"The international mission, as U.S. and Western representatives saw it, was to reconstruct a viable multi-ethnic media, as well as to prevent further conflict. NATO was seeking to build, under the Dayton Accords, a plural society out of pieces that seemed fractured beyond repair. The OHR believed that a pluralistic, peaceful media was an indispensable part of the rebuilding process. The Office proclaimed its desire to "use the opportunity to remove one of the most serious obstacles bedeviling our efforts to re-establish civil society in Bosnia" - the fact that the media was ethnically based.358 NATO and OHR actions must be judged after a reasonable period of time elapses to see if a more democratic Bosnia-Herzegovina, supported by the pluralism that comes from a free and independent press, emerges. Still, one of the great dangers of information intervention is that it provides apparent democratic justification for any nation to use its police power to close down media outlets. Each time the international community intervenes to shut down a media outlet that it does not like, the line between information intervention and censorship becomes blurred. The real test is not only whether an information intervention transforms a society but also whether the intervention comports with the spirit of democratic change. Ends can justify means, but it is helpful if the means themselves are compatible with those ends." (Conclusion, page 111-112)