This month marks the 30th anniversary of the signing of the Dayton Peace Agreement, the US-brokered framework that ended the brutal 1992–95 Bosnian war, halted genocide, and placed Bosnia and Herzegovina on the path to peace.
Much of the world remembers Dayton as a diplomatic achievement that stopped the bloodshed. Yet its enduring significance lies in something more ambitious and noteworthy: it created the framework through which Bosnia’s people could rebuild, reform, and reconnect with the world.
Thirty years after Dayton, the question is no longer whether peace can hold, but whether Bosnia can evolve into a sustainable, self-reinforcing nation anchored in the rule of law and shared prosperity. The Bosnian people can’t do it alone; the US needs to be there, side-by-side with Bosnians as they continue their journey.
Over these three decades, US engagement has gone far beyond military intervention. It has helped shape Bosnia’s economic recovery, institutional design, and regional stability.
From the first postwar reconstruction efforts to the recent visits by senior State Department officials, and engagement by the US Acting Ambassador, American policy has consistently reinforced Bosnia’s sovereignty and Euro-Atlantic aspirations, notwithstanding the US administration’s abrupt decision last month to lift sanctions on pro-Russian Bosnian Serb strongman Milorad Dodik, first imposed by the same administration in 2017.
For those who have worked alongside Bosnia – like the authors of this article – the vision of Dayton remains unfinished but vital, its promise not yet fully realised, but fully achievable.
Dayton came only after years of international procrastination in the face of documented atrocities in Bosnia, and too late to prevent the fall of the United Nations safe haven in Srebrenica and subsequent killing of 8,000 Bosniak men and boys, a massacre that multiple court rulings say amounted to genocide.
But it did succeed in ending a war that had claimed over 100,000 lives, displaced half the population, and subjected Sarajevo to the longest siege in modern warfare.
It also served as a catalyst for the creation of the first international war crimes tribunal in decades, setting a new precedent for international justice and accountability. In its wake, Bosnia became host to sustained International Community engagement – an integration effort that remains essential for Bosnia’s future and European stability.
But the quieter, less celebrated legacies of Dayton may prove even more enduring. The Accords created a constitutional court, central bank, and state parliament – institutions that offered a framework for modern governance where none had existed before and established the unique District of Brcko.
Dayton’s link to postwar justice also spurred domestic mechanisms that now anchor Bosnia’s own judicial credibility. In these achievements, one can discern the slow but steady dividends of rule of law – the quiet, cumulative victories that seldom make headlines. Where institutions function, trust grows. Where trust grows, prosperity follows.
Yet it would be naive to overlook Dayton’s structural limitations.
Power-sharing too often leading to paralysis
The same constitutional architecture that ended the war also froze political development. Its system of power-sharing – designed to balance ethnic equality at every level of government – has too often become an instrument of paralysis.
This rigidity has allowed obstructionist elites, political parties, and external actors, including Russia and Serbia, to exploit the framework’s weakest points.
Bosnia’s governance remains one of Europe’s most complex, and at times, one of its most fragile. While Dayton’s design achieved equality in representation, it often did so at the cost of efficiency and effectiveness in governance. This structure, intended to protect against domination, has instead produced political gridlock – underscoring the need for constitutional modernisation rooted in the same principles that once brought peace.
Even so, Bosnia has not stood still. The country’s resilience over 30 years testifies to something deeper than design: a persistent belief in the possibility of coexistence.
Brcko District offers perfect and tangible proof of that belief and the power of Dayton.
Established as a neutral, self-governing entity under international supervision, Brcko has evolved into one of Bosnia’s most functional multiethnic communities – a place where the institutions of Dayton have matured rather than stagnated.
Here, the rule of law prevails more than it falters. Economic cooperation across ethnic lines is routine, not exceptional. The district’s steady governance and economic integration show what can happen when Dayton’s principles are implemented faithfully rather than politically weaponised.
Its example demonstrates that Bosnia’s divisions are not immutable; with transparent institutions and consistent external support, cooperation can outlast conflict.
For the Dayton doubters, Brcko’s quiet success illustrates what is possible when governance is built not on fear or faction, but on shared interest and the predictability of law. It demonstrates that Bosnia’s future needs are not hostage to its past.
Across the country, similar patterns – though uneven – are visible: cross-entity business ventures, regional energy projects, and growing youth participation in European exchange programmes. These are not accidents. They are the slow, generative effects of a peace that, while imperfect, has held.
Five principles for renewed US engagement
Still, progress cannot be assumed but must be earned. Bosnia’s political structure continues to strain under the weight of competing loyalties and external pressures. Moscow views the Balkans as a strategic pressure point in southern Europe, supporting separatist ambitions in the predominantly Serb-populated Republika Srpska entity, fuelling disinformation campaigns, and promoting anti-Western narratives.
Left unchecked, these dynamics could erode three decades of progress, poison the hope of the Bosnian people, and destabilise the wider region.
That is why continued US engagement remains indispensable. American diplomacy, precisely because it is both principled and pragmatic, provides Bosnia with the external anchor it still needs.
Sustained US attention is not charity; it is strategy. It preserves peace, advances Western influence, and mitigates the risk of renewed instability in the Balkans – a region whose crises have never remained contained within its borders.
A renewed American approach to Bosnia should build on Dayton’s enduring strengths while addressing its structural weaknesses. It should be defined by clear outcomes, limited entanglement, and assertive leverage. Five principles can guide this framework:
First, reform with accountability. Condition all diplomatic, economic, and security support on measurable progress toward institutional reform. Tie assistance to benchmarks – judicial independence, electoral modernisation, and digital governance – and apply real consequences for obstruction. Performance, not promises, should define partnership.
Second, security modernisation. Lead a regional security initiative centred on modernising Bosnia’s defence institutions and strengthening NATO interoperability. Make Bosnia’s path to EU accession visible and credible. This would deter malign influence and reaffirm US leadership in southeastern Europe.
Third, economic integration. Encourage targeted US private-sector investment – particularly in renewable energy, digital infrastructure, and transport corridors. Such engagement would reduce dependency on external actors, expand employment to keep young workers in Bosnia, and demonstrate that rule of law and economic growth are mutually reinforcing.
Fourth, targeted sanctions. Maintain coordinated US-EU sanctions against individuals and entities that undermine Bosnia’s sovereignty or the Dayton framework. Sanctions should be precise, enforceable, and tied to a clear diplomatic message: corruption and secessionism carry costs.
And finally, high-level engagement. Institutionalise sustained contact between US and Bosnian leadership through annual strategic dialogues and periodic chiefs-of-state visits. The summer visit by Acting Assistant Secretary Brandon Hanrahan and Deputy Mark Fleming marked a strong start; it should become the model for a consistent engagement rhythm.
Rebalancing, not reinvention
This approach is not about reinventing US policy in the Balkans but about rebalancing it – transforming episodic attention into sustained partnership. It aligns with the US foreign- policy tradition of pragmatic idealism: advancing peace through credible strength, rewarding reform through tangible investment.
As Bosnia looks toward its next three decades, the task is not to replace Dayton, but to fulfill it. That fulfilment lies in a deeper culture of legality, the modernisation of institutions, and a renewed civic identity that transcends ethnic lines without denying them. The US and its European allies have a clear role in this process – not as patrons, but as partners in completion.
As Dayton turns 30, let’s recognise both its limitations and its legacy. It brought peace. Now, that peace can mature into prosperity, if sustained, purposeful leadership remains. The United States, by continuing its active and intelligent engagement, can help Bosnia complete the journey it began 30 years ago.
The story of Bosnia today is not one of frozen failure but of unfinished and unrealised success. And in Brcko – in its schools, courts, and markets – we can already see what the next chapter might look like: a Bosnia that works because its people, its institutions, and its partners choose to make it so.