Did the Dayton Accords Set Bosnia Up for Failure?

The Bosnian War in the early 1990s was at the time the bloodiest conflict on European soil since World War II. Some 100,000 people were killed and more than 2 million displaced amid widespread ethnic cleansing and massacres.

In 1995, the warring parties struck a power-sharing deal in negotiations just outside Dayton, Ohio, in what came to be known as the Dayton Accords. But the deal didn’t really resolve the underlying problems. Bosnia continues to be plagued by ethnic division, and the country’s political structure is widely seen as ineffective and unstable.

Welcome to Counterpoint. On each episode, we look at one pressing question facing world leaders—from two opposing points of view. 

In our season finale, we’re tackling the question: Did the Dayton Accords set Bosnia up for failure?

Arguing that the agreement put Bosnia on a path to perpetual crisis is Jasmin Mujanović, a senior nonresident fellow at New Lines Institute. He is the author of two books, Hunger and Fury: The Crisis of Democracy in the Balkans and  The Bosniaks: Nationhood After Genocide.

And making the case that the Dayton Accords were essential to bringing peace and maintaining stability is Chris Hill. A career diplomat, Hill was part of the U.S. delegation that brokered the agreement. Most recently, he served as the⁠ U.S. ambassador to Serbia⁠ under President Joe Biden.

Counterpoint is a production of Foreign Policy, in partnership with the Doha Forum. The show is hosted by Sasha Polakow-Suransky.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices