Ultimatum to the Serbian Government

No, the CSCE didn't issue an ultimatum, it was only an announcement. And it isn't a question of standpoints that collide with ours, but ones that correspond. And from the beginning we were against war, and the President of the Republic said in Parliament that we could only fight a war of defense. As far as the JNA is concerned, it doesn't fall under the authority of our republic...

With this attitude of the Serbian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Jovanovic, the efforts to maximally minimize all that has been said in the past few days, particularly at the expense of the Serbian government and the JNA, as well as the warning sent to Belgrade - have been wholeheartedly upheld by the majority in Parliament and the main Belgrade TV news program, where this worldwide news of the day was reported only after many news items and reports.

It is fruitless, of course, to discuss in these dramatic moments whether these accusations, demands, conditions and warnings to Belgrade are ultimatums or not, whether the mention of April 29, when in Helsinki a meeting on the continuance of CSCE will be held, represents the final deadline by which Serbia must meet certain demands or not. What is incredible though is that the government will only be meeting in two or three days' time when we know that CSCE meets at midnight and decides at dawn. This is incredible because it is obvious that a widespread, synchronized international action, which many liken to the situation in the Gulf directly before the attack on Iraq, or the recent action against Libya which has resulted in the almost total international isolation of this country, has been set in motion against the Serbian government and the JNA.

In summing up this coordinated action against Serbia and the Army, certain conclusions can be drawn: the USA, the European Community, CSCE and many other international factors are simply not prepared to accept any longer the kind of procrastination, decoying and mimicry that has been the favorite tactic - and not only in Belgrade - of the politicians here; all possible diplomatic consideration, fencing and euphemism have been dropped in the naming of the guilty party.

The chief unknown in all this, which still awaits explanation, is the sudden and drastic change not so much in the American standpoint as much as in the tone used by American officials. Characteristic is the editorial in the New York Times, also carried by the International Herald Tribune, under the unusual heading of "Stop the Balkan Butcher".

If the change in tone is drastic, the question why remains unanswered. An explanation is sought in the shocking scenes from Bijelina which have flooded the American media and provoked the revulsion of the public, similar to that after Vukovar. From Washington the explanation is heard that James Baker was personally deeply shaken when he listened to the Bosnian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Silajdzic. It is also stated that Baker sees "Serbian aggression" as an insult towards America which has recognized B&H as a sovereign state.

Sober analysts are trying to fathom the essential reasons behind America's hard-line stance towards Serbia's authorities, specifically towards Slobodan Milosevic. The inevitable question, which is very difficult to answer, is - what has fundamentally changed in the past few days? There are signs that America, the creator and architect of a "new world order", sees in the Balkan entanglement, in which there are as many "truths" as there are participants, a suitable testing ground for the establishment and examination of its future presence in Europe, on the one hand its policy and approach towards its European allies and on the other, towards the processes which have started on the Old Continent with the collapse of the Berlin Wall. On the Balkans these events have been extremely tragic but not without moral.

Bosnia and Herzegovina is obviously the critical point which brings the world community and its concept of collective security, now being built on new "bloc-less" foundations, over the accepted limits. The international factors, whose patience has been insolently tried by the warring torture in Croatia, will not allow themselves once more to be brought into the situation of hostage to local despots. This would be equal to the defeat of world policy, particularly because Bosnia and Herzegovina could be the fuse to conflict and endangering of peace in an area much wider than the "locally acceptable" war. American "advances" towards the boiling Balkan hatch, motivated partially by the needs of the current election campaign, have become evident in the past weeks. Primarily, thanks to the intention to prevent Milosevic and Tudjman from continuing armed confrontation on the territory of a "third country", which, as those well informed know, was discreetly let known to both as long ago as February. American recognition of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the same "basket" with Slovenia and Croatia at the beginning of this month, from the perspective to today, looks like an attempt at diplomatic preventive measures.

But, as events quickly showed, this hasn't worked. America, like the rest of the European community (with which Washington, from March 10, "daily coordinates" its activities in regard to the YU crisis) and the United Nations, has had to act fast and energetically. Following the serious and synchronized demands to put an end to the enmity of "all against all" and an immediate end to the violence (which marked last week-end and resulted in a cease fire on April 12), the spread of the war fire along the Drina has brought to the well-known Balkan march route the worried Cyrus Vance. In Belgrade, his first stop, he passed on a key message to Slobodan Milosevic. Their dialogue, the sixth in the past few months, was short and, as the television cameras were not able to hide, obviously not particularly pleasant. It seems that Vance even declined the invitation to dine.

All in all, one other question regarding the actions of America and the EEC remains unclear - is it without reason and unjustified that in the past the guilt was equally divided between Belgrade and Zagreb. Even from Washington, though less frequently and more gently, censure was directed towards the Croatian government. Now, however, Croatia is mentioned only in passing, and the main, if not only, accused are Slobodan Milosevic and the JNA. Here is what our associate in Washington, Cvijeto Job, managed to find out from officials in the State Department who, understandably, wanted to remain anonymous. Serbia is expected to take quick, clear and firm steps to ensure the honoring of the independence and territorial integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as to cooperate with the "blue helmets" and the Brussels Conference on Yugoslavia. What has almost become a platitude was repeated - that the USA is in constant contact with the European Community and other allies, and if Serbia does not do as it is told it will be come an international pariah.

It should also not be forgotten that Croatia has recognized Bosnia and Herzegovina and declared that it will respect its independence, territorial integrity and sovereignty. The USA applauds this, which does not mean that it will refrain from further prevailing upon Zagreb to ensure that the actions of Croatian government are in keeping with such declarations, our associate was told in the State Department.

There is no doubt, and this is clear to all the key international factors, that the turning of the devastating Bosnian wheel was sponsored by its two pretentious neighbors - Serbia and Croatia. But events on the eastern border of this once central Yugoslav republic have thrown the ball of responsibility into the Belgrade court. Bluntly and without prevarication, this was first said by America.

There may be a seed of diplomatic psychology here. The final outcome which will eventually fall on the head of the government in Belgrade, will certainly not pass without the collective frustration of a large portion of the Serbian nation. Confronting the cruel truth will maybe hurt less if, instead of coming from Germany, it comes from the other side of the Atlantic.