One of the most important hurdles in the Bosnian peace process has been overcome with the election of the three representatives who are to form the joint presidency of the state. The elections passed off peacefully, even if they fell substantially short of being free, fair and democratic. As has been widely acknowledged, they are more important as a step in the process than as an exemplary electoral exercise, as statements yesterday by Mr Carl Bildt, the international High Representative in Bosnia, and by the NATO Secretary General, Mr Xavier Solana, made plain.
Mr Bildt stressed that the next stage of the process will be even more difficult than this one, as the three leaders - respectively heads of the three nationalist parties which fought out the war - decide whether to operate the power sharing institutions agreed in the Dayton accords. There has been much criticism of the accords for the speed with which elections were forced on the Bosnians so soon after the fighting had finished; but the stage of institution building could hardly have been started until elections had been held. And even if they were to be postponed,
Fit would hardly have made much difference to the outcome, given the depth of the passions raised by the war. The big question was always going to be whether it will be possible to get the nationalist parties to work together. And Mr Bildt is surely right to argue that institution building is one of the best guarantees that they will do so.
The other dynamic factor has been the willingness of the international community to put its influence and power behind the search for a settlement. There was a strict timetable for the involvement of troops in the NATO led Implementation Force, which has proved to be a remarkable laboratory for international security co operation. Both Mr Bildt and Mr Solana have now gone public with their belief that the force must continue in existence after the December 14th deadline for its withdrawal, albeit in a much scaled down form, but still with the capacity and the mandate to intervene forcibly to prevent the war breaking out again. This question will not be resolved until after the US elections, but it is now clearly out in the open.
In the meantime there is a great deal of international work to be done to shore up the Dayton accords with aid and political and security support, including several meetings to be held in Ireland under the aegis of the EU presidency. One central feature of this work remains the question of pursuing justice against those accused of war crimes by the international tribunal in The Hague. The signs are not good here, because of the reluctance of IFOR commanders to risk their troops' safety by actively pursuing people who have been so accused - a reluctance which has been scathingly criticised by one of the principal judges in the tribunal. Just as intractable has been the return of refugees within Bosnia.
Unless the dynamic of institution building coincides and interacts more effectively with these matters of justice, the international involvement could rapidly be reduced to a holding or containment operation once more. That could endanger the entire fragile edifice of the Dayton agreements. It is better by far to use them as stepping stones to a lasting political settlement, however demanding this proves to be.