This article has been written by Ms. Krutika Kawade, a 4th year student of Modern Law College, Pune.
ABSTRACT:
This study explores the involvement of the United Nations in peacekeeping activities in the Balkans during the Yugoslav Conflicts, offering an in-depth evaluation of their achievements, setbacks, and essential insights gained. The violent fragmentation of Yugoslavia in the 1990s, characterized by ethnic clashes and significant humanitarian crises, required intervention on an international scale, primarily via the UN. The paper scrutinizes major operations like the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) and the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), assessing their effects on regional peace, ceasefire supervision, and humanitarian support. Despite notable accomplishments in these domains, the UN’s initiatives were hindered by serious deficiencies, including the failure to avert the Srebrenica massacre, underscoring issues with inadequate resources, constrained rules of engagement, and political impediments. Through a detailed examination of these missions, the article identifies key lessons, stressing the importance of strong mandates, unified political backing, focusing on civilian safety, and engaging effectively with local parties. These findings offer a deeper comprehension of the intricacies of international peacekeeping and provide guidance for upcoming UN missions in conflict areas.
INTRODUCTION:
The disintegration of Yugoslavia in the early 1990s posed a significant challenge for international peacekeeping in the post-Cold War period. This era, marked by intense ethnic disputes, extensive violence, and humanitarian disasters, demanded a substantial response from the global community, led predominantly by the United Nations. The UN’s peacekeeping efforts during the Yugoslav Wars were remarkable in their scale and complexity, tasked with stabilizing ethnically charged regions, supervising ceasefires, safeguarding civilians, and coordinating humanitarian assistance.
The United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR), initially established for Croatia and later expanded to Bosnia and Herzegovina, along with the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), were central international endeavours to suppress the conflicts and promote peace in the Balkans. Nonetheless, these missions encountered a range of challenges, from limited mandates and scarce resources to the geopolitical complexities influencing global reactions.
This article critically analyses the UN’s peacekeeping initiatives in the Balkans, dissecting the complex dynamics of the Yugoslav Wars and the response of the international community. It aims to comprehend the strengths and weaknesses of these missions and to derive critical lessons that can inform future peacekeeping operations. By analysing these historical events, the article contributes to an enhanced understanding of the elements that affect the success or failure of peacekeeping efforts in complex conflict zones.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
The genesis of the Yugoslav Wars can be traced to the intricate political and ethnic mosaic of the former Yugoslavia, established in the aftermath of World War I. Comprising six republics, each with its unique ethnic identities and histories, the region witnessed decades of simmering tensions. Economic struggles and the surge of nationalism in the 1980s further intensified these conflicts. The declaration of independence by Slovenia and Croatia in 1991 became the catalyst for upheaval, leading to violent clashes as the Serbian-led Yugoslav Army opposed their secession. The resulting violence extended into Bosnia and Herzegovina, culminating in a brutal civil war among Bosnians, Serbs, and Croats that persisted until 1995. The toll of this conflict was profound, claiming the lives of over 100,000 individuals and displacing millions from their homes, leaving an indelible mark on the history of the Balkans.
THE UN’S RESPONSE AND ESTABLISHMNET OF PEACEKEEPING MISSIONS:
Faced with escalating violence and humanitarian crises in the Balkans during the early 1990s, the United Nations initiated several peacekeeping missions to help restore stability and peace in the region. The most prominent of these was the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR), marking a significant intervention in the conflict.
Deployed first in Croatia in 1992 amid the dissolution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the subsequent conflicts, UNPROFOR was authorized by the United Nations Security Council to tackle the growing crisis. Its primary goal was to foster a secure and peaceful environment conducive to negotiating a comprehensive resolution to the Yugoslav crisis. This mandate encompassed tasks like ceasefire monitoring, protecting designated areas, and ensuring the safety and free movement of UN personnel.
As the conflict progressed, UNPROFOR’s operations extended into Bosnia and Herzegovina. Here, the situation was especially complex, characterized by ethnic hostilities and pervasive violence, including the Sarajevo siege and the Srebrenica massacre. In Bosnia, UNPROFOR’s responsibilities were multifaceted, involving civilian protection, overseeing humanitarian aid delivery, and supporting diplomatic efforts to resolve the conflict.
In Kosovo, the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) was established in 1999 following NATO’s bombardment of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. This action responded to the conflict between Yugoslav and Serb forces and the Kosovo Liberation Army, along with the related humanitarian crisis. UNMIK’s mandate was to administer the region temporarily while establishing and supervising the development of provisional democratic self-governing institutions. The mission aimed to foster a peaceful and normalizing environment, ensuring public safety and order, promoting human rights, and overseeing the development of provisional institutions for democratic and autonomous self-governance.
Both UNPROFOR and UNMIK were integral to the UN’s broader strategy to manage and resolve the complex crises resulting from Yugoslavia’s breakup. They played pivotal roles in reducing violence, protecting civilians, and laying the foundation for political and diplomatic resolutions to the conflicts in the region.
LESSONS AND CHALLENGES IN UN PEACEKEEPING DYNAMICS:
The Security Council’s involvement in the Balkans, spanning over eighteen years with numerous resolutions and presidential statements, is a testament to its significant role in peacekeeping. The UN’s deployment of varied missions in this region, from a substantial troop presence in the UN Protection Force to smaller observer missions like UNMOP, reflects its adaptive approach. The Council has also sanctioned the presence of NATO and EU forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo, while overseeing operations in collaboration with organizations like OSCE. Now, its primary responsibilities are confined to the UN Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo and indirect supervision of NATO, EU, and OSCE efforts.
This engagement has been pivotal in shaping the broader dynamics of peacekeeping. Lessons learned, particularly from UNPROFOR’s inability to protect civilians in Bosnia, have significantly influenced the UN’s strategies for civilian protection. The organization’s approach to long-term peacebuilding evolved through missions in Eastern Slavonia and Kosovo. The emphasis on police-keeping, which includes deploying international police and developing local police forces, also stems from Balkan experiences. The establishment of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia set precedents for seeking justice in conflict zones, although it remains a controversial aspect.
The Balkans have also influenced the UN’s approach to hybrid operations, as seen in the coordination between NATO, the EU, and the UN in Bosnia, and the multifaceted mission in Kosovo under Security Council Resolution 1244. These experiences have informed the UN’s approach in other regions, like the UN-AU mission in Darfur, although it lacks the comprehensive scope of the Kosovo mission.
However, drawing lessons from the Balkans presents challenges. The complexity and variety of institutional arrangements make it hard to derive clear-cut recommendations for future deployments. The Balkan missions were unique due to their strategic importance and the substantial resources allocated by key Security Council members and NATO, which may not be replicable in other contexts.
Moreover, the Security Council’s decision-making was often influenced by a broader political and institutional landscape. For instance, the European Community and the CSCE were already involved in mediating the Yugoslav crisis before the Security Council’s engagement. Major negotiations like the Dayton Agreement often took place outside the Council’s purview, highlighting its role as more of a ratifier or adapter of externally formed political strategies, rather than the primary strategist. This was evident when the EU’s plans for Kosovo, assuming Security Council support for independence, had to be revised due to unforeseen complexities. This underscores the Council’s role within a larger, multifaceted political process.
1992 – 1995 MANDATES:
In the early stages of Balkan peacekeeping, the Security Council’s main goal was to ensure civilian safety. However, the Council faced challenges in determining which civilians to protect and the means of protection. Starting with the deployment of UNPROFOR in Croatia in 1992, the Council’s focus was on protecting civilians in Serb-majority UN Protected Areas from armed attacks. This focus continued until the Dayton Agreement in 1995. The Council often found itself creating new mandates and instructing peacekeepers on their duties, leading to a reactive pattern of addressing threats as they emerged. This approach largely revolved around various forms of “deterrence,” which were either insufficient or unfeasible given the resources available.
The reactive stance of the Security Council became evident in its decisions to extend UNPROFOR’s operations from Croatia to Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) in 1992. In June of that year, as the Bosnian crisis escalated, the Council directed UNPROFOR to deploy personnel to Sarajevo airport. By August, the mission expanded to support humanitarian convoys, and in December, a “Macedonia Command” was authorized to monitor the borders at the request of Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM’s) government.
Despite these expanding mandates, UNPROFOR was instructed to use force only in self-defence. The UN strategy focused on aiding humanitarian agencies, monitoring military developments, and imposing sanctions on combatants. It was not until 1993 that the Council shifted towards enforcement and deterrence. NATO aircraft began enforcing the no-fly zone over BiH in April, although unauthorized flights continued. In March, the Council began declaring “safe areas” in BiH, starting with Srebrenica, but the initial mandate was limited to assisting in demilitarization rather than protecting the town.
During this period, the Security Council took an unusually direct role in shaping UNPROFOR’s strategy. In April 1993, a Security Council mission to Srebrenica led to specific advice on designating further safe areas and monitoring them with existing resources. Although the mission advised against immediate “military strike enforcement,” it did recognize the potential need for such actions.
In June 1993, Resolution 836 tasked UNPROFOR with “deterring attacks” on safe areas. The Force Commander reported needing 34,000 additional troops for reliable deterrence, but only 7,600 were approved for “light-weight” deterrence. This decision left UNPROFOR understaffed to effectively cover all safe areas, and the Council avoided terms like “defend” or “protect,” leading to well-known tragic consequences in Srebrenica in 1995.
In hindsight, the Council’s approach lacked strategic vision, often putting mandates before determining the necessary forces and responsibilities. While driven by the fear of Srebrenica’s fall, the Council’s resolutions seemed ineffective from the start and possibly encouraged antagonists.
Additionally, the Council never reviewed UNPROFOR’s existing responsibilities in BiH, leading to an overstretched force. The Council was thus criticized for:
- Issuing overly detailed mandates,
- Advocating for UN deterrence without understanding its feasibility or authorizing adequate forces, and
- Not conducting strategic reviews. After Srebrenica’s fall in 1995, the Security Council was constrained from making further strategic decisions as Britain and France gave their ground commanders de facto autonomy over the use of force.
This marked a significant shift for both UNPROFOR which became more assertive, and the Council, which stepped back from detailed operational decision-making from 1995 onwards.
CONCLUSION:
In conclusion UN’s role in the Balkans during the Yugoslav Wars encapsulates a narrative of significant triumphs and profound challenges. While pivotal in addressing the humanitarian crisis and aiding peace processes, the UN’s limitations, especially in civilian protection, spurred critical reforms in peacekeeping approaches. These experiences continue to shape contemporary and future UN missions, emphasizing the necessity of strong mandates, civilian protection, and cohesive global support in conflict zones.
REFERENCES:
This article was originally published on jsto.org website. The link for the same is herein. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/resrep09574.6.pdf
This article was originally published on Wilson centre. The link for the same is herein. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/272-peacekeeping-the-balkans-assessment-the-decade
This article was originally published on Defense Technical Information Centre. The link for the same is herein. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA428884.pdf
This article was originally written by Joe Crawford and was published on prezi,com The link for the same is herein. https://prezi.com/p/onh4dsghsybf/un-peacekeeping-in-the-balkans/
This article was originally published on Australian Parliament House. The link for the same is herein.https://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/house_of_representatives_committees?url=jfadt/bosnia/bos_ch2.pdf