Bosnian Blues

Perhaps Ambassador Mongomery could come to BiH as new HR, and do something about the Dayton Agreement. Somehow, I have a feeling that he is quite interested in this job...

As I read through I can't help but think of 2 words - kettle & black. On the one hand Motgomery slates the EU for the handling of BiH but then equally rubbishes Dayton - but was Dayton not a US inspired deal? Talk about contradictory but the whole mess of all of ex-Yugoslavia is due in large part to the mindless way all of the West has meddled and acted "impartially" [sic] in what was a civil war. I guess if the US end up steam-rolling Athisarri's plan through the UN they will turn around in 11 years time and say it is not working because of the EU and come up with another equally "impartial" [sic] solution.

When one fails to take a fair, equal, impartial & holistic approach one can't help but find an inadequate solution - you would think the US had learnt this by now but clearly not!!!

Ambassador Montgomery's assessment of the Eurocratic Frankenstein Bosnia has become is right on the dot. Serbs in RS feel neither the social community with their Bosniak neighbors, nor any sense of political drive to reunite with them. Croats in the Federation are leaving en masse to Croatia, and RS is more economically sound and politically stable than Federation. As such, elites in RS could easily assume they were a separate political entity.

Separating warring groups does provide stability in the short run, but the Clinton Administration's unhealthy fetish to categorize everything in the Balkans by tribal name - based on the half-witted history lessons by journalists like Robert Kaplan - only reified ethnic cleavages and solidified differences that were originally popular only by nationalists. As a result, Bosnia, the one part of Yugoslavia were three ethnicities and religions coexisted the most, is now a patchwork of homogeneous ethnic enclaves separated by historical animosities. If this is the same type of Scandinavian-proposed Eurocratic experiment for Kosovo, then the West has truly learned nothing of their mistakes in the Balkans over the last 15 years.

I usually disagree with Montengomery, but he did a fairly decent job pointing out the flaws in the current system. However the good thing is it ended the violence and life there is fairly normal for the people on the ground and that is what is most important. Maybe now is the time for Republic Srpska to get full independence or be allowed to join with Serbia. Why not let the majority of people in Bosnia (Serbs and Croats) decide whether they want to stay in Bosnia or join with Serbia/Croatia? There would not be war this time if Croatia and Serbia agreed in a peaceful manner. It was a huge mistake on the part of the International Community not to consider or support something like this in the first place, it would have avoided a lot of death and bloodshed. Montenegro is a tiny country half the size of only Sarajevo and they are doing just fine, I am sure the Bosniak parts of Bosnia would be viable and sustainable. The Bosniaks I've met are all very educated, intelligent and western leaning.

Comparing Bosnia to Iraq is pretty much nonsense however. Unlike Bosnia, Iraq has several outside sponsors whose main propose is to create instability and anarchy, which is always very easy to do. Bosnia was always about control not lack of it.

Meanwhile, the Kurds in the North have a very stable area and don't seem to be engaging in the types of religious strife that is dominating the Shia-Sunni conflict. The Kurds desperately need a country of their own. They've suffered far worse then areas like Kosovo, are more stable, have a long history of seeking independence, and have no country anywhere in the world to call their own. What is going on here? Turkey, who ironically supports Kosovo independence and who violently denies any holocaust of Armenians ever took place is opposed to such a situation because they don't want to give up the areas of Kurdistan which they've brutally occupied for hundreds of years. I suggest that if Turkey recognizes Kosovo, Serbia should immediately recognize the PKK and those areas of Turkey that have a Kurdish population. Serbia should do the same for any country that support Kosovo independence yet labels their own independence movements as Terrorist. Northern Ireland, the Basque, the Kurds, etc. I personally believe no country that is currently engaging in suppressing their minorities should be allowed to participate. This includes the US for its efforts to interfere with the Soviernty of the Indigenous Indian Tribes in the US. The recent calls to take away their rights is barbaric.

Thank you Mr.Ambassador for finally writing an article that gets us to the heart of the matter.If these groups could not live together in a Yugoslav state which was arguably much more liberal than the Stalinist states of Romania ,Bulgaria or Czechoslovakia then how are we to impose a political separation in Kosovo but a multi-ethnic reconciliation in Bosnia?From my understanding more Serbs were killed at the hands of Croats and Muslims in Bosnia than Albanians killed at the hands of Serbs in Kosovo.As an American I support the right of self-determination for all peoples so if we stick to those principles then let's apply them uniformly throughout the world.We Americans really have no dog in this Balkan fight so let the Europeans work it out.We did a Marshall Plan for them so now it is time for them to do one for the poor regions of their own continent.

here is what history will write.

in the beginning: one state. ethnically heterogenous. economically weak, but stable. broken apart by its peoples and certain western capitals.

in the end: seven states: slovenia; croatia; serbia; sarajevo; macedonia; montenegro; kosovo.

all ethnically homogenous (with serbia being the most diverse). 3 economically successful; and 4 economically dependent.

You are utterly wrong!. To understand not only bosnian problem,rather entire region you MUST read Richard's West book "TITO and the rise and fall of Yugoslavia"

In Bosnia there was one enemy: the Serbs. The Serbs were evil and must be defeated. Who is the enemy in Iraq. The Sunni's or the Shias. Once the US decides on who the enemy is they can formulate a plan based on that.

“In Bosnia there was one enemy: the Serbs. The Serbs were evil and must be defeated. Who is the enemy in Iraq. The Sunni's or the Shias. Once the US decides on who the enemy is they can formulate a plan based on that.
(Brian, 9 February 2007, 16:17)”

Brian, interesting that you only see things in terms of good and bad, black or white. Is it perhaps possible that all sides in the Iraq conflict are wrong and right at the same time? Maybe the world is all shades of gray?

Who’s Wrong?

The US for invading Iraq, descending it into mass chaos and destruction, based merely on fabricated evidence and obvious lies? The Kurds for supplying logistical support and bases of Operation for the PKK (A known terrorist Organization) for attacking Turkey? The Shia for using their new found majority power to crack down on the rights of the Sunni and to marginalize them as an oppressed minority? The Sunni for their “support” of the Saddam regime? Syria, Iran and Saudia Arabia for their support and encouragement of the various factions? Al Qaeda for their obvious actions to promote and spread sectarian violence? Turkey for invading Kurdish portions of Iraq in their quest to suppress the PKK?

Who’s Right?

The US removing an Evil Dictator and spreading democracy in the Middle East? The Kurds who would finally like the Right to Self Determination after centuries of oppression and abuse? The Shia for believing in Democracy and Majority Rule? The Sunni who stand up for the rights of the minority and a multi-ethnic society? Syria, Iran and Saudia Arabia for their support and encouragement of the various ethnic groups? Al Qaeda for fighting Western Imperialism and aggression in the Middle East? Turkey for their support of the US in all of this?

Clearly the situation in Iraq is multi-faceted and not easily simplified nor understood.

Here, I’m going to alter your original statement just a tad bit to make it reflect the reality of realpolitik.

“Once the US decides on who the enemy is they can formulate THE PROPAGANDA based on that.”

However, your analysis of the Balkans also suffers greatly from over simplification.

If Serbs were the only bad guys in Bosnia, how do you explain the Croatians turning on the Bosnian Muslims at their weakest point in the war and committing absolute crimes of massive destruction and murder? I’ve seen Mostar with my own two eyes and what the Croatians did to their “allies”. I’ve been there within the last two years, and its still a complete wreck, the city itself is like a graveyard. I’ve been all over Bosnia, I’ve seen many small villages in ruins. However the sight of Mostar absolutely shocked me, even 10 years after the war. So who is the villain in the Croat-Muslim fighting? The Serbs?

Then we have two Muslim factions, but I guess somehow the Serbs were the enemies there too, according to your logic. The “evil” Bosniak warlord with control over the Bihac pocket, and the courageous Bosnian government based in Sarajevo promoting a multi-ethnic view of Bosnia by engaging in crimes against not just Serbs but other Bosniaks as well (an equal opportunity ethnic cleanser?). Here’s today’s article from B92 and I quote:

“The video dated July 11, 1994, shows post mortem conducted on the three APZB soldiers. The bodies of men identified as Mujo Behrić, Rasim Bašić and Branko Ćujić display clear signs of torture: all three have had their throats cut, with numerous additional stab wounds in their bodies.

The footage then shows Dudaković congratulating his soldiers, and pointing to two of them, saying: ”These are the lead actor and the main operative of this movie, and I’m the director”.

The video also contains scenes of Bosnian Army celebrations after the fall of Bihać, with troops driving through the streets firing their weapons in the air.

One of the vehicles in the video carries two naked men with belts tied around their necks, while Bosnian Army soldiers kick and hit them.”

Of course Dudakovic is already under investigation by the authorities in Sarajevo for his crimes against Serbs as well.

Of course the simplest view to take would be that Serbs were villains so of course any crimes against them were justified and understandable considering the conditions on the ground.

Of course some suffered much more then others, but I think all the politicians and people in power in Bosnia committed crimes. Clearly the Bosniak people were the greatest victims in all of this, suffering by far the greatest single act of murder in the war. However, keep in mind that there are no more Serbs in Croatia because of the single largest act of ethnic cleansing in the war. There are villainous people on all sides in that conflict and we should condemn all Crimes Against Humanity.

Why does the HR have to be from the west, they messed up, now its time to give it to someone else, why cant he be Russian?

In any civil war it is obviously the sides which have initially the most weapons who are able to do the most immediate large scale damage.Lebanon had a devastatingly brutal 15 year civil war between so many different sides it was hard to keep track of all the factions. By the time a peace agreement was signed the whole country lay in ruins with proportionally many more Lebanese killed than the number in Bosnia.To simple minded people the world is seen in simple terms but to intelligent people we understand the complexities of human nature and conflicts.All ethnic groups have their angels and demons and labeling a whole as evil is nonsensical to say the least.If you provoke a man with a gun by saying you are about to rape his wife do not be surprised if you get a shot between the eyes even though you did not ACTUALLY rape his wife.One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.We Americans are learning the hard way that there are no easy solutions EVEN when there are only 2 sides to a conflict and much less when there are MORE than 2 sides.

Based on the article, finally the U.S. Ambassador, Mr. Montogomery, admits the West led by the US was uterly wrong in supporting the dissolution of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. And that (ironically) Serbs, lead by the former President Slobodan Milosevic, were right in trying to keep the contry together. Now this deserves a praise.
And based on this knowledge, now the West is trying to keep the Bosnia together. Amazing!

If only the West would start supporting Serbs, their 1st and 2nd world war ally! If this was done earlier, many current problems would have been avoided. But it's never too late, I guess. Just that the situation is somewhat changed, now. And although the signed agreements have not been obayed, the West would like to change them (Dayton agreement guranteed a 49% of the territory of Bosnia and Hertzegovina for Republic of Serpska, while it actually has less than that because of the formation of the Independent District of Brcko; UN Resolution 1244 and Kosovo and Metohija peace agreement guaranteed the return of the Serbian police and army back to the province, which has not been allowed yet).

Nevertheless, it looks like the Serbs are the only who do not want any more ethnically based borders and problems, not complaining about the not obayed peace agreements. Furthermore, they insist that Kosovo and Metohija remain within Serbia, and offer the same life to the Albanian minority living in the Province as those Albanians living in Serbia outside of the Province have. Isn't this the true meaning of multicultural EU community and the way the new european family of nations should be formed? And finally, isn't this what the very same EU must support, supporting Serbia?

Based on the article, finally the U.S. Ambassador, Mr. Montogomery, admits the West led by the US was uterly wrong in supporting the dissolution of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. And that (ironically) Serbs, lead by the former President Slobodan Milosevic, were right in trying to keep the contry together. Now this deserves a praise.
And based on this knowledge, now the West is trying to keep the Bosnia together. Amazing!

If only the West would start supporting Serbs, their 1st and 2nd world war ally! If this was done earlier, many current problems would have been avoided. But it's never too late, I guess. Just that the situation is somewhat changed, now. And although the signed agreements have not been obayed, the West would like to change them (Dayton agreement guranteed a 49% of the territory of Bosnia and Hertzegovina for Republic of Serpska, while it actually has less than that because of the formation of the Independent District of Brcko; UN Resolution 1244 and Kosovo and Metohija peace agreement guaranteed the return of the Serbian police and army back to the province, which has not been allowed yet).

Nevertheless, it looks like the Serbs are the only who do not want any more ethnically based borders and problems, not complaining about the not obayed peace agreements. Furthermore, they insist that Kosovo and Metohija remain within Serbia, and offer the same life to the Albanian minority living in the Province as those Albanians living in Serbia outside of the Province have. Isn't this the true meaning of multicultural EU community and the way the new european family of nations should be formed? And finally, isn't this what the very same EU must support, supporting Serbia?

Perhaps Ambassador Mongomery could come to BiH as new HR, and do something about the Dayton Agreement. Somehow, I have a feeling that he is quite interested in this job...

As I read through I can't help but think of 2 words - kettle & black. On the one hand Motgomery slates the EU for the handling of BiH but then equally rubbishes Dayton - but was Dayton not a US inspired deal? Talk about contradictory but the whole mess of all of ex-Yugoslavia is due in large part to the mindless way all of the West has meddled and acted "impartially" [sic] in what was a civil war. I guess if the US end up steam-rolling Athisarri's plan through the UN they will turn around in 11 years time and say it is not working because of the EU and come up with another equally "impartial" [sic] solution.

When one fails to take a fair, equal, impartial & holistic approach one can't help but find an inadequate solution - you would think the US had learnt this by now but clearly not!!!

Ambassador Montgomery's assessment of the Eurocratic Frankenstein Bosnia has become is right on the dot. Serbs in RS feel neither the social community with their Bosniak neighbors, nor any sense of political drive to reunite with them. Croats in the Federation are leaving en masse to Croatia, and RS is more economically sound and politically stable than Federation. As such, elites in RS could easily assume they were a separate political entity.

Separating warring groups does provide stability in the short run, but the Clinton Administration's unhealthy fetish to categorize everything in the Balkans by tribal name - based on the half-witted history lessons by journalists like Robert Kaplan - only reified ethnic cleavages and solidified differences that were originally popular only by nationalists. As a result, Bosnia, the one part of Yugoslavia were three ethnicities and religions coexisted the most, is now a patchwork of homogeneous ethnic enclaves separated by historical animosities. If this is the same type of Scandinavian-proposed Eurocratic experiment for Kosovo, then the West has truly learned nothing of their mistakes in the Balkans over the last 15 years.

I usually disagree with Montengomery, but he did a fairly decent job pointing out the flaws in the current system. However the good thing is it ended the violence and life there is fairly normal for the people on the ground and that is what is most important. Maybe now is the time for Republic Srpska to get full independence or be allowed to join with Serbia. Why not let the majority of people in Bosnia (Serbs and Croats) decide whether they want to stay in Bosnia or join with Serbia/Croatia? There would not be war this time if Croatia and Serbia agreed in a peaceful manner. It was a huge mistake on the part of the International Community not to consider or support something like this in the first place, it would have avoided a lot of death and bloodshed. Montenegro is a tiny country half the size of only Sarajevo and they are doing just fine, I am sure the Bosniak parts of Bosnia would be viable and sustainable. The Bosniaks I've met are all very educated, intelligent and western leaning.

Comparing Bosnia to Iraq is pretty much nonsense however. Unlike Bosnia, Iraq has several outside sponsors whose main propose is to create instability and anarchy, which is always very easy to do. Bosnia was always about control not lack of it.

Meanwhile, the Kurds in the North have a very stable area and don't seem to be engaging in the types of religious strife that is dominating the Shia-Sunni conflict. The Kurds desperately need a country of their own. They've suffered far worse then areas like Kosovo, are more stable, have a long history of seeking independence, and have no country anywhere in the world to call their own. What is going on here? Turkey, who ironically supports Kosovo independence and who violently denies any holocaust of Armenians ever took place is opposed to such a situation because they don't want to give up the areas of Kurdistan which they've brutally occupied for hundreds of years. I suggest that if Turkey recognizes Kosovo, Serbia should immediately recognize the PKK and those areas of Turkey that have a Kurdish population. Serbia should do the same for any country that support Kosovo independence yet labels their own independence movements as Terrorist. Northern Ireland, the Basque, the Kurds, etc. I personally believe no country that is currently engaging in suppressing their minorities should be allowed to participate. This includes the US for its efforts to interfere with the Soviernty of the Indigenous Indian Tribes in the US. The recent calls to take away their rights is barbaric.

Thank you Mr.Ambassador for finally writing an article that gets us to the heart of the matter.If these groups could not live together in a Yugoslav state which was arguably much more liberal than the Stalinist states of Romania ,Bulgaria or Czechoslovakia then how are we to impose a political separation in Kosovo but a multi-ethnic reconciliation in Bosnia?From my understanding more Serbs were killed at the hands of Croats and Muslims in Bosnia than Albanians killed at the hands of Serbs in Kosovo.As an American I support the right of self-determination for all peoples so if we stick to those principles then let's apply them uniformly throughout the world.We Americans really have no dog in this Balkan fight so let the Europeans work it out.We did a Marshall Plan for them so now it is time for them to do one for the poor regions of their own continent.

here is what history will write.

in the beginning: one state. ethnically heterogenous. economically weak, but stable. broken apart by its peoples and certain western capitals.

in the end: seven states: slovenia; croatia; serbia; sarajevo; macedonia; montenegro; kosovo.

all ethnically homogenous (with serbia being the most diverse). 3 economically successful; and 4 economically dependent.

You are utterly wrong!. To understand not only bosnian problem,rather entire region you MUST read Richard's West book "TITO and the rise and fall of Yugoslavia"

In Bosnia there was one enemy: the Serbs. The Serbs were evil and must be defeated. Who is the enemy in Iraq. The Sunni's or the Shias. Once the US decides on who the enemy is they can formulate a plan based on that.

“In Bosnia there was one enemy: the Serbs. The Serbs were evil and must be defeated. Who is the enemy in Iraq. The Sunni's or the Shias. Once the US decides on who the enemy is they can formulate a plan based on that.
(Brian, 9 February 2007, 16:17)”

Brian, interesting that you only see things in terms of good and bad, black or white. Is it perhaps possible that all sides in the Iraq conflict are wrong and right at the same time? Maybe the world is all shades of gray?

Who’s Wrong?

The US for invading Iraq, descending it into mass chaos and destruction, based merely on fabricated evidence and obvious lies? The Kurds for supplying logistical support and bases of Operation for the PKK (A known terrorist Organization) for attacking Turkey? The Shia for using their new found majority power to crack down on the rights of the Sunni and to marginalize them as an oppressed minority? The Sunni for their “support” of the Saddam regime? Syria, Iran and Saudia Arabia for their support and encouragement of the various factions? Al Qaeda for their obvious actions to promote and spread sectarian violence? Turkey for invading Kurdish portions of Iraq in their quest to suppress the PKK?

Who’s Right?

The US removing an Evil Dictator and spreading democracy in the Middle East? The Kurds who would finally like the Right to Self Determination after centuries of oppression and abuse? The Shia for believing in Democracy and Majority Rule? The Sunni who stand up for the rights of the minority and a multi-ethnic society? Syria, Iran and Saudia Arabia for their support and encouragement of the various ethnic groups? Al Qaeda for fighting Western Imperialism and aggression in the Middle East? Turkey for their support of the US in all of this?

Clearly the situation in Iraq is multi-faceted and not easily simplified nor understood.

Here, I’m going to alter your original statement just a tad bit to make it reflect the reality of realpolitik.

“Once the US decides on who the enemy is they can formulate THE PROPAGANDA based on that.”

However, your analysis of the Balkans also suffers greatly from over simplification.

If Serbs were the only bad guys in Bosnia, how do you explain the Croatians turning on the Bosnian Muslims at their weakest point in the war and committing absolute crimes of massive destruction and murder? I’ve seen Mostar with my own two eyes and what the Croatians did to their “allies”. I’ve been there within the last two years, and its still a complete wreck, the city itself is like a graveyard. I’ve been all over Bosnia, I’ve seen many small villages in ruins. However the sight of Mostar absolutely shocked me, even 10 years after the war. So who is the villain in the Croat-Muslim fighting? The Serbs?

Then we have two Muslim factions, but I guess somehow the Serbs were the enemies there too, according to your logic. The “evil” Bosniak warlord with control over the Bihac pocket, and the courageous Bosnian government based in Sarajevo promoting a multi-ethnic view of Bosnia by engaging in crimes against not just Serbs but other Bosniaks as well (an equal opportunity ethnic cleanser?). Here’s today’s article from B92 and I quote:

“The video dated July 11, 1994, shows post mortem conducted on the three APZB soldiers. The bodies of men identified as Mujo Behrić, Rasim Bašić and Branko Ćujić display clear signs of torture: all three have had their throats cut, with numerous additional stab wounds in their bodies.

The footage then shows Dudaković congratulating his soldiers, and pointing to two of them, saying: ”These are the lead actor and the main operative of this movie, and I’m the director”.

The video also contains scenes of Bosnian Army celebrations after the fall of Bihać, with troops driving through the streets firing their weapons in the air.

One of the vehicles in the video carries two naked men with belts tied around their necks, while Bosnian Army soldiers kick and hit them.”

Of course Dudakovic is already under investigation by the authorities in Sarajevo for his crimes against Serbs as well.

Of course the simplest view to take would be that Serbs were villains so of course any crimes against them were justified and understandable considering the conditions on the ground.

Of course some suffered much more then others, but I think all the politicians and people in power in Bosnia committed crimes. Clearly the Bosniak people were the greatest victims in all of this, suffering by far the greatest single act of murder in the war. However, keep in mind that there are no more Serbs in Croatia because of the single largest act of ethnic cleansing in the war. There are villainous people on all sides in that conflict and we should condemn all Crimes Against Humanity.

Why does the HR have to be from the west, they messed up, now its time to give it to someone else, why cant he be Russian?

In any civil war it is obviously the sides which have initially the most weapons who are able to do the most immediate large scale damage.Lebanon had a devastatingly brutal 15 year civil war between so many different sides it was hard to keep track of all the factions. By the time a peace agreement was signed the whole country lay in ruins with proportionally many more Lebanese killed than the number in Bosnia.To simple minded people the world is seen in simple terms but to intelligent people we understand the complexities of human nature and conflicts.All ethnic groups have their angels and demons and labeling a whole as evil is nonsensical to say the least.If you provoke a man with a gun by saying you are about to rape his wife do not be surprised if you get a shot between the eyes even though you did not ACTUALLY rape his wife.One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.We Americans are learning the hard way that there are no easy solutions EVEN when there are only 2 sides to a conflict and much less when there are MORE than 2 sides.