A reader makes this interesting point:
Ejup Ganic was a highly westernised moderate leader who is fundamentally an academic. He strongly believed in Yugoslavia remaining unified and does not have the antagonism towards fellow former Yugoslav states as large numbers in politics in the region...
Which prompts me to offer you again this thought:
For anyone interested, there latterly have been three main streams in the political organisation of the Bosnian Muslims aka Bosniacs (and for those who really need help, here is the difference between Bosnian Muslims, Bosnian muslims, and Bosniacs):
* secular social-democratic, let's-all-get along stream: not unpopular and even appealing to a lot of people, with Zlatko Lagumdzija to the fore
* overtly nationalistic, demagogic, Bosnia is the Muslim part of former Yugoslavia stream: Haris Silajdzic is the undisputed exponent of this view, which plays up the ethnic identity and territorial demands of the Bosnian Muslims rather than any specific Islamist agenda
* overtly Islamist stream: people who want to create an openly Islamic space in Bosnia as part of a longer-view Islamic agenda. Not all of these people are obvious extremists in themselves - the late Alija Izetbegovic was if anything an ultra-liberal by global Islamic standards. But other parts of this stream spiral off into foreign-funded fanaticism and potential terrorism.
For a small community (some two million people) in a small country, the rivalry between these philosophically distinct and largely mutually exclusive tendencies looks like a recipe for incessant divisions. Which is what the Bosniacs have, and why issues going to the modernisation of Bosnia take a distant back seat.
This explains why Ejup Ganic did not 'fit' Bosniac politics after Bosnia broke from the remainder of Yugoslavia, even though of course he rose to the top level as the Yugoslav period ended and played a leading role in the conflict.
Although he was in the SDA party of Izetbegovic, Ganic was not a determined, deep Islamist like Izetbegovic. His flat in Sarajevo had some proud Islamic inscriptions as you walked in, then a drinks trolley heavy with top-end alcoholic sustenance. The core SDA leadership were people whose political legitimacy flowed from their imprisonment as Islamist 'clero-nationalists' under the communists, and whose agenda was (and is?) essentially all about defending/advancing Islamic influence. As far as I could see, Ganic was not fully trusted by them.
Likewise he was not a Bosniac nationalist like Silajdzic - he was too relaxed about dealing with his political and other enemies, and too ready to make common sense compromises to make progress rather than parking himself noisily on principle. Ganic is of course a scientist of note - maybe trained to look at what works in real life, not in theory?
And he did not choose to side with the Lagumdzija social democratic tendency, probably his natural home insofar as one could be found. Did he (rightly) think that they were never going to get anywhere?
In short Ganic was - and for all I know still is - a 'Yugoslav' by instinct. Someone with a foot in different ethnic and cultural camps, perhaps with a hint of a Belgrade accent from his years in Serbia. And therefore unlikely to appeal to the hard-core Islamist/nationalist elites in Sarajevo, but also too Bosnian/Bosniac to be respected by Serbs.
Likewise General Divjak - one of the few true heroes of the Bosnian war, a senior Serb soldier who fought on the 'Bosnian' side to defend Sarajevo - was also shamefully marginalised by Izetbegovic/Silajdzic after the conflict.
Basically, people like Ganic ought to have been leading Yugoslavia in the European Union now. Instead we have this dreary unending bitterness, now playing itself out in the inefficient entrails of the London legal system.
Collateral damage from all sides in former Yugoslavia refusing Ethnic Disarmament?
http://charlescrawford.biz/MU3C0E988791
"Dokaz" u stilu " lavova iz Sarajeva " ali je to ono u sta velika vecina u Smrdiji a i u manjem entitetu aposlutno vjeruje.
Jel nam pokusao objasniti zasto je njegova zemlja uhapsila Ganica? Sta je ovde relevantno za samo hapsenje? Sjeo cova i opisao politicku garnituru na sceni i ja sad kao trebam da se divim njegovom piskaranju? 
