Talk:Siege of Mostar

Problems

This article appears to be relaying on primary sources. Based on the tone and the existing sources the non english sources are suspected being non WP:RS (non reliable sources for wikipedia). Without good sources this article may be subject to speedy deleation. Please correct the existing citations errors and provide impartial sources. Also this article appears to present just one point of view. BO; talk 23:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Last edit

I'll try to give a short explanation of some edits that might be contentious in the last one.

"As escalation continued the Zagreb government deployed HV units and Ministry of the Interior (MUP RH) special forces into Bosnia and Herzegovina."

This was not in the cited source, I instead added "...Bosnian Croat forces backed by the Croatian Army..." from Ramet 2010, p. 264.

"Boban had abandoned a Bosnian government alliance and ceased all hostilities with Karadžić"

But conflicts between the HVO and VRS didn't stop. According to CIA 2002, vol. 2, p. 317: "In fact, Croat attacks on the corridor, clearly with HV assistance or involvement, increased after Bosanski Brod's fall. Bosnian Croat troops -again apparently with HV support- also were able to repel a VRS offensive against Orasje in November." There were instances of cooperation, but as Christia (p. 160) pointed out, there were examples of both Serb-Bosniak and Serb-Croat "alliances", and in Mostar and Herzegovina's case it was the first one (p. 166). Further, the Graz agreement is already in the April 1992 – June 1992 siege section and it was on 6 May, not 9 May. I'm not sure about Manolić's participation so I would just leave "Bosnian Croat and Bosnian Serb leadership". The HVO was also multiethnic at the time, not just ARBiH, so I left out that word. The last one is Milivoj Gagro's quote. I never even heard of him prior to this and I think that adding blame to an entire regional group is not the direction we should take. I'm sure that similar quotes could be found for anyone. Tzowu (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

"As escalation continued the Zagreb government deployed HV units and Ministry of the Interior (MUP RH) special forces into Bosnia and Herzegovina." is from Ramet 2006 not 2010. I've returned the rift text and left out the Gagro quote. Unless you've got sources to the contrary then Manolic should stay also the Graz agreement wasn't a simple ceasefire. --Potočnik (talk) 19:35, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

In the Prlic et al. judgement, volume 1 of 6, p. 155, it says:

"However, during the period of tri-partite negotiations, the HVO negotiated politically with the Serbs of BiH over the partition of BiH. On 6 May 1992, the representatives of the Serbian community of BiH, consisting inter alia of Radovan Karadžić, Momčilo Krajišnik and Branko Simić, and the Croatian Community of BiH, represented inter alia by Mate Boban and Franjo Boras, met without Muslim representatives in the city of Graz in Austria to discuss the future of BiH. The joint statement issued by Mate Boban and Radovan Karadţić on 6 May described by Mate Boban and Radovan Karadţić as a “peace agreement”, provided for the territorial division of BiH based on the 1939 borders of Croatian Banovina and called for a general cease-fire. However, this division included neither the strip of land along the banks of the Neretva, near Mostar, nor the town of Mostar, the reason why the parties wanted the EC to arbitrate their respective claims regarding these regions. The parties ultimately parted ways on 6 May 1992, without signing any agreement."

That's all there is about the Graz agreement in the judgement. The whole text of the (failed) agreement: [1] Tzowu (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

That the division of BiH was discussed/negotiated and that a statement/declaration was made is clear. What it was considered differs by the source: "joint statement" (ICTY), "peace agreement" (Boban & Karadzic), "formal statement" (CIA), "Serb-Croat agreement" (Williams), "detailed statement [...] public declaration [...] co-signed" (Lukic & Lynch), "agreed formally on a territorial division of Bosnia" (Donia), "signed a document to partition B&H, but that plan fell through" (Mojzes), "delineated their spheres of influence in Bosnia-Herzegovina" (Hoare) Do you have suggestions on formulating a paragraph taking all of them into account? --Potočnik (talk) 10:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I think we should go with what ICTY wrote. As for the earlier Graz meeting in February, it was Karadžić that claimed that Manolić talked about population transfers:

"Karadzic told Josip Manolic, one of Tudjman's most trusted advisors, who was representing the Bosnian Croats, that the Serbs must have a land-corridor across northern Bosnia. "Without the corridor any solution is out of the question." According to Karadzic, Manolic talked extensively in terms of population transfers. "He proposed that the Croats living in Serbia go to Croatia, and that the Serbs from Krajina, Zagreb and Rijeka go to Serbia. He suggested that pressure could be exerted to make them leave," Karadzid said." (Yugoslavia: Death of a Nation, p. 220) Tzowu (talk) 18:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

"Several months after the Washington Agreement the Croatian government continued to pursue irredentism. Ivić Pašalić, who was a key adviser to Tuđman and acted on his behalf, led a three-man delegation near Banja Luka to discuss with Karadžić the division of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In the meeting Karadžić proposed territory and population exchanges, something Tuđman was very interested in."

Ramet (2010 book) on page 265 says "according to a report published in the Rijeka daily Novi list somewhat later" (published in 3 April 2002). So the source for this is a column by Jelena Lovrić in Novi list newspapers. Lovrić said in that article that she got the information "from a senior representative of the Tuđman government, who wanted to stay anonymous". I don't find this reliable, there's not even a date of the alleged meeting. But even if the meeting or meetings did happen, there were dozens, hundreds of those kind of meetings. For every single one of them someone could claim that it involved some population transfers, partition plans and whatever. Especially in the time when the "moderates" led by Sanader came to power in HDZ. Tzowu (talk) 21:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that political scientist and historian Sabrina Ramet did find it reliable and included it in the book. The significance of this meeting, as Ramet notes, is that they conspired to territorial/population exchanges after Washington: "Significantly, this meeting occurred several months after the Washington Agreement which supposedly reconciled Zagreb and Sarajevo, thus giving the lie to claims that Croatian irredentism ended in February 1994." --Potočnik (talk) 22:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

It's also a fact that she added "according to a report published in the Rijeka daily Novi list somewhat later" and that information about the meeting can't be found anywhere else. Tzowu (talk) 23:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Clarified. --Potočnik (talk) 23:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)