On December 14, 1995, the three-year war in Bosnia and Herzegovina officially ended – a conflict that after World War II was considered one of the bloodiest in Europe. The toll exceeded 100,000 lives, including more than 8,000 during the Srebrenica genocide. At the initiative of Western diplomats led by the United States, the Dayton Agreement emerged, which codified a ceasefire and guaranteed the territorial integrity of Bosnia. Control over compliance with the agreement was entrusted to international peacekeeping forces – about 60,000 troops; a separate portion of the contingent under EU auspices remains in the country.
The Dayton Agreement did not determine a winner, but rather became a political compromise that divided the country into two almost equal parts – the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republika Srpska. It entrenched ethnic differences and created parallel governments, which over time led to new crises in the political system. Aida Cerkez, a journalist for the Associated Press, survived more than 1,400 days of the Sarajevo siege and witnessed how these decisions affected everyday life.
Since 2022, she has often been cited by Ukrainian media: she compares historical parallels of the Bosnian war with today’s events and warns that peace may leave doors open for the recurrence of conflicts if there is a crack in the agreement. Nevertheless, a question arises: why has full peace not yet come to Bosnia after three decades?
Key Lessons for the Future
Briefly discussing the consequences of the agreement, Cerkez notes: after signing there was no solid structure for functional governance, and the country remained with a divided authority. In this context she recalls:
“I have something to tell you: the war is over.”
– editor in Vienna
Also she notes that during peace talks many people hoped for more tangible results:
“So, you have your country. What are you going to do with it?”
– Aida Cerkez
Cerkez emphasizes that the peace agreement was quickly drafted with the aim of stopping the fighting, but did not provide a solid foundation for a unified state.
“Yes, we thought that stopping the war could have been possible as early as 1992, and a hundred thousand lives would have been saved.”
– Aida Cerkez
One of the most important parts of postwar reconstruction was the work of the Hague Tribunal and the International Commission on Missing Persons – steps that helped locate people and uncover the truth about crimes. She emphasizes: not only to punish the guilty, but also to understand the ideology that produced them to prevent repetition.
“If there is even the slightest crack in a peace agreement, it will be used to push the enduring idea of conquering the entire country.”
– Aida Cerkez
Regarding the future of Bosnia, Cerkez notes: after the war a new political reality emerged – one part of the country seeks EU membership, the other leans toward Russia and Serbia. Nevertheless, the population remains hopeful for a shared life, a reduction in corruption, and a gradual erasure of the divides between ethnic groups, which over time could contribute to peaceful coexistence.
After the war, the international community took on the duty to rebuild and support peace. About 60,000 foreign troops remained in the region to ensure stability, and a portion of the contingent under EU auspices remains in the country. Cerkez emphasizes that the lessons of the Dayton Agreement remain relevant for current negotiations in other countries: it is important to avoid cracks in agreements that could legitimize further conquest or escalation of conflicts.