Pen-ers, What ever one thinks of my sources and analysis, I think we can all agree that the first priority is putting an end to the carnage and finding some permanent solution to the problem. In my dream list, my first choice would be putting back together the old Yugoslavia somehow. However, I recognize that that is not possible at the present time though, because of economic complimentarities and restricted domestic markets, I think the eventual evolution of a free trade area leading to renewed economic links is possible, if not probable. Slovenian economists, for instance, argue that Slovenia's economic recovery is to some extent dependent on the re-establishment of the Balkan market since immediate access to Europe is not deemed likely. However, even that possibility is dependent on the normalization of relations between the various remnants of the former republics. My first assumption is that it is equally impossible to put Bosnia back together and that attempting to force such a reintegration will merely prolong the war. My second assumption, supported by a national commentary by a Russion-Ukranian specialist from my own university broadcast last week, is that no solution is possible without the involvement of the Russians. The Russians appear to be the only ones the Serbs trust and, therefore, the only ones that can put pressure on the Serbs to make concessions. My third assumption is that any truce and prolonged peace negotiations must be accompanied by some relaxation in the economic blockade of Serbia and probably some time table (tied to negotiations?) for the removal of sanctions. I think that has two imperatives -- one being a carrot to Yugoslavia to put pressure on the Bosnian Serbs to make compromises and two, to prevent the credibility of the UN from falling further as the sanctions become increasingly ineffective due to lack of support from other countries on Serbia's borders. My fourth assumption is that Clinton and EC leaders must make it clear to the Muslims that if they don't agree to some compromise solution (similar to the last tentative agreement), no further support will be forthcoming. I'm sorry I can't remember where I read it so I can't quote chapter and verse in support of this assumption but it was by one American politcal-media analyst who argued the war would already be over if Bush had been re-elected rather than Clinton. His argument went that it was Clinton's election posturing in opposition to the Serbs and his repeated anti_Serb threats that encouraged the Muslims to reject the last couple of tentative agreements and take a hard line. Obviously, there is no way of verifying this but the hardening of the Bosnian Muslim position after every US posturing would seem to give the argument prima facae support. As a practical suggestion, I would suggest that a Russian be added to Owen's mediation team. I certainly can't see that it could do any harm. Such a settlement in Bosnia will not, of course, solve the issue in Croatia where a somewhat similar situation existed (though, in this case the Serbs represent a much smaller minority -- 10 per cent though again spread out over a more than proportionate area -- some where between 20 and 30 per cent according to the figures I have seen which are based on the 1981 census.) The peace process will, I expect, be a long drawnout affair. What is important is that it begin with a general ceasefire and the maintenance of existing front lines (I can't see either side giving up territory outside of a general agreement, or for that matter Croatia). Tomorrow will be my final post on Bosnia in which I will try to answer, in a general way, my critics. With a glimmer of hope (now the current crisis seems to have abated) Paul Phillips
