Sir, - The Dayton Agreement brings to a halt the bloodiest chapter in European history in two generations. Whether this will form the basis of a just and "lasting peace, or remain merely a vehicle for restoring the credibility of NATO and assuaging Russian pride, will depend above all else on the good faith of the architects of the agreement in ensuring the full implementation of measures, for the restoration of Bosnia.
Factors suggesting the latter, more pessimistic scenario as being the more likely include the similarity with the Contact Group agreement, developed in tandem with Russia; the ambiguities and complex language of the agreement itself; and, last but not least, the past performance of the West in betraying the high minded principles set out in thin as in all previous "solutions".
Critical to the success of any peace agreement will be the full implementation of the right of return of all refugees, the holding of free and fair elections and the bringing to justice of all war criminals. Yet the provisions for the realisation of these aims are vague and even contradictory - in contrast with the ready recognition of the ethnically engineered "facts on the ground" - and it must therefore be assumed that the political will to insist on a meaningful realisation of them by the allies is lacking, and that the forces for ethnic separation will continue to be appeased and will eventually triumph over an integrated Bosnia. In effect, the provisional "federation" of the "entities" will be a prelude to secession, assimilation into a Greater Serbia and Croatia, and legitimisation of genocide. Meanwhile the speedy rehabilitation of Milosevic appears to consign the Albanians of Kosovo and the Muslims of the Sandjak to a grim future.
In consistently failing to support the people of Bosnia and appeasing instead a superbly armed extremist minority, aided and abetted by one of the mightiest armies of Cold War Europe, the West - above all Europe has connived in the devastation possibly now terminal - of a uniquely multi ethnic society. Less immediately apparent than this devastation is the long term damage to the moral purpose and ultimately the cohesion of "The New Europe". A clear indication of this moral descent is to be found in the increasingly preposterous abuse of language and meaning in dealing with the realities of the war; hence a UN officer could recently describe the slaughter of Srebrenica as "an appalling tragedy".
This insidious relativisation of mass murder as a passive, inanimate event not subject to normal, considerations of human responsibility is all the more terrifying sitting comfortably as it does within the "balanced" jargon of appeasement which has come to characterise the language of UNPROFOR and in turn much of the news media in the course of this war. The victims of the warm, defenders of civilised society in the face of barbarism, have quietly metamorphosed from deserving political and military help, to objects of pity deserving humanitarian aid, to nuisance factors in the way of ethnically clean solutions. An unwillingness to intervene militarily required the introduction of a "humanitarian" diagnosis which quickly became self fulfilling, and a "peacekeeping" mandate which deterred effective military intervention.
Europe now must take the opportunity to repudiate its policy to date and work with the US and the wider international community in bringing to realisation those measures in the agreement which might promote peace, reintegration, democracy and justice; to do otherwise would be to court disaster in Bosnia and the Balkans and risk inter alia the undermining of the entire European project, already fraying visibly at the edges. Ireland has a particular responsibility to promote such a change of policy in the course of its forthcoming presidency of the EU from July next. - Yours, etc.,
Kerry Action for Bosnia H, Cork Action for Bosnia H,
Limerick Action for Bosnia H,
Ireland Action for
Bosnia Herzegovina,
Upper Camden Street,
Dublin 8.