By Jason Meade
MA in International Political Economy
21 May 2001
6,500 words
I. The Collapse of Yugoslavia and the Bosnian War
A. Srebrenica
B. The End of the War and the Dayton plan
II. Problems of the UNTA
A. Politics
1. the logic of ethnic cleansing
2. the illogic of UN administration
B. Economy
1. the effects of politics on economics
2. the question of state-owned assets
3. the UN’s economic stewardship
4. the UN’s “hot money” problem
C. Security
1. Brcko
2. foreign forces
III. Conclusions
A. Summation
B. Recommendations for Bosnia
C. Broader Implications
I. The Collapse of Yugoslavia and the Bosnian War
The UN’s involvement in Bosnia began with the collapse
of communist Yugolsavia in 1991. This precipitated a series of wars of
which the Bosnian war was one. It was initially a war between the predominantly
Muslim government of the seceding republic, and rebel Serbs who wished
to remain a part of Yugoslavia. Subsequently the war widened to involve
fighting between rebel Croats who wished to become a part of Croatia, rebel
Serbs, and Bosnian government forces. The driving ideology of the Serb
and Croat armies was the concept of “ethnic cleansing.” In Bosnia this
was an attempt to forcibly separate the multi-ethnic and multi-cultural
population of Bosnia into homogenous ethnic enclaves.
Into this situation stepped the UN, which imposed
an arms embargo on Bosnia in 1991 via UN Security Council resolution 713
(covering all of Yugoslavia, including Bosnia). The effects of the embargo
fell largely upon the legitimate government forces in Bosnia. The UN also
sent in peacekeeping troops and set up refugee safe areas in several parts
of Bosnia. But, as Edward Luttwak points out (1999), “(UN peacekeeping)
Unit commanders…habitually appease(d) the locally stronger force” which
did not make strategic sense, but only reflected a determination to avoid
conflict and casualties among their own personnel.
A. Srebrenica
The stand-out event of the UN’s involvement in the
Bosnian war is the fall of the safe area of Srebrenica in July of 1995.
The safe areas were designated as refuges for non-combatants and locations
for the distribution of humanitarian aid. “The inhabitants (of Srebrenica)
believed that the authority of the UN Security Council, the presence of
peacekeepers, and the might of NATO airpower would ensure their safety.
(Office of the Secretary General, 1999)” However, when Serb forces entered
the town they met no resistance from the UN peacekeepers. The Serbs then
depopulated the town within 48 hours. Reports of a massacre involving at
least hundreds and possibly thousands of non-combatant deaths at the hands
of Serb forces surfaced within days and are still under investigation.
The following quotes from a United States Congressional inquiry into the
events surrounding the fall of the safe area give an idea of the UN’s behavior:
Mr. SMITH (Congressman from New Jersey). Let me ask just one final question. Why do you believe the U.N. peacekeepers and the UNHCR did not insist that the Muslims be evacuated through their good offices or on their trucks and buses rather than allowing the Serb captors? I mean, did they just trust Mladic, that somehow he was going to act benignly toward the Muslims, or was it just incompetence, or worse?
Mr. Hasan Nuhanovic (former translator, U.N. Peacekeeping Force in Srebrenica). I think that they just didn't care. According to what I have seen there, I can give you many details but it would take a long time. The Dutch soldiers, the representatives from MSF who were there, and also UNHCR representatives who were there for maybe 1 or 2 hours while this was happening in Potocari didn't show an interest in protecting the civilians at all. I mean no one has shown any interest at all. Everybody just waited to pack up his things and leave. That's all. And leave that hell on earth.
Ms. JAGGER (Executive Director's Leadership Council,
Amnesty International). ….But more extraordinary than that is the Dutchbat
transferred 30,000 liters of fuel to the Bosnian Serbs in accordance with
Mladic demands. The Dutch were fueling the very vehicles that Mladic used
to bring the executioners to Potocari and the buses that brought the victims
to the killing fields simply because General Mladic demanded it. “The Bosnian
Serbs held 55 Dutch personnel in Braternag,'' wrote General van der Wind.
That is the excuse that he gave why they were cooperating with the Serbs
in such a way.
(Subcommittee on International relations, 1998)
B. The End of the War and the Dayton plan
The war came to an end when a combination of factors,
including a Croatian counter-offensive against Serb positions in eastern
Croatia, and a campaign of NATO airstrikes against Serb positions in Bosnia,
finally convinced the Serbs to come to the bargaining table. A peace plan
was adopted by all sides in Dayton, Ohio, USA on November 21, 1995. The
signing of the Dayton Peace Accords mark the end of the shooting war in
Bosnia and the beginning of the United Nations transitional administration.
Under the terms of the agreement Bosnia remained
a single state within its pre-war boundaries. The overall government of
the country was given over to a rotating, three-person, ethnically based
presidency, a parliament, constitutional court, and central bank. The central
government was given very limited authority. Most powers were reserved
to the two sub-state governments known as the “entities.” These are the
Muslim-Croat “Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina” and the Serbian “Republika
Srpska”. The Muslim-Croat federation covers 51% of the territory of Bosnia,
and the Serbian Republic covers the remaining 49%. Each entity retains
its own army, although in practice the Muslims and Croats both maintain
separate forces. However, the highest power in the country belongs not
to any of these governing bodies, but to the Special Representative of
the Secretary General of the United Nations (or SRSG). The SRSG and his
Office of the High Representative are vested with the powers to legislate
by decree, and remove from office any Bosnian officials at his discretion.
Likewise the highest enforcement body in Bosnia is not a Bosnian institution,
but the IFOR/SFOR NATO-led peacekeeping force. Together the OHR and SFOR
form the United Nations transitional administration for Bosnia ("The General
Framework Agreement", 1995). Other United Nations transitional administrations
include the current operation in East Timor (UNTAET), and past operations
in Cambodia (UNTAC) and Eastern Slavonia (UNTAES) in Croatia. A transitional
administration essentially acts either as a government (as in the case
of East Timor), or performs some governmental functions (as in the case
of Bosnia) in areas where the indigenous population is temporarily unable
to perform the actions required of it.
The transitional administration was originally authorized
by the UN Security Council via Security Council resolutions 1031 and 1035
in December 1995, and is currently authorized through June 21, 2001. The
UN’s mission in Bosnia is to implement the Dayton Peace Plan which has
nine essential goals:
1. Create a new multi-cultural, multi-ethnic country on the territory
of the old Bosnian state
2. Establish democratic elections
3. Abide by international human rights standards
4. Allow freedom of movement throughout the country
5. Return displaced persons and refugees
6. Establish joint public corporations
7. Protect national monuments
8. Arrest war criminals
9. Evict foreign soldiers
("Is Dayton Failing?", 1999)
In addition, the UN appears to have taken on the tasks of:
1. Restoring peace and the rule of law
2. Assisting in reconstruction and self-government.
II. Problems of the UNTA
The United Nations transitional administration in
Bosnia has been beset with problems over the half decade of its existence.
This section of the essay will describe some of the most pressing of these
problems under three main headings: A. Politics, B. Economy, and C. Security.
A. Politics
1. the logic of ethnic cleansing
The overriding political problem is that the UN has accepted
the logic of ethnic cleansing as a given. The evidence for this is clear.
As David Campbell points out in his book National Deconstruction
(1998, pg. 226), “(The international community), by reducing all combatants
to equivalent ethnic factions and proposing settlements on the basis of
cultural and territorial separation, have been equally dominated by the
ethnic-nationalist exclusions they are seeking to ameliorate.”
This fundamental conceptual problem has colored
all the actions of the UN in Bosnia. The multi-ethnic communities the UN
is charged with recreating came into being under the Ottoman Empire’s millet
system of governance, wherein the basic governing unit was non-territorial
and based on communities of faith, rather than ethnicity. However, viewed
through the prism of ethnic nationalism, plans to mimic such communities
become much more difficult to conceptualize and implement. Again quoting
Campbell (1998, pg. 229), “Thus Germany, one of the Contact Group members
to have witnessed the Dayton agreement, began forcible repatriation of
some 300,000 Bosnians from Munich, on the grounds that they can return
to “Muslim” areas in the federation regardless of whether they ever lived
there.” This policy is non-sensical from the perspective of recreating
Bosnia’s ante bellum social environment. But it makes perfect sense to
a policymaker who accepts the ideas of ethnic exclusivism.
The second problem is that the both the Dayton plan
and the subsequent UN implementation of that plan have served to entrench
ethnic divisions in Bosnia. The Dayton plan itself was deeply flawed in
its acceptance, via article III and article V, of ethnic divisions wrought
during the war. Over the past several years the UN’s interpretation and
implementation of the Dayton plan has served to magnify these flaws many
times over. For example, the UN has acquiesced to a virtual abandonment
of annex 7 of the Dayton plan, concerning refugee return. An International
Crisis Group report writes that “it appears that some international
agencies responsible for implementing DPA, such as SFOR, have chosen the
path of least resistance and distanced themselves from playing a role in
its implementation….thus playing to the ethnic cleansers. If the current
slow pace of return continues, the last Bosniak will not return to the
Republika Srpska until the year 2117. ("Is Dayton Failing?", 1999)” This
has helped to maintain a very unstable situation throughout the country
for the past half decade. Frustration and anger with the effects of ethnic
cleansing and UN administration continues to simmer. As this example shows,
the UN and agencies acting under its aegis are working counter to their
own stated goal of recreating a multi-ethnic state.
The third problem in this area is the Bosnian constitution.
The constitution was adopted as part of the Dayton agreement (annex 4),
and signed under Western and UN pressure. This document not only enshrines
many of the basic tenets ethnic cleansing, it creates permanent incentives
for ethnic separatism. The upper house of the Bosnian parliament is required
to contain 15 delegates: five Croats and five Muslims from the Muslim-Croat
federation, and five Serbs from the Republika Srpska. The Muslim-Croat
federation is awarded twice as many seats as the RS, based on the fact
that it has twice as many (recognized) ethnic groups. The lower house of
the parliament also awards the Muslim-Croat federation twice as many members
as the RS, although the ethnic composition is not specified here. Finally,
the presidency is also ethnically based, with one representative from each
of the main ethnic groups.
It is difficult to overrate the destructiveness
of this constitution. In the first place, it effectively disenfranchises
every other ethnic group living in the country. According to the U.S. Bosnian
Embassy webpage (2001), this amounts to 7% of the total population (see
figure 1).
Figure 1
(source: Bosnian Embassy, Washington, D.C., 2001)
It further effectively disenfranchises anyone from a major ethnic group who happens to reside outside his or her designated area. A Serb can never be a federation president, nor can a Croat ever be a RS president. The constitution creates an institutional dynamic for maintaining ethnic divisions. This dynamic is reinforced by the extreme weakness of the central government. Most important functions of government are reserved to the sub-national governments, referred to as the “entities.” These entities owe their existence to the idea of ethnic exclusivity. And yet, they are given control over the armed forces of the country, and control substantial powers of taxation. Article III.2.a of the constitution explicitly grants to the entities “the right to establish special parallel relationships with neighboring states…” This is a partial legitimization of the original goal of the ethnic separatists: union with either Serbia or Croatia proper. So, it is clear that the vision of bringing back Bosnia’s multi-ethnic past has yet to find many real supporters in the UN or the international community at large.
2. the illogic of UN administration
The second set of political problems concern the
UN’s method of promoting a democratic environment. Among the transitional
administration’s goals are to create a democratic state and assist the
Bosnians in building capacities for self-governance. However, one of the
most noticeable features of the UN’s civilian administration is its reliance
on rule by decree. As noted previously, the SRSG was vested with the highest
level of governing power in the country. Over the years, different SRSG’s
have used this power to fire presidents of Bosnia and ban political parties,
to impose a currency on the country, and to impose a privatization plan.
On one day in December 2000 (Besson, 2001), the SRSG issued eleven new
decisions either amending or imposing an array of laws on economic matters.
While such actions may be expedient, it is
hard to see how they are useful in the promotion of democracy or self-government.
For example, to quote from the “Decision imposing the Law on the Flag of
BiH- 3 February 1998”, the SRSG writes “the Delegates have shown themselves
lacking in the courage to take a binding decision on the important and
sensitive issue of a common flag for Bosnia and Herzegovina…. I hereby
decide that the Law on the Flag of Bosnia and Herzegovina… shall enter
into force with immediate effect.(Westendorp, 1998b)” This same formula
is found throughout the SRSG’s body of decisions. It is part of a very
simple cycle. First, Bosnian legislators either refuse to cooperate, or
else can not reach an agreement. Second, the SRSG imposes a solution to
the problem. Then the cycle repeats. The Bosnians do not learn how to co-operate
or run their own government, and ultimate authority is exercised by an
unelected UN administrator.
Finally, there is the issue of creating a
settled, predictable political environment. Although the SRSG has not been
averse to stepping in to the day-to-day affairs of various aspects of Bosnian
government, his actions have not tended towards any particular goal. While
some government administrators are removed from office for corruption,
others are left in place. It is not clear who will remain in office and
who will be removed, or when this will happen. Furthermore, the SRSG is
often unable to enforce his removal orders due to the lack of assistance
from SFOR. This further clouds the situation. Parallel administrations
are also a problem. It is true that the SRSG has taken action in at least
one case, when he abolished the Serbian Municipality of Skelani, which
had been carved from Srebrenica during the war (Petritsch, 2000a). But
again, there is no way to predict when an administration, or an entire
municpality may be abolished or altered in terms of governing structure,
responsiblities, or even geographical extent. Such circumstances work against
the UN’s goal of contributing to the reconstruction of the country.
B. Economy
Bosnia today has an unemployment rate of around
50%. The number of displaced persons is also about 50%. According to a
UN survey 60% of young people want to leave Bosnia (Country Profile, 2001).
Corruption is rampant among Bosnian government officials. The level of
economic activity is very low, and the country relies on monetary inflows
from international organizations and foreign governments. The transition
from a communist economic structure is still in its early stages ten years
after the fall of communism in Eastern Europe. The Bosnian Embassy’s webpage
(2001) reports that per capita GDP is $880. In short, the Bosnian economy
is in a shambles.
1. the effects of politics on economics
Over the past six years under the UN, Bosnia has
made very little progress on economic matters. The reasons for this can
be traced directly to the unsettled state of politics in the country. Without
a predictable form of government, foreign investors are extremely reluctant
to become involved in the country. In a recent report (EBRD, 2001), the
EBRD wrote in regards to the investment climate in Bosnia that,
The institutions both at state level and at Entity
level leave much to be desired.
Administration, law enforcement and judiciary are
marked by a lack of impartiality,
accountability and transparency. Arbitrariness of
conduct seems to be the general
rule. Political interference in court decisions is
rife. The lack of effective inter-entity
legal co-operation between law enforcement, administrative
and judicial authorities of
both Entities constitutes a serious impediment to
advancement [of private investment].
2. the question of state-owned assets
The question of formerly state-owned assets is the
second major economic issue facing Bosnia today. Under the SRSG’s decision
of 28 July 1998 (Westendorp, 1998a) which imposed a privatization framework
on the country he wrote that the OHR “expressly recognises the right of
the Entities to privatise non-privately owned enterprises and banks located
on their territories.” However, under the decision on the re-allocation
of socially owned land of 27 April 2000 (Petritsch, 2000b) he declared
that most state-owned property could not be “be disposed of, allotted,
transferred, sold, or given for use or rent, by the authorities of either
Entity or Bosnia and Herzegovina” without a written waiver from his office.
This stop-and-go approach to privatization has done little improve the
economic climate in the country.
3. the UN’s economic stewardship
As these decisions demonstrate, the UN, as
the highest legal authority in Bosnia, has played an integral role in keeping
the Bosnian economy in a state of flux. The uneven application of these
decisions adds even more uncertainty to the economic environment. Other
aspects of the SRSG’s economic stewardship of the country are also questionable.
For example, in the last two months of 2000, the SRSG imposed a package
of economic reforms designed in part to “meet the demands of the international
financial institutions working in Bosnia and Herzegovina. (Besson, 2001)”
The IMF is explicitly mentioned as one of these institutions. While the
IMF is apparently well intentioned in its policy recommendations for economic
reform, it has drawn growing criticism for lack of success of many of those
reforms.(Ivanovich, 1998) The decisions imposed by the SRSG appear to rely
more on the “one size fits all” advice of international creditors like
the IMF than on any in-depth consideration of the needs of the Bosnian
people or economy.
It is morally questionable for an unelected UN administrator
to obligate a poor country to foreign debt, and alter the economic landscape
in accordance with the wishes of international creditors, not just without
the input of the population, but in opposition to the actions of the population’s
elected representatives. Again this problem harks back to the political
problems in the country. If the elected representatives of Bosnia do not
pass legislation which the SRSG wishes to see enacted, he enacts it anyway.
But, at least one alternate interpretation of the Bosnian failure to enact
legislation desired by the SRSG is that they do not want it. In addition,
the lack of Bosnian action on the SRSG’s prescriptions may not signify
a “lack of courage” on the part of the Bosnians. It is at least conceivable
that the Bosnians have genuine concerns with the substance of the UN’s
economic reforms.
4. the UN’s “hot money” problem
Finally, the UN’s sudden and disproportionate infusions
of funds into the local economy create a problem similar to the “hot money”
flows which led to the East Asian financial crisis. Relatively large amounts
of money can flow both into and out of the economy without warning and
seemingly without reason. The UN frequently pays above market rates for
local goods and services, as well for the salaries of foreign personnel.
This creates immediate distortions in the market. This problem was also
reported in the UN’s operations in Cambodia in the early part of the decade
(Findlay, 1995). SFOR has also played a part in this process. According
a report from the International Crisis Group ("Is Dayton Failing?", 1999),
“SFOR is paying rent to local authorities for properties which, under the
DPA, they should be able to use for free.” And not just any rent, but hard
currency paid in cash to local officials. The growth of illegal activities
and services has also been attributed to the presence of highly paid international
workers and soldiers. The most notorious of these “services” is prostitution.
Madeleine Reese (McGhie, 2000) of the UNHCR has explicitly made this connection
by stating that the presence of the international community “creates the
market” for trafficking in women and prostitution in Bosnia. Taken together
all of these activities appear to have a significant, if localized, effect
on the economy and society of the country. And there is one last problem
with these cash infusions. There is no guarantee they will continue. Local
economies that have begun to settle in around the international community’s
funds are liable to collapse whenever the international community decides
to pull out of the country. This may very well leave some areas in positions
little better than the ones they occupied at the close of the war.
C. Security
Many of the problems mentioned in the first
two sections represent different expressions of the same underlying dynamic
at work in the country- flux. The economy is in flux, the laws are in flux,
the forms of government are in flux, the status of displaced persons is
in flux. Everything seems to be up in the air. Very little has been resolved
since the war. Again quoting Edward Luttwak (1999),
“The Dayton Accords have condemned Bosnia to remain divided into three rival armed camps. With combat suspended momentarily but a state of hostility prolonged indefinitely. Since no side is threatened by defeat and loss, none has sufficient incentive to negotiate a lasting settlement; because no path to peace is even visible, the dominant priority is to prepare for future war rather than reconstruct devastated economies and ravaged societies.”
The truth of these words can be easily verified.
As mentioned in section II.A, each of the main combatants from the last
war continues to maintain its own separate standing army. Most of the refugees
of 1995 remain refugees today. Many of the gains of the ethnic cleansers
are still in place and opposed by moderates on all sides, and yet ethnic
extremists are still not satisfied with the situation. And the fixed assets
of the state have yet to be distributed to the population.
Part of the blame for this rests with SFOR which
has been very reluctant to put the full weight of its authority behind
the SRSG. Following the tradition of the war-time peacekeepers, SFOR has
frequently declined to put itself in harms way to enforce the Dayton plan.
This has been noted by the authors of the International Crisis Group Report
("Is Dayton Failing?", 1999 and "Turning Strife to Advantage", 2001), and
is obliquely acknowledged by SFOR itself which considers that part of its
mission to “provide selective support to civilian organizations within
its capabilities. (SFOR Informer Online, 2001)” This selective support
has certainly done nothing to make the SRSG’s already selective interventions
any more effective.
1. Brcko
The Dayton plan and the UN administration seem to
epitomize the erroneous idea that a successful compromise is one in which
no one is happy. Indeed, this conception of compromise seems to have been
the guiding principle behind the UN’s arbitration of the status of the
city of Brcko, potentially one of the most explosive security problems
in the country today. The city of Brcko is located at the “pivot point”
of the Republika Srpska. The two arms of the republic narrow down to a
small corridor around the city before widening out to the northwest and
southeast. A glance at a map of the region (Figure 2) is enough to show
the vital strategic position of the city in RS calculations. Without access
through Brcko, the northwestern half of the republic would be cut off from
the southeast and squeezed between the Muslim-Croat federation on the south
and Croatia on the north. This is clearly not in the interests of the Serb
government (Anonymous, 1999a). On the other hand, the Muslim-Croat federation,
wary of renewed Serb aggression would like to see the RS made as weak as
possible. Serbs claim the city by right of occupation, by virtue of its
proximity to Serb held areas, and because of its strategic position in
the RS. The Muslim-Croat federation claims the city on the basis of its
ethnic make-up which is primarily Muslim and Croat.
Under the terms of the arbitrators decision ("Statute
of Brcko", 1999) the city was made a condominium of the two entities. The
decision calls for joint control of the city. The city and its surrounding
area are made a demilitarized zone. Unlike the central government, the
government of Brcko is not divided up according to ethnic considerations.
And yet Brcko remains a problem. Most importantly, in military terms the
RS has been nearly split in two. Both sides are prohibited from stationing
forces in or near the city, and the movement of military forces through
the area is under the discretion of the municipal government and the central
government, where the Muslim-Croat federation has been given twice the
representation of the Republika Srpska. These restrictions weigh much more
heavily on the RS than on the federation. It is likely that the situation
will remain under control for the duration of the UN administration, but
once the international community leaves conflict may to break out again.
The UN’s apparent strategy of preventing open conflict and waiting for
the passage of time to repair the wounds of war is unlikely to work in
this case. Given the on-going regional tensions and the unresolved conflicts
in Bosnia, threats to the integrity of the RS are not going to be dismissed
any time soon.
Figure 2.
(source:
The Perry-Castañeda Library Map Collection, The University of Texas
at Austin, 1997)
2. foreign forces
Adding to the potential security problems in the
country is the presence of outside military aid and foreign forces. Despite
the fact that the Dayton plan called for the withdrawal of all foreign
forces by the beginning of 1996, many foreign soldiers remain in the country,
and outside military aid has remained a major source of training and equipment
for Bosnia’s various armed forces. One rather blatant example of foreign
soldiers remaining in Bosnia came to an end only in March of this year
(Kroeger, 2001b). The Serb village of Bocinja, inside the Muslim-Croat
federation, was occupied at the end of the war in late 1995 by foreign
Mujahideen fighters working with the Bosnian government. They took over
the village and lived there unmolested until last July. Upon being informed
of their impending eviction from the village, they blocked the roads into
the area and vandalized the buildings they had been occupying. Following
their eviction in March of 2001, many of the soldiers moved to nearby areas,
while others remain in the village legally even today. This is not an isolated
episode and the continued presence of foreign extremist soldiers is not
a factor contributing to the reconciliation of the various Bosnian communities.
III. Conclusions
A. Summation
This essay has recounted a number of low moments
over the course of the UN’s involvement in Bosnia. During the war, the
UN placed an arms embargo on the country which prevented many people from
defending themselves against military aggression. The UN also sent in peacekeepers
to protect the civilian population. But as the Secretary generals own report
concludes, “the problem, which cried out for a political/
military solution, was that a Member State of the United Nations, left
largely defenceless as a result of an arms embargo imposed upon it by the
United Nations, was being dismembered by forces committed to its destruction.
This was not a problem with a humanitarian solution. (Office of the Secretary
General, 1999)”
In the post-war period, the UN took on the roles
of implementing the Dayton plan and helping Bosnia become a normal member
of the international community. However, as this essay has shown,
the UN has been at the helm of an erratic and aimless administration for
half a decade. The war’s legacy of economic and security problems has become
entrenched under that same administration. The Dayton plan remains largely
unimplemented and Bosnia still seems far from having a robust capability
to order its own affairs.
These issues have been enumerated, not to denigrate
the UN, but to point out that they are not isolated incidents. The UN has
been consistently unable to effectively fulfil the role of crisis manager
and transitional administrator in Bosnia. A recognition of this deficiency
on the part of the UN is vital to crafting more effective responses to
similar challenges in the future.
B. Recommendations for Bosnia
The Bosnian experience highlights some obvious areas
for improvement of UN operations. First of all, the UN needs to have a
clear plan of action, particularly when it is taking on a task as vital
as national administration. In the future the UN should have an explicit,
identifiable goal for its activities. As a transitional administration,
it must have something towards which it is transitioning. Even on paper
the Dayton plan lacks this key element, since there is no criteria by which
to judge whether or not the mission has been successful or not and no timetable
for its completion. The UN must also devise a set of specific, publicly
declared milestones. These will help to keep the administration focussed
and will allow both the UN and the world at large to judge the performance
of the UN. In addition, the transitional administration should have a set
of guiding principles, a systematic method of operation to help it resist
the fleeting demands that buffet every administration in its day-to-day
operations.
In general, the UN needs to be more consistent.
It should limit its supervision to a narrower range of subjects and supervise
those subjects more thoroughly. The current method, which resembles spot-checking
more than supervision is clearly not working. The transitional administration
should also be firmer and more constant when it exercises authority. This
requires a greater degree of co-operation between the OHR and SFOR which
can provide the enforcement power which the Office of the High Representative
alone lacks. Finally, the UN administration needs to be much faster in
its work. These kinds of glaring problems must be solved more quickly if
the transitional administration is to lead to the creation of a peaceful
and responsible country.
C. Broader Implications
These observations about the UN transitional administration
in Bosnia provoke some broader philosophical questions, which I would like
to mention in parting. One is the question of accountability, the other
that of obligations. On the question of accountability, my primary concern
is: “Who does a transitional administration work for?” Does a transitional
administration work for the host country, and pursue its interests even
if those interests might not coincide with the interests of the international
community? Or, does it work for the UN? If this is the case, then whose
interests should prevail when there is a conflict- those of the host country
or those of international community? A more specific question, already
broached in a previous section (II.B.3) looks at foreign debt. Can an unelected
UN administrator take on foreign debts on behalf of a country that will
very likely have problems paying back those debts in the future? This leads
to the final accountability question. Where can the citizens of a host
country go to seek redress if they disagree with the actions of the UN
administration? Using the example of international debt, what could the
people of Bosnia do to oppose these actions?
Regarding obligations, the most important questions
seem to fall on the obligations of the UN towards the host country. Exactly
what obligations does a transitional administration have towards the people
it assumes authority over? Must the UN fulfil the obligations it originally
accepted? In the case of Bosnia, the parties to the Dayton plan ceded a
great deal of power to the UN with the expectation that it would use those
powers to implement the peace agreement. But what happens when the UN can’t
fulfil its obligations, or when the goals it has agreed to work towards
prove unrealistic and unattainable? Finally, what happens when the UN starts
to create new problems? What happens when, as Madeleine Reese pointed out,
the UN’s presence creates a market for human bondage? Or when the UN’s
actions cause an increase in turmoil and strife? What obligation does the
UN have to protect people from itself?
These are questions that have come to the surface
in the course of the research for this essay, but I have found few answers.
Like the concept of the Bosnian Muslim ethnic group, many members of the
international community appear to have taken the concept of international
administration as a starting point, rather than a point of contention and
study. But the utility and the morality of transitional administrations
has not been proven, and needs to be explored more fully if these governing
bodies are to be forces for peace and progress in the world.
Books
1. Bert, Wayne; (1997); The reluctant superpower : United States'
policy in Bosnia, 1991-95;
Basingstoke; Macmillan
2. Campbell, David; (1998); National deconstruction : violence,
identity, and justice in Bosnia;
Minneapolis, Minnesota; University of Minneapolis Press
3. Chandler, David; (1999); Bosnia : faking democracy after
Dayton;
London; Pluto Press
4. Findlay, Trevor; (1995); Cambodia : the legacy and lessons
of UNTAC;
Oxford; Oxford University Press
5. Hoffman, Stanely; (1996); The ethics and politics of humanitarian
intervention;
Notre Dame, Indiana; University of Notre Dame Press
6. Rose, Michael; (1999) Fighting for peace : lessons from
Bosnia;
London; Warner
Journals
6. Luttwak, Edward; (1999); “Give War a Chance”;
Foreign Affairs; Volume 78, Number 4, pp. 36-44
7. MacGregor, (2000); “find title of article”
Orbis, Winter 2000, pp. ?-110
Internet Resources
8..
Anonymous; (13 March 1999); “Europe: Two on the chin”;
London;
The
Economist
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?TS=989935305&Did=000000039755200&Mtd=1&Fmt=3&Sid=1&Idx=7&Deli=1&RQT=309&Dtp=1
9.
Anonymous; (20 November 1999); “Leaders: Lessons from
Bosnia”;
London;
The
Economist
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?TS=989935356&Did=000000046585898&Mtd=1&Fmt=3&Sid=2&Idx=1&Deli=1&RQT=309&Dtp=1
10.
Anonymous; (13 December 1999); “The whole awful truth”;
Washington,
D.C.; The New Republic
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?TS=989935442&Did=000000046943749&Mtd=1&Fmt=3&Sid=4&Idx=1&Deli=1&RQT=309&Dtp=1
11. Besson, Daniel;
(January, 2001); “Economic Reform and Reconstruction
in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH)”;
Sarajevo, Bosnia
and Herzegovina; Economic Newsletter of the Office of the High Representative
Volume 4, Issue 1;
http://www.ohr.int/newsletter/eco-0401.htm
12.
Bolwby, Chris; (1 August 2000 ); “Bosnia’s curious currency”;
London;
BBC News;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/from_our_own_correspondent/newsid_859000/859819.stm
13.
“Bosnia and Herzegovina (political map)”; (1997);
The
Perry-Castañeda Library Map Collection;
Austin,
Texas; University of Texas at Austin
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/Libs/PCL/Map_collection/europe/Bosnia_Herzegovina_pol97.jpg
14.
“Bosnian Croat president fired”; (7 March 2001);
London;
BBC News;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_1207000/1207868.stm
15.
“Bosnia - the Dayton Peace Agreement”; (6 November 1997);
London;
BBC News;
http://news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/newsid_8000/8828.stm
16.
Brooke, David; (21 November 2000); “Dayton five years
on”;
London;
BBC News;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_1032000/1032685.stm
17.
Bureau of Public Affairs; (July 25, 1996); “Briefing
on Train-and Equip Program for the Bosnian Federation”;
United
States Department of State;
http://www.isn-lase.ethz.ch/cgi-bin/isn/MapProcessorCGI_isn?mapfile=pull/ConvertDocFrameCGI.map&ri=en&lang=en&ds=isn_pull&d=http%3a%2f%2fwww.state.gov%2fwww%2fregions%2feur%2fbosnia%2f724brief_bosnia_federation.html&pa=9%7eequip%4010%7eequip%401%7etrain%403%7etrain%4010%7eequip%404%7etrain%401%7etrain%404%7eequip%402%7etrain%402%7e&
18.
“Country profile: Bosnia-Hercegovina”; (17 April 2001);
London;
BBC News;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/country_profiles/newsid_1066000/1066886.stm
19.
Domovina Net; (accessed on 28 february 2001); “Yugoslavia's Birth
to its Breakup”;
http://www.xs4all.nl/~frankti/Warhistory/war_hist.html
20. Embassy of Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Washington, D.C.; (accessed on 3 March 2001);
http://www.bosnianembassy.org/
21.
Europe Bank for Reconstruction and Development; (29 March 2001);
“Strategy for Bosnia and Herzegovina”;
http://www.ebrd.org/english/policies/strats/bhstrat.pdf
22. “The General Framework
Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina” (The Dayton Plan);
(signed 14
December 1995);
Sarajevo, Bosnia and
Herzegovina; Office of the High Representative;
http://www.ohr.int/gfa/gfa-home.htm
23. “ICTY Key Figures”;
(18 April 2001); The Hague, The Netherlands; International
Criminal Tribunal for
the formerYugoslavia;
http://www.ohr.int/gfa/gfa-home.htm
24.
“Indicted Karadzic dreams of Nobel prize”; (9 April 2001);
London;
BBC News;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_1268000/1268552.stm
25.
“Is Dayton Failing?: Bosnia Four Years After the Peace Agreement”;
(28 October 1999); Brussels, Belgium and Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina;
International Crisis Group;
http://www.crisisweb.org/projects/balkans/bosnia/reports/a400058_28101999.pdf
26.
Ivanovich, David; (27 February 1998); “The International Monetary
Fund has ordered some harsh prescriptions for Asia, but some say it needs
a taste of its own medicine”;
Houston,
Texas; The Houston Chronicle;
http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/business/98/03/01/newausteritystory.2-0.html
27.
Kroeger, Alix; (22 February 2001); “Bosnia forms new
government”;
London;
BBC News;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_1185000/1185059.stm
28.
Kroeger, Alix; (15 March 2001); “Bosnian Serbs return to 'holy
war' village”;
London,
BBC News;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_1221000/1221996.stm
29. McGhie, John; (based
on a Channel 4 News report broadcast on June 8, 2000);
“Woman for Sale”;
Red Pepper magazine;
http://www.redpepper.org.uk/xsale.html
30. Office of the
Secretary General; (15 November 1999); “REPORT OF THE SECRETARY-GENERAL
PURSUANT TO GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION 53/35 (1998)- SREBRENICA REPORT”;
New York; United Nations;
http://www.un.org/News/ossg/srebrenica.pdf
31. “Outstanding
Public Indictments”; (18 April 2001); The Hague, The Netherlands;
International Criminal Tribunal for the formerYugoslavia;
http://www.un.org/icty/glance/indictlist-e.htm
32. Petritsch,
Wolfgang; (5 December 2000); “Decision on the Municipality
of Srebrenica”;
Sarajevo, Bosnia
and Herzegovina; Office of the High Representative;
http://www.ohr.int/property/d20001205a.htm
33. Petritsch,
Wolfgang; (27 April 2000); “Decision on re-allocation of socially
owned land, superseding the 26 May 1999 and 30 December 1999 decisions”;
Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina; Office of the High Representative;
http://www.ohr.int/property/d20000427a.htm
34. Petritsch,
Wolfgang; (28 June 2000); “Decision suspending the enactment
of the RS Law on the Privatisation of State-Owned Apartments, pending correction
of flaws and discriminatory elements”; Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina;
Office of the
High Representative;
http://www.ohr.int/property/d20000628a.htm
35.
Rieff, David; (1 May 2000); “Nothing was delivered”;
Washington,
D.C.; The New Republic;
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?TS=989935487&Did=000000053458536&Mtd=1&Fmt=4&Sid=5&Idx=8&Deli=1&RQT=309&Dtp=1
36. SFOR Informer
Online; (accessed on 12 march 2001); “History of the NATO-led Stabilization
Force (SFOR) in Bosnia and Herzegovina”; SFOR Headquarters, Butmir, Bosnia
and Herzegovina; SFOR Public Information Office;
http://www.nato.int/sfor/docu/d981116a.htm
37. “Statute of the
Brcko District of Bosnia and Herzegovina”; (7 December 1999);
Sarajevo, Bosnia and
Herzegovina; Office of the High Representative;
http://www.ohr.int/docu/d991207a.html
38.
Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights of the Committee
on International Relations, United States House of Representatives; (31
March 1998); “THE BETRAYAL OF SREBRENICA: WHY DID
THE MASSACRE HAPPEN? WILL IT HAPPEN AGAIN?”; United
States House of Representatives;
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/intlrel/hfa49268.000/hfa49268_0f.htm
39.
“Turning Strife To Advantage: A Blueprint To Integrate The Croats In Bosnia
And Herzegovina”; (15 March 2001); Brussels, Belgium and Sarajevo,
Bosnia and Herzegovina;
International
Crisis Group;
http://www.crisisweb.org/projects/balkans/bosnia/reports/a400261_15032001.pdf
40.
United States Institute of Peace Special Report; (September 1997); “Dayton
Implementation: The Train and Equip Program”;
Washington,
D.C.; The United States Institute of Peace;
http://www.usip.org/oc/sr/dayton_imp/train_equip.html
41.
“UN, SFOR Involved in Bosnian Prostitution”; (19 May 2000);
Sarajevo,
Bosnia and Herzegovina; Reuters;
http://www.balkanpeace.org/hed/archive/may00/hed130.shtml
42.
“US diplomats hold crisis talks in Zagreb”; (6 March 2001);
London;
BBC News;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1205000/1205826.stm
43.
Westendorp, Carlos; (22 July 1998); “Decision imposing
the Framework Law on Privatisation of Enterprises and Banks in BiH”;
Sarajevo, Bosnia
and Herzegovina; Office of the High Representative;
http://www.ohr.int/decisions/19980722a.htm
44.. Westendorp,
Carlos; (3 February 1998); “Decision imposing the Law on the
Flag of BiH”;
Sarajevo, Bosnia
and Herzegovina; Office of the High representative;
http://www.ohr.int/decisions/19980203a.htm
45..
Woodward, Susan; (February 1997); “Bosnia and Herzegovina:
How Not to End Civil War”;
Institute
on War and Peace Studies;
https://wwwc.cc.columbia.edu/sec/dlc/ciao/conf/iwp01/iwp01ab.html