Should SFOR Stay, or Should It Go?

Ashdown says Europe has a credibility problem in Bosnia and urges Washington to maintain a presence. 13 October 2003 SARAJEVO, Bosnia and Herzegovina—High Representative to Bosnia Paddy Ashdown on 7 October warned Washington against pulling out of the Balkans next year when the European Union is scheduled to take over the peacekeeping mandate, saying that Europe has a credibility problem here.

Though Ashdown welcomed the EU’s proposal to take over from the NATO-led Stabilization Force (SFOR), he said that an American presence is still necessary because Bosnians do not fully trust Europe. The United States, not Europe, he said, ended the 1992-1995 war.

“Europe should take over the [peacekeeping] mandate but not have a monopoly. [Bosnians] regard Europeans as the people who sat there and did nothing for four years while they were slaughtered,” Ashdown was quoted as saying during meetings in Germany last week. “The Americans are the people who came in and saved them. That’s unfair … but we do have a credibility problem.”

SFOR was created after the 1995 Dayton Peace Agreement and presently has 13,000 soldiers, 1,500 of them American National Guardsmen. Next year the force is scheduled to be reduced to between 6,000 and 8,000. Washington is currently debated whether to maintain the American contingent.

At an informal meeting in Rome on 4 October, EU defense ministers said they were ready to assume SFOR’s peacekeeping duties during the second half of next year, with a British-led force.

The EU Force (EUFOR)has only modest peacekeeping experience, having taken on small-scale operations in Macedonia and Congo.

But for now, the United States is split over the issue. Some in Washington connect a EUFOR takeover with France and Germany’s desire to create a serious European defense force parallel to NATO. However, others feel that an American pullout is necessary, in light of peacekeeping commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan.

When the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush came into power it wanted a complete pullout of Bosnia. The terrorist attack on New York on 11 September 2001, however, changed that--especially after stories began circulating in the media that Bosnia was a potential base for terrorists.

SAD BUT TRUE?

In the meantime, Ashdown’s blunt description of the EU’s credibility problem has taken many by surprise.

Vedran Persic, a spokesperson for the Office of the High Representative (OHR), said on 10 October that Ashdown’s statement “was nothing new,” and declined to further elaborate.

In a 10 October telephone interview, Mark Wheeler, the director of the Brussels-based International Crisis Group (ICG) think tank, said that though he did not expect the High Representative to make such a public statement, it was, nonetheless, accurate.

“I was surprised that Ashdown said that. It was not diplomatic from the Brussels standpoint, but it’s true,” Wheeler said. “The trouble with saying something that’s completely true and right and proper is that he has a European constituency that has forgotten about the 1992-1995 war. Sometimes it’s a great burden to have a historical memory.”

But the ICG director believes that Europe can get over its credibility hurdle.

“Technically the EU can handle the mandate on its own, and at some point it will need to. But I agree with Ashdown that it is vital to have an American commitment,” Wheeler said.

The problem with an American pullout in Bosnia or in Kosovo, says Wheeler, is that the United States has much greater influence in the region than Europe does. As such, the Americans need to maintain a “psychological presence,” or perhaps “some intelligence capacity.”

Wheeler points to the model of Macedonia, where the EU has taken over NATO’s peacekeeping mandate but Washington has maintained a low-level presence.

The ICG director agrees that SFOR troops can be reduced by half, but the real question is whether or not the reduced force will still contain American troops. Wheeler says it should.

“There is little to gain from an American pullout and much to lose,” Wheeler said.
Local authorities are also hoping Washington will maintain a presence in Bosnia.

Mirsad Kebo, the vice president of the Bosniak nationalist Party of Democratic Action (SDA), said at a 10 October press conference that the party is categorically against an American pullout. Kebo reiterated Ashdown’s statement that Europe lacks credibility because of its role in the war.

“We think that the most important thing is that the Stabilization Forces, including the U.S. component, must stay in Bosnia and Herzegovina until the implementation of the Dayton Peace Agreement is complete,” Kebo said.

General James Jones, NATO’s supreme allied commander in Europe, however, said at an 11 October press conference at the Pentagon that the situation in Bosnia will soon be sufficiently stabilized to pull out SFOR forces, including the 1,500 Americans--possibly by next year.

--by Anes Alic

Related Stories:

BRR News: The EU in Macedonia
A controversial handshake hands the NATO peacekeeping mandate over to the EU.
20 January 2003

BRR News: NATO Troops To Remain in Macedonia
NATO commends Macedonia's progress while calling for more work before guarantees of future membership.
25 November 2002

BRR News: Humanitarians or Terrorists?
New Islamist terrorist threat forces the closure of the U.S. embassy in Sarajevo again, as authorities step up the pressure on suspected militants.
25 March 2002

BRR Features: Charitable Front
Bosnian authorities turn over documents linking a terrorist suspect arrested in Chicago to Osama bin Laden.
by Anes Alic and Jen Tracy
20 May 2002