Web catalog
Most read
Most read last 7 days
Most Discussed
Top rated
Statistics
- Total registered users: 9773
- Total articles: 23656
- Total comments: 2087
- Last entry: Kebo presenting evidence that Izetbegovic brought mujahideen to Bosnia
- Last update: 11.01.2019. 23:44
Myth about the bogus war and the Karadjordjevo partition deal
Written 02.12.2009. 15:16
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.
Survey
Photo gallery
Kontaktirajte nas
No comments