Bosnia, A Test Case for Multilateralism

On Friday, former Senator Bob Dole took to the pages of the Wall Street Journal to sound the alarm over Bosnia.  Without American intervention, Dole warns, Bosnia could again be torn apart by its own conflicting internal forces.

During the early- and mid-1990s Bosnia and Herzegovina bore the brunt of the fighting that tore Yugoslavia apart.  Once a land where different ethnic groups would freely interact, and even intermarry, a brutal guerilla war pitted the Bosnian Serbs against a coalition of Bosnian Croats and Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims).  In the space of a just a decade Bosnia’s capital Sarajevo went from the multi-ethnic jewel that hosted the 1984 Winter Olympics to a bloody shell of a city hollowed out by years of inter-ethnic fighting.  The US-brokered Dayton Accords brought an end to the fighting between the two sides, but it’s probably a stretch to say that they brought about a true peace.

Dayton, in theory, established a dual state within Bosnia – the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the union of the Bosniak and Croat ethnicities; and the Republika Srpska, representing the Bosnian Serb portion of the country.  They split the landmass of Bosnia and Herzegovina roughly between them and are united by a Federal government made up of representatives from all three ethnic groups, each with a veto over the actions of the entire Federal government.  In practice though it has resulted in a government mired in gridlock with the Bosnian Serb side often wielding their veto power to push a narrow ethnic, rather than broad national, agenda.

That is the problem Sen. Dole warned about in his Wall Street Journal editorial, while also making a pitch that it is time, once again, for America to take a leadership role in reforming Bosnia.  I can’t disagree with his concerns, but I can disagree with his call for American action for two reasons.

First is that, simply, America’s Foreign Policy Plate is already too full.  Right now the Obama administration is dealing with ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (and the associated problems in Pakistan), while also taking a leading role in opposing Iran’s nuclear research/weapons program and trying to once again breathe life into the moribund Israel-Palestine peace process.  Then on top of that there’s North Korea, “resetting” relations with Russia, keeping an eye on Somalia, global climate change, and in past weeks the administration has seen fit to throw dealing with the recalcitrant regimes of Myanmar and Sudan on the pile as well.  It’s hard to see how the United States could even muster the diplomatic corps to properly deal with Bosnia.

But there’s a bigger reason at play.  Throughout the administration of George W. Bush, the world’s leaders chaffed at the idea of America’s unilateral approach to international affairs.  The Bush/Neoconservative view was that since the United States was the “only remaining superpower” it was our natural role to lead the world and everyone else’s role to follow in our footsteps; our allies often saw the Bush Doctrine as “sit down, shut up, send troops.”  When Obama took office he pledged to have a “multilateral” approach to international affairs, an acknowledgement that while the US was the last superpower, there were other “major” powers in the world – the European Union, China and Russia; in addition to important regional players (India, Japan, Israel, and Brazil to name a few).

It’s a point that Obama has reiterated in numerous policy speeches, but most notably in September’s address to the United Nations General Assembly.  Obama has taken pains to note that multilateralism is a two-way street and that other world powers have to step up and take leadership roles as well, as in this line from his United Nations address:

“That is the future America wants; a future of peace and prosperity that we can only reach if we recognize that all nations have rights but all nations have responsibilities as well. That is the bargain that makes this work. That must be the guiding principle of international cooperation.”

Bosnia, then, seems to be a perfect test case for this new era of multilateralism.  Sen. Dole says that the European Union failed to act to stop the fighting in Bosnia in the early 90s and thus can’t be relied upon now, but it’s worth noting that then the EU was newly-formed, it has had the better part of two decades since to mature into a regional bloc of 27 nations, one that hopes to one day include Serbia, Bosnia and the rest of the nations of the Balkan Peninsula as members.  If that is the direction in which the European Union hopes to grow, then they are precisely the body to deal with the political deadlock currently plaguing Bosnia.  

As President Obama notes, multilateralism means more than just having additional voices at the table, it requires those countries and organizations that see themselves as world powers to also take responsibility and engage in action to make the world a better place.  There’s no better place to put that into practice than in Bosnia today.

Galbraith, not Kerry, Responsible for Afghan ReduxThe Domain That Refused To Die