Vance–Owen plan

Vance–Owen plan
Name	Vance–Owen plan

Vance–Owen plan The Vance–Owen plan was a peace proposal devised in 1993 to end hostilities in Bosnia and Herzegovina during the breakup of Yugoslavia. Crafted by United Nations envoy Cyrus Vance and European Community mediator Sir David Owen, the proposal sought territorial cantons and international oversight to reconcile competing claims among Bosniaks, Bosnian Serbs, and Bosnian Croats, while engaging actors such as the United Nations Protection Force, the Contact Group, and the Conference on Yugoslavia.

Background

The plan emerged amid the dissolution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the breakout of the Bosnian War, which followed declarations of independence by Slovenia, Croatia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. After the Ten-Day War and the Croatian War of Independence, tensions intensified with the involvement of leaders like Slobodan Milošević, Franjo Tuđman, and Alija Izetbegović. International actors including the United Nations Security Council, the European Community, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe became engaged alongside unilateral interventions by states such as France, Germany, Italy, United Kingdom, and the United States. The war featured sieges such as the Siege of Sarajevo, atrocities at Srebrenica and Prijedor, and the use of paramilitary units linked to entities like the Serbian Volunteer Guard and the Croatian Defence Council.

Negotiation and Proposal

Mediation efforts involved the Contact Group—comprising the United States Department of State, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (France), the Foreign Ministry (Germany), and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Russia)—and were informed by previous accords such as the Carrington–Cutileiro plan and the Vance Plan. Envoys Cyrus Vance and David Owen conducted shuttle diplomacy, meeting leaders including Radovan Karadžić, Momčilo Krajišnik, Biljana Plavšić, Gojko Šušak, Mate Boban, and representatives of UNPROFOR and the High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina. The negotiations referenced wartime lines like the VRS frontlines and administrative divisions in the Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and were timed alongside landmark events such as the Dayton Accords talks and continued NATO airpower considerations.

Key Provisions

The proposal outlined a map of decentralized entities organized into ten provinces or cantons with ethnically mixed boundaries, drawing on precedents from the Constituent Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina and models resembling arrangements in Belgium, Switzerland, and Canada. It proposed an elected central presidency and parliamentary institutions inspired by mechanisms in the Bosnian Presidency framework, with powers distributed between central organs and provincial authorities. Security arrangements involved UNPROFOR guarantees, demilitarization supervised by the United Nations Protection Force, and possible implementation support from NATO or multinational contingents from countries such as Turkey, Greece, and Poland. The plan included provisions on refugee return consistent with principles upheld by the European Court of Human Rights and obligations under instruments like the Geneva Conventions and norms championed by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

Reactions and Implementation Attempts

Initial responses varied: leaders of the Bosnian Serb leadership engaged in talks with envoys but were influenced by strategic calculations linked to Republika Srpska objectives and the Bosnian Serb Army. The Bosnian Croat leadership, represented by figures associated with the Croatian Community of Herzeg-Bosnia, evaluated the plan relative to aspirations tied to the Republic of Croatian Community of Herzeg-Bosnia. The Bosniak political leadership debated the plan amid pressure from parties like the Party of Democratic Action and civil society groups in Sarajevo. Parliamentary votes, local referendums, and public opinion shaped the trajectory of attempts to implement the plan, with contestation evident in venues such as the Parliament of Bosnia and Herzegovina and municipal assemblies across Mostar, Banja Luka, and Tuzla.

International and Domestic Responses

Major capitals reacted divergently: the United States government, including officials from the Clinton administration and diplomats from the United States Department of State, alternated between support and calls for revisions; the United Kingdom and France expressed qualifications related to enforcement mechanisms and humanitarian access; the European Community institutions advocated a negotiated settlement while facing criticism in the European Parliament and among member states such as Germany and Italy for the plan’s compromises. Human rights organizations including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch evaluated provisions on ethnic cleansing and refugee returns. Domestic political actors—parties like the Social Democratic Party of Bosnia and Herzegovina and media outlets in Sarajevo—mobilized campaigns for and against the plan, while military conditions on the ground, including actions by units like the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and paramilitary formations, complicated implementation.

Aftermath and Legacy

Although the plan failed to secure lasting implementation, it influenced subsequent negotiations culminating in the Dayton Agreement and the deployment of the Implementation Force (IFOR) and later Stabilisation Force (SFOR)]. The debate over territorial cantons and decentralized governance informed postwar constitutional arrangements, the office of the High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina, and jurisprudence in bodies such as the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. The proposal remains a reference point in analyses by scholars at institutions like Harvard University, Oxford University, London School of Economics, and policy centers including the Council on Foreign Relations and the International Crisis Group, and is cited in comparative studies of conflict resolution involving examples like Northern Ireland and Cyprus.

Category:Peace processes