DOCSLIB.ORG

NSIAD-97-132 Bosnia Peace Operation: Progress Toward

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
NSIAD-97-132 Bosnia Peace Operation: Progress Toward United States General Accounting Office Report to the Chairman, Committee on GAO Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate May 1997 BOSNIA PEACE OPERATION Progress Toward Achieving the Dayton Agreement’s Goals GAO/NSIAD-97-132 United States General Accounting Office GAO Washington, D.C. 20548 National Security and International Affairs Division B-272558 May 5, 1997 The Honorable Jesse Helms Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations United States Senate Dear Mr. Chairman: This report discusses the Bosnia peace operation, specifically the progress made in achieving the operation’s objectives and U.S. costs and commitments in support of the operation. We are sending copies of the report to the Secretaries of State and Defense, the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Foreign Relations, and to other appropriate congressional committees. We will make copies available to others upon request. This report was prepared under the direction of Harold J. Johnson, Associate Director, International Relations and Trade Issues, who may be contacted on (202) 512-4128 if you or your staff have any questions about this report. Major contributors to the report are listed in appendix IX. Sincerely yours, Benjamin F. Nelson Director, International Relations and Trade Issues Executive Summary The 1995 General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Purpose Herzegovina and its supporting annexes (also known as the Dayton Agreement) provided the structure and mandates for an international operation intended to promote an enduring peace in Bosnia and stability in the region. While international in scope, the Bosnia peace operation has received important political, military, and financial support from the United States. At the request of the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, GAO reviewed the implementation of the Bosnia peace operation, specifically the progress made in achieving the operation’s four key objectives since the operation began in December 1995 and U. S. costs and commitments in support of the operation. The operation’s objectives are to create conditions that allow Bosnia’s political leaders to (1) provide security for the people of Bosnia; (2) create a unified, democratic Bosnia that respects the rule of law and internationally recognized human rights, including cooperating with the war crimes tribunal in arresting and bringing those charged with war crimes to trial; (3) rebuild the economy; and (4) ensure the right of people to return to their prewar homes. To determine the progress made in achieving the operation’s key objectives, GAO visited numerous locations in Bosnia during July and December 1996, and obtained documentation and interviewed officials from U.S., international, military, and local governmental organizations there. GAO also gathered and analyzed information from the Departments of State, Defense, and the Treasury, and other U.S. government agencies; the World Bank, the United Nations, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and other international organizations; and several participating foreign governments. In addition, GAO attended the Peace Implementation Council session in London in December 1996 where progress and the future of the peace operation were assessed by the international community. (A complete description of GAO’s scope and methodology is in chap. 1.) The war in Bosnia and Herzegovina was fought from 1992 through 1995 Background among Bosnia’s three major ethnic/religious groups—Bosniaks (Muslims), Serbs (Eastern Orthodox Christians), and Croats (Roman Catholics).1 During the war, Bosnian Serbs and Croats fought for and declared the establishment of ethnically pure states separate from Bosnia,2 while 1This report defines “Bosniaks” as “Muslims,” the definition used in State Department human rights reports. The report also refers to any citizen of Bosnia as a “Bosnian,” regardless of ethnic group. 2These states were never recognized by the international community, whereas Bosnia and Herzegovina was granted diplomatic recognition and became a member of the United Nations in 1992. Page 2 GAO/NSIAD-97-132 Bosnia Peace Operation Executive Summary Bosniaks fought for a unified, multiethnic Bosnia. United Nations and other international mediators’ attempts throughout the war to stop the fighting were generally unsuccessful, until U.S.-led negotiations in 1995 culminated in a cease-fire in October 1995 and the Dayton Agreement in December 1995. The Dayton Agreement declared that Bosnia is a single state consisting of two entities that were created during the war: (1) the Bosnian Serb Republic, known as Republika Srpska, and (2) the Federation, an entity that joins together Bosniak- and Bosnian Croat-controlled areas of Bosnia.3 Most areas within Bosnia, with the exception of central Bosnia, are populated and controlled by a predominant ethnic group as a result of population movements during the war. Implementing the Dayton Agreement was a complex, decentralized operation with numerous objectives and subobjectives designed to assist Bosnia’s political leaders achieve the commitments they had made in signing the agreement. On the military side of the peace operation, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) authorized two military forces—first the Implementation Force (IFOR) and later the Stabilization Force (SFOR)—that had responsibility for mainly military objectives and had clear lines of authority for planning and implementation. The United States was the largest force provider to IFOR and SFOR, and Americans occupied the key NATO military leadership positions that controlled their operations. On the civilian side of the operation, the Office of the High Representative was established by the Dayton Agreement to assist the parties in implementing the agreement and to coordinate assistance efforts, but it had no operational authority over either the parties or the civilian organizations and donors active in Bosnia. Other organizations participating in the operation include the United Nations, with its unarmed, civilian police monitoring operation—the International Police Task Force—and other components; the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe; and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The United States has provided important political, financial, and personnel support to organizations participating in the operation, as well as to the international community’s economic reconstruction program for Bosnia. 3U.S. mediation resulted in the establishment of the Federation in March 1994. Prior to this, the Bosniak and Bosnian Croat armies were fighting each other in central Bosnia. The Federation agreement led to a cease-fire between these two armies that held throughout the remainder of the war. Page 3 GAO/NSIAD-97-132 Bosnia Peace Operation Executive Summary The peace operation faced a difficult task in attempting to help rebuild and bring reconciliation to Bosnia. For example, by the end of the war, annual per capita gross domestic product had fallen from its prewar level of $1,900 to $500; less than 25 percent of the prewar working population was employed; and war damage estimates ranged from $20 billion to $30 billion.4 Further, the extreme nationalism that precipitated and grew out of the war had made ethnic identity a critical factor in many aspects of Bosnians’ daily life, and the violence, fear, and collapsed social structure that resulted from the war had eroded support for pluralism. Results in Brief The Bosnia peace operation has helped Bosnia take important first steps toward the Dayton Agreement’s goals. The NATO-led military forces have created and sustained an environment that allows the peace process to move forward and Bosnians to return to normal life. The cease-fire has held, general security has improved, and some progress has been made in establishing political and economic institutions. Additionally, the more secure environment has allowed schools and shops to reopen, and families to start repairing damaged homes. Nevertheless, while the task of implementing the civil aspects of the Dayton Agreement has begun, transition to an effective multiethnic government had not occurred. Bosnia remains politically and ethnically divided, freedom of movement across ethnic boundaries is still very constrained, and economic activity is still at a low level. The limited progress to date has been due principally to the failure of the political leaders of Bosnia’s three major ethnic groups to embrace political and social reconciliation and to fulfill their obligations under the Dayton Agreement. Major obstacles to the vision embodied in the Dayton Agreement remain, particularly the lack of cooperation of Bosnia’s political leaders, and experts say full political and social reconciliation in Bosnia will be a long and difficult process. The Bosnian people are more secure than before the Dayton Agreement. The fighting has not resumed, forces have separated, and force reductions on all sides have occurred. The U.S.-led “train and equip” program intended to help stabilize the military balance in the region is progressing, albeit slower than anticipated. Nonetheless, the Bosnian Serb political leaders have not fully lived up to arms reduction agreements, little progress has been made in reforming police forces so that they operate in accordance with democratic policing standards, and the Department of 4This is a World Bank estimate. The government of Bosnia estimates the damage at
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Dayton Accords and the Escalating Tensions in Kosovo
    Berkeley Undergraduate Journal 68 THE DAYTON ACCORDS AND THE ESCALATING TENSIONS IN KOSOVO By Christopher Carson Abstract his paper argues that the Dayton Accords, which ended the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, were the primary cause of the outbreak of violence in Kosovo in 1998. While the Accords were regarded as successful in neighboring Bosnia, the agreement failed to mention the Texisting situation in Kosovo, thus perpetuating the ethnic tensions within the region. Following the Dayton Accords, the response by the international community failed to address many concerns of the ethnically Albanian population living in Kosovo, creating a feeling of alienation from the international political scene. Finally, the Dayton Accords indirectly contributed to the collapse of the Albanian government in 1997, creating a shift in the structure of power in the region. This destabilization triggered the outbreak of war between Serbs and Albanians in Kosovo the following year. The Dayton Accords 69 I. Introduction For many years, the territory of Kosovo functioned as an autonomous region within the state of Yugoslavia. During that time, Kosovo was the only Albanian-speaking territory within Yugoslavia, having been home to a significant Albanian population since its creation. The region also had a very important meaning for the Serb community, as it was the site of the Battle of Kosovo in 1389, which defined Serbian nationalism when Serbian forces were defeated by the Ottoman Empire. In the 1980s, tensions began to arise between the two communities, initially resulting in protests against the centralized government in Belgrade and arrests of Albanian Kosovars. Under the presidency of Slobodan Milošević, these ethnic tensions intensified both in Kosovo and elsewhere in Yugoslavia.
    [Show full text]
  • Sb ¡20)0 Conseil De L’Europe ^ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ COE273160 ★ ★ ★★ ★
    io') Council of Europe Sb ¡20)0 Conseil de l’Europe ^ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ COE273160 ★ ★ ★★ ★ Strasbourg, 21 June 1996 Restricted Ì <s:\cdISdoc496)NcdI\54.pdg> CDL (96) 54 Engl. only EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT COUNTRY REPORTS ON HUMAN RIGHTS PRACTICES FOR 1995 l "Sii :- ''ferfai 'ACCORDANCE' WITH "sEC,n6NS^lI6C(ìi';AND 5023(b)\OF THE * -.' -0 'Ä. FOREIGN' ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1961. AS AMENDED ;•;■ > -V -'•■'ir'-• ; • Î.V.Î-. -:-Ад '•-A.- *.V4 '; : * . * * • *Л • \ »...ísV . .... -V? »V...... > r ' i-m ••. - / •* к .. Iя»»- • •- 'c' *•* ■ •' .4..• * •**,: •*» «' - *.< • •• - • *. • ‘,:1. *.i . _ _ ____ . 2. ............ •.»» i• A.* .d-«kis »M4* . •* ,'•» Y^. T-Vr.Î-Æ4/0Âîi^:UvVi?;»^^4"£:^>«^^ -№'i- ' j: • ’^"Rrintea'f for".tiie:.’use ;of fheixCönïmitfcees; òn *Inter2atio¿ál';,'.Re.Iatíona ¿?r »«£:• ‘i^Eouse. of. Reàresèntànves. 'ani:- Foreign ^Relations •• of. the .U.S.; Senaiijire-J^ ,-. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA The Republic of Bosnia ana Herzegovina was formed from one of six constituent republics of the^ former Yugoslavia. Citizens endorsed independence in a 1992 ref­ erendum. President Alija Izetbegovic heads the multiethnic collective presidency of a parliamentary democratic government elected in 1990. Within days'of independ­ ence, Serbian nationalist militias, supported by elements of the former Yugoslav na­ tional army (JNA), launched attacks throughout northern and eastern Bosnia, and Serbian Democratic Party (SDS) leader Radovan Karadzic declared the establish ­ ment of the “Republika Sroska ” or “Serb Republic.” Seventy percent of the Bosnian Republic remained under Serbian occupation until the Bosnian government and Croatian offensives in August. During 4 years of war an estimated 263,000 people were killed, and two-thirds of the country's prewar pop­ ulation of 4 Vi million was uprooted and dispersed as either refugees or displaced persons.
    [Show full text]
  • Worlds Apart: Bosnian Lessons for Global Security
    Worlds Apart Swanee Hunt Worlds Apart Bosnian Lessons for GLoBaL security Duke university Press Durham anD LonDon 2011 © 2011 Duke University Press All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America on acid- free paper ♾ Designed by C. H. Westmoreland Typeset in Charis by Tseng Information Systems, Inc. Library of Congress Cataloging- in- Publication Data appear on the last printed page of this book. To my partners c harLes ansBacher: “Of course you can.” and VaLerie GiLLen: “Of course we can.” and Mirsad JaceVic: “Of course you must.” Contents Author’s Note xi Map of Yugoslavia xii Prologue xiii Acknowledgments xix Context xxi Part i: War Section 1: Officialdom 3 1. insiDe: “Esteemed Mr. Carrington” 3 2. outsiDe: A Convenient Euphemism 4 3. insiDe: Angels and Animals 8 4. outsiDe: Carter and Conscience 10 5. insiDe: “If I Left, Everyone Would Flee” 12 6. outsiDe: None of Our Business 15 7. insiDe: Silajdžić 17 8. outsiDe: Unintended Consequences 18 9. insiDe: The Bread Factory 19 10. outsiDe: Elegant Tables 21 Section 2: Victims or Agents? 24 11. insiDe: The Unspeakable 24 12. outsiDe: The Politics of Rape 26 13. insiDe: An Unlikely Soldier 28 14. outsiDe: Happy Fourth of July 30 15. insiDe: Women on the Side 33 16. outsiDe: Contact Sport 35 Section 3: Deadly Stereotypes 37 17. insiDe: An Artificial War 37 18. outsiDe: Clashes 38 19. insiDe: Crossing the Fault Line 39 20. outsiDe: “The Truth about Goražde” 41 21. insiDe: Loyal 43 22. outsiDe: Pentagon Sympathies 46 23. insiDe: Family Friends 48 24. outsiDe: Extremists 50 Section 4: Fissures and Connections 55 25.
    [Show full text]
  • Expo: 20 Years
    O - OT T A A N N A R S E • C H I V 20 Years NATO in Bosnia and Herzegovina 14 DECEMBER 1995 The Dayton Peace Agreement (formally The resulting NATO-led Implementation The NATO-led operation known as the General Framework Force (IFOR) was the Alliance’s first major in Bosnia, Operation Joint Signature of the Dayton Peace Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and crisis response operation, providing a Endeavour, was NATO’s Herzegovina) was signed on 14 December multinational peacekeeping force of first-ever ground force Agreement in Paris. 1995 at the Paris Peace Conference to mark 60,000 troops that was deployed on operation and its first-ever Front left: Slobodan Milošević, the cessation of hostilities that tore that 20 December 1995 for a one-year mission deployment “out of area”. Alija Izetbegović, country apart between 1992 and 1995. to provide military support for the civilian Franjo Tuđman. aspects of the Agreement. It was also the largest military Back left: Felipe Gonzalez, Reinforced by United Nations Security operation ever undertaken Bill Clinton, Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1031, the Peace by the Alliance, bringing Jacques Chirac, Helmut Kohl, Agreement outlined a key role for the together NATO and John Major and NATO in overseeing the military framework non-NATO countries in an Viktor Chernomyrdin. needed to establish security in the region. NATO Secretary General Javier Solana (left) and Supreme Allied unprecedented coalition for Commander Europe George Joulwan visit Sarajevo on peace involving 36 states. 11 January 1996 3 An American soldier has an IFOR armband put on his uniform after arriving at Sarajevo airport.
    [Show full text]
  • 1) ATQ Summer 2004
    CONTENTS… Association News Chairman’s Comments......................................................................... 2 President’s Message ............................................................................... 3 AIRLIFT TANKER QUARTERLY Volume 12 • Number 3 • Summer 2004 Secretary’s Notes ................................................................................... 3 Airlift/Tanker Quarterly is published four times a year by the Airlift/Tanker Association, Col. Barry F. Creighton, USAF (Ret.), Secretary, Association Round-Up .......................................................................... 4 1708 Cavelletti Court, Virginia Beach, VA 23454. (757) 838-3037. Postage paid at Belleville, Illinois. Subscription rate: $30.00 per year. Change of address requires four weeks notice. Cover Story The Airlift/Tanker Association is a non-profit professional organization dedicated to providing a forum for people interested in improving the AMC: 12 Years of Excellence ......................................................... 6-17 capability of U.S. air mobility forces. Membership in the Airlift/Tanker Association is $30 annually A New Era in American Air Power Began on 1 June 1992 or $85 for three years. Full-time student membership is $10 per year. Life membership is $400. Corporate membership includes five individual memberships and is $1200 per year. Membership dues include a subscription to Departments Airlift/Tanker Quarterly, and are subject to change. Airlift/Tanker Quarterly is published for the use of the officers,
    [Show full text]
  • Making Peace in Bosnia Work Elizabeth M
    Cornell International Law Journal Volume 30 Article 10 Issue 3 Symposium 1997 Making Peace in Bosnia Work Elizabeth M. Cousens Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cilj Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Cousens, Elizabeth M. (1997) "Making Peace in Bosnia Work," Cornell International Law Journal: Vol. 30: Iss. 3, Article 10. Available at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cilj/vol30/iss3/10 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell International Law Journal by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Making Peace in Bosnia Work Elizabeth M. Cousens* This symposium asks "what makes peace agreements work" and specifically directs us to explore the degree to which and how "quasi- sovereigns" determine the answer. At a minimum, a peace agreement could be said to "work" when formerly warring parties honor their commitments more than they renege, and when a broader constituency develops within post-war society to support that agreement's basic provisions. Along both dimensions, the peace agreement providing the framework for politics in Bosnia today works haltingly at best.' The explanation for its inadequacies has very little to do with quasi-sovereignty, however. Rather, it has a great deal to do with the decisions and actions of the all-too-sovereign national governments and major international agencies that enjoy a disproportionate influence over the implementation of the peace agreement's key provisions.
    [Show full text]
  • The Bosnian Train and Equip Program: a Lesson in Interagency Integration of Hard and Soft Power by Christopher J
    STRATEGIC PERSPECTIVES 15 The Bosnian Train and Equip Program: A Lesson in Interagency Integration of Hard and Soft Power by Christopher J. Lamb, with Sarah Arkin and Sally Scudder Center for Strategic Research Institute for National Strategic Studies National Defense University Institute for National Strategic Studies National Defense University The Institute for National Strategic Studies (INSS) is National Defense University’s (NDU’s) dedicated research arm. INSS includes the Center for Strategic Research, Center for Complex Operations, Center for the Study of Chinese Military Affairs, Center for Technology and National Security Policy, and Conflict Records Research Center. The military and civilian analysts and staff who comprise INSS and its subcomponents execute their mission by conducting research and analysis, publishing, and participating in conferences, policy support, and outreach. The mission of INSS is to conduct strategic studies for the Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the unified com- batant commands in support of the academic programs at NDU and to perform outreach to other U.S. Government agencies and the broader national security community. Cover: President Bill Clinton addressing Croat-Muslim Federation Peace Agreement signing ceremony in the Old Executive Office Building, March 18, 1994 (William J. Clinton Presidential Library) The Bosnian Train and Equip Program The Bosnian Train and Equip Program: A Lesson in Interagency Integration of Hard and Soft Power By Christopher J. Lamb with Sarah Arkin and Sally Scudder Institute for National Strategic Studies Strategic Perspectives, No. 15 Series Editor: Nicholas Rostow National Defense University Press Washington, D.C. March 2014 Opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied within are solely those of the contributors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Defense Department or any other agency of the Federal Government.
    [Show full text]
  • Gendering the 1991-95 Bosnian Peace Process: Current Research and Future Directions
    Gendering the 1991-95 Bosnian Peace Process: Current Research and Future Directions Working Papers in Gender and Institutional Change, No. 5 December 2016 Laura McLeod University of Manchester [email protected] PublishedAbstract by the ERC funded project: ‘Understanding Institutional Change: A gender perspective’ www.manchester.ac.uk/uicAbstract @UICGENDER Funders Funders This Working Paper is based on research supported by the European Research Council (ERC) who provided financial support under the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013)/ERC grant agreement No. 295576-UIC for the project “Understanding Institutional Change: A Gender Perspective.” Page | 2 Abstract This working paper maps the possibilities for developing a gender perspective of the peace process that took place in BiH between 1991 and 1995. By synthesising the existing literature (which broadly speaking does not have a gender perspective) the working paper identifies where further research and analysis could provide a gendered perspective on the peace process in BiH. This task is a challenging one, not least because it is not an “obvious” case study, given that the oft-repeated narrative in BiH is that women were not involved. The working paper largely proceeds in a chronological order, and is divided into three parts. Part One begins with an overview of the peace processes that took place before the bulk of the diplomatic work on Dayton started. Part Two focuses on the run up to the Dayton negotiations, as well as the negotiations themselves and giving a feminist analysis of the peace agreement (known as the General Framework Agreement). Both Part One and Part Two end with suggestions for more research to develop a gender perspective on the peace negotiation process.
    [Show full text]
  • IFOR: Mission Accomplished S •• SFOR: Mission Goes on F Ner
    I F 0 R Published in the interest of the Implementation Forces Wednesday, December 18, 1996 Vol. I, N0 23 INSIDE 'Almeria' Brigade arrives ... Page 3 /FOR Soldiers fi·om Norway, United Kingdom, United States, Germany, Uhraine, France, Portugal, Turleey, Rom.ania, .Italy, Sweden, Belgium, Spain and a Swiss OSCE membe1; join together to give the thumbs up to the success/iLl end of /FOR's mission on be hall of their countries and all the other contributing nations. Photo: CPIC, Sarajevo Superman fights mines P{/ge 5 IFOR: mission accomplished s •• SFOR: mission goes on F ner. " Most significantly, he Less than 90 days from D­ was able to refer to the skills elay, Lt. Gen. Sir Michael 0 of the first IFOR troops as Walker, Commander of the "making the nearly impossi­ ACE Rapid Reaction Corps, R ble seem routine." speaking as commander of These statements were IFOR Land Forces, was able made against a backdrop of to comment upon his forces' David Taylor daily, world-wide media cov­ success as they prepared for erage that showed the first the final days of implement­ brave men and women of Getting l\1ostar airport NATO-led, multi-national ing what would become the Europe, the U.S., and around ready l'm:e 7 ednesday, Feb. 14, deployment - almost 60,000 Inter Entity Boundary Line the world, are striving to 1996 - Barely two troops from more than 30 (IEBL) and ensuring that make every moment of their Wmonths after h._. contributing nations Faction troops continued time here count for some­ signing of the Dayton Peat L 1 ollm~ powerfully and withdrawal to their bar­ thing; to leave a legacy.
    [Show full text]
  • Never Again: International Intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina1
    Never again: 1 International intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina July 2017 David Harland2 1 This study is one of a series commissioned as part of an ongoing UK Government Stabilisation Unit project relating to elite bargains and political deals. The project is exploring how national and international interventions have and have not been effective in fostering and sustaining political deals and elite bargains; and whether or not these political deals and elite bargains have helped reduce violence, increased local, regional and national stability and contributed to the strengthening of the relevant political settlement. This is a 'working paper' and the views contained within do not necessarily represent those of HMG. 2 Dr David Harland is Executive Director of the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue. He served as a witness for the Prosecution at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in the cases of The Prosecutor versus Slobodan Milošević, The Prosecutor versus Radovan Karadžić, The Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladić, and others. Executive summary The war in Bosnia and Herzegovina was the most violent of the conflicts which accompanied the break- up of Yugoslavia, and this paper explores international engagement with that war, including the process that led to the signing of the Dayton Peace Agreement. Sarajevo and Srebrenica remain iconic symbols of international failure to prevent and end violent conflict, even in a small country in Europe. They are seen as monuments to the "humiliation" of Europe and the UN and the
    [Show full text]
  • The Bosnian War Crimes Chamber: a Successfully Domestic Hybrid Tribunal
    31 THE BOSNIAN WAR CRIMES CHAmbER: A SUCCESSFULLY DOMESTIC HYBRID TRIBUNAL Matteo Godi The Bosnian War Crimes Chamber (BWCC), a locally owned tribunal, holds promise to facilitate reconciliation in Bosnia-Herzegovina (BiH) through the individualization of guilt. The establishment of the BWCC in January 2005 marked a significant step toward establishing rule of law principles in BiH. While Bosnian courts were trying cases immediately after the Dayton Agreement had been signed, international and national concerns arose over the trials’ fairness and effectiveness. The BWCC, an offspring of the International Criminal Court for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), was aimed at addressing these concerns, but has not been free from criticisms. This paper will challenge two of the main critiques advanced against the BWCC—namely, that of being Serb-biased and that of being counterproductive to reconciliation. While the Chamber’s poor outreach efforts have thus far proven counterproductive in making this process effective, targeting individual wrongdoers rather than ethnic groups can potentially avoid the dangerous generalization of guilt that inexorably fuels ethnic division, which was the cause of the Bosnian war in the first place. INTRODUCTION Ten years after the signing of the Dayton Agreement, following international criminal trials by the International Criminal Court for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and ineffective domestic prosecutions, the Bosnian War Crimes Chamber (BWCC) was created by a joint effort of the Office of the High Representative (OHR) of Bosnia-Herzegovina (BiH) and the ICTY. The BWCC, a hybrid court, was meant to address some of the problems of the domestic judiciary in prosecuting war crimes— among them, its partiality and inability to protect itself from political influence.
    [Show full text]
  • Managing Arms in Peace Processes: Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina
    UNIDIR/96/7 UNIDIR United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research Geneva Disarmament and Conflict Resolution Project Managing Arms in Peace Processes: Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina Paper: Barbara Ekwall-Uebelhart and Andrei Raevsky Questionnaire Analysis: LTCol J.W. Potgieter, Military Expert DCR Project Project funded by: the Ford Foundation, the United States Institute of Peace, the Winston Foundation, the Ploughshares Fund, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation; and the governments of Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Finland, France, Austria, the Federal Republic of Brazil, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Argentina, and the Republic of South Africa. UNITED NATIONS New York and Geneva, 1996 NOTE The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. * * * The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations Secretariat. UNIDIR/96/7 UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATION Sales No. GV.E.96.0.6 ISBN 92-9045-110-6 Table of Contents Previous DCR Project Publications............................... vii Preface - Sverre Lodgaard .......................................ix Acknowledgements ............................................xi Project Introduction - Virginia Gamba ............................xiii Project Staff ................................................xxi List of Acronyms ...........................................xxiii Part I: Case Study ................................... 1 Chapter 1: Introduction B. Ekwall-Uebelhart and A. Raevsky .............. 3 1.1. Background to the Conflict - B. Ekwall-Uebelhart..........
    [Show full text]