The arrest of Radovan Karadžić

Mr. Montgomery,

You write, "It will be interesting if he tells the truth and probably even more interesting and controversial if he mixes some lies and allegations in as well.”

I believe, Mr. Montgomery, that most humans are incapable of predicting or analyzing certain human behaviors unless, they, themselves, are capable of similar behavior. So, Mr. Montgomery, what are we to believe is factual, lies and allegations coming from you?

You continue, “There is an insatiable demand and a readiness to believe any sort of statement he may give, no matter how implausible, about relationships with foreign governments, Serbian officials, and the Republika Srpska.”

It seems, Mr. Montgomery, no matter how implausible, that you wish us to believe any sort of statement you may give about your past relationships with foreign governments, Serbian officials, Bill Clinton, the Pentagon, US State Department, and the Republic Srpska.

I have faith in my fellow human beings; they are not fooled so easily.

RE: What is interesting?

Dear Ambassador Montgomery,

What will be interesting is anyone will be able to corroroborate the Karadzic trial with the transcrips and public trial of Milosevic. (except for seales record and closed camera proceedings) However, this will set an ever more dangerous of further revealing the real truth about the civil war in Yugoslavia which has been suppressed by western governments.

Karadzic will have a very limited opportunity to do so and this will be clearly evident, he might not even make it to the Hague Tribunal alive.

Dear Ex-Ambassador,

You wrote, "The uniformed military and their civilian leaders were terrified that our troops would become targeted in a form of guerrilla warfare in Bosnia (pity that similar concerns weren't a factor several years later in the case of Iraq) and determined that there would be no "Mission Creep" which would keep them in Bosnia."

The US military was VERY concerned about just those points. Their concerns were ignored by the collective self-delusion of the Rumsfeld-Cheney axis.

You wrote, "Cynics would say that the government deliberately chose to arrest Karadžić first, as he never enjoyed the same degree of popular support as Mladić. In this view, Karadžić's arrest was a "trial balloon.""

Many analysists, cynical or otherwise, have questionned why the US has spend huge effort focussing on the arrest of Mladic - but so little public rhetoric (comparatively) on Karadzic. There has still not been a satisfactory answer to this, and why the alleged Holbrook-Karadzic 'agreement' continues to sound credible.

You said, "One of the amusing/pathetic/predictable events was the speed with which the Socialist Party and the Ministry of Interior (the Minister is Socialist Party leader Dačić) disavowed any knowledge or responsibility for the arrest."

Are you saying his is lieing about this lack of knowledge? If so, feel free to provide the evidence before jumping to such mendacious statements. Rasim Ljajic said exactly the same, was he lieing too? Why didn't you mention him?

You said,"While getting credit for arresting Karadžić, ironically the Serbian government has put itself under even more pressure than ever before to arrest Mladić and the other remaining fugitive, Goran Hadžić."

Which suggests your earlier assertion about him being a "trial balloon" has little merit.

Sorry Ex-Ambassador, but this is another example of your ability to recount the events reasonably accurately - but then fail hopelessly to put together a coherent and compelling analysis.

One is thus left with the impression that you have an agenda and that you are fitting the evidence to fit that message.

“Had the Serbs compromised earlier this century with Croat, Hungarians, Bulgarians and yes, Albanians, there would have been no Serbian question on the late 20 th century.”

Nik, I suggest you read up on the History of how the Union of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes came to be. It was mutual.

After WWII, it was all Tito who made every decision. You can’t blame the Serbs for that.

A few days ago I heared Milosevic prosecutor mr. Nice comment on the Karadzic arrest. He said that Haradinaj and Oric thanked their freedom to top lawyers and that Milosevic missed many points because he did not use top lawyers.

This is the old image of the irrational Serb who gets too emotional to make rational choices. Yet I have the impression that Milosevic made a very rational choice.

The problem is that the court seemed to see the case of Milosevic as a case that was not to be lost under any circumstances. If all accusations had fallen through they would probably have given him 10 years for insulting a judge. And so - while Oric accusation contained only a small part of what many Serbs believed he had done - Milosevic was accused of about everything that had gone wrong under his regime. And despite a lack of evidence the court refused to throw out any part of the charge. This made the job of the prosecutor into a kind of mud-slinging with the hope that something will stick.

In those circumstances it was quite rational choice for Milosevic to conclude that no defense would help him really in the court and that the best he could do was to speak to the general public in order to save at least his reputation. He was good in this: I met quite a few people in Holland who were impressed. And these were people without any special interests or opinions about the Balkans.

Until now I have read many accusations that letting Milosevic and Seselj defend themselves damaged the court. Yet I can't remember a single article were this accusation was substantiated. So it is my impression that the ICTY damaged itself by being not neutral enough and that forbidding the accused to speak for themselves would only further damage it.

It will be hard to prove Karadzic's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, that is, to convince both sides that he was guilty.
In the early years of the League of the Nations, the main debate was on the topic: Who is the agressor?
Neither then, nor now we have a clear creteria.
Many Serbs still believe that the independence drive of the other subjects of the Yugoslav federation, constituted by itself a justifiable "casus belli". The Serb nationalist are convinced that, if the OTHERS, had agreed to allow All Sebrbs to REMAIN in one country a war could have been avoided. Since the gathering of "ALL" Serbs in one country - Yugoslavia has been a fait accompli from the times when shifting of borders was considered someting natural, they believed that the international law and their own military power had to saveguard their accomplishment, no matter how undesireble it was for the "others". To them, the Serbian nationalists prescribed the unchangeable status of a "minority" which had its rump country and therefore no right of selfdetermination. If any of the constituent nations of Yugoslavia wanted independence, it too could have rump state of its own, but only if it doesn't disturbe the "unity" of the Serbian people.

Ved,
Had the Serbs compromised earlier this century with Croat, Hungarians, Bulgarians and yes, Albanians, there would have been no Serbian question on the late 20 th century.
As for Macedonia, what you say will probably happen. But it too is a tragic Yugoslavian legacy. The systematic distruction of the Bulgarian consciousnes (1913 - 1941) and the implementation of the Macedonian ethnic consciousnes (after 1944) created a wound that now turned into madnes with the conflict with Greece. Yet all this boomeranged against the Serbs, with the creation of the Montenegrin (poor Njegos) and Muslim nations.
What everyone in the region now needs is humility and wisdom, not rage and denial.

Ved: "Yugoslavia has been a fait accompli from the times when shifting of borders was considered someting natural. It predates League of Nations or any international laws. And we did think that the international law have to safeguard something. "

Ved, a law is truly a law when there is justice. You have to admit, the borders of Yugoslavia, both external and internal, were extremely injust. In the first case you had the "justice" of the victors and the vanquished, in the second case - sherwed tries to preserve the whole edifice. Injustice breeds resentment, resentment breeds war. In the early 20th century the solution was to establish just borders, more or less following the ethnic lines.
Today the solution is to accept the inherited borders betwen Yugoslavia and its neighbours as well as those between the subjets of the former federation and all join the EU.

So, Albanians had "rump" country, Nik?
Why? Because it did not include all Albanians?
Isn't there today "rump" Serbia, then?
For Albanians, I wouldn't worry. After Kosovo, they will take part of Montenegro (it's Illyrian). In Macedonia they don't need to separate. Wait 20 years and they will be majority there. All they have to do then is make sure Macedonia won't be divided.
Albania won't be "rump" for long, don't you worry, Nik.

Yugoslavia has been a fait accompli from the times when shifting of borders was considered someting natural. It predates League of Nations or any international laws. And we did think that the international law have to safeguard something. Now, we can see that only law in place is that "might makes it right". And Serbs have a right to establish their state on Manhatten, as long as they have a means to defend it.
But, maybe those borders were not right, and created "rump" Albania. Fine, then join the Albanians together. How about Serbs?
The only thing accomplished will be that at the beginning of 22nd century somebody will write:

"Had the Croat, Hungarians, Bulgarians and yes, Albanians compromised earlier this century with Serbs, there would have been no such question on the late 21 th century. "

The US State Department the scourge of the world!!!

Nik.
If Albania was rump because a lot of Albanians were left out, so is Serbia today, because more 2.5 million Serbs were left out (according to 1991 census). 600,000 in Croatia, 1,600,000 in Bosnia and 350,000 in Kosovo.
Perhaps we could even recognize Kosovo just to get EU off our backs. It doesn't mean anything anyway. What's there to stop us from taking it over later. International law? That's an achievement of civilisation, and this is barbaric 21st century.
It's better to do the right thing now, and do some justice. Othervise.
Injustice breeds resentment, resentment breeds war.
Right.

Ved: "If Albania was rump because a lot of Albanians were left out, so is Serbia today, because more 2.5 million Serbs were left out (according to 1991 census). 600,000 in Croatia, 1,600,000 in Bosnia and 350,000 in Kosovo"

No doubt, today we have a rump Serbia, rump Croatia, rump Hungary, rump Bulgaria and rump Albania. And we have Montenegro, Kosovo, Macedonia and BiH. The only reasonable solution today is all those to join the EU (where Hungary and Bulgaria already are).
In the early 20 th century, there was a more reasonable solution to the one that actually occured: "Normal" not "rump: or "greater" countries could have emerged, had the Serbians been more willing to compromise and/or less favoritized by the Great poweres. This is a tipical case when overachievement proves as harmful as the underachievement. A "normal" Serbia of the first half of the 20th century could have included Montenegro, the bigger part of BiH, the bigger part of Vojvodina, and some slices of Kosovo and Macedonia. Such a Serbia would have been surrounded by friendly Croatia, Hunagry, Romania, Bulgaria and Albania. The Serbs left outside Serbia would have been less in numbers than the non Serbs in Serbia. The Balkans could have had the fate of Scandinavia...
Could have, should have, would have... by I didn't :-)

So, Albanians had "rump" country, Nik?
Why? Because it did not include all Albanians?
Isn't there today "rump" Serbia, then?
For Albanians, I wouldn't worry. After Kosovo, they will take part of Montenegro (it's Illyrian). In Macedonia they don't need to separate. Wait 20 years and they will be majority there. All they have to do then is make sure Macedonia won't be divided.
Albania won't be "rump" for long, don't you worry, Nik.

Ved,
Had the Serbs compromised earlier this century with Croat, Hungarians, Bulgarians and yes, Albanians, there would have been no Serbian question on the late 20 th century.
As for Macedonia, what you say will probably happen. But it too is a tragic Yugoslavian legacy. The systematic distruction of the Bulgarian consciousnes (1913 - 1941) and the implementation of the Macedonian ethnic consciousnes (after 1944) created a wound that now turned into madnes with the conflict with Greece. Yet all this boomeranged against the Serbs, with the creation of the Montenegrin (poor Njegos) and Muslim nations.
What everyone in the region now needs is humility and wisdom, not rage and denial.

Ved: "Yugoslavia has been a fait accompli from the times when shifting of borders was considered someting natural. It predates League of Nations or any international laws. And we did think that the international law have to safeguard something. "

Ved, a law is truly a law when there is justice. You have to admit, the borders of Yugoslavia, both external and internal, were extremely injust. In the first case you had the "justice" of the victors and the vanquished, in the second case - sherwed tries to preserve the whole edifice. Injustice breeds resentment, resentment breeds war. In the early 20th century the solution was to establish just borders, more or less following the ethnic lines.
Today the solution is to accept the inherited borders betwen Yugoslavia and its neighbours as well as those between the subjets of the former federation and all join the EU.

RE: What is interesting?

Dear Ambassador Montgomery,

What will be interesting is anyone will be able to corroroborate the Karadzic trial with the transcrips and public trial of Milosevic. (except for seales record and closed camera proceedings) However, this will set an ever more dangerous of further revealing the real truth about the civil war in Yugoslavia which has been suppressed by western governments.

Karadzic will have a very limited opportunity to do so and this will be clearly evident, he might not even make it to the Hague Tribunal alive.

Mr. Montgomery,

You write, "It will be interesting if he tells the truth and probably even more interesting and controversial if he mixes some lies and allegations in as well.”

I believe, Mr. Montgomery, that most humans are incapable of predicting or analyzing certain human behaviors unless, they, themselves, are capable of similar behavior. So, Mr. Montgomery, what are we to believe is factual, lies and allegations coming from you?

You continue, “There is an insatiable demand and a readiness to believe any sort of statement he may give, no matter how implausible, about relationships with foreign governments, Serbian officials, and the Republika Srpska.”

It seems, Mr. Montgomery, no matter how implausible, that you wish us to believe any sort of statement you may give about your past relationships with foreign governments, Serbian officials, Bill Clinton, the Pentagon, US State Department, and the Republic Srpska.

I have faith in my fellow human beings; they are not fooled so easily.

Dear Ex-Ambassador,

You wrote, "The uniformed military and their civilian leaders were terrified that our troops would become targeted in a form of guerrilla warfare in Bosnia (pity that similar concerns weren't a factor several years later in the case of Iraq) and determined that there would be no "Mission Creep" which would keep them in Bosnia."

The US military was VERY concerned about just those points. Their concerns were ignored by the collective self-delusion of the Rumsfeld-Cheney axis.

You wrote, "Cynics would say that the government deliberately chose to arrest Karadžić first, as he never enjoyed the same degree of popular support as Mladić. In this view, Karadžić's arrest was a "trial balloon.""

Many analysists, cynical or otherwise, have questionned why the US has spend huge effort focussing on the arrest of Mladic - but so little public rhetoric (comparatively) on Karadzic. There has still not been a satisfactory answer to this, and why the alleged Holbrook-Karadzic 'agreement' continues to sound credible.

You said, "One of the amusing/pathetic/predictable events was the speed with which the Socialist Party and the Ministry of Interior (the Minister is Socialist Party leader Dačić) disavowed any knowledge or responsibility for the arrest."

Are you saying his is lieing about this lack of knowledge? If so, feel free to provide the evidence before jumping to such mendacious statements. Rasim Ljajic said exactly the same, was he lieing too? Why didn't you mention him?

You said,"While getting credit for arresting Karadžić, ironically the Serbian government has put itself under even more pressure than ever before to arrest Mladić and the other remaining fugitive, Goran Hadžić."

Which suggests your earlier assertion about him being a "trial balloon" has little merit.

Sorry Ex-Ambassador, but this is another example of your ability to recount the events reasonably accurately - but then fail hopelessly to put together a coherent and compelling analysis.

One is thus left with the impression that you have an agenda and that you are fitting the evidence to fit that message.

It will be hard to prove Karadzic's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, that is, to convince both sides that he was guilty.
In the early years of the League of the Nations, the main debate was on the topic: Who is the agressor?
Neither then, nor now we have a clear creteria.
Many Serbs still believe that the independence drive of the other subjects of the Yugoslav federation, constituted by itself a justifiable "casus belli". The Serb nationalist are convinced that, if the OTHERS, had agreed to allow All Sebrbs to REMAIN in one country a war could have been avoided. Since the gathering of "ALL" Serbs in one country - Yugoslavia has been a fait accompli from the times when shifting of borders was considered someting natural, they believed that the international law and their own military power had to saveguard their accomplishment, no matter how undesireble it was for the "others". To them, the Serbian nationalists prescribed the unchangeable status of a "minority" which had its rump country and therefore no right of selfdetermination. If any of the constituent nations of Yugoslavia wanted independence, it too could have rump state of its own, but only if it doesn't disturbe the "unity" of the Serbian people.

“Had the Serbs compromised earlier this century with Croat, Hungarians, Bulgarians and yes, Albanians, there would have been no Serbian question on the late 20 th century.”

Nik, I suggest you read up on the History of how the Union of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes came to be. It was mutual.

After WWII, it was all Tito who made every decision. You can’t blame the Serbs for that.

Yugoslavia has been a fait accompli from the times when shifting of borders was considered someting natural. It predates League of Nations or any international laws. And we did think that the international law have to safeguard something. Now, we can see that only law in place is that "might makes it right". And Serbs have a right to establish their state on Manhatten, as long as they have a means to defend it.
But, maybe those borders were not right, and created "rump" Albania. Fine, then join the Albanians together. How about Serbs?
The only thing accomplished will be that at the beginning of 22nd century somebody will write:

"Had the Croat, Hungarians, Bulgarians and yes, Albanians compromised earlier this century with Serbs, there would have been no such question on the late 21 th century. "

A few days ago I heared Milosevic prosecutor mr. Nice comment on the Karadzic arrest. He said that Haradinaj and Oric thanked their freedom to top lawyers and that Milosevic missed many points because he did not use top lawyers.

This is the old image of the irrational Serb who gets too emotional to make rational choices. Yet I have the impression that Milosevic made a very rational choice.

The problem is that the court seemed to see the case of Milosevic as a case that was not to be lost under any circumstances. If all accusations had fallen through they would probably have given him 10 years for insulting a judge. And so - while Oric accusation contained only a small part of what many Serbs believed he had done - Milosevic was accused of about everything that had gone wrong under his regime. And despite a lack of evidence the court refused to throw out any part of the charge. This made the job of the prosecutor into a kind of mud-slinging with the hope that something will stick.

In those circumstances it was quite rational choice for Milosevic to conclude that no defense would help him really in the court and that the best he could do was to speak to the general public in order to save at least his reputation. He was good in this: I met quite a few people in Holland who were impressed. And these were people without any special interests or opinions about the Balkans.

Until now I have read many accusations that letting Milosevic and Seselj defend themselves damaged the court. Yet I can't remember a single article were this accusation was substantiated. So it is my impression that the ICTY damaged itself by being not neutral enough and that forbidding the accused to speak for themselves would only further damage it.

The US State Department the scourge of the world!!!

Nik.
If Albania was rump because a lot of Albanians were left out, so is Serbia today, because more 2.5 million Serbs were left out (according to 1991 census). 600,000 in Croatia, 1,600,000 in Bosnia and 350,000 in Kosovo.
Perhaps we could even recognize Kosovo just to get EU off our backs. It doesn't mean anything anyway. What's there to stop us from taking it over later. International law? That's an achievement of civilisation, and this is barbaric 21st century.
It's better to do the right thing now, and do some justice. Othervise.
Injustice breeds resentment, resentment breeds war.
Right.

Ved: "If Albania was rump because a lot of Albanians were left out, so is Serbia today, because more 2.5 million Serbs were left out (according to 1991 census). 600,000 in Croatia, 1,600,000 in Bosnia and 350,000 in Kosovo"

No doubt, today we have a rump Serbia, rump Croatia, rump Hungary, rump Bulgaria and rump Albania. And we have Montenegro, Kosovo, Macedonia and BiH. The only reasonable solution today is all those to join the EU (where Hungary and Bulgaria already are).
In the early 20 th century, there was a more reasonable solution to the one that actually occured: "Normal" not "rump: or "greater" countries could have emerged, had the Serbians been more willing to compromise and/or less favoritized by the Great poweres. This is a tipical case when overachievement proves as harmful as the underachievement. A "normal" Serbia of the first half of the 20th century could have included Montenegro, the bigger part of BiH, the bigger part of Vojvodina, and some slices of Kosovo and Macedonia. Such a Serbia would have been surrounded by friendly Croatia, Hunagry, Romania, Bulgaria and Albania. The Serbs left outside Serbia would have been less in numbers than the non Serbs in Serbia. The Balkans could have had the fate of Scandinavia...
Could have, should have, would have... by I didn't :-)