The EC map, produced in March of 1992 at the Villa Konak meeting (The Cutilero meetings spanned 3 locations and two Months in 1992 - Lisbon, Brussels, and Villa Konak in Sarajevo) gave Prijedor, Srebrenica, Gorazde, Foca, Mostar, Brcko, and Zvornik to the Bosniaks, while the Posavina Corridor, the jugular of the Serbs in the Krajina, didn't exist, and large portions of what can be considered the proto-RS were isolated from each other as well as from Serbia.
Compare that with the SDS map of the time, which connected all the Serb enclaves together, expanded Serb territory at the expense of the other two nationalities, and laid claim to Bihac of all places, and you've got your work cut out for you proving that a working agreement existed.
Add to your troubles Cutilero's post meeting statement from the meetings of 17-18 March doesn't state that anything was signed, and Oslobodenje's report from March 19th wherein the Bosnian delegation stated that they didn't sign anything, and the Croat HDZ's repudiation of the agreement on the 24th of March, which the last time I checked came before the SDA's rejection of the 25th of March.
What was agreed to in the Cutilero negotiations was a framework for the governing of Bosnia (read that carving up), and not the actual demarcation lines - hence all three parties had different ideas about who was going to get what, and the Croats, upon seeing only 17% of Bosnia allotted to them, with 59% of Bosnia's Croats living outside of that 17% of Bosnia, said screw this first, and were followed thereafter by the Muslims.
Subsequent Serb actions, namely the overrunning of 70% of Bosnia and the ethnic cleansing thereof, give lie to any Serb claims of good faith concerning the EC map.
You may not want to frame it as a cartography issue, but the three parties involved in 1992 saw it as nothing but being about maps and where to place the lines on them.
What is wrong about the JNA repositioning from Croatia into Bosnia is that when hostilities broke out in April, they didn't act as the JNA, restoring Yugoslav sovereignity over territory and peoples, but were complicit in the activities of the Serb paramilitaries which were pouring in over the Drina, and their counterparts around Banja Luka - there's a logical caltrop to your argument thrown out by JNA units being part and parcel to the murder, robbing, and ethnic cleansing of those who were supposed to still be Yugoslav citizens, albeit of a wayward Bosnian variety. Or maybe yon Yugoslavs just have a strange way of trying to bring minorities back into the fold, eh Bob?
Did the UN recognize Bosnia as a Nation, making Serbia's war on it an act of external aggression?
Yes.
Nothing more need be said on the matter.
And if you wish to continue to deal with Bosnia that way, the Presevo Valley, the Sandzak, and Vojvodina are just begging for you to apply the same formula - hell, you can have Serbia down to the area immediately surrounding Belgrade before you know it.
Drive on.
I was under the impression that the UN recognized Bosnia as a state, not as a nation. The Bosnian Moslems were recongnized as a nation by Tito in the 1974 constitution. The UN ignored the three golden rules for recognizing a state:
1: That there is clear majority support for independence;
2: That the those representing the above, have territorial control over the territory;
3: That the rights of the minority are guaranteed.
As for external agression, from memory, the 'international community' gave the FRY a deadline to 'withdraw' JA troops from Bosnia and put Alois Mock, the Austrian foreign minister incharge of the UN report that was to underpin such a decision. The report was completed several days before the deadline, but Mock sat on it until just after the UN had voted to place sanctions on the FRY.
I'll see if I can dig up the actual information on the role of Alois Mock and ask the others if they have the info on hand.
VRN