From: jovanovic-nick@cs.yale.edu (Nick Jovanovic)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.bosna-herzgvna,soc.culture.yugoslavia
Subject: Re: Clinton's Policy Toward Bosnia & Herzegovina?
Date: 21 Jan 1993 10:48:53 -0500
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven, CT 06520-2158
NNTP-Posting-Host: zoo-gw.cs.yale.edu

In article <C16898.wt@world.std.com> sharon@world.std.com (Sharon M Gartenberg) writes:
>What will President Clinton's policy be toward the nightmare in Bosnia-
>Herzegovina?
> 
[Clinton's speech deleted]
>    
>This statement appears to be laying the moral case before the
>American people that the U.S. cannot afford isolationism; that,
>despite domestic problems, America must take a leadership role when
>the ``will and conscience of the international community is defied''--
>which is certainly the case in Bosnia-Herzegovina, by the U.S.
>State Department's (under Bush) own reports.
>
Yes, five members of the security council (including the U.S.) just gave a
stern warning to Croatia, in light of the U.N. data which shows that 
Croatian planes are violating the no-fly zone more often than Serbian planes.
Croatia was told that if the U.N. orders an enforcement action in support
of the no-fly zone Croatian planes would be targeted along with Serbian
planes.  

Perhaps a continuation of a more even-handed diplomacy by the U.N. and the
West (with the above as an example) will bring this war to an end sooner
than armed intervention.  Remember, 1.4 million Serbs in Bosnia are not
an invading force---they live there, it's their country too!  On the other
hand, if a U.N. or U.S. led force conducts military strikes, they WILL be
an invading force.  

Perhaps the best start Clinton could make would be to call for sanctions
against Croatia for defying the international community by:
1) flagrantly violating the no-fly zone for military missions,
2) flagrantly violating the arms embargo,
3) sending Croatian troops (from Croatia) to Bosnia-Hercegovina to fight
   against indigenous Serb and Muslim forces, and in alliance with indigenous
   Croatian forces from within Bosnia-Hercegovina,
4) supporting the independence of Herceg-Bosna, the self-declared 
   autonomous Croatian state within the Bosnia-Hercegovinian state, with
   future annexation to Croatia understood, thereby creating a 
   Greater Croatia,
5) human rights violations against minorities, including ethnic cleansing
   inside Croatia even before the war in ex-Yugoslavia began,
6) human rights violations and war crimes in Bosnia-Hercegovina,
7) openly planning for future war to regain parts of Croatian Republic
   which did not join secessionist Croatian state, including public
   statements confirming this.

Come to think of it, perhaps an even better step would be for Clinton to
withdraw diplomatic recognition of Croatia, Bosnia-Hercegovina, and even
Slovenia, and urge other countries to do the same.  The U.N. could then
send a strong message to ex-Yugoslavia and the rest of the world that the
international community expects secessions to be negotiated, and breakups
to be peaceful.  As long as the protagonists think that they can manipulate
the international community into joining their cause, there is little
reason for any of them to negotiate seriously.  Of course, the 'great powers"
have never encouraged peace in the Balkans, but rather imperial and
economic subjugation of the Balkan people.

-Nick