Déjà Vu

Couldn't agree more. Too bad William Montgomery did not write this story in 1990, before the catastrophe and the break-up occurred. I wonder if he can be heard by today's leaders and if anyone is listening to his message? It does not appear that anyone cares or listens to Serbian side which failed where others (e.g. Croats, Muslims and Albanians) succeeded - effective PR campaign and propaganda machine to further advance their own cause.

DEVA VU.....

Dear Ambassador Montgomery:

Lawrence Eagleburger should have been slamming his fist at both Ante Markovic, Vice President of the Yugoslav Federation & Stipe Mesic President of the Yugoslav Federation along with Kadijevic who was the JNA General of the Yugoslav federation.

The Croatians rebels were firing at the JNA from behind the historic Venetian walls to incite the JNA. The also moved into the disputed Prevlaka zone, a strategic point into the Montenegrin Coast.

Finally, can you tell me the difference between a united Bosnia and a United Yugoslavia? Bosnia is comprised of Serbs, Croats and "Muslims" , the same was with Yugoslavia. So, why allow Yugoslavia to break up while US policy continues to force RS (Republika Srpksa) to stay within a United Bosnia?

the JNA had no business in croatia after break up so it cant complain for croatian army wanting a foreign army out of its country. im sure serbia wouldnt like it if hungarian army marched across to serbia, no matter what the reason.

serbian side failed in propaganda because the agenda was greater serbia and propaganda was never going to achieve that.

as for slamming fists onto mesic etc. his presidency was never recognised and proved by the fact that JNA did not pulled back when ordered to do so by mesic, the commander in chief. therefore there cant be any arguement for JNA being a Yugoslav army. They went to slovenia and croatia to supposedly separate warring sides, but everyone knows in which direction the guns were pointed.

admitting truth has never been serbia's strong point. still isnt. everything against serbia is automatically labelled as propaganda or lies. even though overwhelming evidence proves otherwise. lets hope they can get their act together so that everyone can move on.

This is in response to Daniel.
Most people from Croatia and Bosnia like to put the blame squarely on Serbs and to say that it was all the project of creating Greater Serbia. However, facts are somewhat different. In Croatia, SDS was initially lead by Jovan Raskovic who recognized Croatia and never wanted to separate Krajina from it. He only wanted creation of "cultural autonomy" in Krajina. This would include Roman/Cyrrilic traffic signs, elementary education in their language, etc. This would allow them to preserve their cultural heritage.
Note that this falls far short of what largest minority in Serbia (Albanians) enjoyed: political autonomy (parliament), independent judiciary, police, university in Albanian language, etc.
Tudjman decided that they should not be able to preserve their cultural indentity in Croatia.
Naturally, one would expect Croatians to be supportive today should Serbia decide that thousands of Croats in Belgrade, for example, then Bunjevci in Vojvodina, etc. should not have right to be what they are in Serbia. (if their children would have to be educated in Cyrrilic only, if their children would fail the grade and repeat the school year for using "zrak" instead of "vazduh" in language class, etc.)
Tudjman's refusal to even talk about "cultural autonomy" (in violation of Helsinki accords) lead to Raskovic's removal and SDS takeover by radical elements (Babic, Martic) who demanded separation from Croatia.
Initially, SDS recognized Croatia and that is a fact. That can hardly amount to creation of Greater Serbia.
In Bosnia again, there was a good chance to avoid bloodspill. EU has come up with the political solution for Bosnia and all the ethnic representatives in Bosnia were invited to join Cuttiliero in Lesboa, Portugal. All of them (Izetbegovic, Karadzic, Kljuic) have signed the EU plan that called for independant, internationally recognized Bosnia within its borders, without posibility of any parts of it separating from it. It would not be unitary state either, because cantons would be created with Muslim, Croat and Serb prefix aimed at protection of ethnic rights of all groups.
Note that this was signed by Karadzic as well. This can hardly amount to creation of Greater Serbia.
Mr. Montgomery have forgotten to mention how Izetbegovic came back from Lesboa and after talking to US Ambassador Waren Zimmerman decided to take his signature on the Cuttiliero's plan back and opted for war.
Many people are making a lot of this whole thing. But let's here face a simple truth.
There are two views of the world.
One is view of supremacy.
Ratial, ethnic, gender, or any other.
Problem with this view is that while Germans, for instance have maybe seeing themselves superior to say, English, but the English did not share their view.
It always lead to silencing of voices, and loudening of weapons.
The other one is the one formulated in principles of French Revolution.
Equality, fraternity...
It's the first one that I'm talking about, equality.
This priciple has been much adorned since.
Just take US Declaration of Independance. It starts with words: We believe that all the men are created equal...
We should pick one of these two positions to be our own.
If Serbs were such a problem why not exclude them altogether?
We could have Tudjman, Izetbegovic and Rugova propose the solution for Yugoslavia in 1990. Whatever the solution, it would be acceptable, as long as it respects pricipal value-equality.
Meaning, for example, republics are not divisable. These are the rights of the minorities in them:...
And to apply it to Croatia and Serbia equally.
If all in Croatia should speak Croatian, all in Serbia should speak Serbian, period.
No Albanian schools, no newspapers, no univeristies, no TV programs, no political autonomy.
Or, republics are divisable, and larges ethnic minorities in them should get to form separate states. Kosovo and Krajina alike.
We could have done this in 1990 before anyone died.
Somehow, I doubt that Tudjman, Izetbegovic and Rugova would be able to agree on this solution, but that's another question.
Sadly, this is not what these politicians wanted, nor it's something leading world powers wanted (Germany, USA).
Austria at the beginning of 20th century treated its citizents well. Yet, it maintaned the system in Bosnia in which Serbs were serfs of Muslim landlords. It was the only part of the country that kept feudal system. This prompted one Serb student to assasinate Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo, the event that started the World War.
Sadly, today, Germany and USA treat their citizents well , too, but fail to treat others the same way.
One can easily notice what is missing in all this. Equality.

To Daniel.
JNA left Croatia before it was recognized internationally.
Formally, they were in Yugoslavia. Unrecognized entities don't count in international law. Just because there was a referendum for independance in Croatia, it doesn't make it independant.
In the same way, just because there was a referendum in Krajina did not make it independant either. And nobody could say - "What was CRoatian Army doing in Krajina"
Just to set the record straight - JNA left before Croatia was recognized.

Reading that Montgomery likes strong central states I can only wonder why he didn't support Milosevic more. Milosevic's powergrab was clearly an effort to bring Yugoslavia a more centralized government. One can blame him for how he did it, but he didn't have much alternatives to reach that goal. The US could have pressed Croatia and Slovenia to accept national elections for the whole of Yugoslavia. But instead they pressed for separate republican elections in Slovenia and Croatia and they accepted their boycot of national elections. That way we ended up with a not elected central government that had less legitimacy than the republican governments and secession became inevitable.

Couldn't agree more. Too bad William Montgomery did not write this story in 1990, before the catastrophe and the break-up occurred. I wonder if he can be heard by today's leaders and if anyone is listening to his message? It does not appear that anyone cares or listens to Serbian side which failed where others (e.g. Croats, Muslims and Albanians) succeeded - effective PR campaign and propaganda machine to further advance their own cause.

DEVA VU.....

Dear Ambassador Montgomery:

Lawrence Eagleburger should have been slamming his fist at both Ante Markovic, Vice President of the Yugoslav Federation & Stipe Mesic President of the Yugoslav Federation along with Kadijevic who was the JNA General of the Yugoslav federation.

The Croatians rebels were firing at the JNA from behind the historic Venetian walls to incite the JNA. The also moved into the disputed Prevlaka zone, a strategic point into the Montenegrin Coast.

Finally, can you tell me the difference between a united Bosnia and a United Yugoslavia? Bosnia is comprised of Serbs, Croats and "Muslims" , the same was with Yugoslavia. So, why allow Yugoslavia to break up while US policy continues to force RS (Republika Srpksa) to stay within a United Bosnia?

the JNA had no business in croatia after break up so it cant complain for croatian army wanting a foreign army out of its country. im sure serbia wouldnt like it if hungarian army marched across to serbia, no matter what the reason.

serbian side failed in propaganda because the agenda was greater serbia and propaganda was never going to achieve that.

as for slamming fists onto mesic etc. his presidency was never recognised and proved by the fact that JNA did not pulled back when ordered to do so by mesic, the commander in chief. therefore there cant be any arguement for JNA being a Yugoslav army. They went to slovenia and croatia to supposedly separate warring sides, but everyone knows in which direction the guns were pointed.

admitting truth has never been serbia's strong point. still isnt. everything against serbia is automatically labelled as propaganda or lies. even though overwhelming evidence proves otherwise. lets hope they can get their act together so that everyone can move on.

This is in response to Daniel.
Most people from Croatia and Bosnia like to put the blame squarely on Serbs and to say that it was all the project of creating Greater Serbia. However, facts are somewhat different. In Croatia, SDS was initially lead by Jovan Raskovic who recognized Croatia and never wanted to separate Krajina from it. He only wanted creation of "cultural autonomy" in Krajina. This would include Roman/Cyrrilic traffic signs, elementary education in their language, etc. This would allow them to preserve their cultural heritage.
Note that this falls far short of what largest minority in Serbia (Albanians) enjoyed: political autonomy (parliament), independent judiciary, police, university in Albanian language, etc.
Tudjman decided that they should not be able to preserve their cultural indentity in Croatia.
Naturally, one would expect Croatians to be supportive today should Serbia decide that thousands of Croats in Belgrade, for example, then Bunjevci in Vojvodina, etc. should not have right to be what they are in Serbia. (if their children would have to be educated in Cyrrilic only, if their children would fail the grade and repeat the school year for using "zrak" instead of "vazduh" in language class, etc.)
Tudjman's refusal to even talk about "cultural autonomy" (in violation of Helsinki accords) lead to Raskovic's removal and SDS takeover by radical elements (Babic, Martic) who demanded separation from Croatia.
Initially, SDS recognized Croatia and that is a fact. That can hardly amount to creation of Greater Serbia.
In Bosnia again, there was a good chance to avoid bloodspill. EU has come up with the political solution for Bosnia and all the ethnic representatives in Bosnia were invited to join Cuttiliero in Lesboa, Portugal. All of them (Izetbegovic, Karadzic, Kljuic) have signed the EU plan that called for independant, internationally recognized Bosnia within its borders, without posibility of any parts of it separating from it. It would not be unitary state either, because cantons would be created with Muslim, Croat and Serb prefix aimed at protection of ethnic rights of all groups.
Note that this was signed by Karadzic as well. This can hardly amount to creation of Greater Serbia.
Mr. Montgomery have forgotten to mention how Izetbegovic came back from Lesboa and after talking to US Ambassador Waren Zimmerman decided to take his signature on the Cuttiliero's plan back and opted for war.
Many people are making a lot of this whole thing. But let's here face a simple truth.
There are two views of the world.
One is view of supremacy.
Ratial, ethnic, gender, or any other.
Problem with this view is that while Germans, for instance have maybe seeing themselves superior to say, English, but the English did not share their view.
It always lead to silencing of voices, and loudening of weapons.
The other one is the one formulated in principles of French Revolution.
Equality, fraternity...
It's the first one that I'm talking about, equality.
This priciple has been much adorned since.
Just take US Declaration of Independance. It starts with words: We believe that all the men are created equal...
We should pick one of these two positions to be our own.
If Serbs were such a problem why not exclude them altogether?
We could have Tudjman, Izetbegovic and Rugova propose the solution for Yugoslavia in 1990. Whatever the solution, it would be acceptable, as long as it respects pricipal value-equality.
Meaning, for example, republics are not divisable. These are the rights of the minorities in them:...
And to apply it to Croatia and Serbia equally.
If all in Croatia should speak Croatian, all in Serbia should speak Serbian, period.
No Albanian schools, no newspapers, no univeristies, no TV programs, no political autonomy.
Or, republics are divisable, and larges ethnic minorities in them should get to form separate states. Kosovo and Krajina alike.
We could have done this in 1990 before anyone died.
Somehow, I doubt that Tudjman, Izetbegovic and Rugova would be able to agree on this solution, but that's another question.
Sadly, this is not what these politicians wanted, nor it's something leading world powers wanted (Germany, USA).
Austria at the beginning of 20th century treated its citizents well. Yet, it maintaned the system in Bosnia in which Serbs were serfs of Muslim landlords. It was the only part of the country that kept feudal system. This prompted one Serb student to assasinate Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo, the event that started the World War.
Sadly, today, Germany and USA treat their citizents well , too, but fail to treat others the same way.
One can easily notice what is missing in all this. Equality.

To Daniel.
JNA left Croatia before it was recognized internationally.
Formally, they were in Yugoslavia. Unrecognized entities don't count in international law. Just because there was a referendum for independance in Croatia, it doesn't make it independant.
In the same way, just because there was a referendum in Krajina did not make it independant either. And nobody could say - "What was CRoatian Army doing in Krajina"
Just to set the record straight - JNA left before Croatia was recognized.

Reading that Montgomery likes strong central states I can only wonder why he didn't support Milosevic more. Milosevic's powergrab was clearly an effort to bring Yugoslavia a more centralized government. One can blame him for how he did it, but he didn't have much alternatives to reach that goal. The US could have pressed Croatia and Slovenia to accept national elections for the whole of Yugoslavia. But instead they pressed for separate republican elections in Slovenia and Croatia and they accepted their boycot of national elections. That way we ended up with a not elected central government that had less legitimacy than the republican governments and secession became inevitable.