BBC investigates Karadžić deal controversy

While there is no definitive proof that a deal was struck between Holbrooke and Karadzic, there is plenty of evidence to suggest some sort of deal took place.

The first and most obvious piece of evidence is that all Hague requirements for Serbia to fulfill now rest solely and exclusively on finding Ratko Mladic. Karadzic has, in the appropriate words of BBC, fallen off the radar, and we hear calls by the ICTY, Del Ponte, and the EU for the extradition of Mladic, but not Karadzic.

Secondly, the deals that must have been struck at the time of the Dayton signing between Washington, Pale, and Belgrade, very well could have included a secret agreement of immunity from extradition for Karadzic, if it meant getting the Serbs on board. It is also incredibly convenient that as soon as the Dayton Accords were signed, Karadzic all but disappeared. For a country as small as Bosnia, let alone RS, you'd think someone would have seen him.

Third, and probably the least academic, but nonetheless possible, is that Richard Holbrooke is one of the most self-inflated and arrogant men to ever hold the post of US Secretary of State. I've personally heard the man speak, and to say he's full of himself is an understatement. He honestly believes he alone created peace in the Balkans, and attributes far too much intellectual credit to himself. That evidence is now possibly suggesting Holbrooke committed less than noble actions in order to secure a peace, and that he has vigorusly denied these charges to the point of emotional confrontation, leaves me with some feeling that some sort of deal did take place.

I'm not in a position to say some secret handshake did or did not take place, but there's plenty of evidence on the ground now to suggest that Holbrooke may have had to scratch a number of Serbian backs in order to get them to the negotiating table.

I think Mike has made some good points here. It's interesting that Del Ponte seemed to stop pressuring the authorities in Serbia, RS and Montenegro about Karadzic right around the time that she claimed to have stopped receiving information on his whereabouts. One would think that she would do just the opposite. Also, letting up on the Karadzic issue seems out of character for a prosecutor who generally comes across as pretty tough. On the other hand, if she were backing off because of the existence of an agreement between Karadzic and Holbrooke, perhaps she'd be under pressure from someone in Washington to keep up appearances, or else risk losing further funding for the Tribunal.

As for Holbrooke, I would simply remind people that he worked for politicians -- and in a US election year, no less.

Of the three clues put forward by Mike, the one that strikes me as most interesting is Karadzic's disappearance shortly after Dayton. At first glance, one wouldn't find this suprising, for three basic reasons: (1) Karadzic had already been indicted months before the agreement, (2) NATO rolled into BiH just weeks after the accord with a mandate (albeit lame) to arrest indictees, and (3) a well-known condition of the treaty was Karadzic's immediate resignation from public life. However, something doesn't seem quite right when we consider that there have been a number of solid reports of Ratko Mladic being sigted since his indictment for essentially the same crimes -- indeed, he's believed to have lived openly in Belgrade for years after the war. Zdravko Tolimir, another high-ranking indictee, is said to have commuted on public buses in Belgrade almost up to the time of his arrest earlier this year. Why wouldn't Karadzic roam around Serbia with the same confidence -- at least while Milosevic was still in power? Sloba certainly wasn't keen to see his old pal in the dock, no matter how much he might have hated him by 1993 or 1994.

The bottom line is that such an agreement is entirely possible, no matter what Holbrooke or anyone else might claim. Nobody having anything to do with any matter relating to the former Yugoslavia is trustworthy.

Hey Nenad,

I was just about to give you and Mike a vote of recommendation until I read the last sentence. If I gave you a vote that would have meant I voted against myself!

I think there is at least one person who is trustworthy; probably the Serb who had very, very short finger nails at the start of the Bosnian war.

As this topic is among most popular ones for speculation I'm surprised that not a single betting office has listed it for gambling.

It is truly hard to figure out which alternative one should play. Knowing the infinite lying abilities of people in the Balkans and the obscure games of U.S. goverments I must admit that it easier to bet on Derby to win the Premier League championship than either on Karadzic's or on Holbrooke's tales.

While there is no definitive proof that a deal was struck between Holbrooke and Karadzic, there is plenty of evidence to suggest some sort of deal took place.

The first and most obvious piece of evidence is that all Hague requirements for Serbia to fulfill now rest solely and exclusively on finding Ratko Mladic. Karadzic has, in the appropriate words of BBC, fallen off the radar, and we hear calls by the ICTY, Del Ponte, and the EU for the extradition of Mladic, but not Karadzic.

Secondly, the deals that must have been struck at the time of the Dayton signing between Washington, Pale, and Belgrade, very well could have included a secret agreement of immunity from extradition for Karadzic, if it meant getting the Serbs on board. It is also incredibly convenient that as soon as the Dayton Accords were signed, Karadzic all but disappeared. For a country as small as Bosnia, let alone RS, you'd think someone would have seen him.

Third, and probably the least academic, but nonetheless possible, is that Richard Holbrooke is one of the most self-inflated and arrogant men to ever hold the post of US Secretary of State. I've personally heard the man speak, and to say he's full of himself is an understatement. He honestly believes he alone created peace in the Balkans, and attributes far too much intellectual credit to himself. That evidence is now possibly suggesting Holbrooke committed less than noble actions in order to secure a peace, and that he has vigorusly denied these charges to the point of emotional confrontation, leaves me with some feeling that some sort of deal did take place.

I'm not in a position to say some secret handshake did or did not take place, but there's plenty of evidence on the ground now to suggest that Holbrooke may have had to scratch a number of Serbian backs in order to get them to the negotiating table.

I think Mike has made some good points here. It's interesting that Del Ponte seemed to stop pressuring the authorities in Serbia, RS and Montenegro about Karadzic right around the time that she claimed to have stopped receiving information on his whereabouts. One would think that she would do just the opposite. Also, letting up on the Karadzic issue seems out of character for a prosecutor who generally comes across as pretty tough. On the other hand, if she were backing off because of the existence of an agreement between Karadzic and Holbrooke, perhaps she'd be under pressure from someone in Washington to keep up appearances, or else risk losing further funding for the Tribunal.

As for Holbrooke, I would simply remind people that he worked for politicians -- and in a US election year, no less.

Of the three clues put forward by Mike, the one that strikes me as most interesting is Karadzic's disappearance shortly after Dayton. At first glance, one wouldn't find this suprising, for three basic reasons: (1) Karadzic had already been indicted months before the agreement, (2) NATO rolled into BiH just weeks after the accord with a mandate (albeit lame) to arrest indictees, and (3) a well-known condition of the treaty was Karadzic's immediate resignation from public life. However, something doesn't seem quite right when we consider that there have been a number of solid reports of Ratko Mladic being sigted since his indictment for essentially the same crimes -- indeed, he's believed to have lived openly in Belgrade for years after the war. Zdravko Tolimir, another high-ranking indictee, is said to have commuted on public buses in Belgrade almost up to the time of his arrest earlier this year. Why wouldn't Karadzic roam around Serbia with the same confidence -- at least while Milosevic was still in power? Sloba certainly wasn't keen to see his old pal in the dock, no matter how much he might have hated him by 1993 or 1994.

The bottom line is that such an agreement is entirely possible, no matter what Holbrooke or anyone else might claim. Nobody having anything to do with any matter relating to the former Yugoslavia is trustworthy.

Hey Nenad,

I was just about to give you and Mike a vote of recommendation until I read the last sentence. If I gave you a vote that would have meant I voted against myself!

I think there is at least one person who is trustworthy; probably the Serb who had very, very short finger nails at the start of the Bosnian war.

As this topic is among most popular ones for speculation I'm surprised that not a single betting office has listed it for gambling.

It is truly hard to figure out which alternative one should play. Knowing the infinite lying abilities of people in the Balkans and the obscure games of U.S. goverments I must admit that it easier to bet on Derby to win the Premier League championship than either on Karadzic's or on Holbrooke's tales.