Is Karadžić innocent?

Mr. Crawford,
I would like to see you write about why Nasir Oric is innocent after killing, in the most brutal manner 3,500 Serbian civilians around Srebrenica. This included slitting of throats, gouging out of eyes, rapes, killing of women and children....too disgusting for me to describe here. It is all well documented and Oric even admitted to it and bragged about it. So please, tell me, why is Oric innocent, after having done this with his own hands in some cases, and Karadzic guilty after his forces took revenge on Oric's men who did these war crimes?

Be original, and write about this for a change. The anti-Serb western press and media behave like ignorant sheep when it comes to reporting the war.

For your next article, why don't you ask if GW Bush is guilty for war crimes in Haditha or Nangahar province? Was Clinton or Wesley Clark guilty of war crimes for intenionally targeting civilians at Radio Television Serbia? I and many other American taxpayers are very interested in the answers to those questions.

What a surprise that anyone asks the question that he may be innocent!!! The press have already found him guilty as they did Milosevic even before he got to the Hague!! The ICJY is a political,US ran, anti-serb,organisation. I expect they wil be worried that Karadizic may have the opportunity to defend himself- lets hope the world press reports it accurately and put the blame for this civil war with the people who started it in Germany, USA and Uk in particular. Like the lies about weapons of destruction in Iraq lets hope the lies about the Serbs come to light.

Mr crawford, its all too easy to speculate. but as this is a Serb, its even easier to present the upcoming trial as a potential circus!!! and i agree! although i don't subscribe to your point of view that karadzic will be the the circus master. that position clearly belongs to the court and as for karadzic being a clown there are already enough of them. Sadly karadzic (guilty or not) will be walking the tightrope with the safety net removed to ensure an unfair trial! guilty till proven innocent.

Nik! Again, you are comming out with simplified black and white version of events.
Was the war justifiable?
Examine political objectives.
First nationalistic party in Bosnia was SDA (Izetbegovic) followed closely by Croatian Democratic Party (next week). Karadzic was flirting with Green Party at that time.
Six months later there was Serbian Democratic Party.
In August 1991 prominent Bosniak politician Adil Zulfikarpasic reacted to Belgrade Initiative (comming from Milosevic) buy signing "historical Serb-Muslim agreement" about power sharing, offered as part of "Belgrade Initiative".
You can read about it here.

http://yugoslavtruth.blogspot.com/2005/03/bosnias-highway-to-hell-part-two.html

"One attempt to solve the status of Bosnia was the Serb-Muslim ‘historic agreement’, made public in August 1991. "

then

"The Serb-Muslim ‘historic agreement’ was a part of the Belgrade initiative for preserving Yugoslavia, which had been launched on August 12 1991, and it seemed at first that Izetbegovic might support it, until he rejected it a few days after its announcement. "

He went to the States and rejected the agreement after his return.

"The SDA justified their rejection by claiming that the agreement would mean Bosnia being in a Yugoslavia in which “the Serbs would be number one, and the Muslims number two”.This is often reported and accepted at face value when the Belgrade Initiative is ever mentioned in Western publications, but there is no real truth to it."

"In terms of population percentages, the Muslims would of course have been a minority compared with the Serbs, but this is largely irrelevant, as all the federalist proposals on organising Yugoslavia (from Milosevic and Serbia primarily) included a second federal chamber in which the republics would have had equal representation, regardless of population percentages, and in which consensus would have been required. Bosnia would thus have had veto power, and so could not have been dominated."

Bosnia would have veto power. That wasn't enough?

"And, to top it all off, the Belgrade Initiative said that the position of President of Yugoslavia would rotate between the republics in alphabetical order, meaning that had he accepted it, Izetbegovic would in fact have been President of Yugoslavia. "

General of the BOSNIAN ARMY Divjak in interview with "Novosti" stated.

"I am sorry that the idea about the historical agreement between Muslims and Serbs in 1992 was not implemented, because that was a best chance to avoid war."

Soon after rejecting this agreement already signed by Zulfikarpasic, Izetbegovic and Karadzic were debating at the TV Sarajevo program called "TV Tribina".
Karadzic asked him why is he rejecting the agreement and what's wrong with it? Izetbegovic (who already had American advisors who were putting "nice" words in his mouth) responded.
"I don't believe in those ethnic deals. I believe in the state of its citizents regardless of their ethnicity, religion etc."
Remember this was in August 1991, there was no war in Bosnia, country was Yugoslavia.
Karadzic then responded that he would agree that Yugoslavia is remodelled into state of the citizens.
Izetbegovic quickly pointed out that he was talking about Bosnia, and that he would NEVER! accept such solution on Yugoslavian level.
"There would be no mechanisam to prevent overvoting in parliament. This would be unacceptable" he said.
"What makes you think that we would accept such solution in Bosnia?" was Karadzic's answer.
No surprise there. Just like Albanians now, he was in favor of state of citizens in which they are majority.

Several months later (in January 1992) Badinter's oppinion annul Yugoslavian constitution as Yugoslavia was "dissolved".
No Yugoslavia, no Yugoslavian Constitution giving right of self-determination to Yugoslavia's constituing nations.
Disregarding Yu-constiution (as state was "dissolved") and half a dosen or so international laws, Badinter oppinion declared Republics to be successors of Yugoslavia.
This, however did not cancel existing laws of the Republics, as they have not been dissolved.
Serbia and Montenegro promptly accepted Badinter's decision and created Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, leaving Bosnian and Croatian Serbs in limbo.
Referendum in Bosnia (on independence) passed with 62.3% of the votes in favor. Serbs boycotted referendum.
Problematic thing about this referendum is that according to Bosnian laws (that were not canceled as Bosnia didn't "dissolve") statutory changes were only possible with approval of 2/3 of voters. 62.3% was less then 2/3. Furthermore, decision on statutory change had to be approved by Bosnian collective Presidency, by Concensus. Presidency contained representatives of all 3 Bosnian constituing nations, Muslims (today Bosniaks), Serbs and Croats. And they all had to agree on the change.
"Succes" of the referendum was celebrated on March 1st 1992 by shooting on the Serbian wedding, day after referendum. Groom's father was shot in front of the church. Most Serbs take this date to be start of the war.
EU came out with its plan that was to prevent war from happening. In March 1992, Lisbon Agreement was signed by Muslim (Izetbegovic), Serb (Karadzic) and Croat (Kljuic) representatives. Lisbon Agreement envisioned INDEPENDENT Bosnia with ethnic cantons created as in Switzerland. Cantons would have wide autonomy, but in many ways state would be more centralised then according to Dayton Agreement.
Upon his return Izetbegovic withdrew his signature on this agreement. Actually, US Ambassador Warren Zimmerman talked him into this move.

Soon afterwards, Presidency met in Sarajevo declaring Bosnia independent state of its citizens. Serb representatives were not even invited, let alone approved this motion.
But, after this declaration that violated even Bosnian laws, Bosnia was quickly recognized by US and EU.

One can put any spin on it, but the fact remains that 2 best chances to avoid war were rejected by Izetbegovic, not Karadzic. And that Karadzic signed Lisbon Agreement envisioning independent Bosnia. Not very villingly, but still. What were the other options? He wasn't even getting political support from Serbia, that accepted Badinter's decision. The major thing was that they didn't want to go against EU wishes, that was clearly favoring independent republics. But, Karadzic wasn't going to accept centralised, unitary concept of Bosnia either.

To return to the start of the war.
Bosnian Serbs take March 1st to be the date. In Sarajevo April 5th was taken, as in this CNN article.

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/Bosnia/updates/9604/06/memorial/index.html

It's about memorial dedicated to first victim of war.

"Twenty-four-year-old medical student Suada Dilberovic was shot and killed at a peace rally on April 5, 1992, signaling the start of the Bosnian war."

Sure, one can say that March 1st shooting was just a murder not a war, and that this was a real first victim of the war. But, something else happened in March of 1992.

You can read this testimony.

http://www.un.org/icty/transe24s/021120ED.htm

It's March 26th.

"21 Q. Where were you born?

22 A. In Sijekovac.

23 Q. Where do you live today?

24 A. In Sijekovac.

25 Q. In 1992, you were ten, in March of 1992?


Page 9204

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Can you tell us what happened on the 26th of March, 1992? What

3 happened to you and your family?"

"Page 9205

1 And then Zemir Kovacevic started killing elderly people. The

2 main person there was Nijaz Causevic, also known as Medo.'


"and Zemir Kovacevic

8 killed two people there. In my vicinity, maybe half a metre away from me,

9 one of these two men was around 70 years old, and the other was a

10 handicapped man. That's what I saw.

11 Q. Do you remember the names of the people who were killed?

12 A. Yes, I do. Jovo Zecevic, and Petar Zecevic; a father and a son,

13 they were."


And it goes on and on.

Or take a look at Australian ABC News.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2004/08/11/1174375.htm

""Fifty-nine skeletons, including 18 children aged between five and 17, were exhumed in a mass grave in the village of Sijekovac near Srpski Brod,""

Not that CNN would notice.

Some very good information there Sreten. It really shows which side wanted war and which side wanted peace. By the way the last two links failed for whatever reason.

Additionally, the "Islamic Declaration" written by Izetbegovic clearly shows that he and the muslim led govt in Sarajevo have never been interested in a multi-ethnic democratic society. All they have wanted to do is assert their own dominion by whatever means necessary.

Here is a sample of his words, “The Islamic movement must, and can, take over power as soon as it is morally and numerically so strong that it can not only destroy the existing non-Islamic power, but also build up a new Islamic one.”

Unfortunately, given the mistakes that were made by western foreign govt's and their media outlets in support of the Bosnian Muslims during the war, I do not see any possibility of anyone reversing themselves at this point. Thus, I believe Karadzic's fate at the Hague is signed, sealed, and delivered.

However, I also believe he will go down swinging and many of his parting shots will connect.

May Lord have mercy upon you Rasho.

It's a fine line separating the persuit of political objectives and the commitment of crimes during a war. So the most important question should be: Was the war justifiable and were the means used by the warring sides justifyable?
Karadzic is undoubtably responsible for the outbreak of the war. And the war had no justification. If the Serbs in Croatia had the "excuse" that their status was downgraded, the Bosnian Serbs had no excuse whatsoever. They formed more than a third of the total population of the country, were represented in its government and no threat was lurking. Karadzic and his followers started a war simply because they refused to respect the wish of the majority of the Bosnian citizens for independence, no matter how well the rights of the minority would be protected. That by itself was a crime. The criminal objective - to carve out a big chunk of Bosnian land where the Serbs would never again be a "minority" naturally required criminal action on the field. Enough non serbs were to be cleansed or worse! So Karadzic and his aides have no excuse. They were not conducting a fight for the preservation of Yugoslavia, as JNA commanders may claim during the war Slovenia. They were not fighting just for the power in Bosnia, so that they could claim they were participating in a "civil" war. Karadzic and his followers were fighting in a war started with a criminal intend, conducted by criminal means. He deserves never to see freedon again.

@nik

You said, "The borders were drawn with such a blunt disregard of the wishes of the population concerned that NO stockpile of international laws or agreements could saveguard it."

Sounds like you're talking about the creation of Bosna-Hercegovina or Kosovo.

Sreten :General of the BOSNIAN ARMY Divjak in interview with "Novosti" stated.
"I am sorry that the idea about the historical agreement between Muslims and Serbs in 1992 was not implemented, because that was a best chance to avoid war."

How do you describe a statemet: "Accept my proposal or war"? Does it differ from:" Give me your wallet or I'll shoot you!"
There is the differnce between politics and racket!Policics is playing by rules and presume the opponents may prevaile!

"Yugoslavia is remodelled into state of the citizens".

That was an utter imposibility! Yugoslavia could exist only as a dictatorship! Even during the brief attempt to have democtaric rule over Serbs, Crosts and Slovenes before 1929, Kosovo and Macedonia had to be placed under harsh "gendaremery" regime. There was no common public opinion in Slovenia and Kosovo, or in Serbia and Croatia! No common political parties etc. The borders of "Yugoslavia" were created in the period 1913 - 1919 and were an epitomy of what the Chinese call the "unfair treaties". The borders were drawn with such a blunt disregard of the wishes of the population concerned that NO stockpile of international laws or agreements could saveguard it. "Yugoslavia" was doomed from the very beginning, but the Serbian nation must survive it and prosper. And it has to do it with its naigbours, that is to say to make its own prosperity a vital interest of its neighbours! So the decision of Serbian governmentr to accept the Badenter commission's decision was a wise one. It did no leave the Serbs in Bosnia at least "at limbo". The Muslims were never a majority in Bosnia. On many vital decisions the Serbs and the Croats could easily outvote them. Was not that a golden opportunity to seak a Serbo-Croat reconciliation.
Instead Karadzic chose war! And Serbia at least did not do all that it could to discourage him.
His handing over to ICTY must be seen as an act of repentence.

I clicked on the links and they are oppening. It could be your computer's security set-up, Nicholas Klinsman.

Now, to Nik.

"Policics is playing by rules and presume the opponents may prevaile!"

Read my posting carefully, Nik. I don't think that Badinter played by rules, Muslim and Croats in Bosnia even less so. As you can see they were breaking even Bosnian laws that existed at this time.

I don't want to argue about weather or not Yugoslavia could have been remodelled as state of the citizens. That's not a point.
I'm also sure that Albanians would like to turn Kosovo into "country of its citizens". But, propose to them (even jockingly) to "play by the rules" (like UN 1244) and keep Serbia intakt. They bearing in mind their "commitment" to "state of the citizens" propose to them that Serbia is remodelled into state of the citizens, and you will quickly see how deep their commitment to this ideal is.
Everybody seems to be in favor of it, but only in situation where they can be in charge.

" Karadzic and his followers started a war simply because they refused to respect the wish of the majority of the Bosnian citizens for independence, no matter how well the rights of the minority would be protected."

By refusing Belgrade Initiative Izetbegovic have shown that he wants independence no matter how well the rights of the minority would be protected. (including veto right offered to Bosnia for staying in Yugoslavia).
But, he wanted to leave. Fine. Karadzic signed Cuttiliero plan (Lisbon Agreement). That's a fact, no matter how do you interpret it.
Why?
Serbs did not feel like living in Bosnia any more then they do today.
Sorry, no Serbs. Let's not be "etno-separatists". "Citizens" of Serb Republic.
He accepted it, because he wasn't willing to go against EU (understandibly so). Milosevic was even less willing.
Karadzic considered that Lisbon Agreement protects the rights of Serbs sufficiently, and that was one of his major demands.
He gave up on separating from Bosnia, but insisted on rights protection.
In a light of Yugoslavian constitution, Bosnian laws, international laws (like Helsinki Final Act and Montevideo Agreement) this have to be seen as MAJOR CONCESION....in order to avoid war.
Izetbegovic withdrew his signature, and declared independent Bosnia "state of the citizens", all against existing Bosnian laws. Muslims and Croats in Bosnia have clearly shown to Serbs that their word, or oppinion, or law for that matter won't be worth a dime in independent Bosnia.

So where do you get "no matter how well the rights of the minority would be protected."?

"Karadzic and his followers started a war simply because they refused to respect the wish of the majority of the Bosnian citizens for independence, no matter how well the rights of the minority would be protected. That by itself was a crime. "

Well, let's say so.
How about Serbia then? Didn't KLA start a war simply because they refused to respect the wish of the majority of the Serbian citizens for unified country, no matter how well the rights of the minority would be protected?
How come you don't say that this by itself was a crime?

Lisbon Agreement gave Serbs autonomy inside Bosnia. But, Izetbegovic wasn't prepared to give them any autonomy at all.
On the other hand Milosevic ofered direct talks to Ibrahim Rugova (in 1998), to negotiate autonomy for Kosovo, inside Serbia. Rugova refused to talk about autonomy, demanding independence only.
Unlike Karadzic he wasn't going to settle for autonomy.
Think about it, and how many chances were there to avoid the war.

As for Karadzic, in my mind he is guilty for war crimes. As mr. Crawfor said "guilty" doesn't mean "proven guilty" but that would be a different matter.
Proven guilty or not, he was commander-in-chief of Bosnian Serb Army. And it's a fact that this Army was responsable for a lot of ethnic cleansing, etc. etc. war crimes.
As a commander he should be responsible.
It's true that Izetbegovic and Tudjman are both guilty (not proven guilty, but just the same), and just because they were not charged with anything, doesn't mean that Karadzic shouldn't be.
But, I wouldn't be so quick to put the blame for the war in Bosnia on him.

Dragan in a way makes my point when he raises the Oric case.

Look at http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/2008/pr1269e-summary.htm

ICTY finds that the evidence as presented linking the accused to the crimes undoubtedly committed was insufficient. If the evidence presented at the Karadzic trial is inconclusive/unsatisfactory, he too should be acquitted.

Being Guilty is one thing - being Proved Guilty is another?

Of course Dragan David Dabic or Grandpa Pera is innocent. He is not Karadzic!

It's a fine line separating the persuit of political objectives and the commitment of crimes during a war. So the most important question should be: Was the war justifiable and were the means used by the warring sides justifyable?
Karadzic is undoubtably responsible for the outbreak of the war. And the war had no justification. If the Serbs in Croatia had the "excuse" that their status was downgraded, the Bosnian Serbs had no excuse whatsoever. They formed more than a third of the total population of the country, were represented in its government and no threat was lurking. Karadzic and his followers started a war simply because they refused to respect the wish of the majority of the Bosnian citizens for independence, no matter how well the rights of the minority would be protected. That by itself was a crime. The criminal objective - to carve out a big chunk of Bosnian land where the Serbs would never again be a "minority" naturally required criminal action on the field. Enough non serbs were to be cleansed or worse! So Karadzic and his aides have no excuse. They were not conducting a fight for the preservation of Yugoslavia, as JNA commanders may claim during the war Slovenia. They were not fighting just for the power in Bosnia, so that they could claim they were participating in a "civil" war. Karadzic and his followers were fighting in a war started with a criminal intend, conducted by criminal means. He deserves never to see freedon again.

Mr. Crawford,
I would like to see you write about why Nasir Oric is innocent after killing, in the most brutal manner 3,500 Serbian civilians around Srebrenica. This included slitting of throats, gouging out of eyes, rapes, killing of women and children....too disgusting for me to describe here. It is all well documented and Oric even admitted to it and bragged about it. So please, tell me, why is Oric innocent, after having done this with his own hands in some cases, and Karadzic guilty after his forces took revenge on Oric's men who did these war crimes?

Be original, and write about this for a change. The anti-Serb western press and media behave like ignorant sheep when it comes to reporting the war.

For your next article, why don't you ask if GW Bush is guilty for war crimes in Haditha or Nangahar province? Was Clinton or Wesley Clark guilty of war crimes for intenionally targeting civilians at Radio Television Serbia? I and many other American taxpayers are very interested in the answers to those questions.

Sreten :General of the BOSNIAN ARMY Divjak in interview with "Novosti" stated.
"I am sorry that the idea about the historical agreement between Muslims and Serbs in 1992 was not implemented, because that was a best chance to avoid war."

How do you describe a statemet: "Accept my proposal or war"? Does it differ from:" Give me your wallet or I'll shoot you!"
There is the differnce between politics and racket!Policics is playing by rules and presume the opponents may prevaile!

"Yugoslavia is remodelled into state of the citizens".

That was an utter imposibility! Yugoslavia could exist only as a dictatorship! Even during the brief attempt to have democtaric rule over Serbs, Crosts and Slovenes before 1929, Kosovo and Macedonia had to be placed under harsh "gendaremery" regime. There was no common public opinion in Slovenia and Kosovo, or in Serbia and Croatia! No common political parties etc. The borders of "Yugoslavia" were created in the period 1913 - 1919 and were an epitomy of what the Chinese call the "unfair treaties". The borders were drawn with such a blunt disregard of the wishes of the population concerned that NO stockpile of international laws or agreements could saveguard it. "Yugoslavia" was doomed from the very beginning, but the Serbian nation must survive it and prosper. And it has to do it with its naigbours, that is to say to make its own prosperity a vital interest of its neighbours! So the decision of Serbian governmentr to accept the Badenter commission's decision was a wise one. It did no leave the Serbs in Bosnia at least "at limbo". The Muslims were never a majority in Bosnia. On many vital decisions the Serbs and the Croats could easily outvote them. Was not that a golden opportunity to seak a Serbo-Croat reconciliation.
Instead Karadzic chose war! And Serbia at least did not do all that it could to discourage him.
His handing over to ICTY must be seen as an act of repentence.

What a surprise that anyone asks the question that he may be innocent!!! The press have already found him guilty as they did Milosevic even before he got to the Hague!! The ICJY is a political,US ran, anti-serb,organisation. I expect they wil be worried that Karadizic may have the opportunity to defend himself- lets hope the world press reports it accurately and put the blame for this civil war with the people who started it in Germany, USA and Uk in particular. Like the lies about weapons of destruction in Iraq lets hope the lies about the Serbs come to light.

Nik! Again, you are comming out with simplified black and white version of events.
Was the war justifiable?
Examine political objectives.
First nationalistic party in Bosnia was SDA (Izetbegovic) followed closely by Croatian Democratic Party (next week). Karadzic was flirting with Green Party at that time.
Six months later there was Serbian Democratic Party.
In August 1991 prominent Bosniak politician Adil Zulfikarpasic reacted to Belgrade Initiative (comming from Milosevic) buy signing "historical Serb-Muslim agreement" about power sharing, offered as part of "Belgrade Initiative".
You can read about it here.

http://yugoslavtruth.blogspot.com/2005/03/bosnias-highway-to-hell-part-two.html

"One attempt to solve the status of Bosnia was the Serb-Muslim ‘historic agreement’, made public in August 1991. "

then

"The Serb-Muslim ‘historic agreement’ was a part of the Belgrade initiative for preserving Yugoslavia, which had been launched on August 12 1991, and it seemed at first that Izetbegovic might support it, until he rejected it a few days after its announcement. "

He went to the States and rejected the agreement after his return.

"The SDA justified their rejection by claiming that the agreement would mean Bosnia being in a Yugoslavia in which “the Serbs would be number one, and the Muslims number two”.This is often reported and accepted at face value when the Belgrade Initiative is ever mentioned in Western publications, but there is no real truth to it."

"In terms of population percentages, the Muslims would of course have been a minority compared with the Serbs, but this is largely irrelevant, as all the federalist proposals on organising Yugoslavia (from Milosevic and Serbia primarily) included a second federal chamber in which the republics would have had equal representation, regardless of population percentages, and in which consensus would have been required. Bosnia would thus have had veto power, and so could not have been dominated."

Bosnia would have veto power. That wasn't enough?

"And, to top it all off, the Belgrade Initiative said that the position of President of Yugoslavia would rotate between the republics in alphabetical order, meaning that had he accepted it, Izetbegovic would in fact have been President of Yugoslavia. "

General of the BOSNIAN ARMY Divjak in interview with "Novosti" stated.

"I am sorry that the idea about the historical agreement between Muslims and Serbs in 1992 was not implemented, because that was a best chance to avoid war."

Soon after rejecting this agreement already signed by Zulfikarpasic, Izetbegovic and Karadzic were debating at the TV Sarajevo program called "TV Tribina".
Karadzic asked him why is he rejecting the agreement and what's wrong with it? Izetbegovic (who already had American advisors who were putting "nice" words in his mouth) responded.
"I don't believe in those ethnic deals. I believe in the state of its citizents regardless of their ethnicity, religion etc."
Remember this was in August 1991, there was no war in Bosnia, country was Yugoslavia.
Karadzic then responded that he would agree that Yugoslavia is remodelled into state of the citizens.
Izetbegovic quickly pointed out that he was talking about Bosnia, and that he would NEVER! accept such solution on Yugoslavian level.
"There would be no mechanisam to prevent overvoting in parliament. This would be unacceptable" he said.
"What makes you think that we would accept such solution in Bosnia?" was Karadzic's answer.
No surprise there. Just like Albanians now, he was in favor of state of citizens in which they are majority.

Several months later (in January 1992) Badinter's oppinion annul Yugoslavian constitution as Yugoslavia was "dissolved".
No Yugoslavia, no Yugoslavian Constitution giving right of self-determination to Yugoslavia's constituing nations.
Disregarding Yu-constiution (as state was "dissolved") and half a dosen or so international laws, Badinter oppinion declared Republics to be successors of Yugoslavia.
This, however did not cancel existing laws of the Republics, as they have not been dissolved.
Serbia and Montenegro promptly accepted Badinter's decision and created Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, leaving Bosnian and Croatian Serbs in limbo.
Referendum in Bosnia (on independence) passed with 62.3% of the votes in favor. Serbs boycotted referendum.
Problematic thing about this referendum is that according to Bosnian laws (that were not canceled as Bosnia didn't "dissolve") statutory changes were only possible with approval of 2/3 of voters. 62.3% was less then 2/3. Furthermore, decision on statutory change had to be approved by Bosnian collective Presidency, by Concensus. Presidency contained representatives of all 3 Bosnian constituing nations, Muslims (today Bosniaks), Serbs and Croats. And they all had to agree on the change.
"Succes" of the referendum was celebrated on March 1st 1992 by shooting on the Serbian wedding, day after referendum. Groom's father was shot in front of the church. Most Serbs take this date to be start of the war.
EU came out with its plan that was to prevent war from happening. In March 1992, Lisbon Agreement was signed by Muslim (Izetbegovic), Serb (Karadzic) and Croat (Kljuic) representatives. Lisbon Agreement envisioned INDEPENDENT Bosnia with ethnic cantons created as in Switzerland. Cantons would have wide autonomy, but in many ways state would be more centralised then according to Dayton Agreement.
Upon his return Izetbegovic withdrew his signature on this agreement. Actually, US Ambassador Warren Zimmerman talked him into this move.

Soon afterwards, Presidency met in Sarajevo declaring Bosnia independent state of its citizens. Serb representatives were not even invited, let alone approved this motion.
But, after this declaration that violated even Bosnian laws, Bosnia was quickly recognized by US and EU.

One can put any spin on it, but the fact remains that 2 best chances to avoid war were rejected by Izetbegovic, not Karadzic. And that Karadzic signed Lisbon Agreement envisioning independent Bosnia. Not very villingly, but still. What were the other options? He wasn't even getting political support from Serbia, that accepted Badinter's decision. The major thing was that they didn't want to go against EU wishes, that was clearly favoring independent republics. But, Karadzic wasn't going to accept centralised, unitary concept of Bosnia either.

To return to the start of the war.
Bosnian Serbs take March 1st to be the date. In Sarajevo April 5th was taken, as in this CNN article.

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/Bosnia/updates/9604/06/memorial/index.html

It's about memorial dedicated to first victim of war.

"Twenty-four-year-old medical student Suada Dilberovic was shot and killed at a peace rally on April 5, 1992, signaling the start of the Bosnian war."

Sure, one can say that March 1st shooting was just a murder not a war, and that this was a real first victim of the war. But, something else happened in March of 1992.

You can read this testimony.

http://www.un.org/icty/transe24s/021120ED.htm

It's March 26th.

"21 Q. Where were you born?

22 A. In Sijekovac.

23 Q. Where do you live today?

24 A. In Sijekovac.

25 Q. In 1992, you were ten, in March of 1992?


Page 9204

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Can you tell us what happened on the 26th of March, 1992? What

3 happened to you and your family?"

"Page 9205

1 And then Zemir Kovacevic started killing elderly people. The

2 main person there was Nijaz Causevic, also known as Medo.'


"and Zemir Kovacevic

8 killed two people there. In my vicinity, maybe half a metre away from me,

9 one of these two men was around 70 years old, and the other was a

10 handicapped man. That's what I saw.

11 Q. Do you remember the names of the people who were killed?

12 A. Yes, I do. Jovo Zecevic, and Petar Zecevic; a father and a son,

13 they were."


And it goes on and on.

Or take a look at Australian ABC News.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2004/08/11/1174375.htm

""Fifty-nine skeletons, including 18 children aged between five and 17, were exhumed in a mass grave in the village of Sijekovac near Srpski Brod,""

Not that CNN would notice.

Of course Dragan David Dabic or Grandpa Pera is innocent. He is not Karadzic!

Some very good information there Sreten. It really shows which side wanted war and which side wanted peace. By the way the last two links failed for whatever reason.

Additionally, the "Islamic Declaration" written by Izetbegovic clearly shows that he and the muslim led govt in Sarajevo have never been interested in a multi-ethnic democratic society. All they have wanted to do is assert their own dominion by whatever means necessary.

Here is a sample of his words, “The Islamic movement must, and can, take over power as soon as it is morally and numerically so strong that it can not only destroy the existing non-Islamic power, but also build up a new Islamic one.”

Unfortunately, given the mistakes that were made by western foreign govt's and their media outlets in support of the Bosnian Muslims during the war, I do not see any possibility of anyone reversing themselves at this point. Thus, I believe Karadzic's fate at the Hague is signed, sealed, and delivered.

However, I also believe he will go down swinging and many of his parting shots will connect.

May Lord have mercy upon you Rasho.

Mr crawford, its all too easy to speculate. but as this is a Serb, its even easier to present the upcoming trial as a potential circus!!! and i agree! although i don't subscribe to your point of view that karadzic will be the the circus master. that position clearly belongs to the court and as for karadzic being a clown there are already enough of them. Sadly karadzic (guilty or not) will be walking the tightrope with the safety net removed to ensure an unfair trial! guilty till proven innocent.

Dragan in a way makes my point when he raises the Oric case.

Look at http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/2008/pr1269e-summary.htm

ICTY finds that the evidence as presented linking the accused to the crimes undoubtedly committed was insufficient. If the evidence presented at the Karadzic trial is inconclusive/unsatisfactory, he too should be acquitted.

Being Guilty is one thing - being Proved Guilty is another?

@nik

You said, "The borders were drawn with such a blunt disregard of the wishes of the population concerned that NO stockpile of international laws or agreements could saveguard it."

Sounds like you're talking about the creation of Bosna-Hercegovina or Kosovo.

I clicked on the links and they are oppening. It could be your computer's security set-up, Nicholas Klinsman.

Now, to Nik.

"Policics is playing by rules and presume the opponents may prevaile!"

Read my posting carefully, Nik. I don't think that Badinter played by rules, Muslim and Croats in Bosnia even less so. As you can see they were breaking even Bosnian laws that existed at this time.

I don't want to argue about weather or not Yugoslavia could have been remodelled as state of the citizens. That's not a point.
I'm also sure that Albanians would like to turn Kosovo into "country of its citizens". But, propose to them (even jockingly) to "play by the rules" (like UN 1244) and keep Serbia intakt. They bearing in mind their "commitment" to "state of the citizens" propose to them that Serbia is remodelled into state of the citizens, and you will quickly see how deep their commitment to this ideal is.
Everybody seems to be in favor of it, but only in situation where they can be in charge.

" Karadzic and his followers started a war simply because they refused to respect the wish of the majority of the Bosnian citizens for independence, no matter how well the rights of the minority would be protected."

By refusing Belgrade Initiative Izetbegovic have shown that he wants independence no matter how well the rights of the minority would be protected. (including veto right offered to Bosnia for staying in Yugoslavia).
But, he wanted to leave. Fine. Karadzic signed Cuttiliero plan (Lisbon Agreement). That's a fact, no matter how do you interpret it.
Why?
Serbs did not feel like living in Bosnia any more then they do today.
Sorry, no Serbs. Let's not be "etno-separatists". "Citizens" of Serb Republic.
He accepted it, because he wasn't willing to go against EU (understandibly so). Milosevic was even less willing.
Karadzic considered that Lisbon Agreement protects the rights of Serbs sufficiently, and that was one of his major demands.
He gave up on separating from Bosnia, but insisted on rights protection.
In a light of Yugoslavian constitution, Bosnian laws, international laws (like Helsinki Final Act and Montevideo Agreement) this have to be seen as MAJOR CONCESION....in order to avoid war.
Izetbegovic withdrew his signature, and declared independent Bosnia "state of the citizens", all against existing Bosnian laws. Muslims and Croats in Bosnia have clearly shown to Serbs that their word, or oppinion, or law for that matter won't be worth a dime in independent Bosnia.

So where do you get "no matter how well the rights of the minority would be protected."?

"Karadzic and his followers started a war simply because they refused to respect the wish of the majority of the Bosnian citizens for independence, no matter how well the rights of the minority would be protected. That by itself was a crime. "

Well, let's say so.
How about Serbia then? Didn't KLA start a war simply because they refused to respect the wish of the majority of the Serbian citizens for unified country, no matter how well the rights of the minority would be protected?
How come you don't say that this by itself was a crime?

Lisbon Agreement gave Serbs autonomy inside Bosnia. But, Izetbegovic wasn't prepared to give them any autonomy at all.
On the other hand Milosevic ofered direct talks to Ibrahim Rugova (in 1998), to negotiate autonomy for Kosovo, inside Serbia. Rugova refused to talk about autonomy, demanding independence only.
Unlike Karadzic he wasn't going to settle for autonomy.
Think about it, and how many chances were there to avoid the war.

As for Karadzic, in my mind he is guilty for war crimes. As mr. Crawfor said "guilty" doesn't mean "proven guilty" but that would be a different matter.
Proven guilty or not, he was commander-in-chief of Bosnian Serb Army. And it's a fact that this Army was responsable for a lot of ethnic cleansing, etc. etc. war crimes.
As a commander he should be responsible.
It's true that Izetbegovic and Tudjman are both guilty (not proven guilty, but just the same), and just because they were not charged with anything, doesn't mean that Karadzic shouldn't be.
But, I wouldn't be so quick to put the blame for the war in Bosnia on him.