BOOK REVIEWS in their published format
- 106 KB, pdf format

Who is to blame for the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina
- caught between history and politics

Two recently released books, one by Mladen Ancic and the other by Dr. Muhamed Borogovac, present the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina in widely divergent manners.

The first, written by Mladen Ancic, a young historian of Croatian background, utilizes a wide array of credible materials to provide an academic analysis, evaluation, and possible resolution of the difficult "Bosnian issue". The second book attempts by means of unreliable evidence to superficially argue, repeat, and impose upon the readers the "theory of betrayal" as the only explanation for the failure of the concept of a unitary, indivisible, democratic and civil "Bosniac" Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Of course, the political and national standpoints of the two authors are in complete opposition. Ancic, a Croatian, attempts valiantly to show that the only way to resolve and satisfy the desires of all three nations is to divide Bosnia and Herzegovina, while Borogovac, a Bosniac Muslim, considers this proposal a betrayal which would cause the dissolution of the state. Ancic draws his proofs from historical sources and from the development of the three national identities, while Borogovac finds his arguments in the newly created Bosnian myths about the "thousand year old Bosnian state, religion, and military", and from the international recognition of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Ancic's evidence is not exclusionary; he speaks always of three nations. Borogovac, on the other hand, refers only to one nation which has a right to Bosnia and Herzegovina. Ancic attempts to understand and justify the desires of the Serbs, Muslims, and Croatians; he is more tolerant in the exchange of views than Dr. Borogovac, who is tolerant and democratic only toward those who agree with his views on a unitary Bosnia. Others he condemns and would punish for opposing the intolerance of a unitary state in which one nation would rule, based on its overwhelming numbers. Ancic is prepared to discuss. Borogovac is exclusionary and imposes his theses. There is a political willingness on Ancic's part for a resolution which would guarantee all nations in Bosnia and Herzegovina constitutional equality. As an indication of this willingness, he points out, the Croatians have signed all resolutions presented thus far ensuring such equality. Borogovac calls into question all the signed agreements, as they prevent, in his view, the creation of a state in which one nation would rule the other two.

The most recent political developments in Bosnia and Herzegovina, especially in the Federation, confirm that the crisis continues, and that there is wide opposition to the pressure of the international community and support for a lasting peace and a resolution which satisfies all three nations, unlike Borogovac, who in his book promotes a unitary state. These developments are a confirmation of Ancic's bitter conclusion that political resolutions continue to be imposed, the free will of the nations is being ignored, and there is a lack of intelligent solutions for the crisis in the region.

Miroslav Međimorec