetoric resonates with many Republika Srpska residents, strengthens his…
Get full article here
Christopher S. Chivvis is a political scientist with the RAND Corporation in Washington DC, and adjunct professor in the European Studies programme at the Johns Hopkins University, School of Advanced International Studies. The research on which this article was based was funded in part by a grant from the Carnegie Corporation for research on the role of local factors in post-conflict stabilisation.
Related articles
Serbia’s Choice by Elizabeth Pond (April–May 2009)
Kosovo’s Moment, Serbia’s Choice by David Gowan (April–May 2009)
The Making of Macedonia by Christopher S. Chivvis (April–May 2009)
America’s Balkan Disengagement by Marta Dassù and Nicholas Whyte (Winter 2001)
Yugoslavia After Milosevic by Jacques Rupnik (Summer 2001)
Under Western Eyes: The Fate of Bosnia by Fouad Ajami (Summer 1999)
