BALKANLAR

All options are true according to the Introduction section (p. 147) except the correct answer. On second paragraph, it is given that “In today’s globalization process where inter-communal interactions and interdependence are increasing, there is no institutional mechanism by which Balkan countries can ensure their common security interests.” which is opposite of the correct option. Thus, the correct option is false.  (1  Analyse the Bosnia-Serbia War)

Before the start of the Bosnia War in 1992, Bosnia was divided into three political structures: the Muslim Democratic Action Party (SDA), the Serbian Democratic Party (SDS), and the Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ).

For the Balkan countries, the potential for conflict stemming from ethnic and religious problems.

The ultimate goal of the NATO military operation called the “Balkan Storm” or “Operation Deliberate Force”, was to stop the Serbian attacks and to remove the Serbian elements in the region out of the region.

The three and a half years of civil war in Bosnia ended with the ceasefire negotiations that started on 1 November 1995. Peace talks started in Dayton, Ohio, USA, with the participation of Alija Izetbegovic on behalf of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Franjo Tudjman on behalf of Croatia, and Slobodan Milosevic on behalf of Serbia. The agreement, consisting of the main text and eleven annexes drafted in the city of Dayton, was signed by the parties on 14 December 1995 in Paris.

The three and a half years of civil war in Bosnia ended with the ceasefire negotiations that started on 1 November 1995. Peace talks started in Dayton, Ohio, USA, with the participation of Alija Izetbegovic on behalf of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Franjo Tudjman on behalf of Croatia, and Slobodan Milosevic on behalf of Serbia. The agreement, consisting of the main text and eleven annexes drafted in the city of Dayton, was signed by the parties on 14 December 1995 in Paris.

According to the Dayton Peace Agreement, the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina shall consist of two entities; the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina consisting of 10 cantons and the Serb Republic, and a small autonomous region called Brcko

Kosovo Liberation Army (UÇK-Ushtria Çlirimtare Kosoves), which was the militia of Kosovo Albanians.

Second, the USA was able to control the processes in both Yugoslavia and Macedonia with its control over Kosovo.

During the Kosovo intervention, an interesting military and diplomatic event took place and the Chinese Embassy building was “accidentally” hit by the USA.

The Vance-Owen plan, named after former US foreign minister Cyrus Vance representing the UN and David Owen, representing the EC, proposed the implementation of the Swiss model in Bosnia.

All options are true according to references (Veremis, 2015: 125; Gecaj, 2018: 4) given on page 148 except the correct answer. Veremis (2015: 125) claims that “Threats originating from within states replaced the threat that could come from ideological or military blocs during the Cold War”. So ideological or military blocs were causing threats in Cold War Era, but not in Post-Cold War Era. (1  Analyse the Bosnia-Serbia War)

The correct answer does not reflect what happened in the reality. The UN, US and EC decded to use non-violent methods to resolve the conflict in the beginning. So, “… the international community, especially the EU and the USA, did not take effective and deterrent measures against Serbs, and the attacks against the Bosniaks by Serbian militia forces under the supervision of UN peacekeepers in Srebrenica, which was declared a safe zone by the UN, reached the level of genocide (Dalar, 2008: 97).” as it is given on page 149. . (1  Analyse the Bosnia-Serbia War, 3 Interpret the strategies of global and regional powers such as the US, RF, UN, EU, and Turkey in the Bosnia and Kosovo crisis)

The definition in the question is given for Vance-Owen Plan on page 150. (1  Analyse the Bosnia-Serbia War, 3 Interpret the strategies of global and regional powers such as the US, RF, UN, EU, and Turkey in the Bosnia and Kosovo crisis)

All the options are false according to the “The Safe Zones Plan” on page 150-151, except the correct option. Safe zone were declared against Serbian paramilitary groups who are attacking Bosnian Muslim civilians. After Srebrenica, Sarajevo, Zepa, Tuzla, Gorazde and Bihac were also declared as safe zones. Although the International Court of Justice decided that Serbia committee crime of genocide, this decision was interpreted differently by the UN Security Council and the attacks against Bosnian Muslims were defined as “ethnic cleansing”, not “genocide”. (1  Analyse the Bosnia-Serbia War, 3 Interpret the strategies of global and regional powers such as the US, RF, UN, EU, and Turkey in the Bosnia and Kosovo crisis)

As stated on page 151, “the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina shall consist of three Members: one Bosniak and one Croat, each directly elected from the territory of the Federation, and one Serb directly elected from the territory of the Republika Srpska”. (1  Analyse the Bosnia-Serbia War, 3 Interpret the strategies of global and regional powers such as the US, RF, UN, EU, and Turkey in the Bosnia and Kosovo crisis)

The correct option is clearly declared in the section “Discussions on Intervention” on page 155. There were no evidence on use of excessive force. The intervention is based on aircraft operations. The duration of the operation did not cause any controversy regarding to its legitimacy. The UNMIK presence and capability of UÇK were not discussed regarding to the legitimacy of NATO operation. (2 Evalaute the Kosova Intervention)

As stated on page 162, “Turkey…” “…argued that accepting separatist demands would increase the conflict trends emphasizing once again that the status quo should be maintained within the framework of Yugoslavia’s territorial integrity. All the other statements are valid as given in the section “Global and Regional Actors in the Bosnia and Kosovo Wars” between page 157 to 162.

The last option is completely irrelevant and the Russian Federation did not have a large influence in the Balkans during the Post-Cold War Era, until Vladimir Putin was elected as president and made several changes in Russia Fedaration’s Balkans policy.

The only correct match is Slobodan Milosevic, who was the Serbian leader.  Cyrus Vance was US Foreign Minister and David Owen was European Community Representative (p. 150) who established the Vance-Owen plan. Alija Izetbegovic was the leader of Bosnian Muslims (p. 150 and 152). Ibrahim Rugova was the Kosovar politician, leader of LDK and the passive resistance movement in Kosova (not Bosnia). Slobodan Milosevic is the Serbian leader. Although this information is missing in the book, Milosevic was later judged at the Hague for his crimes against humanity in Kosovo and Bosnia but died before the trial could be concluded. For this reason, it is tought that some special emphasis should be given to his name and his actions.