Introduction
The collapse of the Soviet Union between 1989 and 1991 meant that the countries that were formerly under its rule and control were now free. However, many of these countries that were formerly under the rule of the Soviet Union encountered great difficulties in reclaiming their national and independent identities. One of the countries that faced great difficulty was Yugoslavia. First the integrity of this country was hugely questioned. The nation functioned as an unstable assemblage of people of various ethnic groups. These include Croats, Serbs, and Bosnian Muslims. The country eventually split into various competing factions. Serbia and Croatia which became newly independent fought viciously for territory particularly for the land that separated the two nations; Bosnia and Herzegovina. This gave rise to a brutal war that ravaged the region for the better part of the early 1990’s.
The United Nations first established a peacekeeping force called the UNPROFOR (United Nations Protection Force) in the year 1992 (Goebel 627). This force was established to give security to the humanitarian aid that was being forwarded to Bosnia from the international community. This peacekeeping force was supposed to remain impartial and passive in trying to maintain peace in the region (Goebel 627). At this time, genocide was not particularly a major issue. In spite of the fact that the UN peacekeepers were supposed to be impartial and passive, it was extremely hard for them to turn a blind eye to the various atrocities that they were witnessing.
There were some who were skeptical about the involvement of the United Nations. Some held the belief that the West, particularly the North Atlantic Treaty Organization members had wanted to intervene because of guilt. The European nations were embarrassed that genocide was taking place in their backyard. This would tarnish the name of the entire European continent which was believed to be very advanced.
The peace force sent by the UN had a very horrid time. There are some who believe that the presence of the United Nations troops may have actually fueled and increased the intensity of the conflict (Rose 15). It was claimed that the UN essentially aimed to keep the Bosnian community functioning at a level or magnitude that was simply tolerable enough to keep the involved parties from engaging in serious peace negotiations (Rose 87).
The United Nations also attempted to be more active in the peacekeeping initiative and trying to end the war by establishing what it referred to as “safe zones”. These safe zones were under international protection and were located in places such as Sarajevo, Srebrenica, Goradze and so on (Ripley 34). The UN tried to assure people that these areas were safe for all. However, one of these so-called safe zones managed to be overrun by the Serbian forces (Sacco 100). This took place in 1995 at Srebrenica and in this incident, more than 7000 people, most of them Muslim males were murdered (Sacco 101). This has, in fact, been termed as the worst atrocity to ever happen in Europe since the end of the Second World War. The UN came under fire, and its role in the area was further questioned. It was questioned how such a huge number of people could essentially be massacred right under its nose.
The United Nations had officially taken the responsibility to settle the conflict in the year 1992 (Ripley 68). It was particularly responding to an initiative that had been called by the United States government. It started by first imposing sanctions on the newly formed Yugoslavian Republic. This was then followed by the sending of the peacekeeping force. This peacekeeping force was mainly composed of soldiers from various European countries. As mentioned earlier, the UN was essentially supposed to stay neutral in this war. All troops were instructed not to take to take sides in spite of the fact that in the field, they could actually see who was responsible for the various atrocities that were being committed at the time (O'balance 70). However, the UN did not want to be seen like it was taking sides. The UN put a prohibition on the supply of arms to either the Bosnian or the Serbs ((Ripley 53). This was however very frustrating for the Bosnian’s Muslims because they were essentially unable to protect themselves.
The UN Protection Force made up of more than 20,000 also had another serious dilemma. The Serbian forces were proving to be well organized. The 20, 000 UN forces had the ability to actively oppose the Bosnian Serbs if it sided with the Muslims who were the main victims in the war (Rose 23). However, as mentioned eelier, this would have been in contradiction with the evenhandedness and the neutrality that the UN tries to maintain in all its peacekeeping endeavors. On the other hand, the UN Protective Front could choose to maintain its evenhandedness and neutral and in the process limit its role when it came to protecting humanitarian agencies (Rose 43). However, this would have meant that Muslims, who were and unarmed, would have to face the Serbs alone and without any kind of backup and protection.
The United Nations has very strict principles that guide all of its peacekeeping missions. In terms of peacekeeping, the United Nations defines its function or its purpose as to sustain as well as support a stable environment that is conducive to both peace negotiation as well as lasting settlements (Berkowitz 636). The United Nations is very explicit about not supporting any side involved in war and that its role is to merely foster an environment and climate that can enable the conflicting parties to come to the negotiation table for peace talks. It hopes to do this by being passive and impartial and not appearing to side with any party (Berkowitz 637). However, both conflicting sides must at least show some willingness to participate in the peace effort. It is up to them to make up their mind if they want to achieve peace or not. Therefore, the relationship between the United Nations peacekeeping forces and the resolution of the immediate conflict is oblique and indirect. The peacekeepers are not directly involved in combat.
In the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the United Nations wanted to abide strictly by these traditional principles (Berkowitz 640). In fact, in convincing nations to contribute to its peacekeeping force, it had promised that the role of the peacekeeping forces would only be restricted to humanitarian aid protection and would not be actively involved in combat with either of the conflicting parties (Corwin 45).
The United States of American was very adamant about its preference. It implored the UN to either stop the advancing Serb force and prevent its assault or allow NATO airs strikes to punish the advancing Serbs and also protect the designated “safe zones’ (O'balance 72). These views was however not shared by many European countries who were the major contributors to the UN peacekeeping force in Bosnia. Many had, in fact, placed their troops at risk by taking part in this UN peacekeeping operation. Many had sent their troops with the understanding that the troops would strictly be limited to humanitarian mandate. Limited air strikes in 1995 resulted in more than 400 peacekeeping troops being taken hostage by the Serbs. This prompted a quick consensus to be made within the United Nations as well as among the nations that had contributed to the UN force that NATO strikes even if limited would only cause greater harm than good (Corwin 56). It was immediately decided that United Nations peacekeeping force would go back to its traditional principles of peacekeeping which essentially involved staying neutral. This was almost a signal to the Bosnian Serbs that they were free to continue with their planned strategy. This particular strategy was referred to as ethnic cleansing and involved using expulsion, rape, imprisonment and murder on a huge scale to drive the Croats and Muslims from the territory that the Serbs wanted to claim (Corwin 68).
Unfortunately, the implementation of this strategy by the Serbs had devastating and indeed horrifying results. The Serbs focus turned to Srebrenica, a small village that was located near the border with Serbia. This village housed more than 60, 000 Muslim refugees. This was an officially UN proclaimed “safe zone”. The Serbs launched their assault in the safe zone in July 1995. Surprisingly they did not meet any UN resistance from the air and even on the ground. The Serbs executed more than 7000 of the Muslims in cold blood, and the rest who managed to escape with their lives streamed into Tuzla, that was a Muslim controlled city.
Fighting in Bosnia, and Herzegovina essentially ended on October 11, 1995 (United Nations n.p). From this date up to December 20 of the same year, the United Nations Protection force monitored progressive ceasefire that had been put in place in order to allow for the launching of peace negotiations that were supposed to take place in the United States in Daytona, Ohio (United Nations n.p). The Framework for the peace agreement was initiated in November. The Peace Agreement was signed later on December 14 in France by the three primary republics; Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and Yugoslavia and also several other parties.
The peace declaration involved the three nation’s making an agreement to conduct their operations and relations according to the official Charter of the United Nations (United Nations n.p). The nations also agreed to fully respect one another’s sovereignty, settle disputes peacefully and that refrain from taking action that would contravene the political independence and territorial integrity of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and that all states would recognize each other as independent and sovereign states.
All the states also agreed to a continuation of a ceasefire that had initially commenced in the October of 1995 (United Nations n.p). The parties also agreed to the immediate withdrawal of United Nations Protection Force. This would then be followed by the deployment of a multinational implementation force which would be led by NATO, and this force would be known as IFOR. It was agreed that decisions on any military aspect of the implementation process would be made by the head IFOR commander (United Nations n.p). All the parties pledged full cooperation to the implementation of this strategy.
In addition, the involved parties made a request that a High Representative be designated to head the implementation of the peace agreement and to coordinate and mobilize all the civilian activities in Bosnia and Herzegovina and also to be the final authority in regards to the civilian peace settlement implementation. A request was also made to the United Nations to create an International Police Task Force that would essentially monitor and oversee the law enforcement facilities and activities in the newly peaceful states, oversee and be actively involved in the training of law enforcement personnel and at the same time respond to various assistance requests (United Nations n.p).
IFOR officially took over from United Nations Protection Force on 20th December 1995 (United Nations n.p). The mandate of the United Nations Protections Force was terminated. The Security Council of the United Nations made a decision on December 21, 1995 to create the required United Nations Police Task Force, as well as a United Nations civilian office. These two entities were brought together and named as the United Nations Mission Force in Bosnia and Herzegovina (United Nations n.p).
The United Nations Mission Force in Bosnia and Herzegovina would continue with its operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina for the next seven years. Its mandate would later on come to expire on 31, December 2002 after which it was terminated in accordance with the United Nations Security Council Resolution (United Nations n.p). The body that took over was the European Union Police Mission the next year.
The United Nations peacekeeping effort and strategy in Bosnia and Herzegovina can be deemed as an almost failure. Although peace was eventually achieved in the region, the United Nations did very little to prevent the various human atrocities that were committed especially by the Bosnian Serbs. The United Nations first entered into the conflict zone hoping to foster a climate or environment that could facilitate peace talks and a lasting solution to the disagreements and the problems that plagued the region. It hoped to do this by being impartial and passive and not siding with any party. However, as it has been shown, this did not work. In spite of the presence of the UN, conflict continued, and a lot of human life was lost. The massacre of more than 7000 Muslim Bosnians by the Serbs showed that the UN forces were simply sightseeing and were not here to protect human life. The insistence of the UN that peace could be achieved by being impartial and passive is what contributed to the longevity of the conflict. It was obvious that the Bosnian Serbs were not going to stop until their strategy of “ethnic cleansing” was over and done. The sad thing however is that the UN had more than enough power and resources to resist the assault of the Serbs but it decided not to resist even when the Serbs came to murder the Muslim refugees housed in Srebrenica. In addition, the United Nations continuously refused to allow NATO forces to punish the Serbs and therefore deter them from their destructive goal.
In future, it is clear that for the UN intervention strategy to be effective, the aspect of impartiality and passiveness must be eliminated. Some institutions require peacekeepers to resist the oppressive side. This is because not all parties are willing to come to the negotiation table. In term of peacekeeping, the UN must establish the oppressive side, try to reasons with it, and if this fails, it must then take military action. If the UN had taken action against the Bosnian Serbs earlier, great loss of human life could have been avoided.
Works Cited
Phillip Corwin. Dubious mandate: a memoir of the UN in Bosnia, summer 1995. Duke University Press, 1999.
Goebel, Christopher M. "Population transfer, humanitarian law, and the use of ground force in UN peacemaking: Bosnia and Herzegovina in the wake of Iraq."NYUJ Int'l L. & Pol. 25 (1992): 627.
Ripley, Tim. Operation Deliberate Force: the UN and NATO Campaign in Bosnia 1995. Vol. 3. Twayne Publishers, 1999.
Rose, Michael. Fighting for peace: Bosnia 1994. London: Harvill Press, 1998.
Berkowitz, Bruce D. "Rules of Engagement for UN Peacekeeping forces in Bosnia." Orbis 38.4 (1994): 635-646.
Sacco, Joe. Safe area Gorazde: the war in Eastern Bosnia 1992-1995. Fantagraphics books, 2002.
O'Ballance, Edgar. Civil War in Bosnia, 1992-94. St. Martin's Press, 1995.
United Nations. "UNMIBH: United Nations Mission in Bosnia Herzegovina - Background." UN News Center. UN. Web. 9 Dec. 2014. < http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/past/unmibh/background.html>
