Hence, his plan here was not even based upon the assumption of ethnic plurality, but simply upon his own hunger for territorial power.
Franjo Tudjman, equally power hungry, was the elected president of Croatia in 1990. His focus was not ethnic plurality. Rather, his aim was to establish a Croatian state for Croatians, without providing any minority rights to other citizens. For this reason, his focus on Bosnia was also to annex the Croatian areas of the country.
The respective nationalistic and dictatorship tendencies of these two leaders, far more than intergroup ethnic conflict, have led to the complete destruction of ethnic plurality in Bosnia. Even in cities, such as Sarajevo, where ethnic groups lived peacefully side by side, political manipulation has caused only destruction. Instead of ethnic pluralism, media such as television has caused rampant nationalism, which fed on the historic fears of ethnic groups to stir them to uncharacteristic conflict.
Clever manipulation by politicians has led some to believe that ethnic difference cannot be solved by peaceful means, and the war means more power to the winner. In reality, the only winners are those in power, while ordinary and peaceful citizens suffer most.
In conclusion, the most logical viewpoint to apply to the ethnic conflict in Bosnia is social constructivism. Ethnic plurality has always existed in the region. Without political interference, this could have been a perpetual and peaceful characteristic of the country. However, manipulation by leaders who have only their own power and interest at heart has made of the country a war zone, where the collective opinion is manipulated to such a degree that the war tends to be perpetuated regardless of international efforts to the contrary.
