Kosovo crisis to spill to Bosnia?

What's good for the Kosovo goose is good for the Bosnian gander.

If the K-Albanians are granted the right to self determination and seceed from an international recognised state, i.e. Serbia then I believe the B-Serbs and B-Croats also be given the right to leave BiH. If the West prevents the B-Serbs from seceeding yet allows K-Albanians to leave Serbia then all this charade will be shown for what it really is: Double standards and Hypocrisy

That is how it is supposed to be after all. No one should be surprised by this “newest” mood among Serbs in Republika Srpska. There is no not a one good and valid argument that could allow one side to secede and withhold the same right to another side. There will be more regions in Europe with exactely the sam wish.

I thought only the BiH federal government can decide over recognising Kosovo, not the RS entity?

What we're seeing in Bosnia is the combined effect of two ills: the Dayton peace treaty and the West's support for Kosovo independence. Neither is just, and neither was in line with international law. The Dayton peace treaty validated ethnic cleansing and the war aims of anti-government rebels. Western support of Kosovo likewise confirms the situation created by the 1998-9 war.

They are both ad hoc solutions that betray a lack of resolve in forcing Balkan politics to conform to international law. All Europe and America ever wanted in the Balkans was peace and stability. That is among other things why James Baker, Hans van Broeck and most countries in the West initially wanted to preserve Yugoslavia as a unitary state. Western politicians all live by Bismarck's dictum that the Balkans isn't worth a Pomeranian grenadier, but that's led to supporting poor solutions that only create stability in the short term.

Dayton was a mistake that mainly benefited Clinton's election campaign. It was a surrender to ethnic cleansing, just like the recent support for Kosovo independence contravenes international law.

How long before we start using this site to say "Good Luck RS on your way"? :)

"The Dayton peace treaty validated ethnic cleansing and the war aims of anti-government rebels. Western support of Kosovo likewise confirms the situation created by the 1998-9 war".

Actually Martin the B.Serbs inhabited over 60% of the land before the war http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_Serb. They were always the greatest land owners of BiH stemming back to the Ottoman occupation, where they were cast to villages and farms based on their religion. Only Muslims were allowed to live in the major cities along with being educated under the Ottoman feudal system.

Bosnia is as good as gone when Kosovo goes. Well done US - here come more problems for Balkans. The Serbs and Croats will take their parts and the so called Bosniaks will have the scraps.

The Serbs and the Croats do not want a Bosnian identity and they certainly do not wish to be governed by descendents of thier former colonial masters the Ottomans. Bosnia was still born and remains a failed state.The Albanians of Kosovo will have a united state with Albania wether Serbs like it or not,you cannot force people into a marriage, people are always happier with thier own kind.

Perhaps Bosnia is a failed state, but only because it's divided in two.

Mindless nationalism is hindering progress. What good has great Serbian or great Croat nationalism ever brought? Bosnia is an economic zone in its own right and has been so for the past five hundred years if not longer. Some Serbs and Croats want to secede.. But why? Really, why? Because their interests will be better protected in Serbia? If they declare independence, no one but Serbia and Russia will recognise them. They will remain in limbo for 15-20 years before the rest of the world recognises them. They will become relegated to second-rate status within Serbia and become that country's economic backyard. And for what good?

Just like the Kosovo Serbs before the war probably had more in common with their Albanian neighbours than with the Serbs in Serbia proper, Bosnian Serbs have an identity and a history distinct from that of Serbia. Perhaps centuries ago, some Raskan prince was able to call parts of today's Bosnia his, but to hark back to that mythical past is to deny the interlude of five, six, seven hundred years of history during which Orthodox, Catholic and Muslim slavs lived side by side.

Bosnia-Hercegovina has a cultural and geographical past and people who deny that are not doing themselves any favours.

Everyone knows BiH is a failed state. RS has to become independent from the rest of BiH. What is the point of being together? Isn't this what Jugoslavija was about? The bosnian muslims are only doing harm to RS - because their economy cannot compare to RS.

Dodik you and Srpska entity are nothing but trouble makers since the 90s murderous rebellion against internationally recognized Bosnia Republic and government. Now you are pretending it is being led by the NGO sector there. Not even the leaders of the student union believe you. They know it is the young that will be in the front lines and canon fader if all hell breaks out in Bosnia again by your doing. By your self serving palsies you are trying to push Bosnia again to the brink of the edge and over the abyss. There have been some calls for protest however, though in the circle of Banja Luka's student population, many are questioning the background of such initiatives.

Leaders of the student union claim that the public calls to students are being made by people "who can in no case be deemed their legitimate representatives." Like the old saying young people don't trust any one over 30 years old ,question their motives. Dodik you are playing with fire again if you miscalculate it will come back on you and Srpska entity. The situation in the Republic of Srpska, RS, is also heating up the only one how is heating it up is you and your politicians.

Alim Al Islam Stated:
“Stop trying to shift the borders to expand and create a Greater Serbia.”

Listen to yourself, so WTH are Albanians trying to achieve? A greater Albania perhaps? No, of course not? Do you really think this will stop at Kosovo? No, Monte, Maca and Northern Greece will all be potential areas of secessionism. The Albania’s claim they occupied these lands form past millenniums. Obviously, the Albanians were the custodial authorities of the whole of SE Europe? Give me a break!

I’m sick and tired of these ridiculous statements of hypocrisy. Ok, no greater Serbia suits me fine but if the Albanians secede all bets are off for everyone. Your comments on the Sandzak area are ludicrous. First of all Sandzak enjoys no republican or autonomous provincial status. Your bias and lack of objectivity is obvious. Your comments are based too much on subjective knowledge i.e. what you think you know.

I'm afraid some of you guys are mixing 'grandmothers and frogs'.

The argument is nothing to do with morality. States are not founded for moral reasons - most states were bourne through ethnic cleansing etc.
The argument (or principle applied by western states) is also nothing to do with history, which people are so fond of talking about.

Its even completely irrelevant whether the foundation of such a state is legal or not.

The argument is simply about holding a current majority in a relatively defined cohesive area and refusing to budge from a position of demanding independence.

This is the standard that is applied above all others.

Frankly no western decision makers give a damn whether an area was populated by a majority of whichever group in 1878, ethnic cleansing or international legality. That is completely clear.

Martin Stated: “Serbs control over areas that were formerly dominated by Bosniaks or Croats”

Hmm, interesting? What about the 500 to 600, 000 Serbs from the bosna and Croatia Kraijna regions. Did they get up and leave on their own accord? Everyone from that war suffered. Croats, Serbs, and Muslims. I refuse to use the term Bosniaks. Tito making their religion a nationality in the 70’s was absurd. From the past, before conversion to Islam they were either Croat or Serb. Therefore they should have been known as either Croat or Serbian Muslims, Tito was smart at dividing and conquering so he could hang on to is totalitarian power base. Unfortunately, his past stuff ups have come back to haunt all those of the former Yugoslavia.

“If the K-Albanians are granted the right to self determination and seceed from an international recognised state, i.e. Serbia then I believe the B-Serbs and B-Croats also be given the right to leave BiH. If the West prevents the B-Serbs from seceeding yet allows K-Albanians to leave Serbia then all this charade will be shown for what it really is: Double standards and Hypocrisy”

There is no double standards. First of all, the Kosovo division is really ethnic, while the Bosnian division was about basically religion, as the same way that happens in Lebanon, where everybody speak the same language, but fight each other because religious convictions.

The international standards for the Former Yugoslavia are:

1. Milosevic’s Serbia was the main responsible for the Yugoslav Wars;

2. Most of the killings that occurred in the war were made by Serb-Yugoslav forces, and most of the people killed were Bosnians, Croatians and Albanians;

3. Milosevic (and Croatia’s Tudjman) had no rights to alter the post-World War II borders of the former Yugoslav republics of Croatia and Bosnia;

4. Milosevic had no rights to annul the autonomies of Vojvodina and Kosovo, and to brutally suppress Albanian-Language press and institutions in Kosovo;

5. Orthodox Christianity is in no way morally superior to the Roman Catholic Church or to Sunni Islam, and barbarities like the Vukovar and Srebrenica Massacres and Omarska Concentration Camp cannot in any way be justified for the sake of “protecting fellow Orthodox people”.

That’s the facts.

PS1: To the Secular-Democratic WESTERN World, the claims of Serb nationalists are completely baseless…

PS2: “Actually Martin the B.Serbs inhabited over 60% of the land before the war”

The Bosnian territory of Republika Srpska has NO history, no tradition and no reason of being. It was just accepted by international community because the West erroneously thought Dictator Milosevic could be any kind of peace-maker.

The Bosnian Serbs had and have NO RIGHT to secede Bosnia, since if a referendum would be held on today’s territory occupied by RS with the original population (40% non-Serb), independence WOULD NOT PASS, since 15% of the Bosnian Serbs SUPPORTED the independence of Bosnia from Yugoslavia in 1992:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,975106,00.html

So, to give independence to Bosnian territory of RS is to reward the monstrous crimes committed by Zeljko Arkan Raznatovic, Ratko Mladic, Radovan Karadzic et caterva.

Why do you think the Greeks are in such a panic with the name issue with Macedonia?
Maybe one day the Macedonians in Northern Greece where they are majority will also hold a referendum, maybe the Macedonians in Pirin region in Bulgaria as well.
After this debacle in Kosovo..the Serbs in Bosnia(Republika Srpska) would be foolish not to proclaim independence and eventual join Serbia..just like Kosovo will with Albania.
Everyone buy your tickets for the Balkan circus express..where all indications point to new wars.

If it is to do with the principle of the matter then Republika Srpska has a right to self determination and independence if people decide that way in a referendum.

Personally speaking I would rather Kosovo Albanians and Serbs come to some kind of compromise and that Bosnia remains whole. But if the principles are being changed then the Republika Srpska citizens also have the right to choose.

This is, as they say in English, a 'tin of worms'.

But I would warn Serbs that would like to have both Republika Srpska and to retain Kosovo that this position is not principled either.

Cherif Bassiouni is a Muslim with a Muslim bias and a liar. His quotes were before the researchers found that the Muslims greatly exaggerated their death toll - they were found counting the same people twice or more and counting fallen soldiers as civilians. His quote was made when the Muslims claimed that over 200,000 of their civilians had died when the reality is that less than 100,000 from all sides died or or missing (that figure has all the missing built in) and that most of those are soldiers.

In addition the Muslims fought the Croats and they also fought each other (Fikret Abdics).

So the Muslim liar Cherif Bassiouni exaggerates crimes against Muslims and ignore 99.9% of the crimes Muslims and Croats committed against Serbs.

There are photos of identified Serbs mutilated and decapitated by local Muslims - most of these aren't tried by the Hague.

In addition it was the Serbian woman who first mentioned and sent documentation of rape camps to the UN security council in early fall 1992. Before this the Muslims never said anything about this. But suddenly after the UN got 800 documentation testimony of the Serbs, the Muslims and the international community claimed (without any documentation or evidence at that point) their wild accusations of Serb rape camps.

The Bosnian Muslims cleansed and killed Serbs wherever they could and had scores of rape camps and secret prisons in Sarajevo alone.

Declassified files in 1997 said that Muslim paramilitary killed scores of Sarajevo civilian Serbs in the first days of the war.

Some of the most scared and disabled people are witnessed to be Serbs beaten and tortured in Muslim and Croat camps. The Muslims have no scars of torture to back their wild tales.

Ida,
no one is saying that Serbs were not the victims of heinous crimes as well. You don't have to quote declassified reports to back up that point - there was plenty of evidence available for that already during the war.

But citing a number of cases where Serbs were victims and making unfounded assertions that 'the Muslim liar Cherif Bassiouni exaggerates crimes against Muslims and ignore 99.9% of the crimes Muslims and Croats committed against Serbs', doesn't address the point that Serbs committed the v-a-s-t m-a-j-o-r-i-t-y of war crimes during the war. It's also quite logical that they should have. The Serbs possessed virtually the whole of the arsenal of the JNA, while Bosniaks had to make do mostly with hand-held arms. The Bosniaks were pushed into a very small stretch of territory very early on and were surrounded by besieging Serb forces in small pockets of resistance (Sarajevo, Zepa, Tuzla, Srebrenica). The Serbs were able to commit a much larger number of war crimes, because they had the power and equipment to do so.

Also, there is a difference between the violence of paramilitary groups, and the systematic violence conducted on a mass scale by the likes of Mladic and Karadzic. Of course there were cases of Serbs being persecuted and killed by Muslim troops, but this was not done systematically and not as part of a mass campaign. You might think that Izetbegovic and his close associates were dreaming of a 'Muslim Bosnia', but however that may be, that's not an objective he could actively pursue. Why? Because his only source of strength was the goodwill of the West, who most certainly did not want to see an ethnically pure Muslim Bosnia.

The Serbs on the other hand were fighting to consolidate power over territories they regarded as rightfully theirs that had been taken over by the 'Turks'. Thus it was logical that they should resort to ethnic cleansing to achieve that control, and thus you have instances such as the 'purification' of Banja Luka and the massacre in Srebrenica. Did you see similar events in Sarajevo, the very epicentre of 'Muslim' rule? You mention paramilitaries killing scores of Serb civilians. I don't dispute they did, but most Serbs chose to remain in Sarajevo throughout the war. When Dodik recently claimed that 20 000 Serbs had been murdered in the capital he was denounced by a SERB Ngo, which said that that statement was historically ludicrous.

You can quote cases of Serb suffering, and though many Serbs did live through utter horror, the fact remains that the policy of the Bosnian government was chiefly defensive, while the policy of the Bosnian Serbs was mainly aggressive and focused on ethnic cleansing as a means to bring territory under Serbian control. The Serbs' superior weaponry also allowed them to achieve most of their war aims.

Max, I don't dispute that. But the figure of 60% does not mean that the Serbs were in majority across that territory. They were, of course, not.

But the Dayton peace treaty gives Serbs control over areas that were formerly dominated by Bosniaks or Croats. Srebrenica is a prime example. There are many others. The ethnic power sharing you see on a federal level and in the cantonal structure of the federation is entirely absent in Banja Luka, Bjieljina, etc. Bosnia ought to be treated as a single state with three constituent peoples.

But Kosovo independence will feed secessionist ambitions among nationalist Bosnian Serbs.

For no good purpose at all.

I don't get why people think the Balkans will continue to be a hornets nest of territorial claims for all eternity. Other parts of Europe have managed to get over such senseless aspirations. Look at Hungary and the huge Hungarian minorities outside its borders for instance (Slovakia, Vojvodina, Croatia, Transylvania). No one serious is advocating territorial revisions in these areas. All recognise there are better ways to protect Hungarian heritage and rights, and all recognise the vast importance of the EU for doing this. Some eighty-year old WWII-vets in Hungary might dream of restoring Transylvania to its 'motherland', but most are content to support the extension of Hungarian minority rights and the awarding of the Szekelyföld of certain privileges. The drawing and re-drawing of lines on a map will matter increasingly less in a Europe dominated by the European Union. And I hope that will eventually apply also to the Balkans.

Kosova won't get its independence because Russia is a permanent member of the Security Council which votes on this matter. Putin has already stated that they will veto any vote for full independence. Serbia has stated they are ready to give them further autonomy but never independence. To all the Serbs and possibly Croats who are saying if Kosova breaks away they will do the same in Bosnia...may I remind the Serbs, that Sandzak is majority Bosniak. We will be asking for that little piece of pie then too. As for the Croats, do you want to tempt the Croatian Serbs into rebellion? Let's not play with fire people, you will get burned. Stop trying to shift the borders to expand and create a Greater Serbia. You have a lot more to lose than gain, believe me. Kosova is the least of your problems. Vojvodina can also choose to break away, and as you know the Hungarian ultra nationalists are on the rise. So come on Serbia, do you really want to push your neighbors buttons? Think about the consequences.

If this is not logical, I do not get what would be?!

“ If any of the countries of the former Yugoslavia recognize Kosovo, the organization will ask for the 52 authorities passed over the the level of Bosnia-Herzegovina be given back to the Republic of Srpska.”

Sorry, but Srpska doesn’t have this power. It can’t do anything above Miroslav Lajcak nor anything above the Sarajevo central government.

Plus: In Kosovo War, most of the people killed were Albanians, and most of the killings were carried by Serb official and para-official forces. In Bosnian War, most of the people killed were Bosnian Muslims, and most of the killings were carried by Serb official and para-official forces. That’s why Kosovo deserves independence, while the Bosnian region of Republika Srpska not.

“ Dodik said that if Kosovo is granted independence, there will be room made for similar political ideas and does not see SPONA's demands as surprising.”

“ Leaders of the student union claim that the public calls to students are being made by people ‘who can in no case be deemed their legitimate representatives.’”

The students of Banja Luka, as the same way that the students of Belgrade, are wise. They don’t buy the talk of these “front organizations” backed by people who don’t want to admit that Serbian Ditactor Slobodan Milosevic was wrong, and lost the war.

The Serbs in Krajina can have their area back too. Croatia should have to pay for evicting civilians and the EU should support an independent Krajina. Kosovo is an example of where the population left the area and returned to get a country, so why not Krajina?

This Kosovo precedent is so strong that I think that Croatia should not be allowed to enter the EU until this matter is satisfactorily settled.

serbs occupied 60% of bosnia?

When austria/hugnary annexed bosnia in 1878, bosniaks owned 90% of the land and had over 700 begs. There were some special reforms that were introduced not to the christians but exclusively to the bosniaks; of course vojvodina and dalmacija and other regions where christians lived were not touched.

When their handy work was done, out of 700 begs...only 23 remained. Of course these special reforms were not only implemented to the Beg class, the peasants were slaughter also. In 1918 the kingdom of serbs/croats/slovens continued this legacy.

This was a systematic campaign of robbery, no muslim was ever reimbursed but instead herds of serbs would be sent from Serbia to take over the land – of course this caused 30% of the bosniak population to emigrate to turkey.

Despite this HUGE injustice of robbing everyone for their land and not reimbursing them, Bosniaks and croats together occupied more than 60% of the land in bosnia b4 the 92-94 war broke out so i fail to see how the serbs occupied 60% of the territory....unless you're talking about wishful thinking.

"I have seen first hand what the serbs did so when you claim that the Bosnians had all of these camps in Sarajevo when the whole place was surrounded by Serbs and bombed daily."

Sarajevo had most fighting on the front lines which ran through the city near the Holiday Inn. The Bosnian Muslims shelled the Serb sections/suburbs and the Serbs responded back. The Muslims controlled key high ground in Sarajevo and the UN was given control of the airport by the withdrawing Yugoslav army in June 1992. Mount Igman was controlled by the Muslim army.

There were not daily bombings and at times even long lulls in the fightings. The UN officers have testified that the Muslims were often the first the start up the mortaring at 6:00a.m. in the morning.

Many parts of Sarajevo were not damaged and away from the front lines, and the foreign journalists and UN soldiers good their daily meals and fuel for their cars. There was constant flights in and out of the airport and Sarajevo Muslim politicians were often traveling outside Bosnia to promote their propaganda.

Sarajevo wasn't near as damaged as Mostar which received far less media. Mostar was a war between the Muslims and Croats and the Muslim half was thoroughly devastated.

A visitor to Sarajevo during the war noted the heavy traffic on the Muslim controlled part of Sarajevo, while the Serb part had very few.

The Serbs were under sanctions while the Muslims were really lavished with aid.

And yes they did have rape camps and brothels of Serb women in basements of apartment complexes, in homes the Muslim army or paramilitary used, in basements of restaurants, in schools, etc.

The Serbian women's documentation is of better quality and not of the propagandistic style.

Most recent is the Bosnian Muslim director's film of a fictional woman and her child of rape. The Bosnian Muslim director was not raped herself, nor were any of her relatives, friends, neighbors and she lived in Sarajevo during the entire war.

This director looks well-fed and managed to live the entire war unscathed.

If there were a real case, she wouldn't have had to totally concoct a story. And she did actually try to find such a case but she failed.

'From the past, before conversion to Islam they were either Croat or Serb. Therefore they should have been known as either Croat or Serbian Muslims'

Your anthropological discussion is interesting, but beside the point. How many Bosniaks today would admit to being 'really Serb' or 'really Croat'? What does it matter if three hundred years ago, the great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather of a modern-day Bosniak converted from Orthodoxy to Islam? Go back another fifteen generations and you might find that the same family line converted to Orthodoxy from the 'heretical' Bosnian Church.

Such talk of the 'real identity' of the Bosniaks today isn't really helping things to move forward. The people in Bosnia should have the right to call themselves whatever they want. We're talking about whether Republika Srpska, which is clearly based on the ethnic cleansing committed during the war, should have the right to secede. We can't bring Krajina into this. Krajina was a heinous crime, but it was not committed by Bosniaks/Muslims.

You might say, Max, that all the parties in the Bosnian war were equally guilty but that's simply not true. If anything, that betrays your own prejudices and lack of objectivity. Just to quote someone who has studied the perpetration of crimes during the war and who can probably claim greater impartiality than people discussing in this forum:

'In an exhaustive report to the United Nations, a special Commission of Experts, chaired by Cherif Bassiouni of DePaul University in Chicago, concluded that globally 90 percent of the crimes committed in Bosnia-Herzegovina were the responsibility of Serb extremists, 6 percent by Croat extremists, and 4 percent by Muslim extremists.'

So, in light of this, do you still think that the RS has a legitimate claim to independence? If you agree that the war was bad and that the Krajina Serbs must get the right to return home, then surely it would be inconsistent to accept the ethnic cleansing of the RS territory? Shouldn't population which constituted forty per cent of the pre-war population living in that area also be allowed to return home before there can be a referendum on independence? I know they can't, because unlike the Krajina Serbs most of them are dead, but it's always interesting to speculate in theory.

Ida
well i see that your opinion is also maybe coming from someone who sees just one side of the equation. I have seen first hand what the serbs did so when you claim that the Bosnians had all of these camps in Sarajevo when the whole place was surrounded by Serbs and bombed daily. Your views are really tainted if you believer that your precious Serbs did not commit crimes maybe the reason that the women could not report to the UN was for the simple fact that while they were claiming to be raped other women did not have time to go report it because of the fact they were in camps where actual rapes occured.

Sorry, I forgot to attach the link to that quote:

http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/bosnia.html

If you are born in New York, California, or Nebraska, you are considered American. It is no different for Serbs in Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo, etc. To deny them a right to live together while creating a pure Albanian and Craotian state is immoral. Bosnia, when it was not under Ottoman rule, had more in common with Serbs in neighboring nations as did the Croatians. Asking them to give up their identity for the sake of a million and a half muslims whose forefathers had a history of killing, raping, and showing favoritism to those who would deny their faith and change their names for financial gain is absolutely insane! Ask a Bosnian Muslim if they believe the Turks should grant independence to the Kurds, apologize for the millions of Aremenians they slaughtered, and give back Constantanople. Every last one of them will stand up for the Turks.

I thought only the BiH federal government can decide over recognising Kosovo, not the RS entity?

What we're seeing in Bosnia is the combined effect of two ills: the Dayton peace treaty and the West's support for Kosovo independence. Neither is just, and neither was in line with international law. The Dayton peace treaty validated ethnic cleansing and the war aims of anti-government rebels. Western support of Kosovo likewise confirms the situation created by the 1998-9 war.

They are both ad hoc solutions that betray a lack of resolve in forcing Balkan politics to conform to international law. All Europe and America ever wanted in the Balkans was peace and stability. That is among other things why James Baker, Hans van Broeck and most countries in the West initially wanted to preserve Yugoslavia as a unitary state. Western politicians all live by Bismarck's dictum that the Balkans isn't worth a Pomeranian grenadier, but that's led to supporting poor solutions that only create stability in the short term.

Dayton was a mistake that mainly benefited Clinton's election campaign. It was a surrender to ethnic cleansing, just like the recent support for Kosovo independence contravenes international law.

Dodik you and Srpska entity are nothing but trouble makers since the 90s murderous rebellion against internationally recognized Bosnia Republic and government. Now you are pretending it is being led by the NGO sector there. Not even the leaders of the student union believe you. They know it is the young that will be in the front lines and canon fader if all hell breaks out in Bosnia again by your doing. By your self serving palsies you are trying to push Bosnia again to the brink of the edge and over the abyss. There have been some calls for protest however, though in the circle of Banja Luka's student population, many are questioning the background of such initiatives.

Leaders of the student union claim that the public calls to students are being made by people "who can in no case be deemed their legitimate representatives." Like the old saying young people don't trust any one over 30 years old ,question their motives. Dodik you are playing with fire again if you miscalculate it will come back on you and Srpska entity. The situation in the Republic of Srpska, RS, is also heating up the only one how is heating it up is you and your politicians.

Everyone knows BiH is a failed state. RS has to become independent from the rest of BiH. What is the point of being together? Isn't this what Jugoslavija was about? The bosnian muslims are only doing harm to RS - because their economy cannot compare to RS.

Kosova won't get its independence because Russia is a permanent member of the Security Council which votes on this matter. Putin has already stated that they will veto any vote for full independence. Serbia has stated they are ready to give them further autonomy but never independence. To all the Serbs and possibly Croats who are saying if Kosova breaks away they will do the same in Bosnia...may I remind the Serbs, that Sandzak is majority Bosniak. We will be asking for that little piece of pie then too. As for the Croats, do you want to tempt the Croatian Serbs into rebellion? Let's not play with fire people, you will get burned. Stop trying to shift the borders to expand and create a Greater Serbia. You have a lot more to lose than gain, believe me. Kosova is the least of your problems. Vojvodina can also choose to break away, and as you know the Hungarian ultra nationalists are on the rise. So come on Serbia, do you really want to push your neighbors buttons? Think about the consequences.

“ If any of the countries of the former Yugoslavia recognize Kosovo, the organization will ask for the 52 authorities passed over the the level of Bosnia-Herzegovina be given back to the Republic of Srpska.”

Sorry, but Srpska doesn’t have this power. It can’t do anything above Miroslav Lajcak nor anything above the Sarajevo central government.

Plus: In Kosovo War, most of the people killed were Albanians, and most of the killings were carried by Serb official and para-official forces. In Bosnian War, most of the people killed were Bosnian Muslims, and most of the killings were carried by Serb official and para-official forces. That’s why Kosovo deserves independence, while the Bosnian region of Republika Srpska not.

“ Dodik said that if Kosovo is granted independence, there will be room made for similar political ideas and does not see SPONA's demands as surprising.”

“ Leaders of the student union claim that the public calls to students are being made by people ‘who can in no case be deemed their legitimate representatives.’”

The students of Banja Luka, as the same way that the students of Belgrade, are wise. They don’t buy the talk of these “front organizations” backed by people who don’t want to admit that Serbian Ditactor Slobodan Milosevic was wrong, and lost the war.

“If the K-Albanians are granted the right to self determination and seceed from an international recognised state, i.e. Serbia then I believe the B-Serbs and B-Croats also be given the right to leave BiH. If the West prevents the B-Serbs from seceeding yet allows K-Albanians to leave Serbia then all this charade will be shown for what it really is: Double standards and Hypocrisy”

There is no double standards. First of all, the Kosovo division is really ethnic, while the Bosnian division was about basically religion, as the same way that happens in Lebanon, where everybody speak the same language, but fight each other because religious convictions.

The international standards for the Former Yugoslavia are:

1. Milosevic’s Serbia was the main responsible for the Yugoslav Wars;

2. Most of the killings that occurred in the war were made by Serb-Yugoslav forces, and most of the people killed were Bosnians, Croatians and Albanians;

3. Milosevic (and Croatia’s Tudjman) had no rights to alter the post-World War II borders of the former Yugoslav republics of Croatia and Bosnia;

4. Milosevic had no rights to annul the autonomies of Vojvodina and Kosovo, and to brutally suppress Albanian-Language press and institutions in Kosovo;

5. Orthodox Christianity is in no way morally superior to the Roman Catholic Church or to Sunni Islam, and barbarities like the Vukovar and Srebrenica Massacres and Omarska Concentration Camp cannot in any way be justified for the sake of “protecting fellow Orthodox people”.

That’s the facts.

PS1: To the Secular-Democratic WESTERN World, the claims of Serb nationalists are completely baseless…

PS2: “Actually Martin the B.Serbs inhabited over 60% of the land before the war”

The Bosnian territory of Republika Srpska has NO history, no tradition and no reason of being. It was just accepted by international community because the West erroneously thought Dictator Milosevic could be any kind of peace-maker.

The Bosnian Serbs had and have NO RIGHT to secede Bosnia, since if a referendum would be held on today’s territory occupied by RS with the original population (40% non-Serb), independence WOULD NOT PASS, since 15% of the Bosnian Serbs SUPPORTED the independence of Bosnia from Yugoslavia in 1992:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,975106,00.html

So, to give independence to Bosnian territory of RS is to reward the monstrous crimes committed by Zeljko Arkan Raznatovic, Ratko Mladic, Radovan Karadzic et caterva.

The Serbs and the Croats do not want a Bosnian identity and they certainly do not wish to be governed by descendents of thier former colonial masters the Ottomans. Bosnia was still born and remains a failed state.The Albanians of Kosovo will have a united state with Albania wether Serbs like it or not,you cannot force people into a marriage, people are always happier with thier own kind.

Perhaps Bosnia is a failed state, but only because it's divided in two.

Mindless nationalism is hindering progress. What good has great Serbian or great Croat nationalism ever brought? Bosnia is an economic zone in its own right and has been so for the past five hundred years if not longer. Some Serbs and Croats want to secede.. But why? Really, why? Because their interests will be better protected in Serbia? If they declare independence, no one but Serbia and Russia will recognise them. They will remain in limbo for 15-20 years before the rest of the world recognises them. They will become relegated to second-rate status within Serbia and become that country's economic backyard. And for what good?

Just like the Kosovo Serbs before the war probably had more in common with their Albanian neighbours than with the Serbs in Serbia proper, Bosnian Serbs have an identity and a history distinct from that of Serbia. Perhaps centuries ago, some Raskan prince was able to call parts of today's Bosnia his, but to hark back to that mythical past is to deny the interlude of five, six, seven hundred years of history during which Orthodox, Catholic and Muslim slavs lived side by side.

Bosnia-Hercegovina has a cultural and geographical past and people who deny that are not doing themselves any favours.

serbs occupied 60% of bosnia?

When austria/hugnary annexed bosnia in 1878, bosniaks owned 90% of the land and had over 700 begs. There were some special reforms that were introduced not to the christians but exclusively to the bosniaks; of course vojvodina and dalmacija and other regions where christians lived were not touched.

When their handy work was done, out of 700 begs...only 23 remained. Of course these special reforms were not only implemented to the Beg class, the peasants were slaughter also. In 1918 the kingdom of serbs/croats/slovens continued this legacy.

This was a systematic campaign of robbery, no muslim was ever reimbursed but instead herds of serbs would be sent from Serbia to take over the land – of course this caused 30% of the bosniak population to emigrate to turkey.

Despite this HUGE injustice of robbing everyone for their land and not reimbursing them, Bosniaks and croats together occupied more than 60% of the land in bosnia b4 the 92-94 war broke out so i fail to see how the serbs occupied 60% of the territory....unless you're talking about wishful thinking.

'From the past, before conversion to Islam they were either Croat or Serb. Therefore they should have been known as either Croat or Serbian Muslims'

Your anthropological discussion is interesting, but beside the point. How many Bosniaks today would admit to being 'really Serb' or 'really Croat'? What does it matter if three hundred years ago, the great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather of a modern-day Bosniak converted from Orthodoxy to Islam? Go back another fifteen generations and you might find that the same family line converted to Orthodoxy from the 'heretical' Bosnian Church.

Such talk of the 'real identity' of the Bosniaks today isn't really helping things to move forward. The people in Bosnia should have the right to call themselves whatever they want. We're talking about whether Republika Srpska, which is clearly based on the ethnic cleansing committed during the war, should have the right to secede. We can't bring Krajina into this. Krajina was a heinous crime, but it was not committed by Bosniaks/Muslims.

You might say, Max, that all the parties in the Bosnian war were equally guilty but that's simply not true. If anything, that betrays your own prejudices and lack of objectivity. Just to quote someone who has studied the perpetration of crimes during the war and who can probably claim greater impartiality than people discussing in this forum:

'In an exhaustive report to the United Nations, a special Commission of Experts, chaired by Cherif Bassiouni of DePaul University in Chicago, concluded that globally 90 percent of the crimes committed in Bosnia-Herzegovina were the responsibility of Serb extremists, 6 percent by Croat extremists, and 4 percent by Muslim extremists.'

So, in light of this, do you still think that the RS has a legitimate claim to independence? If you agree that the war was bad and that the Krajina Serbs must get the right to return home, then surely it would be inconsistent to accept the ethnic cleansing of the RS territory? Shouldn't population which constituted forty per cent of the pre-war population living in that area also be allowed to return home before there can be a referendum on independence? I know they can't, because unlike the Krajina Serbs most of them are dead, but it's always interesting to speculate in theory.

Sorry, I forgot to attach the link to that quote:

http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/bosnia.html

What's good for the Kosovo goose is good for the Bosnian gander.

If the K-Albanians are granted the right to self determination and seceed from an international recognised state, i.e. Serbia then I believe the B-Serbs and B-Croats also be given the right to leave BiH. If the West prevents the B-Serbs from seceeding yet allows K-Albanians to leave Serbia then all this charade will be shown for what it really is: Double standards and Hypocrisy

That is how it is supposed to be after all. No one should be surprised by this “newest” mood among Serbs in Republika Srpska. There is no not a one good and valid argument that could allow one side to secede and withhold the same right to another side. There will be more regions in Europe with exactely the sam wish.

If it is to do with the principle of the matter then Republika Srpska has a right to self determination and independence if people decide that way in a referendum.

Personally speaking I would rather Kosovo Albanians and Serbs come to some kind of compromise and that Bosnia remains whole. But if the principles are being changed then the Republika Srpska citizens also have the right to choose.

This is, as they say in English, a 'tin of worms'.

But I would warn Serbs that would like to have both Republika Srpska and to retain Kosovo that this position is not principled either.

"The Dayton peace treaty validated ethnic cleansing and the war aims of anti-government rebels. Western support of Kosovo likewise confirms the situation created by the 1998-9 war".

Actually Martin the B.Serbs inhabited over 60% of the land before the war http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_Serb. They were always the greatest land owners of BiH stemming back to the Ottoman occupation, where they were cast to villages and farms based on their religion. Only Muslims were allowed to live in the major cities along with being educated under the Ottoman feudal system.

Bosnia is as good as gone when Kosovo goes. Well done US - here come more problems for Balkans. The Serbs and Croats will take their parts and the so called Bosniaks will have the scraps.

Max, I don't dispute that. But the figure of 60% does not mean that the Serbs were in majority across that territory. They were, of course, not.

But the Dayton peace treaty gives Serbs control over areas that were formerly dominated by Bosniaks or Croats. Srebrenica is a prime example. There are many others. The ethnic power sharing you see on a federal level and in the cantonal structure of the federation is entirely absent in Banja Luka, Bjieljina, etc. Bosnia ought to be treated as a single state with three constituent peoples.

But Kosovo independence will feed secessionist ambitions among nationalist Bosnian Serbs.

For no good purpose at all.

Martin Stated: “Serbs control over areas that were formerly dominated by Bosniaks or Croats”

Hmm, interesting? What about the 500 to 600, 000 Serbs from the bosna and Croatia Kraijna regions. Did they get up and leave on their own accord? Everyone from that war suffered. Croats, Serbs, and Muslims. I refuse to use the term Bosniaks. Tito making their religion a nationality in the 70’s was absurd. From the past, before conversion to Islam they were either Croat or Serb. Therefore they should have been known as either Croat or Serbian Muslims, Tito was smart at dividing and conquering so he could hang on to is totalitarian power base. Unfortunately, his past stuff ups have come back to haunt all those of the former Yugoslavia.

Ida
well i see that your opinion is also maybe coming from someone who sees just one side of the equation. I have seen first hand what the serbs did so when you claim that the Bosnians had all of these camps in Sarajevo when the whole place was surrounded by Serbs and bombed daily. Your views are really tainted if you believer that your precious Serbs did not commit crimes maybe the reason that the women could not report to the UN was for the simple fact that while they were claiming to be raped other women did not have time to go report it because of the fact they were in camps where actual rapes occured.

Ida,
no one is saying that Serbs were not the victims of heinous crimes as well. You don't have to quote declassified reports to back up that point - there was plenty of evidence available for that already during the war.

But citing a number of cases where Serbs were victims and making unfounded assertions that 'the Muslim liar Cherif Bassiouni exaggerates crimes against Muslims and ignore 99.9% of the crimes Muslims and Croats committed against Serbs', doesn't address the point that Serbs committed the v-a-s-t m-a-j-o-r-i-t-y of war crimes during the war. It's also quite logical that they should have. The Serbs possessed virtually the whole of the arsenal of the JNA, while Bosniaks had to make do mostly with hand-held arms. The Bosniaks were pushed into a very small stretch of territory very early on and were surrounded by besieging Serb forces in small pockets of resistance (Sarajevo, Zepa, Tuzla, Srebrenica). The Serbs were able to commit a much larger number of war crimes, because they had the power and equipment to do so.

Also, there is a difference between the violence of paramilitary groups, and the systematic violence conducted on a mass scale by the likes of Mladic and Karadzic. Of course there were cases of Serbs being persecuted and killed by Muslim troops, but this was not done systematically and not as part of a mass campaign. You might think that Izetbegovic and his close associates were dreaming of a 'Muslim Bosnia', but however that may be, that's not an objective he could actively pursue. Why? Because his only source of strength was the goodwill of the West, who most certainly did not want to see an ethnically pure Muslim Bosnia.

The Serbs on the other hand were fighting to consolidate power over territories they regarded as rightfully theirs that had been taken over by the 'Turks'. Thus it was logical that they should resort to ethnic cleansing to achieve that control, and thus you have instances such as the 'purification' of Banja Luka and the massacre in Srebrenica. Did you see similar events in Sarajevo, the very epicentre of 'Muslim' rule? You mention paramilitaries killing scores of Serb civilians. I don't dispute they did, but most Serbs chose to remain in Sarajevo throughout the war. When Dodik recently claimed that 20 000 Serbs had been murdered in the capital he was denounced by a SERB Ngo, which said that that statement was historically ludicrous.

You can quote cases of Serb suffering, and though many Serbs did live through utter horror, the fact remains that the policy of the Bosnian government was chiefly defensive, while the policy of the Bosnian Serbs was mainly aggressive and focused on ethnic cleansing as a means to bring territory under Serbian control. The Serbs' superior weaponry also allowed them to achieve most of their war aims.

Cherif Bassiouni is a Muslim with a Muslim bias and a liar. His quotes were before the researchers found that the Muslims greatly exaggerated their death toll - they were found counting the same people twice or more and counting fallen soldiers as civilians. His quote was made when the Muslims claimed that over 200,000 of their civilians had died when the reality is that less than 100,000 from all sides died or or missing (that figure has all the missing built in) and that most of those are soldiers.

In addition the Muslims fought the Croats and they also fought each other (Fikret Abdics).

So the Muslim liar Cherif Bassiouni exaggerates crimes against Muslims and ignore 99.9% of the crimes Muslims and Croats committed against Serbs.

There are photos of identified Serbs mutilated and decapitated by local Muslims - most of these aren't tried by the Hague.

In addition it was the Serbian woman who first mentioned and sent documentation of rape camps to the UN security council in early fall 1992. Before this the Muslims never said anything about this. But suddenly after the UN got 800 documentation testimony of the Serbs, the Muslims and the international community claimed (without any documentation or evidence at that point) their wild accusations of Serb rape camps.

The Bosnian Muslims cleansed and killed Serbs wherever they could and had scores of rape camps and secret prisons in Sarajevo alone.

Declassified files in 1997 said that Muslim paramilitary killed scores of Sarajevo civilian Serbs in the first days of the war.

Some of the most scared and disabled people are witnessed to be Serbs beaten and tortured in Muslim and Croat camps. The Muslims have no scars of torture to back their wild tales.

If you are born in New York, California, or Nebraska, you are considered American. It is no different for Serbs in Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo, etc. To deny them a right to live together while creating a pure Albanian and Craotian state is immoral. Bosnia, when it was not under Ottoman rule, had more in common with Serbs in neighboring nations as did the Croatians. Asking them to give up their identity for the sake of a million and a half muslims whose forefathers had a history of killing, raping, and showing favoritism to those who would deny their faith and change their names for financial gain is absolutely insane! Ask a Bosnian Muslim if they believe the Turks should grant independence to the Kurds, apologize for the millions of Aremenians they slaughtered, and give back Constantanople. Every last one of them will stand up for the Turks.

How long before we start using this site to say "Good Luck RS on your way"? :)

If this is not logical, I do not get what would be?!

Why do you think the Greeks are in such a panic with the name issue with Macedonia?
Maybe one day the Macedonians in Northern Greece where they are majority will also hold a referendum, maybe the Macedonians in Pirin region in Bulgaria as well.
After this debacle in Kosovo..the Serbs in Bosnia(Republika Srpska) would be foolish not to proclaim independence and eventual join Serbia..just like Kosovo will with Albania.
Everyone buy your tickets for the Balkan circus express..where all indications point to new wars.

I don't get why people think the Balkans will continue to be a hornets nest of territorial claims for all eternity. Other parts of Europe have managed to get over such senseless aspirations. Look at Hungary and the huge Hungarian minorities outside its borders for instance (Slovakia, Vojvodina, Croatia, Transylvania). No one serious is advocating territorial revisions in these areas. All recognise there are better ways to protect Hungarian heritage and rights, and all recognise the vast importance of the EU for doing this. Some eighty-year old WWII-vets in Hungary might dream of restoring Transylvania to its 'motherland', but most are content to support the extension of Hungarian minority rights and the awarding of the Szekelyföld of certain privileges. The drawing and re-drawing of lines on a map will matter increasingly less in a Europe dominated by the European Union. And I hope that will eventually apply also to the Balkans.

The Serbs in Krajina can have their area back too. Croatia should have to pay for evicting civilians and the EU should support an independent Krajina. Kosovo is an example of where the population left the area and returned to get a country, so why not Krajina?

This Kosovo precedent is so strong that I think that Croatia should not be allowed to enter the EU until this matter is satisfactorily settled.

Alim Al Islam Stated:
“Stop trying to shift the borders to expand and create a Greater Serbia.”

Listen to yourself, so WTH are Albanians trying to achieve? A greater Albania perhaps? No, of course not? Do you really think this will stop at Kosovo? No, Monte, Maca and Northern Greece will all be potential areas of secessionism. The Albania’s claim they occupied these lands form past millenniums. Obviously, the Albanians were the custodial authorities of the whole of SE Europe? Give me a break!

I’m sick and tired of these ridiculous statements of hypocrisy. Ok, no greater Serbia suits me fine but if the Albanians secede all bets are off for everyone. Your comments on the Sandzak area are ludicrous. First of all Sandzak enjoys no republican or autonomous provincial status. Your bias and lack of objectivity is obvious. Your comments are based too much on subjective knowledge i.e. what you think you know.

I'm afraid some of you guys are mixing 'grandmothers and frogs'.

The argument is nothing to do with morality. States are not founded for moral reasons - most states were bourne through ethnic cleansing etc.
The argument (or principle applied by western states) is also nothing to do with history, which people are so fond of talking about.

Its even completely irrelevant whether the foundation of such a state is legal or not.

The argument is simply about holding a current majority in a relatively defined cohesive area and refusing to budge from a position of demanding independence.

This is the standard that is applied above all others.

Frankly no western decision makers give a damn whether an area was populated by a majority of whichever group in 1878, ethnic cleansing or international legality. That is completely clear.

"I have seen first hand what the serbs did so when you claim that the Bosnians had all of these camps in Sarajevo when the whole place was surrounded by Serbs and bombed daily."

Sarajevo had most fighting on the front lines which ran through the city near the Holiday Inn. The Bosnian Muslims shelled the Serb sections/suburbs and the Serbs responded back. The Muslims controlled key high ground in Sarajevo and the UN was given control of the airport by the withdrawing Yugoslav army in June 1992. Mount Igman was controlled by the Muslim army.

There were not daily bombings and at times even long lulls in the fightings. The UN officers have testified that the Muslims were often the first the start up the mortaring at 6:00a.m. in the morning.

Many parts of Sarajevo were not damaged and away from the front lines, and the foreign journalists and UN soldiers good their daily meals and fuel for their cars. There was constant flights in and out of the airport and Sarajevo Muslim politicians were often traveling outside Bosnia to promote their propaganda.

Sarajevo wasn't near as damaged as Mostar which received far less media. Mostar was a war between the Muslims and Croats and the Muslim half was thoroughly devastated.

A visitor to Sarajevo during the war noted the heavy traffic on the Muslim controlled part of Sarajevo, while the Serb part had very few.

The Serbs were under sanctions while the Muslims were really lavished with aid.

And yes they did have rape camps and brothels of Serb women in basements of apartment complexes, in homes the Muslim army or paramilitary used, in basements of restaurants, in schools, etc.

The Serbian women's documentation is of better quality and not of the propagandistic style.

Most recent is the Bosnian Muslim director's film of a fictional woman and her child of rape. The Bosnian Muslim director was not raped herself, nor were any of her relatives, friends, neighbors and she lived in Sarajevo during the entire war.

This director looks well-fed and managed to live the entire war unscathed.

If there were a real case, she wouldn't have had to totally concoct a story. And she did actually try to find such a case but she failed.