From: chinnici@ghost.dsi.unimi.it (Roberto R. Chinnici)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.yugoslavia
Subject: Re: Can Geneva bring peace?
Date: 7 Jan 93 17:35:55 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dep. - Milan University

krizaj@mcclb0.med.nyu.edu writes:

>I think the conference in Genevre is a farce. The venerable diplomats are trying to
>create a, shall we say, "platonic" solution and such a  conference is
>therefore based on wishful thinking .

I agree. The conference is there just to please diplomats. It's only outcome is
going to be a list of "good boys and bad boys", like
		Croats		they accept the project
		Muslims		they ask stronger conditions
		Serbs		they don't accept one single point.
Then it'll justify the UN intervention against Serbs but not very much on
Muslim side.

>First of all, the idea of mixed cantons is problematic, such as might
>occur to somebody strolling across helvetic meadows and not the
>Balkans. The killers and rapers seem to be, as a rule, your next door
>neighbours. If Vance and Owen expect the Bosnians (or "Moslems") to
>"forget and forgive" they display greater ignorance of reality and
>human nature (and not only for this part of the world) than their
> predecessors at Munich and Jalta. 

You're right, and I can't see a way out. People will have to move and leave
their home towns, as sad as it will be.

>I believe Bosnians do not have the least intention to stop. They want
>to regroup, get better armed and they want the Serbs to give up as
>many weapons as possible to the UN. 

They see the day of foreign intervention closer, and other islamic countries
have promised them a lot of weapons and support, I presume, so they'll fight it
to the end. 

>The Serbs want to stop the intervention. They have finally perceived
>things are becoming serious (if threatened earlier, the whole tragedy
>would probably be prevented). They are in defensive, fighting a
>desperate, merciless and increasingly more skilfull opponent; they
>also face guerillas, close-to-civil war at home, and restive
>Albanians, Sandjak.... The demon is out of the bottle and for them in
>the long run this is a no win situation.

I think Serbs are in a very bad situation now, as they risk to undergo NATO
fire and don't have all that support (other than words) from Serbia itself. I
don't thing the conditions of the besiegers are all that better than that of
the besieged, and without support from their Air Force they won't stand a
big counterattack by Muslims/Croats.

>Croats are oppportunistic. They want to ingratiate themselves with the
>West as well as take as much as they can.

Right. It's easy to predict Croatia will be rebuilt with Western money and
Bosnia with arabic (in loose sense) money, but any wall that'll go down in
Serbia will be hardly rebuilt, as I don't think anyone is going to give them
a cent. Thus, IMHO, Serbs are the ultimate losers, which, considering they
started the war, is not all that bad as a lesson for the future. Of course,
a civil war in Serbia would be most destabilizing for the Balkans.

>EEC and UN continue their shockingly incompetent muddle. They have
>tried for months to appease the guys with the most potential to kill
>and the Serbs have played the game as professionals, making promises
>to gain momentum and immediately breaking them. It was so much more
>convenient for Owen to lecture Bosnians on good table manners.

:-)

>I do not believe Serbs will actually give up their weapons, therefore
>the ONLY way to "peace" will be a military defeat of the Serbs. I do
>not believe Bosnian Army wants peace, therefore they have to be
>physically separated from the Serbs.

Who's going to do that? Bosnia is a rough region, and separating anyone would
be really tough, except along the Sava river.

>Paradoxically, then, the only viable solution would be the one proposed by
>the Serbs - a complete ethnic separation (at least between the latter
>et les autres), something like India-Pakistan, or Pakistan-Bangladesh.
>The Serbs should get substantially less land, instead of 70% they
>have, or 50% they demand, they would get, say, 20-25%. Without
>haggling and without blackmailing.

Yes, but Serbs should have proposed that in Geneva, instead of asking 70% of
the land. In the end, they'll hardly get much out of Bosnia, certainly NOT
the Serbia-Kraijna corridor they presently hold. I'd like to know how they
plan to support Kraijna inhabitants after some cease fire, as both Croats and
Bosnians (I don't like to call them Muslims, as there are many others on their
side) won't let a single truck through.

>And peace? I hope I am mistaken, but true peace  will be difficult to
>achieve. In Bosnia today (and tomorrow), peace and military weakness 
>seem to be  a contradiction in terms. (Please note:When I say Serbs, 
>I of course talk about Karadzic
>and his clique(s), same for Croats & Bosnians). 

A cease fire will be more than enough for 1993 to bring us.

>What do you think?

I think we shouldn't allow a single border to be moved. This war is just an
attempt by a dying communist leadership to cement its home support by making
war to some bordering nation. This politics has nothing to do with ethnic
cleansing, that's just the excuse, but it fooled western and eastern observers
for many months. Instead of sitting down and talking of human rights in the 
newly-created states of Croatia and Bosnia, some Serbs, properly trained and
following a written plan, sided by the Federal Army, started to shoot, thus
exploiting the lack of heavy weapons of the other sides. I can't think
every Serb wants this war, and I'd much like to see everyone come back to their
house (not the criminals, of course) in the end, but the bitterness and hatred
this war created will be hard to dissolve.
I'd wish everyone on soc.culture.yugoslavia to stop talking in ethnical terms,
and start speaking of aggressors and victims (on both sides).

>Regards,
>          David

Yours sincerely,
		Roberto