All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke
On December 2, NATO will conclude its Stabilisation Force (SFOR) mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Alliance's first peacekeeping operation, which started in late 1995, will have come to a successful end. Supported by NATO, the European Union will launch a mission of its own. An important chapter in the history of the Balkans - and that of NATO - will be closed.
It has been quite a few years since our newspapers and television news bulletins were dominated by outbursts of violence from the Balkans. It might be easy to forget how bad it was. But we must not forget. That was a terrible time, for the people of the region and for the entire Euro-Atlantic community.
The violent collapse of Yugoslavia threatened to undermine many of the gains we had made with the peaceful end of the Cold War. More than 200,000 people were killed, and hundreds of thousands more were driven from their homes. The stability of neighbouring countries was put at risk. And the longer the international community hesitated to take decisive action, the greater the strains on relations between countries all across Europe.
But there was another threat as well. A threat to our values, to our ethics, to our sense of ourselves. To have turned our backs on the Balkans would have been to betray those values. Had the richest and most powerful countries in the world failed to act, it would have been an historic failure, and a deep shame. For all these reasons, it became increasingly clear that not taking action was not an option. Not for the international community at large. And not for NATO.
When the question of NATO intervention was still under discussion, many analysts were sceptical about what the Alliance would be able to achieve. NATO was entering a "Balkan quagmire" from which there was no way out, the sceptics argued. The Alliance would try in vain to defuse the "Balkan powder keg", since instability in the Balkans was endemic. And military intervention could never resolve the "Balkan imbroglio", they claimed, because the causes were supposedly hundreds of years of "ethnic hatred".
There is a proverb that says that those who claim "it can't be done" should at least not disturb those who are already doing it. The Alliance did intervene in the Balkans. At first by supporting, and then enforcing, a weapons embargo and a no-fly zone. When these steps did not produce the desired results, NATO went further. In the summer of 1995, the judicious use of air power finally brought the warring parties to the negotiating table. The result was the Dayton Peace Agreement and a new lease of life for a new country.
But history shows that the end of war does not necessarily mean the beginning of peace. Bosnia and Herzegovina needed enduring security if it was to get back on its feet. And it needed the assistance of other international actors, including the European Union and the United Nations, to help rebuild its economy, its government, its judiciary, police forces and all the other elements of a normal, self-sustaining country.
NATO provided the platform for that, too. Allies sent in 60,000 troops to keep the peace, with a clear message that we would tolerate no more fighting. This Implementation Force was a coalition without historical precedent. By uniting all the major nations in the Euro-Atlantic area behind a common strategy, the Alliance managed to break the fateful cycle by which great powers supported traditional client states in the Balkans. At the beginning of the 20th century, a Balkan crisis had led to a World War. At the end of that same century, all the major powers were united on the same side - the side of peace. And by creating a safe environment for other institutions to come in and do their job, NATO also laid the groundwork for bringing Bosnia and Herzegovina back into the European mainstream.