• Myth about the provincial imperialist predator
• Myth about the crown witness and the central evidence
• Myth about the bogus war and the Karadjordjevo partition deal

Tudjman's permanent political orientation has remained an almost Anschluss-like drive for annexation of the Croatian majority areas in Bosnia and Herzegovina. This was his central geopolitical strategy and obsessive expansionist ambition.

Myth about the provincial imperialist predator

Tudjman himself has openly disclosed (or "blurted out") his sinister expansionist obsession in numerous historical books and essays, interviews and academic ruminations: he publicly questions and, more, expressly announces his disbelief with regard to feasibility and long-term stability of multicivilization states (not multiethnic- see the discourse below) A multitude of his explicit statements deny the possibility of a self-sustained state Bosnia and Herzegovina. Tudjman's predatory appetites stemmed from an ahistoric psychopathological fixation on the Croatian Banovina borders (a 1939 territorial settlement between Croats and Serbs giving Croatia proper circa 1/3rd of the current Bosnia and Herzegovina.)

Croatian Banovina/Ban Croatia in 1939.

Also, Tudjman's retrograde and antiquated myopic "vision" (essentially, a 19th century-like territorial plunder, "sanctioned" by geopolitical imperatives) got an unexpected boost from the American political analyst Samuel Huntington's bestseller "The Clash of Civilizations and Remaking of the World Order", whose central thesis is that multi-civilization states, lacking a strong and unequivocal self -identity, are not only prone to self-dissolution, but frequently act as foci and hotbeds of radical conflicts which tend to sweep globally polarized "denominationally hued" antagonists into the vortex of a certainly regional, and possibly planetary confrontation.

Reality

Tudjman assuredly did not believe in long-term sustainability of states patched up of competing nations (here, as in the majority of continental European studies, the concept "nation" is not equal to the "state". For example, Poles in the 19th century have been a nation without a national state, not just an ethnic group or an amorphous "people". This doesn't include states whose population is made up of groups of different ethnic origin, like Argentina or Australia.), so that his views on the possibility of self-sustained Bosnia and Herzegovina, can be summed up thusly: heretics of the yesterday are prophets of the tomorrow.

Besides, he was not solitary in this judgement: similar geopolitical vision can be found in American diplomat, writer and historian Henry Kissinger’s masterwork "Diplomacy" (with all the understandable simplifications taken into account): ("Henry Kissinger: "Diplomacy", Touchstone publishers, paperback, page 195. Chapter "A Political Doomsday Machine"). History has justified Tudjman's perspicacious observations and diagnoses (which are understandably more penetrating and detailed, with regard to the "Balkans" (a spooky and worn-out stereotypical tag) situation than Kissinger's bird's view fuzzy generalizations; we won't even bother to address such amateurish self-advertising dabblers like Glenny, Vulliamy or Maas,..), at least in the case of the South-East European contested lands (Western Europeans' killing spree has ended, hopefully, in the 1950s/60s- Algeria, Indonesia, Vietnam, Kenya). With only Switzerland as the proverbial happy exception that proves the rule (no genocidal war fought on the Swiss soil (so far)) and Belgium as the buffer zone in service of restraining and sapping post-Napoleonic France's influence- Europe's only "multiethnic" states are only those where one nation has succeeded in overpowering and assimilating others to a significant degree (English vs. Welsh and Scots in the U.K.; Castilians vs. Catalans and Basques in Spain,..) or has acculturated them in subtler ways. All other "multiethnic" states (in fact, composed of more nations, not just ethnicities; but the concept "multinational" has become restricted, as any serious English dictionary shows. Therefore we shall abstain from using the adjective "multinational" in the continental European sense in order to avoid confusion.) rest either on outright repression (China, Indonesia) or religious/denominational self-absorption and fear of "the other" (India, Pakistan)- the situation somewhat resembling that of the medieval Europe before the growth of national monarchies' powers (France, England, Spain) has destroyed European unity based on common faith (Catholicism) and the figure of indisputable political arbiter (Papacy).

With regard to Bosnia and Herzegovina, Tudjman was not an addict of any "Banovina fixation", but reasoned as a realist politician: after the collapse of communist totalitarianism and its concomitant, inevitable footnote, the break-up of Yugoslavia, Bosnia, as the "epitome Yugoslavia", a microcosm of Yugoslavia's contraries, becomes a contested country where each and every nation looks after their own, separate aims: Croats and Serbs after the final, long postponed unification and integration with their respective mother countries (Croatia, Serbia); while Bosnian Muslims, who were the chief beneficiaries of the later stages of Yugoslavia's existence (the growth of Bosnian "statehood" within communist Yugoslavia ran parallel with Bosnian Muslim demographic expansion and assertiveness, which resulted in the fact that they, for the first time in reliable population surveys, spanning some 150 years, have achieved a relative demographic majority ) want to preserve Bosnia and Herzegovina as a, more or less, "their own state". This state will, patterned along the lines of Bosnian Muslim demographic expansion, Croat and Serb emigration edging on exodus and tinged progressively with Islamic cultural and historical hue, from employment preferences to myopic history school textbooks, inevitably have grown (in not so distant future) into an exclusively Muslim state with Croats and Serbs majorized and marginalized, with the prospect of complete disappearance of Christian Slavs from their ancestral soil. (Of course, one must distinguish between strategy and tactics: strategy aims at re-constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina as an essentially Bosnian Muslim national state, whereas tactics deceptively misuses the multiculturalist ideology in the "one state-one nation" variant ("cultures" don't receive recognition as "national" cultures of two separate peoples, Croats and Serbs, but are relegated to the status of digested footnotes closer to the American "subculture" concept of picturesque periphery, from cuisine to genealogy).

The entire stratagem can be easily deciphered in a few trends:

-overt manoeuvres to institute a quasi-official, "Bosnian" language, at the expense of Croatian (and, hopefully, Serbian as well)

-clampdown on and silencing virtually all Croatian-language electronic media, except those on provincial levels, serving the sole purpose of de-Croatization and brainwashing

-media isolation of Bosnia and Herzegovina from the surrounding countries (especially Croatia, which covers more than 65% of the protectorate's boundaries). Having in mind all the grand phrases announcing European unification urbi et orbi-these dirty little tricks glaringly bespeak of cynical colonialist mindset.

-combination of gerrymandering, election frauds and gradual distortion of the Dayton peace treaty in such a direction as to ensure growing Muslim dominance. In essence- externally imposed Bosnian sovereignty of the "nation-state" variant (something that the majority of Bosnian Croats and Serbs detest and are not willing to accept, from here to eternity) only encourages Bosnian Muslim overblown ambition for domination (something they couldn't dream of achieving without permanent foreign patronage). All slogans of the "hands off Bosnia" type just intensify Croats' and Serbs' bitterness: their dissatisfaction may be summed up in an angry rhetorical question: "Who the hell are you, decrepit neo-colonialists, policing, bossing and abusing your UN prerogatives, gotten under highly suspicious circumstances, to lecture us what to and what not to in our ancestral homeland? If you fancy that we are going to bend and accept your shameless promotion of Bosnian Muslim political and national agenda-then, maybe, Alice's wonderland would be better suited for your "peacekeeping" zeal. No chance we'll ever accept pompous blather about "Bosnian territorial integrity" (essentially, a remnant of Ottoman Turks' invasions), especially when it comes from global colonial plunderers (Hawaii as a "naturally acquired national territory/state". Yeah, my foot)."

One can shortly describe Croat national strategy in Bosnia and Herzegovina (bearing in mind other nations' aspirations: Serbs wanted to secede and absorb into Serbia proper a greater part of B&H (somewhere between 60% and 75%); Bosnian Muslims kept on insisting on the "indivisible and unitary" status quo, refusing to take into consideration possible constitutional and administrative changes which would dispel any fear of the looming Muslim majorization (Bosnian Muslims, who have constituted 30,73% of the total Bosnia and Herzegovina population according to the 1948. census, have grown to become 43,67% in the 1991. census. During the same period, Croats have dropped from 23,94% to 17,32%, and Serbs from 44,29% to 31,37%):

a) in the case of definite collapse of Bosnia and Herzegovina Croatian-majority areas should be incorporated into Croatia

b) if Bosnia should survive as a state, then, it could be only as a political entity each and every of her 3 constituent nations have agreed to give their assent to, because they see their own prosperous future in such a political unit: without true equality, achieved through ethnic/national sovereignty and materialized via numerous building blocks of equality (schools system, military and police, economic system,..)- Croats's and Serbs's fickle good will shall inevitably vanish for good. To ask them to assist to and hasten their own national marginalization and disappearance (virtually, a suicide) is way too much for even morbid mindset. In such a situation Tudjman, along with the vast majority of Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina, has chosen the following option: Croatian majority areas (greater part of Herzegovina, central Bosnia and Bosnian Posavina) should serve as strongholds for preservation, defense and growth of Bosnian Croatdom, while Croatian minority in other territories could be given help and sustenance, backed by Croatia and Croat-controlled areas in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The dogmatic contention about supposed Tudjman's fixation on the Banovina Hrvatska/Ban Croatia boundaries (dating back to1939.) simply doesn't hold water. Being the late 20th century politician, he was well aware of the fact that Bosnian Muslim masses and their elite were not in the semi-comatose state of political apathy and passivity (in sharp contrast to the pre-WW2 situation), and that, in part as a consequence of decades-long Yugo-communist indoctrination, harbour more or less intense animosity toward Croats as such (this may sound as an overstatement, but history has proven it to be an euphemistic understatement). Also, since huge portion of Banovina Croatia (we are referring to the Bosnia and Herzegovina territory) had covered Bosnian Posavina (more than 6 municipalities, plus good chunks of other municipalities' areas), and the fact that Dayton Peace Agreement has "mercifully" accorded the Croats only 2 territorially disconnected municipalities (thanks to the "international community's” generosity in awarding Serbian aggression with the greater part of Croatian soil in Bosnian Posavina as the necessary "life corridor" (what a marvel! we are witnesses of resurrected geopolitical monsters we have thought to lie safely buried in the imperialist past) -all this is a definite proof that endless blather about imaginary Tudjman's "Banovina boundaries addiction" is just a piece from Croatophobic propagandist arsenal.

Moreover, newer babble (originating from conspiracy junkies circles soaked in chronic Croatodemonomania) has hilariously (for a detached viewer) undermined the entire "Tudjman-Banovina-fascination" myth. According to this, "revised" version of partition dogma, Tudjman has, having come to see the merciless truth of military vulnerability and geopolitical insignificance of the whole Bosnian Posavina pocket, shifted focus of his predatory interests to the under-populated and craggy, but strategically and communication-wise important region of the north-eastern Bosnia, where Serbs have constituted overwhelming majority from the 18th century on.

The fairy tale goes on like this: the north-eastern Bosnia parts secures Croatia's geopolitical "soft belly" by adding the decisive strategic depth buffer zone (although Bosnian Muslims are even deeper in an imagined Croatian vulnerable geo-strategic zone, inhabiting densely populated Bihac region-this crucial fact is easily dismissed with charming irresponsibility) and is a sort of territorial compensation for lost Bosnian Posavina. Now, the entire "Banovina-boundaries-fascination" myth collapses before our eyes. Had Tudjman wished to resurrect the Banovina Hrvatska/Croatia in the 1939 boundaries, he couldn't possibly have done so without incorporating the overwhelming majority of Bosnian Posavina, which had been so vital a part of Cvetkovic-Macek Banovina 1939 agreement. But, if he had, according to the same conspiracy theorists, come to agreement with Milosevic with regard to territorial "swap" (Posavina for NW Bosnia), he must have been astonishingly clairvoyant, because Bosnian Posavina was occupied as early as 1992., and Croatian military forces have gained control over north eastern Bosnia as late as 1995, after many military and diplomatic ups and downs. Since "Banovina fixation" and "territorial swap" are mutually exclusive- another myth goes down the toilet.

Myth about the crown witness and the central evidence

Tudjman himself gave away (in a bibulous mood) his expansionist/annexationist master-plan with regard to Bosnia and Herzegovina during the Guildhall banquet, 6th May 1995, when British liberal-social democratic politician Paddy Ashdown succeeded in talking him into an astonishing act of self-disclosure: he (Tudjman) has drawn possible future boundaries on a napkin Ashdown cautiously preserved (presumed similarity with Monica Lewinsky's sperm-soaked blouse is purely coincidental), in order to expose Tudjman's partitionist appetites.

Reality

-if Tudjman's fixation remained a slightly modified Croatian Banovina from 1939.-then what to do with this territorial monster appearing out of the blue ? Bosnian Posavina is elegantly brushed off, and Croatia, parenthetically, devours the entire Bosnian Muslim ethnic corpus. The two geopolitical aims, Banovina (less than 1/3 of B&H, with almost exclusively Croatian population) and the "napkin Croatia" ( more than 2/3 of Bosnia and Herzegovina, with Bosnian Muslims outnumbering Bosnian Croats in ratio surpassing 2.5/1, completely annexed into a hypothetical greater Croatia) are irreconcilable.

- why on earth would Tudjman, by then the decisive player in war and peace games in Bosnia and Herzegovina, share his most intimate stratagems (which have, up to now, remained completely unknown to his former closest associates-turned-political-adversaries (Hrvoje Sarinic, Stjepan Mesic), at least in this "napkin contours form") with an obscure British MP, dribbling with insatiable desire for public self-advertisement ? Ashdown, virtually a non-entity on ex-Yugoslavia political map, is, we are supposed to believe, a charismatic seducer able to overpower old Machiavel Tudjman's suspicion and to rob him of his most guarded geopolitical secrets. Moreover - Tudjman, in the act of unprecedented naivety, signs his compromising diabolical plan! As for Ashdown- this typical political Cagliostro was playing exactly the same game as many other fame-hungry exhibitionists, battening on the West's guilty conscience with regard to the idealized projection of Bosnia martyrdom.

- it has been established by graphological analysis that Ashdown's napkin is a rather clumsy forgery. For instance, no Croat politician (especially a "nationalist" like Tudjman) would write the noun "Krajina" without quotation marks, which underscore artificiality and ultimate doom of the Serbian parastate on Croatian soil. More, Tudjman's handwriting doesn't match that found on the napkin.

- strategically, "Ashdown's napkin" presents a geopolitical doctrine that runs contrary to everything Tudjman stood for his whole life as a politician: demarcation with Serbs and cooperation with Bosnian Muslims, but *not* the creation of a bi-national Croatia, which would inevitably come into existence with absorption of more than 2 million Muslims (in fact, the latter scenario might be characterized as the ultimate strategist's nightmare.) Tudjman was frequently publicly defamed for his imagined obsession with "ethnically pure" Croatia. Now, the same slanderers put up another, oxymoronic charge: the supposed "ethnic purist" was in fact extreme "ethnic pollutant", all-too-willing to nationally contaminate Croatia with the indigestible portion of Bosnian Muslims, significantly outnumbering the original Serbian population in Croatia. Also, the Islamophobe Tudjman (so they aver) yearned to incorporate as much Muslims as possible into an essentially Western Catholic/secular state, in order to solidify the basis of Croat nation state and make it eligible to the European Union membership (forget about Turkey's unpleasant experiences re this matter.)

-the fact Croatophobes are very willing to overlook is a self-evident one: even if Tudjman had harboured such sinister predatory ambitions (let's suppose this, for the sake of argument)- it is absolutely preposterous to assume that he could have realized this "shipment of men and goods" as he had whimsically decided. Such a "population transfer" (Serbs from Banja Luka to Tuzla, Muslims from Tuzla to Banja Luka) is impossible for the only remaining superpower to accomplish, let alone for a tiny, war-exhausted Croatia. The underlying assumption of "Tudjman lord of the ethnic migrations" fantasy is that he was able to toss millions of people to and fro, without slightest respect for wishes and plans of political and military leadership of Muslims and Serbs, or international community, UN, USA or EU. Welcome to the wonderland!

But, the napkin story has had more sinister repercussions: Lord "Paddy" Ashdown has testified in the general Blaskic Hague trial as a witness for persecution (sorry, a Freudian slip- prosecution). His testimony was among crucial ones that led to the judiciary conclusion that Croatia was "aggressor on Bosnia and Herzegovina".

Simple logical analysis of this part of the verdict shows its untenability: it stands on Ashdown's (and two other problematic “protected” witnesses's) testimony. What kind of international military conflict, i.e. "aggression" is, if, of the entire world, only two-three people know about it ?

a) Military conflict between Bosnian Croats and Muslims ended by the Washington agreement signatures March 18th 1994, according to which both parties had agreed to form a joint Federation that will in near future have entered the confederal communion with Croatia. A rather bizarre conclusion, considering the purported "aggressive" nature of Croatia's role in this conflict.

b) Paddy Ashdown has testified on the map president Tudjman had supposedly drawn (on the napkin) during May 6th 1995. So, some 14 months after the cessation of Croat-Muslim hostilities, Tudjman draws a map showing his opinion how the boundaries will have looked in 10 years.

c) this napkin becomes the crown evidence for the "international character of the Croat-Muslim conflict" verdict. The map on the napkin was drawn 14 months after the end of the Muslim-Croat war, and more than 2 years after its beginning.

To pose such claims certainly is blatantly to beg the question.

1. How on earth has Lord Ashdown during 20some minutes conversation discovered a secret no one except him has succeeded in "extracting" from Tudjman ?

2. How can a projection about the state of the region in 2005 become *the* argument on the nature of 1993/94 military conflict ?

3. What kind of "international conflict", involving 2 countries, could it be considering the fact that no one knows about it except 2 "protected witnesses", but even they cannot testify in public for reason of their safety ?

President Tudjman has on many occasions (interviews to the French TV FR-2 August 19th 1995, to the Turkish TV August 29th 1995, to the Israeli TV September 4th 1995,...) explained what the "napkin story" was all about :.." NATO (and EU authorities in Bruxelles) has made known, during 1993, a map on possible future influence spheres in East Europe, drawing a boundary between "East" and "West". Various projections of these East-West spheres of influence were published in the strategic atlas "Complexe", authored by Chaliand and Rageau. In all maps imagined East-West boundaries virtually “partition” B&H "

Full reference is: Gerard Chaliand, Jean-Pierre Rageau "Atlas Strategique. Geopolitique des nouveaux rapports de forces dans le monde.", Editions Complexe, 1994, pg. 219, ISBN 2-87027-528-5. Both authors are well known political scientists with academic credibility (visiting professor at UCLA Berkeley and Harvard (Chaliand), and the specialist for Eastern Europe and contemporary history (Rageau)).

Considering the map from their "Atlas" (Figure 1.), one can easily see that the “napkin borders” are exactly the same as those presented in the Chailiand-Rageau strategic study:

Figure 1.

So, the conclusion would be:

a) Tudjman's explanation of the source and motivation for "napkin map" is credible

b) Ashdown has (probably purposely) misattributed the map to the supposedly predatory future Tudjman's intentions

c) everything else is nothing but political fabrication

- as all spicy stories have salacious endings, this one is no exception: British MP Paddy Ashdown has, in the year 2000., published his diary where he shamelessly and explicitly retells the story about "Tudjman's napkin". Not to bother a potential reader with unnecessary details, a few "confessions" deserve to be mentioned:

a) Ashdown professes his antipathy towards Tudjman and proudly displays his ignorance by assigning Tudjman a quisling-like role in WW2 (in fact, Tudjman was the only living statesman dining in the Guildhall with active anti-fascist fighter record).

b) Ashdown then proceeds to describe how he managed to get Tudjman drunk. Another misfire, since Tudjman was known for his temperance/abstinence and no one, in any circumstance, has ever seen him even slightly intoxicated.

c) at the end: Ashdown confesses that he had written all the names of the regions and places. When asked about his opinion on future boundaries between Croatia and Serbia, Tudjman draw a curved line on the napkin (speedily provided by Ashdown) with no further remarks. Ashdown himself later added all the names and immediately trumpeted and blown up the whole "affair", with the sole intent to escape from anonymity and catapult himself into the orbit of global media fame. And, lo and behold! - he succeeded. Lord “Paddy” Ashdown is current (2002-*) Bosnia and Herzegovina’s “High Representative”, i.e. colonial governor. Archetypal post-modern politician, no doubt.

Myth about the bogus war and the Karadjordjevo partition deal

During the meeting in the Karadjordjevo estate (Serbian province Vojvodina), March 30th 1991., Croatian president Tudjman and Serbian president Milosevic struck a deal whereby they agreed about the respective influence spheres and the partition of Bosnia and Herzegovina, completely ignoring even mere existence of Bosnian Muslims. Thus, the "alliance made in Hell" came into being, Serbs and Croats united trying to annihilate Bosnia's statehood and laying the ground for joint military aggression and ethnic cleansing to come.

Reality

The Karadjordjevo myth is the Archimedean central point of the "harmonious multiculturalist Bosnia" addicts, the grand simple "solution" and cheap absolution for all sins of EU/USA (semi)conscious complicity in Bosnian slaughter, devious plots gone south for good, public embarrassments,...in sum: the ideal scapegoat. When pressed, the Karadjordjevo junkies would jabberwock something like this: paradisiacal harmony was a natural state of the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina, a sort of Eden turned into Inferno by rapacious passions of their predatory neighbours. The Karadjordjevo myth is a schemers' goldmine and fabulous Croats-guilty-by-default device. It doesn't matter it cannot be proven. The best thing about it is that it cannot be *refuted* beyond reasonable doubt. The guilty-by-default machine operates perfectly. Among many miraculous operations of this simplistic cartoon (the cartoon form perfectly corresponds to "serious" analyses which, using more technical and bureaucratic terminology, blur much of its original absurdity) we can pick as the most useful:

- Serbs are exculpated (at least partially) and the burden of guilt is transferred (as much as possible) onto Croatia's back

- Bosnian Muslims are completely cleared even of a shadow of guilt (contrary to the multiplicity of evidence, presented in the war section), because, as the story goes, they were, poor babies, just *re*active, never *pro*active in the ethnic cleansing business. Moreover: they are allowed to retain the image of the privileged victim and to avoid the embarrassment of being exposed as aggressors, particularly with regard to Bosnian Croats (intercommunal fighting ethnically "cleansed" 150,000 Croats from Muslim-held areas & 50,000 Muslims from Croat-held areas).

- Croats are, by incessant beating on the Karadjordjevo drum and the concomitant guilt complex, rendered incapable of putting up a prolonged serious resistance against innumerable manipulations aiming at creation of unitary Bosnia and Herzegovina (though the entire Bosnian Croat people might politically oppose inducements to commit a national suicide, this can always be dismissed as blunders of "seduced dumbasses" or a new proof of ineradicable Croat pro-fascist leaning).

Be as it may, the following facts are irrefutable:

-Croatian and Serbian presidents Tudjman and Milosevic did meet March 30th 1991 on the Karadjordjevo estate in Serbian Province Vojvodina. Details about this meeting, apart from usual diplomatic statements, are unknown. The press release stated that all controversial issues were discussed.

-the next 9 months have witnessed an all-out war against Croatia, covering circa 2/3 of her territory and perpetrated by Serb-controlled Yugoslav National Army (the JNA) and local Serb militias, aided by flood of volunteers from Serbia proper. The city of Vukovar was attacked and completely destroyed, while the city of Dubrovnik, a Croatian coastal town was besieged and shelled. War has spilled over to Croat-populated areas of Bosnia and Herzegovina (not that Croats have shown any radicalism; unarmed, they were all-too-easy prey in ethnic cleansing campaign). Such was the case with the Ravno municipality-then, a part of predominantly Serbian Trebinje municipality. When Croats were expelled from south eastern Herzegovina and their houses systematically burnt (Ravno) - Bosnian Muslim leadership has shown total indifference, encapsulated in the by now legendary phrase: "This is not *our* war". (Although it was waged with the genocidal passion against Croats on the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina. A very unconventional view on the statehood, no doubt.) The Karadjordjevomaniacs conveniently forget that the supposed agreement, reached in the March 1991., was brutally nullified in Bosnia and Herzegovina, as early as 1991. If there was a deal - why the Vandalic, almost animalistic Ravno occupation? Paranoid conspiracy "answer" is food for bears since Ravno was liberated by HVO (Croatian Defense Council-Bosnian Croat military forces) in 1992 and finally incorporated into Croatian controlled regions in Bosnia and Herzegovina Federation. Looks like Tudjman and Milosevic decided that Ravno should go to Serbs, then changed their minds on some other meeting (current Croatia's president, stand-up comedian Stjepan Mesic, has enumerated no less than 48 secret and public meetings during the war- therefore, once a month. Sociable guys or secret soul mates? Your choice)

One is tempted to believe that their diabolic hidden scheming ultimately determined all the zigzagging of the frontline, which moved hither and thither according to the Machiavels' green table machinations. Also - it is perfectly natural to assume that they have reached an agreement with regard to Croatia, which must have been president Tudjman's top priority. But, judging from the fact that a (Serbian controlled) JNA plane flew to Zagreb and bombed the offices of president Tudjman, and that ten minutes before this attack, he went to a restaurant with Stjepan Mesic and Ante Markovic, the last Yugoslav prime minister (something that saved all participants' lives) - the Karadjordjevo deal was, to say the least, a pretty wacky stuff. The ultimate Karadjordjevo dogma lunacy could be presented something like this: Tudjman has, as a part of the Karadjordjevo deal, accepted the occupation of circa 26% of Croatia's territory. Also, all further manoeuvres (Bosnia war details, UN peacekeeping, final Croat military crackdown on Croatian and Bosnian Serbs, NATO airstrikes) - all have been somehow predicted and agreed on. Because Tudjman wouldn't have accepted temporary occupation of more than a fourth of Croatia's soil, hadn't he known he'd get it back anyway. A corollary of the Karadjordjevo conspiracy theory is that at least one player (probably, both) was self-destructive. Tudjman's position was strongly endangered with the fall of Vukovar - his alleged partner's victory. Milosevic was, on the other hand, on an extremely shaky ground when operation "Storm" swept away "Serbian Krajina"-the moment of ultimate triumph for his imaginary accomplice. Why would they agree on a partner's possible downfall?

At the end, let the facts speak for themselves:

a) The greatest number of Bosnian Muslim refugees found their shelter in Croatia, more than in any other country in the world. A part of these refugees settled later in the EU countries and the US, another part returned to Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the 3rd has permanently settled in Croatia. During the year 1992, Croatia received a flood of 400,000 people fleeing from the Bosnian deluge (among them, circa 70% Bosnian Muslims). More, in an unprecedented gesture of generosity and magnanimity, Croatia continued to take care of the Bosnian Muslim soldiers' families during the most intense fighting in 1993/1994 which had ethnically cleansed tens of thousands Croats from Bosnia and Herzegovina. No act of retribution has happened to the more than 200,000 women, elderly or children whose male relatives were at the same time engaged in brutal aggression against Croat majority areas in Bosnia and Herzegovina. All in all, Croatia has financed many months stay (and in over 50% cases many years residence) of Bosnian Muslims, covering more than 95% of the expenses from her own budget.

b) Croatia was the 1st country in the world (along with EU members, which did it collectively) to recognize Bosnia and Herzegovina as a sovereign state. Also, the 1st ambassador to appear in Sarajevo was a Croat.

c) Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina, advised by the Zagreb government, were virtually the only Bosnian people who has accepted (or not explicitly rejected) *all* international community's peace proposals, from the Cutilheiro plan (March 1992.), via Vance-Owen (January 1993), till Owen-Stoltenberg (July 1993.) and Dayton peace agreement (November 1996.). All these plans are based on the precondition of existence of Bosnia and Herzegovina as a sovereign state. Sapienti sat !

d) Bosnian Croats, along with Croatia, have prevented the collapse and inevitable massacres in the Bihac "safe haven", which would certainly outnumber the victims toll in Srebrenica (where, by the way, Dutch "peacekeepers" played the role of Serbian executors' semi-willing accomplices).

e) had not the Croatian Army intervened on Bosnian soil in the summer of 1995, reducing the Serbs' controlled area from 70% to 45%, the Dayton talks nor today fragile peace wouldn't have come even into consideration. In all probability the war would have dragged on and on with minor territorial moves (like the most of the WW1) or Western "powers" would have been sucked into a Vietnam-like desperate mission.

f) Croatia has been either the chief provider or virtually (apart from the Sarajevo airport and a few other isolated instances) the only route whereby *everything* that kept Bosnian Muslims alive was coming to the needy and the desperate.

Attorney Nobilo's closing arguments at General Blaskic's trial:

The Prosecution spent quite a bit of time in proving that the idea of President Tudjman was a division of Bosnia-Herzegovina, which would be a hostile policy towards this state, and the key thesis, which invokes the support, was the meeting in Karadjordjevo on the 30th of March, 1991 between Presidents Tudjman and Milosevic. Allegedly, it is there that the division of Bosnia was agreed upon. It is something that was speculated on in the media, it was something that was rumoured, it was something that was whispered about, but, Your Honours, before you, no single shred of evidence was presented on what were the contents of this meeting and what decisions were taken there. So we have no witness, we have no document that would show what the contents of the meetings in Karadjordjevo were and what decisions were taken. We can judge on Karadjordjevo only on the basis of the consequences of this meeting, and we have to place it in the context of time.

That was the 30th of March, 1991. At that time, the conflicts had already started in Croatia, but they had not escalated at that time. At that time, the rebel Serbs were active in Croatia, which assisted the JNA that used them as an instrument and it was arming them. President Tudjman was trying to prevent a war, and in the context of this effort to prevent a war, this meeting in Karadjordjevo should be viewed. Now, if what the Prosecution claims is true, that is, that there was an agreement between Tudjman and Milosevic in Karadjordjevo, then the question arises: How come that after Karadjordjevo, after the 30th of March of 1991, the real war in Croatia only began? It was after the 30th of March that the city of Vukovar was attacked and completely destroyed. This was a city in Croatia. And also the city of Dubrovnik, a Croatian coastal town. How can it be that the partners, after having reached an agreement, are starting a real war in earnest? This is another piece of evidence that this agreement never took. Or it was said that Milosevic and Tudjman were partners because they had reached an agreement. What type of agreement is this that if, after Karadjordjevo, a JNA plane flew to Zagreb and bombed the offices of President Tudjman? Ten minutes before this attack, he went to a restaurant with Stipo Mesic and Ante Markovic, the last prime minister, they went to a restaurant ten minutes before that. So it is clear that there was no agreement. How would you also explain that General Bobetko entered Bosnia to prevent the JNA from taking full control of Bosnia at that time? So the war really only started after Karadjordjevo, and the only thing we can conclude is that there was no agreement. We do not know what the contents of this meeting were. We do not know whether there was an effort to come to an agreement, but we know the consequences, what happened after Karadjordjevo.

It is true that President Tudjman, on several occasions, both publicly and privately, advocated a division of Bosnia-Herzegovina. That is true. That is correct. It is true that in 1981, Mr. Tudjman, as a historian, wrote that Bosnia should be divided. However, what the Prosecution did was manipulate this, that is, taking these true statements, and they turned it into a thesis and say, "The Republic of Croatia advocated the division of Bosnia-Herzegovina," but there is no evidence that the Republic of Croatia advocated the division of Bosnia-Herzegovina. President Tudjman is the president of the Republic of Croatia, but the policy of the Republic of Croatia is reflected in documents, open documents, official documents, such as laws, decrees, and in the actual steps, measures taken by the Republic of Croatia. So that is how its real position is reflected. In creation of an international policy, it is clear that leadership plays a significant role, but as this international or foreign policy is being created in the bodies of the state, you have to take into account both the internal and foreign relations. Croatia is a small country, and you have to take into account all the influences and positions that you have. A real politician has to take into account all the different factors. Let's say that the aim may be or the desire may be to, let's say, divide the country, but the real policy prevents you from actually pursuing such a policy.

I will just mention a couple of things, but most importantly, there is no shred of evidence that the policy of the Republic of Croatia was going in the direction of division of Bosnia-Herzegovina. How are we to reconcile this policy with the fact that the Republic of Croatia was the first state to have recognised the existence of Bosnia and Herzegovina as early as April 1992? And on 19 April, 1992, Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina signed an agreement on the diplomatic councillor missions abroad, and the Republic of Croatia undertakes to protect the interests of Bosnia-Herzegovina, interests in those countries where Bosnia did not have its own diplomatic missions. The ambassadors were exchanged in 1992 and early 1993. On 19 January, 1993, the first ambassador of Bosnia-Herzegovina arrived in Zagreb, and before that, the Croatian ambassador was already in Sarajevo. Also, on 14 June, 1993, President Tudjman visited Sarajevo, and throughout this period, they never interrupted their diplomatic ties.

The Croatian parliament adopted at least two declarations: One is D106 of 30 April, 1993. In this declaration of the Croatian parliament, Croatia says: "The historic friendship of Croats and Muslims is a prerequisite for the survival of both of these people in this region. It is the foundation for sovereignty and territorial integrity of Bosnia-Herzegovina and its future." This is the declaration of the Croatian Parliament that speaks about the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Also, Exhibit D107 of 30 June, 1993 where Croatia supports the internationally recognised Bosnia-Herzegovina, its sovereignty, and territorial integrity. So much on that issue, and we will further argue that these two countries were allies throughout.

To conclude: the central Karadjordjevomaniacs' thesis about the Tudjman-Milosevic deal on the territorial division of Bosnia and Herzegovina is drastically subverted by the chain of events on the battleground, both military and political. Considering the fact that only direct American diplomatic intervention had saved Western part of the Bosnian Serb Republic/Republika Srpska from total military defeat that would have left Serbs with no more than 25% of Bosnia and Herzegovina (mainly around the Drina river basin), a cynic could justifiably deduce: it's not Tudjman with whom Milosevic had struck a deal, but Americans.

Conspiracy theories aficionados, if they want mental fodder, could ponder on the incontestable fact that the US (faithfully accompanied by the EU) was the central arbiter who stubbornly insisted that Serbs *must* get 49% of the Bosnian territory (although there was no demographic, strategic, logical, let alone "moral" reason for such a magnanimity towards a groggy genocidal regime). The US have, under the false pretext of stopping the war at any cost, halted the crushing defeat of Bosnian Serb Army (Serbs were not on their knees; literally, they lay prostrated) and later constantly put any leverage at their disposal to secure the boundaries and constitutional status (in essence, a status quo statehood) of Bosnian Serb ethnically cleansed Republic.

Intriguing development, indeed! Those who are the most vociferous and seething with moral indignation in accusing the Croatia's alleged aspirations to divide Bosnia and Herzegovina (quelle horreur!) have worked overtime to split up Bosnia so as to fulfil Serbs' expansionist dreams, even over-reaching Serbs' optimal territorial appetites at the time (and succeeded at that!). Those who, in fits of "righteous wrath", slam Croatia and president Tudjman for secret "shady deal" in Karadjordjevo (with nothing, zero, zilch substantiation), have orchestrated a public partition of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and announced it urbi et orbi. Those who demonise Croatian Union (later, Republic) Herceg-Bosna as a "parastate" (the ultimate crime, no doubt)- have installed and continue to support Republika Srpska as the true national Serbian state in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Evidently, the whores pontificate on chastity.