Bosnia-Herzegovina 'peace' accord a fraud

By Eddy Jokovich Amid the euphoric media reports that an overdue peace has arrived in Bosnia-Herzegovina, the United States-sponsored accord needs to be put in perspective, and the future ramifications for the region understood. The accord initialled in Dayton pertains more to the needs of the US Democrats' 1996 election campaign than to the genuine concerns of the people of Bosnia. In essence, it is a reworking of its abortive predecessors — the Vance-Owen Peace Plan (1993), and the Five-Nation Contact Group plan (1994). Both plans contravened international law, compromised the Geneva Conventions on Human Rights and diminished the aspirations of the Bosnian people who have struggled to maintain the principles of a multi-cultural and united Bosnia-Herzegovina. The new accord, to be signed and ratified in Paris on December 14, purports to include a pan-slavic understanding and agreement on the political and territorial make-up of Bosnia-Herzegovina. The crucial components of the agreement are the veneer of the republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina remaining as a sovereign state, with a central government responsible for foreign policy, foreign trade, customs, immigration, monetary policy, international law enforcement, communications, transportation and air-traffic control; a re-unified Sarajevo under the control of this central government; and the division of the country along 'ethnic' lines between the Muslim-Croat Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Bosnian Serb 'republic'. The constitutional framework of the Dayton accord approaches the Vance-Owen and Contact Group plans by extending the agenda of the US and its European partners to dismember Bosnia-Herzegovina and share the parts between Serbia and Croatia. This is done via a de facto partition in the guise of a confederation plan. The Dayton accord is ultimately unworkable and unmanageable. It seeks to deter motives for new conflicts by installing an International Implementation Force, rather than addressing the original reasons for the break-out of the war — the fuelling of nationalist fervour by political opportunists in their quest for the control of the military and territorial resources of Bosnia-Herzegovina. In the weeks following the announcement of the accord, the "scorched-earth" tactic has been employed by forces retreating from areas due to be returned to the other sides. In addition, the Serbs of Sarajevo have demanded a re-negotiation of the settlement, the Dalmatians have protested against the ceding of Croatian territory near Dubrovnik to the Serbs, the width of the Posavina corridor linking disparate Serb enclaves remains an area of contention, and General Ratko Mladic has joined the media campaign by claiming that the Serbs will live under "butchers' rule" if they remain under the control of the Bosnian government. In this environment, coupled with the territorial agreements occurring without consultation with the civilian and military leaders on the ground, it is unlikely that this accord, even with a 60,000-strong international force, can be anything other than an unmitigated disaster. If the US wanted its rationale for sponsoring the Dayton peace talks to be considered bona fide, a more appropriate action would have been the concurrent development of the International War Crimes Tribunal at the Hague to enable it to activate its charter — bringing to account those responsible for the destruction of Bosnia, adjudicating and assessing crimes against humanity in the former Yugoslav republics, and enabling social justice for the victims of these crimes. The Tribunal has indicted a number of Bosnian Serb, Croat and Muslim civilian and military leaders, but does not have the resources or legal powers to adequately carry out its tasks. Of course, the slow, low-key legal proceedings of an international court have limited media appeal when compared to the camera-ready images of combat artillery and soldiers in action. Instead of providing adequate resources to a more effective means of conflict resolution and social justice, the Clinton regime has opted for the perilous but high-profile military strategy. The UN commander in Sarajevo, General Jean-Rene Bachelet has accused the US government of using the Dayton talks as part of its re-election campaign. With the US presidential election due in late-1996, the Democrats have decided that stitching together some sort of peace deal in the Balkans is imperative for them to be returned to office. In the context of domestic policy problems and losing control of Congress in the mid-term elections, the Democrats have decided that foreign policy is a central plank in their next campaign platform. A prerequisite to this strategy is the transformation of Clinton into an international peace-dealer through make-shift deals and accords in the Middle East, Northern Ireland and the Balkans. Since the commencement of the war in 1992, the peoples of Bosnia-Herzegovina have demanded solutions from their political leaders, the UN and the international community. Instead of solutions, Bosnia-Herzegovina has ended as a state in all but name, hundreds of thousands of people have been massacred and over two million people displaced. The Dayton accord promises to deliver more of the same to the people of Bosnia-Herzegovina. It is an unjust proposal for peace that legitimates and rewards aggressive military nationalism, genocide, rape, mass-murder and 'ethnic' cleansing. More tragically, by creating indefensible groupings of people that will either be expelled, or forced to exist under the control of small-time militia leaders, it facilitates an escalation of warfare. The accord also lacks any mechanism to prevent the further collapse of the state. The accord exemplifies the cynical manoeuvring of the big-power players for domestic political purposes and self-interest. Irrespective of the efforts of the mainstream media to convince us otherwise, the Bosnia problem will not disappear with the signing of yet another flawed peace plan.