In the following, the background to the United States’ involvement in the Bosnian war, their motive and mode of mediation, and the legitimacy of their interventions as mediators shall be analyzed with
special focus on the controversial issues identified above. From these case‐specific findings, some general conclusions shall be drawn with regard to the role of mediation in conflict resolution.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. From Tito to Milosevic
3. The tries to stop the war
4. The Dayton Negotiations
5. Conclusion
6. Bibliography
Research Objective and Themes
This paper examines the role and legitimacy of United States mediation during the Bosnian War, specifically questioning whether the use of coercive power and military pressure effectively contributes to sustainable conflict resolution or merely suppresses symptoms.
- The evolution of the Bosnian conflict following the collapse of Yugoslavia.
- The application and controversies of the "mediator with muscle" approach.
- Evaluation of the Dayton Peace Accord and its long-term impact on regional stability.
- The theoretical tension between structuralist and social-psychological paradigms in conflict resolution.
- The ethical and practical implications of third-party military intervention in internal conflicts.
Excerpt from the Book
1. Introduction
Since the end of the Cold War, new sources and types of conflict have emerged that challenge the common definition of mediation as a process in which „a third party helps the parties [to a conflict] find a solution which they cannot find by themselves”.
Within intra-state conflicts that involve a number of military and paramilitary groups, even identifying the authorities that direct the warring factions can pose a problem. A mediating approach that focuses on bringing rational actors to the negotiating table is likely to fail in such a situation. Furthermore, the last decade has seen various conflicts where the parties may indeed have found a solution by themselves, but where the solution was unacceptable to the international community.
In the case of the Bosnian war, which will be analyzed later in this essay in greater detail, it cannot be said that the Serb President Slobodan Milosevic and the Croat President Franjo Tudjman could not find a solution to the conflict by themselves, and therefore needed the United States’ mediating assistance. Rather, their “solution”, namely the partition of Bosnia and the creation of a Greater Croatia and a Greater Serbia, was seen as unacceptable by the United States, since it entailed a violation of the rights of the third party, the Bosnian Muslims. Of course, one can argue that the Serbs’ and Croats’ proposal would have settled the conflict, not solved it –but the same can be said for the peace settlement that was eventually negotiated after the US had acted as a “mediator with muscle”.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: The author introduces the theoretical challenge of defining mediation in modern intra-state conflicts and outlines the controversial U.S. role in the Bosnian War.
2. From Tito to Milosevic: This chapter analyzes the socio-political collapse of Yugoslavia and how elites manipulated ethnic nationalism to consolidate power amidst economic crisis.
3. The tries to stop the war: It examines the failure of initial international diplomatic efforts and the subsequent shift in U.S. policy toward military coercion and the "lift and strike" strategy.
4. The Dayton Negotiations: This section discusses the nature of the Dayton negotiations, highlighting how the U.S. used its military influence to force parties toward a settlement.
5. Conclusion: The author summarizes the findings, arguing that the U.S. intervention achieved a short-term reduction in violence but failed to establish a foundation for long-term, sustainable peace.
6. Bibliography: Lists the academic sources and reports consulted for the analysis.
Keywords
Bosnian War, United States, Mediation, Conflict Resolution, Dayton Peace Accord, Ethnic Nationalism, Structuralist Paradigm, Social-Psychological Approach, Coercive Diplomacy, Slobodan Milosevic, NATO, Ethnic Cleansing, Sustainable Peace, Multiparty Mediation, Foreign Policy
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the central focus of this academic paper?
The paper focuses on the United States' involvement in the Bosnian War, analyzing the effectiveness and legitimacy of U.S. intervention strategies in complex ethnic conflicts.
Which primary themes are explored in the text?
The core themes include the limits of mediation, the impact of coercive power in peace negotiations, the structural causes of the Balkan conflict, and the evaluation of the Dayton Agreement.
What is the main research question of the work?
The research questions whether it is legitimate for a third-party mediator to use military force to coerce parties into peace negotiations and whether such interventions lead to successful, lasting conflict resolution.
Which theoretical framework does the author apply?
The author contrasts the "structuralist paradigm," which views leaders as rational actors, against the "social-psychological approach," which emphasizes the importance of addressing underlying grievances and attitudes.
What does the main body of the paper cover?
The main body covers the historical background of Yugoslavia's disintegration, the failures of early European diplomatic efforts, the shift in U.S. strategy to coercive mediation, and an evaluation of the Dayton Accords' aftermath.
Which keywords best characterize this research?
Key terms include Bosnian War, mediator with muscle, Dayton Peace Accord, ethnic nationalism, coercive power, and conflict resolution.
How does the author characterize the U.S. role in Bosnia?
The author describes the U.S. as a "mediator with muscle," suggesting that while their intervention successfully forced an end to hostilities, it did so by disregarding the parties' voluntary consent and failing to address root social issues.
What is the author's final verdict on the Dayton Agreement?
The author concludes that the Dayton Agreement was a "spectacular failure" in terms of creating lasting peace, noting that it institutionalized ethnic fragmentation and failed to foster real integration between the ethnic groups.
- Quote paper
- MMag. Kathrin Wiedenbauer (Author), 2003, The United States' involvement in the Bosnian war, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/157610
