The Muslim forces need to be armed for real stability.

The UN arms embargo has long ago become a farce with the full blessing of the US Government, as both the Muslim and (particularly) regular Croatian armies were illegally trained and armed to a significant extent during this time. The current military balance (and peace potential) can be seriously destabilized with further arms influxes. Certainly, the proposed "secondary" American goal in Bosnia - arming and training the Muslim army - is in full contradiction with its primary, impartial peacekeeping mission, and as such is extremely dangerous.

"The first example of deceit mentioned by this senior Belgian officer is the farce about the arms embargo imposed on the Croatian and Muslim parties to the conflict in Bosnia.

Col.Segers claims that this embargo was never enforced strictly. On the contrary, while he was in Bihac as head of the monitoring team, helicopters brimming with armaments for Dudakovic's Muslim Fifth Corps and often with Red Cross signs on them, landed nightly there.

As for the events in Western Slavonia, Colonel Segers said that the Croatian forces were obtaining classified information from the Serb-controlled territory in an inexplicable way. It was the information he and his teammembers were sending to the United Nations headquarters in Zagreb. "

January 1996, Fojnica, Muslim-Croat Federation, Bosnia.
Found by IFOR: ammunition, explosives, firearms - and a familiar face.

Deadly arsenal at the Islamic terrorist camp:
children's toys housing explosive devices

"[...] The point is that the Bosnian Army could not have launched such offensives unaided. External intelligence and military support were essential to its success. According to high-level European diplomatic and military sources, the United States has been providing intelligence, tactical support, training and arms to the Bosnian government forces. The CIA has denied that it is working from the Sarajevo headquarters of the Bosnian Army, but it has not denied that its operatives are on the ground in Bosnia. Other American officials have been similarly selective in their denials."

"The United States is already putting the arms control process at risk by providing weapons and training to the Bosnian Muslims, a clear act of bias against Croats and Serbs."

"Any lull in fighting only provides the Bosniacs another smoke screen from which to provoke the Serbs. They have successfully hoodwinked NATO into engaging its air forces for their support and the next step will involve an attempt to morally coerce its ground troops to recapture territory which they desire. (e.g. the Bosniac demand that Banja Luka be demilitarized while they refuse to do the same in Sarajevo.) Certainly, the decision to deploy American ground troops must be made by elected U.S. government officials -- not relegated to the Bosniacs and their PR firms.

American proclivities mistakenly insist on simplifying this conflict to one of good versus evil. Debates over training and arming the Bosniacs with deployed forces bespeak of the total misunderstanding with which the U.S. interprets this situation. Such arguments demonstrate that elements of our government continue to insist on taking sides. While Bosniac apologists applaud with alacrity, our European allies recoil in horror. The Bosnian Muslim government certainly does not reflect the image of a liberal western-style democracy as the press misleadingly portrays it. This group remains Islamist-dominated and desperately attempts to hide its true sentiments. It is more likely to be influenced by Iran and the Mujahedin than by anyone in the West. These radical groups will certainly stay behind after NATO redeploys home to ensure that the population becomes properly politicized and obedient to fundamentalist doctrine. Does the U.S. really intend to add high-quality American training and weapons to this radicalism? "

"[...] GALBRAITH: Two years ago, the Bosnian government asked the Croatian government to permit the transit through Croatia of weapons for its beleaguered army. A principal supplier of these arms would be Iran.

The Croatian government asked for our reaction. The administration decided we would not answer, and I told the Croatians I had no instructions. The Croatians understood this response and a subsequent colloquy described to you by Ambassador Redman to mean that we would not object to their role in helping the Bosnians.

Rep. GILMAN:[...] To both of our panelists, please explain to the committee why the administration did not inform the American people, the Congress or even our allies of its decision to permit Iran, the world's leading terrorist state, a rogue state, to ship arms to Bosnia and thus gain a major foothold in the Balkans.

GALBRAITH: Well, Mr. Chairman -- not agreeing with the premise of your question -- as to what happened, the particular exchange with the Croatian officials was a confidential diplomatic exchange of which we have very many. As to what information might have been provided to the Congress, I can't speak. I was in Zagreb.

But the policy, I think, was well known to everybody who followed the situation. The policy was that we were not -- that was, that we were not objecting to the flow of arms through Croatia to the Bosnians.

It was widely reported in intelligence sources and in media, that this was going on. It was obvious that we were not objecting.

[...]

Rep. BERMAN: OK. UN resolution 740 requires notification of all known violations of the arms embargo, did the United States, did we notify the U.N. sanctions committee of any of the violations to which we has acquiesced?

REDMAN: Again, that wasn't my area of direct responsibility, but I can simply tell you my understanding is that that resolution calls on states to do such notification, it does not require one to do so. So, I do not know, in fact, whether or not that kind of information was flowing to the UN or not."

"SPECTER: UN Security Resolution 740 required, 'called upon all states to cooperate fully with the sanctions compliance committee, including reporting any violations.'

Wasn't there a clear-cut U.S. violation with this resolution when the United States did not report violations?

TALBOTT: I will get you a carefully thought out and an expert opinion on that. My off the top of the head answer is no, I think our obligation to the Security Council and to the resolution was to abide by the embargo. Abide by meant not ship arms to any of the former Yugoslav states, not to actively assist others in violating the embargo.

In fact, for a period, as you know, we were involved in the enforcement of the embargo, both with the Deny Flight operation and with Sharp Guard in the Adriatic, although that came to an end later in the year.

SPECTER: Well, but when the resolution calls for the including of reporting any violations, and the United States knew there were violations and did not report them, isn't that a clear-cut violation of the Resolution 740?

TALBOTT: I will take the question, Mr. Chairman, and make sure that you have a full answer to that. That obviously is something I would want to get our lawyers and our UN people to look at very carefully.

SPECTER: Well, Mr. Secretary, why is that necessary when the resolution says that it calls upon all states to cooperate fully with the sanctions compliance committee, including reporting any violations, and here have a violation which the United States knows about, and a requirement by the resolution to report the violation? Isn't it pretty clear on its face that there's noncompliance with that resolution?

TALBOTT: No, it's not clear enough to me for me to be able to give you the crisp answer that I think you want here. Among other things, in answering your questions, and in making sure that you get the best reply as promptly as possible, I'm going to ask my colleagues what information in fact we were sharing with the United Nations about possible violations. Sitting here now, Mr. Chairman, I do not know the answer to that.