Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mideur-l
Date:         Sun, 24 Jan 1993 22:59:17 -0500
From:         "Andrej Brodnik (Andy)" <abrodnik@WATDRAGON.UWATERLOO.CA>
Subject:      Re: On Bosnia, and the Plight of Sarajevo, (#803)
              "CC59000" at Jan 13, 93 12:37 pm

Hi there,

though this letter by Mr/Ms.CC59000 was posted quite some time ago, I
saved it in my mail box to respond on question presented in it. (S)he
writes:

> From: CC59000 <CC59%IONA.BITNET@UBVM.cc.buffalo.edu>
> Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 12:37:44 -0500
>
> Your explanation is very interesting. So Serbs attacked Dubrovnik
> in order to establish the south corridor? That doesn't sound like
> a good plan?

I don't see why? If anybody would like to establish such a corridor,
the Dubrovnik would have to be part of it. I'm not saying that the
texts from 1939 are completely relevant now, but in them one can find
that Serbs talked about this at that time already but leaving
Dubrovnik out as a ``free city''.

> Also what happened after Vukovar? Which way does the north corridor
> go after Vukovar, through the Croationa or Bosnian territory?

Croatian. The war was initially waged in Croatia. I'd like to
emphasize that oversimplification of situation is not what one would
like to do here. Namely Serbs had majority in certain villages in the
area (but not in the area itself) what was ``kind of support'' to
proclaim the area as Serbian and (hence) establish the corridor.

> Also, if you might know, why are they so stubborn in pressing
> Sarajevo? What is importance of Sarajevo?

These and all other ideas explained here are only mine and based on
discussions with other people of different origin and on observing the
facts on the terrain. In the case of Sarajevo IMO there are at least
two reasons. One is to connect the Eastern (Serbian) Bosnia with the
Western one (see also the map of proposed provinces issued by UN). The
other reason is completely psychological. Namely Sarajevo is the only
(more or less) remain of mutual coexistance of all nations in B&H. In
all other areas the authority is in hands of one or the other side,
while Sarajevo still remains there as city of all. Furthermore, if
Sarajevo would fall this would mean that Serbs won and they could
simply carve the country as they wish. Any comments on this? Any
comments from Mr/Ms.CC59000?

> Also, would the Muslim Bosnians be willing to trade territory,
> giving Serbs the missing pieces for the corridor, while the Serbs
> return back some other territory?

I don't know, but as it seems now, the Croats are those who hold the
corridor (according to UN proposal). Will they trade? If yes, also the
parts of Croatia where Serbs live would be immediately ``connected''
with Serbia. On the other hand, what would Serbs offer for this?

> Finally, how does this corridor theory match (or not) the Muslims'
> request for a single Bosnian state?

These two issues are more or less separate. Namely, as long Serbs do
not have a corridor, they are living in two separated parts and are
(in some sense) much weaker. But when they get the corridor, they can
start to work legally toward unification with Serbia (including those
Serbs in Croatia). On the other hand Muslims' call for a ``single
Bosnian state'' (what is meant a state under central authority) is
their try to establish a control over complete B&H. In each of these
solutions somebody is completely unsatisfied. I believe that UN also
realized this and they are trying to find the middle path (what the
proposed solution essentially is -- Serbs are in two provinces, but
provinces have a lot of power; at the same time the provinces are
trying to fulfill the ethnic principle). The problem is if no side
will be willing to compromise (or actually if one side will not be
willing). What to do then?

All the best,

Andrej
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU