Pritchard should go and testify what he knows not only at the trials of the Croats but also at the Milosevic trial (here is Pritchard's Toronto Sun article). To avoid being branded "Milosevic apologist", he should request to testify as "court witness" instead of "witness for the defense" (just as Lord David Owen did, refusing to testify as "prosecution witness"). He perfectly understands the attachment of the Krajina Serbs to their ancestral land and their fear for their lives in the hands of some Croat fanatics. He surely also understands, and should testify so, that the aforementioned reasons were, as far as he can tell, adequate for the creation of RSK and that he never got the impression that Serbs wanted to stay in Krajina because they were somehow convinced or forced by Milosevic to do so for the sake of "Greater Serbia".
The outcome of the Milosevic trial is mainly not about the fate of a flawed politician but about the attempt to grossly distort the historical record . ICTY's primary goal is to absolve Clinton and NATO leaders from their criminal responsibility in the bloody dissolution of Yugoslavia and to ensure that Serbia (essentially the nation as a whole except the DS party and its supporters) is assigned 90% of the blame (10% going to the other local actors). A Milosevic conviction is critical for this gross distortion of history to succeed. The Orwellian "Greater Serbia" absurdity is the core of the indictment. Honest witnesses like Pritchard, Scott Taylor, Gen. MacKenzie, Maj. Gen. Forand and you, wonders, can do a lot to expose it.
Very thoughtful post.
As to how RSK came into being, I think Misha Glenny's Fall of Yugoslavia describes it best.