YUGOSLAVIAN CONFLICT AND EUROPEAN MEDIATION

BY TEHMINA ZIA

DEFINITION AND CONCEPT OF MEDIATION
Since the end of the Cold War, new sources and type of conflict have emerged that challenges 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 can pose a problem. Firstly in order to be successful, mediation is usually expected to engage the parties in constructive dialogue to facilitate an exchange that incorporates the different interests and to work towards an outcome acceptable to all sides.

BRIEF HISTORY OF FORMER YUGOSLAVIA
Yugoslavia was created after World War I drawing in the former Austro-Hungarian possessions of Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Vojvodina. Serbia was the largest and dominant unit. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was proclaimed in January 1946. It was renamed the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1963. The main language, Serbo-Croat, is spoken by both Serbs and Croats. Catholicism is mainly to be found among the Croats and Slovenes; and Islam, among Muslims and Christianity, among the Serbs, Montenegrins and Macedonians; and Islam, among Muslims and Albanians.
The Wars of Yugoslavia’s disintegration began in summer 1991.The last decade of the 20th century SAW FOUR Balkans wars: Slovenia (1991), Croatia (1991) Bosnia (1992-1995) and Kosovo (1998-99). The EU’s efforts in last decade have been directed towards providing the basis for reconciliation and reconstruction and to promote democratization and economic growth.
After the death of Communist dictator Joseph Broz Tito in 1980, Yugoslavia plunged into an economic and political crisis; old ethnic and religious tensions were causing strains between the six constituent republics. In 1990 free elections were held in all the republics, resulting in the return of nationalist governments. On 25th June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared their independence from Yugoslavia.

CROATIA AT WAR
Meanwhile the hostilities in Croatia had escalated into war between Croat defense forces and Serbian paramilitaries backed by the Yugoslavs National Army’s (JNA). The war was to continue until the ceasefire was declared in January 1992, by which time the JNA and Serb forces were in control of virtually all Croatia’s ethnic Serb areas. In the same month, the member states of EC, pressed by Germany but with grave reservations expressed by Britain and France, agreed to recognize Croatia’s and Slovenia’s independence. The month following EC recognition of Croatia’s independence, the UN Protection Force (UNPROFOR), established as an interim arrangement to bring about the conditions in which the EC Conference could peruse peace and security, was deployed in the country.

WAR IN BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
After a referendum boycotted by the Bosnian Serbs, Bosnia and Herzegovina declared its independence in March 1992, supported by the Bosnian Muslims (who now called themselves Bosniacs) and Croats. The EC granted recognition the following month. In August 1993 the Bosnian Croats declared a ‘Republic of Herceg-Bosna’, with its capital in Mostar and, following a ceasefire in February 1994, joined the government forces in a Muslim-Croat Federation.

THE DAYTON ACCORD
In September 1995 the Foreign Ministers of Bosnia, Croatia and the FRY met in Geneva where they agreed to negotiate a US-sponsored peace accord. Fighting ceased on 22 October and, in November, all parties were summoned to Dayton, Ohio, where a settlement, the so-called ‘Dayton Accords’, was reached. Bosnia was to remain a single state with a division of territory between the Bosnian and Croats Federation (51%) and the Republika Srpska (49%). The enforcement of compliance with the civil aspects of the Accords (principally construction and governance) was entrusted to EU and the Organization on Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), with the EU providing major funding.

ROLE OF EUROPE AS A MEDIATOR IN YUGOSLAVIAN CONFLICT
The EC dispatched a “troika” of Foreign Ministers to mediate and negotiate a cessation of hostilities pending a general agreement for a peaceful resolution of Yugoslavia’s political and constitutional problems. An agreement was brokered (the ‘Brioni Agreement’) putting an end to hostilities in Slovenia and calling for further negotiations among all the Yugoslavs Republics.
The EC Conference on Yugoslavia, chaired first by Lord Carrington and later by Lord Owen, had been given the twin task of mediating ceasefires and negotiating between the leadership of all the republics to reach a constitutional settlement. By the autumn of 1991, however, it had become clear that the Conference was having great difficulty in achieving twin tasks. The EC began to see a more significant role for the UN as the likely key to success in both tasks. The London Peace Conference in August 1992, which made only limited progress, was the last major solo initiative of the EC. Through its special envoy, Cyrus Vance, the UN now put on the mantle of co-sponsorship of the peace process. The EC would no longer be seen as the lead organization in the effort to bring the Yugoslav conflicts to an end. In order to control the situation after the wars began in Slovenia and then in Croatia in July 1991 the EC imposed trade sanctions against all areas of Yugoslavia as a part of its diplomatic efforts at mediation; in another attempt to bring politician to the table.
The reason to choose economic sanctions fall into three unrelated categories.
- The first was Western unwillingness to use military force. Although West Europeans agreed that the Yugoslav conflict was insignificant to their security and vital interests, they chose to mediate it to demonstrate their capacity for a common EC foreign policy.
- The second reason was the Western explanation for the conflict. Sanctions aimed to dissuade the leadership in Serbia from this course, by isolating it an international pariah, by making it economically ever more difficult to continue assistance to the Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina.
- The third reason was to protect the authority and instruments of intervention in the face of failure.
To the extent that purposes were defined, the sanctions failed.

CONCLUSION
From that point of view, the European Community (now EU) and the United States committed a great error when they recognized Croatia, Slovenia and later Bosnia independence; instead they should supported efforts to strengthen the Yugoslavian federation. The European Community initially treated the conflict on a European level, but lacked the diplomatic and military means to intervene effectively or issue credible threats. The EC-UN mediatory efforts that took place 1992 and 1994 were similarly unsuccessful.

PREPARED BY TEHMINA ZIA
CLASS OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION AND
CRISIS MANAGEMENT
B.A (HONS) IIIRD YEAR, 2003

All content (C) Department of International Relations, Karachi University

Website designed and maintained by Techdorado Web Technologies Inc.
Disclaimer Email Webmaster, KUIRD.org