I see you've still got the cart firmly placed before the horse. As the article noted:
The Bosnian crisis started when Alija Izetbegovic, the Muslim leader, reneged on an agreement brokered by the European Union that provided for continued power-sharing in Sarajevo.For the record, Serbs react very badly when double-crossed.
After several rounds of talks our "principles for future constitutional arrangements for Bosnia and Hercegovina" were agreed by all three parties (Muslim, Serb and Croat) in Sarajevo on March 18th 1992) as the basis for future negotiations. These continued, maps and all, until the summer, when the Muslims reneged on the agreement. Had they not done so, the Bosnian question might have been settled earlier, with less loss of (mainly Muslim) life and land. To be fair, President Izetbegovic and his aides were encouraged to scupper that deal and to fight for a unitary Bosnian state by well-meaning outsiders who thought they knew better.
That would be Jose Cutiliero himself, writing to The Economist in 1995.
Since negotiations require good faith, and the Serbs had spent the time from April to the ending of the negotiations murdering, raping, and ethnic cleansing their way across 70% of Bosnia, and wouldn't stop until after Dayton was signed, any attempt to portray Sarajevo as the problem suffers the same fault that all the other Serb nutjob theories littering FreeRepublic are afflicted by - they're based upon lies and disinformation.
Whatever - you can sucker the odd ignorant Freeper with this trash, but you just keep an eye on what Washington does in the Balkans.
Watch and weep, Lib - you're out in the cold on this one, regardless of what administration is calling the shots in Washington.