The Bosnian civil war lasted more than three years until in 1995 an American-led coalition of the willing ended the mass killing. Another NATO intervention ended the Kosovo war in 1999. In both cases, Russia had blocked attempts to reach a diplomatic solution, forcing the US and Europe to act without the blessing of the UN Security Council.
The civil war in Syria is now entering its third year, with at least 70.000 dead and no end in sight. Again, a power struggle between hostile groups is devastating a country that once belonged to the Ottoman empire. Again, the big powers are split, with Russia backing one side and the US and Europe very reluctantly supporting the other.
Swedish foreign minister Carl Bildt recently said that the Bosnian war could have ended much earlier if international actors had found common ground. "So we must not repeat that mistake", he said, with regard to Syria. "It is only by getting the international community together that we have the possibility of a political solution."
And yet today it looks as if the lessons from the Balkan wars have been forgotten. While Syria burns, the EU is mainly watching from the sidelines; limiting itself to sanctions, to calls to end the violence and to aid some of the refugees in neighbouring countries. The country itself is being destroyed, and neighbouring countries are increasingly destabilized, especially fragile Lebanon. Everything those who argue against intervention said an intervention would lead to is already happening: breakdown of the state, mass killing of civilians, radicalisation, destabilisation of the region.
Paris and London are pushing for arming Syrian rebels, but there are not many who want to follow them on that risky course. Washington is providing some training to the rebels. It is difficult for the west to identify forces who could become constructive partners in a post-Assad Syria. And just sending in weapons without being able to control their use can backfire, making things worse, especially if one considers Syria is already attracting jihadist elements from other countries.
It was the US that had finally taken the lead in the Balkans in the 1990s. But today, US leadership on Syria appears unlikely. After the Iraq and Afghanistan experiences, Obama's America wants to scale back its international engagement; it doesn't want to be responsible any more for keeping the regional order in the Middle East - a role it had inherited after the Second World war from Britain and France. Washington is providing some support and is showing preferences - but on Syria it is not even leading from behind, at best supporting from behind.
Which puts the Europeans in the driver seat. Unlike the US which is geographically far from the Middle East, and is rapidly becoming less dependent on Middle East energy, Europe is deeply interconnected with the Middle East on every level.
