Occupations. Peacekeeping. Stabilization and reconstruction. Several terms that the greater part of the world has become very familiar with over the latter half of the 20th, and now the first part of the 21st century to describe the actions and processes that accompany a pre or post conflict region of the world. These terms also carry the implied weights of political, social, economic, and security goals over short or, more often, long periods of time. The essences of the aforementioned operations are very similar while at the same time very different, and as the Rand Corporation puts it, “These terms do not fully capture the scope of such operations. Neither does the term nation-building, but we believe it comes closest to suggesting the full range of activities and objectives involved.”

These operations have become increasingly complicated because the overwhelming majority of conflicts in the last two decades have been intra-state in nature and have been further exacerbated by policies of ethnic expulsion, exclusion, or annihilation. Such was the situation with the unrest in the former Yugoslavia and in the province of Kosovo throughout the 1990’s on to the present day. The

Unfortunately, these goals or a truly stable internal structure of any capacity is not likely going to be realized anytime soon. In the recent months, setback after setback has plagued the mission in Iraq – from increasingly aggressive insurgent attacks to political infighting and indecision over what the best possible path to Iraq’s future may be. However, it is clear that post conflict nation-building is going to be a part of the geopolitical landscape for the foreseeable future. As this realization becomes accepted, the more prepared the United States and its allies can be in such future situations.

United States along with her allies in NATO recognized the destabilizing threat that these conflicts posed to Balkan region and to Europe as a whole and acted with both diplomatic and armed force. In the aftermath lies a dizzying hodge-podge of ethnically divided locales, unstable political institutions, and at best an uneasy peace amongst the region. All of this is held together by a thread of UN and NATO peacekeepers and monitors to try to maintain some fashion of order and rebuilding of the war ravaged former Yugoslavia. But it is in the issue of the rebuilding and stabilization that is found a separate war, albeit fought with political rhetoric and multinational agreements, of how to actually approach the ways and means necessary to paving a road to making Bosnia and Kosovo two self sufficient and “Democratized” states. Within in this paper, the two cases of Bosnia and Kosovo along with the conflict resolution and reconstruction efforts in relation to U.S. interests will be briefly analyzed.

As one republic after the other ceded from the Yugoslav Federation, Bosnia and Herzegovina held a successful referendum for independence in 1992, and by spring of that year was recognized as an independent state by the European Community. Immediately following the independence was the outbreak of civil war throughout the region. Bosnian Serb leaders adopted the radical and brutal policies to “purify” the nation of Croats and Bosniacs (Bosnian Muslims) through methods of ethnic cleansing. By late 1992, Serb forces had control of roughly 70% of Bosnia, while the Bosniac-Croat alliance held the capital of Sarajevo and selected pockets of territory. By 1994, it is estimated over 200,000 soldiers and non-combatants were dead or missing and another 2 million people were refugees . It became frighteningly clear to the European Community and the United States that this conflict posed a serious threat to Southern Europe and could easily escalate into a full scale European conflict, which could threaten both European and American security interests. In the spring of 1995, U.S. led NATO forces launched Operation Deliberate Force in response to the highly publicized Serb attack on a market square in Sarajevo, in which many innocent non-combatants were wounded and killed. Croatian-Bosniac forces launched an offensive in coordination with NATO air strikes which coerced the opposing sides into a cease-fire and into the subsequent peace talks at Dayton, Ohio in November of 1995.

The Dayton Articles have been widely criticized for not producing its objective ends more quickly. In a paper by Marcus Cox of the Centre for Applied Studies in International Negotiations, he states that the articles have created a highly dispersed constitutional structure with weak central authority. S

Some topics in this essay:
Eastern Europe, Rand Corporation, International Negotiations, UN NGOs, UN GDP, Bosnia Kosovo, Peacekeeping Stabilization, UN NATO, Deliberate Force, Force IFOR, bosnia kosovo, bosnia herzegovina, european community, former yugoslavia, ethnic albanians, united allies, dayton accords, peace talks, november 1995, framework agreement,