ST:     This is the time to redefine the relationship between NATO, the UN and
the Republic of Srpska, and to redefine the UN mission. It is no longer
possible for the UN to act, on the one hand, as the deliverer of
humanitarian aid and "peacekeeper", and on the other hand as belligerent on
the side of the Muslims.[ .... ] Three weeks ago we had the Croatian attack
on western Slavonia, a UN
"protected area", where many, many Serb civilians were killed, and the UN did
not attack the Croatians. The Muslims are constantly misusing the so-called
safe havens - in Tuzla, in Gorazde, in Bihac - as springboards for
offensives against the Serbs, blatantly flouting UN resolutions, and
nobody's really threatening them. In fact, the Americans are quite explicit
that the threat of air strikes is only directed against the Serbs! They are
explicitly saying that the air strikes cannot happen against what they call
the Bosnian government.

BBC:    The UN ultimatum was to the Bosnian government and to the Serbs, wasn't
it?

ST:     We all know that in practice this was not so, because the rules of
engagement of American pilots flying out of Italy are that attacks against
Muslim targets will simply not happen. [ .... ] What happened yesterday at
Pale is also an example of less than accurate targeting, and the dismissive
attitude of your correspondent to the Bosnian Serb claim that there have
been civilian
casualties is curious, because he is hardly able to ascertain even if there is a
cloud of smoke over Pale, but he "knows" that there were no civilian
casualties there yesterday.

BBC:    But I was talking about the seventy-one civilian casualties that were
killed in Tuzla yesterday - they were deliberately targeted! [ST:       How
do you know that?] Well, how else, if a shell lands in the centre of a
market place, who are you aiming for?

ST:     If there is heavy weaponry in heavily populated areas, and presumably   
demilitarized areas such as the "safe havens" of Tuzla and Sarajevo, it is
the fault of those who bring those weapons into such areas.  [ .... Live  
phone interview with Ejup Ganic in Sarajevo .... ]


BBC:    Is this an escalation without end? How do you see the next few
hours, the next few days?

ST:     I never expected to agree with Dr Ganic on anything, but I think he is
quite right when he says that the UN threat to his side was, as he put it,
"academic". The threat has been, is, and will be directed against the Serb
side alone, and this is the basic problem. The perception among the Serbs,
that the United Nations is not playing an even-handed role in this
conflict, and that the way in which they have been enforcing resolutions
concerning "safe havens" against the Serbs is in sharp contrast to the way
in which they've allowed the Croats and the Muslims to violate those   
resolutions. [ ... The Serbs] do have a cause, and that cause is not being
met by the present diplomatic initiatives. What the so-called international
community is saying is that the Serb side
has to sign the Contact Group map, and has to accept the framework for a
constitutional package...

BBC: (interrupts) But you are provoking the international community now, aren't
you?

ST:     Excuse me, but you have to distinguish between cause and
consequence. The cause right now - as we heard from Mr Ganic - is that the 
Muslim side has every interest in an escalation of the UN involvement on
their side. In New York, at the Security Council, it is the United States,
in the person of Madeleine Albright, who has been pushing this kind of
course. You have to
understand that the attitudes harden, because the people see that the UN is not
playing an even-handed role. I believe that the only way out of this is a 
redefinition of the UN mandate as a strictly humanitarian, impartial body,
which will require a change of the rules of engagement. For as long as the
US hawks - who have no troops on the ground - are allowed to press this
kind of course, it is the British, the French and other peacekeepers who
will be endangered.