"Change of borders would contribute to lasting peace"

Adem, I agree, there's no need to have those internal borders of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Instead, it would be better to divide up that sad bad dream of a quasi-country.

@adem
Let's also remove the borders of Albania! I think MNE/MK/GR want some piece of it!
Oh and Kosovo just stays inside Serbia's borders!

"The idea that such positions are carved in stone is absurd, just as is insistence that a country with unsolved territorial issues cannot join the EU."


You are right sir, but very few things are ever carved in stone in the Balkans anyway including most of the irrational positions held by your precious EU that is falling apart itself.

;)

Lenard, that is not true because rivers always move! Go back to school and learn your physical geography. Water sheds are a far better way. As for Drina, that divides serbia in half, no way in hell is that the border of the serb lands. Cheers!

Adem, I agree, there's no need to have those internal borders of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Instead, it would be better to divide up that sad bad dream of a quasi-country.
(Lazar, 24 October 2012 23:16) A good border is Drina River between Bosnia and Serbia. Good fast rivers make for good neighbours so no problem their since it is the border between Bosnia and Serbia some one should tell delusional Dodik.

Man is correct.
End of Republika Serbska* borders is necessary for a peace.
And a end of Hungary-Vojvodina border is also a good idea.
Is necessary for all Balkans to support Hungary leader Orban.

Twenty years too late Mr. Roberts. A golden opportunity presented itself in 1991 as YU was falling apart to address this but the West's own interpretation of the Yugoslav Constitution while giving the Serbs absolutely nothing at every turn prevented any chance of a final agreement and ensured that needless bloodshed would occur. Its a classic case of shutting the barn door while the horse has long since bolted.

Remind us what happened the last time the Western imperialists attempted to change the borders in the Balkans. That didn't work out now did it. So now you propose to do some more tinkering which will only exacerbate things even further.

old Bismarck was right all those moons ago, those Pomeranian grenadiers would be better served elsewhere.

Fail again.

Miles, those are some really creepy drugs that you are on if you think that Vojvodina, Slavonia, or Dalmatia are going to be independent. I mean, hey, think before you write... just an example: the Hungarians in vojvodina are less than 15% of the population. From where is there going to be support for independence then?

Adem, Maghiars came from Asia and you could remove the mongols borders to be a bigger China... as for this Sir: Dear sir, Great Britain may become history when Scotland will break away. I hope he has some good arguments.

A change of existing boarders is a simple and easy way to solve Kosovo's dilemma eh, Mr Roberts.
To enter Kosovo, settle by the tens of thousands and say 'we're now the majority...let's claim Kosovo as our own' is NOT ACCEPTENCE for changing boarders.
If ethnic citizens don't like living in Serbia then, by all means, move back to where they originated.
Living in Serbia permenately means one is SERBIAN, otherwise a TOURIST.
And yes...food for thought about Bosnia and Herzegovina boarder change.

Britain's three territorial disputes:

1: With Spain over Gibraltar
2: With Argentina over the Falklands/Malvinas
3: With Ireland over Northern Ireland

At last sombody with some common sence ,this is the attitude people should taken in the first place ,then peraps would been no wars and we probebly be in the EU ,in the end people have to talk to resolve there problems.

"A good border is Drina River between Bosnia and Serbia. Good fast rivers make for good neighbours so no problem their since it is the border between Bosnia and Serbia some one should tell delusional Dodik.
(Lenard, 24 October 2012 23:36)"
Is quite correct border. Serbs who live OK in a multiculture Bosnia can stay, ones with blood hands can go to other side of Drina.
Fat man in Banja Luka can be Pasha of small castle and 3 farms.

@slavisa golubovic,

Although this guy is giving his personal opinion,I thing serbs are the last people on Earth to talk about peace.

They had several golden oportunities during 1990s to promote peace and what did they choose rejection of peace plans and war.
They were in charge of YU in 1990s.
Did they allow Slovenia to go peacefully?NO,they did everything to keep Slovenia under YU/Serbia.
Did they allow Croatia to go peacefully.NO.They rejected serveral attempts to solve peacefully(bombed Dubrovnik and other parts of Croatia) the position of serbs in Croatia and it was resolved by croats during Storm.
Did serbs allow Bosnia to go peacefully?NO.

Did serbs negotiated with albanians to solve Kosovo issue peacefully?NO.
They ignore Rugova and humiliated him every time they got a chance.They could have sign a partition deal then and I am sure albanians will accepted.

Its worth mentioning that all above countries Slovenia,Croatia,Bosnia and Kosovo have organised referendums where they voted PRO independence.
What did YU/Serbia.Ignore the will of people and started wars.

It looks they still want war,when listen Nikolic about Kosovo,offering albanians the status of germans in Belgum!!!
You guys had the key of peace in Balkans,yet you decided to go to war.After 4 losing wars you still continue to blame everyone but yourselves.

Yes if the borders will redefine in Balkans Serbia and Albania will be the winners,but I dont think this is going to be a peacefully redefinition.

If Serbia wants to talk borders with Albania thats fine, but we have to go back 50+ years when Albanian borders reached Bosnia and start from there.

Its for sure that the Albaians and Muslims in BiH will change some borders. This will happen in the future

Obviously this is a most complicated issue but an interesting one. In my humble opinion a negotiated controlled border change in Kosovo (non-rigid territorial swap) and Bosnia (R.S. joining Serbia, an independent Bosnia and parts going to Croatia)would benefit peace but would most certainly count as a loss for the reputation of EU and US (remember past positions and how they changed). They are throwing their weight absurdly against it fearing repercussions which are not likely to happen, although they will inevitably be seen as incoherent (not that they aren't).

If however EU and US hold their positions then Serbia is the one who loses more from the current situation and Western Balkans peoples well-being. Albanians on the other hand have lost (due to their incapability and desire of their politicians to be big fish in small ponds rather than the contrary) in the sense that no matter the circumstances they will be impeded by EU and US to join in a state (read Albania and Kosovo not other parts as that is impossible nor desirable). I am not counting Macedonia because they have a real chance of prosperity once their name is solved and its politics moves away from nationalism. Despite Alb nationalists rhetoric or unfounded fear by Macedonians and/or others they will not get independence or join Albania unless Macedonians want it.

P.S. I am quite familiar with the issues and realistic and i don't mean to offend anyone with my opinions nor does this exhaust probabilities.

Hey Mirel, let me educate you. You will need this for your life, as you clearly either have a severe lack of knowledge or are mentally handicapped.

1) Nobody tried to keep Slovenia in Yugoslavia. The only reason why there was any fighting was because Slovenians attacked Yugoslav forces that were withdrawing from Slovenia. Troops that were sent to Slovenia were sent by Croat authorities, and they were sent without ammunition, to be killed.
2) In Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina there were already Serbs there. Naturally they are not fond of being in a state led by ex Nazis. Basically that's what Croatia was in the 1990s. Look into who formed the HDZ. Here's a tip, look into their union of iseljnika/expatriates, aka former Ustashe. For B-H, we did not want to be ruled by a radical islamist thug. These are fine things indeed.
3) All secession is illegal if all sides do not agree, because the borders were designed with the idea in mind that there will be no break up of the country.
4) We offered peace to the Albanians, we offered widespread autonomy under UN observation. NATO rejected that, and Albanians are obviously a colony of NATO so they had no guts nor brains to think for themselves.
5) We lost only one war, the one in Croatia. If we tried to win it, we would have been bombed to no end.
6) Let us know if you need more education. I'll be happy to help you. Don't trust some rather disturbed people though, as there are some such folks here.

(Curiosityxhasxlanded, 25 October 2012 13:49)

Interesting read, a question I have for you is how does a Gov't in the West change it's policy when so many other factors (more important) depend on their current stance. UK financial institutions would be essentially rocked when Saudi Arabia decides to pull the plug on their investments there. There are other mitigating factors but this is the first and most obvious one that comes to mind.

This is why after retirement many speak out about policies that are doomed to fail but before they need tow the line or will be replaced.

@Change

Your question is most welcomed however i am afraid is quite broad. A policy change is indeed as you say connected to other factors (at times more important) be they domestic or foreign and it depends on the specific country. But that is always the case and yet change is always present, good or bad. Usually it comes either from a change of circumstances or from bold politicians but mostly from a differentiation of interests. When positive outcomes for the ones concerned outweighs the costs than there is a change of course.

When Harold Macmillan(former UK prime minister) was asked by a journalists: what is most likely to blow governments off course? He answered: Events, dear boy, events.

I apologize if i am not explicit but i would need a specific policy to analyse(that i am capable of that is). When i give my opinions here i take the most factors possible that i have knowledge of and then i decide on the best outcome possible or probable even though it is impossible to state every and each one of the reasons.

Well now let me see... why don't we go all the way and see who benefits... Serbia loses most of Kosovo, some southern areas of Serbia populated by Albanians, and the Sandzak, Vojvodina becomes independent. What does she get...half of Bosnia, one third of Croatia (Krajina), half of Montenegro and an outlet to the sea, oh and a piece of Macedonia. Oh and Slavonia becomes independent...as does Dalmatia.

Croatia, Bosnia, Montenegro and Macedonia are broken and the Serbs and Albanians benefit.

Tempting?

Lots of words from Mirel, but no content. What there is is wrong. Employee of Apple and sufferer of their reality distortion field?

Living in Serbia permenately means one is SERBIAN, otherwise a TOURIST.
And yes...food for thought about Bosnia and Herzegovina boarder change.
(WestSwan, 25 October 2012 04:54)

So according to your comment, if a Serb lives permanently in Croatia, he/she is a CROATIAN, otherwise a TOURIST?

@ Innit, but Uk has in all questions clear positions and principles

... We offered peace to the Albanians, we offered widespread autonomy under UN observation. NATO rejected that, and Albanians are obviously a colony of NATO so they had no guts nor brains to think for themselves....

@ lazar,
Tell me when did u offer?In 1998?I dont remember any offer made in 1998 by Milloshevich.
In 2006?Dont u think was 7 years late?
When I see how u speak about albanians I say they were right not to accept anything from u.
As for other states and Kosovo(who was an entity of YU with veto power),they held referendums and the majority decides.

Indeed, a change of borders would make sense. Most of all, Roma finally need their own country so suppression stops. Israel will be the role model.

The borders of this country should include parts of Serbia, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria.

it is good to see that a book has been released by a respected British Diplomat on the much talked about problems of the split up of former Yugoslavia.

I would agree that not enough account is taken of the view of the citizens on the ground, and that borders are not etched in stone.

More hard work is needed on the ground to ensure more lasting stability, and when it comes to multi-lateral agreements we should all follow the same rules and ing from the same song sheet.

Diplomats can help enormously in this regard, let them do so.

Sir Ivor Roberts had no easy job when he was posted to Belgrade, and it is a credit to the UK that he was able to communicate with the leadership in a meaningful way.

It is good to see that those who are tasked with a difficult job, are still engaged to help make the World a better place.

PETER W MARSHALL

Man is correct.
End of Republika Serbska* borders is necessary for a peace.
And a end of Hungary-Vojvodina border is also a good idea.
Is necessary for all Balkans to support Hungary leader Orban.

Adem, I agree, there's no need to have those internal borders of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Instead, it would be better to divide up that sad bad dream of a quasi-country.
(Lazar, 24 October 2012 23:16) A good border is Drina River between Bosnia and Serbia. Good fast rivers make for good neighbours so no problem their since it is the border between Bosnia and Serbia some one should tell delusional Dodik.

If Serbia wants to talk borders with Albania thats fine, but we have to go back 50+ years when Albanian borders reached Bosnia and start from there.

"A good border is Drina River between Bosnia and Serbia. Good fast rivers make for good neighbours so no problem their since it is the border between Bosnia and Serbia some one should tell delusional Dodik.
(Lenard, 24 October 2012 23:36)"
Is quite correct border. Serbs who live OK in a multiculture Bosnia can stay, ones with blood hands can go to other side of Drina.
Fat man in Banja Luka can be Pasha of small castle and 3 farms.

"The idea that such positions are carved in stone is absurd, just as is insistence that a country with unsolved territorial issues cannot join the EU."


You are right sir, but very few things are ever carved in stone in the Balkans anyway including most of the irrational positions held by your precious EU that is falling apart itself.

;)

@adem
Let's also remove the borders of Albania! I think MNE/MK/GR want some piece of it!
Oh and Kosovo just stays inside Serbia's borders!

Adem, I agree, there's no need to have those internal borders of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Instead, it would be better to divide up that sad bad dream of a quasi-country.

@slavisa golubovic,

Although this guy is giving his personal opinion,I thing serbs are the last people on Earth to talk about peace.

They had several golden oportunities during 1990s to promote peace and what did they choose rejection of peace plans and war.
They were in charge of YU in 1990s.
Did they allow Slovenia to go peacefully?NO,they did everything to keep Slovenia under YU/Serbia.
Did they allow Croatia to go peacefully.NO.They rejected serveral attempts to solve peacefully(bombed Dubrovnik and other parts of Croatia) the position of serbs in Croatia and it was resolved by croats during Storm.
Did serbs allow Bosnia to go peacefully?NO.

Did serbs negotiated with albanians to solve Kosovo issue peacefully?NO.
They ignore Rugova and humiliated him every time they got a chance.They could have sign a partition deal then and I am sure albanians will accepted.

Its worth mentioning that all above countries Slovenia,Croatia,Bosnia and Kosovo have organised referendums where they voted PRO independence.
What did YU/Serbia.Ignore the will of people and started wars.

It looks they still want war,when listen Nikolic about Kosovo,offering albanians the status of germans in Belgum!!!
You guys had the key of peace in Balkans,yet you decided to go to war.After 4 losing wars you still continue to blame everyone but yourselves.

Yes if the borders will redefine in Balkans Serbia and Albania will be the winners,but I dont think this is going to be a peacefully redefinition.

A change of existing boarders is a simple and easy way to solve Kosovo's dilemma eh, Mr Roberts.
To enter Kosovo, settle by the tens of thousands and say 'we're now the majority...let's claim Kosovo as our own' is NOT ACCEPTENCE for changing boarders.
If ethnic citizens don't like living in Serbia then, by all means, move back to where they originated.
Living in Serbia permenately means one is SERBIAN, otherwise a TOURIST.
And yes...food for thought about Bosnia and Herzegovina boarder change.

Well now let me see... why don't we go all the way and see who benefits... Serbia loses most of Kosovo, some southern areas of Serbia populated by Albanians, and the Sandzak, Vojvodina becomes independent. What does she get...half of Bosnia, one third of Croatia (Krajina), half of Montenegro and an outlet to the sea, oh and a piece of Macedonia. Oh and Slavonia becomes independent...as does Dalmatia.

Croatia, Bosnia, Montenegro and Macedonia are broken and the Serbs and Albanians benefit.

Tempting?

Twenty years too late Mr. Roberts. A golden opportunity presented itself in 1991 as YU was falling apart to address this but the West's own interpretation of the Yugoslav Constitution while giving the Serbs absolutely nothing at every turn prevented any chance of a final agreement and ensured that needless bloodshed would occur. Its a classic case of shutting the barn door while the horse has long since bolted.

Remind us what happened the last time the Western imperialists attempted to change the borders in the Balkans. That didn't work out now did it. So now you propose to do some more tinkering which will only exacerbate things even further.

old Bismarck was right all those moons ago, those Pomeranian grenadiers would be better served elsewhere.

Fail again.

Lenard, that is not true because rivers always move! Go back to school and learn your physical geography. Water sheds are a far better way. As for Drina, that divides serbia in half, no way in hell is that the border of the serb lands. Cheers!

Its for sure that the Albaians and Muslims in BiH will change some borders. This will happen in the future

@ Innit, but Uk has in all questions clear positions and principles

Indeed, a change of borders would make sense. Most of all, Roma finally need their own country so suppression stops. Israel will be the role model.

The borders of this country should include parts of Serbia, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria.

At last sombody with some common sence ,this is the attitude people should taken in the first place ,then peraps would been no wars and we probebly be in the EU ,in the end people have to talk to resolve there problems.

Miles, those are some really creepy drugs that you are on if you think that Vojvodina, Slavonia, or Dalmatia are going to be independent. I mean, hey, think before you write... just an example: the Hungarians in vojvodina are less than 15% of the population. From where is there going to be support for independence then?

Hey Mirel, let me educate you. You will need this for your life, as you clearly either have a severe lack of knowledge or are mentally handicapped.

1) Nobody tried to keep Slovenia in Yugoslavia. The only reason why there was any fighting was because Slovenians attacked Yugoslav forces that were withdrawing from Slovenia. Troops that were sent to Slovenia were sent by Croat authorities, and they were sent without ammunition, to be killed.
2) In Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina there were already Serbs there. Naturally they are not fond of being in a state led by ex Nazis. Basically that's what Croatia was in the 1990s. Look into who formed the HDZ. Here's a tip, look into their union of iseljnika/expatriates, aka former Ustashe. For B-H, we did not want to be ruled by a radical islamist thug. These are fine things indeed.
3) All secession is illegal if all sides do not agree, because the borders were designed with the idea in mind that there will be no break up of the country.
4) We offered peace to the Albanians, we offered widespread autonomy under UN observation. NATO rejected that, and Albanians are obviously a colony of NATO so they had no guts nor brains to think for themselves.
5) We lost only one war, the one in Croatia. If we tried to win it, we would have been bombed to no end.
6) Let us know if you need more education. I'll be happy to help you. Don't trust some rather disturbed people though, as there are some such folks here.

... We offered peace to the Albanians, we offered widespread autonomy under UN observation. NATO rejected that, and Albanians are obviously a colony of NATO so they had no guts nor brains to think for themselves....

@ lazar,
Tell me when did u offer?In 1998?I dont remember any offer made in 1998 by Milloshevich.
In 2006?Dont u think was 7 years late?
When I see how u speak about albanians I say they were right not to accept anything from u.
As for other states and Kosovo(who was an entity of YU with veto power),they held referendums and the majority decides.

Living in Serbia permenately means one is SERBIAN, otherwise a TOURIST.
And yes...food for thought about Bosnia and Herzegovina boarder change.
(WestSwan, 25 October 2012 04:54)

So according to your comment, if a Serb lives permanently in Croatia, he/she is a CROATIAN, otherwise a TOURIST?

Adem, Maghiars came from Asia and you could remove the mongols borders to be a bigger China... as for this Sir: Dear sir, Great Britain may become history when Scotland will break away. I hope he has some good arguments.

Obviously this is a most complicated issue but an interesting one. In my humble opinion a negotiated controlled border change in Kosovo (non-rigid territorial swap) and Bosnia (R.S. joining Serbia, an independent Bosnia and parts going to Croatia)would benefit peace but would most certainly count as a loss for the reputation of EU and US (remember past positions and how they changed). They are throwing their weight absurdly against it fearing repercussions which are not likely to happen, although they will inevitably be seen as incoherent (not that they aren't).

If however EU and US hold their positions then Serbia is the one who loses more from the current situation and Western Balkans peoples well-being. Albanians on the other hand have lost (due to their incapability and desire of their politicians to be big fish in small ponds rather than the contrary) in the sense that no matter the circumstances they will be impeded by EU and US to join in a state (read Albania and Kosovo not other parts as that is impossible nor desirable). I am not counting Macedonia because they have a real chance of prosperity once their name is solved and its politics moves away from nationalism. Despite Alb nationalists rhetoric or unfounded fear by Macedonians and/or others they will not get independence or join Albania unless Macedonians want it.

P.S. I am quite familiar with the issues and realistic and i don't mean to offend anyone with my opinions nor does this exhaust probabilities.

it is good to see that a book has been released by a respected British Diplomat on the much talked about problems of the split up of former Yugoslavia.

I would agree that not enough account is taken of the view of the citizens on the ground, and that borders are not etched in stone.

More hard work is needed on the ground to ensure more lasting stability, and when it comes to multi-lateral agreements we should all follow the same rules and ing from the same song sheet.

Diplomats can help enormously in this regard, let them do so.

Sir Ivor Roberts had no easy job when he was posted to Belgrade, and it is a credit to the UK that he was able to communicate with the leadership in a meaningful way.

It is good to see that those who are tasked with a difficult job, are still engaged to help make the World a better place.

PETER W MARSHALL

(Curiosityxhasxlanded, 25 October 2012 13:49)

Interesting read, a question I have for you is how does a Gov't in the West change it's policy when so many other factors (more important) depend on their current stance. UK financial institutions would be essentially rocked when Saudi Arabia decides to pull the plug on their investments there. There are other mitigating factors but this is the first and most obvious one that comes to mind.

This is why after retirement many speak out about policies that are doomed to fail but before they need tow the line or will be replaced.

@Change

Your question is most welcomed however i am afraid is quite broad. A policy change is indeed as you say connected to other factors (at times more important) be they domestic or foreign and it depends on the specific country. But that is always the case and yet change is always present, good or bad. Usually it comes either from a change of circumstances or from bold politicians but mostly from a differentiation of interests. When positive outcomes for the ones concerned outweighs the costs than there is a change of course.

When Harold Macmillan(former UK prime minister) was asked by a journalists: what is most likely to blow governments off course? He answered: Events, dear boy, events.

I apologize if i am not explicit but i would need a specific policy to analyse(that i am capable of that is). When i give my opinions here i take the most factors possible that i have knowledge of and then i decide on the best outcome possible or probable even though it is impossible to state every and each one of the reasons.

Britain's three territorial disputes:

1: With Spain over Gibraltar
2: With Argentina over the Falklands/Malvinas
3: With Ireland over Northern Ireland

Lots of words from Mirel, but no content. What there is is wrong. Employee of Apple and sufferer of their reality distortion field?